Talk:Karel Styblo
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Infobox
[edit]Sandy, at this edit here, you indicated a surprising (at least to me) distaste for infoboxes. Could you please clarify the problem with them? Is it generic to all such infoboxes? If so, how do you suggest that such problem should be addressed everywhere else they are used? LeadSongDog come howl! 08:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it's generic, across many topics, Wikiprojects, and types of articles-- they are widely disliked by many editors for a number of reasons discussed in a number of places for many years (it often comes up at WT:FAC for instance, and they are a source of problematic discussion on many articles). They should only be added when there is consensus for them, and some WikiProjects have consensus that they should never be used. Problems include: they often mis-summarize, missing subtleties of persons or topics that can't be described in the parameters of an infobox; they are often uncited; and they rarely give any information that isn't or shouldn't be already listed in the lead. I suggest that template saying that an infobox is needed should be submitted for deletion, since so many editors and projects oppose infoboxes. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Odd, I had thought infoboxes were essentially a standard feature for articles that fall within major projects, such as biographies, journals, books, recordings, films, organisms, genes, proteins, drugs, chemicals, aircraft, automobiles, highways, yadda yadda yadda. I wouldn't dispute that we need to improve controls on citing the sources for the populated parameters, but that's a far cry from tossing all the babies out or burning down the bathtub factories. In this present case, wp:Wikiproject Biography has taken the trouble to create quite a few infobox templates for people, but either {{Infobox medical person}} or {{Infobox scientist}} could be applied, evidently to the full intent of that project. Perhaps we need a specific reminder to cite sources as an editnotice within the infobox wikitext? Certainly the template /doc pages need a reminder added. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, it may seem odd to someone who hasn't encountered the issue before, and I know some editors think (mistakenly) that infoboxes are standard. See Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes, and see a sample WikiProject guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines#Biographical infoboxes. I'm with the crowd that hates them, all of them, period. They often contain misinfo, forced on us by the parameters in the box. In Tourette syndrome, the infobox obliges us to link to information that is knowingly wrong. In bios, infoboxes routinely categorize and describe individuals in incorrect ways. In my earlier editing days, I didn't know to oppose them when they were forced upon articles I edited-- now I do ! I wish I had opposed the standardization of the medical infoboxes. Forcing infoboxes to be cited won't solve the multitude of problems they create ... so I oppose their addition anywhere they come up, and remind editors they should gain consensus before adding them. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm not sure how template:Infobox disease forces anything on editors, as parameters can always be omitted or even marked <!--leave blank, see talkpage-->, but I understand it might induce errors in some cases. We still have wp:IAR to fall back on. As an experiment I've just created {{Person infobox header}} (based on an existing model) to go into the template docpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Infoboxes, and added it to a few of them. Despite frequent disappointments it is still possible to believe that most editors want to do the right thing. I'd rather help guide them there than slug it out after the fact. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 04:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, it may seem odd to someone who hasn't encountered the issue before, and I know some editors think (mistakenly) that infoboxes are standard. See Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes, and see a sample WikiProject guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines#Biographical infoboxes. I'm with the crowd that hates them, all of them, period. They often contain misinfo, forced on us by the parameters in the box. In Tourette syndrome, the infobox obliges us to link to information that is knowingly wrong. In bios, infoboxes routinely categorize and describe individuals in incorrect ways. In my earlier editing days, I didn't know to oppose them when they were forced upon articles I edited-- now I do ! I wish I had opposed the standardization of the medical infoboxes. Forcing infoboxes to be cited won't solve the multitude of problems they create ... so I oppose their addition anywhere they come up, and remind editors they should gain consensus before adding them. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Odd, I had thought infoboxes were essentially a standard feature for articles that fall within major projects, such as biographies, journals, books, recordings, films, organisms, genes, proteins, drugs, chemicals, aircraft, automobiles, highways, yadda yadda yadda. I wouldn't dispute that we need to improve controls on citing the sources for the populated parameters, but that's a far cry from tossing all the babies out or burning down the bathtub factories. In this present case, wp:Wikiproject Biography has taken the trouble to create quite a few infobox templates for people, but either {{Infobox medical person}} or {{Infobox scientist}} could be applied, evidently to the full intent of that project. Perhaps we need a specific reminder to cite sources as an editnotice within the infobox wikitext? Certainly the template /doc pages need a reminder added. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Karel Styblo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310122229/http://www.theunion.org/index.php/en/who-are-we/history-of-the-union to http://www.theunion.org/index.php/en/who-are-we/history-of-the-union
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)