Talk:Edgar Ortenberg

Infoboxes, round 10,000

This article has had an infobox since at least 2010. Clear status quo was to have one. It was a bit ugly, though, and replacing it with a more modern and specific design improves the article. Montanabw^(talk) 06:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to restore the status quo, which was simply a formatted image, then let's do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice try, you know that wasn't what I said. Am putting in an improved infobox. Montanabw^(talk) 02:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You said you wanted to restore the status quo and discuss the issue - you're doing neither. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You misread a pithy and short edit summary; I restored an infobox not necessarily "the" infobox that was there. Combine what I actually did in the edit with the short edit summary and add what I have said above when I did so. This gives you the full meaning. You removed the infobox that had been there for four years, presumably because it was kind of a ugly design, I replaced it with the more modern design and made it more useful. Now do not twist my words. The article needs an infobox, the one it had was the generic one, I replaced it with infobox person. Honestly.... sheesh, this silly infobox stuff needs to end. Montanabw^(talk) 09:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"The" infobox you added was not the status quo; if you did not mean to restore the status quo, you should not have said so (but then of course you should not have been reverting my restoration of the actual status quo). This article does not need an infobox; I reformatted what was present because it was a poorly designed frame for an image, and it's simpler just to have the image itself. If you dispute that change, though, we can use the person infobox to achieve a similar effect. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

(watching) I seem to have another language problem. I don't want to stay at status quo but improve, as - if I understand it right - anybody else trying to change. It's the advantage of an online encyclopedia that status quo can be replaced by something better, an article without key facts at a glance to one offering them, old-fashioned references which are difficult to maintain by templated ones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"Status quo" in this context, if you had read carefully, was the existence of an infobox, not a particular style or content of an infobox. I changed the tan bordered box to infobox person because it looked better, then added a few more details to fill it out more completely. Your reply when you reverted the changed version added was, "not better than none." So clearly, you sought to remove an infobox altogether. That makes no sense on a biography of a person where the infobox porvides basic information at a glance so the reader doesn't have to wade through the whole article to find core details. Now let's not play any more silly little childish games and move on to other articles. Montanabw^(talk) 08:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it is you with a language problem, then, as "status quo" means "what was there before", not "something vaguely related to what was there before". I agree that what was there before was unattractive, as the colouring was unnecessary for an image frame; however, your alternative does not "look better" than a simpler formatted image. If you prefer to use infobox person, that's fine; I've implemented a compromise version that uses that template. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh Nikki, I wrote it, I can clarify what I intended; the "status quo" was the existence of an infobox; your "compromise" is just a photo with a caption, even if it used an infobox template. A real infobox has information. I cleaned up and added some. Now drop the stick, you know infoboxes are the more common format on wiki.Montanabw^(talk) 06:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If my compromise was "just a photo with a caption" as opposed to a "real infobox", then there was no "real infobox" to begin with, because that's what was there before. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument: ArbCom has required that we discuss the issue on a case-by-case basis, using arguments specific to the article at hand. Given the shortness of the article at hand, an infobox of the size you propose is overwhelming and places the information within it below the actual article text that expands on that information. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an even poorer argument. The infobox I put in last edit was far from "overwhelming"; I put in less material than my previous version, and even so, length is irrelevant, it's not just that it's a graphic design issue, though it is, but also that it's a container of critical data. Now, consensus on this article 2-1 in favor of an improved infobox, and the article could clearly be expanded ((how about by you??) so length alone is a poor criteria to use. I am not going to argue this endlessly, and my own addition is itself a compromise. The infobox is short, sweet, and contains relevant information. Montanabw^(talk) 18:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Your own addition is no compromise: it is longer than either of the previous versions, and contains even more irrelevant information than those. All of the actual "critical data" was contained in my most recent version. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, your complaint was that the infobox outstripped the content, so when I added more content, I thought it was OK to also expand the infobox. But whatever, I can live with a shorter one. We are close to an agreement now, I re-added the age at death parameter, which is handy. I restored a ref you accidentally deleted, and you need a more complete citatio for that book But "bloat"? there is no bloat. If you want to see bloat, Serena Williams has a bloated infobox, even by my more generous standards! Montanabw^(talk) 08:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"Handy" for the article perhaps, but too much detail for the "key facts" infobox model. Remember, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: that another article is worse does not mean this one is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

What "key facts infobox model? IS this something you just made up over on the policy pages? Do link? Seriously, I am tired of doing work for you, I also fixed your incomplete citation, the book wasn't even publishe din 2000, there appears to be no iBooks version, at least according to worldcat and that's not how to cite it, anyway. For someone who puts editors through content editing hell at FAC, I'd really like to see you hold yourself to your own standards. Montanabw^(talk) 18:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Worldcat doesn't include all books: the edition used is here (publisher was incorrect, but date was correct), you can't cite a different edition unless you verify that the page number is correct, and location and subtitle are not required for a citation to be complete. The key facts model is summarized at MOS:INFOBOX: "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose...exclude any unnecessary content". Speaking of holding yourself to your own standards, weren't you saying something about AGF earlier? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Death date and age

{{Death date and age}} is - as the docu says - used on more than 80,000 articles, {{Death year and age}} on additional more than 5,000 articles. It's common praxis, I don't see a reason not to use it here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: common means neither required nor ideal. Death age is not important enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox; it's better placed in context in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

So says a person with young eyes or a large screen. WP:NIKKIDOESNTLIKEIT is neither a policy or a guideline. Death age is highly relevant, i.e. was the person old or tragically young at death? It's a courtesy to the reader (remember? Wikipedia is for people to read?) The casual reader is not going to dig clear to the end of an article and even an interested reader can miss such things in a wall of text. Now please go put in your WP:LAST word here and let's go edit something else. Montanabw^(talk) 18:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The casual reader is unlikely to care about exact age at death, particularly as Ortenberg is not noted for dying very old or very young. As such, it constitutes "unnecessary content" under MOS:INFOBOX. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, I added the url to the citation to avoid future confusion. Actually, 95 is pretty darn old for a person of his generation, particularly a WWII survivor of the hardships he survived. And it's a user friendly thing to do; one purpose of an infobox is information at a glance, in part so as not to clutter the article. It's core basic information and no reason to include or exclude per guidelines, and inclusion of five characters) does not harm or bloat the article. Montanabw^(talk) 18:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)