From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Use of the Infobox
The addition of voluminous amount of detail by a recent edit has transformed the infobox into a main section. Infoboxes were devised as "sidebars" and not intended to have a large amount of detail. Could the original editor discuss the changes here and perhaps consider a rewrite that will incorporate the information into the main body of the article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
- Response from the guilty party. IMO, the original infobox is inadequate on detail in comparison with equivalent articles. Have a look at Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope - it's a former featured A class article and so a reasonable exemplar. The infobox has a large amount of data and is comparable in its scope, although it omits minor, early commands and some awards. In retrospect I would argue that I should have edited more harshly (I did intend to return). I will revert to replace the removed text - no offence intended, it's an easy way of restoring text in the body of the article - and thin it out. BTW, where are the guidelines on infobox use? My understanding is that infoboxes are not intended to replace text, they are to provide an easy reference. I intend to be constructive, no war intended. Folks at 137 (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I see the infobox as a quick summary of what is in the text. I don't think you should have information that is in the infobox that is not in the text. I also don't think it is a place to put all commands and Honorary awards. I would put all of the Honorary doctorates and awards in a separate section in the text. The same can be said for the commands section. I used it to summarise all the commands that were important to the person in that section. I think that the current infobox is too cumbersome to be of any use to the reader.
- In terms of rules regarding infoboxes, there aren't any, at least none that are codified. It is more of a take it as it comes approach. What looks best for the article? That is the thoughts we should have. Woody (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Folks and other folk, I did not intend for there to be a major conniption over the issue, just a request for the changes to be discussed. I agree that infoboxes do not have "set-and-fast" rules but common sense does come into play so that there is a useful and encyclopedic format. Please do revisit the article and institute changes and others will surely come aboard to revise and shape the information so that it becomes useful and relevant. I do like the idea that full details of Arthur Tedder's career are provided but I would suggest that many of the commands need to be placed in the main text and that only main/final commands need to be identified in the infobox. I look forward to seeing the revisions come forth. Bzuk (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
- Fair enough. I would rather have detail summarised in boxes to allow the text to flow, but I'll do some more pruning as per comments. It seems to me that there's insufficient on Tedder's time at SHAEF and the politicking there. Two books I've referred to are ambivalent over his role in the judgement of Montgomery. His British military awards also seem underwhelming; other military leaders received recognition for their command or staff efforts. Is there a story here? Thanks for constructive comments. Folks at 137 (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Birth place?
A moot point maybe, but Glenguin (now known as Glengoyne)is not near Stiling. True, it's in Stirlingshire, but only eight miles from Glasgow and about twenty five from Stirling. I live in Glengoyne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorri789 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is no reason why you cant correct the article yourself to say it is near Glasgow if it is nearer. MilborneOne (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
