Category talk:Articles Without an Infobox Image

Category Usage
I guess people don't know how either of those categories work. Both categories are used when both things are missing. By the logic that was used then the image category would never be used since it would only be used if there was no infobox at all but had an image on the article SeaTerror (talk) 09:35, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, this category is only used on articles that have an infobox but no image in the infobox. For example, this page has an infobox but no image. 09:43, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

"This category is for articles that do not have an image for the infobox." That's what it literally means. If there's no infobox then there's also no image. Both categories are used when an infobox is missing. It is used on both types of articles since they are two different categories. An article could have an image but missing the infobox when that image could be used in the infobox. SeaTerror (talk) 09:53, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

Like I said already, this is not the kind of an article that needs an infobox.

Joekido (talk) 09:55, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

If it doesn't have an infobox, then the articles without an infobox category can go there. If it doesn't have an infobox, it's pretty obvious it doesn't have an infobox image. 12:35, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

But that's not the purpose of the category. From what I understood, this category is supposed to only be tagged to pages that have an imageless infobox. Zodiaque created this category to make it more easier to locate infoboxes that need images. 14:17, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

Then you understood it incorrectly. I wasn't the only one to use it like that either. Just did too at some point after I added the other category to an article. I don't remember which one. I thought he had created that category too. SeaTerror (talk) 19:00, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

What I meant was that articles without an infobox should get said category. If they get an infobox but don't have an image for it, then the articles without an infobox image category would then be used. It's kind of obvious and pointless to add the latter category to the former scenario. 20:28, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

@Kaido Cool, so you agree with me. @ST Who else used the category that way? 03:17, February 3, 2016 (UTC)

This discussion shouldn't be here. Let's move it to Category talk:Articles Without an Infobox Image, as it effects more than one page. 05:08, February 4, 2016 (UTC)

Discussion has been moved. 06:26, February 4, 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't EVERY page have an info-box? We really should start working on that first. After that, we can label every appropriate page with this category, no way to say improper usage. 07:50, February 4, 2016 (UTC)

True. Our priority should be emptying this category, but the reason we started this discussion was because of an edit war we had. So this discussion is an attempt to resolve it. 08:01, February 4, 2016 (UTC)

I already said who used it that way. Also the issue is some of the articles that require it don't have a proper infobox template yet. SeaTerror (talk) 17:11, February 4, 2016 (UTC)

I just fail to see the reasoning behind tagging this category to pages that fall under this category. It's pretty obvious that articles without infoboxes will not have infobox images. The purposes of the two categories are very simple. Category:Articles Without an Infobox is used on articles without any infoboxes. Category:Articles Without an Infobox Image is used on articles with imageless infoboxes. Using the two categories this way isn't problematic and it doesn't seem to cause any inconvenience either. So what's the issue? 06:29, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

You're the only one who uses them that way. Both categories are meant to be used together when both are missing. If you go by your logic of removing it then when an infobox is added nobody would add an image since it doesn't have the category. SeaTerror (talk) 18:38, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

But that's why the category is automatically added when the image section is left blank... 21:52, February 5, 2016 (UTC)