GiacomoReturned (talk | contribs) |
GiacomoReturned (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 312: | Line 312: | ||
:::That was quick! Well done, I've stricken the now fulfilled suggestion. With these additions, the majority of the information present in the proposed infobox is now present ''and'' readily visible in the lead. The remaining information is either non-notable or strongly redundant. <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:Yllosubmarine|María]] </span><small>([[User talk:Yllosubmarine|<span style="color:green">habla</span>]] con[[Special:Contributions/Yllosubmarine|<span style="color:green">migo</span>]])</small> 14:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC) |
:::That was quick! Well done, I've stricken the now fulfilled suggestion. With these additions, the majority of the information present in the proposed infobox is now present ''and'' readily visible in the lead. The remaining information is either non-notable or strongly redundant. <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:Yllosubmarine|María]] </span><small>([[User talk:Yllosubmarine|<span style="color:green">habla</span>]] con[[Special:Contributions/Yllosubmarine|<span style="color:green">migo</span>]])</small> 14:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' it has long been an unwritten Wikipedia rule that info-boxes are a matter of choice and that the principal '''content''' editors wishes are respected. The principal editor here (with 300 edits) is Ssilvers and s/he cearly does not want it. Personally, I hate info boxes, but I do beleive that a page's main content editors (not the typo fixer and ref formatters) should unltimately have the right to decide on this matter. Uniformity is very dull - so long as the relevant information is easily read in the lead; there's no need for some pokemon type thing to be stuck at the top of the page. [[User:GiacomoReturned|Giacomo]] [[User talk:GiacomoReturned|Returned]] 18:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' it has long been an unwritten Wikipedia rule that info-boxes are a matter of choice and that the principal '''content''' editors wishes are respected. The principal editor here (with 300 edits) is Ssilvers and s/he cearly does not want it. Personally, I hate info boxes, but I do beleive that a page's main content editors (not the typo fixer and ref formatters) should unltimately have the right to decide on this matter. Uniformity is very dull - so long as the relevant information is easily read in the lead; there's no need for some pokemon type thing to be stuck at the top of the page. [[User:GiacomoReturned|Giacomo]] [[User talk:GiacomoReturned|Returned]] 18:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::PS: I have just noticed that this info box even included "Cause of death" - what next? are we to have autopsy results - stomach contents and the like? I know the some info boxes here even include "penis length" - where do the info-box supporters want this to end? My mind is boggling. [[User:GiacomoReturned|Giacomo]] [[User talk:GiacomoReturned|Returned]] 19:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==Arguments against infoboxes by [[User:Tony1]]== |
==Arguments against infoboxes by [[User:Tony1]]== |
Revision as of 19:36, 5 October 2011
Richard D'Oyly Carte has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
Gilbert and Sullivan GA‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Biography: Arts and Entertainment GA‑class | ||||||||||
|
D'Oyly Carte
I removed extra "D'Oyly's". After the name is first given, Richard D'Oyly Carte the man is always referred to as "Carte," not "D'Oyly Carte." There are many examples of this, including Gilbert's letters to him, which were always "Dear Carte." Similarly, his granddaughter, Dame Bridget D'Oyly Carte, was always "Miss Carte." In contrast, the opera company is always the "D'Oyly Carte Opera Company," or "D'Oyly Carte."
Yes, it can be confusing at first, but one quickly gets used to it. Marc Shepherd 15:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I suggest you do the same with Mr Carte's own entry, which last time I looked had references to him as "D'Oyly Carte". Birdhurst 21:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- I tried to catch all of them, but if I find any others I'll correct them. Marc Shepherd 22:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's happened again...someone added extra "D'Oyly's". Except when stating the full name, he was normally referred to as "Carte," not "D'Oyly Carte." Marc Shepherd 02:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Expert Needed
This article is incomplete. It skips many years of Carte's history, credits him for keeping the G&S partnership together, but does not mention his role in its dissolution. Marc Shepherd 02:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- The article has been expanded now. More refining is needed, however, and the article should be check to see if it harmonises well with the articles on Savoy Theatre, Helen Lenoir, and Rupert D'Oyly Carte. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 02:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The Doctor in Spite of Himself'
I have removed two references to The Doctor in Spite of Himself (1871) because I believe, after checking contemporary press cuttings, that this work was a straight play, albeit presented on the same bill as Carte's operetta, Marie.(e.g. The Era, 27 August 1871; Issue 1718: "...the new management decided upon producing Moliere's comedy Le Medecin Malgre Lui in English, with the title of The Doctor in Spite of Himself, and, by way of variety, commencing with a comic operetta and concluding with a ballet.") By way of corroborative detail I note that the ODNB lists only Dr Ambrosias: his Secret (1868), Marie (1871), and Happy Hampstead (1877) as Carte's operettas. Tim riley (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- This has crept back and I have removed it again, for the above reasons. - Tim riley (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Ainger, p. 92 says that Carte wrote The Doctor in Spite of Himself, but I agree that your research into contemporary accounts trumps this. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am distinctly underwhelmed by Ainger. There are too many errors that leap out at one (and for all I know many more that I haven't spotted). I have already pointed out that Ainger is wrong in imagining that Carte wrote an operetta based on Le Medecin Malgre Lui, and in supposing that the Ministry of Works existed in the nineteenth century. I have lately run across a review by David Mackie in Music and Letters, August 2004, pp. 466-469, which lists a deplorable number of errors – though I note that many have been corrected in the 2009 paperback reissue that I have. Even so, one's feeling is Modified Rapture. - Tim riley (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Early life
"Soho's Greek Street in the West End of London" strikes me as information overload. I'd prefer "Greek Street in Soho, London" or "Greek Street in the West End of London". --GuillaumeTell 21:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Tim, would you please pick one of these and revise? I yield to the gentlemen from across the pond on matters such as this! :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Legacy
I've finished looking through the article and making a few amendments here and there. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about Carte, so I was mainly looking for typos, duff punctuation, infelicities, etc. One question relating to the above section: "She continued to produce the touring companies" sounds to me like "she continued to produce rabbits out of hats". "She continued to produce performances by the touring companies" or something similar might be better. --GuillaumeTell 16:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Point taken, but I'm afraid that your formulation implies that she produced some, but not all of the performances. In fact, she was the exclusive producer of all professional G&S in Britain and Canada and all other D'Oyly Carte productions, whether in London or on tour. The touring companies often toured year round, and she also was producer of all of DOC's American and other foreign tours. We should make it clear that she was the sole producer of everything that they did. Tim, can you suggest a solution that will preserve as much brevity as possible? I'm afraid that try to say this more than once. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
See the new Helen Carte here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt
Here are a few comments aimed at improving the article. I will be doing this in bits.
- Thanks! Some changes made and responses below. If Tim has anything to add on any of this, I'd be please to know it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Lede:
- A one sentence lede paragraph seems to me to be a bit small. Even if you are not planning to go for FA, I'd enlarge it a bit. Just throw in one or two of the best known facts on RDC.
- Was the reason RDC built the Savoy to host the G&S operas? Obviously they did, but was that the actual reason for the building? Or did he have bigger things in mind? After all, he could not know how long the partnership would last, and given the difficult relationships among the three of them, that's a slender reed to build a theatre on.
- For several years, Carte had dreamed of building a theatre to present English light opera. By the time he actually started building it, however, it was definitely with the intention of presenting more G&S. He was young and cocky and never doubted that he could keep the partnership together - indeed, soon after this, he persuaded them to sign a five-year contract. Gilbert and Sullivan got along pretty swimmingly between 1879 and 1881. There were no difficulties in the relationship at that time. It wasn't really until after Princess Ida opened that they had a serious disagreement. I think all this is pretty well supported by the text and references further down. Bottom line, I think it is fair to say in the Lede that it was built to host G&S. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Early life:
- Rose. I would suggest putting in a death date of unknown or a question mark there, otherwise the implication is she's still alive and kicking at 156.
- (D'Oyly is Norman French) Ambiguous, suggest saying that D'Oyly derives from Norman French or is a Norman French name.
- Maybe put the sentence about his parents as the second sentence in the paragraph, otherwise it feels like you are telling the story backwards.
- The sentence about him leaving with his brother Henry is a bit awkward. I'd try moving the clause about Henry to the end.
Career:
- "Carte's musical training ..." I take it we are talking about the experience he gained during this time? I would just say so.
- "At the same time" as we are talking about a nine year period, it is a bit of a problem here. I would suggest something like "During this time," or similar. And if it is at all possible, perhaps tell a bit more about what he was doing? Nine years in a man's life is considerable. Was he working at his father's firm, or accompanying companies on tour (sort of implied). I know we are all anxious to get to the good stuff, the G&S stuff, but a little more detail might be good.
- OK, I changed it. We already said about the 1860s, "He studied music during this time and composed some pieces". Then we discussed his compositions from 1868. Then we pick up in more detail with 1874. We say pretty clearly that he was still working at his father's firm until he moved the talent agency to its new quarters. Sources are not crystal clear on what the date of that was, but it must have been around 1870 or so. I don't know if we have any other details, except that we know he managed certain artists. Can you add anything, Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- From the classified ads in The Era: 20 November 1870, p. 7: ad for "Rudall, Rose, Carte and Co Opera, Concert and Choir Agency, under the management of Mr R D'Oyly Carte", states that the Agency was "established by Messrs Rudall, Rose, Carte and Co as a branch of their ordinary business in the Autumn of 1868." The Agency's address is given as 20 Charing-cross, London, SW. In a similar ad on 26 November 1871, the Agency's title is now pruned to "Rudall, Carte and Co's Opera and Concert Agency". R D'Oyly Carte is still manager, and the address is unchanged. An ad in February 1872 shows the same details. By 16 February 1873 (p. 13) the address is unchanged, but the Agency's name does not mention Rudall etc, but is given as "R. D'Oyly Carte's Agency". By 1 November 1874 (p. 16) the agency is "D'Oyly Carte and Co", still at 20 Charing-cross. By 27 December 1874, (p.1) D'Oyly Carte and Co is at "9a Craig's-court, Charing-cross, or 6 Hereford-road, W." Make of that what you will. Tim riley (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
More later, or possibly in a couple of days, depending on my crazy schedule.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- "She became fascinated by his vision for ..." Perhaps shorten to "Fascinated by his vision ... , she became ...".
- "Lenoir was well-educated and had a grasp of detail and diplomacy and an organisational ability and business acumen that surpassed even Carte's; she became intensely involved in all of his business affairs" Awful lot of ands in there.
- "Carte himself was the musical director ... " Is the word himself really needed?
- ". They chose talented actors, most of whom were not well-known stars, and Carte's agency provided many of the artists to perform in the new work." Surely this can be shortened, as we know the artists are to perform in the new work?
More later. I am sorry for the slowness of the review, I'm traveling and it is hard to buckle down to concentrating on a review.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- No worries. Doing it bit by bit makes it easy for me too. I hope your trip is going well! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Reasonably well, thanks. Going back a bit:
- "The Sorcerer in 1877, about a tradesmanlike London sorcerer." Perhaps a different word than sorcerer? And is The Sorcerer really about him? The Mikado is not about that humane monarch, after all. I won't bore you with the argument, you know the operas better than I do and can supply my argument for me!
- promenade concert: Suggest link to Promenade concert, which is about the historic musical walkabout, not the Albert Hall events.
Early opera successes:
- "tours of each of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas." Suggest that the word "new" or similar be inserted in there. Thespis, after all, did not tour.
- Wilde: Had the misconceptions that Bunthorne is based on Wilde arisen at that time? If so, and if the three took advantage of it to send out Wilde, might be worth a mention.
- No, it's a modern misconception. Wilde was an up-and-coming poet, and one can see aspects of him, or his "type", in each of Bunthorne and Grosvenor, or vice versa. I don't want to promote the misconception by trying to explain it. It is explained in good detail at the Patience article. Here, we say that Carte, who was his agent anyway, sent him to America to explain aesthetic art, and that's exactly what happened. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- "front-of-house". Unless there is a particular British usage in phrasing it with hyphens, suggest front of house.
- "queue system". Not sure what this means. (I know what a queue is, I just mean the phrase).
- People used to wait at the entrance to the theatre and rush in to get first-come, first-served seats. Carte started numbering the tickets so that there would be an orderly line for seating. I fixed some redundancy there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like a rock concert with general admission!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I quite concur with the above: I don't think the cheap seats were numbered. I think they continued to be unreserved, and it was still first-in-best-placed (as e.g. it still is at the Proms for Promenaders) but Carte, with the help of the police, stopped the traditional scrummage and enforced orderly queueing, so that early arrival rather than musclepower secured the best seats. Tim riley (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, in my limited time on WP, I was distracted by other things.
- "As an example of their level of activity ..." The "example" refers to "many other projects". I suggest combining the sentences so the example becomes the laundry list of activities Carte was engaged in.
- It used to be one sentence, but Maria suggested splitting it up; I think she's right.
- "increasing their popularity". Certainly, from context, "they" refers to the works, not to the societies. All the same, I'd make this clear so as not to slow down the reader.
- OK, done.
- "Carte was able to coax eight comic operas" You might also want to specify how many of these took place under the five year contract.
- I don't think the contract ought to get any more air time. Carte and Helen had to pet Sullivan constantly to keep him on board.
- "He was a full participant in the producing partnership with Gilbert and Sullivan. " You might want to tell the reader just what he did in production. Lytton's comment really doesn't answer it.
- Tim, do we have more information about his exact day-to-day producing duties? I know he was involved in casting. I can guess at other duties, but I don't think I've ever seen any specifics.
- As well as his responsibilities as producer (in the modern sense) - publicity, employing the performers and theatre staff, Carte was responsible for stage rehearsals of all the touring companies (see Joseph, p. 90) not to mention for casting them. And though in London, Gilbert was stage director of the G&S operas, and Carte closely followed Gilbert's stagings in his touring productions, staging the non-Gilbert works was entirely down to Carte: he usually got his assistants Charles Harris or Richard Barker to act as director (see Rollins and Witts pp. 15-18) but it was down to Carte to hire designers for the scenery and costumes. Even in the G&S operas, where Gilbert designed some costumes and instructed the designer about others, it was Carte who hired Faustin, Percy Anderson, Henry Emden, Wilhelm et al. - Tim riley (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Queen: Might be helpful to the reader if you mentioned (in most versions of this story that I've read) that the Queen was following the libretto closely. Doubt she had the opera committed to memory! Although, you never know, I've read she was a tremendous music fan as a girl, with a keen interest in the stars of the day.
- Done.
- "amount of the charge was not great" Five hundred pounds in 1893 is equivalent to at least forty thousand pounds today. I generally use http://www.measuringworth.com
- The cost of producing a new West End show is tens of millions today. The amount of the carpet was, as I say, "not great" in relation to the total cost of The Gondoliers or its incredible profits. The main thing was that Gilbert was convinced that Carte was skimming profits, and it didn't matter to him that The Gondoliers was a gold mine.
- "Gilbert won the dispute, but the partnership disbanded." Unclear why a "but" is used. Winning a lawsuit against your partners is not conducive to keeping them as partners. Neither is losing one, I guess either.
- OK, I tried to clarify.
- "his touring companies continued to play throughout Britain and in America. In 1894, for example, Carte had four companies touring Britain and one playing in America." The reader is going to wonder if they played G&S or not.
- I think some were G&S, and some were not. The mix depended on what had been playing at the Savoy. In 1894, right after Utopia, most of the tours would have been of Utopia and companion pieces, the rest would have been mixed rep, including some G&S and some of the Savoy Operas of the 1890s. Tim has R&W which would say exactly. Am I right, Tim? If so, it seems like too much information. After 1903, the non-G&S tapered off, until the rep was just G&S and maybe some companion pieces.
- According to Rollins and Witts, pp. 23–116, [in addition to many tours of the G&S works --Ssilvers], Carte's companies toured the UK with the following non–G&S works: Rip Van Winkle (1882), Claude Duval (1882), The Nautch Girl (1891–92), The Vicar of Bray (1892–96 and 1899), Haddon Hall (1892–94 and 1899), Billee Taylor (1893), The Chieftain (1895), Mirette (1894–95), His Majesty (1897), The Grand Duchess of Gerolstein (1898–99), The Lucky Star (1899), The Rose of Persia (1900–01), and after Carte's death The Emerald Isle (1901–02). Rollins and Witts don't give full details of Carte's overseas tours, and I cannot therefore say which of the above were toured in the US and the Empire. This might make a footnote, but needn't, me judice, be added to the main text. By the way, I have just noticed that from the breach with the Comedy Opera Company to 1888 the companies are billed in Rollins and Witts as "Mr. D'Oyly Carte's Opera Company"; from 1889 they are billed as the "D'Oyly Carte Opera Company". - Tim riley (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Further to my comments, above, in response to Wehwalt and Ssilvers, I note from Rollins and Witts the following bits of info about Carte's touring companies.
- In 1884 he had seven companies touring the UK (with, variously: Pinafore and Pirates (1 company); Patience (2 companies); Iolanthe (2); and Ida (2)). (R&W, p. 24)
- R&W also mention tours to the US (1882, 1885, 6, and 7, 1890), Germany (1886 and twice in 1887, with dates in Austria and Holland also), and South Africa, 1896-7.
- Six companies (by which I assume R&W mean Carte's companies, not pirate ones) were presenting The Mikado in Canada and the USA during 1886. (R&W p. 59).
- In 1887 the "E" company played three nights in Calais and a week in Boulogne. (R&W p. 65). - Tim riley (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Gilbert's aggressive" POV?
That's really all I have. Well done!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Of course, the above responses are just my opinion. If Tim disagrees, or if you disagree strongly, we can make more changes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard D'Oyly Carte/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: María (habla conmigo) 19:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've been asked to review this article for GAC. Comments will be listed below over the next several days. María (habla conmigo) 19:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This is another great G&S-related article! I enjoyed reading it, and only see minor issues with the prose and ref formatting. These concerns admittedly do not stand in the way of the article being promoted to GA, but seeing as how I think this is FAC-bound, I'll be quite picky. (Probably why I was asked to review in the first place? :) Here is how it stands against the criteria:
- Well-written: For the most part; see issues below.
- Factually accurate and verifiable: Yes.
- Broad in its coverage: Yes.
- Neutral: Yes.
- Stable: Yes.
- Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes. All images check out.
- Early life
- Beginning with nothing, Carte built two theatres, built and acquired several hotels and founded an opera company that ran continuously for over a hundred years. -- There's the repetition of "built" here, which continues later in the lead. I'm also not sure what is meant by "beginning with nothing"; is this referring to his childhood? If that's the case, a less euphemistic description may help with the clarity.
- Carte was born in Greek Street in the West End of London... -- is being born "in" a street a British thing? To me it should read "was born on", but correct me if I'm wrong. Also, it may help to reiterate the date of his birth, as it's not mentioned outside of the lead.
- Yes, apparently. I'm not from those lovely Islands, being a colonial like you, but Tim riley can confirm. Tim? Repeated birth date. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of Welsh and Norman ancestry (D'Oyly is a Norman French name),[2] To supplement his income as a performer... -- The punctuation and grammar are wonky here.
- He studied music during this time and composed some pieces, which he dedicated to the actress Kate Terry. -- This is mainly out of curiosity, but did he know her personally, or merely admire her work?
- I don't know. They were the same age, both turning 17 years old in 1861 as she was beginning her London stage career (having already achieved some fame as a child and teenage actress). Unfortunately, none of the sources have much information about Richard's life in the 1860s, as he worked for his father's firm. He certainly knew many musicians and theatre people. Kate's juvenile stage career had included a lot of singing, so perhaps she had asked him to compose songs for her. Maybe they flirted breathlessly at the music shoppe or at a dinner attended by musicians and theatre people. Maybe he waited at the stage door after her performances. She had a meteoric career, beginning in 1861, and was lavishly praised by the critics. She abruptly left the stage in 1867, at the age of 23, to marry a wealthy man. One of the greatest losses in theatre history no doubt. Her sister Ellen Terry took over where she left off and became the most famous Shakespearean actress of the era, but one gets the feeling that everyone thought Kate was even more talented (see Kate's grandson John Gielgud's autobiography for more). Coincidentally, their younger sister Marion Terry later became one of W. S. Gilbert's protegées. A rather incestuous Victorian theatre community! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've combed the bookshelves and can't add anything substantive to Ssilver's exegesis, supra. - Tim riley (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm almost sorry I asked! :) At the time I was reading, the brief mention of Terry seemed peripheral. Since she's obviously a notable figure from the time, I don't think she should be removed from Carte's bio, but seeing as how there's not much more to be added... eh. I'm torn. Just something to think about, I suppose. María (habla conmigo) 14:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Career
- During the late 1860s and early 1870s, from within his father's firm and then from a nearby address in Craig's Court, Charing Cross, Carte was beginning to build an operatic and concert management agency... -- "began", rather than "was beginning"?
- On tour in 1871 Carte conducted Sullivan's Cox and Box... -- Sullivan needs to be reintroduced here, as he's only mentioned in the lead previously.
- He later wrote to Gilbert... -- Same as above.
- Furthermore, in 1874 Carte did not yet have the resources to make his idea into reality; he did not renew his lease at the Opera Comique.[24] In the same year, he assisted in joining his client, Offenbach, with H. B. Farnie to write a new operetta on the theme of Dick Whittington and His Cat, which played in the Christmas season at the Alhambra Theatre. -- This passage needs to be tightened as it lacks clarity. Is it meant that Carte introduced Offenbach, his client, to Farnie, and together they wrote the new operetta? I'm also not sure how the first sentence, split by the semi-colon, is clear enough. Did he lack the resources because he did not renew his lease, or the other way around?
- Er, again the source is not crystal clear: Either he didn't renew his lease at the Opera Comique because he blew his capital on the 1874 season and didn't have the resources to mount another season at all; or, he wanted to wait until he had the resources to mount a season of original English works, which would have required more horsepower than what he did in the 1874 season. The 1874 was his first season as a producer, and I'll bet that it is common to take a break after your first big venture and reassess. You'll notice that the next year he took a job as theatre manager, a step down from producer. Of course, I can only write what the sources support directly. The point is that, during the 1874 season, he released his Manifesto, and it wouldn't be long before Destiny and Ambition combined to make him a Big Deal. I tried to rewrite to make it read better; I also fixed the Offenbach thing.
- Gilbert and Sullivan are introduced and linked in the paragraph that begins In 1875, Carte became the business manager of the Royalty Theatre..., so make sure to remove links if they are done as suggested above.
- At the Theatre Royal, in Dublin, Ireland in September 1875, while there managing the first tour of Trial by Jury, Carte met a young Scottish actress, Susan Couper Black, who used the stage name Helen Lenoir. -- The numerous commas here make reading this slightly difficult. "While managing the first tour of Trial by Jury at the Theatre Royal in Dublin, Ireland in September 1875, Carte met..."?
- Carte's assistant, Helen Lenoir, who became his wife in 1888, made fifteen visits to America in the 1880s and 1890s to promote Carte's interests... -- Should the fact that Lenoir became Carte's wife be mentioned when she is first introduced? I thought that may be the case while reading the above excerpt, but since 13 years elapse in just a few paragraphs, it may help to mention it sooner. I'm not completely sure, however.
- What? And ruin the suspense? LOL. OK, I added something. See if you like it better, or want to go back to how it was, or if you have a Plan C. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hm, I do rather like it mentioned up front, I admit. Although instead of "In 1888, three years after the death of his first wife, Carte married Lenoir", should it be "Carte and Lenoir were married"? The former seems somewhat redundant given the previous sentence. María (habla conmigo) 14:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- They hoped to forestall further "piracy" by establishing the authorised production and tours in America before others could copy it and by delaying publication of the score and libretto. -- Of course I caught the oh so subtle "piracy"/Pirates of Penzance pun going on here, but perhaps copyright infringement should be linked. :)
- I added the link. Note, however, that it wasn't really copyright infringement, because there was no law being violated. Gilbert and Sullivan (and Carte) WISHED that they could have copyright protection in America, but there was no treaty or American law giving foreign authors a copyright. G&S and Carte sued American producers at least twice, but the US courts gave our boys the finger. As the sources describe in rather dry and academic detail, their efforts were actually important in the rise of international copyright protection, but they themselves never reaped the benefits. Anyhow, I refrain from going into gory detail on this. G&S *considered* it copyright piracy, and this idea partly inspired the theme of their next opera, and I think we've given enough, but not too much, info. Do you agree? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- It was financed by profits from The Mikado.[80] It was the first hotel lit by... -- Combine these two, perhaps as "Financed by profits from The Mikado, it was the first hotel..."
- During the years when the Gilbert and Sullivan operas were being written, Richard D'Oyly Carte also produced operas by other composer–librettist teams, either as curtain-raisers to the Gilbert and Sullivan pieces or as touring productions, as well as other works to fill the Savoy Theatre in between Savoy operas, and he also toured the Gilbert and Sullivan operas extensively. For example, a souvenir programme commemorating the 250th performance of Patience in London and its 100th performance in New York shows that, in addition to these two productions of Patience, Carte was simultaneously producing two companies touring with Patience, two companies touring with other Gilbert and Sullivan operas, a company touring with Olivette (co-produced with Charles Wyndham) a company touring Claude Duval in America, a production of Youth running at a New York theatre, a lecture tour by Archibald Forbes (a war correspondent) and productions of Patience, Pirates, Claude Duval and Billee Taylor in association with J. C. Williamson in Australia, among other things. -- These two sentences are huge; any way to break them up so they flow easier?
- The Mikado became the partnership's longest-running hit, enjoying 672 performances at the Savoy Theatre, the second longest run for any work of musical theatre up to that time... -- Pinafore is also referred to as the "second-longest run in musical theatre history up to that time." Could this be rephrased to say that Mikado usurped Pinafore's former record?
- Legacy
- This section does seem skimpy in comparison to the rest of the article. Consider this a comment outside of the GA review, but I would suggest perhaps plumping this area up with testimonies by those who worked with, comments about his talent and overall effect on theatre at the time, etc. Several of these types of quotes appear throughout the "Career" section, but there must be others?
-
- Will delve in the archives and see what I can find. We may need to distinguish between Carte's corporeal legacy (Savoy etc) and his aesthetic one. Will rummage and report back Tim riley (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- References
- Is there a reason why {{reflist|2}} is not used?
- Whether or not you choose to use the template, the works listed under "References" need to be consistently formatted. Bettany and Goodman, for example, do not match Ainger and Young in style. The majority use Chicago.
That's all of the technical comments I have to make. Again speaking outside of the GA review for a moment, I think this is a rather good article, and it may have a chance at FA in the near future. With that in mind, however, I would be careful not to stray too much into G&S and too far away from Carte. Several times I lost sight of whose biography I was in fact reading. :) Although G&S were obviously a huge part of his life and success, I found myself wanting to know more about the man, rather than his works, or the works that he facilitated. I got the sense that he was a man who lived for his work, but surely there were other aspects to his character? As for the review, although there are no serious concerns, I'll still place the article on hold so the above can be addressed. Let me know when you're ready for me to take another look! María (habla conmigo) 16:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for these really excellent comments, Maria. For now, I think this is pretty much all we know about Carte the man, unless Tim can come up with more. I don't have any plans to go to FA right away. I'm content for now, to have a solid GA article on Carte, and I think I'm going to turn back to the G&S operas themselves, and try to move several of them towards GA. I was feeling really beat up in the Pinafore FA process, and I had no help dealing with the comments. So, I'm not inclined to do FA again on a G&S article any time soon, unless Tim is really hot to do one. Going solo at FA isn't much fun. I'll look over the article, though, and see if I can work on the G&S focus and see if I can make sure it is focused on Carte rather than G&S throughout. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Final comments
I'm impressed with the corrections and additions, and only made a couple small fixes myself to the article just now. The "Legacy" section in particular is much improved, especially with the addition of quotes regarding Carte's impact on his field of work. I see no further issues, so I'll be promoting this article to GA-status. Congrats, guys! On a sidenote, I completely understand the disenchantment with FAC, but it's always worth it in the end, isn't it? Let me know if/when you need anything else, María (habla conmigo) 14:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Carte's father, Richard
Great new image, Tim! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Carte senior looks so very English compared with his son's Napoleonic looks. D'Oyly must have got them from his mother's side. Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, particularly the moustache! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Note 84
Why aren't Dark and Grey included in the reference section?
Info box
The question is: Should articles on people related to Gilbert and Sullivan be exempt from having infoboxes? Should a reader have to scour the article just to answer one of the top 5 questions easily found in the infobox. What if Project NJ decided that people from NJ don't get infoboxes or Project Lutheranism decided Lutherans do not get infoboxes? Should they overide the general consensus that biographies have infoboxes to aid the reader. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- I believe we had a consensus not to use infoboxes on G&S project articles. I have reverted the recent addition of one, pending comments from other editors. Tim riley (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe we had a consensus to use infoboxes at WikiProject Biography, so why don't we keep it up until there is consensus to remove it. Consistency is important, what if Project NJ decided that people in NJ don't get infoboxes or Project Lutheranism decided Lutherans do not get infoboxes? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think Carte was a Lutheran. Please let us have no more drive-by edits until regular contributors have had a chance to comment. Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nor was he from New Jersey. You appear to be removing any changes I am making to the article including the addition of references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Richard D'Oyly Carte | |
---|---|
Born | |
Died | May 3, 1901 | (aged 57)
Cause of death | Congestive heart failure |
Occupation | Impresario |
Known for | D'Oyly Carte Opera Company |
Spouse(s) |
Blanche Julia Prowse (1853–1885)
(m. 1870–1885) |
Children | Rupert D'Oyly Carte |
Parent(s) | Richard Carte (1808–1891) Eliza Jones (1814–1885) |
Relatives | Bridget D'Oyly Carte, granddaughter |
Bridget Cicely D'Oyly Carte | |
---|---|
File:George-baker-bridget-doyly-carte.jpg | |
Born | |
Died | May 2, 1985 Shrubs Wood, Buckinghamshire | (aged 77)
Cause of death | Lung cancer |
Spouse |
John David Gathorne-Hardy
(m. 1928–1931) |
Parent | Rupert D'Oyly Carte |
Relatives | Richard D'Oyly Carte, grandfather |
Rupert D'Oyly Carte | |
---|---|
Born | |
Died | September 12, 1948 | (aged 71)
Known for | D'Oyly Carte Opera Company and Savoy Hotel |
Spouse |
Lady Dorothy Milner Gathorne-Hardy (1889–1977)
(m. 1907–1941) |
Children | Bridget D'Oyly Carte (1908-1985) Michael D'Oyly Carte (1911–1932) |
Parent | Richard D'Oyly Carte |
Relatives | Helen Carte, stepmother |
W. S. Gilbert | |
---|---|
Born | London | 18 November 1836
Died | 29 May 1911 Grim's Dyke | (aged 74)
Occupation | Dramatist |
- I believe you will find that many classical music articles, e.g. composers, are exempt from infoboxes by consensus of project members. I hope you don't assert that your particular project can veto the decisions of another? Tim riley (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Comments by User:Ozob: Nobody is talking about Richard D'Oyly Carte. He is not mentioned even once below. Closed as wrong forum. Ozob (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't reopen this. If you want to hold a discussion about the G&S project's policy on infoboxes, then you should hold that at the project page. This page is only for discussing improvements to the Richard D'Oyly Carte article. Ozob (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Closed means please stop, all of you. And please don't edit your comments below so that they mention Carte. Even if you do, the discussion is not about him. Ozob (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody seems to be listening to me. Oh well. Go ahead, have your discussion. But please stick to Richard D'Oyly Carte: Does his article benefit from an infobox? And keep in mind that this discussion will have no bearing on whether other biographies need an infobox. If you want to have that discussion, then like I said, have it elsewhere. Ozob (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)}}
- Closed means please stop, all of you. And please don't edit your comments below so that they mention Carte. Even if you do, the discussion is not about him. Ozob (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Comments on Richard D'Oyly Carte Infobox
- Keep infobox We end up with the odd situation where W. S. Gilbert has one and Arthur Sullivan does not. The reader is forced to search the article to find his wives, as I did after watching the movie Topsy Turvy and do math to confirm his age at death. There is no good reason to exempt a subset of people. We will end up losing the consistency that makes Wikipedia useful. The trend is to standardize biographies across Wikipedia, not balkanize them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies: I failed to spot that you had added some constructive edits which I reverted along with the intrusive info box. Tim riley (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete infobox I believe we agreed not to add info boxes on G&S related articles - therefore this article [ Richard D'Oyly Carte ] does not need one. Jack1956 (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Daft question but I dont have anything to do with G&S articles so can somebody explain in very simple language why the project considers this article doesnt need an infobox please, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep infobox nothing I have seen is a compelling reason to exempt these pages from what is really a standard approach. MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep infoboxes as they provide a quick look at an individual and encourage readers to delve deeper into article content for expanded information. While yes, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan#Infoboxes in articles the G&S Project states "Following the Opera project policy, the G&S project discourages adding infoboxes at the top of articles, as they generally contain only repetitive information and interfere with the placement of images at the beginning of articles". Therein lies the difficulty, as the project style guides are not policy, and to emulate WikiProjectOpera, who had themselves not dealt with what THEY perceived as a concern, simply allows a problem to fester and grow. We do not cut off a hand because we have a scrape on a finger, nor do we let the wound fester. No, we address the scrape and let it heal. Essentially banning use of the reader-assisting infobox is not a policy nor a guideline, nor is it grounded in or reflective of Wikipedia policy. Indeed it is seen that ProjectOpera's decision to not use infoboxes was because they themselves decided to emulate a few other music-related wikiprojects who had themselves not sought a fix for a template they considered "not sufficiently flexible",[1] thus compounding the percieved problem. This wish to emulate stands as a better reason to fix problematic infoboxes to increase their flexibility, rather than ignore or ban what Wikipedia considers a valuable reader-assisting tool- the infobox. It would be far better to actually address it proactively and ask for increased flexibility per Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes#Main objective. We're here for the readers... not the editor members of a Wikiproject. And RAN has it right... for the readers, we need consistancy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep infobox. This consensus to omit infoboxes from the biographies of certain musicians makes no sense to me. Can anyone explain how the decision was made? It causes inconsistency and annoyance. Unless there's a compelling reason not to include them, I suggest an across-the-board decision to include them for all biographies. Yopienso (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- We should start a formal RFC after this is over. It is annoying to have to search through the article on Beethoven and Brahms to see if they were married, when that could have been garnered from a standard infobox. The other annoyance was the Actor infobox where there was no link for parents and children as in the standard biography box. After a long struggle that box was merged with the standard person infobox. The Military person infobox is still nonstandard and I always struggle to find the birth and death dates in it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not relevant to this discussion but Template:Infobox military person has had birth and death dates since 2006! MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was complaining about the placement when the infobox is displayed, not the absence of the data. They aren't in the standard position so I don't see them at first glance in a case of psychic blindness. They appear at the top where they look like they are years of service. Just like the first marriage template made years of marriage look like birth and death years. When something isn't in the standard position, the brain overlooks it or confuses it with other data it expects to see in that position. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, understand and agree. That template has now been changed to be like the standard person infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Infobox - InfoBoxes are becoming more and more prevalent in WP. They look professional, and capture some basic facts in a concise, easy to find location. I cannot find a discussion of why Infoboxes were avoided for G&S related persons ... but that seems like a strange decision. Agree with user Richard Arthur Norton above. InfoBoxes are desirable for most significant biographical articles in WP. --Noleander (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose/Delete infobox to Richard D'Oyly Carte article. The Gilbert and Sullivan Project guidelines state a previous consensus of editors at this project: Following the Opera project policy, the G&S Project discourages adding infoboxes at the top of articles, as they generally contain only repetitive information and interfere with the placement of images at the beginning of articles. This article has been reviewed by numerous reviewers and a GA review, and the consensus has always been that it does not need an infobox. Personally, I do not think that infoboxes add anything useful to [arts] bio articles or opera articles, [where] they are redundant, they discourage new editors from making substantive edits to articles, they waste space at the top of articles [added later: and they nearly always contain errors. Editors spend much time arguing about the formatting and what is included in the infoboxes, instead of focusing on the content of the article]. I heartily agree that this article should not have an infobox. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- [Copied from below so that my points are all together: My reasons for opposing the infobox [in this article in particular] include the following, among others: All of the important points mentioned, like Richard D'Oyly Carte's dates and occupation, are mentioned very clearly in the first sentence of the article. The information about Carte's cause of death is not so important that it should be the first thing that readers see. The name of his first wife and her dates are not, again, important enough to be among the first thing that a reader sees. Similarly the names of his parents and descendants, and all of the other information that is in the box is carefully set forth in the correct sections of the article. The box is repetitive and does not emphasize the most important information, as the narrative LEAD section does so well. Also, the box limits the size of the first photo, which is a good photo. The infobox also contains misleading information (for example, it mentions one of his sons, but not the other, but neither should be mentioned at the top of the article). I also think that starting the article with the infobox template discourages new editors from editing the article] -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- The lede is redundant too and it also wastes space at the top of the article, can I remove the lede? Maybe people are discouraged from reading/editing/creating articles in Wikipedia because articles have ledes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- A fishslap to Ssilvers for removing the infobox from W. S. Gilbert. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- An integrated reference work is only easy-to-use if it uses the same style throughout. No point having some articles using roman numerals and some articles reading from right to left and some articles in reverse chronological order. Invoking Reductio ad Hitlerum over infoboxes is a bit silly, especially since we are using a version of democracy and rule of law to settle the debate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- The lede is redundant too and it also wastes space at the top of the article, can I remove the lede? Maybe people are discouraged from reading/editing/creating articles in Wikipedia because articles have ledes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- [Copied from below so that my points are all together: My reasons for opposing the infobox [in this article in particular] include the following, among others: All of the important points mentioned, like Richard D'Oyly Carte's dates and occupation, are mentioned very clearly in the first sentence of the article. The information about Carte's cause of death is not so important that it should be the first thing that readers see. The name of his first wife and her dates are not, again, important enough to be among the first thing that a reader sees. Similarly the names of his parents and descendants, and all of the other information that is in the box is carefully set forth in the correct sections of the article. The box is repetitive and does not emphasize the most important information, as the narrative LEAD section does so well. Also, the box limits the size of the first photo, which is a good photo. The infobox also contains misleading information (for example, it mentions one of his sons, but not the other, but neither should be mentioned at the top of the article). I also think that starting the article with the infobox template discourages new editors from editing the article] -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is hard to understand why you have declared war on the G&S Project, RAN. You have not been a substantial contributor to the project. Will you continue to attempt to impose your personal views against the established WP:CONSENSUS? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- It isn't a war, and you should not see it as such. It is just applying the Wikipedia style across as many articles as possible. Reread my argument about New Jersey or Lutherans and left-to-right and Roman numerals. What if each religion imposed their own style to articles on people of that faith? We don't want balkanization, we want a consistent style to aid the reader. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is hard to understand why you have declared war on the G&S Project, RAN. You have not been a substantial contributor to the project. Will you continue to attempt to impose your personal views against the established WP:CONSENSUS? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, sorry, this is not a required Wikipedia style. The relevant project here has a long established guideline not to use an infobox on the Richard D'Oyly Carte article or other Gilbert and Sullivan-related articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is general style, for the entire Wikipedia. No project can over-ride general policy. It's like saying the G&S project will write its articles as verse, with the appropriate Gilbertian puns and off-rhymes DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Could anyone please provide a general policy link to support your claim that infoboxes are mandatory ("general style, for the entire Wikipedia")? I may be missing something, but I couldn't find one. At least not in an official Wikipedia policy statement (unlike the "balkanization" article, which merely regards a war-related concept and its popular extension to politics, sociology, internet etc).--MistyMorn (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is general style, for the entire Wikipedia. No project can over-ride general policy. It's like saying the G&S project will write its articles as verse, with the appropriate Gilbertian puns and off-rhymes DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Infoboxes A standard addition to articles across Wikipedia, infoboxes provide a clear summary of an individual and their essential biographical information that allows readers visiting an article for the first time to see these common details as for all other articles in Wikipedia. There should be no obligation for an editor to add an infobox, but their removal after other editors have added them appears unjustified. Alansohn (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose infoboxes. Please give one good reason why they improve the article in this group. Tony (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- on the very good grounds set out by Tony (talk) below, I strongly oppose the use of infoboxes here or elsewhere on the G&S project (as throughout the Opera project and other 'classical music' related projects) - the absence of infoboxes in such articles is, in fact, the 'standard' approach (referred to above) that has developed. --Smerus 05:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- RAN asked my opinion. As usual, I give it without looking at what his view might be. Whether or not we should have bio infoboxes is besides the point. The established practice is that we do. ((personally, though I regret the repetitiveness, but I am strongly in favor of using structured data whenever possible.) Any argument that in this particular case we should not would appear to me to be pointy, unless there were some actual reason why this is different, and I see none at all. It's not the place for a general discussion. The way to challenge this, is to start a policy RfC, if anyone thinks it will be productive. Tony1, I think insisting on this further would be disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Bio-boxes are little more than collections of random factoids. From the infobox on this page I learn that Richard D'Oyly Carte was an impresario who ran the D'Oyly Carte Company (fine as far as it goes but it doesn't tell me what the D'Oyly Carte Company was). Then I learn that he was related to a bunch of other people called D'Oyly Carte (you don't say), was married twice and died of a heart attack. Um, OK, very useful...If I turn to the opening paragraphs, I learn that D'Oyly Carte was a theatrical impresario associated with the operas of Gilbert and Sullivan. I also learn what the D'Oyly Carte Company was, a bit about the man's background and the fact he was also a hotelier who built the famous Savoy Hotel. So now I know why he was notable, i.e. not for his coronary problems. Score: Prose 1, Infobox 0. Most of the keep votes here are based on little more than Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but there is no policy saying we MUST have infoboxes on articles. There's also the basic natural justice of letting editors (in this case the G&S Project) who have put hours and hours of hard work into adding content decide whether they want to add bells and whistles like infoboxes or not. Plus what Tony1 says below.--Folantin (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Qualified oppose The proposed examples are laughably bad and trivialize their subjects. I don't think the "regulars" on the G&S articles "own" them, but they do have expertise. When you've got substantial drive-by edits to good and featured articles, the quality of the material inevitably goes down. Marc Shepherd (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The "consistency" argument is self-serving, and ignores (whether deliberately or in ignorance I cannot say) other projects larger than G&S which ban info boxes. Tim riley (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Just to emphasize the kinship with Project Opera, I spot-checked a number of composers and librettists. The following articles all lack infoboxes: Giuseppe Verdi, Richard Wagner, Richard Strauss, Gioachino Rossini, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Lorenzo Da Ponte, Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Henri Meilhac, Ludovic Halévy, and Francesco Maria Piave. I found no contrary examples. This does demonstrate that there has been a consistent practice of not using infoboxes on biographies of composers and librettists. Consensus can change, but it would affect far more articles than just the handful under discussion at the moment. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- so we should make make them. If the general infobox is inappropriate, use a special one. General style is outside the domain of a project.
- Oppose I find some of the entries in the proposed info boxes downright weird. Moreover, I find the tenor of some of the leading comments forcefully demanding their insertion authoritarian and, to my ears at least, against the spirit of Wikipedia. At the same time, I'm not sure I buy into the notion that info boxes are necessarily always trivial: it seems to me that if well composed they may, in some cases, be handy for quick reference (eg some genuinely useful links here, though not so sure about the illustration). But surely they shouldn't be used as a club to wield around other editors' heads!--MistyMorn (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. WP:DISINFO pretty much sums up my dislike of infoboxes in general.4meter4 (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- then bring it up as a policy question. Local consensus does not overide general policy.
- Support DGG
(qualified)totally unqualified, and very definite, to the extent I regard opposition in an individual case like this as unconstructive at the least, and more accurately termed disruptive. It's not a matter of counting, it's basic policy that we don't over-ride a general principle of article construction that has 99% general consensus without very special reason, which has not been demonstrated. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)- Where was that purported principle articulated, and where was it demonstrated that 99% agree with it? As I noted above, articles on classical composers and librettists generally don't have Infoboxes, which represents a fairly substantial consensus across a very large segment of Wikipedia. Also, to your comment about it being "unconstructive," see WP:AGF. Marc Shepherd (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- If everyone in a room wished to jump off a bridge, would the demand then be that everyone else in the house must also jump off bridges? The infoboxes stand simply as reader-assiting templates. They encourage readers to look further witin an article. In Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan#Infoboxes in articles the G&S Project states "Following the Opera project policy, the G&S project discourages adding infoboxes at the top of articles, as they generally contain only repetitive information and interfere with the placement of images at the beginning of articles". Okay, they wish to follow the habit of a different project. In looking furthre up the tree, it is seen that ProjectOpera's decision to not use infoboxes was because they themselves decided to emulate a few other music-related wikiprojects... because like ProjectOpera, they had themselves not sought a fix for a template they was considered "not sufficiently flexible",[2] thus compounding the percieved problem not fixed by someone else. If a flexible template is required, ask for it. Fix it, don't toss it because it is perceived by some as broken. WP:G&S's wish to emulate stands as a better reason to fix problematic infoboxes to increase their flexibility, rather than ignore or ban what most of Wikipedia considers a valuable reader-assisting tool... the infobox. It would be far better to actually address it proactively and ask for increased flexibility or tweaks per Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes#Main objective. Project style guides are not policy, and to emulate WikiProjectOpera, who had themselves not dealt with what THEY perceived as a concern, simply allowed the issue to compound itself. The encyclopedia is bigger than any one project, and we're all here for the readers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Where was that purported principle articulated, and where was it demonstrated that 99% agree with it? As I noted above, articles on classical composers and librettists generally don't have Infoboxes, which represents a fairly substantial consensus across a very large segment of Wikipedia. Also, to your comment about it being "unconstructive," see WP:AGF. Marc Shepherd (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment, but it doesn't really answer the question I was trying to get at, namely: where is the "general principle of article construction that has 99% general consensus" that DGG claims exists? I haven't been able to find it.
- I do agree that projects don't set policy. Not everyone who contributes to a project page is a Wikilawyer. When someone wrote about a project policy, what they really meant was, a common look-and-feel for a set of related articles that had the consensus of those working on them at the time. Consensus can change, etc., etc. I do not believe that anyone working on WP:G&S believes it can set up a walled garden with its own unique practices that contravene Wikipedia policy. But where Infoboxes are concerned, no such policy exists; at least, not that I have been able to find. Marc Shepherd (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete info box as totally unnecessary in a well written article such as this. Dreamspy (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose: As the GA reviewer of this particular article, as well as several others in the G&S Project, Ssilvers asked me to comment on this situation. Although I'm not a fan of straw polls as a rule, I feel it's important to note -- once again -- that infoboxes are not mandatory. To insist otherwise is simply wrong; further, to insist on blanketing an entire series of related articles with some unnecessary feature stinks of WP:POINT. Infoboxes can indeed be helpful in certain articles. For example, highly technical/lengthy subjects (such as science, medicine, wars/conflicts) may benefit from listing numerous figures and estimations -- especially when a lead section is ghastly large and difficult to navigate. When it comes to biographies, however, I very rarely ever see an infobox improving the article.
- As others have noted before me, most of all the pertinent information having to do with D'Oyly Carte's life is contained in the lead section -- if not in the first two sentences. His birth/death dates and what he is notable for are the most pertinent details of both infobox and lead, so this information is needlessly repeated were an infobox to exist. The only information I can see in the infobox that is not present in the lead is the very detailed facts regarding his family; on the other hand, despite his notable son Rupert and second wife
(both of which should probably be mentioned in the lead, imho), what use is the mention of his parents? His first wife? Or even his cause of death at the relatively normal age of 57? These details are not currently present in the lead, but for good reason: they're not notable. His parents and first wife don't even have Wiki articles, so why should listing them (and their birth/date years) in an infobox matter? Such info only succeeds in taking up space, if not insinuating importance where importance does not exist. - I hope this needless RFC straw poll ends swiftly, and that the pointy effort to push something non-mandatory as well as largely unnecessary on an entire group of articles soon comes to an end. So much valuable time has been wasted simply arguing for/against something that is just. not. needed. María (habla conmigo) 13:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- That was quick! Well done, I've stricken the now fulfilled suggestion. With these additions, the majority of the information present in the proposed infobox is now present and readily visible in the lead. The remaining information is either non-notable or strongly redundant. María (habla conmigo) 14:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose it has long been an unwritten Wikipedia rule that info-boxes are a matter of choice and that the principal content editors wishes are respected. The principal editor here (with 300 edits) is Ssilvers and s/he cearly does not want it. Personally, I hate info boxes, but I do beleive that a page's main content editors (not the typo fixer and ref formatters) should unltimately have the right to decide on this matter. Uniformity is very dull - so long as the relevant information is easily read in the lead; there's no need for some pokemon type thing to be stuck at the top of the page. Giacomo Returned 18:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- PS: I have just noticed that this info box even included "Cause of death" - what next? are we to have autopsy results - stomach contents and the like? I know the some info boxes here even include "penis length" - where do the info-box supporters want this to end? My mind is boggling. Giacomo Returned 19:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Arguments against infoboxes by User:Tony1
Here is a list of arguments against infoboxes by User:Tony1 copied from elsewhere:
- Undisciplined expansiveness: A maximum-inclusion approach to fields that leads editors to place repetitive, sometimes downright silly information in the box. (There needs to be clear, prominent advice about not using every single field in every circumstance, and rather the need to ration the information, shaping it to the context.)
- Visual degradation: The way infoboxes squash the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.
- Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel infoboxes give to articles: here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the boxes says it all.
- Disconnected particles. Their domination of the very opening of an article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.)
- Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)
- Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see WP:Featured lists for what I mean.)
Infoboxes seem to pander to the lowest concentration span. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Their inclusion would be derided in any culture that wasn't saturated with 30-second television ads and news broadcasts featuring 5- to 10-second grabs from politicians, PR consultants and disaster witnesses. Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text.
Infoboxes should be used only occasionally, with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles. Those who are pushing the project to accept this cancer everywhere would do better to put their energy into creating more lists. Tony (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I find these arguments compelling. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- And if I can re-sign my objection to the use of (most) infoboxes. The situation has not changed. Tony (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Tony, are you arguing against all infoboxes on all WP articles? That is not the subject here and is not, so far as I know, up for debate at all, if you are. Infoboxes are standard at WP. Please address the question "Why should the Gilbert and Sullivan biographies not have infoboxes while other biographies do?" Thanks! Yopienso (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- The better biographies of artists usually don't have infoboxes, though vigilance is required to keep them that way. Tony's list doesn't include the low quality of information in boxes in areas where they are not standard and are filled in by well-meaning drive-by editors unfamiliar with the subject. The inaccuracy of the infobox at Titian caused a minor row in the British Parliament a year or two back. I support infoboxes for many types of articles, but those on biographies are usually poor. At least with artists we have the extra argument that it is normally preferable to show a work rather than a portrait at the top. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Tony, are you arguing against all infoboxes on all WP articles? That is not the subject here and is not, so far as I know, up for debate at all, if you are. Infoboxes are standard at WP. Please address the question "Why should the Gilbert and Sullivan biographies not have infoboxes while other biographies do?" Thanks! Yopienso (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- And if I can re-sign my objection to the use of (most) infoboxes. The situation has not changed. Tony (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Although the principle has never been articulated, I think this suggests that a controversial change isn't going to work unless the "regular editors" accept it. A drive-by editor is never going to have the required sensitivity to the subject. That's plainly evident in the proposed Infobox mock-ups on this page: the proposer has done his best, but it's clearly a drive-by effort. He doesn't know what's important, because he hasn't spent much time with the material. His only agenda is that the article have an Infobox of some sort, regardless of what it might say. It's one thing to do a drive-by correction of an obvious typo, a grammatical or formatting error, or a violation of an undisputed policy or guideline. Re-organizing or adding something structural requires actual knowledge. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Other affected articles based on this consensus
Please readd the infobox to these articles:
- Bridget D'Oyly Carte, see Talk:Bridget D'Oyly Carte
- Rupert D'Oyly Carte, see Talk:Rupert D'Oyly Carte
- W. S. Gilbert where Ssilvers and [[[User:Tim riley|Tim Riley]] use the exact opposite argument used here to remove the infobox. Here they argue that the status quo of no box must be preserved, and there they argue that a box in the article for months must go.
- The consensus has long been not to use infoboxes in the Gilbert and Sullivan-related articles. No contrary consensus has been formed above. See WP:G&S. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- This RFC was to determine if that still holds true. You argue: "No contrary consensus has been formed above" but you are confusing Wikipedia consensus for unanimity. We do not need unanimity to restore Wikipedia style to an outlying article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I see no consensus to add infoboxes. Please do not do so—they foul the top of the articles and adds redundant information. Tony (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I see some untoward, inconsistent, and illogical stubbornness here against infoboxes. Please explain why only some bios should not have them. The general reader finds them very useful for their succinct tabular summary of information "hidden" in the articles.
- As facetiously suggested above, the lede is also redundant and takes up space. I facetiously nominate for deletion the Table of Contents as repetitive and unnecessary and causing readers not to wade through every precious word of the article. While we're at it, let's forbid images, too, which cut into the wall of text and each of which may, to twist the adage, cost the article up to a thousand words. Yopienso (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- And don't forget references, they are all preachy with their "this is a fact because I say it is by virtue of this old book". Well I don't like preachy facts, I want to feel the truth of an article. Facts are for paper encyclopedias and their old fashioned ways. Information should come from your heart. You know it is right because it feels right. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I see no consensus to add infoboxes. Please do not do so—they foul the top of the articles and adds redundant information. Tony (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- This RFC was to determine if that still holds true. You argue: "No contrary consensus has been formed above" but you are confusing Wikipedia consensus for unanimity. We do not need unanimity to restore Wikipedia style to an outlying article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ssilvers asked me to comment. For those who don't know me, I'm one of the principal participants at WP:WikiProject Council, whose purpose is to encourage and assist WikiProjects.
- There appears to be the most unfortunate confusion about the "powers" of a WikiProject. Specifically, they actually have none at all, but some people appear to believe that everyone else needs to do it their way because they are a "WikiProject". "WikiProject" is a word that means "group of editors who like to work with each other". An agreement between a couple of people who call themselves a WikiProject is no more binding on this article than a "consensus" among any other couple of people on any other page.
- Editors here may choose to include an infobox if they believe it improves this article. Editors here may choose to reject an infobox if that believe that including one harms this article.
- The WikiProject, like any other group of editors, is free to (indeed, encouraged to) give its best advice, but it cannot force anybody to comply with their advice. The decision about whether to include an infobox here is 100% up to the editors at this article. It does not matter what other editors chose for other articles: you don't make their choices for them, and they don't make your choices for you.
- Tony1 has ably outlined his usual objections to infoboxes. If someone who thinks this article is improved by an infobox would do the same, then perhaps editors here would be in a better position to compare the relative benefits. I'll make your task a little easier by giving you an example of one pro-infobox argument: consistent feedback from English language learners indicates that they find infoboxes very helpful, because it is easier for them to parse than full text. I'm sure you can name other reasons. After you do, then I hope everyone here will set aside their initial thoughts and compare the options with an open mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, and thanks for taking your time to add comments.
- This, "Editors here may choose to include an infobox if they believe it improves this article. Editors here may choose to reject an infobox if that believe that including one harms this article," sounds suspiciously like supporting the carving out of fiefdoms at WP. I am not an editor on one article of WP, nor of one subject. I am a WP editor, period, and am free to edit anywhere. Per WP:OWN, no one owns articles. Tony and others are likewise welcome to edit those articles to which I have contributed. As I have edited--not prolifically, but across a fairly wide spectrum--I have never before encountered a consensus that forbids a common WP format.
- Can you specify where the line is that editors may not cross in making novel decisions on "their" articles? If an editor or a group of editors decrees, "No infoboxes on opera articles!" can they also say no images, no citations, no paragraphs, no red links, no blue links, etc.? Can they mandate a special font and color for the text of opera articles?
- My understanding is that there may be editorial consensus at any one article to adjust infoboxes as seen most appropriate to the subject. See CAT:INFOBOX. I do not see that editors have the authority to forbid them anywhere.
- The inclusion of infoboxes is so universal at WP and so obviously helpful I hesitate to make a list of reasons why they would improve this article. Perhaps I will, in the spirit of cooperation. Yopienso (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. Interesting trivia: This page has a unique infobox.
- Conversely, do the recommendations of the editors who have edited this article extensively over a period of years deserve more weight than the recommendations of editors who have never made substantial contributions to the article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps not more weight but certainly due respect. Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against all others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist— perhaps you are an expert or perhaps you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia. Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written, as each edit page clearly states: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. Conversely, Even though people can never "own" an article, it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. [...] Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert unconstructive edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia.
- Here's a perspective for you to consider. Imagine a group of teenaged editors maintain a collection of video game articles in which they have a consensus that all citations will be bare URLs preceded by a blinking image of someone giving the finger. How would you cite if you arrived at one of those articles to edit it in good faith? Yopienso (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Conversely, do the recommendations of the editors who have edited this article extensively over a period of years deserve more weight than the recommendations of editors who have never made substantial contributions to the article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I use "the editors here" in the plainest dictionary-definition sense possible: whoever shows up on this particular talk page at this particular time gets a say in this particular discussion. As a very general rule of thumb, I believe that the editors who have been most active in developing an article are usually the people best placed to make a recommendation, and they certainly deserve respect, but they're not the only voices that should be listened to.
- Yopienso, as to your first example, no group of editors may declare "No infoboxes on opera articles!" You may only declare "No infobox in this article (for now)"—and the only group of editors entitled to make such a declaration is the group of editors who showed up on that article's talk page and talked it over. To make any changes at this one article, what you need is exactly what you describe as the "editorial consensus at one article". That editorial consensus could be to include one, to omit one, to use a different one, or to include an unusually abbreviated form of one—or anything else. But it's the folks here on this page, this week, who get to make the decision, not the folks at some other page a couple of years ago, and you need to make the decision based on the relative merits and demerits of the options for this specific article, not for the typical article of its type.
- In your second example, bare URLs are discouraged and their conversion is deemed legitimate in an official, community-wide guideline (see WP:CITEVAR, second bullet of the second list). There's no similar rule for infoboxes, which are optional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
There are types of articles where infoboxes are wholly appropriate, and some where they might not be a good idea. I haven't edited this article, so I'm completely neutral to its content; I'm therefore basing my vote below on my experience with Edward Elgar, a featured article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Arguments for infoboxes
- Infoboxes give a concise tabular summary of basic information at a glance.
- Since the purpose on an encyclopedia is to provide information, its quality is improved if we can make the information more accessible. Some encyclopedias, for example, offer their articles on compact discs. (So do we.) Our formatting of specific size fonts for titles, headings, and subheading is another unifying aspect that we keep consistent across the encyclopedia and that helps the reader find information quickly.
- Most readers look for vital statistics in an infobox. Not all want to read every possible detail that can be written about the person. This is no reflection on their character, nor does it hinder the reader who savors every word. Often a user turns to an encyclopedia precisely because they do not desire, for whatever reason, to read a book.
- An infobox does not threaten or diminish lucid, vibrant prose.
- Including infoboxes on operatic bios is consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia.
- Not including them causes a discontinuity in format, harming the encyclopedia.
- Infoboxes are neat and attractive and help break up a solid wall of text which can be off-putting to the reader. Together with the title, the lede, the table of contents, and in the best cases, a photo, it forms a useful and expected beginning of the article.
Those are the reasons I can think of right now. Below, I will answer Tony's objections. Yopienso (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Answering Tony's objections
1. Undisciplined expansiveness: This could be said of the entire encyclopedia! The answer is not to forget having an encyclopedia or an infobox, but to edit them judiciously.
2. Visual degradation: This is a matter of opinion; mine is that they improve the appearance.
3. Prefabrication: I beg your pardon; is this just snobbishness? First, why does it matter if someone "can't bother" to read the whole article? Second, some very intelligent and interested people simply don't have the time to read every word of a long article.
4. Disconnected particles: chopped up morsels? or neatly marshaled facts? It's a matter of perspective.
5. Uncertain benefit for readers: I'm sorry, but I can't relate to your need to dictate how people read.
- In answer to "What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?" see my points above.
6. Better as lists: No, this isn't the same at all. The point of an infobox is to present a few pertinent facts on the article page in a quickly accessible format.
As for your closing rant, we do live in the culture you describe. Our mission is not to force people into the culture you wish they had and criticize them if they don't conform. An infobox does not intrude between the reader and his/her engagement with the text. Most importantly, your hyperbole in calling infoboxes "a cancer" suggests a bias that does not serve you or us well in this discussion. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Getting seasick: Well, I do hope it's not invasive. At the risk of being specious, if not facetious, I have to say I've stumbled upon a surprising amount of pathological material on this Richard D'Oyly Carte talk page. In the first info box above, I even found out what the guy died from before learning what he was famous for. Now that info actually caught my attention for a particular reason: I'd been pondering whether the current lack of information on underlying cause of death in an FA biography (Percy Grainger) should be discreetly filled in. Now I know the appropriate treatment is to place a prostate cancer wikilink straight after the poor man's dates... Personally, I find info boxes more suited to film articles. Signed, Betty Box--MistyMorn (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Count
|
Where's the evidence?
Although the 'nays' would seem to have it, I feel obliged to underline that a straight count is inevitably a rather arbitrary way of reaching consensus here. It seems to me that the minority of voices who wanted to impose an infobox on this (and other) articles have provided no firm evidence to support their claim that infoboxes should be included by default throughout Wikipedia. Rather, their arguments for mandatory inclusion of the infobox seem to be based largely on habitual behaviour elsewhere on Wikipedia, raising concerns of latent instruction creep. Just my 2 cents--MistyMorn (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Habitual behaviour elsewhere on Wikipedia" is generally known as "the prevailing consensus". For wherever reason, there are pockets of the encyclopedia where prevailing consensus is seen as some sort of disease to be fought against. That's why WP:CONLIMITED, which is part of the overall policy on consensus, specifically disavows this notion. As far as policy goes, it is up to those who disapprove of the general concept or implementation of infoboxes to convince the wider project of their lack of worth, rather than simply walling off areas of the project and declaring exemption from wider community conventions. Gradually most WikiProjects seem to have come round to this way of thinking over time, but we're obviously not quite there yet in every part of the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Most Wikipedia articles contain gross inaccuracies, spelling mistakes and vandaliism, therefore this one should. As I've said above there is no policy saying pages MUST have infoboxes. On the other hand no undue weight, for example, is a policy and an infobox which focusses on Richard D'Oyly Carte's family members and health problems violates that.
- I can see the case for bio-boxes with sports stars, where the box is a good way of setting out career statistics, but most people's lives do not fit clearly into such a mould (even some sports stars - the box does not reveal what O. J. Simpson is internationally most famous for). I resent any attempt to bulldoze Wikipedia into mindless conformity. --Folantin (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I keep seeing this strawman about a "prevailing consensus". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) seems to be lumping WP:G&S into the broader category of projects that purportedly fight against policy at every twist and turn. This is not so. It's a pity that instead of trying to make the substantive argument in favor of what they want, those in favor of Infoboxes keep bringing up a phantom policy or consensus that does not seem to exist. If it does exist, then by all means we should follow it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's worth noting Wikipedia policies are often against imposing universal conformity across pages, take WP:ENGVAR (no preference either way for British or American English) and WP:ERA (no preference for AD/BC or BCE/CE) for example. In most cases, such decisions are at the discretion of content contributors to the page. So it's extremely unlikely a policy for mandatory infoboxes exists. --Folantin (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I keep seeing this strawman about a "prevailing consensus". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) seems to be lumping WP:G&S into the broader category of projects that purportedly fight against policy at every twist and turn. This is not so. It's a pity that instead of trying to make the substantive argument in favor of what they want, those in favor of Infoboxes keep bringing up a phantom policy or consensus that does not seem to exist. If it does exist, then by all means we should follow it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
There is an irony in being labelled as setting up straw men to then be accused in the next breath of insisting that every article has an infobox. While I am strongly in favour of infoboxes in general (and am perfectly willing to work to improve both their layout and use with anyone who has constructive suggestions) that's beside the point here. The question is not whether every article needs an infobox: the question is whether, when presented with a suggestion followed by the majority of the encyclopedia, a given WikiProject is in a position to veto that. My argument is that it's not, as WikiProjects are nothing more than informal collaboration groups and haven't any jurisdiction over the articles under their purview. That applies to everything from infoboxes, to the ordering of appendix sections, to the use of flags and so on. In my experience the healthiest WikiProjects are those which have been most willing to work with the wider community to reach acceptable compromises (or of course to effect change to wider consensus) where local and global opinions differ. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Chris Cunningham misunderstood my query—no doubt my failure in having poorly explained it. I am simply asking how we would know that "the majority of the encyclopedia" has adopted the position he is advocating. In my experience, the way of determining this is to point to either a policy or a guideline. No one has referred to such a thing, so I am assuming it doesn't exist. What I do know is that I've looked at dozens of biographical articles of composers, librettists, impresarios, and classical music performers, and overwhelmingly they do not have infoboxes. That is the only consensus I can (empirically) find. That's not to say it couldn't change. But that is a very different matter than to suggest that WP:G&S has adopted a rogue "policy" that contradicts the rest of the encyclopedia. As far as I can tell, WP:G&S is following consensus among similar articles, rather than contradicting it.
- I do very much think it is a "strawman" to insinuate that WP:G&S has "unhealthily" been "unwilling" to work with the broader WP community. Quite the contrary, we went to considerable effort to model these articles on similar ones in a wide variety of ways, including (but not limited to) the absence of Infoboxes. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
In reply to the comment above by 'Chris Cunningham - thumperward':
In support of your argument that "habitual behaviour" constitutes "prevailing consensus" (presumably something to be enforced), you cite the 'Level of Consensus' section on the 'Consensus' page, saying that it "specifically disavows this notion". I'm not sure from the context what particular "notion" you refer to. However, I do note that the paragraph in question (WP:CONLIMITED) speaks of 'policy' and 'guidelines' without making reference to any usage-based conventions. Therefore I do not think the policy section you cite actually provides any evidence to support the claim that habitual behaviour around Wikipedia, such as use of infoboxes, can be considered enforceable Wikipedia consensus.--MistyMorn (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- While it is not policy to have infoboxes on every page (an argument constructed by Folantin above from the flimsiest straw imaginable), it is policy that WikiProjects cannot simply opt out of guidelines they don't agree with; the Manual of Style is, broadly speaking, part of the project's guidelines, and the MoS supports the optional use of infoboxes by implication of its detailing their design and deployment. As such, when presented with a proposition such as "the article should have an infobox as it would serve to provide helpful comparative information on the subject like in other articles", a rebuttal such as "WikiProject Gilbert & Sullivan has chosen not to use infoboxes" is invalid. That does not preclude the possibility that an infobox may be rejected for other reasons (such as that the subject cannot easily be boiled down to the sort of statistical information common in infoboxes), but it does mean that the vast majority of discussions of this matter have largely been held under a flawed understanding of policy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, and I get accused of constructing a flimsy argument...--Folantin (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well: if the use of them is optional, then the editors of an article have not violated consensus by exercising the option not to have one. I think Chris Cunningham is reading a bit too much into a statement such as, "WikiProject Gilbert & Sullivan has chosen not to use infoboxes". What I believe the statement means is, "We discussed this before, and this is the consensus that was reached." Consensus can change, but I do not think it invalid to point out that a previous consensus exists, and that if it is changed here, a very large number of other articles would need to change, too.
- I would like to reiterate that my "vote" was a "qualified no". In other words, I would be in favor if someone could propose an Infobox that helped the article, although no one yet has done so. But instead of doing that, the argument is now about policy, and that one's a sure loser. No policy is being violated by leavving the article sans Infobox. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, and I get accused of constructing a flimsy argument...--Folantin (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Marc is right: No policy or guideline either requires or prohibits infoboxes in any specific article or in any group of articles. A WikiProject cannot demand its exclusion, but it also cannot demand its inclusion. It's the editors here, on this page, today, who have to make that choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
It's certainly not part of any policy. Here's a general discussion on infoboxes at "Village pump (policy)" from April of this year[3]. The result is inconclusive. Some people like them, others don't. Infoboxes are also not a requirement for Featured Articles. --Folantin (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is not at all clear why you insist on repeating "infoboxes are not mandatory" in a mantra-like manner when nobody has suggested that they are. The interests of collaborative development would be best served by your dropping of this bad-faith framing of opposing arguments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Um , you aren't the only one in this discussion, you know. At least two of the "support" voters have alluded to an alleged general policy in favour of infoboxes. There is none. As that Village Pump page shows, there is no general consensus for infoboxes either. Now that's cleared up we can move on to other matters. --Folantin (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Rationale in addition to previous consensus
Reply to 'Chris Cunningham - thumperward': I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying, Chris. My understanding too was that infoboxes are "optional". Personally, I find them rather helpful in many scientific contexts (diseases, molecules, etc, where they can offer a convenient way of providing standardized technical links/information), but much less so in narrative settings such as human biographies. When the G&S group unanimously tell me that an edit I make is not acceptable to them - as actually happened recently - I respect their consensus even though I may remain of my opinion that the subject matter is indeed pertinent to the article in question. I believe their considered collective viewpoint does deserve respect even though they cannot be considered the 'owners' of the article.--MistyMorn (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Of course it does: we're all editors in good standing. I'm simply pointing out that "per the wikiproject consensus" comments are usually invalid, and that when you discount them and force editors to actually explain why a given biography is better without an infobox than with one you tend to get a better idea of the real weight of argument. The reason that the vast majority of biographies on composers don't have infoboxes right now is not because they're all better without them, but because of enforcement of an invalid principle, and even without significant pushback I can see that gradually changing as time passes as more editors accept that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- What you're describing is the process working correctly. Consensus is reached, and it is implemented across many articles — hundreds or perhaps thousands, in this case. It is absolutely not invalid to point out that a previous consensus exists, and that it has been widely implemented. This fact is not an absolute bar to changing it — I have known numerous cases where that happened — but it is certainly a consideration.
- If you re-read the above discussion, you will see numerous substantive arguments against Infoboxes, as well as in favor of them. The argument does not consist entirely of "WP:G&S does not use Infoboxes". As I mentioned before, that statement it is merely a shorthand for pointing out that a consensus previously existed. Although consensus can change, it is not incorrect to point out that it has been asked and answered before. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not inclined to agree with that. In the last big RfC on the matter (by the composers wikiproject), it could readily be identified that many of the most vocal project members were not, in fact, strongly against infobox inclusion: rather, they were prepared to defend what they saw as the project consensus above their own feelings, and that was a consensus primarily formed by editors opposed in principle to the use of infoboxes. "Per the wikiproject consensus" cannot IMO be considered equivalent to "I have read the discussions which led to the wikiproject consensus and agree with them": in my experience elsewhere the opposite is often true. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, let's be specific. The people here who are opposing the infobox have seen it, have considered it, and have rejected it. They are aware of all of the arguments in favor of it discussed above, but they do not see how it improves this article. My reasons for opposing the infobox include the following, among others: All of the important points mentioned, like Richard D'Oyly Carte's dates and occupation, are mentioned very clearly in the first sentence of the article. The information about Carte's cause of death is not so important that it should be the first thing that readers see. The name of his first wife and her dates are not, again, important enough to be among the first thing that a reader sees. Similarly the names of his parents and descendants, and all of the other information that is in the box is carefully set forth in the correct sections of the article. The box is repetitive and does not emphasize the most important information, as the narrative LEAD section does so well. Also, the box limits the size of the first photo, which is a good photo. The infobox also contains misleading information (for example, it mentions one of his sons, but not the other, but neither should be mentioned at the top of the article). I also think that starting the article with the infobox template discourages new editors from editing the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- And that's a substantial and productive argument to back up your position. I'm not going to argue against it here (that's not really why I got into this conversation): I am simply pointing out that the reason that composer articles on Wikipedia do not in general have infoboxes is primarily due to the above-stated project factionalism rather than through a substantial and well-argued consensus that they're fundamentally inappropriate for the subject matter. In time I believe the most likely result will be that the work to create an infobox which does adequately represent the key points a reader would wish to find in an article on a composer will continue and that this will be gradually adopted by composer articles. That's precisely where the last RfC was headed, though the efforts in question have rather fallen by the wayside. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Good: we are all now agreed that there are no binding decisions, and certainly not any binding decisions made by other people at other pages in past years.
- Ssilvers has given some substantive reasons for omitting the infobox in this particular article. Does anyone believe that any of those reasons are invalid, or that his concerns could be adequately addressed through some method other than omitting the infobox? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- There's no reason {{infobox composer}} can't be overhauled to concentrate on what is genuinely important pertaining to the life of a composer. Alternatively, the subclassing system of {{infobox person}} which allows for pluggable "modules" for different facets of a person's life could be deployed. There's no reason that a potential infobox need include pointless statistics, nor for it to affect the size of the current lead image. It's just a case of an interested party knuckling down and doing it. The groundwork's already in place and I'd be happy to help out with any of the required coding. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- {{infobox composer}} has achieved remarkably little use (just 17 actual articles, by my count), even though it has been around for almost 3½ years. That suggests it does not have much support. I think the only way to do this sort of development properly is to attract a wider audience, so that its use can be tested in a variety of settings. After all, the whole point of a template is to attract users across a range of articles. This article would be the wrong place to start, given that Richard D'Oyly Carte was not known primarily as a composer (he did compose a few works early in his career, none of which are performed today). Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's only gotten 'little use' because some editiors take an active role in removing it. Many a time I've seen a good faith infobox addition only for it to be reverted with "WP:CLASSICAL has deemed infoboxes aren't allowed" or whatever. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Right, but if over 3½ years no one can get it to "stick" with any significant success, that suggests to me the consensus in its favor simply does not exist. I do realize that some active editors feel strongly about this. But it's not as if 2 or 3 people could be holding back the tide if a community consensus existed. It just doesn't. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's only gotten 'little use' because some editiors take an active role in removing it. Many a time I've seen a good faith infobox addition only for it to be reverted with "WP:CLASSICAL has deemed infoboxes aren't allowed" or whatever. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was only discussing potential. Clearly the template in its present form is hardly compelling. Nevertheless, that's what a theoretical party looking to get an infobox deployed on composer articles should be aiming for. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- {{infobox composer}} has achieved remarkably little use (just 17 actual articles, by my count), even though it has been around for almost 3½ years. That suggests it does not have much support. I think the only way to do this sort of development properly is to attract a wider audience, so that its use can be tested in a variety of settings. After all, the whole point of a template is to attract users across a range of articles. This article would be the wrong place to start, given that Richard D'Oyly Carte was not known primarily as a composer (he did compose a few works early in his career, none of which are performed today). Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Back to work?
I still fail to understand the missionary zeal for conversion to mandatory use of infoboxes in contexts where there is a consensus among active editors that they are redundant and potentially confusing. I can't see any official Wikipedia policy/guideline that mandates nagging against such consensus. Thanks, but no thanks. --MistyMorn (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, is this discussion and RFC finished, now? I would appreciate it, as I would like to go back to researching and writing. I don't have enough time to do both, and I am trying to work on two articles within the scope of the G&S Project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- RFCs run for 30 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
- Is this really the level of discourse around here? I'd have thought that multiple replies in good faith, including positive suggestions on how to proceed in the thread above, would generate more than a "not convinced, not mandatory, please go away now" boilerplate response. Nevertheless, I suppose it's better that this goes into the talk history, as it's worth bringing up in future should editors be drawn into supposedly good-faith discussion with you again, MistyMorn. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is that a threat or a promise? I've tried to explain in good faith why I believe that the usefulness or otherwise of infoboxes depends on context and that their inclusion should not be enforced. I've also expressed my view that the G&S/Composer project people who resist outside pressure to implement infoboxes are being inappropriately nagged. Legitimate concerns that I have every right to express, would you not agree? Good night--MistyMorn (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- What I saw was you seemingly inviting opinions from others on the nature of the discussion only to abruptly revert to framing the entire debate in terms of absolutes using adversarial language like "missionary zeal" and promoting an "us versus them" attitude through the use of loaded terms like "active editors". While I didn't imagine you would be convinced on the immediate need for an infobox on this article (and went out of my way to point out that was not my intention in joining this debate) I did not expect my every comment to be flippantly dismissed, especially with a comment like "thanks but no thanks" as if this were some offer to be refused rather than a matter of discussion in which your opinion carries no more implicit weight than anyone else's. If we're done here it's because there yet remains a factional opposition to collaboration amongst certain camps rather than because anyone has a right of refusal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- No comment (NOTBATTLEGROUND).--MistyMorn (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)