Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
*'''Yes'''. One of the many instances this biographical lemma where an infobox is useful and fitting. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 18:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC) |
*'''Yes'''. One of the many instances this biographical lemma where an infobox is useful and fitting. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 18:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
**Can I ask ''how'' is this useful? This is a genuine question: it holds so little information that the only thing a reader will actually learn is that that this is an article about a playwright. I'm really not sure that's of any real use to man nor beast. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 18:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC) |
**Can I ask ''how'' is this useful? This is a genuine question: it holds so little information that the only thing a reader will actually learn is that that this is an article about a playwright. I'm really not sure that's of any real use to man nor beast. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 18:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
**:You can add more stuff to it like maybe family members and a link to a list of works if such an article exists. Unfortunately I have no idea who his principal family members if any are because there’s no infobox andI have to slog through paragraphs of text to find it. I explicitly said that changes can be recommended for this exact reason. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 21:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC) |
***Of course you can.Take care. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 07:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
***You can add more stuff to it like maybe family members and a link to a list of works if such an article exists. Unfortunately I have no idea who his principal family members if any are because there’s no infobox andI have to slog through paragraphs of text to find it. I explicitly said that changes can be recommended for this exact reason. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 21:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Which family members should be added (if we take a reasonable step of only adding the blue linked notable ones)? - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 21:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC) |
*:::Which family members should be added (if we take a reasonable step of only adding the blue linked notable ones)? - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 21:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::::The… blue linked notable ones? Plus his spouse and how many children he had [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 21:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC) |
*::::The… blue linked notable ones? Plus his spouse and how many children he had [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 21:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:48, 30 September 2023
Georges Feydeau is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 26, 2023. | ||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Vital article
|
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Georges Feydeau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306035359/http://www.charlesmorey.com:80/index.php/the-plays/the-ladies-man? to http://www.charlesmorey.com/index.php/the-plays/the-ladies-man
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Georges Feydeau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100828110753/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/142362-Suzanne-Grossman-Actress-and-Writer-Dies-at-72 to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/142362-Suzanne-Grossman-Actress-and-Writer-Dies-at-72
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
French to English translations
I've had a shot at overhauling the article. All contributions or suggestions for improvement welcome. In particular if anyone who has a better grip on idiomatic French than I have would like to adjust my more stilted efforts at translation I'd be most grateful. Tim riley talk 20:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I found myself consulting this article partly because i remember seeing on BBC2 many years ago (1970s? 1980s?) a wonderful series of farces (most if not all, i think, by Feydeau) in translation, under the series title Oo La La. I was hoping that someone had inserted a paragraph about this series. I hope someone yet might! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9BB3:4500:E88C:CB37:C899:A4CB (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Comments
First batch – the biography section.
- 1880s
- "Cercle des arts intimes" and "secrétaire general" Should they be in italics? (I can never remember where the lines are drawn for names and titles in foreign languages)
- "three-act comédie": this is the only point you italicise "comédie" - all the other references (mostly, I think, in the Works section are just given as "comédie". I don't know which is correct, but consistency would be best - even if incorrect!
- 1890s
- There are some places in the translations where the italic are inconsistent, so we have in quick succession: "called The Other Fellow opened ... Le Système Ribadier (The Ribadier System, 1892) ... (under the title His Little Dodge) ... La Ruban (The Ribbon)". Further down you go for quote marks rather than italics when you have "Le Dindon (literally "The Turkey" but in French usage signifying "The Dupe")". If the latter two are translations, rather than translated titles, perhaps just "Le Dindon (literally "Turkey" but in French usage signifying "Dupe")"?
- There are a couple of places where you have "1896–97": I think I'm right that the MoS now asks for "1896–1897"
- Last years
- "Je ne trompe pas mon mari (I don't cheat on my husband, 1914)": Shouldn't the translation be capitalised?
I'll cover the Works and the rest later. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Just one comment from the Works section:
- "Reviewers in Feydeau's time used both terms –"vaudeville" and "farce" – to label his plays": What, the French ones as well?
That's my lot, and I'm not sure about half of them as they seem to be about italics! Enjoyable and entertaining reading. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! I'll enjoy working through these points over the weekend. Tim riley talk 10:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I suggest a navbox for the writer, to have an easy overview of his most notable works and their adaptations. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Why not? Done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Infobox
Can we just get this out of the way? Dronebogus (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Georges Feydeau | |
---|---|
Born | Paris, France | 7 December 1862
Died | 4 May 1921 Rueil-Malmaison, France | (aged 58)
Occupation | Playwright |
Notable work | L'Hôtel du libre échange |
This infobox (trimmed a bit) was added by User talk:Valentinejoesmith earlier today. I saw it and liked it as an improvement of the article. It puts Feydeau in a league with Pierre Beaumarchais, and is decently short and focused. The English Wikipedia has many foreign visitors who will be served especially by structured information in a predictable position. I would like to see it restored. Why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, quelle surprise! Look who's parking her chars d'assaut/Kampfpanzer on the pelouse here. I must go and reread Proverbs 26. Tim riley talk 16:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- I do hope you realize how pretentious that sounds Dronebogus (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, quelle surprise! Look who's parking her chars d'assaut/Kampfpanzer on the pelouse here. I must go and reread Proverbs 26. Tim riley talk 16:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Because it's not an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Why? Besides “I don’t like it it’s redundant NO IBOX FOR LIB ARTS it dumbs it down READ THE LEAD etc.” Dronebogus (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Don't misrepresent me - particularly by misleading people by claiming it's a quote. - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I see we have someone edit warring by forcing an IB back into the article while it's a TFA and while there's an open discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)- I reverted it. Davest3r08 (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, Davest3r08. The thing the Must-Have-An-Info-Box absolutists never reply to is the key point: what can you put in an i-box under "notable work" that is encyclopaedic? The one opposite tells us that Feydeau wrote one notable play. In fact he wrote many, but which are they, according to whom, and what citations could an i-box zealot produce to say that X is notable and Y is not? Wikipedia is in the business of publishing hard fact, not editors' opinions. Tim riley talk 16:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Then remove it! Stop insulting people who disagree with your hardline anti-infobox stance and suggest ways to improve content! Dronebogus (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- I already removed it, there's no reason to get mad at this point @Dronebogus. Davest3r08 (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- I meant remove the problematic content from the infobox Dronebogus (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- I already removed it, there's no reason to get mad at this point @Dronebogus. Davest3r08 (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- So basically, the person needs to have done something notable enough to get an infobox. Noted. Davest3r08 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- No, no. An info-box is useful for any topic that can be summarised in line with Wikipedia's standards, and I hope you'll go on adding them where appropriate. I have added a couple myself recently to existing articles. But some topics don't work with an info-box, for the reasons explained and ignored earlier. Tim riley talk 17:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- What reasons? That you and two other people don’t like them in certain articles? Dronebogus (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- They have reasonable arguements. Plus, I was asking a genuine question in good faith and in a civil way. Davest3r08 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- I didn’t see reasonable arguments, I saw ranting about the infobox cabal and its “zealots” while using a false dichotomy between “this infobox here” and “any infobox” to say that it’s impossible to have a good infobox for this article Dronebogus (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well, whatever. We both have our ways of seeing the world. Davest3r08 (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- I didn’t see reasonable arguments, I saw ranting about the infobox cabal and its “zealots” while using a false dichotomy between “this infobox here” and “any infobox” to say that it’s impossible to have a good infobox for this article Dronebogus (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- They have reasonable arguements. Plus, I was asking a genuine question in good faith and in a civil way. Davest3r08 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- What reasons? That you and two other people don’t like them in certain articles? Dronebogus (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- No, no. An info-box is useful for any topic that can be summarised in line with Wikipedia's standards, and I hope you'll go on adding them where appropriate. I have added a couple myself recently to existing articles. But some topics don't work with an info-box, for the reasons explained and ignored earlier. Tim riley talk 17:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Then remove it! Stop insulting people who disagree with your hardline anti-infobox stance and suggest ways to improve content! Dronebogus (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, Davest3r08. The thing the Must-Have-An-Info-Box absolutists never reply to is the key point: what can you put in an i-box under "notable work" that is encyclopaedic? The one opposite tells us that Feydeau wrote one notable play. In fact he wrote many, but which are they, according to whom, and what citations could an i-box zealot produce to say that X is notable and Y is not? Wikipedia is in the business of publishing hard fact, not editors' opinions. Tim riley talk 16:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- I reverted it. Davest3r08 (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Why? Besides “I don’t like it it’s redundant NO IBOX FOR LIB ARTS it dumbs it down READ THE LEAD etc.” Dronebogus (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Oh, please! See above! I-boxes should contain objective facts and not individual editors' personal views on what are, e.g. "notable works". Tim riley talk 17:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Didn't notice there was a discussion about the particular infobox. Allow me to share my side of the table here. The Wikipedia article should include an information box to facilitate quick and easy access to essential reference information for readers. If you disagree, please respond to this message. In addition, it is important to ensure that the information box remains stationary, allowing readers, including myself and others, to effortlessly locate and comprehend the article's key details without the need to delve into the extensive text. This is particularly valuable since navigating through a lengthy article like this one can be cumbersome, especially for individuals who prefer a more succinct summary. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- The guidelines for IB use state “The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.” As this article has never had an IB until someone added it today, and as the article has been through two community review processes without an IB, you need a consensus to include one. - SchroCat (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- The decision-making process regarding whether to retain or remove the infobox from Wikipedia articles has been a matter of significant debate and, in my view, one of the most challenging issues the platform has faced. Personally, I place a high value on infoboxes. While I understand that they are not obligatory, I believe that incorporating an infobox into an article can significantly enhance readers' comprehension. Rather than merely glancing at a summary or TL;DR (Too Long; Didn't Read) information, an infobox can offer a more comprehensive and user-friendly overview of the article's key points, leading to a more informed readership.
- I find the Wikipedia guidelines regarding infoboxes to be flawed and unconvincing. I firmly believe that an infobox should be included in this context, contrary to what the guidelines suggest. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinion, but whether you agree or disagree with the guidelines is a little moot: they represent the consensus of the community. - SchroCat (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- I see multiple reasonable points in favor of including an infobox, with some debate about what should or should not be included under "notable works", or whether a "notable works" section should or should not be included in the infobox. I don't see any reasonable points in favor of excluding an infobox. All I see at a glance is the following: before the infobox was added, it wasn't there. That's not an argument for exclusion, that's a tautology.
- Can someone please give a TLDR explanation as to why adding an infobox makes the article worse? Pecopteris (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- See above: the inclusion of subjective opinions - which of X's works are "notable" and which not - is unencyclopaedic. Tim riley talk 06:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- You certainly don’t see “multiple reasonable points” for adding a box. There are a small number of people saying they want one, but that’s about it. The above box doesn’t tell readers anything of note about Feydeau, his life or his work, except for one piece of OR of which of his works someone thinks is notable. Highlighting the trivia and providing OR is no reason to force in a box after over twenty years without one. - SchroCat (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's rather rude. I certainly do see "multiple reasonable points" for adding a box. Perhaps you don't, which may be the product of us having different ideas of what constitutes "reasonable". I also agree with both of your points: before the infobox was there, it wasn't. True. And the "notable works" section may not be appropriate. Also true. Say the infobox was added, minus the "notable works" section. How would such an infobox make the article worse? Pecopteris (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- How odd. There is nothing rude in what I’ve said, but never mind. I think the point of trying to add something that people object to is that you have make arguments as to why the change should be made. You have make positive arguments for inclusion in order to change the over twenty year status quo/standing consensus.As to just having a box with the name and dates, I’m wondering just how that’s useful, given it’s just a repetition of the opening line, but about thirty times less beneficial to readers, given it doesn’t help, explain, educate or inform. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well it tells me he died at 58, at a glance. Dronebogus (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- How odd. There is nothing rude in what I’ve said, but never mind. I think the point of trying to add something that people object to is that you have make arguments as to why the change should be made. You have make positive arguments for inclusion in order to change the over twenty year status quo/standing consensus.As to just having a box with the name and dates, I’m wondering just how that’s useful, given it’s just a repetition of the opening line, but about thirty times less beneficial to readers, given it doesn’t help, explain, educate or inform. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's rather rude. I certainly do see "multiple reasonable points" for adding a box. Perhaps you don't, which may be the product of us having different ideas of what constitutes "reasonable". I also agree with both of your points: before the infobox was there, it wasn't. True. And the "notable works" section may not be appropriate. Also true. Say the infobox was added, minus the "notable works" section. How would such an infobox make the article worse? Pecopteris (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Just in case someone here doesn't know, Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Infoboxes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- To settle this edit war argument, I've added a comment for future editors on this article. Davest3r08 (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Reverted. There is no consensus here (three incredibly biased editors who systematically block infoboxes on certain pages against c. 4 others, two of who are not regulars in this dispute, plus semi-neutral parties like you) and this will inevitably have to be settled by RFC. Dronebogus (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yet again, is there any chance you could try not so show so much bad faith, remain civil and not smear others just because they have a different opinion to you?There is nothing "inevitable" about it having to be by RfC - people could just ignore this tiny patch of the 7 million + articles and find something useful to do instead. - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- I could say the same to you— why do you, Tim, and Ssilvers obsess over guarding this “tiny patch of the 7 millon+ articles” against an exceedingly minor change that many people find helpful? Dronebogus (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- And yet again: can you you dial back on the bad faith and uncivil comments - there is no "obsession" here? I obsess over nothing of the sort. I plough my furrow nice and quietly, developing articles to as high a standard as I can. I don't jump around on articles and make demands that cause disruption and grief. But your idea of an enjoyable pastime may differ from mine. - SchroCat (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- I could say the same to you— why do you, Tim, and Ssilvers obsess over guarding this “tiny patch of the 7 millon+ articles” against an exceedingly minor change that many people find helpful? Dronebogus (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yet again, is there any chance you could try not so show so much bad faith, remain civil and not smear others just because they have a different opinion to you?There is nothing "inevitable" about it having to be by RfC - people could just ignore this tiny patch of the 7 million + articles and find something useful to do instead. - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Reverted. There is no consensus here (three incredibly biased editors who systematically block infoboxes on certain pages against c. 4 others, two of who are not regulars in this dispute, plus semi-neutral parties like you) and this will inevitably have to be settled by RFC. Dronebogus (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Request for comment: infobox
Georges Feydeau | |
---|---|
Born | Paris, France | 7 December 1862
Died | 4 May 1921 Rueil-Malmaison, France | (aged 58)
Occupation | Playwright |
Spouse | Marie-Anne Carolus-Duran |
Children | 4 |
Should the article have an infobox, like the example here (plus or minus any recommended changes)? Dronebogus (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- As a reminder to all who !vote, and by way of background: ArbCom’s rulings on IB’s state that arguments should be based on whether an IB is appropriate on the specific article in question, not a general discussion or vote in favour of IBs in general - decisions of 2013 and 2018, plus many active discussions in the intervening period.This article did not have an IB in place from its creation in July 2002 until one was added when the article recently appeared at TFA. It has been through two community review processes without anyone questioning the lack of an IB. - SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- SchroCat, it is poor form to put your message at the top of an active discussion to sway people to your favor.
I’ve moved your comment here accordinglyDronebogus (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)- I’m also going to note here that I tried to request SchroCat stop edit-warring to keep their comment at the top in their talk page but was reverted without a response. Dronebogus (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi SchroCat. This intervention would be more compelling if you provided a link to those specific rulings. I am unfamiliar with them, and a quick search pulled up a ruling about Infoboxes, but it did not imply what you suggested in your reply. Handpigdad (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Added. ArbCom acknowledged the flexible MOS (they don’t have the power to change it), and made the effort to ensure the conversations were about the articles in question. It’s best this clarification goes up near the top: it’s not about swaying anyone’s vote, but is about ensuring editors don’t just !vote based on liking or disliking IBs in general, but stay on point about what will benefit this specific article and why. - SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- I really appreciate you adding those links. Thank you. Will read through them when I get the chance. Handpigdad (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Added. ArbCom acknowledged the flexible MOS (they don’t have the power to change it), and made the effort to ensure the conversations were about the articles in question. It’s best this clarification goes up near the top: it’s not about swaying anyone’s vote, but is about ensuring editors don’t just !vote based on liking or disliking IBs in general, but stay on point about what will benefit this specific article and why. - SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- SchroCat, it is poor form to put your message at the top of an active discussion to sway people to your favor.
- Yes. One of the many instances this biographical lemma where an infobox is useful and fitting. -The Gnome (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Can I ask how is this useful? This is a genuine question: it holds so little information that the only thing a reader will actually learn is that that this is an article about a playwright. I'm really not sure that's of any real use to man nor beast. - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Of course you can.Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- You can add more stuff to it like maybe family members and a link to a list of works if such an article exists. Unfortunately I have no idea who his principal family members if any are because there’s no infobox andI have to slog through paragraphs of text to find it. I explicitly said that changes can be recommended for this exact reason. Dronebogus (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Which family members should be added (if we take a reasonable step of only adding the blue linked notable ones)? - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- The… blue linked notable ones? Plus his spouse and how many children he had Dronebogus (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- I’ll wait until you can come up with a sensible list of notable family members to include - one that will actually aid readers’ understanding of Feydeau and what makes him notable. - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- At the very least list his spouse as “ Marie-Anne Carolus-Duran” and the number of children as “4” (had to scroll down four paragraphs or so just to find that very basic statement Dronebogus (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Amended mockup infobox to include that information Dronebogus (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Is it your position that it is not significant, for instance, that his father was also a playwright, given that his father's artistic connections are implied in the Early Years section to have contributed to his development as a writer? Handpigdad (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- I’ll add that one if there’s a proper parameter Dronebogus (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, it looks brilliant now: knowing he had four children really makes me understand his work ... - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Regardless of your point, your use of sarcasm in response to an editorial suggestion rather than directly stating your point does not imply that you are taking consensus building seriously. Handpigdad (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I take the disruption caused by IB warriors seriously, buthaving a joke IB is something I find hard not to laugh at. - SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)- Is your implication that either myself or the other editor in this thread are "IB warriors"? I would appreciate some clarification about what you mean by that, otherwise, I would prefer that we discuss the subject of this request for comment. I don't feel that laughting at statements is a useful way to build towards consensus. Handpigdad (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- So I can’t accuse you of ownership behavior, which you’ve demonstrated both here and at Talk:Dorothy L. Sayers, but you can call me a disruptive “infobox warrior”? Dronebogus (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Regardless of your point, your use of sarcasm in response to an editorial suggestion rather than directly stating your point does not imply that you are taking consensus building seriously. Handpigdad (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, it looks brilliant now: knowing he had four children really makes me understand his work ... - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- I’ll add that one if there’s a proper parameter Dronebogus (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- I’ll wait until you can come up with a sensible list of notable family members to include - one that will actually aid readers’ understanding of Feydeau and what makes him notable. - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- The… blue linked notable ones? Plus his spouse and how many children he had Dronebogus (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Which family members should be added (if we take a reasonable step of only adding the blue linked notable ones)? - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Can I ask how is this useful? This is a genuine question: it holds so little information that the only thing a reader will actually learn is that that this is an article about a playwright. I'm really not sure that's of any real use to man nor beast. - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- No - I don't especially object to this, except that it makes Wikipedia look rather silly for stating d.o.b. etc information few will be looking for and, necessarily, omitting what readers want to know from the article - what Feydeau is known for. You could add 'playwright' but once you start trying to single out which of his plays are notable we cease to be encylopaedic and are indulging in OR. In short, though I think i-boxes are useful to readers in many cases, this isn't one of them. True, a handful of editors passionately believe all articles should have an i-box, though they don't always admit it even when challenged, but under the present WP policy that's a no-no. The nominator of this RFA is a drive-by editor, with no input into the article until it was exposed on the front page, and his/her views should, I think, be treated with caution accordingly. Tim riley talk 19:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- I’m not a “drive-by”, I’m a Wikipedia:GNOME and I do maintenance and standardization tasks. I’m tired of this attitude of “main contributor Wikipedia:Ownership of content” blocking normalization on certain articles based on taste, not logic. Dronebogus (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- I wondered how long it would be before the insults of ownership were thrown around. I’m sadly unsurprised by just how quickly it has been. Adding an IB is not ‘normalisation’ (if it were the MOS would make it a compulsory step), but should on,y be a step taken if beneficial to an article. This is an entirely logical and MOS-compliant approach, not one based on the ‘one-size-fits-all’ matter of taste of some editors. - SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- I’m not a “drive-by”, I’m a Wikipedia:GNOME and I do maintenance and standardization tasks. I’m tired of this attitude of “main contributor Wikipedia:Ownership of content” blocking normalization on certain articles based on taste, not logic. Dronebogus (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes - I think infoboxes are great for at a glance information. Was looking at a print copy of the Britannica recently, which I haven't done in years, and was struck by the division of that encyclopedia into reference volumes and in-depth volumes with many subjects covered in each. They are certainly occasions when an article doesn't have enough information to support an infobox, but for quick reference—which is one of the vital functions of an encyclopedia—they are useful. Surely an article of this length has material in it that would be useful for readers to know at-a-glance. Handpigdad (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes - nothing much new to add, just agree with the points brought by the previous users who are in favor of the infobox, plus I think it helps to standardize it to similar articles.Dotoilage (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes - For those who are not familiar with Feydeau, the infobox indicates the time period, place, what he is known for, and family connections. It can help a reader decide whether to dive deeper into the article. Senorangel (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes (Summoned by bot) With apologies to those who have strong feelings to the contrary – I do find it makes it easier to take the information in. As for what notable works to list, this doesn't have to be OR. We could go by Britannica ("Among his plays are La Dame de chez Maxim (1899; The Girl from Maxim’s), La Puce à l’oreille (1907; A Flea in Her Ear), and Occupe-toi d’Amélie! (1908; Keep an Eye on Amélie!).") or research which ones are most often performed, mentioned in RS, etc. Andreas JN466 05:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)