This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Ssilvers, what are the objections to having an infobox in this article? Most other biographies have them and all they do is provide information in a helpful, structured way. Andysmith248 (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, there was no unimportant information in this infobox. Every Wikipedia article is vulnerable to vandalism or errors, but that should not impede the inclusion of a feature that provides ease of consumption of information for our readers. Your many arguments are, I think, outweighed by this benefit of including an infobox. Andysmith248 (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any benefit in including the infobox. You're just repeating yourself. Everything in the infobox is redundant to information that is already in the article, especially the Lead section. You just want to add the same information for a third time. Did you even read the Signpost article that I quoted (in blue) above? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, with respect, your points cannot all be accepted in relation to this article. I have read them all and can address each one specifically if that would be helpful. In response to the Signpost quote: the infobox collated information from all parts of the article, it was straightforward in conveying its points, and it did not simplify any information to the extent that it gave a distorted impression of the article. I can't understand why an infobox would be a contentious issue. Andysmith248 (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox not required for the many excellent reasons cited by Ssilvers above. In my opinion the infobox adds nothing to an article that is not in a well-written lead. Jack1956 (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jack1956, the lead did not include his places of birth and death, where he was educated, or facts about his personal life. The infobox was in place to make all of this more accessible. Perhaps readers would prefer not to have to scroll down the page to find such vital information. Andysmith248 (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Birth and death place (other than nationality, which is in the first sentence) and most facts about his personal life are relatively trivial and have nothing to do with why he was famous. They distract readers from the important info. This is one reason why infoboxes are usually not helpful for people famous for their work in the the liberal arts fields. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, in my opinion, for almost all biographies, most of the information in infoboxes is important. But I think we have reached the end of our discussion. Thanks. Andysmith248 (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
