Talk:Charles H. Taylor (lyricist)

	Biography portal 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 supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Musical Theatre

Charles H. Taylor (lyricist) is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre articles

Assessment[edit]

I don't think there is that much more information available about Taylor's life, so this article is a start class article. -- Ssilvers 15:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of birth and death[edit]

Why were the subject's dates of birth and death removed from the body of the article? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because we generally don't include them twice in Wikipedia's best biography articles. See, for example, W. B. Yeats and W. S. Gilbert. For many other examples, see WP:FA. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you reconcile that with our MOS, which provides that the lead is to summarize material already in the body of the article? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It, along with the full name of the person, are the exceptions to WP:LEAD because it is just not necessary to repeat the most prominent two pieces of information in the article that appear as the very first phrase of every bio article. If you look at the Featured Articles, as I suggested before, you will see that that best articles in Wikipedia (which have been extensively vetted by the best editors in Wikipedia) generally follow this exception, and so it is customary. If you do not understand the Featured Article process, you certainly should read about it. See also WP:IAR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It, along with the full name of the person, are the exceptions to that general rule (WP:LEAD) because it is just not necessary to repeat the most prominent two pieces of information in the article that appear as the very first phrase of every bio article. To which provision of WP:LEAD are you referring?

If you look at the Featured Articles, as I suggested before, you will see that that best articles in Wikipedia (which have been extensively vetted by the best editors in Wikipedia) generally follow this exception, and so it is customary. If you do not understand the Featured Article process, you certainly should read about it. I'm familiar with the FA process. Looking at the first ten biographies listed at WP:FA as a sample, the majority include the full dates of birth and death in the body of the article, so on what basis are you arguing that FAs omit them from the body? But given my argument, irrespective of whether certain FAs followed the MOS or not, that does not override a centrally established consensus.

See also WP:IAR. Does that mean you're in fact arguing that what you're proposing to be a convention does not conform to our guidelines and thus necessitates the ignoring of rules? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a centrally established consensus *not* to restate the full name and dates. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source? You cited WP:LEAD earlier and I asked to which provision you were referring as I'm still not sure. And if that really is the centrally established consensus as you suggest, of what relevance is WP:IAR? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained it to you, and I have nothing else to say on the subject; I have no interest in your wikilawyering. Other editors are free to weigh in. You may wish to establish a Wikipedia account. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've been editing since 2005 and have taken 45 articles to FA, jointly or solo, and in all that time and in all those FACs I can only remember one occasion when it was suggested we should add the dates of birth in the main text as well as in the lead. Given the number of editors who took part in those 45 reviews (and earlier peer reviews) it can reasonably be assumed that they share Ssilvers's view of the WP conventions. There's no great harm in duplicating the information in the main text, and I know some editors do it, but it seems unhelpful to the reader in an article this short. (And for articles with an info-box – not needed here, but for those that do – that would hit the reader with the same set of dates three times, which seems a bit unkind.) – Tim riley talk 18:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]