Should the article have an infobox, like the example here (plus or minus any recommended changes)? Dronebogus (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC) 16:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Feydeau
Feydeau in 1899, by Carolus-Duran
Born	(1862-12-07)7 December 1862 Paris, France
Died	4 May 1921(1921-05-04) (aged 58) Rueil-Malmaison, France
Occupation	Playwright
Spouse	Marie-Anne Carolus-Duran
Children	4

• 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)[reply]

  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 accordingly Dronebogus (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Of course you can.Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given the non-answer, I'll assume you have no answer. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course, I have. Come on. But I hate replays. -The Gnome (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  The… blue linked notable ones? Plus his spouse and how many children he had Dronebogus (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Amended mockup infobox to include that information Dronebogus (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  I’ll add that one if there’s a proper parameter Dronebogus (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, it looks brilliant now: knowing he had four children really makes me understand his work ... - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  I take the disruption caused by IB warriors seriously, but having a joke IB is something I find hard not to laugh at. - SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  You have kept up a constant stream of aggressive bad faith comments on both threads. Do not be surprised if people’s patience snaps and they poke back. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• No. Research has shown that when reading articles, people's eyes are dragged towards boxes and images, regardless of what they contain. This is a case in point. It holds only one piece of valid information (that he was a playwright) and zero else of why we have an article on him – only trivia and absolutely nothing about his notability. To dismiss a few WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments put forward:

1. "helps to standardize it" and "normalization": there is no policy or guideline that says we need to do this. Indeed, it is contrary to the guidelines of the MOS("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" and the strictures of two ArbCom rulings (linked above)
2. "is useful and fitting" is no argument except IDONTLIKEIT
3. "indicates the time period, place, what he is known for, and family connections": Provides zero real information to readers. Unless they can see straight away that he wrote during the Belle Époque, the dates mean zero. From the suggested box we can see he was a playwright, but that covers such a wide range of possibilities that it is, by its lack of context, misleading. And it shows his family connections: brilliant! Will a reader have a better grasp of Feydeau or why we have an article on him for knowing he had a wife and four children. It is as facile as it is misleading.

Stripping out the context to have factoids provides a misleading impression to readers, so it's not just that the information is superfluous, it's that it's misleading – and pushing misleading information onto readers is not what we should be doing. For Feydeau we show he died in Rueil-Malmaison ("where – and who cares: it's trivia?" will be reader's first question), but omitting that he dies in a sanitorium with mental health problems for two years explains why.

This article has been IB free for over twenty years, including going through two rigorous community review processes. Over that 20 years and in the two reviews, no-one has asked for a box, or put one in, so it will need a strong consensus based on policy or guideline to overturn the status quo. - SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When conducting broad research, date and place information can be important during the initial stage. Senorangel (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"For Feydeau we show he died in Rueil-Malmaison ("where – and who cares: it's trivia?" will be reader's first question)": I think it would be a mistake to assume that readers with a passing interest in Feydeau are likely to be ignorant of French geography.

Incidentally, it was plain Rueil when he died there. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No - not an improvement to the article, and we didn't need a RfC to tell us that it is not an improvement. Trivial factoids do not help the reader have a better understanding of the subject. Also agree that "normalization" and "standardize it" are not compelling arguments (tbh, I don't even know what that means). Retain the status quo. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No. There are no "key facts" in this infobox that are not already stated better, and with more context, in the Lead section. Why repeat *again* factoids like place of death, or the name of his non-notable wife? As an encyclopedia writer, I would rather that the reader read the excellent Lead section to get a sense of the really important information about this subject. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - This is essentially the same discussion, with many of the same commentators from the Richard Wagner infobox RFC a few months ago. I am hopeful that the bureaucratic process of holding a RFC every time this topic comes up will dissolve over time. Infoboxes have become essential to the Wikipedia user experience. This explains why most of these RFC discussions over the past 12 months have ended in inclusion. Infoboxes make it easy to find important information about the topic of an article and data supports this conclusion.[1] While there is room to discuss what can and cannot be included in an infobox, it is time to accept that they are a valuable part of the user interface for readers on large articles. Nemov (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles benefit a lot from infoboxes; others not so much or at all. The hatred against infoboxes per se, however, exhibited openly by some contributors, as I've witnessed in the past, is amusing, though it verges on the pathological. -The Gnome (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please try and reign in the incivility? - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "incivility" from my part (and you should wipe off that stain from my Talk page). My above comment is not directed to anyone here, as I made clear, i.e. "What I witnessed in the past". Kindly, restrain yourself. A good step forward would be to stop bludgeoning the process: You're all over the page, answering everyone and commenting everywhere. Your points have been well and clearly presented. No sense in whipping that poor horse any more. -The Gnome (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, I agree your obsessiveness here is pathological and disruptive. Even I know when to stop bludgeoning my point and making hypocritical accusations of incivility. Dronebogus (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to get into the tangential sniping that these discussions invariably produce, but Dronebogus, this comment surprised me so much I feel obligated to reply. Describing another editor as "pathological" and "hypocritical" is in nowise civil. I would strongly encourage you to strike this comment, and apologize to the editor above. Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not apologizing nor striking as SchroCat is being disruptive with their bludgeoning and edit warring; and in my opinion they are being hypocritical, constantly demanding “civility” while attacking those they disagree with as “infobox warriors”. I’m not calling people names here, I’m accusing them of poor behavior Dronebogus (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sympathetic to your position, but we have to keep above describing an editor’s behaviour as pathological. Specific descriptions of disruptive behaviour—like you’re doing here with the description of hypocrisy—are going to get the point across much better. And arguments are difficult to conclude when feelings of frustration are so high. I really think you should reconsider your choice of language here. Handpigdad (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Pathological” was a poor choice of words. But SchroCat is acting obsessive, hypocritical, and disruptive with their incessant bludgeoning and aforementioned double standard on incivility. Dronebogus (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your redaction. I agree that they’re being a bit of stick in the mud, and some of it I find frustrating too. But you two are revving each other up. I think it would be really helpful if both of you could take at least a short break from this discussion, and then come back to it with fresh eyes. In the scheme of things this is a fairly

minor and not time sensitive dispute, and I’d rather you were both able to bring your best to this discussion. Handpigdad (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Data also shows that a vast majority of our readers are accessing our articles via mobile devices, as evidenced by the Topviews Analysis page. For the top 10 articles, the average is 80% mobile devices, and they see the lead section first before the infobox. So for this article, they will have already read the facts about Feydeau before they even get to the infobox, which undoubtedly means this particular infobox is not an improvement to this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or some people like myself scroll down to see the infobox first to get the basic high level information organized in one place. It's a mistake to assume all users view information the same way. Nemov (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I understand, you can only speak for yourself. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I consume articles on mobile in the same way that Nemov does. It is a mistake to assume that viewpoints contradicting yours are always outliers. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mischaracterize my comment. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I enthusiastically reject the “eat your vegetables” argument—that our job is to encourage our readers to read in a particular way. In this specific context, our subject is a somewhat obscure French playwright; I imagine that most accessing it would be interested in reading already. But in the wider context, I think this sort of disciplinarian approach is a bad idea, and a slippery slope. A central purpose of Wikipedia is accessibility of information. If simplification is to be avoided, should we just replace this whole page with some links to journal articles about the subject? On a practical level, in the research work I do as a day job I frequently use Wikipedia to do low stakes at-a-glance checks of simple biographical information, it takes only a little bit longer to extract most of this information from the body of a text, but if dates, places, family relationships, and significant works are in an infobox, that makes a huge difference in terms of my being able to use wikipedia as a reference.

On the “it was fine ten years ago” argument, I am wondering if there is are established policy statements to base this conservatism on or if it is just editor preference for something good enough to be set in stone?

Finally, it would be helpful to me if some of the voters in opposition to the proposal could describe instances where they do support the use of infoboxes, so that I can have a better sense of ways this use-case differs. Handpigdad (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image of tumbleweed tumbling in the desert. -The Gnome (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, of course. Why would we not want an infobox? It does a great job of providing a few quick points from the article. Edward-Woodrow • talk 17:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, because infoboxes give high-level, useful information at-a-glance. A great idea for any biography, in my opinion. Pistongrinder (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No I'm generally in favour of infoboxes, other than in the case where the infobox gives no more real information than the first sentence of the article. Such infoboxes are simply redundant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No, per many comments above -- they are useful when they add information not immediately available from the first sentence, but that's not the case here. I would like to see more of the "yes" !votes address that point specifically, rather than just expressing support for the use of infoboxes in general. I agree they are often useful; in reply to Handpigdad's request, take a look at the featured articles I have listed at the bottom of my user page -- mostly Anglo-Saxon kings, old magazines, and archaeological sites. I haven't checked all of them but I expect all the kings and archaeological sites have infoboxes, and most of the magazines do. The exceptions are mostly ones where either nothing useful can be said (as here) or the information can't be easily summarized in an infobox as there are multiple valid answers for the key fields. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes as proposer in case it wasn’t clear. Dronebogus (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No - The comment by SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC) sums it up perfectly. Sadly the strait-jacket WP box of information doesn't allow for important and immediately absorbable stuff such as the first sentence on Enc Britiannia: "French dramatist whose farces delighted Parisian audiences in the years immediately prior to World War I and are still regularly performed." Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cg2p0B0u8m I agree it's a great sentence, but note that the Britannica article actually contains an infobox as well as that sentence, mainly giving his date and place of birth and death: [2] Andreas JN466 15:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (From VPR) ...I mean, I don't really see any reason why it shouldn't. I mostly skimmed the posts and saw a common objection was that an infobox wouldn't contain much detail about him, but if a reader is coming to find those quick facts and an infobox happens to mention them, that will help him all the more--and if a reader isn't coming for that and instead wants to read the article, it isn't as if an infobox is going to negatively impact the rest of the article's text in any way. (Worst case scenario, mobile users will have to spend an additional tenth-of-a-second scrolling down, but I somehow think we (that's how I primarily read Wikipedia) can handle that.) 2603:8001:4542:28fb 07:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:4542:28FB:AD57:8D2F:2FB1:7F6A (talk)
• No - Policy says: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. 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. And guess what ? All of the 2002-07--2023-08 editors of this article who have casted a !vote have said *no* and all of the people who have casted a yes !vote haven't ever ever edited this article. This is yet another instance where some warriors reignite a long lasting conflict because they cannot accept that EngVar, CiteStyle and so on are not to be challenged again when a clear status has been once reached. Let the gnomes find another place to gnome and the editors find another chunk of time for a better coverage of Monsieur chasse!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pldx1 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Need I remind you that editors of an article don’t own an article, and you don’t need to edit an article to have an opinion on it? Dronebogus (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Although I agree in this case about the there being no need for an infobox, I very much doubt that the use of "editors" in that statement meant only editors who have editted the article, as that would be a go ahead for OWNERSHIP of the article. Maybe respecting other editors and trying to change their mind might produce better results. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should realize that the tone alone of your latest missive, Pldx1, never mind the choleric content ("let the gnomes find another place to gnome," etc), proves correct those who identified article-ownership claims in this discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this point has been made elsewhere, but the regular editors of an article are much more likely than the typical reader to be familiar with the details of the subject. That may account for at least part of the difference in preference. I've never edited this article, but I've made minor edits to articles on Feydeau's plays in the past. I don't intend to vote here, but in general I'm pro-infobox. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. The proposed infobox significantly adds to the usability of the article to our readers and more information could be added to make it even more so. Those who do not wish to read the infobox are not disadvantaged in any way. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Although I include infoboxes in around 90% of my own articles (esp on paintings and artifacts), I'm not seeing that it is of benefit here, and suffers from the same issues have found with many writers who are hard to pin down to a particular type or style, while will always have probs with editors "selecting" their most important works–its comment's like Thryduulf's (whom I otherwise respect) above that "more information could be added to make it even more so" that gives me pause. Ps - this is just my opinion fyiw...trying hard to avoid these arguments :O Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No exactly per Mike Christie above (and as with Mike Christie, if you peruse articles I've contributed heavily to, you'll find likely all of them have infoboxes. Which is to say I have no aversion to infoboxes in general, I just feel they should be omitted when there's no meaningful and important information they add unless they meaningfully summarize important information -- (edited per below)). Ajpolino (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on The Gnome's comment below, I think I phrased my thoughts poorly. I'm in favor of infoboxes that provide meaningful concise summary of an article's topic -- as an example see Prostate cancer, an article I'm currently working on. The infobox proposed here doesn't do that. It takes up space to repeat relatively unimportant information. Whether that's because this topic doesn't lend itself to infobox-style summary (as some have suggested), or this proposed infobox hasn't been fleshed out to its full potential, I truly don't know. Some above propose the box could be made useful by adding more to it -- well then let's see their proposal. Perhaps I'm just not imaginative enough to come up with a version of this infobox that seems useful. Ajpolino (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Again with the serious, yet hopefully unintended, mistake of assessing whether or not it's beneficial to have an infobox on the basis of criteria the infobox should not have. To wit, an infobox does not, never does, and never should add information to the article! They contain perforce information that is already extant in the main text. Infoboxes, merely but importantly, summarize important points in an easy-to-read format, using templates that contain important facts and statistics of a type common to related articles. The question as to whether or not to have an infobox in the Georges Feydeau article is decided upon its usefulness here. -The Gnome (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with your summary, and I think most opposers here would. On the last point I and others are opposed on its usefulness. An infobox presents the most important points: so to be useful I argue that it must not solely repeat facts visible in the very first sentence, which most readers will see before they see the infobox; and the information presented should truly be important (which is the argument against the number of children) and accurate (which prevents us from using one or two words that inadequately summarize a complex situation -- a common reason to exclude fields from an infobox). Ideally they should also be concise, though there are some infobox types, such as battles, where the amount of obviously important information makes that impossible. I don't believe these conditions are met here. At least one argument from a supporter above does directly address the opposes, by saying that they habitually scroll straight to the infobox when in mobile view, making it useful to them despite the repetition of information. If every single mobile reader read articles that way that would be a reasonable argument for the infobox, but judging from the sample of editors here that's not the case (and it seems unlikely to be the default behaviour of a random reader). Finally, having an infobox even when it does not meet the usefulness criteria is a net negative because it takes up space (particularly in mobile view) without adding information and it can mislead the reader into thinking the important facts are being fully summarized, when some are omitted because they cannot be easily summarized. I think if the support votes want to convince others that the infobox has value here, rather than simply waiting to see if the supports outnumber the opposes, it's these oppose reasons that need to be addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - as many others have noted how the public will only benefit from the presence of an infobox and there is no disadvantage to those who don't read it. W9793
• Yes - There is already a lead image attached to the first paragraph; if we could make use of the space that the image already takes up to add additional information for the reader, then that's just a net improvement in general.PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No per Mike Christie and others—isn't useful, as the information isn't hidden/difficult to find in any meaningful way. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• (from VPR) Yes. It gives readers fast and standardized access to key facts (date and place of birth and death, occupation, major works, spouse/kids, etc.... the usual infobox fields). Much faster and more accessible than reading it in the prose lead. Levivich (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes (Summoned by bot). The article is of enough length where use of an IB will aid a lot of readers who might not necessarily read the whole article. Shorter articles might not necessarily need one. TarnishedPath^talk 09:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, as an useful and immediate view of some key biographical informations. I see no disadvantage whatsoever for readers. --Cavarrone 19:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No. It is unnecessary and superfluous to the article. I also do not understand why this RfC is still open given that there is obviously not any major consensus. Barbarbarty (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. (Summoned by bot) Per Jayen466, Nemov, and others, I support inclusion of an infobox. Generally, infoboxes are an accessible overview of basic article information. In this case, I see no real reason not to include the infobox. Wracking ^talk! 23:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, I think it would be appropriate, but I don't think it's important. If we decide to add it, I wish we could add something like |known_for = French farce, but, alas, that's a red link. Perhaps |known_for = Farce instead. I'd rather have a line about what kind of plays he was particularly known for than to have a line about how many children he had. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No, not needed or required. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding Pldx1's comment above. The policy says nothing about who can comment on this discussion. Those who have edited the article in the past do not WP:OWN the article. There is no policy in regards to infoboxes on biographies other than it's to be discussed on each individual article. This infobox question is essentially a user interface preference and not a question about the content of the article. I generally lean towards the article's experienced editors on questions of specific content weight, but that's simply not the case here. Nemov (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those who edited the article in the past do not WP:OWN the article. This is absolutely true. By posting here, they agreed to see their contribution mercilessly edited, dashed, engvared and even defaced. But this shouldn't be taken as anyone who never ever edited this article is the rightful owner of the thing. Policy says that all stylistic choices, engvar, refstyle, etc., should not be changed at will (except during a full rewrite). Besides, saying that “four children” explains any of Feydeau's plays seems like a "citation needed" assertion. But charting each play with the number of children at the time the play was written might perhaps shed some additional light on the question. Monsieur chasse!, how many children? Pldx1 (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that: a. Primary editors don’t own the article, but if you haven’t edited it before you shouldn’t have a say; and b. Any and all edits must be discussed beforehand, presumably with the primary editors because who else are you plausibly going to discuss it with? Which basically boils down to “those who edit the article get the last word”, which is WP:OWNership. QED Dronebogus (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Your use of the term "mercilessly" is quite revealing, Pldx1. Yet another indication of ownership sentiments. The often stated position of Wikipedia is, however, that anyone can edit it, fondly or harshly. One could argue that WP:BOLD is also about that. -The Gnome (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The Gnome, FYI, Pldx1 was quoting from the five pillars, so I don't think you can conclude this indicates ownership sentiments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, Mike Christie. The word appears in WP:5P3 and I've forgotten about it. I retract my above remark in its entirety. -The Gnome (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Addressing this comment from Mike Christie:

At least one argument from a supporter above does directly address the opposes, by saying that they habitually scroll straight to the infobox when in mobile view, making it useful to them despite the repetition of information. If every single mobile reader read articles that way that would be a reasonable argument for the infobox, but judging from the sample of editors here that's not the case (and it seems unlikely to be the default behaviour of a random reader).

I'll set aside I wasn't the only one who said they used the mobile app this way, but the idea that it's only a reasonable argument if every single mobile reader uses the app the same way is an odd position. That's not how user interfaces are designed. People don't consume information the same way and forcing them to adopt based on decades long entrenched arguments seems unfair. I think if the support votes want to convince others that the infobox has value here, rather than simply waiting to see if the supports outnumber the opposes, it's these oppose reasons that need to be addressed. This infobox discussion isn't new. I found out about it a year ago, but many of the commenters here have been arguing about it on various large biographies for over a decade. I've seen very little movement on one side or the other to change their mind other than a couple of editors who realize fighting infoboxes one RfC at a time seems to be a losing battle. This RfC will end with in inclusion or be deadlocked to be dredged up again in a couple of years. Why will this keep coming up? Because some users value infoboxes as a way to consume information. It's perfectly reasonable to dislike the infobox, but it's impossible to deny that some users find them valuable. That's why most of these RfCs over the last 12 months have succeeded with pretty much the same block of opposers. It's not because there's some sinister pro-infobox crowd relentlessly pushing[3] infoboxes. So I'm not sure what argument you want addressed when it's all so nebulous and repetitive. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Why will this keep coming up?": because some editors keep pushing for them to come up. I rarely see non-editors involved in discussions, or even leaving requests for a box on an article. It's always editors (and often the same ones) that are relentlessly pushing. "with pretty much the same block of opposers": It's equally true to say it's the same core block of supporters pushing for IBs too - and it's just as easy to claim that their arguments and approach are "nebulous and repetitive". The same people show up on both sides for an against, with some others pitching in too. Plus ca change. Once again, trying to say that people who point out flaws in the use of IBs on certain pages are somehow being repetitive or obstructive isn't going to change anyone's minds on the use of an IB on this particular article, but thanks for trying to demean all who take the flexible approach and have very real concerns on some articles. - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The RFCs that have passed the deadlock over the last year have done so from outside input from editors who have no connection to some old battle fought for years. I hadn't heard about it until last year. Which is why I've invested time to help move past it so it quits clogging up RFC which is an area I donate my time. You're an editor who has created a lot of quality content for this project. It seems like you'd see the handwriting on the wall. I guess not, but I guess we'll be having this back and forth until the stick is wisely dropped. Nemov (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no stick to drop, and it certainly would not be wise to drop my reservations on the use of IBs. I consider that the use of IBs on certain articles to be an error the project is making. For some articles, they provide misleading or erroneous information and I will stick to the opinion that they should not be used on those articles. I can flip it round to the editors who insist on an IB for every biography: maybe they should wisely drop the stick? I will continue to include IBs in articles where they are of value (and I've included them recently where appropriate). One size fits all is not appropriate for all articles, regardless of bad advice from those who should drop their own sticks and stop forcing the issue where it does not need to be forced.

ps. Please don't tell me what should see: I will continue to be flexible on the point of IBs, not insist that articles I've never been near, nor have any interest in, follow a personal preference that provides misleading information to our readers. - SchroCat (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing for a "one size fits all" approach. I'm quite familiar with your argument. You had a chance to convince me since last November. Based on the majority of the other RFCs you're failing to convince others as well. Maybe things will change. I guess that's a reason to keep fighting. Nemov (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'No one is arguing for a "one size fits all" approach': that is, quite literally, what the IB warriors are arguing for. Just because a small group of editors want an IB on biographies, does not make it right. The attempts to push a box onto all biographies showed that the wider community rejects that approach, and that boxes are not always useful or welcome (that should be something that people who continue to push for them relentlessly should take on board, perhaps). Meanwhile, there is no "fighting" from me: just discussion.

As this has moved away from a discussion on the introduction of an IB on this particular article, and into a wider discussion (against the strictures of two ArbCom decisions), I'll step away and leave the floor open to sniping from other quarters. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemov and SchroCat: not saying it's at this point yet, but remember to WP:DROPTHESTICK when necessary.

Edward-Woodrow • talk 16:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I refer the honourable member to the last part of my last sentence.- SchroCat (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using loaded words never helps to reach a consensus. If you call "Sea of Japan" what should have been called "Sea of Whales", you are conveying volens nolens the opinion that this body of water is the private property of some bording country, rather than a place where an endangered species should be protected. If you are describing the Japan-box for this Feydeau article as an "infobox", you are volens nolens conveying some pov: information is so great, isn't it ? But this is only the mirror situation of describing this Japan-box as a "desinfobox", which would lead to: desinformation is so wrong, isn't it ? And we arrive to the main question. What will you put in your lunch-box as the favorite Feydeau's comedie? Monsieur chasse! or not Monsieur chasse! ?

Above comment added by Pldx1. -The Gnome (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that supposed to be the Chewbacca defense? Or the hitherto-unseen “Monsieur chasse! Defense”, which involves spamming a completely, utterly non-notable detail like it’s a critical lynchpin to life, the universe, infoboxes and everything? (“If Monsieur is chasse!, then you must acquit”?) Dronebogus (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Dronebogus. You are totally right about the Chewbacca defense. Since the glove doesn't fit, the article shouldn't be sentenced to a Japan-box. By the way, why are you asserting that Monsieur chasse! is utterly non-notable when discussing about Feydeau ? Pldx1 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s utterly non-notable to whether or not he has an infobox. It’s notable to him, and could hypothetically be mentioned in an infobox. That’s conflating two completely different, superficially similar things. Dronebogus (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have extended the RFC for a couple of weeks for additional comments. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested a close, given the last vote was nine days ago and the thread is stale. Extending a dead thread is not constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]