Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:09, 5 December 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James Joyce article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Template:Vital article

	James Joyce is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 8, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 13, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted December 8, 2006 Featured article review Kept November 20, 2021 Featured article review Kept Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 16, 2008, June 16, 2010, June 16, 2012, June 16, 2015, June 16, 2018, June 16, 2019, June 16, 2020, and June 16, 2022. Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians / Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Switzerland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Poetry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ireland Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anarchism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism  Anarchism WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · history · talk · purge Recognized content · Drafts & requests · Subscribe · Member list · Resources · How can I help? Did you know 07 Jan 2025 – Liceu bombing (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Grnrchst (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 04 Dec 2024 – Los Solidarios (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Grnrchst (t · c); see discussion 28 Nov 2024 – Alt Llobregat insurrection (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Grnrchst (t · c); start discussion Peer reviews 26 Oct 2024 – Lucy Parsons (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Mujinga (t · c); see discussion Articles for creation 13 Dec 2024 – Draft:José de Molina (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by MexicanSoda (t · c) Cleanup (0) · Potentially related articles · Recent edits · Recent Commons images · Stub expansion project (513) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one: ..."Whether an infobox should be included": Search for "infobox" in the talk page archives.

Why on earth does this article not have no infobox when thousands of bios on other writers do?

I'll leave the template here and ask the questions if these details are not important, then why have infoboxes at all? What on earth is wrong with the mentality on this site that mob rule (aka consensus) makes arbitrary decisions about article style. Too much of a majority on this site only care first and foremost about what it all means to themselves. Do you think every reader - yes readers - it's not all about who wins the content wars, who might want find out basic things about somone ie like where they were born, married to, died, pen names, notaable works etc. They should not have to be forced to read the whole copy paste article to pick out random details.

If this site creates infoboxes, it creates them for a purpose. To not use them is hubris, nothing else.

Infobox writer

| embed = | honorific_prefix = | name = | honorific_suffix = | image = | image_size = | image_upright = | alt = | caption = | native_name = | native_name_lang = | pseudonym = | birth_name = | birth_date = | birth_place = | death_date = | death_place = | resting_place = | occupation = | language = | nationality = | citizenship = | education = | alma_mater = | period = | genre = | subject = | movement = | notable_works = | spouse = | partner = | children = | relatives = | awards = | signature = | signature_alt = | years_active = | module = | website = | portaldisp = 150.143.66.157 (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on this article is not to include an infobox. FDW777 (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

As this is already a Featured article, it's very unlikely to get one. Hubris? Maybe it's just hummus. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Because this was a hallmark article where an infobox was problematic, led to edit warring, and was used to shove in inaccurate information, as they often do. That Wikpedia has infoboxes, or any given feature or text, isn't always related to utility, rather who was persistent enough to edit war or able to accomplish a fait accompli. Please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes and WP:INFOBOX. Another question is, why aren't we removing them on all the other articles, where they contain uncited inaccurate info? You can read about that on the two links I provide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see the ratio of box/ no box (of those where it's theoretically appropriate). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Medicine: 100% problematic. Information can't be conveyed in one line, and reducing it to that lacks nuance to the point of inaccuracy. But that discussion is for elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, all. In reviewing past edits and this talk page, it appears the infobox at one point was experiencing a large number of erroneous edits made in bad faith. It seems some have determined the best means of stopping such behavior is to remove the infobox altogether, citing "general consensus" among those interested in preserving the article's efficacy.

Is there a means of confirming/quantifying said consensus? It appears the question of whether or not to have an infobox is still being discussed (with at least a couple good-faith attempts to add an infobox occurring in the last few months).

From my perspective, the issue at hand is how best we manage the erroneous edits to the content within the infobox - removing the infobox altogether seems a ham-fisted way of solving that problem. The expectation is that all articles with enough quality info include the infobox feature - that an article for a subject such as James Joyce (one of the most highly-regarded authors of the 20th century) does not include an infobox, degrades the quality of the article.

Any of us taking time to make good-faith improvements to articles and talk pages should recognize that maintaining the integrity of some pages is more difficult than others - but to intentionally lower the standard of an article by removing content/features/etc. to make it easier for us to manage, should be discouraged outright. The effort required to remove viable content/features/etc. is equal to that of removing non-viable content/features/etc. - there's no reason we should continue wasting energy removing quality content in the hopes that it prevents theoretical low-quality content in the future. ComfyHarpy (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

More discussion: in the archives of this page.

Hi ComfyHarpy, welcome to Misplaced Pages and thanks for taking an interest in this page. See the following threads re info box, here in 2009 it was decided not to have one, again in 2010, 2011, 2013, plus and RfC, and so on. Given the many times it's come up, particularly during the years when discussion of infoboxen was heated enough to end up at arbitration, we should probably be using the relevant WP:ACDS (discretionary sanctions) alerts i.e see, ({{subst:alert|cid}}), so that disputants are aware this has been, well, disputed on the project. That said, the consensus here is well established. In the meantime, there's no reason to replace before discussing. I'll revert the box and discussion can commence. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 23:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding, the box has been added three times in 24 hours by the same editor,diff, diff,diff. ComfyHarpy, please take a look at our instructions re edit warring, WP:EW. Edit warring is a bright line rule, important to learn as a new editor. Victoria (tk) 23:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Victoriaearle! Thanks very much for providing links to those previous discussions. And apologies - to yourself, as well as the folks that have been working to maintain this page for some time - my intention is not to cause problems.

In general, articles with enough relevant content do include an infobox feature. To the degree that infobox metadata is used to improve accessibility (e.g.: e-readers) both on wikipedia.org and in sidebar search engine features leveraging wikipedia content. This functional aspect of the infobox feature was perhaps not as relevant when the previous discussions were taking place, but it sees wide use today and accessibility should be weighed more heavily when discussing the features and content to be included on article pages.

(fwiw, the content I added to the infobox most recently currently shows up in Google's sidebar search on my end - this content is likely to remain until Google refreshes it's cache for this wikipedia page, at which point, said content will likely no longer appear in Google's sidebar search. This is negatively impacts users that rely on accessibility tools to navigate the internet)

Functional accessibility reasons aside, that this article does not include an infobox makes it unique among articles of similar subject and size - an inconsistency that is wholly unnecessary. I've gathered that some dislike the infobox for personal reasons but utilizing a standard feature within wikipedia's guidelines is the default state of all articles - this one included. Removing an infobox that adheres to wikipedia guidelines is unnecessary and detrimental to the overall viability of the article itself.

For some reason, this article has attracted attention that overtime, has resulted in a lower-quality page. I've yet to see a viable, objective argument against including an infobox, especially considering the functional and contextual reasons for infobox inclusion that have evolved over the last decade.

Again: considering that past discussions relating to the infobox have gotten contentious, I want to reiterate that I'm not trying to add stress to anyone's life or start a fight or anything. I'd simply like to improve this article's viability.

p.s.: thanks for including the info regarding the the edit warning - I did not consider that my initial publication of the infobox might be considered a revision according to the 3RR. ComfyHarpy (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

- infoboxes are not required - see MOS:INFOBOXUSE; "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox...is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." The Ezra Pound article does not have an infobox per consensus, nor does Kenneth Koch, Charles Reznikoff, Lorine Niedecker and many others - it's not unusual to have an article without an infobox. - Epinoia (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's a box for James Joyce. 10 full inches for £67 is a real bargain. But he's hard to put into a box, as he was one of those "stream of unconsciousnes" writers. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

For me, the lack of an infobox makes the article more difficult to read. For example, I have to search through the text to find important details, such as Joyce's date of birth or his number of children. This breaks the flow of the article more than a quick look at the infobox would. I'm not very knowledgable about Joyce and I haven't contributed to the article, but I thought it would be helpful for you to have the perspective of someone who is new to Joyce and just starting to learn more about his life and works. Thanks to everyone that's contributed to this excellent article. 130.123.3.123 (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree that Giorgio and Lucia are a bit hidden. Giorgio is not considered notable anyway, (although his son Stephen James Joyce is), so he might not appear in any infobox anyway. There might be an argument for adding a "Family" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I mistakenly added an infobox after I searched for Joyce and noticed that Brave search infobox which pulls up data from the Misplaced Pages infobox was missing. I mostly use the Misplaced Pages infobox to quickly look up information especially dates. DEFCON5 (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Pound --> Savitzky --> Beach_Savitzky_-->_Beach-20220918101800">

• @Wtfiv, BrownHairedGirl, Kablammo, Rogermccart, Victoriaearle, and Ceoil:
• Livak, Leonid (Summer 2012). "A Thankless Occupation: James Joyce and his Translator Ludmila Savitzky" (PDF). Toronto Slavic Quarterly (41). Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 March 2021.}}
  • contains footnotes to primary sources,
  • also this P-S-B connection should be presented better
  • content is: http://sites.utoronto.ca/tsq/41/tsq41_livak.pdf
  • metadata is at: http://sites.utoronto.ca/tsq/41/ which, in my experience, usually hard to find and necessary,
• 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)_Savitzky_-->_Beach"> _Savitzky_-->_Beach">

  @0mtwb9gd5wx: what exactly is the point you are making here?

  And why do you think it might interest me? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  interest me: you have edited the page recently, you mostly do structure it seems, so probably not your thing. point you are making: the connection between these people, "the networking", might be better stated. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  0mtwb is new here and its fair enough that he picked random people from the article history, we all that that when starting off. Will take a look. User:BrownHairedGirl is famously grumpy and anyway was never a content editor. Ceoil (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  I saw this addition, and figured the editor felt Savitzky worth mentioning. I added the redlink to the French article (I don't like red links, but thought it was the most reasonable way to provide context.) I shortened the addition, which preserves the mention of Savitzky when Joyce came to Paris, but the extra details can be found in the article. The article is still accessible. I just formatted it to be consistent with the rest of the article. It is listed in sources, and I added its archive link as well. It can be accessed by anyone who passes over the citation. In addition, the pdf itself can also be clicked on within the link itself. Wtfiv (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there any objective reason or formal requirement that we can’t put in an infobox?

For me the lack of an infobox is tedious, bordering on pretentious (is the article somehow too “good” for an infobox, which I’m aware is inexplicably considered childish by some people?) and brings down the article quality and usefulness. Can we please just put one in as is standard in the vast majority of biographies? Throwing it out because people put false info in it is a textbook case of Misplaced Pages:Baby and bathwater. People watch major articles obsessively, it’s unlikely that fake or bad info wouldn’t get caught. Dronebogus (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed before, at the top of this page and the three prior archives. Please review those. Kablammo (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I have and I didn’t see much consensus. In fact a few users made good points in favor of an infobox. Dronebogus (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Should the article have an infobox

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

reviewing archives and past discussion reveals consensus to be invalid (WP:STRAWPOLL) or nonexistent. Biographies overwhelmingly have infoboxes; pointing out the few remaining oddballs like Ezra Pound is WP:OTHERSTUFF. The last major discussion is also over half a decade ago. Dronebogus (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Support Infoboxes have become a normal and valuable part of the user experience when navigating an article on Misplaced Pages. The data backs up this conclusion.meta:Research:Which_parts_of_an_article_do_readers_read Making information easy to find and consume is one this project's highest priorities. While there's always going to be a reluctance to adopt something new, infoboxes have become so common there would need to be an extraordinary reason to justify not including one in an article with significant content. There is certainly some room for discussion around what can or cannot be included in the IB, but it's time to accept that infoboxes are a valuable tool for the end user. This topic has recently come up at Talk:Laurence_Olivier, Talk:Pyotr_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky, and Talk:Maddie_Ziegler and an infobox would be valuable addition to each article. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reasons stated repeatedly discussions over the years, including the one at the top of this page which concluded less than half a year (not decade) ago. There are many reasons; these are some of mine:
  • This is an article, not a collection of data points;
  • relatedly, gargantuan infobox formats invite filling them with unimportant and trivial data;
  • they tend to overwhelm the front of the article, which should draw the reader in with a well-written introduction;
  • we are dealing with an artist and his art, which by nature are matters of judgment which cannot be stated or summarized in a table;
  • if specific data points are wanted, search engines can help find the desired information.

One other comment: the proposer should carefully consider the requirement that the proposal adhere to the requirement that the question be presented with a "brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue" and avoid freighted terms like "obviously fake". Let's stick to the facts. Kablammo (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral When I was editing this article during the Featured Article Review (FAR) process, the consensus of the long-time editors was against the infobox. My goal was to clean up the article and support the work of previous editors, so I honored their preference. The the last poll on the infobox was overwhelmingly against the infobox. Given that it was 12 years ago, having a new poll seems to be sensible. I'm good with either outcome. My major concern is that it reflects the current consensus of editors committed to maintaining this page. I'll ping some of the editors whose work during the FAR was invaluable: @Victoriaearle, Ceoil, SandyGeorgia, and Buidhe:. (Kablammo, who was one of those invaluable editors, has already weighed in.) Wtfiv (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Overwhelming consensus of “editors committed to maintaining the page” can mean overwhelming de facto WP:OWNership. I would like fresher voices with new arguments. Dronebogus (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Dronebogus I am responding to the ping from Wtfiv. Please rephrase your RFC in neutral terms and without the unnecessary hyperbole. Your post of 22:11 is also unnecessarily charged; please have a look at WP:FAOWN and avoid unnecessarily fanning flames of past infobox wars. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  I see nothing about regular page editors having unilateral control over infoboxes on that page. Dronebogus (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  The page says that "Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership". Charges of ownership are not conducive to a collaborative discussion, and I hope the rest of this discussion will not go the way of the non-neutral framing of an RFC and unhelpful allegations. There is some good information at WP:ARBINFOBOX that might help steer your approach to this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  I’m sorry for repeatedly making ownership accusations, I’ll stop doing it in this discussion. Dronebogus (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  I’ve also replaced “obviously fake” with “invalid”, since the use of a straw poll to determine consensus is still not good even if in good faith. Dronebogus (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Kablanmo, the consensus in question is obviously fake because it’s an admitted straw poll made up of simple yes/no votes with minimal elaboration. This is the opposite of real consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I notified the above projects in case there's anyone wasn't here 12 years ago who has an opinion; I realize infoboxes are surprisingly controversial. However, there's a caveat that most WikiProjects are inactive, but at least I tried. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

James Joyce
Joyce in Zurich, c. 1918
Born	(1882-02-02)February 2, 1882 Rathgar, Dublin, Ireland
Died	January 13, 1941(1941-01-13) (aged 58) Zurich, Switzerland
Occupation	Novelist, poet
Notable works	Ulysses (1922), Dubliners (1914), A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (1916), Finnegans Wake (1939)

• Comment/query - Dronebogus as initiator of the discussion & RFC, have you given thought to presenting a mock up of an infobox so we can consider the various options? The issues with modernists (writers, painters, artists in general) is that a number of them spent long stretches of their lives as expatriates, moving away from home countries, not getting married, having mistresses, creating new movements in lit./painting etc., whilst often earning money/being employed outside of their art - i.e. Joyce. The other issue is how to describe the art, whether to fill the "best known" field - it's often subjective and so on. Finally, consideration has to be given to the editors who maintain the article year-after-year, because infoboxes are magnets for vandalism at worst and for bloat at best. Generally I'm opposed for this particular article and may not change my mind, but would like to see a sample before !voting. Victoria (tk) 21:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  There’s a good mockup at Talk:James Joyce/Archive 2#Infobox 3 Dronebogus (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Not seeing one there or in any of the archives. Since you've pointed out that some time has gone by, in my view providing a mock up would be helpful.

  In terms of this discussion, we need to remember that this is a featured article, it's a content decision, thus WP:FAOWN applies. Furthermore, in terms of this discussion we need to be mindful of the proposed principles of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Proposed decision which still stand. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 22:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  The link was wrong, it should be fixed now. Dronebogus (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Have ressurected there now, minus full name James Augustine Aloysius Joyce (already in bold), Language: English (obvs), Alma mater: University College Dublin (who cares), & some overlinking. Ceoil (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, couldn't find one in archives. I'd suggest removing "poet", though Kablammo & Wtiv would know what the sources say re poet. Victoria (tk) 19:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Shouldn’t marriage and children be added? Dronebogus (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• NO nein, netCeoil (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Who are you replying to? Dronebogus (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• No to marriage & children. Beyond the obvious reasons, the first didn't precede the second as the article explains. Victoria (tk) 19:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Obvious to who? Dronebogus (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support - I’ve heard it all before, and am thoroughly unconvinced by arguments against infoboxes. They’ve become an iconic and expected part of Misplaced Pages, and I personally believe them to be valuable. This page should have one. Xx78900 (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for this article, although am not opposed to infoboxes in general. Like Victoria, my worry is bloat and error, both of which can be especially harmful and misleading on early modernists bio articles, whose work is prone to misunderstanding (as mentioned above). I do understand the frustration on both sides, and to vocalise some of the fear on the opposing side - despite Nemov claiming "There is certainly some room for discussion around what can or cannot be included in the IB", that is not the form of pro-box editors, given the opening on a section on the Olivier talk days after the RFC ended re his marriages. Anyhow thats my 10c if its worth anything :( Ceoil (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  that is not the form of pro-box editors, given the opening on a section on the Olivier talk days after the RFC ended re his marriages.

  Since you have named me specifically, what's this issue you're raising? The infobox was added and now there's a discussion about a section of the infobox in accordance with Misplaced Pages guidelines. How is that at odds with what I said? Nemov (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Because despite your shucks claim above, scope creep is a fact of the way wiki works and you know it. This is why i'm now putting a proposal, if we DO DECIDE to include a box, its limited to certain paramaters and claims, unless agreed to on talk. Ceoil (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm still confused. The marriages was part of the infobox example during the RfC and an IP editor removed it immediately after it was closed. That's far from an example of scope creep. Nemov (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  There would be more willingness to discuss here if there was comfort against bloat. Is what I'm saying. So many fields have been added to the template over the years that the mind boggles. My vote is to limit to occupation & notableworks, and exclude things like full name, Language, Alma mater, marriages, offspring etc, ie keep as tight as possible, and protect against well-meaning but drive by trivial additions. Also...I only now a days keep a half eye on the Olivier page, as its full of needless strife and at my age could do without out the stress of getting sucked into endless circular argument. Prob you feel the same way. so if a box, its a very shrot one. Ceoil (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Your argument is basically to ensure the infobox is as useless as possible to make it look bad. Dronebogus (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per the opposers. I think the main/regular editors of the page should decide, not drive-bys (like me). Johnbod (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Once again, WP:OWN is relevant here. Infoboxes are for reader benefit, and should not be decided by the whims of 5 or 6 editors who obviously are biased against infoboxes. If it was their choice and theirs alone this discussion would be instantly closed as “no”. Dronebogus (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thats a real cheap shot, not just for the hypocrisy of you being fresh off the Laurence Oliver page, but also because you are saying on the one hand "I get the incumbents points re bloat, wont happen here" and on the other hand "fuck the incumbents". As far as I can see the opposers are advocating compromise, and you are taking pot shots. Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Who are you talking to? It’s not very civil whoever it’s directed at. Dronebogus (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Is describing your approach across series of article-talks uncivil? If so, that seems more your problem rather than mine, because what I'm seeing here is (a) infobox warrior (b) dishonest. Ceoil (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  I take it you are talking to me? Dronebogus (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Address the substance please. Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Oh I’m the one with the ad hominem attacks, considering you just called me a liar and an infobox warrior? Dronebogus (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Address the substance please. Ceoil (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Address the attacks please. Stop repeating meaningless statements please. Dronebogus (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  It's WP:FAOWN that applies here. Perhaps you haven't noticed that before - no sign of "particular care" being taken. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership.

  I do not believe infoboxes fall under this jurisdiction since they don't change text or images. It's a navigation tool for end users and it summarizes content that's already been discussed. Nemov (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  It is not a navigation tool. It never has been, isn’t and likely never will be. You are mischaracterising it by describing it this way. As it’s name makes clear: it is an information box. It is information in a text form, often with an accompanying image. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7D16:A849:4BD3:B993 (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've written articles and taken them to FA with IBs and without, and only used them where they are of use to the reader, and not just because some editors think that they are common on some articles, so they should be on all biographies. The proposed box repeats the facts of the first paragraph and is utterly underwhelming. Are readers really going to read Dubliners and then come to WP to look at the IB to see where he died? (And just to correct a misnomer about IBs: they are not "navigation tools" - that's wrong). 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7183:2FED:A175:2EA1 (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Well I use infoboxes to find out how old people were when they died, or how old they are now. I don’t want to have to get out a calculator. Dronebogus (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

To use your single argumentative tactic back at you, oh shucks, who are you directing that weak rhetorical strawman at? Me? Santa? I'm confused. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? Dronebogus (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This - before you started that bizzar "where am I what's happening" series of posts - : Like Victoria, my worry is bloat and error, both of which can be especially harmful and misleading on early modernists bio articles, whose work is prone to misunderstanding (as mentioned above). I do understand the frustration on both sides, and to vocalise some of the fear on the opposing side - despite Nemov claiming "There is certainly some room for discussion around what can or cannot be included in the IB", that is not the form of pro-box editors, given the opening on a section on the Olivier talk days after the RFC ended re his marriages.

To note again, I'm agruging for a shortened box. Please read what you are replying to. PLEASE STAY ON POINT. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Para 3 of the lead. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7183:2FED:A175:2EA1 (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I expect to be able to look over at the right corner and see it, it’s frustrating when I can’t. Dronebogus (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It took me about five seconds to see it in the lead. I' find it frustrating when the eye is drawn to a box of tangential factoids that don't aid understanding of a subject, but you can't please all the people all the time. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7183:2FED:A175:2EA1 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry I’m genuinely lost between all the replies and indents Dronebogus (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, you have mischaracterized what happened on that RfC. I shouldn't have to point out again that it's not an example of scope creep. It was in the RfC example before close and an opposing editor removed it immediately. Please review that timeline in GF. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Is there something different about this article than the Laurence Olivier article? I ask this for the people voting no here using the same arguments they used on other articles? This issue keeps popping up via RfC over and over on WP:BIO and WP:BLP. It seems like the many of the same people opposing/support each time, with the same arguments, and slowly over time the infoboxes are added. Isn't this a sign to move on to something else and stop opposing it? Or, maybe there's something unique to this article that hasn't been brought up? The infobox train left the station many years ago. It seems like a better use of time would be to standardize the infoboxes for WP:BIO than to rehash this debate over and over. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with standardization. Dronebogus (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Frankly, I don't care that much and never really did. But from here, the big difference that anti box are specialist, and peaceful pps that have spent years honing specific bios. Whereas, rightly or wrongly, my perception is that the pro people tend to be obsessed with uniformity to the point of obsession, and seek out those last caves so can "tickg them off", as if a kill list. Also, my impressions is that there has been a lot of socking and a willingness to let that slide, along with a tendency to tolerate stupidity to garder numbers - see above the vacuous "I agree with standardization" which shows no understanding of why data/"facts" in infooxes should be curated. ps, I also have enough self awarness to think this is a really stupid argument during out all short lives. Ceoil (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  {redacted} Dronebogus (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  This comment isn't constructive. Can you please remove it? I want to find a path forward and stop the silly fighting. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  • It’s too late now, and I highly doubt there’s a peaceful solution here, but I will redact it. Dronebogus (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  I’d also appreciate Ceoil stopping his belittling, passive-aggressive tone. Dronebogus (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Agree, the claim that "I don't care that much and never really did" doesn't seem to be supported by some of the comments I've seen here so far, but there is a path forward here and we should try to find one. Nemov (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that this is a stupid argument, which is why I voted how I believed and haven't engaged further. I'd also like to add that though I do believe an infobox should be added, I don't want to be associated with @Dronebogus, who has been editing in an unconstructive manner. @Ceoil is an editor I respect, and I do not appreciate the way Drone has been speaking to them. Xx78900 (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Ceoil has it right and I think this is massive time sink given these types of comments. I hadn't realized that right now there are multiple infobox discussions ongoing with editors who've come here involved in those discussions: see Talk:Laurence Olivier, Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Talk:Claude Debussy. This reminds me of times past and not in a good way - i.e a swarming. Re as Ceoil says re short lives - yes. I've had this article on watch since forever and made edits to it, so dragged myself from the self-imposed semi-retirement (b/c of ill health) to comment (for the first time in ages on an i-box), but don't see that there's any appetite to compromise or meet in the middle. Kablammo has it right below to get the fields identified (which I tried to do some days ago). Let's see where that goes. Victoria (tk) 21:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Proponents of infoboxes: Please tell us what fields would be included, what would be excluded, and what criteria would be used to make those choices. Kablammo (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The Stanley Kubrick IB seems like a good example, but quick things users would be looking for in an article are name, image, DOB, DOD, occupation, works, awards, spouses, children, and signature.

I agree that infobox creep could be a problem. Other projects have standardized the box to keep this from happening and changes to the standard IB template are sorted out there. That seems like a good way to prevent overly long IBs. Nemov (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Shakespeare wrote almost 200 attributed works. Kablammo (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It would be a link to the full list similar to the example I cited. Nemov (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Strong support - the info box as presented would be an improvement to the article. As a reader, I wished I had an info box presenting info in a more easy to digest summary. This is exactly what infoboxes excel at. WP:OWN and WP:FAOWN absolutely apply here, and a more effective consensus would include input from some editors who present the perspective of naive readers. Not people who already know the information presented in the lead. — Shibbolethink 14:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Was Joyce an anarchist?

This article is in two anarchist categories, & tagged for the Anarchy wikiproject. The four mentions in this very comprehensive article don't seem to justify this - he read some books by anarchists early in his life, but in those days most intellectuals did. I'm fine with the equivalent treatment for socialism, which seems justified. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

To add to this; two sections above this malaise are titled "British?" and "Danish". Ceoil (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

If it isn't a "defining" trait, yes, it should be removed as a category. This said, there seems to be enough to warrant mention that he was influenced by egoist individualist anarchism (Benjamin Tucker) and associated in anarchist social circles, even if he rejected labels.

Also I let the WikiProject know about this discussion. czar 06:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Low-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• FA-Class biography (core) articles
• Core biography articles
• Top-importance biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class Switzerland articles
• Low-importance Switzerland articles
• All WikiProject Switzerland pages
• FA-Class France articles
• Low-importance France articles
• All WikiProject France pages
• FA-Class Poetry articles
• Low-importance Poetry articles
• WikiProject Poetry articles
• FA-Class Ireland articles
• Top-importance Ireland articles
• FA-Class Ireland articles of Top-importance
• All WikiProject Ireland pages
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• FA-Class anarchism articles
• WikiProject Anarchism articles
• FA-Class socialism articles
• Low-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment