Talk:Rose Leclercq

Infobox

The stuff below has been copied from a user talk page in line with a suggestion made there. Hopefully this makes sense to other editors. Victuallers (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverting good edits?

Hi Tim, I think that setting back the edit of Rose Leclercq has the feel of you saying "this is mine and I like it this way". Am I wrong to take that view? I would have expected some explanation. I was hoping to do some work on this family, but I have just gone off the idea. Can you explain yourself? Victuallers (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I know that info-box aficionados get protective about their additions, but boxes that pretty much just duplicate the lead are no help to our readers (who should always be our first concern). I am a great fan of boxes where they add value. For e.g. cricketers, bishops, politicians with lots of stats/offices they are really helpful, but not when they take up prime space repeating what's already easily read. There was an instructive exchange on this very point here recently. But if you think a box would for some reason be helpful here by all means raise on the article talk page and I'll gladly, or at any rate, uncomplainingly, go with the consensus. Tim riley talk 18:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I intend to raise this issue on the talk page as you suggest as I think this is a marginal issue, bit iboxes drive wikidata and some people appreciate the information being in a defined format. I suggest that is one of the appeals to our readers. Frequently they could read the information on the internet somewhere, but not in a repeated layout. As you know, talk pages do not get much attention so I will add the ibox to ensure that those who object are aware of this needless? duplication. I will be intrigued to see who arrives on the talk page. In this case I created the ibox so that I could create an article for her sister which I was preparing - that is why I created the red link and an ibox for the article I was going to make.. Your very quick reversion with no explanation in the edit box (that I understood) prevented me from doing as I intended. Can I suggest that the reversion could have been better studied before you pressed the revert button?? You left no time to find out why a red link had been introduced - did you see it? Or was that IYO another needless addition?? I think you assumed that some "info-box aficionados" were targeting your? article. That is not the case, I don't feel very strongly about having iboxes in articles. I can cope with them being there or them not being there. I do object to this argument interfering with my contributions to this project. A reversion after 10 minutes does not show much consideration for other editors. I think you should have studied what was being done and what was happening before acting. I will copy this conversation to the talk page so that your point of view can be seen too. Hope this in line with your suggestion. Victuallers (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - this box is idiotic and repeats everything that can otherwise be found within the first few lines of the lede. It is ugly, redundant and does nothing to improve the quality. The addition of the IB was bold and in good faith, but unfortunately the waters have been muddied by the tired old accusation of ownership. I'm a little sick and tired of this tactic of trying to smear someone's good name just because he or she disagrees. Cassianto^Talk 19:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• As per the MoS guideline WP:INFOBOXUSE ("The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article") and the essay at WP:DISINFOBOX, I am not in favour of IBs in many cases. While hugely useful in many cases (and absolutely vital in others), the use in such short article where it is simply a duplication of vague facts from the lead, isn't useful.
• Wikidata is a different problem: it mistakes data for knowledge and facts for understanding, without ever understanding the difference. On the few occasions I have ever visited the alien pages of Wikidata, I've found the pages there to carry serious errors, but that's the problem of trying to get computers to rip "facts" from anything: they always get the wrong end of the stick! If you are keen on ensuring the information in Wikidata is correct, then edit it directly and ensure it is correct. There is also the problem that the use of Wikidata by Google, leading to their versions on an IB to the right of teir search results, is leading to a drop in our reader numbers. I'm not sure that providing them with the means of keeping off our site is a terribly smart way to go.
• On a final point, I don't think there is much to complain about having work reverted after ten minutes: it is more than enough time to consider the inclusion of the IB ill-advised. - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I must confess and apologise that I hadn't spotted the new red-link, and it wasn't my intention, in deleting the otiose info-box, to delete that too. Excellent to have an article on the linked subject. Tim riley talk 21:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Later: now I look at Victualler's edit summary, which mentioned only the info-box, I feel less apologetic for missing the red-link. Tim riley talk 21:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Memory clicking in, I recall being one of the WP toilers in this field who helped Victuallers with Kate Vaughan and I feel rather miffed in the circumstances at what I read as an implied denial of WP:AGF in his remark, "I will be intrigued to see who arrives on the talk page". Tim riley talk 23:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose box. I agree with SchroCat, per WP:DISINFOBOX. I do not believe that the infobox would be helpful here. Infoboxes should only be included where they are helpful, for example in sports or political bios. I must say that I am somewhat alarmed that an admin would add an infobox to an article like this, without finding out first if there is a consensus for such a thing, especially after the arbitration(s) that have addressed the subject. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I share SchroCat's thoughts entirely and couldn't have explained it better myself. iboxes are are almost indispensable for some kinds of articles such as, for example, schools, taxonomy, pop groups, chemicals and drugs, but really look out of place on most biographies, even longer ones such as Edward Elgar. I never understood why iboxes have been the subject of very heated discussion (even going to Arbcom) and I kept out of such debates. I feel that an ibox on articles such as Rose Leclercq and Kate Vaughan would mar them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Rose Leclercq
Leclercq as Lady Wargrave in The New Woman, 1894
Born	(1843-02-02)February 2, 1843 Liverpool
Died	April 2, 1899(1899-04-02) (aged 56) Chelsea, London
Occupation	Actress
Known for	created the role of Lady Bracknell in The Importance of Being Earnest.

• Support infobox, my version, of course ;) - I never understood why infoboxes cause so much heat while they are simply helpful information, as images are. The box shows at a glance (of course repeating the lead, or it would be wrong) when and where this person lived and died. The dates translate easily to other formats if the article is translated. It doesn't hurt, or does it? - My famous question, like Abraham: would you tolerate the box if it helped only 10 readers? - Cassianto, I miss you and your spicy language! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• This is one the continual problems with IBs: "Known for: created the role of Lady Bracknell in The Importance of Being Earnest." That's not what the lead says at all. It says "possibly best known for" The addition of possibly (implying a question of doubt, or of alternatives) and best (meaning she was known for other things too) has been boiled down to a blank statement of fact - misleading to the point of being very wrong! (There is also the point - in wich the lead is also at fault - that she didn't create the role: Oscar Wilde did). - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

We could perfectly well go without parameter "known for" here. I never use it in my boxes, but didn't want to through out Victuallers' creation ;) - If we keep it, I see no contradiction, because it only says "known", there's no claim to "best known", nor does it exclude other things for which she is known. - Repeating: my preferred version would be without the parameter. - Has to be my last comment, or arbitrary enforcement will come after me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

So all we would have is the born and died dates and the fact she's an actress? There's little point in just repeating the first line in a box format, simply for the sake of adding an IB. Just my opinion and I'll let others chip in on either side now. - SchroCat (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• The point about an actor or actress "creating" a role has come up before, for just the reasons you mention above, SchroCat. The use of the word to mean the actor, rather than the playwright, is widespread (dozens of examples of it in DNB acticles on and Times obits of performers) and in this sense "create" is defined by the OED as "verb trans. Of an actor: to be the first to represent (a part or role), and so to give it its character." With that exception I agree completely with your comment. – Tim riley talk 09:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ah - you learn something new every day! Many thanks for that gem of info. - SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)