Jump to content

Talk:Fred Sullivan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SchroCat (talk | contribs) at 07:03, 2 November 2023 (→RFC infobox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fred Sullivan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fred Sullivan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fred Sullivan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Fred Sullivan_by_Oliver_Sarony.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 20, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-10-20. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Sullivan

Fred Sullivan (1837–1877) was an English actor and singer. Born into a musical family, he trained as an architectural draftsman but abandoned the profession for a stage career. In 1871, he first performed the role of Mr. Cox in a revival of his brother Arthur Sullivan's comic opera Cox and Box, and later that year created the role of Apollo in the first Gilbert and Sullivan opera, Thespis. In 1875, he created his most famous role, the Learned Judge in Gilbert and Sullivan's Trial by Jury, also playing in the accompanying Offenbach piece, La Périchole. He earned enthusiastic reviews, and his portrayal of the Judge set the pattern for the subsequent Gilbert and Sullivan comic "patter" roles. He then toured in Trial and French operettas, returning for the London revival of Trial. Fred Sullivan died at the age of 39, leaving a pregnant widow and seven young children, his brother composing the song "The Lost Chord" at his bedside. This sepia photograph of Sullivan was taken by the Canadian photographer Olivier Sarony, probably in the 1870s.

Photograph credit: Olivier Sarony; restored by Adam Cuerden

Recently featured:

Infobox

@Ssilvers: before you revert my edits and post a lengthy copypasta paragraph about how “infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited” and “infoboxes are particularly unsuited to liberal arts biographies”, consider the following: there is neither local nor project consensus (besides this rather weak appeal to an authority that doesn’t even say what it claims) that this article doesn’t need an infobox, so you removing it without reasoning is essentially WP:I just don’t like it. If you decide to keep doing it it will just become WP:OWNership and pointless disruption. As for mentioning Arthur Sullivan in the first sentence, this is probably what people would consider him most notable for as well as his theatrical career. Dronebogus (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there any chance you could not be so aggressive and insulting to other editors just because they hold a different opinion to you? Maybe you could just dial it back a bit? - SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The anti-infobox camp is unrelentingly aggressive and insulting to people with different opinions. I am merely being firm. Dronebogus (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you continue with insults, lies, edit warring and trying to justify unjustifiable behaviour. Perhaps you should try dialling it down. And rather than edit war to try and force your preferred version, perhaps a civil discussion would be the better way to go. - SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You know full well that “civil discussion” is going to be you + Ssilvers saying infoboxes are bad over and over until I feel I’ve humored the notion of dialogue enough to justify the inevitable transition to RfD, the only way these disputes ever get solved. Dronebogus (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And again with another falsehood? I'm not sure why you think the article should to to an RfD, but never mind. - SchroCat (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can stop accusing me of lying and incivility when you regularly bludgeon every infobox thing you stumble across and frequently insult me and anyone else who disagrees with your position on infobox as an “infobox warrior” and now pretend like you don’t; see Talk:Georges Feydeau. Dronebogus (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See above for examples of your less than exemplary behaviour. I’ll step away from this until you civilly try to gain a consensus for change. - SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And how do you suggest I do that, besides RfC? Because neither you nor Ssilvers, who are the only ones currently paying attention, are ever going to budge. Dronebogus (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See Signpost report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the information that would be in the box is already discussed in the article and is also seen in a Google Knowledge Graph, the box would be a redundant 3rd (or likely 4th) mention of these facts. (3) The IB's overly bold format at the top of the article would discourage people from reading the text of the article. (4) Updates are often made to articles but not reflected in the box (or vice versa). (5) Instead of focusing on the content of the article, editors usually spend time arguing over what to include in the box. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know I’m not going to be convinced by hearing the same lengthy argument at every single infobox thing, and I doubt anyone else will either. Dronebogus (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC infobox

Frederic Sullivan
Portrait of Sullivan by Oliver Sarony
Born(1837-12-25)25 December 1837
Lambeth, England
Died18 January 1877(1877-01-18) (aged 39)
Fulham, London, England
Occupations
  • Actor
  • singer
SpouseCharlotte Louisa Lacy
Children8

Should the article have an infobox like the example pictured? Dronebogus (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've just voted, not !voted: you need to provide an argument, not just vote on personal preference. At the moment it's a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and no reasonable basis to change the standing consensus of over seventeen years. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because people expect to see them in all biographies at this point, making ones without them look strange and unpolished, and they provide information in a complimentary, easy to digest format. Dronebogus (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence that readers expect to see them? Do you have any research that backs up you other opinions? My first edits on WP were in about 2006 or 07, way before I had an account, and in all that time, I think the number of times I've seen readers ask for an IB can be counted on one hand. Lots of editors have some form of problem with a flexible approach the inclusion of a box, but not our readers, it seems. I'd be delighted to see the research to back up your opinions, however. - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know who you consider readers but I’ve seen plenty of IP editors asking about them. Besides, how many editors besides you and your friends can you name who go to an article and request to remove an infobox, vs. how many besides you et al who request them added or ask shy they’re not here? Dronebogus (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are trying to say, but it doesn't give the research that backs up any of your false claims. But no, those with a flexible approach to IBs are not disruptive in their need to go round and force their views onto every other article, regardless how little they know or care about a subject. - SchroCat (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (invited by the bot) Weak yes Seems to have some useful info that fits into the infobox format. "Weak" because I generally don't consider them to be that important or needed and they often go awry when trying to put in things that are unsuitable for that very brief format. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I believe that an infobox would be detrimental to this article, as it would emphasize less important factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts (e.g., his place of death is less important than all of the facts given in the Lead and can easily be found in the article); would crowd out the attractive images in the article; would be a redundant 3rd (sometimes 4th) mention of these facts, which also appear in the Google Knowledge Graph; and for the other reasons that I outlined in the section above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re seriously arguing we shouldn’t have an infobox in part because it makes the article very slightly less attractive and users should just get their info from an unvetted third party source? I don’t think your standard argument about context is very good either, but it’s at least reasonable and understandable. Dronebogus (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you plan to bludgeon every comment here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded to two, thanks, so no. Do you? Dronebogus (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - without having to repeat the arguments made every time an infobox discussion is raised by an editor who has never edited the article; per SchroCat and Ssilvers, who are the topic experts here and well positioned to judge the usefulness of infobox parameters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don’t think being a “topic expert” should weigh into what is essentially a formatting question. Unless you’re somehow suggesting that the above users are experts on infoboxes, which I’d dispute since their above arguments aren’t very good (SchroCat just criticizes opposing arguments while leaning on the durability of the status quo while Ssilvers relies on saying the same things about “nuance” and “particularly unsuited to liberal arts” over and over) Dronebogus (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't expect you to think being a content expert has anything to do with decisions about articles It's a matter of respecting the knowledge that goes in to knowing what is and isn't critical info for a lead as well as information that is likely to be distorted by an infobox, and editors who spend years building and maintaining content are likely to know that better than drive-by editors. You mention above "plenty of IP editors" want infoboxes; ok, pop up a dozen examples to convince me of these alleged "plentiful" IPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It’ll take me a hot moment to slog back through a dozen different articles but I’ll find them Dronebogus (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I found six examples easily (and could find quite a few more if I tried):
    1. Talk:Antonio Vivaldi: IP is confused
    2. Talk:Noël Coward at least 3 users are confused/annoyed
    3. Talk:Fanny Mendelssohn/Archive 2 IP is confused (scroll down)
    4. Wagner multiple user confused/annoyed (article now has an infobox per community consensus)
    5. Stanley Holloway more confusion from IP and user
    6. Talk:Maurice Ravel a bunch of people are confused/annoyed
    Additonally, look at all these RFCs about infoboxes in 2023 alone that have closed in support of infoboxes: Felix Mendelssohn (closed 11 Aug, RfC still on talk, as for most others), Richard Wagner (5 Aug), Colleen Ballinger (17 May), Rod Steiger (31 March), Mozart (30 March) and Jenny Lind Dronebogus (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How many of those RFCs might have closed that way because so many other editors refuse to be drug into the messes (rhetorical, pls don't answer, as I already know the answer). 1. Yes, the IP is mightily confused and only asked a question, which has a logical answer (they aren't helpful); asking a question isn't an indication of support or need. 2. You said IP; not infobox proponents. 3. That's one, who btw doesn't make a very useful case, and for all we know, is a Wikipedia IP infobox warrior logged out; have you any strong case made by an IP for an actual reason they need an infobox? 4. You said IPs; not the usual proponents. 5. That's two (an IP who wants to know if he has children; such a worthy reason for not wanting to actually read). 6. Repeat; you said IPs, not the usual infobox proponents.
    So you came up with two very weak cases of confused IPs who didn't have a single strong reason for wanting an infobox. In other words, you have not made the case that Wikipedia readers want them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not going to argue with your conclusions, but I will say they point out a certain thought-terminating cliche of anti-infobox (don’t argue with that, also rhetorical) thought: if you want an infobox, you must be an infobox warrior, either openly or secretly. If consensus is ever in favor of an infobox, it’s because the innocent real editors are too tired of the infobox warriors to bother fighting them. Therefore the only editors who support infoboxes are infobox warriors and no amount of evidence can disprove that. we could poll 500 IPs and you’d say they’re all sockpuppets. We could poll every active user and you’d say the supporters must be discounted because they’re infobox warriors or not topic experts or just don’t have good arguments. So there’s no point in these “show me the evidence” arguments because it comes down to editing philosophy: standardization vs. “expert opinion” (emphasis on opinion). Dronebogus (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No benefit to the reader has been demonstrated and no readers have suggested one would be an advantage (this is true for all articles: millions of readers of articles without an IB and only a small handful question the point): this is more an WP:IDONTLIKEIT, rather than a need to assist readers.
    (And for all the hundreds of thousands of readers that have visited this page over the last seventeen years, none have questioned the need or desire for an IB). Having an IB forced onto a page by a RFA vote does not mean readers actually want or need one. There is no research that says they are a positive, nor does any policy or guideline suggest one is necessary.) - SchroCat (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per long standing CONSENSUS not to include one. There should be exceptional reasons to overturn a long standing consensus. And on another note, these drive-by infobox edits are getting tiresome and borderline disruptive. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 11:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Though, I believe the page will eventually end up with an infobox. Anyways, I'm just one voice, in a huge crowd. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, per past consensus and points made in the present discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is very similar to many of the other infobox discussions over the last year. The vast majority of those infobox discussions ended in inclusion after long battles. I echo the sentiments of many of the support arguments made during the Richard Wanger discussion. Infoboxes are useful to some users and there's data to support that conclusion[[1]]. Nemov (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All this data proves is that by putting this overly bold feature at the top of articles, we distract visitors from reading the text. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This false claim has been explained to you previously. Images, tables, boxes and other parts of a page that are not text drag the eye towards them, regardless of what they contain. (This has been researched before in wider settings than WP). All that research shows that non-text draws the eye. That is not the same as falsely claiming that IBs are useful. If you have any research that actually shows that, please show it, because that study support what you’re claiming. - SchroCat (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC lead

Should the first sentence mention his brother Arthur Sullivan? Dronebogus (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Out of process nomination. Please read WP:RFCBEFORE. - SchroCat (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I discussed this more but I was wrong. Closing. Dronebogus (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Should the first sentence mention his brother Arthur Sullivan? This is probably what most people would know him for and confirms that they are indeed related and not just coincidentally named. As it is you have to read down to like the second paragraph to find even a vague reference to “his brother” that can only be confirmed to the less knowledgeable reader by clicking on the nearby hyperlink to the work being discussed. Dronebogus (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

" As it is you have to read down to like the second paragraph to find". This is the actual disagreement I have with your approach. I think this is an encyclopedia, and we want people to read it. But it doesn't really matter what I say or do, because after you wait the minimum amount of time, despite the fact that no one agrees with you, you will begin an RfC (as you already tried to do above). I believe that you are destructive to Wikipedia, as you do not contribute useful content and instead require productive editors repeatedly to waste a lot of time battling your RfCs and ANIs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m done arguing with you. Dronebogus (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh joy!!!!! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence does a fine job of saying who he is; being someone's brother should not be what we define someone by, and thinking Wikipedia readers can't digest more than the first line is insulting to us and them. No, we should not define someone in the first line of an article by who they are related to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He’s also notable for being someone’s brother. We should include everything he’s notable for. If he was just someone’s brother he wouldn’t have an article. I’m also unsure as to how you got “Wikipedia readers can't digest more than the first line” from suggesting the first line should make it clear he’s related to the more famous Sullivan whose plays he performed in. Dronebogus (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Sullivan is already mentioned in the Lead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is he mentioned in a clearer manner than the one I already pointed out as overly vague? Dronebogus (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He should not be mentioned more prominently. You are wrong again: people are not notable because of being related to notable people. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't going to agree so you'd be better off just ignoring each other's replies. If everyone stops replying then there's nothing else to reply to and you can all go back to doing something productive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’d prefer Ssilvers just not reply if it’s just arguing for the sake of arguing. SG at least offered a serious opinion on the matter. Dronebogus (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I offered a serious opinion. I said that Arthur Sullivan should not be mentioned more prominently, because (1) he is already mentioned (more than once) in the Lead, and (2) people are not WP:Notable because of being related to notable people. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Sullivan&oldid=1183111888"