Talk:Arthur Sullivan
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arthur Sullivan Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:Article history Template:Summary in Template:WikiProject banner shell Template:Comicopera User:MiszaBot/config Template:Archives User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
Per WP:INFOBOX, "The use of infoboxes is 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." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields do not: "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 the articles that you templated 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 most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. In addition throughout the articles within the scope of WikiProject G&S, the consensus has been not to have infoboxes, so adding an infobox would degrade the consistency of design throughout these articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above was added after someone requested an infobox. It can be archived if there is no further discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've set an archive on the page, so it should fall of naturally fairly soon. - SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Location of death
"..of heart failure, following an attack of bronchitis, at his flat in London"
Where in London was his flat? Harfarhs (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Westminster (SW1 in present-day terms). Tim riley talk 16:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- That doesn't surprise me; thank you. I think including the district would improve the article. Harfarhs (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- We know the address (a mansion block, long demolished). Do you think it would be helpful to add it? Seems a bit too much detail to me, but happy to add if wanted. Tim riley talk 13:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't mind it. It wasn't in the City of London, and we certainly don't want people to think that he lived in Islington! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- Cheek! We Islingtonians are innocents! Shall tweak the article. Tim riley talk 19:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't mind it. It wasn't in the City of London, and we certainly don't want people to think that he lived in Islington! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- We know the address (a mansion block, long demolished). Do you think it would be helpful to add it? Seems a bit too much detail to me, but happy to add if wanted. Tim riley talk 13:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- That doesn't surprise me; thank you. I think including the district would improve the article. Harfarhs (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Lead picture
The lead picture has long been
This picture, seen later in the article
was briefly also added to the lead. I think it inappropriate for the lead, as it dates from 1870 – before Sullivan was well known and before the works for which he is well known were composed. In my view restoring the later image to the lead was the correct course. Tim riley talk 11:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:H.J. Whitlock - Photograph of Arthur Sullivan.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 28, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-12-28. 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) 12:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
