Talk:Phyllis Dare

Libel case involving Wolfries about conduct of Dare and Hicks

I have cited a book which is the source of this information, and a website where the information, including an image of the newspaper report, is more easily accessible. MerielGJones (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

User:MerielGJones, thanks. Can you add a page number where the information appears in the book? -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes.--MerielGJones (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

I've been asked to delete an infobox on this page. Can we discuss whether to have an infobox on this page? Whether the one for 'person' is appropriate?--MerielGJones (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. An infobox on this page would be of no benefit whatsoever. Everything that is contained in an infobox can already be found in the lead section. Cassianto^Talk 14:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Infoboxes are good for sports figures, celebrities, politicians, organisms, and a myriad of other things. But in the case of arts biographies they end up not providing useful information to the reader. When she was born, when she died, and what she was known for is better expressed in the lede as prose. In my opinion, infoboxes are useful when listing things like notable awards, significant projects (like for architects), and things that are best expressed as a list. This article has a well-written lede that expresses what was in the infobox, and more. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Infoboxes are good for BLPs in general. Liberal arts is no different, probably less so honestly as they lack general complexity that some other BLP topics which could make a infobox unmanageable. The one purposed was nice and neat. Summarized the important parts better then the twisty and all over the place lead. Which might I add did not cover everything from the box. Nicely done, thanks for adding it! PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I find the life summaries in infoboxes very useful. It is easier to see a summary of a life in one than among the text when reading about people with whom I am not familiar. The Wikipedia pages of many persons who are notable for their lives in the arts have infoboxes. I agree with the implication by Jip Orlando that the fields in infobox templates can be used to best advantage. --MerielGJones (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration 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 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 vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (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. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • That is an interesting take on infoboxes in general. What are your reasons for this article specifically? Especially given that none of the issues you brought up are actually present here or anywhere for that matter. PackMecEng (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Again, I'm of the opinion that are less useful on liberal arts biographies (and it's not right to say they lack complexity: they have more complexity than most, as some aspects are not fact- or statitics-based). In terms of the box that appeared on this page earlier, the core information from the IB is in the opening sentence. The only point of importance that was in the IB but not in the lead was the information relating to Zena Dare. This is important enough to be in the lead with or without an IB, and is the only point that in the IBs favour. (A brief note on and to MerielGJones: many thanks for removing the IB when you were asked on your talk page, and for opening a thread to discuss the matter, which is exactly how it should be - too many such discussion ignore the common sense and civil approach you have displayed here. I wish all IB discussions could be as civil and constructive as this - thank you!). - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)