This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apropos of recent conflicting dates, 1923 is the right one. See The Times, 7 April 1923, p. 13: "The engagement is announced between Herbert Sullivan and Elena Margarita, daughter of Edmund Walden Vincent of West Hill, St Leonards-on-Sea." How do we know that's the correct Herbert Sullivan? Well, after his death the widow of our Herbert Sullivan remarried, and we know from The Gilbert and Sullivan Journal and Leslie Baily's The Gilbert and Sullivan Book, 1966 ed, London: Spring Books. ISBN 0-500-13046-9 - acknowledgements page) that she became Mrs Bashford. Here's the announcement in The Times (5 Dec 1929, p. 17): A marriage has been arranged ... between P F R Bashford, Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, and Elena Margarita, née Vincent, widow of Herbert Sullivan. Tim riley ( talk) 09:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Ssilvers: - Re your edit summary, I agree that it probably isn't important in his life or career, BUT, it is a verified fact that he witnessed the event, and called for assistance. The article is short as it is. I added the event not only to assist in increasing the length of the article a bit, but also entirely in accordance with the WP:BTW guideline. The aircrash article is in need of links to it, but it proved pretty hard to make them in the first place, so I'm not in favour of losing one. Mjroots ( talk) 19:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Will my revision do? Tim riley talk 22:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Please do not add an infobox to this article. Throughout the articles within the scope of WikiProject G&S, the consensus has been not to have infoboxes. As you probably know, the use of infoboxes in WP articles is optional. The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." See also WP:DISINFOBOX. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles, as here, do not. Here are some reasons why I disagree with including an infobox in this article: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids, and all the facts it presents are stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) The most important points about the article are discussed in the Lead, so the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers 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 lot of code near the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts 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. All the best! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose infobox in this article. The box added by Mjroots is utterly absurd. I cannot see any reason why this article should have one. Cassianto Talk 20:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apropos of recent conflicting dates, 1923 is the right one. See The Times, 7 April 1923, p. 13: "The engagement is announced between Herbert Sullivan and Elena Margarita, daughter of Edmund Walden Vincent of West Hill, St Leonards-on-Sea." How do we know that's the correct Herbert Sullivan? Well, after his death the widow of our Herbert Sullivan remarried, and we know from The Gilbert and Sullivan Journal and Leslie Baily's The Gilbert and Sullivan Book, 1966 ed, London: Spring Books. ISBN 0-500-13046-9 - acknowledgements page) that she became Mrs Bashford. Here's the announcement in The Times (5 Dec 1929, p. 17): A marriage has been arranged ... between P F R Bashford, Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, and Elena Margarita, née Vincent, widow of Herbert Sullivan. Tim riley ( talk) 09:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Ssilvers: - Re your edit summary, I agree that it probably isn't important in his life or career, BUT, it is a verified fact that he witnessed the event, and called for assistance. The article is short as it is. I added the event not only to assist in increasing the length of the article a bit, but also entirely in accordance with the WP:BTW guideline. The aircrash article is in need of links to it, but it proved pretty hard to make them in the first place, so I'm not in favour of losing one. Mjroots ( talk) 19:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Will my revision do? Tim riley talk 22:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Please do not add an infobox to this article. Throughout the articles within the scope of WikiProject G&S, the consensus has been not to have infoboxes. As you probably know, the use of infoboxes in WP articles is optional. The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." See also WP:DISINFOBOX. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles, as here, do not. Here are some reasons why I disagree with including an infobox in this article: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids, and all the facts it presents are stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) The most important points about the article are discussed in the Lead, so the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers 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 lot of code near the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts 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. All the best! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose infobox in this article. The box added by Mjroots is utterly absurd. I cannot see any reason why this article should have one. Cassianto Talk 20:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)