![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An editor claiming to be Eyen's nephew persists in adding irrelevant info to this article. Whether or not he really is related to the subject, detailed facts about the Broadway production and film version of Dreamgirls belong in articles devoted to those topics, not here. Neither the soundtrack's standing on the Billboard charts nor a list of the Oscar nominations warrant a mention here, as they are not Eyen's accomplishments. SFTVLGUY2 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you don't know what you're talking about. I have written and edited hundreds of articles on Wikipedia, including some "Featured Articles". Please be WP:civil and assume good faith. If you disagree with any of my edits, please let me know, and we can discuss them. -- Ssilvers 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." 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 proposed 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) Since the most important points about the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, 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 would discourage new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the article. (7) It would 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. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Here is a list of reasons why I'm against infoboxes in biographies like this:
Infoboxes seem to pander to the lowest concentration span. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Their inclusion would be derided in any culture that wasn't saturated with 30-second television ads and news broadcasts featuring 5- to 10-second grabs from politicians, PR consultants and disaster witnesses. Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text.
Infoboxes should be used only occasionally, with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles. Those who are pushing the project to accept this cancer everywhere would do better to put their energy into creating more lists. -- Cassianto Talk 07:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
With all this massive hand-wringing over Infoboxes, one thing emerges: not a single argument has been made in opposition to them, which offers anything uniquely relevant to this article. These arguments are simply a collection of (in many cases, admittedly so) the same generic retreads of arguments made ad nauseum elsewhere. Unfortunately, they also ignore three basic facts:
Finally, in direct response to one comment: those in denial of the above facts would do better putting their energies toward improving this particular article, rather than tilting at the same windmills whenever and wherever they find... windmills. There can be little debate about the fact that this article could certainly use the improvement. X4n6 ( talk) 23:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
1. Your views which are not shared by everyone. The good thing about this project is that we are all different and see different benefits in different things. You are deluded if you think everyone likes infoboxes.
2. "If all the reader wants is bulletpoints, why should they have to sift through countless reams of irrelevant type to find them?" If it is factoids or bulleted lists the reader wants then they can bugger off to a lesser website. We else do we slave away writing top quality articles when all people do is come here and use the pages we have tenderly authored to be used as a means to cheat in a pub quiz.
3. "The majority of people clearly prefer them." -- Which reliable source has this come from? You seem to do a lot of talking on behalf of others but with very little evidence to back that up.
Finally, in terms of having better stuff to do, the same could be said for you, X4n6. Cassianto Talk 06:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Cassianto, the interesting dynamic at play here is that I've never been so myopic as to presume my views were universal. However, I am also quite capable of discerning when positions express majority vs minority views. Those who argue against infoboxes as some universal tenet with universal support, are both myopic and deluded. And re: my view that the majority of people clearly prefer them: their continued existence and widespread use is all the "evidence" I need to "back that up." To paraphrase Descartes: "They exist, therefore they are." But also, you seem to have forgotten whom this project is for. It's not, primarily, for editors - it's for readers. Yet you clearly view our readers with contempt. As unwashed masses incapable of independent thought, or discernment; and unworthy of the pearls of virtuous hunt-and-pecked wisdom that you, oh so graciously, cast upon them. And despite your condescension, they're going to acknowledge you as the true successor to Keats/Ibsen/Coward/Freud/Jung/Shakespeare/Aristophanes/Franklin/Jefferson/Michelangelo/Einstein/Hawking et al, or you'll know the reason why! Absolute rubbish. As for those "top quality articles," once again, your delusion is showing. While I enjoy occasionally editing on this project and will defend its utility, to a point: make no mistake: its purpose is to coherently disseminate accurate information. Nothing more. Not to create "top quality articles." If that's your goal, perhaps you should try your hand at compensated writing. See how you fare against professional writers and experienced journalists. Folks who do original research; interview subjects; write in the first person; photograph their own original and copyrighted images; write entire articles with no collaborators and on deadlines, and finally, sign their own names to their work product once it is finished. WP is unapologetically antithetical to all of that. But those are the facts. So when/if you can manage it, feel free to rejoin the rest of us in the real world. Maybe even with a very specific rationale for why an infobox would not be useful for this particular article. X4n6 ( talk) 10:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Louisalebwohl, I strongly object to your pulling information out of chronological context to stow it into a "legacy" paragraph at the bottom. The reader should understand these things in connection with the decades when they happened. His legacy is not just '70s prolific-ness and 60's experimental theatre, it is also Dreamgirls, so what you did is misleading. I also object to your separating the material into stubby little paragraphs. The paragraphs, as they are now constructed, are sensible groupings of related materials. Now that we disagree on your remaining changes, instead of simply reverting, you should discuss here your *reasons* for desiring each change. Maybe you will persuade me or others. See WP:CONSENSUS. Once there is a new WP:CONSENSUS, new changes can be made. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that all makes sense to me! LouisaLebwohl ( talk) 01:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An editor claiming to be Eyen's nephew persists in adding irrelevant info to this article. Whether or not he really is related to the subject, detailed facts about the Broadway production and film version of Dreamgirls belong in articles devoted to those topics, not here. Neither the soundtrack's standing on the Billboard charts nor a list of the Oscar nominations warrant a mention here, as they are not Eyen's accomplishments. SFTVLGUY2 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you don't know what you're talking about. I have written and edited hundreds of articles on Wikipedia, including some "Featured Articles". Please be WP:civil and assume good faith. If you disagree with any of my edits, please let me know, and we can discuss them. -- Ssilvers 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." 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 proposed 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) Since the most important points about the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, 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 would discourage new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the article. (7) It would 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. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Here is a list of reasons why I'm against infoboxes in biographies like this:
Infoboxes seem to pander to the lowest concentration span. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Their inclusion would be derided in any culture that wasn't saturated with 30-second television ads and news broadcasts featuring 5- to 10-second grabs from politicians, PR consultants and disaster witnesses. Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text.
Infoboxes should be used only occasionally, with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles. Those who are pushing the project to accept this cancer everywhere would do better to put their energy into creating more lists. -- Cassianto Talk 07:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
With all this massive hand-wringing over Infoboxes, one thing emerges: not a single argument has been made in opposition to them, which offers anything uniquely relevant to this article. These arguments are simply a collection of (in many cases, admittedly so) the same generic retreads of arguments made ad nauseum elsewhere. Unfortunately, they also ignore three basic facts:
Finally, in direct response to one comment: those in denial of the above facts would do better putting their energies toward improving this particular article, rather than tilting at the same windmills whenever and wherever they find... windmills. There can be little debate about the fact that this article could certainly use the improvement. X4n6 ( talk) 23:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
1. Your views which are not shared by everyone. The good thing about this project is that we are all different and see different benefits in different things. You are deluded if you think everyone likes infoboxes.
2. "If all the reader wants is bulletpoints, why should they have to sift through countless reams of irrelevant type to find them?" If it is factoids or bulleted lists the reader wants then they can bugger off to a lesser website. We else do we slave away writing top quality articles when all people do is come here and use the pages we have tenderly authored to be used as a means to cheat in a pub quiz.
3. "The majority of people clearly prefer them." -- Which reliable source has this come from? You seem to do a lot of talking on behalf of others but with very little evidence to back that up.
Finally, in terms of having better stuff to do, the same could be said for you, X4n6. Cassianto Talk 06:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Cassianto, the interesting dynamic at play here is that I've never been so myopic as to presume my views were universal. However, I am also quite capable of discerning when positions express majority vs minority views. Those who argue against infoboxes as some universal tenet with universal support, are both myopic and deluded. And re: my view that the majority of people clearly prefer them: their continued existence and widespread use is all the "evidence" I need to "back that up." To paraphrase Descartes: "They exist, therefore they are." But also, you seem to have forgotten whom this project is for. It's not, primarily, for editors - it's for readers. Yet you clearly view our readers with contempt. As unwashed masses incapable of independent thought, or discernment; and unworthy of the pearls of virtuous hunt-and-pecked wisdom that you, oh so graciously, cast upon them. And despite your condescension, they're going to acknowledge you as the true successor to Keats/Ibsen/Coward/Freud/Jung/Shakespeare/Aristophanes/Franklin/Jefferson/Michelangelo/Einstein/Hawking et al, or you'll know the reason why! Absolute rubbish. As for those "top quality articles," once again, your delusion is showing. While I enjoy occasionally editing on this project and will defend its utility, to a point: make no mistake: its purpose is to coherently disseminate accurate information. Nothing more. Not to create "top quality articles." If that's your goal, perhaps you should try your hand at compensated writing. See how you fare against professional writers and experienced journalists. Folks who do original research; interview subjects; write in the first person; photograph their own original and copyrighted images; write entire articles with no collaborators and on deadlines, and finally, sign their own names to their work product once it is finished. WP is unapologetically antithetical to all of that. But those are the facts. So when/if you can manage it, feel free to rejoin the rest of us in the real world. Maybe even with a very specific rationale for why an infobox would not be useful for this particular article. X4n6 ( talk) 10:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Louisalebwohl, I strongly object to your pulling information out of chronological context to stow it into a "legacy" paragraph at the bottom. The reader should understand these things in connection with the decades when they happened. His legacy is not just '70s prolific-ness and 60's experimental theatre, it is also Dreamgirls, so what you did is misleading. I also object to your separating the material into stubby little paragraphs. The paragraphs, as they are now constructed, are sensible groupings of related materials. Now that we disagree on your remaining changes, instead of simply reverting, you should discuss here your *reasons* for desiring each change. Maybe you will persuade me or others. See WP:CONSENSUS. Once there is a new WP:CONSENSUS, new changes can be made. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that all makes sense to me! LouisaLebwohl ( talk) 01:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)