This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gilbert and Sullivan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gilbert and SullivanWikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanTemplate:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanGilbert and Sullivan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stagecraft, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.StagecraftWikipedia:WikiProject StagecraftTemplate:WikiProject StagecraftStagecraft articles
Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I think this article would benefit from an infobox.
This would provide a quick, at-a-glance summary of W.S. Gilbert's key details, enhancing the reader's ability to grasp the essential facts and context of his life and work.
It would also help standardise his article with other literary figures, facilitating comparison and improving navigation between related articles.
Given Gilbert's significance in the literary and theatrical fields, an infobox would contribute to a more informative and user-friendly Wikipedia experience.
While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, as a Signpost report notes: "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, in particular, because: (1) The box would emphasize less important factoids, stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts about Gilbert. (2) As 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 display a redundant 3rd (or likely 4th) mention of these facts. (3) Updates are often made to articles but not reflected in the box (or vice versa). (4) Instead of focusing on the content of the article, my experience is that editors will spend time arguing over what to include in the box. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm not convinced by IBs in liberal arts biographies, and I'm not sure one here would be an improvement. There is certainly no guideline or policy that suggests standardisation is required or beneficial, and an IB wouldn't improve navigation at all. The relevant links between articles are already present once or twice in the article. Neither is the "importance" of a subject any metric for determining one (I'm not sure how one would even measure the "importance" of a historical figure against all those notable people we have across history, but maybe that's just me). - SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'd rather we not have infoboxes in bios of those who are not politicians or involved with sports. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply