Talk:James Joyce

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleJames Joyce is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 8, 2004.
On this day... Article milestones
September 13, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
December 8, 2006Featured article reviewKept
November 20, 2021Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 16, 2008, June 16, 2010, June 16, 2012, June 16, 2015, June 16, 2018, June 16, 2019, June 16, 2020, and June 16, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

Why on earth does this article not have no infobox when thousands of bios on other writers do?[edit]

I'll leave the template here and ask the questions if these details are not important, then why have infoboxes at all? What on earth is wrong with the mentality on this site that mob rule (aka consensus) makes arbitrary decisions about article style. Too much of a majority on this site only care first and foremost about what it all means to themselves. Do you think every reader - yes readers - it's not all about who wins the content wars, who might want find out basic things about somone ie like where they were born, married to, died, pen names, notaable works etc. They should not have to be forced to read the whole copy paste article to pick out random details.

If this site creates infoboxes, it creates them for a purpose. To not use them is hubris, nothing else.

Infobox writer

| embed = | honorific_prefix = | name = | honorific_suffix = | image = | image_size = | image_upright = | alt = | caption = | native_name = | native_name_lang = | pseudonym = | birth_name = | birth_date = | birth_place = | death_date = | death_place = | resting_place = | occupation = | language = | nationality = | citizenship = | education = | alma_mater = | period = | genre = | subject = | movement = | notable_works = | spouse = | partner = | children = | relatives = | awards = | signature = | signature_alt = | years_active = | module = | website = | portaldisp = (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consensus on this article is not to include an infobox. FDW777 (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As this is already a Featured article, it's very unlikely to get one. Hubris? Maybe it's just hummus. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because this was a hallmark article where an infobox was problematic, led to edit warring, and was used to shove in inaccurate information, as they often do. That Wikpedia has infoboxes, or any given feature or text, isn't always related to utility, rather who was persistent enough to edit war or able to accomplish a fait accompli. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes and WP:INFOBOX. Another question is, why aren't we removing them on all the other articles, where they contain uncited inaccurate info? You can read about that on the two links I provide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be interested to see the ratio of box/ no box (of those where it's theoretically appropriate). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Medicine: 100% problematic. Information can't be conveyed in one line, and reducing it to that lacks nuance to the point of inaccuracy. But that discussion is for elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Greetings, all. In reviewing past edits and this talk page, it appears the infobox at one point was experiencing a large number of erroneous edits made in bad faith. It seems some have determined the best means of stopping such behavior is to remove the infobox altogether, citing "general consensus" among those interested in preserving the article's efficacy.
Is there a means of confirming/quantifying said consensus? It appears the question of whether or not to have an infobox is still being discussed (with at least a couple good-faith attempts to add an infobox occurring in the last few months).
From my perspective, the issue at hand is how best we manage the erroneous edits to the content within the infobox - removing the infobox altogether seems a ham-fisted way of solving that problem. The expectation is that all articles with enough quality info include the infobox feature - that an article for a subject such as James Joyce (one of the most highly-regarded authors of the 20th century) does not include an infobox, degrades the quality of the article.
Any of us taking time to make good-faith improvements to articles and talk pages should recognize that maintaining the integrity of some pages is more difficult than others - but to intentionally lower the standard of an article by removing content/features/etc. to make it easier for us to manage, should be discouraged outright. The effort required to remove viable content/features/etc. is equal to that of removing non-viable content/features/etc. - there's no reason we should continue wasting energy removing quality content in the hopes that it prevents theoretical low-quality content in the future. ComfyHarpy (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More discussion: in the archives of this page.

Hi ComfyHarpy, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for taking an interest in this page. See the following threads re info box, here in 2009 it was decided not to have one, again in 2010, 2011, 2013, plus and RfC, and so on. Given the many times it's come up, particularly during the years when discussion of infoboxen was heated enough to end up at arbitration, we should probably be using the relevant WP:ACDS (discretionary sanctions) alerts i.e see, ({{subst:alert|cid}}), so that disputants are aware this has been, well, disputed on the project. That said, the consensus here is well established. In the meantime, there's no reason to replace before discussing. I'll revert the box and discussion can commence. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 23:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding, the box has been added three times in 24 hours by the same editor,diff, diff,diff. ComfyHarpy, please take a look at our instructions re edit warring, WP:EW. Edit warring is a bright line rule, important to learn as a new editor. Victoria (tk) 23:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, @Victoriaearle! Thanks very much for providing links to those previous discussions. And apologies - to yourself, as well as the folks that have been working to maintain this page for some time - my intention is not to cause problems.
In general, articles with enough relevant content do include an infobox feature. To the degree that infobox metadata is used to improve accessibility (e.g.: e-readers) both on and in sidebar search engine features leveraging wikipedia content. This functional aspect of the infobox feature was perhaps not as relevant when the previous discussions were taking place, but it sees wide use today and accessibility should be weighed more heavily when discussing the features and content to be included on article pages.
(fwiw, the content I added to the infobox most recently currently shows up in Google's sidebar search on my end - this content is likely to remain until Google refreshes it's cache for this wikipedia page, at which point, said content will likely no longer appear in Google's sidebar search. This is negatively impacts users that rely on accessibility tools to navigate the internet)
Functional accessibility reasons aside, that this article does not include an infobox makes it unique among articles of similar subject and size - an inconsistency that is wholly unnecessary. I've gathered that some dislike the infobox for personal reasons but utilizing a standard feature within wikipedia's guidelines is the default state of all articles - this one included. Removing an infobox that adheres to wikipedia guidelines is unnecessary and detrimental to the overall viability of the article itself.
For some reason, this article has attracted attention that overtime, has resulted in a lower-quality page. I've yet to see a viable, objective argument against including an infobox, especially considering the functional and contextual reasons for infobox inclusion that have evolved over the last decade.
Again: considering that past discussions relating to the infobox have gotten contentious, I want to reiterate that I'm not trying to add stress to anyone's life or start a fight or anything. I'd simply like to improve this article's viability.
p.s.: thanks for including the info regarding the the edit warning - I did not consider that my initial publication of the infobox might be considered a revision according to the 3RR. ComfyHarpy (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- infoboxes are not required - see MOS:INFOBOXUSE; "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." The Ezra Pound article does not have an infobox per consensus, nor does Kenneth Koch, Charles Reznikoff, Lorine Niedecker and many others - it's not unusual to have an article without an infobox. - Epinoia (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's a box for James Joyce. 10 full inches for £67 is a real bargain. But he's hard to put into a box, as he was one of those "stream of unconsciousnes" writers. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For me, the lack of an infobox makes the article more difficult to read. For example, I have to search through the text to find important details, such as Joyce's date of birth or his number of children. This breaks the flow of the article more than a quick look at the infobox would. I'm not very knowledgable about Joyce and I haven't contributed to the article, but I thought it would be helpful for you to have the perspective of someone who is new to Joyce and just starting to learn more about his life and works. Thanks to everyone that's contributed to this excellent article. (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to agree that Giorgio and Lucia are a bit hidden. Giorgio is not considered notable anyway, (although his son Stephen James Joyce is), so he might not appear in any infobox anyway. There might be an argument for adding a "Family" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mistakenly added an infobox after I searched for Joyce and noticed that Brave search infobox which pulls up data from the Wikipedia infobox was missing. I mostly use the Wikipedia infobox to quickly look up information especially dates. DEFCON5 (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pound --> Savitzky --> Beach[edit]

  • @Wtfiv, BrownHairedGirl, Kablammo, Rogermccart, Victoriaearle, and Ceoil:
  • Livak, Leonid (Summer 2012). "A Thankless Occupation: James Joyce and his Translator Ludmila Savitzky" (PDF). Toronto Slavic Quarterly (41). Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 March 2021.}}
  • 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @0mtwb9gd5wx: what exactly is the point you are making here?
    And why do you think it might interest me? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    interest me: you have edited the page recently, you mostly do structure it seems, so probably not your thing. point you are making: the connection between these people, "the networking", might be better stated. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    0mtwb is new here and its fair enough that he picked random people from the article history, we all that that when starting off. Will take a look. User:BrownHairedGirl is famously grumpy and anyway was never a content editor. Ceoil (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I saw this addition, and figured the editor felt Savitzky worth mentioning. I added the redlink to the French article (I don't like red links, but thought it was the most reasonable way to provide context.) I shortened the addition, which preserves the mention of Savitzky when Joyce came to Paris, but the extra details can be found in the article. The article is still accessible. I just formatted it to be consistent with the rest of the article. It is listed in sources, and I added its archive link as well. It can be accessed by anyone who passes over the citation. In addition, the pdf itself can also be clicked on within the link itself. Wtfiv (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any objective reason or formal requirement that we can’t put in an infobox?[edit]

For me the lack of an infobox is tedious, bordering on pretentious (is the article somehow too “good” for an infobox, which I’m aware is inexplicably considered childish by some people?) and brings down the article quality and usefulness. Can we please just put one in as is standard in the vast majority of biographies? Throwing it out because people put false info in it is a textbook case of Wikipedia:Baby and bathwater. People watch major articles obsessively, it’s unlikely that fake or bad info wouldn’t get caught. Dronebogus (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This issue has been addressed before, at the top of this page and the three prior archives. Please review those. Kablammo (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have and I didn’t see much consensus. In fact a few users made good points in favor of an infobox. Dronebogus (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC: Should the article have an infobox?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The main arguments presented in this discussion against an infobox are:
  • they can bloat an article, distracting a reader from the lead;
  • infoboxes often repeat the information included in the lead;
  • and on mobile devices, infoboxes clutter up an article, and compete for screen space with a lead.

On the other hand, the arguments in favor of the infobox are:

  • they provide key information at a glance, so the reader does not have to read through the article to find the information;
  • and readers often expect to see an infobox on articles, as they have become much more frequent since the last poll on this issue in 2010.
While at the start of the RfC, it trended toward a no consensus result, the compromise suggested by Wtfiv (a smaller infobox with fewer parameters) gained significant support. There is a consensus to include a short infobox. The infobox should only include the information most relevant to the article: birth, death, occupation, notable works, spouse, children, and signature. However, it should not include prizes, awards, or other parameters that unnecessarily increase the infobox's size. (non-admin closure) — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

reviewing archives and past discussion reveals consensus to be invalid (WP:STRAWPOLL) or nonexistent. Biographies overwhelmingly have infoboxes; pointing out the few remaining oddballs like Ezra Pound is WP:OTHERSTUFF. The last major discussion is also over half a decade ago. Dronebogus (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Strong Support Infoboxes have become a normal and valuable part of the user experience when navigating an article on Wikipedia. The data backs up this conclusion.[1] Making information easy to find and consume is one this project's highest priorities. While there's always going to be a reluctance to adopt something new, infoboxes have become so common there would need to be an extraordinary reason to justify not including one in an article with significant content. There is certainly some room for discussion around what can or cannot be included in the IB, but it's time to accept that infoboxes are a valuable tool for the end user. This topic has recently come up at Talk:Laurence_Olivier, Talk:Pyotr_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky, and Talk:Maddie_Ziegler and an infobox would be valuable addition to each article. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, for the reasons stated repeatedly discussions over the years, including the one at the top of this page which concluded less than half a year (not decade) ago. There are many reasons; these are some of mine:
    • This is an article, not a collection of data points;
    • relatedly, gargantuan infobox formats invite filling them with unimportant and trivial data;
    • they tend to overwhelm the front of the article, which should draw the reader in with a well-written introduction;
    • we are dealing with an artist and his art, which by nature are matters of judgment which cannot be stated or summarized in a table;
    • if specific data points are wanted, search engines can help find the desired information.

One other comment: the proposer should carefully consider the requirement that the proposal adhere to the requirement that the question be presented with a "brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue" and avoid freighted terms like "obviously fake". Let's stick to the facts. Kablammo (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Neutral When I was editing this article during the Featured Article Review (FAR) process, the consensus of the long-time editors was against the infobox. My goal was to clean up the article and support the work of previous editors, so I honored their preference. The the last poll on the infobox was overwhelmingly against the infobox. Given that it was 12 years ago, having a new poll seems to be sensible. I'm good with either outcome. My major concern is that it reflects the current consensus of editors committed to maintaining this page. I'll ping some of the editors whose work during the FAR was invaluable: @Victoriaearle, Ceoil, SandyGeorgia, and Buidhe:. (Kablammo, who was one of those invaluable editors, has already weighed in.) Wtfiv (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Overwhelming consensus of “editors committed to maintaining the page” can mean overwhelming de facto WP:OWNership. I would like fresher voices with new arguments. Dronebogus (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Dronebogus I am responding to the ping from Wtfiv. Please rephrase your RFC in neutral terms and without the unnecessary hyperbole. Your post of 22:11 is also unnecessarily charged; please have a look at WP:FAOWN and avoid unnecessarily fanning flames of past infobox wars. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I see nothing about regular page editors having unilateral control over infoboxes on that page. Dronebogus (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The page says that "Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership". Charges of ownership are not conducive to a collaborative discussion, and I hope the rest of this discussion will not go the way of the non-neutral framing of an RFC and unhelpful allegations. There is some good information at WP:ARBINFOBOX that might help steer your approach to this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I’m sorry for repeatedly making ownership accusations, I’ll stop doing it in this discussion. Dronebogus (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I’ve also replaced “obviously fake” with “invalid”, since the use of a straw poll to determine consensus is still not good even if in good faith. Dronebogus (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kablanmo, the consensus in question is obviously fake because it’s an admitted straw poll made up of simple yes/no votes with minimal elaboration. This is the opposite of real consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I notified the above projects in case there's anyone wasn't here 12 years ago who has an opinion; I realize infoboxes are surprisingly controversial. However, there's a caveat that most WikiProjects are inactive, but at least I tried. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
James Joyce
Photograph of Joyce in profile
Joyce in Zurich, c. 1918
Born(1882-02-02)February 2, 1882
Rathgar, Dublin, Ireland
DiedJanuary 13, 1941(1941-01-13) (aged 58)
Zurich, Switzerland
OccupationNovelist, poet
Notable worksUlysses (1922), Dubliners (1914), A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (1916), Finnegans Wake (1939)
  • Comment/query - Dronebogus as initiator of the discussion & RFC, have you given thought to presenting a mock up of an infobox so we can consider the various options? The issues with modernists (writers, painters, artists in general) is that a number of them spent long stretches of their lives as expatriates, moving away from home countries, not getting married, having mistresses, creating new movements in lit./painting etc., whilst often earning money/being employed outside of their art - i.e. Joyce. The other issue is how to describe the art, whether to fill the "best known" field - it's often subjective and so on. Finally, consideration has to be given to the editors who maintain the article year-after-year, because infoboxes are magnets for vandalism at worst and for bloat at best. Generally I'm opposed for this particular article and may not change my mind, but would like to see a sample before !voting. Victoria (tk) 21:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There’s a good mockup at Talk:James Joyce/Archive 2#Infobox 3 Dronebogus (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not seeing one there or in any of the archives. Since you've pointed out that some time has gone by, in my view providing a mock up would be helpful.
    In terms of this discussion, we need to remember that this is a featured article, it's a content decision, thus WP:FAOWN applies. Furthermore, in terms of this discussion we need to be mindful of the proposed principles of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Proposed decision which still stand. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 22:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The link was wrong, it should be fixed now. Dronebogus (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Have ressurected there now, minus full name James Augustine Aloysius Joyce (already in bold), Language: English (obvs), Alma mater: University College Dublin (who cares), & some overlinking. Ceoil (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks, couldn't find one in archives. I'd suggest removing "poet", though Kablammo & Wtiv would know what the sources say re poet. Victoria (tk) 19:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Shouldn’t marriage and children be added? Dronebogus (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No to marriage & children. Beyond the obvious reasons, the first didn't precede the second as the article explains. Victoria (tk) 19:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Obvious to who? Dronebogus (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong support - I’ve heard it all before, and am thoroughly unconvinced by arguments against infoboxes. They’ve become an iconic and expected part of Wikipedia, and I personally believe them to be valuable. This page should have one. Xx78900 (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for this article, although am not opposed to infoboxes in general. Like Victoria, my worry is bloat and error, both of which can be especially harmful and misleading on early modernists bio articles, whose work is prone to misunderstanding (as mentioned above). I do understand the frustration on both sides, and to vocalise some of the fear on the opposing side - despite Nemov claiming "There is certainly some room for discussion around what can or cannot be included in the IB", that is not the form of pro-box editors, given the opening on a section on the Olivier talk days after the RFC ended re his marriages. Anyhow thats my 10c if its worth anything :( Ceoil (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    that is not the form of pro-box editors, given the opening on a section on the Olivier talk days after the RFC ended re his marriages.
    Since you have named me specifically, what's this issue you're raising? The infobox was added and now there's a discussion about a section of the infobox in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. How is that at odds with what I said? Nemov (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Because despite your shucks claim above, scope creep is a fact of the way wiki works and you know it. This is why i'm now putting a proposal, if we DO DECIDE to include a box, its limited to certain paramaters and claims, unless agreed to on talk. Ceoil (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm still confused. The marriages was part of the infobox example during the RfC and an IP editor removed it immediately after it was closed. That's far from an example of scope creep. Nemov (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There would be more willingness to discuss here if there was comfort against bloat. Is what I'm saying. So many fields have been added to the template over the years that the mind boggles. My vote is to limit to occupation & notableworks, and exclude things like full name, Language, Alma mater, marriages, offspring etc, ie keep as tight as possible, and protect against well-meaning but drive by trivial additions. Also...I only now a days keep a half eye on the Olivier page, as its full of needless strife and at my age could do without out the stress of getting sucked into endless circular argument. Prob you feel the same way.[2] so if a box, its a very shrot one. Ceoil (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your argument is basically to ensure the infobox is as useless as possible to make it look bad. Dronebogus (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per the opposers. I think the main/regular editors of the page should decide, not drive-bys (like me). Johnbod (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Once again, WP:OWN is relevant here. Infoboxes are for reader benefit, and should not be decided by the whims of 5 or 6 editors who obviously are biased against infoboxes. If it was their choice and theirs alone this discussion would be instantly closed as “no”. Dronebogus (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thats a real cheap shot, not just for the hypocrisy of you being fresh off the Laurence Oliver page, but also because you are saying on the one hand "I get the incumbents points re bloat, wont happen here" and on the other hand "fuck the incumbents". As far as I can see the opposers are advocating compromise, and you are taking pot shots. Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Who are you talking to? It’s not very civil whoever it’s directed at. Dronebogus (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is describing your approach across series of article-talks uncivil? If so, that seems more your problem rather than mine, because what I'm seeing here is (a) infobox warrior (b) dishonest. Ceoil (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I take it you are talking to me? Dronebogus (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Address the substance please. Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh I’m the one with the ad hominem attacks, considering you just called me a liar and an infobox warrior? Dronebogus (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Address the substance please. Ceoil (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Address the attacks please. Stop repeating meaningless statements please. Dronebogus (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's WP:FAOWN that applies here. Perhaps you haven't noticed that before - no sign of "particular care" being taken. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership.
    I do not believe infoboxes fall under this jurisdiction since they don't change text or images. It's a navigation tool for end users and it summarizes content that's already been discussed. Nemov (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is not a navigation tool. It never has been, isn’t and likely never will be. You are mischaracterising it by describing it this way. As it’s name makes clear: it is an information box. It is information in a text form, often with an accompanying image. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7D16:A849:4BD3:B993 (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I've written articles and taken them to FA with IBs and without, and only used them where they are of use to the reader, and not just because some editors think that they are common on some articles, so they should be on all biographies. The proposed box repeats the facts of the first paragraph and is utterly underwhelming. Are readers really going to read Dubliners and then come to WP to look at the IB to see where he died? (And just to correct a misnomer about IBs: they are not "navigation tools" - that's wrong). 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7183:2FED:A175:2EA1 (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well I use infoboxes to find out how old people were when they died, or how old they are now. I don’t want to have to get out a calculator. Dronebogus (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To use your single argumentative tactic back at you, oh shucks, who are you directing that weak rhetorical strawman at? Me? Santa? I'm confused. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are you even talking about? Dronebogus (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This - before you started that bizzar "where am I what's happening" series of posts - : Like Victoria, my worry is bloat and error, both of which can be especially harmful and misleading on early modernists bio articles, whose work is prone to misunderstanding (as mentioned above). I do understand the frustration on both sides, and to vocalise some of the fear on the opposing side - despite Nemov claiming "There is certainly some room for discussion around what can or cannot be included in the IB", that is not the form of pro-box editors, given the opening on a section on the Olivier talk days after the RFC ended re his marriages.

To note again, I'm agruging for a shortened box. Please read what you are replying to. PLEASE STAY ON POINT. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Para 3 of the lead. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7183:2FED:A175:2EA1 (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I expect to be able to look over at the right corner and see it, it’s frustrating when I can’t. Dronebogus (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It took me about five seconds to see it in the lead. I' find it frustrating when the eye is drawn to a box of tangential factoids that don't aid understanding of a subject, but you can't please all the people all the time. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7183:2FED:A175:2EA1 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m sorry I’m genuinely lost between all the replies and indents Dronebogus (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, you have mischaracterized what happened on that RfC. I shouldn't have to point out again that it's not an example of scope creep. It was in the RfC example before close and an opposing editor removed it immediately. Please review that timeline in GF. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong support - the infobox as presented would be an improvement to the article. As a reader, I wished I had an infobox presenting me the data in a more easy to digest summary. This is exactly what infoboxes excel at. WP:OWN and WP:FAOWN absolutely apply here, and a more effective consensus would include input from some editors who present the perspective of naive readers. Not people who already know the information presented in the lead. — Shibbolethink ( ) 14:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose box and oppose discussion at this time. I've thought long and hard about this and even lost sleep; have looked elsewhere on the web to see how other sites deal w/ the "synopis" issue (Britannica's is quite good). Finally in the end decided against posting the lengthy comment I'd composed to do w/ various fields, because in my view it's a moot issue.
    This Rfc was launched with the words "For me the lack of an infobox is tedious, bordering on pretentious (is the article somehow too “good” for an infobox, which I’m aware is inexplicably considered childish by some people?)"
    In my view this particular discussion is wiki-political at a time when multiple concurrent discussions are being held; the issue has been raised w/ very charged language as part of the arb elections; it's been discussed on at least one external site (that I'm aware of); and may involves backchanneling: None of these things are conducive to a collegial and collaborative compromise.
    Once fire is put to the flame and then added again & again and synonyms for conflict used, human nature being what it is & the internet being what it is, inevitably people will go to their corners, get their backs up - use whichever metaphor works - and be ill-inclined to find a workable solution.
    After a sleepless night last night (time thinking about Wikipedia and infoboxes that I'll never get back), the final straw was to see it raised again in front of the arbs today. Therefore at this time I'm opposing the box and the discussion another time when life is less busy and the topic less charged. Victoria (tk) 19:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Could someone please provide a link to this arb discussion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    SandyGeorgia see for example here. Also the issue of arb candidate questions is brought up in the Olivier discussion so it's obviously on people's radar. Victoria (tk) 20:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thx, Victoria; I can see more clearly now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I must admit I'm confused about what's going on in arb channels? As someone who has been involved the past 6 weeks I find some of the drama around this topic puzzling. I understand that it's human nature for there to be resistance to things that are new so I'm not surprised there was some fierce opinions about this 10+ years ago, but I don't think newer editors who have been around 5 years or so are gonna understand all this stuff going on in the background. Consensus can change and I believe that's what's happening here with Infoboxes. I don't think there's a reason to punt the discussion even if one is opposed to IBs. Nemov (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose (invited by the bot) On infoboxes, I advocate including only clear-cut key info. It looks like in this article it was prone to putting in stuff that wasn't that. Also, on articles like this they are more prone to that issue and have less info-box type material. North8000 (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support: Including the infobox shown here, with only birth, death, and a short list of works seems like an improvement to the article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong support, makes life easier for those of us who sometimes just want to glance at articles.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong support How is he any different from Faulkner or Hemingway. What intrinsic quality demands that Joyce not have an IB? An IB is only a plus - there is no possible way it could harm the reader's experience. ~ HAL333 23:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - per inevitable. Sooner or later, all bios will have infoboxes. So why bother fighting it. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thats a bit mindless and fatalistic for my taste, but whatever. Ceoil (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Many people only spend seconds on Wikipedia. An infobox highlights the most relevant things from the lead, the same way the lead repeats the most relevant elements of the body; "redundancy" isn't a convincing oppose argument. It likely helps comprehension and information retention, and if you did eye tracking studies, I wouldn't be surprised if a plurality of people looked at the infobox first. DFlhb (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. (Summoned by bot) The infobox, especially (but not necessarily) as proposed, provides helpful basic biographical facts and context that can be reasonably expected to be of benefit to the average reader. Vague assertions about a supposedly high potential for misinformation inherent in an infobox for biographies of persons of this particular profession and era are not supported by any specific established examples or even concerns. Further, even if such issues were to manifest into something more concrete, the verifiability of those specific elements could be addressed as they arose: keeping out erroneous or poorly sourced content certainly does not stand on whether or not it is located in an infobox. SnowRise let's rap 03:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Responding purely as a reader because the bot asked; i have no skin in the game here, i'm pretty sure i've never edited or gnomed either Joyce or any related article. As a reader, i (and, it would appear, may others) find infoboxes useful, and a good tool. I have no other reason, but i think that serving the reader is all the reason needed. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 06:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support the compromise outlined by Wtfiv below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Infoboxes are of great benefit to readers (myself included). Good way to present simple, non-contentious facts e.g. date of birth/death, notable works etc. Yours, ToeSchmoker (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I can't believe we are still having these ridiculous infobox discussions. Time to compromise. The presence of a discreet and accurate infobox is very useful to the casual reader and is a basic element that needs to be included as a general principle. Montanabw(talk) 17:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment and unwatch, finding myself mostly aligned with Victoriaearle's position. I have now read the prequel, caught up on the background links provided by Victoria,[3] [4] and refreshed my memory of the past arb findings on infoboxes at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions#Infobox probation (II). I fall in line with Victoria's concerns about the manner in which this RFC was approached. Among (many) other issues, it started with a non-neutral framing of this RFC, uncollegial behaviors (which persist), and continued to survey responses that do not entertain specific benefits/needs to this article of an infobox per the arbcom remedy. Arguments presented have amounted to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:ILIKEIT, discussions of other articles, alleged data that does not and cannot back the statement made about what readers allegedly want, expressions of personal preference, and a glaring lack of discussion of sources, concerns, nuance, or any reason that this particular article would benefit from an infobox. This is quite a discouraging thing to see on a Featured article, not the kind of discussion that has been seen before here, and not something I want to be part of. If the best reason one has for wanting an infobox is so they can avoid doing the math for the age at which a person died, that doesn't speak very highly for the utility of an infobox here. The discussion so far has been high on hyperbole, accusation and misstatement, and low on the kind of reasoned logic one hopes for at the level of featured content.
    Wtfiv, while I appreciate your good-faith effort to move things forward by closing the RFC yourself, I hope you understand in such an environment why it is better to wait for an uninvolved closer-- particularly in an area that has seen disruptive editing and two arbcases, extending over more than a decade.
    As the still-active longest editor of this article, I am now unwatching. One of the great joys of working at the FA level is the high level of dialogue with readers thoroughly familiar with a topic and its sources; the uncollegial battleground approach and discussion here is not how I choose to spend my editing time as a hobby. I appreciate that the other regular long-time editors here may be approaching a compromise consensus, and commend them for that collaborative effort. I request that I not be pinged back to this article again; should there be an arb enforcement case, I would appreciate a ping. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. So tiresome to repeat the same for years: infoboxes bring nothing but needless clutter and edit warring. Not an improvement at all. Ghirla-трёп- 17:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. So tiresome to repeat the same for years: infoboxes bring helpful order and get rid of needless clutter and edit warring. An improvement for all. --Malerooster (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No – the main source of Wikipedia's readers is from mobile devices. In the mobile version, infoboxes and lead paragraphs compete directly with each other for vertical screen space. This means that avoiding WP:CLUTTER and redundancy is important for all the content that appears at the beginning of the article. The individuals who write and maintain the article are the one's best qualified to determine how best to summarize the article in this limited mobile screen space. In this case, the best approach is to use only an image rather than the larger footprint of an infobox in the lead. --Guest2625 (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi Guest2625. For the record, the main writer here is Wtfiv, who has proposed a compromise: a short box with strictly limited parameters. I do have concerns re how it will be policed and know from experience how pro-box people tap tap tap at the edges, but its a compromised that seems to be working for now, and as a comiitment, should not be taken lightly. Otherwise, May God have Mercy on All our Souls. Ceoil (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per User:SandyGeorgia and Guest2625.--Smerus (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per every single time this has come up. I worked hard on this article over many years and LET IT BE...Modernist (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I’m really sorry but that is purely wp:OWNership and voting for the sake of voting. Dronebogus (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose(Summoned by bot) per Johnbod I think the main/regular editors of the page should decide, not drive-bys (like me). Clearly the local consensus is against and on matters of this kind that local consensus should trump people like me IMO.Pincrete (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Own, own, own… Dronebogus (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please stop badgering Dronebogus, its tiresome and creating a hostile atmosphere. You are becoming detrimental to the discussion and so belligerent and obnoxious that people are naturally going to turn against you. Anymore of this belittling of participants and will be reporting you to an/i. Ceoil (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I spent 15+ years as a reader before becoming an editor and I really like having the infobox summarise information. More than that, it saves time searching through the article. Finally, Wikipedia has spent the last few years training people to expect information to be summarised in infoboxes. I think that the short version proposed above is a good idea as it would alleviate at least some of the concerns about length. Gusfriend (talk)
  • Support. Infoboxes are a standardised part of article space, providing key information at a glance, including birth year, death year and age at death among other things; when I'm not writing articles, I often read them and looking up someone's age is often something I do. Not having that infobox in this article thus impairs reader experience.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong Support: Much in the same vein of Xx78900, I am unconvinced by the opposition arguments to infoboxes in general. They're an incredibly useful way to present some basic, structured points about a person. The example provided above in this discussion is a good example of how this looks. More importantly, nothing is taken away from the article as a result of an infobox - Instead, value is added! I'm also not convinced by the mobile site issue - This isn't an issue I've ever encountered on any other article with an infobox on my phone, so I won't say it isn't an issue at all, but there's no information in the first paragraph of the lead now that couldn't be (very easily) included in an infobox. As an aside, while I don't think this is as much of an issue as some others on this page do, the ownership behavior displayed in quotes like I worked hard on this article over many years and LET IT BE is obviously not to be taken seriously in this discussion. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 00:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong Support for the reasons given by the first editor to comment, Nemov. No earthly reason why this article should be singled out for exceptional treatment now that biographical infoboxes are ubiquitous and their advantages well understood. (Directed here by the notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels). MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Is there something different about this article than the Laurence Olivier article? I ask this for the people voting no here using the same arguments they used on other articles? This issue keeps popping up via RfC over and over on WP:BIO and WP:BLP. It seems like the many of the same people opposing/support each time, with the same arguments, and slowly over time the infoboxes are added. Isn't this a sign to move on to something else and stop opposing it? Or, maybe there's something unique to this article that hasn't been brought up? The infobox train left the station many years ago. It seems like a better use of time would be to standardize the infoboxes for WP:BIO than to rehash this debate over and over. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with standardization. Dronebogus (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Frankly, I don't care that much and never really did. But from here, the big difference that anti box are specialist, and peaceful pps that have spent years honing specific bios. Whereas, rightly or wrongly, my perception is that the pro people tend to be obsessed with uniformity to the point of obsession, and seek out those last caves so can "tickg them off", as if a kill list. Also, my impressions is that there has been a lot of socking and a willingness to let that slide, along with a tendency to tolerate stupidity to garder numbers - see above the vacuous "I agree with standardization" which shows no understanding of why data/"facts" in infooxes should be curated. ps, I also have enough self awarness to think this is a really stupid argument during out all short lives. Ceoil (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    {redacted} Dronebogus (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This comment isn't constructive. Can you please remove it? I want to find a path forward and stop the silly fighting. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It’s too late now, and I highly doubt there’s a peaceful solution here, but I will redact it. Dronebogus (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I’d also appreciate Ceoil stopping his belittling, passive-aggressive tone. Dronebogus (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree, the claim that "I don't care that much and never really did" doesn't seem to be supported by some of the comments I've seen here so far, but there is a path forward here and we should try to find one. Nemov (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fair point Nemov, I meant that I usually hang my head and let it slide, and retain have more self restraint. I totally agree that there is a "there is a path forward here and we should try to find one" fwiw, but worry that any reduced box agreed here will be constantly argued in the coming years as pro box people test boundaries. Sigh :( Ceoil (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If the projects can agree to infobox parameters that should solve that issue. Some editors probably didn't even know infoboxes were controversial (I certainly didn't know) and just see an article and are bold by adding one unwittingly stepping on the fire ant hill. The scope creep can be managed with templates. Nemov (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That would be ideal but a bit of a fanciful hope given its mostly opera and early modernist strong holdouts still resisting these days. I'm fine with a very tight box with limited parameters and a strongly worded html wording in edit mode, as have mentioned several times above. But will it be adhered to? Precedent indicates...nope Ceoil (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I usually hang my head and let it slide, and retain have more self restraint
    I think what you're describing is "controlled self-dispassion"[5] which is a generally good thing to have when everything around you is chaotic.
    [I] worry that any reduced box agreed here will be constantly argued in the coming years as pro box people test boundaries
    I'm happy to stick around, watch this article, and ensure it doesn't expand too much. I think it should be pretty bare-bones, as I've described above, and will be opposed to adding lots and lots of params. — Shibbolethink ( ) 23:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Shibbolethink, maybe you don't have to stick around. Given this is an RFC, how about we reframe the question so that its about a box with limited parameters (per my suggested box above), and if anybody happens along and expands, we refer them to this or the closing statement? That works for me, and we can all get on with out lives. Anybody know how to reformulate this RFC?. Ceoil (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree that this is a stupid argument, which is why I voted how I believed and haven't engaged further. I'd also like to add that though I do believe an infobox should be added, I don't want to be associated with @Dronebogus, who has been editing in an unconstructive manner. @Ceoil is an editor I respect, and I do not appreciate the way Drone has been speaking to them. Xx78900 (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well I don’t appreciate the way he’s been speaking to me. Dronebogus (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In general this discussion of user conduct is WP:TALKOFFTOPIC here and should probably not be here at all. But if we're doing it anyway, I'd like to add that some of the conduct here is volatile and unnecesarily creating a battleground mentality. Such as "the big difference that anti box are specialist, and peaceful pps that have spent years honing specific bios. Whereas, rightly or wrongly, my perception is that the pro people tend to be obsessed with uniformity to the point of obsession... as if a kill list". Creating "pro" and "anti" camps out of various participating editors is not conducive to resolving disputes or achieving consensus. Can't we all just wait to see what uninvolved editors think? — Shibbolethink ( ) 15:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree, this is as bad as deletionists vs. inclusionists. Dronebogus (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ceoil has it right and I think this is massive time sink given these types of comments. I hadn't realized that right now there are multiple infobox discussions ongoing with editors who've come here involved in those discussions: see Talk:Laurence Olivier, Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Talk:Claude Debussy. This reminds me of times past and not in a good way - i.e a swarming. Re as Ceoil says re short lives - yes. I've had this article on watch since forever and made edits to it, so dragged myself from the self-imposed semi-retirement (b/c of ill health) to comment (for the first time in ages on an i-box), but don't see that there's any appetite to compromise or meet in the middle. Kablammo has it right below to get the fields identified (which I tried to do some days ago). Let's see where that goes. Victoria (tk) 21:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proponents of infoboxes: Please tell us what fields would be included, what would be excluded, and what criteria would be used to make those choices. Kablammo (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Stanley Kubrick IB seems like a good example, but quick things users would be looking for in an article are name, image, DOB, DOD, occupation, works, awards, spouses, children, and signature.
I agree that infobox creep could be a problem. Other projects have standardized the box to keep this from happening and changes to the standard IB template are sorted out there. That seems like a good way to prevent overly long IBs. Nemov (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shakespeare wrote almost 200 attributed works. Kablammo (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be a link to the full list similar to the example I cited. Nemov (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed that infobox creep is a problem, but would say that is a separate issue. "not having an infobox at all" appears to be the equivalent of pouring concrete in a sandbox because some people were drawing inappropriate pictures in it. There are better ways to solve the issue. — Shibbolethink ( ) 15:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree it's a separate issue, but I'm trying to find a way to forge a consensus point from those who are prepared to fight IBs article by article. There's been a handful of RfCs about this topic just over the last month. After many years, it does appear that this discussion is at a tipping point. The vast majority of our editors have seen infoboxes used for over a decade and the consensus position for many of these debates is going to include the IB. It seems to me like a more constructive use of opposition time to standardize the template. Nemov (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely fair point. I think it's fascinating overall that most naive editors who come to these seem to support adding the IB. if any longterm article editors are concerned, they should rest assured that what and how things are included will be a collective decision! Its not like people are ramming through an infobox with every possible scrap of info. An IB is not the end of the world, and it appears to be what uninvolved users actually want... — Shibbolethink ( ) 16:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shibbolethink it was a needless thing to say, but in my defense, none of the status-que people here are hot off the years long Laurence Olivier crusade.[6]' Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I do in general understand why you're frustrating and why a few people here are exasperated over all this. It's understandable. — Shibbolethink ( ) 23:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I think this is a case where readers have been trained to have a clear expectation, and personally I can't see any reason not to add one, given that expectation. Myself, I often use them to quickly navigate to related articles (eg articles on children, spouses, etc) when browsing. I agree that the giant every-possible-field infoboxes are deeply annoying and I can see why longterm editors of any particular article might not relish the idea of having to find consensus for every single line item, but the concern that people will fill the infobox up with useless information is strange to me - can't we just put in a code comment saying "don't add new lines to this infobox without talk page consensus"? -- asilvering (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would have no effect whatsoever - drive-by IB-fillers take no notice of that sort of thing. Bloat and misinformation is pretty inevitable. Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then remove it, like you would anywhere else. It’s a featured article, people watch it like a hawk Dronebogus (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gee, thanks - meanwhile you'll be over the hills and far away, bludgeoning other articles to have infoboxes! It took over 12 hours for the last undiscussed infobox to be removed. Johnbod (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jeez I can put it on my watchlist too you know. Dronebogus (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
12 hours, compared to the 21 years this article has existed? Wow, what a travesty. wikipedia is WP:NOTFINISHED. — Shibbolethink ( ) 22:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I got a ping to participate as I took the lead role during FAR. As I mentioned I want to respect those editors who have worked on this article so long, and were so supportive during the FAR. And as per SandyGeorgia, the WP:FAOWN does have a place here, as I well remember that much of what we were doing was consensus building. On the other hand, I'm certainly open to supporting the infobox movement. Here's what I suggest: The infobox suggested to looks fine to me, except I think Joyce's works should be in chronological order, and Nemov's suggestions seem reasonable to give Nora her due, so mention of the spouse is important. The children could get mentioned.

  • Joyce doesn't need prizes, unless someone wants to put in "Not the Nobel Prize" (A joke about one of the complaints of Joyce aficionados.)
  • Joyce should have a parameter for favorite, or at least most frequently imbibed, alcoholic beverage . Then we could put the white wine of his post-Dublin years, as I suspect a goodly number of folk think its Guinness. (Another joke I probably shouldn't make: I can imagine that this item could wind up as a new parameter in infobox bloat!)

This is six parameters I'm seeing (born, died, occupation, notable works, spouse children) that seems to be capture the common ground. Would that work? Whatever the consensus, I would like to ask that a couple of participants in the infobox movement volunteer to put JJ on their watchlist with the intention of reverting IB bloat when they catch, joining in being a small part of this article's WP:FAOWN. Wtfiv (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • This is a reasonable path forward to me. Thanks!
Nemov (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree these are a reasonable six params to use. I agree prizes would not be DUE here, despite the obvious place for a good jab at history. Face-smile.svg. Happy to put it on the watchlist to avoid more bloat being added without demonstration that it is DUE. — Shibbolethink ( ) 16:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with this also. Ceoil (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like we are close. Nemov and Dronebogus, as two of the initiators of the Infobox discussion regarding this page, would you be willing to put James Joyce on your watchlist and revert infobox bloat beyond what we agreed to as it comes along. (And thank you Shibbolethink for already doing so!) Your help in supporting maintenance be much appreciated, it would reduce perceptions of WP:OWN and broaden WP:FAOWN. If you are good with this, the infobox will be posted and I'll close the RFC. Wtfiv (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course. Dronebogus (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I'll add it to my watchlist. Thanks for your assistance. Nemov (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! I added the infobox, adding Mr. J's signature to be a lucky seventh parameter. Wtfiv (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The close was premature and I suggest waiting for all to weigh in, and waiting for an independent closer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
“All”? Who is “all”? The entire encyclopedia? Enough votes to get a desired result? Dronebogus (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Continued on your talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sandy, I assumed since that the most engaged parties- and a couple of long-term editors that I respect and have some WP:FAOWN in this article- had agreed to a solution, it's done. But I have no problem letting it continue, I certainly don't want to close it if further discussion is productive and any editor feels it should continue. I do feel my close was within the spirit of the WP:RFCEND as I understood it: An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration;,The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time; one of them removes the {{rfc}} template... Please remove the {{rfc}} tag when the dispute has been resolved, or when discussion has ended. Previous to this note, I had put an infobox in the article, but feel free to revert it. Wtfiv (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I already reverted it and it was editwarred back in. The close was too quick; on a contentious issue, reversing long-standing consensus, the RFC should run its full course and be closed by someone with no involvement. I had not weighed in, did not see the RFC as close to closing so was letting my wrist heal, and I consider what has happened here problematic if not disruptive, and a proper response warrants typing my response sans sprained wrist. If/when the RFC is re-closed, considering the unlikelihood that those who wanted the infobox will be around for the next go-round, there should be a statement about the conclusion by an uninvolved closer. Considering the number of editors who have had to deal with faulty infobox insertions here for over a decade, I hope all have contemplated the future of this article once those who wanted the infobox have moved on, and the past issues recur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
considering the unlikelihood that those who wanted the infobox will be around for the next go-round
Please remember to assume good faith of other wikipedia editors. Thanks. FWIW, I agree with you that this RFC should run its course before anyone closes, as wiki's work is never done and we are on no deadlines. — Shibbolethink ( ) 15:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Continued on your talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS, I will add my six cents tomorrow or next day, when sprained wrist is better for typing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dronebogus please stop edit warring over your preference. Wtfiv this RFC should have run its course (it was only initiated on Dec 3), and considering the contentiousness and the consensus for well over a decade, should have had a strictly uninvolved closer. Please revert your premature close. I sprained my wrist last week, and additionally, my computer was in repair for a new hard drive,[7] so I have put off responding here. Such a quick close on such an important FA was not something reasonably envisioned; I will add my feedback tomorrow or next when wrist allows for more typing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dronebogus, it really isn't appropriate for the proposer to close a contested RFC. If you think it is ready to close, you can post a request at WP:RFCLOSE to get attention from an uninvolved closer. --RL0919 (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dronebogus didn't close the RFC; Wtfiv (now the article's main editor) closed the RFC. I reverted the close as premature, too involved, and Dronbogus then reverted my revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for clarifying; I should have reviewed the Talk page history first instead of assuming based on the article history. Still, best to have someone entirely uninvolved do the closing. --RL0919 (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There was a growing consensus to include the infobox and Wtfiv took the lead and was making pragmatic choices. This same story has played out in several identical RfC discussions the past 6 weeks. It's disappointing that another editor didn't review the TALK for the past week and started making reverts. I'm going to unwatch this article for now. Someone can ping me when the inevitable outcome is finalized. Thanks Nemov (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This has been open almost an entire month. I think this has been discussed to death, and changing the completely fair, hard-won original compromise because of a couple trickle-in votes seems like pandering to the filibusterers. Unless there’s an objection I’m closing this by the 1st of January. Dronebogus (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Object. It needs a neutral third-party objective closer. And it's best to wait the extra few days past the holidays for the full 30 days. Victoria (tk) 19:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Should we just accept that this is going to be dragged out to the point of “no consensus” by last-minute no-argument votes like the one that just happened so it can be brought up AGAIN in 4 months? Dronebogus (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To clarify I think your objection is reasonable but I’m desperately trying to be pragmatic here. Do you know how unbelievably rare a productive compromise on this situation is? Dronebogus (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I should just no consensus this now. It’s obvious that until there’s an actual policy of standardized infobox use the top 3 users will be given carte blanche to block infoboxes on “their” articles. Dronebogus (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would say there's no reason not to implement the compromise discussed above, which is agreed upon by several of the highest frequency contributors here. — Shibbolethink ( ) 00:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree, but the only way to resolve that is by a re-start. I mean, its going to be back here in a few months anyway :( Ceoil (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issues with new vector skin[edit]

  • I have no doubt that an IB will eventually be forced on this page (possibly as a result of this non-neutrally worded RFC). If that day does come, I would advise to keep it as short as humanly possible. With the new 2022 Vector skin being implemented across the site, the list of contents is being removed from between the lead and the first section and moved to the left-hand side of the screen. This means that even a moderate IB will already be dipping into the sections below. Looking at the new abomination on Laurence Olivier, because it's been populated by unimportant fluff (like partners, numbers of children and "years active"), the image of his childhood home is pushed down the page and now causes WP:SANDWICHING with another image. This is not ideal. Even less ideal is Winston Churchill when the IB and navbox push the early images from his birth section (1889 picture) to the section of him as an MP in 1901! Only the eighth photograph in the body is actually in line with where it is supposed to be. Lose-lose all round. - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Much of this has to do with the resolution and size of the screen you're viewing content on. I don't have any of these problems on my 13" macbook. — Shibbolethink ( ) 15:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's nice for you, just as long as you're happy then that's all OK. The 'sod you, Jack, I'm alright' school of reader awareness lives on, I see. - SchroCat (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not saying it's totally fine, just saying that your experience is not universal! That clearly is an annoying thing about the new vector that you're describing in your setup. Personally, I just think the new vector design is terrible, provides no benefits, and shouldn't be defaulted for all not-logged-in users. I switched as soon as I could (but yes, I did check these formatting things on the new skin). I think that would be a much better solution than modifying our content so thoroughly to fit aesthetics for only new-skin users on only some setups. — Shibbolethink ( ) 16:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "new-skin users on only some setups": it's the default for all those with no account, which will cover most of the casual readers on this site, given the majority of readers don't have an account when they visit WP. There's no point in ignoring something just because you can log in and go back to the older view: the problem will be there for most casual readers. For those of us who actually develop content for readers, it is a very real problem that needs to be addressed, regardless how blithely one dismisses it. SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For those of us who actually develop content for readers... regardless how blithely one dismisses it
    Please strike these personal attacks and assume good faith moving forwards. Thanks — Shibbolethink ( ) 17:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is no personal attack here: I have described how I edit WP as a content developer, not how anyone does. Please assume good faith and don't assume everything other people write is automatically a personal attack. - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi Schro, thanks for raising this here. It is an issue that we have to take into consideration; I meant to post about it myself but decided to wait. Shibbolethink, we have to take the readers into consideration, not what we see on our screens. I'm seeing issues on every single article but need to spend some time w/ screen resolutions, browsers, other devices etc., to see what's best. Image squash and oversize infobox problems have been reported elsewhere so it seems to be a valid problem. Victoria (tk) 17:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Image squash and oversize infobox problems have been reported elsewhere so it seems to be a valid problem
    Definitely a valid problem, but may only be a problem at certain resolutions and screen sizes. For instance, this would not be an issue at all on mobile (~52% of views)[8].
    I would say there are probably more creative solutions like modifying the Lua modules employed in these infoboxes to make them more responsive in width and spacing to the current resolution or Template:clear usage to find a best-posible solution which incorporates multiple viewpoints. Simply saying "this is a reason to not use infoboxes" seems quite short-sighted to me. — Shibbolethink ( ) 17:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Just sigh. Generally listening dispassionately is helpul. Accusing people of saying what they haven't, isn't. Empathy is good. Accusations = bad. Victoria (tk) 17:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I could not agree more. That is why I have provided direct templated quotes when referencing what other users have said. I understand the reasoning for bringing up these issues. I get why it is clearly a problem for some users. Let's collaborate on creative solutions which incorporate the viewpoints of those with multiple different viewpoints on infoboxes. — Shibbolethink ( ) 17:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Simply saying "this is a reason to not use infoboxes" seems quite short-sighted to me": could you point out exactly where I have said that or something close to that? My opening comment was about the brevity of a possible future IB. Misrepresenting others (particularly using quote marks to suggest a direct quote) isn't terribly helpful or constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    could you point out exactly where I have said that
    I never said you did and I wasn't attempting to describe your position. You do seem quite dissatisfied or disappointed with the pages you've described having infoboxes above or having as many parameters as they do currently (correct me if I'm wrong), but I never said you specifically are referencing this as a reason not to have them. You have only said it is a "lose-lose" situation. — Shibbolethink ( ) 17:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (edit conflict) x 3 If I haven't said it, don't put it in quote marks: that's misleading. The inferences you've drawn from what I wrote are a long way from what I actually wrote. I'm going to drop out of this now; you could start an argument in an empty room, and my time on WP doesn't need a combative environment full of misquotes and misleading and misrepresentative nonsense. - SchroCat (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Next time I have a discussion with you, I'll be sure to use single ' marks instead of " when referencing theoretical ideas. I thought the clear usage of the tq template for each and every actual quote of someone else would have been enough, but I appreciate your feedback. Have a nice day. — Shibbolethink ( ) 17:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I exclusively use mobile. If this was so bad it would have prevented a huge majority of biographies and other articles from having boxes. This is yet another weird, desperate excuse not to have something simple and universal. Dronebogus (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, to be fair DB, SC is describing this as an issue now because the new vector skin has been just implemented in the past few days for desktop users. No one actually said that above which is probably why it's confusing. It wouldn't have been an issue until now, and people are still figuring out the impact of the new skin on all these pages. Personally all of this is why I think having it as default is a terrible idea (and would be great fodder for a Village pump thread). — Shibbolethink ( ) 17:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it’s what I think it is (Vector 2022), I hate that skin anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep. I don't really know what the decision-making process was for implementing it site-wide for logged-out users. WMF or community? My guess is WMF implemented it because it's nicer on server usage costs or something like that. — Shibbolethink ( ) 17:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It appears most discussion of the new vector skin is happening over at WP:VPT — Shibbolethink ( ) 17:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) x 3 Don't be silly. The vector has only just been released and there are a whole raft of complaints about it - this is just one more problem it brings out. As I've had to say above, what you have said is a misrepresentation of what I wrote. Perhaps you should try reading my opening comment, where I make no such claim. - SchroCat (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I see you complaining about my RFC’s “wording” and bemoaning infoboxes, so I’m reading between the lines a little. Correct me if I’m wrong Dronebogus (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're wrong. Very wrong. Read my opening comment properly. - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion is going nowhere extremely fast. I propose closing it with template:archive top so we can avoid further disruption, hostility, and off-topic meandering here. SC made their point, it seems quite a bit more relevant to WP:VPT than it is here. I'm not proposing collapsing because there's no reason to de-emphasize what is already here, and it is clearly valuable insofar as it stands as a recommendation to limit IB length if and when implemented. — Shibbolethink ( ) 18:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have already said I am out of this, but I would object to this being closed. If the RFC above goes to needing to implement an IB, this is a point that needs to taken into account. And for crying out loud, can you make a comment and leave it alone? The edit conflicts are a time-wasting pain in the neck. - SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And for crying out loud, can you make a comment and leave it alone? The edit conflicts are a time-wasting pain in the neck
Nothing about the way I edit is against policy, or even recommended against in any policy or guideline. See WP:TALK#REPLIED. If you want to change that, you're welcome to propose something at WT:TPG.
As for the edit conflicts, that sucks and I understand how frustrating it can be, I've certainly had it become annoying to me in the past as well. But reply-tool, convenient discussions, and various other plugins remove this as an issue entirely by re-submitting edits when a conflict occurs. — Shibbolethink ( ) 19:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, so it's a pain for other editors, but as it's not specifically against policy, you're fine with carrying on doing it? Even though you edit nearly every single one of your comments more than once? Even though you could write out in word first and think before editing and posting, you're OK with it annoying other editors? OK, that's fine - I guess that says a lot. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose archiving the thread.
Shibbolethink, please don't refactor people's comments - which are placed where they are because of edit conflicts. Previewing edits before hitting save is a good practice on discussion pages. Also, it's not really necessary to blue link everything - the editors here are well aware of TPO, etc. Victoria (tk) 20:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will continue to put people's comments below mine which were made after mine, per TPG. You can also view it as me moving my comments to their proper place in the discussion thread. Thanks for the advice. If you wish to revert it, you are welcome to do so, and I don't feel strongly enough to edit war about it. That's BRD. But there is no reason to believe your comment was started before anyone else's, and thus the submission time is used to thread discussions per custom. — Shibbolethink ( ) 20:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • SchroCat, so I've looked at this diff with infobox, using Vector 2022, on a laptop, font boosted to 125%, resolution is down a bit (all of these personal hacks help prevent migraines), and it looks like it will be okay if kept short. With my set-up the lead is reduced to a very narrow column but there isn't any infobox bleed into the next section and I'm not seeing immediate text squash.
    I also looked at it with 100% font, increased screen resolution, changed browsers a couple of times, and it still looks fine. But that's what I see, so comments from others would be helpful. I'd be curious to know what happens with a large monitor, high resolution, toggled to full screen - which will shrink the lead and might cause bleed into the next section.
    The caveat is that the shorter the box, the better. Also to clarify, I've not yet struck my oppose, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 22:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Adding; if I put the font to 100%, have full screen resolution and toggle to full screen, then the box goes to bottom para of the lead. Any more fields and it will bleed through to the next section. I don't have a big monitor any longer so will need someone else to test that. Victoria (tk) 22:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems likely that the amount of white space in vector 2022 (don't get me started) is going to be reduced in a few weeks. Also to SchroCat the consensus here seems to be veering towards a much reduced infobox, with additional parameters only agreed by consensus on talk, with most of the most vocal pro-box voters agreeing to help police. Shibbolethink you have certainly been refactoring comments, but. As we have been so close to closing this with mutual agreement, I'd be inclined to cool it and move on (espc can SC and Dronebogus calm down). Ceoil (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Hi Ceoil, As you know I'm nearly always calm - being misrepresented and misquoted is run of the mill at IB discussions, even when the point of the post was about what would happen when an IB is put here. I don't know why there was so much hostility and aggro for talking about what would happen when an IB is put in place, but there you go! (As an aside, I'll point out that when I visited the Olivier box yesterday for the first time in a while, I noticed three extra fields have already been added by passing editors, so caveat emptor on the promises of an 'always-tight IB'!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah but, your not as fucking calm as me :) The deal is that User:Wtfiv, who did a complete rewrite at FAR last year has final say; we are all inclined to trust him, is the general feeling. Ceoil (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same 100% font on V2022 on a desktop (set to 1920 x 1080) using MS Edge on this diff
  • Hi Victoria, This is what happens on my desktop with the same diff. I know there are a myriad of screen sizes, resolutions and customisations that go on, but this is what I see, which is the box intruding into the first section. It only affects the positioning on one image (at the moment), but given IB do swell, regardless of promises made at any point, it may well cause problems for some people later. I'm de-watching this now, as I'm sure it can all be sorted without me. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks Schro, that's very helpful. I'm too lazy to upload screenshots, so I appreciate seeing what it looks like on a larger screen than I have access to.
    Ceoil, yes, Wtfiv put forward a compromise but it's a formal RFC and other voices won't/shouldn't be ignored in my view.
    Also, I think it's worth having this discussion here or anywhere else; seeing screenshots or reporting how things render w/ different monitors, i.e laptop, desktop monitor, etc., is helpful. At least to me it's helpful to get a sense of how much reformatting will be needed on various articles. From the screenshot above it does look like there will be some bleed from lead into the next section - I wonder if we can do without the signature - it's a little overwhelming? If not, maybe shrink that file? Victoria (tk) 17:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I prefer to loose the sig; takes up too much space, and anyway who cares? Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed; we don't need the sig. That will help w/ space issues. Victoria (tk) 22:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post RfC[edit]

@Wtfiv: now that the RfC is closed you can move forward with the infobox we discussed earlier. I can watch this article if necessary. Thanks for your help on this issue. Nemov (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per the close, it appears the consensus infobox would be as follows (birth, death, occupation, notable works, spouse, children, and signature) (see the version @Ingenuity added here). As they are the most uninvolved and thus most qualified to perceive consensus here, I am inclined to agree with their implementation and think we should protect it as consensus moving forwards.
And to forestall any sniping, yes I would be saying that regardless of which parameters they had included. In these things, there is a process. Disputing their assessment of the consensus IB would require one to dispute the close, meaning such a person should discuss with them on their talk page, and then if still unsatisfied, head over to closure review.
Basically the only difference was whether or not to include a sig. I agree there were a few people who were emphatic about not wanting the signature. But I also agree with the closer that this was not enough opposition to overrule the multiple people who earlier had advocated for the signature's inclusion. I personally am pretty lukewarm about including the sig, but I do think on balance it is a positive inclusion, with very little sacrificed to space.— Shibbolethink ( ) 16:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m apathetic, but I do agree that it’s pretty much useless and we can ditch it if there’s clutter concerns Dronebogus (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll put the info box up right after this comment. The signature wasn't really a topic of discussion. It's addition was my suggestion following a point made by Kablammo. But two of the editors who helped get this through FAR suggest losing it and it wasn't a topic of discussion otherwise, so I'll leave it out. Wtfiv (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw the box was already added. I deleted the signature as per final discussion. But if anybody wants to put it back in, please do! Wtfiv (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm fine either way. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer without a sig, but not a big deal. Great to see post a heated RFC consensus at work ! :) Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dronebogus - although we had harsh words above, its great to see you abiding by the closing comments and giving latitude re the sig. Ceoil (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was Joyce an anarchist?[edit]

This article is in two anarchist categories, & tagged for the Anarchy wikiproject. The four mentions in this very comprehensive article don't seem to justify this - he read some books by anarchists early in his life, but in those days most intellectuals did. I'm fine with the equivalent treatment for socialism, which seems justified. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To add to this; two sections above this malaise are titled "British?" and "Danish". Ceoil (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it isn't a "defining" trait, yes, it should be removed as a category. This said, there seems to be enough to warrant mention that he was influenced by egoist individualist anarchism (Benjamin Tucker) and associated in anarchist social circles, even if he rejected labels.

Joyce's individualism derived partly from anarchism. He acquired books about anarchy in Trieste and began calling himself an anarchist as early as 1907, though he was a "philosophical" anarchist rather than a political one ...
— Birmingham, The Most Dangerous Book: The Battle for James Joyce's Ulysses, p. 50

James Joyce, who called himself an anarchist early in his career
— Weir, Anarchy & Culture: The Aesthetic Politics of Modernism, p. 168

[Joyce] did maintain a lifelong interest in anarchism ...
— Ellman, The Consciousness of Joyce, p. 84

... avant-garde artists began to be attracted to the individualist strain of anarchist ideology sometimes called 'egoism' ... Ibsen himself identified with anarchism, and for a while so did James Joyce, who saw himself as Ibsen's successor. Ezra Pound, likewise, called himself an 'individualist' early in his career, at a time when 'individualist' was a code word for 'anarchist.' Another connection between modernism and anarchism lies in the little magazines of the period ... Joyce's Ulysses was serialised in The Little Review, published by Jane Heap and Margaret Anderson, both Sternite anarchists.
— Edinburgh Dictionary of Modernism, p. 19

Relatedly, Sonn's Sex, Violence, and the Avant-garde: Anarchism in Interwar France (p. 96) remarks on how Ulysses was also published in the individualist anarchist journal The Egoist.

... [Joyce] would prefer to say that like Ibsen, he was an anarchist, though not a practical anarchist after what he called the modern style.
— Ellman, James Joyce, p. 239

... in March 1907, ... [Joyce] wrote to Stanislaus that "... I have no wish to codify myself as an anarchist or socialist or reactionary" ... The fact remains, however, that for almost three years Joyce called himself an anarchist, even if, as Stanislaus and many other critics have attested, he attached "himself to no school of socialism". ... By the time he came to write Ulysses, he had long abandoned the absolutism of his pronouncements on socialism of this early period. Socialist discourse by then had become for him just another limited set of beliefs to draw on.
— The Years of Bloom, p. 72

"I have no wish to codify myself ..." This was written at the time Joyce discovered that Nora was pregnant again – and signals the decision to achieve an inner retreat and to adopt an attitude that can be equated with a purely literary egoism ... the almost fanatic avoidance of any mention of politics by Joyce in the late twenties. (p. 20)
It is worth remembering that anarchism was relatively well known to Joyce, who, always very careful in presenting an image of himself, insisted in a note for his biographer, Herbert Gorman, that he as well read in the anarchist tradition (p. 27)
— Rabaté, James Joyce and the Politics of Egoism

See also Shantz, Specters of Anarchy: Literature and the Anarchist Imagination, Chapter 3: "Suspicious of the State: The Anarchist Politics of James Joyce" (summary: Joyce rejected labels, held "ironic distance" from his autobiographical characters, spoke of influence anarchist thinkers had on him). Manganiello also has a full chapter on the topic but I don't have a copy.

Later writers increasingly looked to form and style rather than theme or topics for expressing anarchism as literary praxis, such as Joyce's stream of consciousness ... (pp. 572–573)
— The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism, "Literature and Anarchism"

Joyce apparently found Tucker's thought compelling, and Manganiello detects numerous affinities between Tucker's political thinking and Joyce's early university essay 'Force', Stephen Hero and A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. ... Joyce's aesthetic articulartions are best understood in terms of anarchist ideals of individualism, freedom and resistance to various forms of authoritarian force.
— McCourt, James Joyce in Context, p. 288

Also I let the WikiProject know about this discussion. czar 06:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks - one of those armchair anarchists. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, Czar; at one point, it appeared that too much had been collapsed along with the premature RFC collapse. Thx for fixing, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree the sourcing is too poor to call this a "defining trait" but strong enough to include a mention/discussion of the specifics in the body. — Shibbolethink ( ) 05:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Joyce's reading of Tucker is mentioned in the "Joyce and Politics" section. Wtfiv (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joyce views on Ireland and England[edit]

I recently removed this from Nelson's Pillar where I felt it was off topic. I am unsure if this is due here, so I'll leave this on talk for interested editors to discuss and possibly incorporate.

Joyce shared Yeats's view that Ireland's association with England was an essential element in a shared history, and asked: "Tell me why you think I ought to change the conditions that gave Ireland and me a shape and a destiny?"[1]


  1. ^ Kennedy 2013, p. 62.

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It an interesting quote. I think the section on his British passport catches his ambiguous relationship to the United Kingdom, but my preference would be to not incorporate it. The second-hand quote comes from Budgen's memoirs of Joyce in Zürich, James Joyce and the making of Ulysses. The context is Joyce responding to Budgen advocating for Irish Home Rule in the aftermath of WWI. The following paragraphs suggests Joyce's response may be ironic, as Budgen was being paid by British government's Ministry of Information at the time. Wtfiv (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree that the claim is shaky and anyway not for this page. Ceoil (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]