Talk:W. S. Gilbert

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the W. S. Gilbert article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

W. S. Gilbert 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.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 18, 2006.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 22, 2006	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
October 13, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
October 13, 2006	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
October 16, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
November 2, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
November 20, 2006	WikiProject approved revision	Diff to current version
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 29, 2011, May 29, 2015, and May 29, 2017.
Current status: Featured article

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as High-importance).
	This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Gilbert and Sullivan Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gilbert and Sullivan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gilbert and SullivanWikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanTemplate:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanGilbert and Sullivan articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

England High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stagecraft (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stagecraft, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.StagecraftWikipedia:WikiProject StagecraftTemplate:WikiProject StagecraftStagecraft articles

A summary of this article appears in Gilbert and Sullivan.

Need for Infobox?[edit]

I think this article would benefit from an infobox.

This would provide a quick, at-a-glance summary of W.S. Gilbert's key details, enhancing the reader's ability to grasp the essential facts and context of his life and work.

It would also help standardise his article with other literary figures, facilitating comparison and improving navigation between related articles.

Given Gilbert's significance in the literary and theatrical fields, an infobox would contribute to a more informative and user-friendly Wikipedia experience.

What do others think? Anaximenes of Miletus (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, as a Signpost report notes: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article, in particular, because: (1) The box would emphasize less important factoids, stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts about Gilbert. (2) As the information that would be in the box is already discussed in the article and is also seen in a Google Knowledge Graph, the box would display a redundant 3rd (or likely 4th) mention of these facts. (3) Updates are often made to articles but not reflected in the box (or vice versa). (4) Instead of focusing on the content of the article, my experience is that editors will spend time arguing over what to include in the box. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced by IBs in liberal arts biographies, and I'm not sure one here would be an improvement. There is certainly no guideline or policy that suggests standardisation is required or beneficial, and an IB wouldn't improve navigation at all. The relevant links between articles are already present once or twice in the article. Neither is the "importance" of a subject any metric for determining one (I'm not sure how one would even measure the "importance" of a historical figure against all those notable people we have across history, but maybe that's just me). - SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather we not have infoboxes in bios of those who are not politicians or involved with sports. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]