Talk:Stanley Holloway

message: What's with all the primary sources cited in the "Family background" section? A lot of it seems to be original research, which is cracked down on mighty hard elsewhere on Wikipedia.78.144.75.151 (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You neglected to sign your comment.  You misunderstand what "original research" means.  There is nothing wrong with using official, accessible sources for factoids like names and dates. The sources discussion that you cite merely says of  census, probate and similar materials: "Some of these sources may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred." I agree with that, and I am happy to delete such sources to the extent that they are redundant with Holloway and Richards or ODNB, if that is the case. I reduced the info about Holloway's grandfather, but it was all accepted at FAC, so I don't think it is warranted to cut it as much as you did. I will defer to User:Tim riley, when he has a moment to consider this, as he has done a lot of work on this article and has all the book sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I had typed up a far-too-long dissection of exactly why I made the initial edit, but in the event I think I shall spare you having to either read it or roll your eyes at its length and contrariness and NOT read it, and spare myself the bother of being disdained for it and having my reasoning dismissed out of hand. I hope you can make this article better than it currently is, in any case- "Meliora sperans", and such. Best regards 88.109.215.181 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

text: I was unaware of deleting anything other than an added citation to the GRO that didn't in fact support the statement attributed to it, viz. that Woodford is now in London rather than Essex. If I deleted anything else it was in error, for which apols. My edit summary explains what I was seeking to do. Tim riley talk 08:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Source citations?

message: Contrary to Tim Riley above this has not been “discussed at length”; it appears to have been discussed once, briefly, in 2014/15. Additionally the subject was in the military, and military personnel generally have infoboxes since there’s a lot of rote, but important  information to be covered like rank, branch etc. which an I-box is extremely well suited to. Dronebogus (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:RFCBEFORE, this is supposed to be discussed with editors on the talk page before the RfC is opened. Are we not bothering with the basic steps of WP interaction now? I suggest this malformed attempt is closed and a discussion started first, as it is supposed to be. SchroCat (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

text: I would agree that this seems some way prior to an RfC, better discussed on this Talk page. Here is a link to a  May 2023 Village Pump discussion on Infoboxes which (although unresolved) may provide some lines of thinking on relative roles of textual intro vs Infobox. AllyD (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

text: I too am surprised this went straight to RFC, but I do fully support an infobox on this article per Dronebogus, the thoroughly-bitten reader and potential new editor above (I'm slightly surprised I didn't respond pointing out the fallacy of the obviously false "discussed at length" claim when I first saw it, but this was several days later so the reader had probably gone already) and my comments in 2014 (where again arguments weren't actually addressed but infoboxes as a concept rather ridiculed and insulted). Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m going to be blunt: discussing before RfC is a waste of time. If you just say “can I put in an infobox” or something, the infobox is going to be aggressively blocked by the same people who systematically blocked i-boxes at similar articles. WP:NOTBURO applies. In any case you answered your osn question: it was just discussed, and shot down ruthlessly. Dronebogus (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Ssilvers, you say this every single time. It’s meta-WP:BLUDGEONING. Dronebogus (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Plus he’s not even just a liberal arts person, he was in the military like I said in the rationale! Dronebogus (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: He is not notable for his army service during WWI.  You misunderstand Bludgeoning.  It is where you comment on everyone else's comments in the same discussion, as you are doing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented three times, and one was an addition to an existing comment. Dronebogus (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Are humans considered "liberal arts fields", in the context of that 10-year-old Signpost article?  (The editor who wrote it was banned by ArbCom, so we can't ask the author.)  When I read that, I hear "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to articles like Music and Rhetoric", not "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to biographies about musicians, authors, and actors". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

text: I have pulled the RfC tag, not just because others have pointed out that there was no WP:RFCBEFORE (Dronebogus please note, RfC is intended to be used when other methods have failed, it is not an instrument of first resort) but also because of the big red error message that has gone ignored for well over 24 hours. Please read WP:RFCST and consider carefully if you really need a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC for what is a normal everyday matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Redrose64 I'm convinced by @Dronebogus' arguments that the prior discussion does constitute an RFC-before, and for the need for an RFC given the hostility with which attempts at rational discussion are shot down. I can't comment on the error message. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  The above thread was so short it doesn't really constitute a discussion, so the attempt to open an RFC here failed WP:RFCBEFORE; there was zero hostility in the thread, so I am not sure why you claimed there was. There were people who disagreed with the opening comment, but that isn't "hostility", no matter how much anyone may claim it to be. Because of the way it was opened it was malformed and in breach of other aspects of the way an RFC should be run. - SchroCat (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A discussion is a discussion, and politely biting newbies (by aggressively shooting down good faith proposals dishonestly framing a single 7+ years old discussion as “discussed at length”) is still biting. Or do I need to open a new discussion, which will immediately get shot down by you, Ssilvers, Tim et al? Or do I need to open another, proper rfc that will get shot down by you etc for being too close to the last one (this one) which according to you wasn’t even a legitimate rfc? Dronebogus (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What you need to do is read WP:AGF and stop personalising debates: that would be a great start. It wasn't a legitimate RFC - and it wasn't just me that said so. Several others concurred and it was an admin,  that closed of the RFC - not me. If you want to have an RFC, then after there has been a proper discussion, read the instructions and do it properly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And what, in your opinion, constitutes “proper discussion”? Dronebogus (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I suggest you read WP:RFCBEFORE and follow the guidelines. I am sure you don't need me to explain what is already given in the guidelines. - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have looked at some other RFCs and see why mine was deformed. However I do not see the value in an extended discussion that we know will end in an RfC anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rfc re: i-box 

message: What is the possible explanation for not including a standard format infobox on the page? Keystone18 (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no WP:CONSENSUS to add an infobox to this article.  This has been discussed here before.  See the Archived Talk discussion.  I would certainly oppose it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Keystone seems not to understand Wikipedia's rules: there is no "standard" i-box. The agreed policy is that whether or not to have an i-box is a matter for consensus at every article. I agree with the consensus here that an i-box would not be of much use to the reader. Tim riley talk 16:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox