Talk:James Joyce

message: * 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. 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *NO nein, netCeoil (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

text: *:Who are you replying to? Dronebogus (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What are you even talking about? Dronebogus (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Para 3 of the lead. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7183:2FED:A175:2EA1 (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I’m sorry I’m genuinely lost between all the replies and indents Dronebogus (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *: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)
replies: text: *"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)
replies: text: *:Please strike these personal attacks and assume good faith moving forwards. Thanks — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)

text: *: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). 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)

text: *::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)

text: *:::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)
replies: text: *"": 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)
replies: text: *: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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: *: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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: If it’s what I think it is (Vector 2022), I hate that skin anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: It appears most discussion of the new vector skin is happening over at WP:VPT — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You're wrong. Very wrong. Read my opening comment properly. - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title: Issues with new vector skin

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm fine either way. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Post RfC

message: 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?"
 Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agree that the claim is shaky and anyway not for this page. Ceoil (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joyce views on Ireland and England 

message: By all accounts he refused an Irish passport and would have only a British one. Using the convention typical on here, doesn't that make him a British poet? Yes, I get he was born in Ireland at a time it was British, but there is also the convention of stating those Yorkshire born back in the period of "the Ridings" carry that as their place of birth despite it being defunct (e.g West Riding even if today that is now South Yorkshire). He identified his official nationality for passport purposes as British. There are many British who today were born as expatriates or in Africa, who are regarded as "British" because just like Joyce, they carry a British passport. 2A00:23C8:3D12:7401:D554:BBC:528C:1ACC (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: per MOS:CITIZEN, its more about what Joyce is most often "known as" not how he himself identified. How is he most often referred to in secondary and tertiary sources? Scholars set the tone for how Wikipedia is written. I believe "Irish novelist" is the most common per ngramsEncyclopedia Britannica: The Atlantic: Vanity Fair: Beja's James Joyce : a literary life refers to him most often as As does Gordon's James Joyce : a new biography and Bulson's The Cambridge Introduction to James Joyce — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

text: I don't think Joyce situation is remotely comparable to British people born in British colonies or the Ridings. Someone like Tolkien for example had English parents and moved back to England as a child. Joyce on the other hand was an ethnic Irishman born and raised in the country Ireland (part of the UK) and all of his notable works were set in Ireland. So he's described as Irish for the same reason Tolkien is described as English and Robert Burns is described as Scottish. See WP:UKNATIONALS and MOS:CITIZEN. Stevenbfg (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technically, isn't he British? 

message: It's not super well-known (and doesn't seem to be mentioned on this page), but there is a recording of Joyce reading a section of Aeolus:
https://www.themorgan.org/exhibitions/online/ulysses/joyces-recording-ulysses
Surely an actual recording of Joyce's voice on this page (and reading Ulysses nonetheless!) would be an essential addition to both this page and the Ulysses page.
I'm no copywrite expert but given the record was published in 1924, surely it'd now be in the public domain (if not very close to being in it).
Neuroxic (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it'd be a great addition to both articles as long as its not violating copyright law, which I'm unsure of. Wtfiv (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That link gives Paris as a publication location - is it known whether it was published at that time in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Doesnt look like it. Only 20 pressing were made in 1924; they were paid for by the recorder rather than a publisher, and distributed to friends only. Ceoil (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah - in that case it would be unlikely to be PD at this point unless there's more info suggesting otherwise. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It will pass into PD in 2029. Thanks anyway Neuroxic; if I live for another 5 years will add it. Ceoil (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the absence of a recording of Joyce's voice on the page?