Talk:Hattie Jacques

message: I am aware of the discussion about not including an infobox that took place more than 3 years ago but I fail to understand why there seems to be a consensus by some (I disagree -- and to my understanding a consensus is when everyone agrees on the same thing) that an infobox is not required for this article. If the use of infoboxes is to make "the article resemble the standard display for this subject" I think the only issue that needs to be discussed is what the infobox should contain rather than whether it should be included at all. If there's to be no infobox on this page why should there be any infobox for any other article? Apologies for opening up an old can of worms. --ToniSant (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OSE is not a great basis for this, as articles differ in nature and content, and while boxes are great in some fields (politicians, sports people, clergy and those who posts and positions can be listed), they are much less useful for those in the liberal arts. I don't see any arguments in your post that relate to inclusion of a box on this specific article. As to "", that's a remarkably good question that should be a question of any inclusion (and the same point should be made with asking about the inclusion of images and text too): nothing should be added by default without questioning the rationale for inclusion. – SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that explanation. I appreciate it and accept it.  I also see it as part of the broader deletionist vs inclusionist culture that has long prevailed around several active Wikipedia editors. Sadly, as I see it, this is one way the project keeps losing active editors. To be honest, I don't have the time or the energy to argue for something that only really exists because Wikipedia has never really had a significant update in terms of how information on its article pages is presented to readers who are not also editors or understand any of the sophisticated back-channel discussions that go on around how and why things look or behave the way they do on Wikipedia. Having said this, I am rather curious to see how and when infoboxes populated by Wikidata will eventually get introduced beyond Wikimedia Commons. --ToniSant (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not have an infobox? 

message: Per MOS:SEEALSO, "one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." (bolding mine) Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of See also section 

message: keeps edit-warring in a deprecated source, the WP:DAILYMAIL, apparently being unable to find any other source for a claimed quote.
WP:BURDEN - which is policy - says:
:
, you're repeatedly inserting material that is cited to a source that is so remarkably unreliable that two general RFCs have deprecated it - that is, deemed it unusable on Wikipedia except in truly remarkable circumstances. Per WP:DAILYMAIL:
:
, repeatedly inserting bad sources - including re-inserting them - is against Wikipedia policy. Do you have a reliable source for the claim, or do you just have the Daily Mail?
If you don't have a RS for the quote, it should be removed until you do.
If you still feel the Daily Mail somehow passes muster here, the appropriate venue after this is discussion on WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also literally not what the RFC says -  says that it is indeed worse than no source, and that the claim should be removed entirely. Do you have a non-deprecated source for the quote? If not, it should be removed - David Gerard (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  challenging use of the Daily Mail under [[WP:BURDEN]] as a prima facie unreliable source 

message: Martinevans, why does the same information need clumsily repeating within two paragraphs? I think readers are intelligent enough to remember the basic information within that two paragraph distance. It’s clear the information was added without adding a source. It doesn’t matter if the citation was also two paragraphs above, any claim needs to be supported by a citation at that point. Having did that, there’s still no need to repeat minor information twice in quick succession. 213.205.194.140 (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: IP 213 your initial edit summary said: "1. adding unsourced material". The material was sourced, two paragraphs above; it still is sourced. Yes, I have read the entire article, thanks, But I've made no comment about "readers considered so dense they need the same information repeating two paragraphs later." So kindly don't suggest that is my view. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. The information was unsourced at the point it was included. It doesn’t matter if it was sourced previously, but at the point it was added I would need to be supported, which it wasn’t. 2. I haven’t suggested anything: I have said that they are not dense, that’s all. 3. If you saw the information was already present so nearby, why did you think it was worthwhile repeating it so soon? 4. As there’s a thread open here, I really, really don’t see why you needed to leave a message in a null edit: that’s exactly what the talk page is for... 213.205.194.140 (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does matter if it was sourced previously, only two paragraphs above. If you saw the information was already present so nearby, why did your edit summary ask for a source and not say "not worthwhile repeating it so soon?" I made my null edit before I saw a new thread at this page, assuming that a thread was unnecessary. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it needs a source there, and if you had already seen the source present, why did you think the rather minor information needs repeating so soon after the first mention? 213.205.194.140 (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need a source there if you want to remove it. I was responding to your edit summary. Have I not made that clear? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You’ve made it clear that you’ve missed the point of what I was saying, but never mind. 213.205.194.140 (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The point made in your initial edit summary was  "1. adding unsourced material". That's what I was responding to. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: And the conversation moved past that point, but you’ve ignored or missed the point much of what happened in the middle. As I said before, never mind. 213.205.194.140 (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want something removed from an article, I don't think the best edit summary you can use is "adding unsourced material." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: And that’s the evidence that you really, really have missed out on the point of what I have been saying. 213.205.194.140 (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, I see. I'm totally stupid and you're totally correct. I should have guessed. Thanks for pointing that out. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 🤦‍♂️ And you’re still not actually reading what I’ve said. I’ve clearly not said that at all - you’ve just made it up. I’m out of this - WP is enough of a time sink without having to deal with nonsense like this - and I’ll leave you to have the all important last word. 213.205.194.140 (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Important last word. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeating information within a couple of paragraphs