Talk:Peter and Rosemary Grant

message: Please read the proposed change at Talk:Peter Grant. Thank you. --Dweller 20:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig... PLEASE READ 

message: External links does not exist!!!!--85.207.18.54 (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I am editing this page as a project under drsusan1968.
Maggiekeener (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project 

message: Needs some fixes with grammar and tone. I tried to make some changes but it probably needs some work from someone more familiar with the Grants' work and research - I changed a few inaccurate/misleading things that I noticed.
Tentaculata (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for copy-edit tag 

message: These scientists are distinct individuals even if they work together closely. As far as I've seen, it's not standard to have single pages for couples who work together, and when it does happen it can often focus more on the work of one person instead of both. I think this page needs to be split again. What was the reason for combining it?
Blueclaw (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of splitting it. Anyone opposed? Biochemlife (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to find reliable sources that show each of them is notable as an individual. If sources refer to their work as a couple, the current article might be fine even if unusual. The problem with splitting (which I'm not opposing if it can be done) is that there might be a lot of duplication. Johnuniq (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

text: I'm in favor of keeping the joint biography, even if both satisfy WP:SCHOLAR. Per WP:OVERLAP, there is enough significant overlap in the biographies to warrant a merge. The Grants are widely treated as a duo: books and articles are most commonly written about them as a team, their most significant accomplishments have been joint efforts, and many of their books and papers are co-authored. An article that lacks the other would be either incomplete or largely redundant, causing readers to jump between articles to get a comprehensive picture, and give undue emphasis to rather trivial differences (birth dates, education, individual papers etc). When 99% of a person's notability is exactly the same as someone else's, it just makes sense to discuss them in one article. Should we also split up Bonnie and Clyde or Stan and Jan Berenstain or Tom and Ray Magliozzi? This article is still far from being comprehensive, but a quality comprehensive article can easily discuss their shared accomplishments while granting due coverage to individual accomplishments as warranted. It might take some creative and non-robotic thinking (we don't necessarily need to have two infoboxes if they're clunky, or any infoboxes at all per MOS:INFOBOXUSE), but the existence of many joint biographies in :Category:Married couples show that it is feasible to treat two people in a single article. And it would be the pinnacle of redundancy and frivolity to create two solo biographies and a joint biography. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes sense if it's a stub article.  The current joint article is unwieldy. They should each have their own page.  Bueller 007 (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unwieldy because it's written partially like a resume or CV, and has dueling infoboxes where one or none would suffice. There are well-written articles that are much longer and complex than this one. WP:SIZESPLIT suggests a guideline of over 50kb of prose to begin considering splits on length alone, and this article is just over 26kb in its entirety. The way to improve this article is to rewrite and restructure, avoid bullet point lists of career highlights, and apply some creative editorial will, not split into two problematic articles that would largely be discussing the same research. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

text: More suggestions: if we must have an infobox(es) (we need not), they do not need to be completely full just because the info is verifiable. One possibility is a shared infobox, as seen at Stan and Jan Berenstain, in which only the most crucial elements are included, with the rest of the biographical information relegated to the article, where it can be discussed in context. Another option is to have no infobox at all, rather a well-written lead section that deftly summarizes the article without bogging down with minutiae, as seen in Stanley Kubrick. Relative trivial facts such as doctoral students and theses, of interest only to a handful of academics, need not necessarily be included at all. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Why was this page created?