Wikipedia

Talk:Josephine Butler/Archive 1

< Talk:Josephine Butler
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Gerda Arendt in topic "She wasn't Butler when she grew up"
Archive 1Archive 2

Request for comment on names

Latest comment: 6 years ago82 comments29 people in discussion
Closing this RFC. The consensus was to change the name to Butler throughout the article, in line with the manual of style. Basically a procedural close, as consensus was clear and, accordingly, the amendments were made to the article some weeks ago. Fish+Karate 14:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article on an adult female human continue to refer to her by her first name throughout? Her name was Grey as a young woman and became Butler when she married. Would it really be too confusing to refer to her by those names? --John (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

What a pointless waste of time. This has already been through two community review processes without any complaints until you've thrown your rattle out of your pram... Do you really have so little to do that you get so disruptive on something so small, and so previously agreed? - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Retain current format, particularly as this is the format already agreed by the community twice. It follows a comment made at the PR. There is often a problem with the use of the surname for married women: to call her BUTLER through her pre-marriage years confuses most readers (particularly when she meets her husband, who we then have to use the first name for); to call her GREY is the same in reverse but worse, because she is known to history as Butler; to use both GREY in her younger years and BUTLER post marriage is confusing. This is the way we can keep the naming consistent throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Retain as written. This went through both PR and FAC the way it is; the time for objections was earlier. Not now, after it's been TFA. We hope (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Retain. I was disappointed to find John using an intemperate phrase like "sexist claptrap", above. This editor is normally very sober and helpful, and I am surprised to see him being so needlessly aggressive. The question has been thoroughly considered at the article's review stages, and in articles on other notable married women where nomenclature is an issue. There is no perfect answer. To say sans phrase that the maiden name must as a matter of dogma always be used until the subject marries is unhelpful. To use the married name throughout is ipso facto inaccurate, but is sometimes the least objectionable course, and one I have been party to in another recent FA. To use the maiden name when nobody has ever heard of it should, of course, be one of the options considered by the main author(s) but is sometimes not frightfully helpful to the reader. We should always keep the reader in mind, and if we think using a given name throughout is the smoothest and most helpful course we should do so, even while admitting it is no more ideal than either of the other possibilities. – Tim riley talk 14:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Retain Per the above. A lot of work went into the article and the review and it has been approved as it is. The complaints which arise on TFA today is enough to put people off wanting to promote future articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not that astonished that those who signed off on this think it's fine. When Brianboulton said at the peer review that "Maybe others will have views on the use of Josephine throughout" I guess this is what he meant. What efforts were made to proactively sort this? Or was it just quietly hussled through? I still feel it's unsatisfactory and I'm sorry if anyone thinks this is "a pointless waste of time". I don't regard getting gender-related matters right as pointless or a waste of time. I've raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force; I'm surprised this wasn't done either of the two previous times. John (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As Brian was the one who suggested in the first place using the only name she used throughout her entire life, perhaps you should allow him to answer, rather than try and force your own interpretation onto what someone else has said. Despite another over-the-top and quite untruthful claim, nothing was ever "quietly hussled through" (sic), despite your snide attempts to smear the processes the article went through. The name "Josephine" was there throughout the FAC - nothing "quietly" done, or being 'hustled through'. Personally I think your disruptive nonsense here is deeply unsatisfactory, as is your insults to the reviewers in the thread above. In addition to Brian and those who have commented here, the reviewers included Iazyges, Cassianto, Ian Rose, Sagaciousphil, J Milburn and Dudley Miles, all of whose judgement who are uncivilly attacking by claiming that you consider it "Astonishing that this passed a review". And as to your comment at GGTF, do you have any appreciation of what CANVASSING is, or the posting of neutral notices - or do you somehow think that the rules don't actually apply to you? - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • If I see you pull a stunt like more CANVASSING, I will. You are an admin: you should at least try and act like one. (And I see from your subsequent placing of notices, that these also fail to be neutral and that you have misrepresented the arguments given. Your standards of approach are sadly lacking here. - SchroCat (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was quietly hustled through in the glaring light of FAC (and PR before it), where, as you know, John, entry is by permit only. Your own view on the matter seems to be remarkably inconsistent – from "a little chatty" to "sexist claptrap" in five days. I much regret that the respect I had for you as an editor and wise counsel has taken a bit of a knock over your comments on this page. 17:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim riley (talk • contribs)
  • This seems covered by our Manual of Style: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Maiden names: "A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname (last name). But if her most commonly used name does include her husband's surname, and you're discussing a period of her life before her marriage, it is often best to refer to her by her maiden name." At no point does it say "if her most commonly used name does include her husband's surname, refer to her by her first name throughout". --GRuban (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, the MoS, a series of advisory guidelines, does say that, but it is not compulsory to slavishly follow such guidelines, and the MoS specifically states that exemptions to any of its suggestions are entirely acceptable. I would also suggest that "her most commonly used name" was probably Josephine. At least three of the biographies use her first name. - SchroCat (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I find it hard to believe that a Victorian era campaigner would be most commonly publically referred to as "Josephine". Surely she was most commonly referred to as "Mrs. Butler". As for the biographies, can you provide specifics? Even in the case of a biography that seems very familiar, context matters. Of course we need to refer to her by first name when discussing others who share her last name in the same sentence, but in general our custom is to refer to people by their last names. --GRuban (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • But it isn't an exception. See Bessie Braddock and Mrs Beeton. I shouldn't, myself, like to embark on either of the Webbs or Curies calling them by anything other than their given names: we have our readers to consider as well as the Panjandrums of the MoS. Have a look at Beatrice Webb and see how a failure to address boldly and purposefully the matter of nomenclature leaves the reader adrift. Tim riley talk 18:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pierre Curie isn't a great article, hasn't been peer-reviewed, and as far as I can see this has never been discussed at article talk. The article also doesn't uniformly call the adult subject by his first name, although there is arguably more justification there than here. Any peer-reviewed article on male subjects which use this convention? --John (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Retain, per the very good reasons listed above. CassiantoTalk 17:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I am forced, by way of John's stonewalling tactics, to draw attention to his blatant WP:CANVASing; although he could have acknowledged himself to be in the wrong and apologised for his ill-judged hastiness, he has in fact doubled-down on his canvassing and restored it. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Change to Butler all the way through. I don't see any places where that would cause any confusion, except perhaps at "By 1850 Josephine had grown close to George Butler, a Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, whom she had met at several of the balls hosted around County Durham," where "Josephine" might be retained, or maybe "she" might be used instead, or a total rewrite of the sentence using "her future husband, George Butler".
This does strike me as a WP:MOS issue and we should just check in detail what they say, and perhaps continue the discussion over there. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Change to Butler throughout. I'm not sure that there's a strong enough case to go against MoS guidelines, or why Josephine Butler should be treated differently to other women who change their surname at marriage. I'm not sure that it's any more confusing to readers to see a child referred to by a married surname as the child David Bowie referred to by a future stage name. Especially as so little of the article covers her life before her marriage, I haven't seen a reason convincing enough to continue using her first name throughout. Ralbegen (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment (leaning towards Change) As someone who has never read this article and accidentally stumbled upon this discussion, I'd like to point out that using the name "Josephine" throughout reads kind of odd to me, and it comes across as unencyclopedia in tone. It is for this reason that I'd suggest sticking to what the MOS has to say about the subject; the guide was written for a reason, and while it is a suggestive guideline, it clearly lays to rest the issue here. Is there a particular reason that Josephine Butler should be a major exception (and I ask this in all earnestness)?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Change to Butler throughout, per MOS:LASTNAME. I see no reason why this article should be an exception to a long-standing and uncontroversial Wikipedia convention. Most of the objections above seem to boil down to "this was already decided". However, I only see a brief comment at the FAC, and the request to change it to "Josephine" at the peer review is prefixed with the caveat "I'm not sure what the names protocol is in such cases". The protocol is to use surname throughout unless there's a good reason not to. So far no one has given such a reason. The claim that it's confusing doesn't hold water. It's easy to avoid confusion by writing something like "Josephine Butler was born Josephine Grey on 13 April 1828 at Milfield, Northumberland..." as we do for other featured articles involving name changes such as Mary Shelley. The most common reasons why exceptions are made to this convention are in cases where the subject's spouse is more closely associated with the last name (Constanze Mozart) or the subject's most common name isn't actually their name (Ada Lovelace, Lady Gaga). This article fits neither of those exceptions. Kaldari (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Change to Butler, of course, as standard academic style and the MOS recommend. It's embarrassing that the article has been using "Josephine" all this time. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Change / compromise proposal – use “Butler” in the lead, since the subject is introduced as “Josephine Butler”. Use “Josephine” for childhood and early life until marriage. Use “Butler” after marriage. Calling the subject “Josephine” throughout is indeed odd and seems less than encyclopedic. It’s especially awkward in the lead. Straight up change to "Bulter" would also be fine with me. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Changing to straight "Change" per discussion below. However, Margaret Thatcher uses maiden name for early life (Roberts), before marriage. Regardless, whether the article uses "Butler" or "Grey/Butler", I don't see "Josephine" as a good option. That would be the least preferred for me. "Josephine" presumes certain closeness to the subject that is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I concur with the compromise outlined above. My initial comment at the peer review was not intended as a suggestion that the forename be used throughout the article, as I think my expressed reservations make clear. I had expected more debate on the issue, at PR or FAC, but that didn't happen to any significant extent. What I had in mind was more or less what K.e.coffman is now suggesting; this is not that different from what has been the practice in many biographies, male or female: use of the forename until adolescence or maturity, and surname thereafter. We should note that the relevant MoS guideline is worded to give us wriggle-room which enables us to take decisions based on the interests of the reader. FAC decisions are not set in stone, but I don't think it's helpful or useful to demand rigid adherence to an MoS wording that is itself flexible. Better to seek a solution that is acceptable to all. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Compromise per K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) this seems the most sensible solution to me. I see no reason not to refer to her as Butler once married, as this both appears a more formal and professional phrasing, and lines up with our MOS guidelines. Prior to that the use of her forename works well. Harrias talk 13:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Per K.e.coffman, I can see the logic to calling her "Josephine" when discussing her childhood (Lenin had the same treatment at one point), but calling a grown adult by their first name throughout doesn't strike me as encyclopediac, is contrary to the MOS (which, yes, is a only guideline, but I am unconvinced by the reasons for ignoring it), and, in the case of women, especially ones notable for their feminism, is an extremely emotionally and politically loaded decision. Either refer to her as Butler throughout (there are plenty of featured articles which consistently refer to a person by a name which they only later took on, including the aforementioned Lenin), or refer to her as "Josephine" or "Grey" before marriage and "Butler" afterwards. (And as an aside, the idea suggested by a few people above that once an article has passed FA it is or should be immune from criticism or change is utterly ludicrous.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional comment: is it worth polling the above "remainers" and "leavers" (sorry about that) to see if the suggested compromise ("soft Brexit") is broadly acceptable? Brianboulton (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I prefer to leave these decisions to the main author(s), because they have to maintain the article and feel comfortable with it. I would like to see one name throughout, whatever it is. If I were writing this, I would use Butler. Butler was the name she was known by. She chose to take that name, and she was in a happy marriage. There's no problem with saying Butler was born, and Bulter did X as a girl; see Theresa May, who is May throughout. We usually don't call men by their first names when they were boys; see David Cameron, who is Cameron throughout.
    @K.e.coffman, Brianboulton, Harrias, Caeciliusinhorto, and GRuban: I strongly oppose calling her Josephine until she married, then Butler. That suggests she didn't grow up until she took her husband's name. SarahSV (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Would the current state be suggesting she never grew up, then? --GRuban (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not keen on first names because it assumes the right to be familiar with her, and it can be infantilizing. But I'd prefer that to switching, which is pointless, confusing and draws attention to the issue. Making that change when she marries would be the worst outcome here. SarahSV (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, I would much prefer calling her Butler throughout. But I think calling her "Josephine" throughout is the worst of all possible outcomes. Though I understand your objection to switching from "Josephine" to "Butler". What is your opinion on switching from "Grey" to "Butler"? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Grey to Butler is less bad, but there's no need to switch. This article used Butler throughout (e.g. here) until August 2016, when it was changed following a suggestion at peer review. I think it would be better to go back to Butler, unless the main author is wedded to Josephine. (I don't like to see main authors being overridden on style issues that matter to them.) SarahSV (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Sarah, but with men we often do refer to them in childhood by their first names. I've done it myself in a number of biographical articles, male and female, and never thought of it as a gender issue. Likewise I've read hundreds, perhaps thousands of scholarly biographies where the same practice applies. Indeed, I can't offhand recall a single one where a child is referred to by surname from birth. I believe the proposed compromise change won't be pointless or confusing to the great majority of our readers who won't see it as an issue at all. I do agree with you in one respect, however - that if one name is to used throughout, the choice of the main authors should not be overridden. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Brian, here on Wikipedia we usually don't change men's names from first to surname with age. At what point would we make the change? When they marry? That would be very odd. SarahSV (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Sarah, I'd rather discuss this general issue with you separately, elsewhere. In this thread, let's concentrate on what should be done with this particular article. At present there is no apparent consensus for any of the suggested courses of action. Brianboulton (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
It's directly relevant here. We wouldn't call a man by his first name until he married, but that's being suggested for a woman. It reminds me of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). I would much prefer to leave it at Josephine than do that. (And I would prefer that option anyway if it's what the main author wants.) SarahSV (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Elizabeth David, another of Schrocat's FAs and another woman using her husband's name, is David throughout, except briefly where she's discussed with her sisters. SarahSV (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
We tried maiden name—married name (see here), but we felt it didn't read smoothly for anyone reading the article. Tim riley talk 00:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
(And Marjory Stoneman Douglas is "Marjory" up to her marriage aged 25. We can all cherry-pick – it gets us nowhere). Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Using her married name throughout looks a little weird, but would be better than what we have, and is seemingly a style that one of the main defenders of the current style has previously used without a problem. I think I favour calling her by her first name until 16, "Grey" until marriage, then "Butler" afterwards. Would anyone have a problem with that? --John (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
As I have observed above, I don't believe there is an ideal solution to the matter of naming famous married women. All three options are open to objection, and in my view the main editors, with the help of peer reviewers and FAC reviewers (and now post-FAC reviewers) have to find – horrible phrase, but useful − the least worst option. I don't think we have a consensus so far to change the nomenclature. Tim riley talk 00:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Apologies! Not three options: I hadn't spotted SarahSV's fourth, above, which, I heartily concur, is not the way to go. Tim riley talk 00:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Change to Grey and Butler per MOS:SURNAME. She is not from a patronymic culture and none of the previous arguments are convincing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Change To Butler after first mention of birth name in 'early life', which is sufficiently short to probably not need more than a single mention (use she therafter in that section?). Butler is the name by which she is known to history. Referring to her by her first name is over familiar and very 'odd' in an encyc in which this is not the norm. Using first name only might work in a biography, where one would 'get used to' the conventions of that biographer, but it seems out of place - and rather patronising here.Pincrete (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – In an earlier comment GRuban asks for specifics about the naming used in the biographies. Dr Jane Jordan, Senior Lecturer in the English Department of Kingston University, authored the biography Josephine Butler and is co-editor of another book on the subject, Josephine Butler and the Prostitution Campaigns. The biography uses 'Josephine' throughout. When I read the book I did not find this jarring or out of place. I agree with Sarah that in cases where there is no obvious consensus or an easy solution as in this instance, the style used by the main contributor(s) – who after all are the ones who have given their time, money and effort to produce the article – should be respected. I also think it makes it easier for readers to follow. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Let me attempt a more substantive and hopefully a more constructive responsive. It is stating the obvious that if we fail to find consensus here to change the article, the article will continue in its present state. Can I remind you that the original question was Should this article on an adult female human continue to refer to her by her first name throughout? Her name was Grey as a young woman and became Butler when she married. Would it really be too confusing to refer to her by those names? I see Smallbones, Ralbegen, User:Gen. Quon ("leaning"), Kaldari, Granger, User:GRuban, User:Harrias, K.e.coffman, Walter Görlitz and me who have supported some kind of change, and SarahSV who has said "If I were writing this, I would use Butler." and "I think it would be better to go back to Butler, unless the main author is wedded to Josephine." The theme that using her first name throughout shows over-familiarity and is unencyclopedic, to the degree that it may seem sexist and infantilise the subject, who ironically of course was an early feminist, has been mentioned by several.
  • I'd therefore argue that as things are trending, we do have consensus that we should change on this matter. If we can all agree that, we can then move onto discussing the merits of the various possibilities. I'd finally point out the obvious myself; when a veteran reviewer like User:Brianboulton tells you that Maybe others will have views on the use of Josephine throughout, he probably isn't just making conversation. This was an implicit call for further review, not for the matter to be swept under the carpet. When this was raised at FAR, SchroCat swept it aside with It follows a comment made at the PR as if that is an actual reason, I think that, and the failure of other reviewers to challenge it, led us to this unfortunate position. It's what I meant by "hustling it through" in an earlier comment. It absolutely ought to have been picked up properly either prior to or during the FAC. The existence of unresolved editorial discussions at article talk or in previous reviews is something I always try to check for when reviewing myself. Unfortunately I wasn't aware of this one. Never mind. Can we all move on from annoyance, refrain from calling out each other's imputed motives or "attitudes" and get on with fixing this article? I don't think the status quo is an option.--John (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
(@John: Upon further meditation, I've changed my vote to "Change".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC))
Thanks for that. --John (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This is not the first time I have had to ask you not to misrepresent my views, which you have done above. You also did so when canvassing on the various project pages too. It is a shame your standards of behaviour in this matter have fallen far short of anything I would expect from any normal editor, let alone someone who purports to act like an admin. Perhaps you should stop misrepresenting the views of others and step away from ta thread to allow it to take its course over the next 28 days or so that this RfC has to run. – SchroCat (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • change I wouldn't refer to her by her first name only. If it's too confusing to transfer to just her last name, you could also consider first and last. looking at an article i worked on Adrienne McNeil Herndon again, it does get a bit confusing, especially since marriages usually go towards the end in the personal life section.Fred (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • How about Use common sense as a solution (though I realise this is difficult for the one-size-fits-all Wikipedians). This 'problem' doesn't arise with any other articles about notable women, does it, particularly when they have changed their name at the age of 23 before they were well known? My inclination would be to agree we should use "Butler", but that isn't a hard-and-fast rule. She was notable as Josephine Butler, so that is whom we should be writing about. There are several places where some of the Josephines could be substituted for "she", for example. And there are occasions when describing her early life when "Josephine" makes perfect sense. Sionk (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Change No article, except one on a professional entertainer, should refer to someone by their first name alone, unless its one of those cases where a literary or arts figure makes a point of being known that way. It is always condescending. It seems to be an established convention among performers (but I think even there it infantilizes them, and part of the convention is to do just that--to contrast it with their usually very clear sexuality and to call them the way an intimate would do). Regardless of such hypotheses, using the first name certainly has that effect with an adult. It is more noticeable with women, because our society has tended to try to infantilize those who are public figures, regardless of the presumed dignity of their profession. When I see it used in an article, it reminds me of the 1950s. Her name during her entire professional career was Butler, and that's what she should be called. If necessary to distinguish her from her husband or children, then the full name is appropriate. This is just what is normally done with male bios. It's particularly striking to use just the first name here: her primary notability was as a feminist-- it looks like a denial of her importance. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Change to "Butler" throughout or her surname at the time each sentence is about. It is bothersome that only women seem to get this first-name treatment. If this article were about Ringo Starr, would we even be having this discussion? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Let GOCE figure it out. Seriously, flag it for GOCE and everyone here can take a breath knowing it'll be handled by us in a MOS aware yet reader friendly style. This isn't a new issue. Jasphetamine (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Speaking as one of the GOCE coordinators, our role isn't to be the Supreme Court of style disputes. As long as I'm here, though, I'll offer my personal opinion, which is to Change to the use of the last name, per the reasons others have stated. I follow MOS style absent a compelling reason not to. "Her name changed when she married" is not an unusual situation, and readers would not be likely to be confused. And given that even when name changes aren't an issue, it has been my experience that women are more likely to be referred to by their first name in Wikipedia articles, it seems that there is something gendered going on that should be countered. Tdslk (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment SchroCat, you said on 11 December 2017 that this was a "pointless waste of time". On 13 December you asked for more time to "to allow it to take its course over the next 28 days or so". Now that the time has passed and the consensus is clearly to change, do you want to change it yourself, or shall I do it? --John (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe SchroCat has better things to do. I'll do it myself around midday tomorrow, if nobody has any objections. --John (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
That's taken care of now. I hope lessons have been learned by those who promoted and approved this sexist language. Not one of our finest hours. Never mind, onwards and upwards. --John (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contagious Diseases Acts

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You might wish to mention that the Contagious Diseases Acts also created a force of centrally appointed policemen that were not in uniform, and were entrusted with the task of keeping an accurate and up-to-date list of all working prostitutes. To accomplish this task, they were allowed to arrest any woman they had "good cause to believe" was a common prostitute. There was no actual definition of what constituted a prostitute, and the policemen were not required to justify their reasons for arresting particular women. This violation of constitutional rights was one of the main reasons why Josphine Butler fought so hard against the C.D. Acts. I got this information from E. Moberly Bell's biography on Josephine Butler. There is a rather detailed chapter on the C.D. Acts, (see pages 70-75) and Josephine's reasons for going against them. 24.159.217.110 05:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC) (Ph34rtehk4t, sorry, I wasn't signed in.)

"Constutional rights" in Britain? I'm missing something here... GRBerry 14:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Josephine Butler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I submitted the following edit to the intro: [1]. This edit fixed the following nontransparent piped links (see WP:EASTEREGG):

None of these links is transparent—a reader cannot understand from the link text what article the link points to. This is exactly what WP:EASTEREGG is about.

The same edit made a couple of more minor changes too:

  • for the phrase "Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral", which points to Liverpool Cathedral, the word "Liverpool's" was moved inside the link text to make that text more clearly describe where the link points (it doesn't point to an article entitled Anglican Cathedral);
  • I added a serial comma in a list, and perhaps that wasn't appropriate to do.

My edit was very quickly reverted by User:SchroCat with the terse explanation, "Piping links is not 'Easter eggs'." I don't understand the argument here, because piped links are precisely what WP:EASTEREGG is about (it is a section of Wikipedia:Piped link).

What's the argument for not improving the transparency of these links? —Bkell (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

There are good reasons for piping, which the suggestive guideline (not inflexible policy) of the MoS does not aadequately address; this is often the case with the lead, where as much information as possible is put forward at the expense of detail. The Armstrong case, for example, bloats the text unnecessarily. Describing her father as such is all that is needed: we do not need to know in the lead what his name is, nor the actual name of the Durham college. And if you refer to "Liverpool cathedral", most people with a general knowledge of the city will wonder whether you are talking about the Anglican or Roman Catholic cathedral, so we neatly pipe the link and explain all in the most efficient way.
And no, you shouldn't introduce your preference on punctuation with the serial comma when the rest of the article eschews the practice. - SchroCat (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
That makes sense. I will point out that my edit did not change "Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral" to "Liverpool Cathedral" but to "Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral", which takes up exactly the same amount of space and avoids the ambiguity you describe while improving the transparency of the link. —Bkell (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Use of first name, rather than surname

Latest comment: 7 years ago22 comments6 people in discussion

The following thread was copied from the peer review of September 2016. As it explains the decision to use the first name throughout, the justification may be of interest to future readers. - Gavin (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: why is she referred ro as Josephine here and not Butler or Grey? 77.20.251.243 (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi IP, and thanks for your comment. It follows a comment made at the PR. There is often a problem with the use of the surname for married women: to call her BUTLER through her pre-marriage years confuses most readers (particularly when she meets her husband, who we then have to use the first name for); to call her GREY is the same in reverse but worse, because she is known to history as Butler; to use both GREY in her younger years and BUTLER post marriage is confusing. This is the way we can keep the naming consistent throughout. (see Isabella Beeton and Bessie Braddock for other examples of this.) Cheers - Gavin (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense - perhaps leave a hatnote at the top of the article to clarify the usage? 77.20.251.243 (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we need to explain how people should be reading the page (and it would be an uncommon step to take on any article). What I'll do is to copy this thread onto the article talk page so that any future reader can see the question has been asked previously and can see the explanation for it. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I understand this discussion but I am uneasy with it. It seems a little chatty to refer to her by her first name throughout. --John (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
    • It seems an excuse to me; after her marriage (which was early in her life), she was only "Butler", but even then, the article is inconsistent, with one caption calling her Butler and another in the same section calling her Josephine. Other people who change their names (or have stage names, etc.) are only known by one, why not this? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, I edited the caption in question, so that particular example is no longer there. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
      • No, it's not an "excuse": there is rhyme and reason behind it. It comes from this comment from Brianboulton at the PR. As I mention above, Isabella Beeton and Bessie Braddock, among other articles, also follow this practice. - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
      • As counter-examples, I offer Malcolm X, Ringo Starr, and Carrie Nation, all of whom changed their surnames, and none of whom is referred to by first name alone in their Wiki-articles (with perhaps occasional exceptions for the circumstances). That this first-name practice seems to be applied to women only is problematic. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
        • I too find it problematic. --John (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
          • Well some do, some don't. Proof that you can't please all the people all the time, I guess. - SchroCat (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
            • Very true. How do you feel about losing the star? --John (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
              • Oh John, that's a rather silly thing to threaten. The naming has not changed since before it was promoted last September: in other words it has gone through our featured candidature process using the name "Josephine". If you really, really want to try and force the issue, go ahead and take it to FAR, but it would be a rather petty basis on which to try and de-feature an article that the community has already reviewed where this non-problem was already present. - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
                • Sorry you feel that way. You can't please all the people all the time, I guess. I wasn't all that pleased to see sexist claptrap on the Main Page. Astonishing that this passed a review. That's why we have review processes I guess. --John (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
                  • "sexist claptrap"? What bollocks are you on about here? There was absolutely no "sexist claptrap" anywhere. Take it to FAR if you want to, but don't spout such sanctimonious and misleading crap while you do so. - SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
                    • Sorry you can't see what seems obvious to me. Let me help you. Why do only women receive this treatment, to be called by their first name like a pet animal? Should we extend this practice to people with foreign or difficult names? What about black people? Or should it remain a women-only practice? It was raised at FAC and never dealt with. I will certainly take this to FAR if it is not addressed properly in the next seven days. --John (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
                      • See you at FAR then. You may as well complain why women were forced to change their name on being married. As JB campaigned against coverture, I see no reason why she should not be called by her name. I may as well accuse you of supporting the misogynistic nonsense of name changing for all the sense you're making. "pet animal"? what bollocks! There are thousands – millions? – of biographies of both men and women that use their subjects' first name, so stop with the idiotic, trite and misguided accusations of sexism. It is also disingenuous to claim that "It was raised at FAC and never dealt with". An IP raised it, it was explained and that person went away happy with the explanation, saying "That makes sense". To clarify the obvious that is being dealt with (it was also copied at the time onto this page, where it remains at the opening of this thread), so please try not to misrepresent events just to somehow score points. Either way, enough of your threats and misrepresentation: if you want to try to use FAR as a bludgeon to get your own way, I suggest you carry on, there is little point in further discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Note to all: FAR is not for dispute resolution. If what name to use is the only thing people take issue with, and there are no other concerns with regards to the FA criteria, I'd suggest an RFC or some other form of DR would be more appropriate than FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Let's try that before we take it to review. It really ought to have been addressed by an effective FAR though. --John (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Or you could find something useful to do on any of the other 5 million + articles, rather than trying to bludgeon your way against the consensus if the FAC process. It's crap like this that makes me wonder why I bother. - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Overlinked

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

SchroCat, so how is WP:OVERLINK? Rupert Loup (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, please do not edit war. Per WP:BRD, if your first edit is reverted, you don't force it back in, you come to the talk page to discuss.
Much of what you did was pointless: swapping [[Anglicanism#Anglican divines|Anglican divine]] for [[Anglican divine]] is needless; linking the single point of " the right of women to better education" to two articles is just poor. Linking to common terms such as British law, medical examination and prostitutes is gross overlinking: we don't need to smack readers round the head by covering every term in the lead to a blue link as they will understand what the terms mean. There is research that links slow reading and interfere with understanding, so we should use them where they are needed, not just because we can. - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
British Law and medical examination are not coomon term, there are not things that everyone know. Readers that are not British may don't understand about British Law. Prostitution is already linked. I don't see how link to two relevant articles to what is being talked about is "poor". You didn't give any good reason to revert my edits and don't demostrate how is WP:OVERLINK, which is your rationale in the summary. Please stop the disruptive editing and don't engage in WP:WAR. Rupert Loup (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I previously reverted almost exactly the same edit while the article was TFA; my justification for doing so was also because of over linking. British law and medical examination are easily understood common terms whereas workhouse, a link that is being removed, may not be familiar to many readers. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Rupert loup, I see you have just reverted again while this discussion is taking place, please self-revert. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
How is WP:OVERLINKED? You are not explained this. How British Law is a common term? WP:LINK state pretty clearly what should be linked. So please tell in which part dissagre. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this has been explained. I cannot think that someone who reads the words "British law" will struggle to understand that it means the law of Britain; its a very common term! workhouse isn't, as workhouses came to an end several decades ago. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
British law is a legal technical term. THe link is helpful to readers that don't are familiar with it. See MOS:ULINK, it's not an every day word so it's not a common term. And this doesn't explain why you are reverting the edits. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry that you are having trouble understanding this. "British law" is not a technical legal term, nor is it being used in this way. Any reader coming across the commonly used term "British law" will grasp that we are talking about the law of Britain. - SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, it is not a technical legal term. As already explained, these are very common words and easily understood by readers. MOS:OVERLINK clearly states: "Everyday words understood by most readers in context" should not be linked. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
British law isn't even the proper title for the article, it's Law of the United Kingdom (this is important, you might think there's no difference but Arlene Foster and Nigel Dodds most definitely do). And that's a different topic, talking specifically about the legal system in the UK, what it entails and what it doesn't (such as, say, not calling the British judiciary Enemies of the People), whereas in this context, "British law" is a generic term where a link to the full article may not be what the reader actually wanted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Latest comment: 6 years ago63 comments12 people in discussion

The infobox was deleted with edit summaries "(Trimming bloat)" and "perhaps a discussion about why something so awful is beneficial".

Obvioulsy "bloat" and "so awful" are arguments which are impossible to rebut other than with "no they are not". Therefore please describe your reasons more specifically. IMO the infobox at George W. Bush is way bloater and awfuller, but I wouldn't dare to poke it with a 7-foot poke. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

  • To try and claim that IBs are "standard practice" misses the point. The MoS does not prescribe them, but says that they should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Have you thought how little benefit there is with the one here? A list of non-notable relatives? Really? Death place of "England"? "Natural death"? That's just so bad it's staggering. Let the lead tell the story of who she is and why she's notable, not a box full of pointless and distracting factoids, stripped of nuance, context elligent information. And yes, the on on Bush is awful. Probably not as bad as that on Winston Churchill, but neither of them actually aid the reader is much about what is truly important or interesting about the person. – SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you, convincing enough for me to reconsider my opinion about infoboxes. I admit I have never read infoboxes myself, but I had an impression that these are a poor man's substitution of a database (wikidata sucks). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Many thanks Staszek Lem. There are too many people who hold these things as being immutable without actually thinking about what they are and how misleading (and therefore damaging) they can be. Thanks for taking such an open-minded approach here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's time an essay was put up on Infoboxes and them not being "standard practice" or "compulsory" as so many seem to think. The fact is they're not, and are often added as furniture pieces.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Dr. Blofeld, checkout WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
These comments lacks a basic understanding of how people use the internet and why Wikipedia did so well. I think it is time for an essay ....one on the basics of how to disseminate information bases of studies and the format used by leading websites. -- Moxy (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
And you are the font of knowledge when it comes to what people want on the Internet? So we should all just ignore what we think and feel on that say so alone, and regardless of what our own guidelines say? – SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I just have a basic understanding of how people use the internet and why the info-boxes where created in the first place years ago. Dont you think its odd there all over? You sure all want to read the whole article for simple info? The comments I dont see to many comments above address any concerns for our readers...mostly "I dont like this or that". Are you sure that full deletion is better then selective info there. Not saying what was there was good ...saying some basics is what readers expect to see and how people use the internet. -- Moxy (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
"You sure all want to read the whole article for simple info?" That's a great argument for having a lead, not so much for an idiotbox. What I know isn't odd is that we have an MoS that says the use is not compulsory, something I heartily agree with: the one-size-fits-all approach is not the best. – SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
As of now your philosophy seem to be all or nothing ...I am suggesting a mid point as with the spirit of all guidelines. ....display the basics ...no need for all to be gone is there? You do understand that most readers are looking for quick info on the internet ...not all will wade through the article for simple info like age of death ect... the infobox does some basic calculations and is fast for our readers to look at....that we hope will read the whole article if we get there attention of the bat. -- Moxy (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Please don't try and tell me what my philosophy is: you've got that very, very wrong indeed. It appears that you have not read what I have written either: I have said that people do not need to read the entire article to find basic information: that is why we have a lead, which provides the important information in a balanced way that provides context. If people what to skim for for information, that's what the lead is excellent for. – SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
You really believe in this case the lead has the same info as the box? Thus far your logic looks flawed to me. Why not give our readers a chose on how to see info?--Moxy (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Again, please actually read what I've written, as I've said nothing of the sort. – SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
What I see above is you saying the infoboxs does not contain the right info...thus its a reason to delete the whole thing . No mention of what should be there or the merits of giving our readers a choice in how to get the info. Within context is not the only way to disseminate info nor is it preferred by all our readers. Best to be flexible in our approach to editing and how info is presented. -- Moxy (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Again, I suggest you try not to incorrectly summarise my argument, but to focus on your own. You have, once again, completely incorrectly presented what I have said. – SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
You are correct ..but you dont really have one to begin with ...just my assumption on your replies and actions. If you really think presenting the info here in only one manner is best ...I dont think I cant help you see why that is not not so. You wont here from me again on this topic here as I think its best others explain why we have theses boxes next time you run into the same thing. Odd people dismiss there value when they are all over and in many different styles and now the norm for search engines. We are a world leading website because of how we presented info in many manners.....think is best to change that to one POV because a few think they know best? Simply the wrong way to do things and to approach the project in this manner.-- Moxy (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's shocking that people have opinions contrary to yours. You obviously think you know best, and that's fine if you want to keep believing that. As I've said, you'll not convince me to change my opinion of IBs (about which you don't have the first clue, by the way). – SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Just a bit over you head I guess....I dont know what is best thus why i suggest both-ways...not just they way you think is best but both-ways that have been used here long before you arrived and told us your one way is better. Holding a position stating one way is best is the narrow POV. -- Moxy (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I wondered how long it would be before you crossed the line on civility. Time to do something useful elsewhere, I think. – SchroCat (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering if at any point you would try to rebut any point made.....I guess not. --Moxy (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Structured information (which was added in 2012 and not questioned as far as I can see, not by respected editors who are not known as the greatest friends of infoboxes such as Eric Corbett and Iridescent) was removed with the edit summary "removing bloat", - where is the misunderstanding that leads to in "structured information=bloat"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Please let me explain the reasoning why I "switched sides" on the infobox issue. Of course, this is not the place for such a general issue, but as a courtesy to the editors here:
      • Infobox occupies a precious 'real estate': top of the article
      • Infobox does not really contain information important for understanding person's notability. Yes, DOB, spouse, terms in office are basic info, but it is not the first thing I want to learn about the person.
      • As I wrote, infobox system plus categories is a "poor man's database": infobox fields are basically "key->value" and categories are database indices. However just as wikipedia is not wiktionary, it is not wikidata either. WMF cash awash, delivers a shitful of database in wikidata. It is indeed extremely useful to have one, but wikipedia is not a substitute.
      • Information density, "bang per buck", is much lower in the infobox compared to plain text.
      • I have no recollection when succession boxes sneaked from their rightful place at the bottom of the page all way to the top, but they made infoboxen oh dear really ugly.
      • Due to rigid format many infoboxes are a battlefield, with battles often resolved by numerous footnotes, which make them even uglier.
      • Yes, some infoboxes are useful (IMO), such as geographical ones: in geography I indeed want to know all these "where/how much/when"; it is essential info, but for a person the essential info is what the person has done, not when he/she/xe/they died.
    • Now, regarding Josephine Butler, Let's take a look.
      • Spouse/children/parents. -- IMO way much better to have a section "Family"
      • Occupation: "Social reformer" -- vague, inadequate, basically useless. Yes, it is an exact answer, but reminds me a joke about men lost while riding hot-air balloon and a mathematician.
      • Other names: "Josephine Elizabeth Butler" -- Hardly "other name". It is the very first words of the article
      • Cause of death: Natural death -- now, that's a weird item. Yes, some people are known primarily for how they died. But does it really important for, say, a war hero, to know whether he was shot by a sniper or stabbed in an ambush?
      • Known for: Victorian feminist -- known for which Victorian feminist? -- weird grammar due to rigid infobox structure
      • Nationality British - redundant; the first line say so.
    • Now, please explain in which circumstances the infobox in this article is indispensable. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
You answered many questions that I didn't ask, and now you ask me a loaded question ;) - Just a few seemingly unrelated points, just for fun:
  • I also switched sides. On Talk:Samuel Barber#Infobox, I voted against an infobox beause its information is redundant. Half a year later, I understood that yes, it's redundant, but for a purpose: it's structured, which is better for some readers. I became ready to serve those readers also.
  • Never in my life have I said that an infobox is indispensable. It would also not be true, obviously.
  • I am always ready to discuss the value of certain parameters in an infobox, and am usually quite happy with just those that we used to have in Persondata: born (name, date, place), died (date, place), and why this person is notable (occupation, known for, work, - you name it). The infobox is redundant to the lead, right, as the title page of a book is to the book. Would you want one without it?
  • I typically don't go around and insert infoboxes, - I actually avoid doing so when I know that a user who did a lot for an article doesn't like it. But I come - as here - when I notice that the efforts of others were removed.
I have an edit conflict and answered only to the above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
"I typically don't go around and insert infoboxes" Eeermmmm...... –SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
You don't believe me? Check my contributions, and perhaps reflect the other part, about removing the efforts of others. - Btw, I arrived at this article by a link by Cassianto, if that is what you call flash mob. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
In between your first and second comments on this thread. Perhaps you'd forgotten adding it? As to removing the work of others, so what? I took Walt Disney to FA by removing over 25k from the article and replacing the the efforts of others with new text. That's how this place works: by improving, which is sometimes adding, sometimes taking away. – SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In addition... 27 May, ditto, ditto, 25 May, ditto, 24 May. That's about a week, and I may have missed a couple as I wasn't looking too closely. No "anti-IB-brigade" going round removing the things in such numbers it's interesting to note. – SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Opera, right, where infoboxes are welcome, one a day, none reverted in 2016 (vs. 7 in 2015, 19 in 2013). - It doesn't belong here (improving Butler) but I admire your work on Walt Disney. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • re: "The infobox is redundant to the lead, right, as the title page of a book is to the book. Would you want one without it?" -- I would generically say WP:NOTPAPER. But in this case comparison is inadequate: Title page does not repeat book content, now it wastes readable space, nor it distorts the beginning of the text. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I find it slightly ridiculous that people who have probably never heard of Butler before are suddenly desperately edit warring over inserting an IB. Nice work, IB flash mob fanatics! Five million plus articles on Wiki, and you decide to be disruptive on something you've never come across before? This is a big enough place to avoid idiotic war and the same circular arguments. – SchroCat (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    WP:OWN? Yes, wikipedia is glorious for tempests in a teapot in the media. That's part of fun our job, isn't it? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Sadly many of those who try and force micro issues won't work on the article in question: just focus on that one issue, which is exactly what we have here and several other places, an attempt to own the top right corner of all articles, which is not supported by our own guidelines. – SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Noting that this is a never-ending and undoubtably never to be decided issue until infoboxes are either mandated or abolished, and there are no new issues here, and the infobox is tasteful and appropriate (no weird colors, basic wikidata content and so on) the only point is that LOCALCONSENSUS is not controlling, the ArbCom decision that decisions are made on a case-by-case basis IS controlling, and based upon all previous arguments on record, I !vote KEEP THE INFOBOX. Montanabw(talk) 20:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Ehm... "tasteful" does not really beat duplication in the most valued spot: article top. And "wikidata" content belongs to wikidata. Did you consider my arguments above? Any serious reply? Or tl;dr? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Non-arbitrary break 1

I will reply to the main points made above about the boxs overall....as the POV in not helping our readers...in fact making it harder on all.
      • Infobox occupies a precious 'real estate': top of the article
      • Infobox does not really contain information important for understanding person's notability. Yes, DOB, spouse, terms in office are basic info, but it is not the first thing I want to learn about the person
        • Notability is inherent by the article being there...basic info may not be the first thing you want to see but what about others?
          • Yes, what about others? Did one eved conduct research?
      • Wikipedia is not wiktionary, it is not wikidata either
        • As per our purpose here...we should accommodate other sites and software that want to help facilitate the spread of knowledge. We are not here to gain readership or force people to read our articles by suppressing information to other websites or search engines.
          • Nothing is to be suppressed, rather seamlessly integrated. If wikidata were decent, I would gladly have used it to answer queries such as "How many feminists were born in 1890?"
      • Information density, "bang per buck", is much lower in the infobox compared to plain text.
        • Not about impact... not all want to or can consume information in the same manner nor do all have the same comprehension of English to do so.
          • Sorry, I was unclear. I was talking about the amount of information per article area. Yes, people have different ways of comprehension. We have "Simple Wikipedia". Heck, why don't we create "Manga wikipedia"? But I don't see how infobox helps in comprehension of things other than trivia. And information density is critical exactly for people who have limited access to this information simply because usually they are the ones who have limited computer resources as well.
      • Due to rigid format many infoboxes are a battlefield, with battles often resolved by numerous footnotes, which make them even uglier
        • Way of the mark here...our goals are to collect information on all branches of knowledge and to disseminated that information around the world and sources is the best way to do that...who care if they look a bit odd....they help facilitate information.
          • Sorry, I was unclear. I am not against footnotes used as references. I was talking about footnotes of plain text squeezed into infoboxes to alleviate the rigid format... and to make the infobox pretty as dry cactus. (Same problem when some editors try to squeeze half of the article into image captions)
      • Yes, some infoboxes are useful (IMO), such as geographical ones: in geography I indeed want to know all these "where/how much/when"; it is essential info, but for a person the essential info is what the person has done, not when he/she/xe/they died.
        • Again assuming what is best for our readers and what they want to see.... what about non-english readers looking for facts let alone tibits for other language wikis to use.
          • I don't think that non-English users are desperate about DOB of J.Butler any more than English ones. EVen so, where is the solid proof?

To sum up.....forcing readers to gain knowledge only in context (read the lead), thus not giving them a choice on how to get said information is simply not the best way to do things. Some people dont have access to unlimited internet/data thus a browser search may be all they can do to get some info. Goggle, Britannica and many other places have adopted this format that has worked so well here because they understand most will never read the article.................so to accommodate this fact we made boxes in the top right corner so people can scan info and we hope they then will read the article. They have been studying this fact for years.... even way back in 1997 before Wikipedia only 79% of web users scan rather than read [2].....thus we made boxes when articles got to big....again why because many here understand how people use the internet. Want to keep readers or make them read your great articles...spoon feed them some basics (like current age) and maybe just maybe they will read on.....no tibits of info here...on they go somewhere else to find it.-- Moxy (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

    • As the data on Butler is already held by Wikidata, it does not need to be retained here for Wikidata to import. Given we also have no requirement to provide WD with the data (which we have done already anyway), the Wikidata argument is, as always, a massive straw man. – SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Really? A bio grew so big, and the reader learns only DOB from infobox? and you expect to " hope they then will read the article" after learning that his cause of death was "natural causes"? That's bull. Infobox contain this data for one reason only: it is trivia trivial to maintain. "They have been studying this fact for years" - And you make me believe that their study concluded that DOB/DOD/Nationality is the info most sought for? Can you point me where these findings are reported? Yes, readers scan the articles. I do it myself. But they scan text not because they want to find the name of the spouse. That too, but there are zillions of other pieces of info people are looking for. Was this person a hero? a crook? Did he ever live in my city? Does he smoke? Was he gay? When did she invent tacky notes? And so on. In other words, your arguments are non sequitur. 00:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • My breath was baited in sheer anticipation of the possibility that Gerda may've pinged because she was mentioning my name in a positive context, or showing some appreciation towards my work, or defending me against a troll....no, it's this. Well, aren't I the lucky one?! I hope you don't mind, Gerda, if I pass on the cup of coffee, slice of Baklava, and a natter about this tired old subject; I really should be off doing something that benefits the project, like writing an article. Oh, btw, oppose infobox here. Complete waste of space and utterly redundant. CassiantoTalk 23:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I pinged you because I mentioned your name. You caused a "flash mob", involuntarily. I had only one simple question on this page which has not been answered: "Structured information was removed with the edit summary "removing bloat", - where is the misunderstanding that leads to "structured information=bloat"?" (In other words: IF you (not you, Cassianto, any you) feel you have to remove something others created, can you show some respect, and some reason for your revert in the edit summary?) - I enjoy Marilyn Monroe today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
As per the above, improvement is sometimes removal of bloat, sometimes addition of text. Edit summaries are often neither here nor there: "improving article" would also have been appropriate. – SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I admit that I sometimes regret that - unlike the rest of Wikipedia - I can't change edit summaries later. I try to word them with clarity (for example mention infobox, or ibox) and not to label something negatively. I think you could find a better way (than "bloat") of saying that you think something is excessive, which doesn't make it excessive in the eyes of others. Sorry, "improving article" is too general, - it could go with any good-faith-edit, but doesn't help finding a specific improvement when looking up an article's history. "Revert infobox" would be a neutral and precise summary, - leave it to others to see if that's an improvement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I think I'll stick with my accurate summaries as they are. – SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I think "bloat" is not a neutral way to express anything, - we seem to speak different languages, I won't waste more time here. Interesting also that you blame a user of beginning an edit war (a user who only restored the stable version before the discussion) in your fourth revert, and by now we have five. Not my style. - When you ask the community (Beethoven, Mary, mother of Jesus) you see a different approach, friendly also to readers who know less English. This Butler article is not present in many languages, so readers around the globe will have to turn to English: they are served better by structured information than by prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Then next time I will not use "bloat". "Cutting useless rubbish" will have to do. - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
So basically headed down the same path as the other article ...no consensus for change here either. -- Moxy (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
There was no consensus when it was added either. CassiantoTalk 21:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
And no need for Moxy to try and control the agenda, or try and pre-judge the consensus here: so far I have seen only one 'pro' comment that actually addresses this IB, rather than general POV about IBs in general and that some people like them. This isn't a vote, and weight of argument will win out over weight of votes–especially on an article that is an alien one to most who have come to this talk page in the last few days, driven only by the agenda of attempting to own the top right corner of all articles. – SchroCat (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Its so cute you guys back each-other up even when someone says the wrong thing...got to give you guys credit for always being there for one and other. -- Moxy (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Who's wrong? Or is it your desperate attempt to get the last word? CassiantoTalk 22:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:EDITCONSENSUS ----Moxy (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    • That's not answered my question. Who's wrong? Where was the consensus at the point of the info box's implementation? CassiantoTalk 08:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I restored the infobox once again. It WAS the stable version of the article, since 2012 and removed solely based on an IDONTLIKEIT rationale, with a somewhat deceptive edit summary, followed by this long discussion, which has had far too many personal attacks. While what is contained in the infobox may be debatalbe, the need for one is clearly evident; aside from the wikidata issues, the article looks amateurish, unencyclopedic and incomplete without one. Those who make the usual "it's in the lead" arguments forget the very legitimate needs of the casual reader for basic data and that there is not necessarily a need for certain biographical basics to be in the lead. Further, this became far to full of personal attacks far too quickly and the bullying needs to stop. Now. Phrases like "Moxy to try and control the agenda" are personal attacks. Enough of that. Montanabw(talk) 03:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Oddly the "control agenda" comment was what Moxy accused me of elsewhere, but I'm used to such snide comments from the IB Warriors they are as water off a duck's back to me. I've removed the idiot box again for all the good reasons I and Staszek Lem have provided (and nothing "deceptive" there - although that's another PA I'll let slide). So far the straw man argument of Wikidata has been provided and refuted, and only the IDONTLIKEIT POV of the 'pro' side remains. There have been no good arguments placed for the inclusion of a box here at all, and the 'oh, but it's been here for a couple of years' argument is a weak one in response. Time to try and improve an article, rather than fighting this argument about someone none of you have heard about and moving on. As for "bullying", Montana, that's just way off the mark: the snark levels are as they normally are, but bullying is not a serious accusation. Is this a new tactic you're going to use? – SchroCat (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
        • "...the article looks amateurish, unencyclopedic and incomplete without one. -- I'm sure all those wonderful biographers at ODNB would be thrilled to hear that. CassiantoTalk 06:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose use of Infobox here. Before I begin, please note that Wikidata already has the information sought to be included in the box. Let's take a step back: The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, such as this Victorian era figure, do not. As has been noted before, "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, or include ... irrelevant or inappropriate information". Here are some reasons why I disagree with including the infobox in this article: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points about the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a lot of code near the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) The box discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose info box for the reasons I have stated before elsewhere, that they add nothing to an article that isn't included in a good lead, and merely repeat that information. Jack1956 (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose infobox Maybe I should write a short essay detailing the reasons why I always oppose infoboxes in these sort of discussions. It doesn't add anything to an article as the lead would usually summarise it. In addition, it looks terrible. JAGUAR  21:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    • And we've once again gone into an ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT debate. Which is not helping anything. I personally think that the main objection folks have to infoboxes is that their formatting is difficult; aesthetics can be tweaked. The rest is probably a question of whether editors prefer a plain-Jane "ODNB" or "Britannica" look or a more lively populist one (and collapsed infoboxes could also be a compromise for those cases). In this case, I have been informed that one of the participants in this discussion has a very strong desire to work on this particular article, it wasn't a driveby removal, and while I disagree on the anti-infobox position applied to "liberal arts" articles here and generally, I believe it is in the interest of comity for me to back out of this particular article. That said, one of these days we re all heading for Arbcom II if we can't come up with something superior to arguing over every separate article (though apparently we helped kill LOCALCONSENSUS with our collective recalcitrance, which is regretful as it is problematic in other MOS areas, particularly capitalization conventions in the life sciences). Montanabw(talk) 03:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I like infoboxes when they are used correctly, but almost all of the time I would never support the use of an infobox on a biographic article. Aesthetic taste is a factor, yes, but it's not that I don't like it. I don't think an infobox is appropriate in this case. JAGUAR  17:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support restoration of infobox, since it a) it was deleted without consensus as part of someone's anti-infobox WP:GREATWRONGS campaigning, in defiance of WP:ARBINFOBOX, and more importantly b) infoboxes provided a helpful précis of key data, especially for mobile users, who are not in the majority. No objections to trimming some fields that consensus determines are not relevant or being misused in this case (any time someone attempts to fill every possible parameter the infobox allows, they are making a mistake).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:DEADHORSE. CassiantoTalk 21:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Yep, that train left some time ago. – SchroCat (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

people say there is a consensus, but i do not see it? where is the consensus? why is there an edit war now after more than a year of discussion? 2607:FA78:1156:0:C2EA:E4FF:FEE3:CDDF (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"She wasn't Butler when she grew up"

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Regarding the ridiculous situation with naming and this reversion in particular, it seems people are—perhaps willfully—entirely misunderstanding how the English language works.

The sentence "Butler grew up in a well-to-do and politically connected progressive family…" refers to someone whose surname at the time of writing is Butler. To say "Grey grew up in a well-to-do and politically connected progressive family…" is to refer to an entirely different person, someone whose name, right now, in 2018, is Grey. Yes, when Butler was young, her name was Grey—but it's not now, when this encyclopedia is being written She is known to history as Josephine Butler.

Is this really so difficult to understand?? I'm aghast that anyone intelligent enough to be reading and editing an article that is of such high quality would be so ill-read as to not understand how language works in this regard. I apologise for dredging this issue up again, but I really felt as if I had to comment. I shan't edit this article again, but I do hope this issue doesn't become pervasive: it, along with many other associated problems, will be the death of the whole project. — Hugh (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem to miss that it doesn't say "Grey" but "She" which hopefully is fair. - We had enough questioning of intelligence, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
My point, Gerda Arendt, is that beginning that sentence with “Butler” is perfectly correct. — Hugh (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I try to avoid terms such as "perfectly correct", very generally so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josephine_Butler/Archive_1&oldid=1237007359"