Talk:W. S. Gilbert#Wikilinks in "Later Years" section

I think this article would benefit from an infobox.

This would provide a quick, at-a-glance summary of W.S. Gilbert's key details, enhancing the reader's ability to grasp the essential facts and context of his life and work.

It would also help standardise his article with other literary figures, facilitating comparison and improving navigation between related articles.

Given Gilbert's significance in the literary and theatrical fields, an infobox would contribute to a more informative and user-friendly Wikipedia experience.

What do others think? Anaximenes of Miletus (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

:While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, as a Signpost report notes: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-10-02/Arbitration_report "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".] I disagree with including an infobox in this article, in particular, because: (1) The box would emphasize less important factoids, stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts about Gilbert. (2) As the information that would be in the box is already discussed in the article and is also seen in a Google Knowledge Graph, the box would display a redundant 3rd (or likely 4th) mention of these facts. (3) Updates are often made to articles but not reflected in the box (or vice versa). (4) Instead of focusing on the content of the article, my experience is that editors will spend time arguing over what to include in the box. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

:I'm not convinced by IBs in liberal arts biographies, and I'm not sure one here would be an improvement. There is certainly no guideline or policy that suggests standardisation is required or beneficial, and an IB wouldn't improve navigation at all. The relevant links between articles are already present once or twice in the article. Neither is the "importance" of a subject any metric for determining one (I'm not sure how one would even measure the "importance" of a historical figure against all those notable people we have across history, but maybe that's just me). - SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

:I'd rather we not have infoboxes in bios of those who are not politicians or involved with sports. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Elliott &_Fry_-_photograph_W._S._Gilbert.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 19, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-09-19. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

MOS:REPEATLINK rule says that one may repeat links "at most once per major section", not that one ought to repeat them in every major section. In this case, H.M.S. Pinafore and The Mikado are already linked in the Lead section and in the "Collaboration with Sullivan" section. It doesn't seem to me to be useful to keep linking the names of Gilbert's most popular operas. If one wanted to know more about those operas, they should read about them in the "Collaboration with Sullivan" section ("Peak collaborative years" subsection). If one did jump down to this "Later Years" section for some really weird reason, it would be because they were curious either about one of his last works, his knighthood, his breakup with C. H. Workman, or his death in his lake. It is unlikely that they would jump down there without having read anything above to learn about Gilbert almost-forgotten children's books based on these two operas, and if they did so, they would certainly be already familiar with the operas, so why would the link to Pinafore or Mikado help them? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

:The policy uses "at most" because there are terms which should not be linked per MOS:OL, such as everyday words, common occupations, major countries, geographic features and cities, languages, etc., however these operas are not part of this rule as they are meant to be linked because they're not as common terms. It is likely that a link will be helpful for readers who are unfamiliar with the operas, as most readers just don't read the entire articles (hence why WP:REPEATLINK allows for terms to be re-linked once per section) and it is reasonably likely that readers will skip to laters sections, and will need to scroll up 12 paragraphs to find the last linked example of the term. Happily888 (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

::OK, we disagree. Let's see what others say. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

:::18px 3O Response: I see no problem with linking the operas. I agree with Happ's argument. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

:::As the person who successfully proposed relaxing the relevant style guideline to permit linking the same target in multiple sections (at {{slink|Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 21|DL, sections, and mobile readers}} (May–June 2023), following at least one earlier unsuccessful proposal I wasn't aware of at {{slink|Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 21|Proposed change: Allow linking once per section, not just in first section after lede?}} (May–August 2021)), it may come as no surprise that I support duplicate links farther down the article. It's not at all {{tqq|really weird}} that a mobile reader might hop to a lower section without expanding and reading through all the earlier ones.{{pb}}The fact that H.M.S. Pinafore and The Mikado are already linked in the first paragraph does lend credence to the argument that no one should have missed them in earlier sections, but it is also the case that readers unfamiliar with the subject may not have recognised their relative significance to the subject, may not have clicked through, and could benefit from a refresher.{{pb}}I personally see no harm in linking again within the section, but I haven't looked at the article in desktop view to get a feel for how superfluous the links might seem.{{pb}}Two other targets linked both in the lead and in {{slink|W. S. Gilbert|Later years|nopage=y}} are Grim's Dyke and knight bachelor. I don't see here any discussion of those links.{{pb}}Wholly within the "Later years" section, Grim's Dyke and Fallen Fairies are each linked twice (although one of the links to Fallen Fairies is inside an image caption, and thus isn't an unambiguous MOS:DL deviation). Folly Mox (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::Folly, I did not say that it would be weird to jump down to a later section, just *this* section, because it is the least likely section for someone to jump to in order to find out about Pinafore and Mikado. The fact that he wrote children's books based on two of his operas does not require readers to know more about those operas at this point in the article. Fallen Fairies is not mentioned in the Lead, so one would be less likely to have seen it if they were jumping around. Plus, Pinafore and Mikado are each linked twice above, not just once. You really should, as you say, "look at the article in desktop view to get a feel for how superfluous the links might seem", for example as the G&S operas are *all* discussed higher in the article with headings that organize them in chronological order. But obviously there is consensus to restore the links, so go ahead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::I just don't see why not include the links. There is a chance that a reader would like a reminder on what the operas were about, and there's no near−sea of blue situation here. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

::::I tend to agree with this as well personally. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Pandora's box was already opened by allowing links "at most once per major section". Any harm of that added link, once someone decided to add it, is negligible compared to the cycles burned debating whether there is a 0.1% or 10% chance a reader might skip directly to that section and find the link helpful. Leave it at this point (otherwise get the MOS changed again). —Bagumba (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

::Can the operas be relinked now? Obviously, if someone does disagree with the policy maybe create an RfC at WT:MOSLINKS to change it instead of stonewalling here. Happily888 (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

:::I had already said, on November 9, to go ahead and restore your links. See above. Stonewalling? What a nasty thing to say. I simply disagree with your interpretation. It is clear that the current guideline says "no more than one". It doesn't say "must contain one". -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

::::Well, that statement was obviously buried at the bottom of a fairly long reply. Also, I never stated any user, including you, was stonewalling. I just stated that if a user were to make arguments opposing here instead of doing the more obviously reasonable thing of starting an RfC to change the guideline if they disagree with it, that would be stonewalling this discussion. Happily888 (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::Glad to see the discussion here is resolved! Aaron Liu (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Sullivan's entry includes his MVO, right at the outset. Why not Gilbert's? And which order was he knighted to? 2401:D006:A202:7E00:5093:F799:C0B:EABA (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:I might agree with you, although Gilbert's was an afterthought in 1907, but all those honorifics are shortly going to be deleted throughout Wikipedia, as there was an RfC about it, and people are going through with a bot to delete them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)