Georges Feydeau is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 26, 2023.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 23, 2022 Featured article candidate Promoted

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:Vital article Theatre FA‑class High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. France FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Arts and Entertainment FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Georges Feydeau. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306035359/http://www.charlesmorey.com:80/index.php/the-plays/the-ladies-man? to http://www.charlesmorey.com/index.php/the-plays/the-ladies-man

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) 11:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Georges Feydeau. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100828110753/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/142362-Suzanne-Grossman-Actress-and-Writer-Dies-at-72 to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/142362-Suzanne-Grossman-Actress-and-Writer-Dies-at-72

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) 07:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a shot at overhauling the article. All contributions or suggestions for improvement welcome. In particular if anyone who has a better grip on idiomatic French than I have would like to adjust my more stilted efforts at translation I'd be most grateful. Tim riley talk 20:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found myself consulting this article partly because i remember seeing on BBC2 many years ago (1970s? 1980s?) a wonderful series of farces (most if not all, i think, by Feydeau) in translation, under the series title Oo La La. I was hoping that someone had inserted a paragraph about this series. I hope someone yet might! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9BB3:4500:E88C:CB37:C899:A4CB (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First batch – the biography section.

1880s

• "Cercle des arts intimes" and "secrétaire general" Should they be in italics? (I can never remember where the lines are drawn for names and titles in foreign languages)

• Yes, I think itals are right. Done. (I dithered over leaving "secrétaire general" in French, but "secretary general" seemed too grand, somehow.) Tim riley talk 21:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "three-act comédie": this is the only point you italicise "comédie" - all the other references (mostly, I think, in the Works section are just given as "comédie". I don't know which is correct, but consistency would be best - even if incorrect!

• I itch to make them all just "comedy", but there is a difference between the more precise French term "comédie" and our catch-all English "comedy" and I think I must stick with the French term. I'll unitalicise, I think. Tim riley talk 21:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1890s

• There are some places in the translations where the italic are inconsistent, so we have in quick succession: "called The Other Fellow opened ... Le Système Ribadier (The Ribadier System, 1892) ... (under the title His Little Dodge) ... La Ruban (The Ribbon)". Further down you go for quote marks rather than italics when you have "Le Dindon (literally "The Turkey" but in French usage signifying "The Dupe")". If the latter two are translations, rather than translated titles, perhaps just "Le Dindon (literally "Turkey" but in French usage signifying "Dupe")"?

• Excellent suggestion. Makes the distinction clearer. Shall do. Tim riley talk 21:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a couple of places where you have "1896–97": I think I'm right that the MoS now asks for "1896–1897"

• The MoS, with an unexpected outbreak of common sense, allows the 4+2 digit for consecutive years, as here. Tim riley talk 21:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last years

• "Je ne trompe pas mon mari (I don't cheat on my husband, 1914)": Shouldn't the translation be capitalised?

• Hmm. Shall ponder. Actual English titles should certainly be capitalised, but I'm not sure about my English translations of the French titles. Tim riley talk 21:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll cover the Works and the rest later. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just one comment from the Works section:

• "Reviewers in Feydeau's time used both terms –"vaudeville" and "farce" – to label his plays": What, the French ones as well?

• The English critics occasionally used the term "vaudevilles" but generally stuck to "farces", and it was specifically the French critics to whom I referred. Now clarified. . Tim riley talk 21:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot, and I'm not sure about half of them as they seem to be about italics! Enjoyable and entertaining reading. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I'll enjoy working through these points over the weekend. Tim riley talk 10:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All now done, I think, except the italics and ulc points, on which I'll ponder further. Some very useful comments – thank you more than much. Tim riley talk 12:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a navbox for the writer, to have an easy overview of his most notable works and their adaptations. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just get this out of the way? Dronebogus (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Feydeau
Feydeau in 1899, by Carolus-Duran
Born	(1862-12-07)7 December 1862 Paris, France
Died	4 May 1921(1921-05-04) (aged 58) Rueil-Malmaison, France
Occupation	Playwright
Notable work	L'Hôtel du libre échange

This infobox (trimmed a bit) was added by User talk:Valentinejoesmith earlier today. I saw it and liked it as an improvement of the article. It puts Feydeau in a league with Pierre Beaumarchais, and is decently short and focused. The English Wikipedia has many foreign visitors who will be served especially by structured information in a predictable position. I would like to see it restored. Why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, quelle surprise! Look who's parking her chars d'assaut/Kampfpanzer on the pelouse here. I must go and reread Proverbs 26. Tim riley talk 16:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you realize how pretentious that sounds Dronebogus (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it's a bit hard for you. The editor I had in mind will understand it completely. Tim riley talk 16:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Besides “I don’t like it it’s redundant NO IBOX FOR LIB ARTS it dumbs it down READ THE LEAD etc.” Dronebogus (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misrepresent me - particularly by misleading people by claiming it's a quote. - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see we have someone edit warring by forcing an IB back into the article while it's a TFA and while there's an open discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it. Davest3r08 (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Davest3r08. The thing the Must-Have-An-Info-Box absolutists never reply to is the key point: what can you put in an i-box under "notable work" that is encyclopaedic? The one opposite tells us that Feydeau wrote one notable play. In fact he wrote many, but which are they, according to whom, and what citations could an i-box zealot produce to say that X is notable and Y is not? Wikipedia is in the business of publishing hard fact, not editors' opinions. Tim riley talk 16:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove it! Stop insulting people who disagree with your hardline anti-infobox stance and suggest ways to improve content! Dronebogus (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already removed it, there's no reason to get mad at this point @Dronebogus. Davest3r08 (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant remove the problematic content from the infobox Dronebogus (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, the person needs to have done something notable enough to get an infobox. Noted. Davest3r08 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. An info-box is useful for any topic that can be summarised in line with Wikipedia's standards, and I hope you'll go on adding them where appropriate. I have added a couple myself recently to existing articles. But some topics don't work with an info-box, for the reasons explained and ignored earlier. Tim riley talk 17:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What reasons? That you and two other people don’t like them in certain articles? Dronebogus (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They have reasonable arguements. Plus, I was asking a genuine question in good faith and in a civil way. Davest3r08 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t see reasonable arguments, I saw ranting about the infobox cabal and its “zealots” while using a false dichotomy between “this infobox here” and “any infobox” to say that it’s impossible to have a good infobox for this article Dronebogus (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever. We both have our ways of seeing the world. Davest3r08 (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please! See above! I-boxes should contain objective facts and not individual editors' personal views on what are, e.g. "notable works". Tim riley talk 17:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice there was a discussion about the particular infobox. Allow me to share my side of the table here. The Wikipedia article should include an information box to facilitate quick and easy access to essential reference information for readers. If you disagree, please respond to this message. In addition, it is important to ensure that the information box remains stationary, allowing readers, including myself and others, to effortlessly locate and comprehend the article's key details without the need to delve into the extensive text. This is particularly valuable since navigating through a lengthy article like this one can be cumbersome, especially for individuals who prefer a more succinct summary. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for IB use state “The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.” As this article has never had an IB until someone added it today, and as the article has been through two community review processes without an IB, you need a consensus to include one. - SchroCat (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The decision-making process regarding whether to retain or remove the infobox from Wikipedia articles has been a matter of significant debate and, in my view, one of the most challenging issues the platform has faced. Personally, I place a high value on infoboxes. While I understand that they are not obligatory, I believe that incorporating an infobox into an article can significantly enhance readers' comprehension. Rather than merely glancing at a summary or TL;DR (Too Long; Didn't Read) information, an infobox can offer a more comprehensive and user-friendly overview of the article's key points, leading to a more informed readership.

I find the Wikipedia guidelines regarding infoboxes to be flawed and unconvincing. I firmly believe that an infobox should be included in this context, contrary to what the guidelines suggest. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion, but whether you agree or disagree with the guidelines is a little moot: they represent the consensus of the community. - SchroCat (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see multiple reasonable points in favor of including an infobox, with some debate about what should or should not be included under "notable works", or whether a "notable works" section should or should not be included in the infobox. I don't see any reasonable points in favor of excluding an infobox. All I see at a glance is the following: before the infobox was added, it wasn't there. That's not an argument for exclusion, that's a tautology.

Can someone please give a TLDR explanation as to why adding an infobox makes the article worse? Pecopteris (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See above: the inclusion of subjective opinions - which of X's works are "notable" and which not - is unencyclopaedic. Tim riley talk 06:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly don’t see “multiple reasonable points” for adding a box. There are a small number of people saying they want one, but that’s about it. The above box doesn’t tell readers anything of note about Feydeau, his life or his work, except for one piece of OR of which of his works someone thinks is notable. Highlighting the trivia and providing OR is no reason to force in a box after over twenty years without one. - SchroCat (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather rude. I certainly do see "multiple reasonable points" for adding a box. Perhaps you don't, which may be the product of us having different ideas of what constitutes "reasonable". I also agree with both of your points: before the infobox was there, it wasn't. True. And the "notable works" section may not be appropriate. Also true. Say the infobox was added, minus the "notable works" section. How would such an infobox make the article worse? Pecopteris (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How odd. There is nothing rude in what I’ve said, but never mind.

I think the point of trying to add something that people object to is that you have make arguments as to why the change should be made. You have make positive arguments for inclusion in order to change the over twenty year status quo/standing consensus.

As to just having a box with the name and dates, I’m wondering just how that’s useful, given it’s just a repetition of the opening line, but about thirty times less beneficial to readers, given it doesn’t help, explain, educate or inform. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well it tells me he died at 58, at a glance. Dronebogus (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case someone here doesn't know, Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Infoboxes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To settle this edit war argument, I've added a comment for future editors on this article. Davest3r08 (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. There is no consensus here (three incredibly biased editors who systematically block infoboxes on certain pages against c. 4 others, two of who are not regulars in this dispute, plus semi-neutral parties like you) and this will inevitably have to be settled by RFC. Dronebogus (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, is there any chance you could try not so show so much bad faith, remain civil and not smear others just because they have a different opinion to you?

There is nothing "inevitable" about it having to be by RfC - people could just ignore this tiny patch of the 7 million + articles and find something useful to do instead. - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could say the same to you— why do you, Tim, and Ssilvers obsess over guarding this “tiny patch of the 7 millon+ articles” against an exceedingly minor change that many people find helpful? Dronebogus (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again: can you you dial back on the bad faith and uncivil comments - there is no "obsession" here? I obsess over nothing of the sort. I plough my furrow nice and quietly, developing articles to as high a standard as I can. I don't jump around on articles and make demands that cause disruption and grief. But your idea of an enjoyable pastime may differ from mine. - SchroCat (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Feydeau
Feydeau in 1899, by Carolus-Duran
Born	(1862-12-07)7 December 1862 Paris, France
Died	4 May 1921(1921-05-04) (aged 58) Rueil-Malmaison, France
Occupation	Playwright
Spouse	Marie-Anne Carolus-Duran
Children	4

Should the article have an infobox, like the example here (plus or minus any recommended changes)? Dronebogus (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As a reminder to all who !vote, and by way of background: ArbCom’s rulings on IB’s state that arguments should be based on whether an IB is appropriate on the specific article in question, not a general discussion or vote in favour of IBs in general - decisions of 2013 and 2018, plus many active discussions in the intervening period.
  This article did not have an IB in place from its creation in July 2002 until one was added when the article recently appeared at TFA. It has been through two community review processes without anyone questioning the lack of an IB. - SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  SchroCat, it is poor form to put your message at the top of an active discussion to sway people to your favor. I’ve moved your comment here accordingly Dronebogus (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m also going to note here that I tried to request SchroCat stop edit-warring to keep their comment at the top in their talk page but was reverted without a response. Dronebogus (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi SchroCat. This intervention would be more compelling if you provided a link to those specific rulings. I am unfamiliar with them, and a quick search pulled up a ruling about Infoboxes, but it did not imply what you suggested in your reply. Handpigdad (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Added. ArbCom acknowledged the flexible MOS (they don’t have the power to change it), and made the effort to ensure the conversations were about the articles in question. It’s best this clarification goes up near the top: it’s not about swaying anyone’s vote, but is about ensuring editors don’t just !vote based on liking or disliking IBs in general, but stay on point about what will benefit this specific article and why. - SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I really appreciate you adding those links. Thank you. Will read through them when I get the chance. Handpigdad (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. One of the many instances this biographical lemma where an infobox is useful and fitting. -The Gnome (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I ask how is this useful? This is a genuine question: it holds so little information that the only thing a reader will actually learn is that that this is an article about a playwright. I'm really not sure that's of any real use to man nor beast. - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course you can.Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given the non-answer, I'll assume you have no answer. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course, I have. Come on. But I hate replays. -The Gnome (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can add more stuff to it like maybe family members and a link to a list of works if such an article exists. Unfortunately I have no idea who his principal family members if any are because there’s no infobox andI have to slog through paragraphs of text to find it. I explicitly said that changes can be recommended for this exact reason. Dronebogus (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Which family members should be added (if we take a reasonable step of only adding the blue linked notable ones)? - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The… blue linked notable ones? Plus his spouse and how many children he had Dronebogus (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ll wait until you can come up with a sensible list of notable family members to include - one that will actually aid readers’ understanding of Feydeau and what makes him notable. - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  At the very least list his spouse as “ Marie-Anne Carolus-Duran” and the number of children as “4” (had to scroll down four paragraphs or so just to find that very basic statement Dronebogus (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Amended mockup infobox to include that information Dronebogus (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it your position that it is not significant, for instance, that his father was also a playwright, given that his father's artistic connections are implied in the Early Years section to have contributed to his development as a writer? Handpigdad (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ll add that one if there’s a proper parameter Dronebogus (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, it looks brilliant now: knowing he had four children really makes me understand his work ... - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Regardless of your point, your use of sarcasm in response to an editorial suggestion rather than directly stating your point does not imply that you are taking consensus building seriously. Handpigdad (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I take the disruption caused by IB warriors seriously, but having a joke IB is something I find hard not to laugh at. - SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Is your implication that either myself or the other editor in this thread are "IB warriors"? I would appreciate some clarification about what you mean by that, otherwise, I would prefer that we discuss the subject of this request for comment. I don't feel that laughting at statements is a useful way to build towards consensus. Handpigdad (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So I can’t accuse you of ownership behavior, which you’ve demonstrated both here and at Talk:Dorothy L. Sayers, but you can call me a disruptive “infobox warrior”? Dronebogus (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You have kept up a constant stream of aggressive bad faith comments on both threads. Do not be surprised if people’s patience snaps and they poke back. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No - I don't especially object to this, except that it makes Wikipedia look rather silly for stating d.o.b. etc information few will be looking for and, necessarily, omitting what readers want to know from the article - what Feydeau is known for. You could add 'playwright' but once you start trying to single out which of his plays are notable we cease to be encylopaedic and are indulging in OR. In short, though I think i-boxes are useful to readers in many cases, this isn't one of them. True, a handful of editors passionately believe all articles should have an i-box, though they don't always admit it even when challenged, but under the present WP policy that's a no-no. The nominator of this RFA is a drive-by editor, with no input into the article until it was exposed on the front page, and his/her views should, I think, be treated with caution accordingly. Tim riley talk 19:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m not a “drive-by”, I’m a Wikipedia:GNOME and I do maintenance and standardization tasks. I’m tired of this attitude of “main contributor Wikipedia:Ownership of content” blocking normalization on certain articles based on taste, not logic. Dronebogus (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I wondered how long it would be before the insults of ownership were thrown around. I’m sadly unsurprised by just how quickly it has been. Adding an IB is not ‘normalisation’ (if it were the MOS would make it a compulsory step), but should on,y be a step taken if beneficial to an article. This is an entirely logical and MOS-compliant approach, not one based on the ‘one-size-fits-all’ matter of taste of some editors. - SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - I think infoboxes are great for at a glance information. Was looking at a print copy of the Britannica recently, which I haven't done in years, and was struck by the division of that encyclopedia into reference volumes and in-depth volumes with many subjects covered in each. They are certainly occasions when an article doesn't have enough information to support an infobox, but for quick reference—which is one of the vital functions of an encyclopedia—they are useful. Surely an article of this length has material in it that would be useful for readers to know at-a-glance. Handpigdad (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - nothing much new to add, just agree with the points brought by the previous users who are in favor of the infobox, plus I think it helps to standardize it to similar articles.Dotoilage (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - For those who are not familiar with Feydeau, the infobox indicates the time period, place, what he is known for, and family connections. It can help a reader decide whether to dive deeper into the article. Senorangel (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes (Summoned by bot) With apologies to those who have strong feelings to the contrary – I do find it makes it easier to take the information in. As for what notable works to list, this doesn't have to be OR. We could go by Britannica ("Among his plays are La Dame de chez Maxim (1899; The Girl from Maxim’s), La Puce à l’oreille (1907; A Flea in Her Ear), and Occupe-toi d’Amélie! (1908; Keep an Eye on Amélie!).") or research which ones are most often performed, mentioned in RS, etc. Andreas JN466 05:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Research has shown that when reading articles, people's eyes are dragged towards boxes and images, regardless of what they contain. This is a case in point. It holds only one piece of valid information (that he was a playwright) and zero else of why we have an article on him – only trivia and absolutely nothing about his notability. To dismiss a few WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments put forward:

1. "helps to standardize it" and "normalization": there is no policy or guideline that says we need to do this. Indeed, it is contrary to the guidelines of the MOS("neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article" and the strictures of two ArbCom rulings (linked above)
2. "is useful and fitting" is no argument except IDONTLIKEIT
3. "indicates the time period, place, what he is known for, and family connections": Provides zero real information to readers. Unless they can see straight away that he wrote during the Belle Époque, the dates mean zero. From the suggested box we can see he was a playwright, but that covers such a wide range of possibilities that it is, by its lack of context, misleading. And it shows his family connections: brilliant! Will a reader have a better grasp of Feydeau or why we have an article on him for knowing he had a wife and four children. It is as facile as it is misleading.

Stripping out the context to have factoids provides a misleading impression to readers, so it's not just that the information is superfluous, it's that it's misleading – and pushing misleading information onto readers is not what we should be doing. For Feydeau we show he died in Rueil-Malmaison ("where – and who cares: it's trivia?" will be reader's first question), but omitting that he dies in a sanitorium with mental health problems for two years explains why.

This article has been IB free for over twenty years, including going through two rigorous community review processes. Over that 20 years and in the two reviews, no-one has asked for a box, or put one in, so it will need a strong consensus based on policy or guideline to overturn the status quo. - SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No - not an improvement to the article, and we didn't need a RfC to tell us that it is not an improvement. Trivial factoids do not help the reader have a better understanding of the subject. Also agree that "normalization" and "standardize it" are not compelling arguments (tbh, I don't even know what that means). Retain the status quo. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No. There are no "key facts" in this infobox that are not already stated better, and with more context, in the Lead section. Why repeat *again* factoids like place of death, or the name of his non-notable wife? As an encyclopedia writer, I would rather that the reader read the excellent Lead section to get a sense of the really important information about this subject. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - This is essentially the same discussion, with many of the same commentators from the Richard Wagner infobox RFC a few months ago. I am hopeful that the bureaucratic process of holding a RFC every time this topic comes up will dissolve over time. Infoboxes have become essential to the Wikipedia user experience. This explains why most of these RFC discussions over the past 12 months have ended in inclusion. Infoboxes make it easy to find important information about the topic of an article and data supports this conclusion.[1] While there is room to discuss what can and cannot be included in an infobox, it is time to accept that they are a valuable part of the user interface for readers on large articles. Nemov (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles benefit a lot from infoboxes; others not so much or at all. The hatred against infoboxes per se, however, exhibited openly by some contributors, as I've witnessed in the past, is amusing, though it verges on the pathological. -The Gnome (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please try and reign in the incivility? - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "incivility" from my part (and you should wipe off that stain from my Talk page). My above comment is not directed to anyone here, as I made clear, i.e. "What I witnessed in the past". Kindly, restrain yourself. A good step forward would be to stop bludgeoning the process: You're all over the page, answering everyone and commenting everywhere. Your points have been well and clearly presented. No sense in whipping that poor horse any more. -The Gnome (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, I agree your obsessiveness here is pathological and disruptive. Even I know when to stop bludgeoning my point and making hypocritical accusations of incivility. Dronebogus (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Data also shows that a vast majority of our readers are accessing our articles via mobile devices, as evidenced by the Topviews Analysis page. For the top 10 articles, the average is 80% mobile devices, and they see the lead section first before the infobox. So for this article, they will have already read the facts about Feydeau before they even get to the infobox, which undoubtedly means this particular infobox is not an improvement to this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or some people like myself scroll down to see the infobox first to get the basic high level information organized in one place. It's a mistake to assume all users view information the same way. Nemov (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I enthusiastically reject the “eat your vegetables” argument—that our job is to encourage our readers to read in a particular way. In this specific context, our subject is a somewhat obscure French playwright; I imagine that most accessing it would be interested in reading already. But in the wider context, I think this sort of disciplinarian approach is a bad idea, and a slippery slope. A central purpose of Wikipedia is accessibility of information. If simplification is to be avoided, should we just replace this whole page with some links to journal articles about the subject? On a practical level, in the research work I do as a day job I frequently use Wikipedia to do low stakes at-a-glance checks of simple biographical information, it takes only a little bit longer to extract most of this information from the body of a text, but if dates, places, family relationships, and significant works are in an infobox, that makes a huge difference in terms of my being able to use wikipedia as a reference.

On the “it was fine ten years ago” argument, I am wondering if there is are established policy statements to base this conservatism on or if it is just editor preference for something good enough to be set in stone?

Finally, it would be helpful to me if some of the voters in opposition to the proposal could describe instances where they do support the use of infoboxes, so that I can have a better sense of ways this use-case differs. Handpigdad (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, of course. Why would we not want an infobox? It does a great job of providing a few quick points from the article. Edward-Woodrow • talk 17:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, because infoboxes give high-level, useful information at-a-glance. A great idea for any biography, in my opinion. Pistongrinder (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No I'm generally in favour of infoboxes, other than in the case where the infobox gives no more real information than the first sentence of the article. Such infoboxes are simply redundant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No, per many comments above -- they are useful when they add information not immediately available from the first sentence, but that's not the case here. I would like to see more of the "yes" !votes address that point specifically, rather than just expressing support for the use of infoboxes in general. I agree they are often useful; in reply to Handpigdad's request, take a look at the featured articles I have listed at the bottom of my user page -- mostly Anglo-Saxon kings, old magazines, and archaeological sites. I haven't checked all of them but I expect all the kings and archaeological sites have infoboxes, and most of the magazines do. The exceptions are mostly ones where either nothing useful can be said (as here) or the information can't be easily summarized in an infobox as there are multiple valid answers for the key fields. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]