Talk:John Vanbrugh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star John Vanbrugh 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. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 25, 2005.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Arts article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Rewrite

I'm planning a pretty complete re-write about Vanbrugh's plays, which will focus on his original comedies The Relapse and The Provoked Wife and more or less ignore all those redlinked other plays, which are mere adaptations and translations anyway. Also a big-ass cleanup of the EB prose on Vanbrugh's life and architecture, but without so much new input from me, since the comedies are my main interest. Any objections or thoughts out there? I would love to have somebody to discuss Vanbrugh with. --Bishonen 19:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'.....as Voltaire said, if the rooms had only been as wide as the walls were thick, the chateau would have been convenient enough.': Was Voltaire referring to Blenheim when he made this quote, because if he was, he had obviosly never been there; and if he wasn't then it needs to be taken out. Vanbrugh was not the world's greatest architect, but he wasn't as bad as this page makes him! Giano 17:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tried to present a more balanced picture of Vanbrugh (at least as architect of Blenheim) and provide a clearer account of his friction with the Duchess of Marlborough. Removed Voltaire quote as it is less than helpful! Giano 19:52, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ha! If Voltaire was commenting on Blenheim, he was just being a jerk, because Blenheim was recognized in its own day as a marvel. While Vanbrugh's other buildings were loved, Blenheim Palance was regarded by contemporaries as a true showpiece of the realm. It was one of those places they took foreigners to impress them. The commission alone tells you what people thought of Vanbrugh as an architect: the commemoration of that battle was a huge deal, for Blenheim was the most famous battle of the day, next to perhaps Agincourt. Bad architect? Hardly. As a gentleman, Vanbrugh's about the last guy who upheld the old cavalier dream of an intelligent man being able to do any art with "application." Geogre 13:42, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, criticism of Blenheim was divided along party lines, Geogre. Giano has a crapload of sour Tory comments, and I have some too, we may make a quote section with stuff like the minnows fancying themselves whales when they approached the famous bridge (Pope). "It looks like a great college with a church in the middle". I just got a very complicated edit conflict, that I had to give up on, from getting held up forever by the server, trying to edit the article. :-( --Bishonen 16:05, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't know Vanbrugh was such a Whig. I would have thought that being hated by Sarah Churchill would have endeared him somewhat. Also, Howard was a friend to Pope. These things seemed to change year by year. Phillips was a friend/enemy; Cibber was a friend/enemy; Rich was a villain/producer of Gay's. All those comments have to be read politically (and many of Johnson's, too, but that's an aside). Geogre 21:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, wait. That's not such an aside. Voltaire visited England with whom? Ah, yes. Samuel Johnson, the Whig hater (and the generally previous generation not liker and the rake hater). Well, not conclusive, but a thing. Geogre 22:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Voltaire:"A witty saying proves nothing." In this case so very true! Giano 12:33, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Subtitles

The subtitles for the separate plays introduced by User:ALoan were problematic in that they pulled the paragraph about Jeremy Collier and the change in audience taste in under the heading of The Provoked Wife, where it doesn't belong. I have now padded the paragraph slightly and given it its own subtitle, but I'm not sure it's the best thing to do. Having all these short sections with individual titles looks choppy and breaks flow. At the same time, the more easily the reader can find stuff from looking at the TOC, the better, of course. --Bishonen 13:08, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonably elegant solution, but I'd suggest changing the Plays section title to Theatre and inserting a short intro paragraph (JV wrote two plays.... type of thing) before the first subheading. The article as a whole is looking really good now. Filiocht 13:14, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Playwright is much better that theatre. Filiocht 13:40, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the thumbs-up, Filiocht. Since User:ALoan hasn't so far discussed any of his changes on this page, I don't think I'll be quite as conscientious as above in the future about possible changes of mine to his edits, either. But of course I won't do anything drastic without taking it to this page first, as I'm sure ALoan won't either.--Bishonen 23:27, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] See also/Related topics

Good morning Bishonen, I've left you an email about the finale for your thoughts. The 'see also' section seems to have an external link to Kimbolton Castle, I haven't mentioned this in the text as to list every house with a desription would be tedious for the reader, but if Kimbolton is to remain then there must be mention of the others, these are all in a mish mash of styles depending on the whim of the owner and patron, so little to do with V's architectural concepts and ideals. I think you had some plays etc. on 'see also' - Why have you removed them? If you don't want them there we might as well remove the whole section. I will put a explanation on talk page as to why I haven't banged on for pages about other designs. Giano 09:58, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Giano, I've moved your question from my own Talk page to here. No, I didn't remove my links to The Relapse and a few other theatrical topics under See also, I think ALoan did. Presumably because they weren't technically "also", I mean, they had already been linked in the article text. The problem, though, is that so much is linked in the article text altogether that it's hard — impossible, really — for readers to know which links are actually recommended and useful, in amongst all the blue. That's why I put links to articles that are both related to our topic and also decent and informative and up to date (wrote 'em myself :-)), as opposed to for instance being 1911 EB dumps (which really for Restoration comedy is worse than nothing), in a special place. I thought people might complain, actually, but I was going for reader convenience over Manual of style.
I suggest that I reinstate my recommended list at the bottom and rename it Related topics (also supported in the Manual of style), which is a more logical heading for them. I hope you'll put your selected links in there also.--Bishonen 11:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, That's a good idea, I've said all I want too on architecture, all points (I feel relevant) are covered, there is no point wasting space about every house where Vanbrugh, may or may not have, advised Hawksmoor on the placing of a broom cupboard Giano 12:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All right, now Neutrality has deleted the "Related topics" section also, I guess I give up. Neutrality, if you read this page, could you please look at the discussion above and let me know if you agree about the problem for readers of knowing which links are actually useful in amongst all the blue, and if you have any suggestion for helping with it?--Bishonen 16:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I strongly dislike the "see also" section. It artifically lenthens the artilce and repeats wikilinks that are already in the article. I think it's best to leave it out. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:42, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
An article of this length is full of wikki-links, many of them lead to either ambiguous pages, or stubs. A few (very few) of these links lead to information which should be in the article, but is not through lack of space; these are the links listed in the 'related topics', those listed are all informative and relevant to the article, and will be invaluable to anyone genuinely interested in John Vanbrugh. An encyclopedia should be about providing information at the highest and most comprehensive level Giano 21:55, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Crossposted User Talk:Neutrality/Talk:John Vanbrugh:

Hi, Neutrality, please don't think I don't value the interest you take in improving John Vanbrugh! It takes me a while to answer sometimes, because I'm pretty busy (and slow). I totally share your concern about length, "scrolling length" as well as kilobyte size, and I take your point that "See also" is not intended for terms that have already been linked in the article text. I suppose renaming the section "Related topics" didn't make as much difference as I thought? It was probably altogether a mistake to try to shoehorn our "Small set of useful links culled from the big set of article wikilinks" collection into a format intended for something else, and I'm trying to think of alternatives. Meanwhile, though, I think I should also try to explain why I'm so interested in having a collection like that at all.

[edit] Linking to 1911 EB articles

A lot, I mean a lot, of the 17th-18th century terms, and especially names, that are linked in the article lead to not merely weak articles, but to actually worse-than-nothing articles, especially in the field of Restoration comedy, the form that Vanbrugh wrote. This includes big, important figures like William Congreve and William Wycherley, important plays, major topics ...lots of very central stuff. Many or most of those articles are 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica text dumps. I realize it may sound very extreme to call 1911 articles "worse than nothing": isn't a little information always better than none? Well, I think not in this case, because:

  1. The information is degenerated, it's actively wrong. Stories and "traditions" about 17th-18th century literary figures, none too reliable to begin with, morphed into worse in the 19th century as they passed back and forth between books that were all summarizing or rewriting each other — literary biographers couldn't even dream of having the kind of access to original sources that modern scholars have. These traditions are what we find in the 1911 EB. (With minor figures like Vanbrugh, we still find them in today's EB, as I discovered when I was writing the Early life section! If you thought I was rude there about the modern EB and DNB Vanbrugh articles, I wasn't, I was incredibly restrained.)
  2. Restoration comedy is about sex. The 1911 EB is Victorian, and is indignant about sexy literature. The 1911 is a really bad place for a modern reader to seek a literary historical perspective on Restoration comedy. I honestly think he/she will be more ignorant after reading it than before.

I still think it's right to link to all existing articles in the text of John Vanbrugh. Wikipedia is dynamic, and bad articles are being improved all the time. I'm rewriting the 1911 Restoration drama articles as fast as I can myself, but I haven't been here very long, I don't have that much time, and few other Wikipedians seem to be working in late 17th and 18th century literature. There's Geogre, who writes great articles, and... well, there's Geogre, I haven't actually seen any traces of anyone else. I could have missed them, but whenever I look around at articles on the drama, thaat I take the most interest in, nobody seems to have touched those articles since they were created, as either stubs or 1911 text or a combination. Well, touched them substantively, I mean. They get categories and wikilinks, but the text stays the same.

My point is that there is some good information on Restoration comedy and related topics on Wikipedia, but at present it's terribly hard to find it from following wikilinks in the John Vanbrugh text. I hope that will change, but I'd like also to give the reader some help now. I do understand that a "See also" section is not the right way, I'm trying to think of something else. You have a lot of editing experience, if you have any ideas for alternatives I hope you'll share them. If I called the section something completely different, do you think it might be OK to put the links side by side in one line, rather than having them add scrolling length the way they do?--Bishonen 00:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC). (Sorry for the screed.)

[edit] Dealing with edit conflicts

I only popped in for a split second, thought about putting the flag on and could not be bothered, I was only editing it by section perhaps you were doing the same and that's why we were lucky. (any way why didn't you put the flag on? Giano 13:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Who is David? Giano
David Remahl, a young Swedish programmer who kindly explained to me how to display images with or without frames, etc. It's all on his Talk page in case you're interested. He'd done a little programmer's edit in John Vanbrugh today, as Chmod007, coding the dashes in the reference list. My edit line was just for taunting him by pointing out I'd removed the dashes anyway. :-) (I was following the Wikipedia house style for book references — that kind of editing is more transcendently unimportant than I can even express, but by vocational accident I know to do it and it hardly takes any time, so why not.)
Well, I think I might be more stressed with the flag than without, you know, I don't want to use it any more. I'll just use a text editor and pop in and out as fast as I can.
Edit conflicts wouldn't even matter as long as we're not editing the same section. How about we keep each other posted on this page? I'm on "Playwright" with all its headings, I'll post here when I'd like to move on. Are there any sections below that you definitely think you're done with for today? Oh, and if I try to put years on "my" headings, will you do the same for Architecture and following? Just so we can see a) if it's possible (I mean, for instance, what years did the audience taste change?) and b) how it would look? And let me know your thoughts about it, I do agree that readers need help if they're not goinig to get lost in amongst all V's different activities. --Bishonen 13:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring page

Now that John Vanbrugh is about to get Featured article status after a great reception on WP:FAC, I'm refactoring this page, because I'm tired of seeing the misleading notice about an original "failed nomination". The earlier nomination was of an experimental draft page and was withdrawn by the authors as soon as they became aware of it, after about five hours. That's not what's normally understood by a failed nomination. (Please see previous page versions in History, e. g. 30 October 2004, if you want to read the removed section!)--Bishonen 00:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] FAC now?

At least in my opinion, this article is a strong FA nomination. If the hard working authors agree, simply indicate it, and I'll nominate the article. I know that I, at least, can see nothing to add. Geogre 04:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, and congratulations to its authors. I have been through, copyedited a little, and added some wikilinks (I hope I have not stepped on any toes this time). This is an absolute tour de force and must be Featured asap. I will nominate it now. My only caveat it that it is a trifle too good at 45k, but it is difficult to know what to separate out. Could some of the information on the plays be moved to their own articles? - -- ALoan (Talk) 13:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think to reduce it would be a pity, as it is intended to be a fully comprehensive as possible, like the architecture the plays are discussed in their relationship to each other, and their relevanvce to each stage of Vanbrugh's carreer. Thanks for the copy edit, but there seems to be a large void in the Blenheim section, where I think the pictures are now too small especially the monumental gate which now appears a trifle less monumental and squat. Giano 14:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but I expect it as an objection, so it is best to be prepared. I don't see the void - the images should all line up, the same size. I suppose one could be made larger and put at the top of that section, but they may end up crashing into each other in a nasty mess, and left aligning looks ugly to me. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:59, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi, ALoan, there's no void on my screen, either, and I understand that images can cause all sorts of nasty surprises, especially if an image novice like myself should try to mess with them. I think it's a great pity that the Blenheim images have to come out so small, though. Especially, I was wondering if you see any safe and practicable way of having the facade of Blenheim not line up with the others, so it could be a bit bigger, and still placed in a neat and not-ugly way? It's the only pic that remotely represents the whole big palace, which is stated repeatedly in the article to be Vanbrugh's most famous achievement. And with the wide, low shape the image is, lining it up with the others makes it the size of a small postage stamp. It's smaller than its own caption. If you can figure a way of allowing it to be, say, the size of the Castle Howard image (which seems to be about what the original Blenheim Palace Terrace.jpg can aspire to), it would be great.--Bishonen 16:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've had another go - is this better? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:07, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thankyou Aloan, that is very much better. I will settle for that Giano 22:09, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the subject of the pictures, one thing I'm doing now for the Jonathan Wild article is using the image description to actually put in some notes. I'm not recommending anything, but it is one way to make things shorter: you can say, "see the enlarged image for more details" and then use the image page to make salient points. Like I said, that's not a recommendation, just a possibility. I see little to improve in the article and no seams at which anything can be cut. Geogre 03:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Sources"?

I just noticed that the heading of the "References" section has been changed to "Sources". According to Wikipedia:Guide to layout, part of the Manual of style, a section called "References", with the contents this one has, is supposed to be one of the "standardized appendices". Could the user who made the change please explain why they think "Sources" is a better heading? (It's not quite a synonym, sources are a subset of references.) Btw, it's a good idea to mention changes made, either in the edit field or on this page, especially small but significant changes like this, so others are made aware of them. It would also be preferable not to have to dig through what is by now a daunting History to find who made a change.--Bishonen 02:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ibsen

Somebody changed my "such severity was in fact rarely to be seen on the English stage before Ibsen" in the Legacy section to "before the influence of Ibsen". I can understand if the original sounded a little unexpected, with Ibsen being a Norwegian playwright, but it was actually intended and correct. It was the plays of Ibsen himself, not of English Ibsen followers, that created a great sensation on the, yes, English stage, and made English theatrical history in the nineteenth century. I have changed it back. I was thinking of Ibsen's A Doll's House — maybe I should put that title in, but it seems a little overweening — it would puff up Vanbrugh's "A Journey to London" beyond its deserts.--Bishonen 16:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons not to move information to Blenheim Palace

Since this article is about the man, and there is an article about the palace, it seems to me that the details about the palace need to be moved/blended into Blenheim Palace. This article's plenty long enough with all that. Elf | Talk 02:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since the man is also an architect, and Blenheim Palace is an example of his architecture, there is useful context here, in the form of a major architect's career. Its present length doesn't really strain adult attention spans that much. It would be easy enough for anyone to break this article into numerous bitty bits without thinking about the information very much. The entry Blenheim Palace should certainly have a clear capsule version of Vanbrugh's role there, with a link here. That entry should also have material on the subsequent history of Blenheim Palace, the evolution of the gardens, Consuelo Vanderbilt as Duchess of Marlborough at Blenheim, the water terrace added by Achille Duchêne in the early 20th century, the Marlborough library and its dispersal at auction, the birth of Winston Churchill at Blenheim. There's plenty to add at Blenheim Palace without dismantling this outstanding entry. However, it will take a little work to Google some basics. But I've given you a start. Let me copy this into Talk:Blenheim Palace too. --Wetman 02:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hello, Elf. I appreciate the interest you take in improving the article. For a perspective on the particular issue of keeping it intact versus splitting off information to subarticles, you might like to look at the discussion that took place when John Vanbrugh was a Featured article candidate in November. Here is the vote, and here the resulting discussion on the FAC talk page. As you'll see, I was originally fairly resigned to making at least a good-faith attempt to split off the individual play discussions. But when I realized only one person wanted that done while everybody else seemed to think it would be wanton destruction of an outstanding article, well, I changed my mind. The whole length issue is interesting, though. I'm glad you raised it on this page, especially because I think the links I've posted here may be of interest to other readers, too.--Bishonen | (Talk) 08:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Even in Biology there are lumpers and splitters ;>) --Wetman 14:57, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The above editors are completely correct - the information concerning Blenheim Palace should definitely remain here. There is room for a great deal of improvement at Blenheim Palace, however, the information here is relevant to how Vanbrugh developed an architectural concept and style. Blenheim was a midway point in this concept, if Blenheim goes then one is left with Castle Howard the beginning and Seaton Delaval Hall at the conclusion - two houses both in Vanbrugh's form of baroque - diversely different but with no link showing development. Further Blenheim information here also covers Vanbrugh's relationship with his client and is relevant to Vanbrugh on a personal level. There is no information here on the interiors or furnishings or subsequent landscaping at Blenheim, or the belle epoque transformation of the Blenheim state rooms into a pastiche of Versailles. There are also a wide spectrum of characters who have inhabited the palace who led interesting lives, all this will hopefully appear one day at Blenheim. Giano 08:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedits

Hi, MisfitToys, thanks for helpful copyediting—though I changed "18th century" etc. back to "18th-century", because that's the correct spelling when used attributively, as in "18th-century" literature—please check it out, you'll see that it's only in the attributive position that the page uses the hyphen. I also took out the "earlier" that you inserted in "Kerry Downes has shown in his well-researched modern biography (1987) that even the Encyclopædia Britannica and the Dictionary of National Biography repeat 18th- and 19th-century traditions which were originally offered as guesses but have hardened into "fact" in the process of being passed on. This accounts for several discrepancies between these earlier authorities and the following narrative etc", because it's a misunderstanding—I meant to say that it accounts for, ahem, cough, this article being more reliable than those in the EB and DNB, since they're based on outdated information while this is based on current research. I. e., I was talking about the current, latest editions of EB and DNB. I thought it needed saying (politely) that it's Wikipedia that's right and the EB that's wrong— otherwise maybe a reader will notice the quite striking discrepancies and go "See, Wikipedia's unreliable, they say differently from the EB." Scholars are aware that EB articles on minor 18th-century (hyphen) figures haven't been updated, other than stylistically, since the late 19th century (see? No hyphen that time!), but to the ordinary reader, EB is just the touchstone of reliability by which everything else is judged. Anyway. I'm glad you put in "earlier", because it made me realise I'd failed to make my meaning clear. I've reformulated it now. I do appreciate your help. Bishonen | Talk 23:02, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation on the usage; I'll revert any others I changed. Glad to be of help in other respects. MisfitToys 23:09, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EB & DNB bashing?

First, this seems to be an excellent article — good work, whoever was responsible. However, I'm unsure about the following passages: "Kerry Downes has shown in his well-researched modern biography (1987) that even the Encyclopædia Britannica and the Dictionary of National Biography repeat 18th- and 19th-century traditions which were originally offered as guesses but have hardened into "fact" in the process of being passed on. This accounts for several discrepancies between the entries in these encyclopædias and the following narrative, which is based on the findings of Downes (1987) and McCormick (1991)." and "stated as fact in the Dictionary of National Biography)." and "See also the caution in Early life, above, about the basis of both these articles in traditional rather than scholarly sources."

To me, this feels very near to gloating about the failings of other reference works, which would (of course) be quite unseemly. It's great, of course, that Wikipedia puts these lesser works to shame, but we don't need to emphasise this within articles. Even more than that, it just seems a little off-topic. When a reader is looking for a concise summary of John Vanbrugh's life and work, it seems quite irrelevant to launch straight away into a discussion — not of Vanbrugh's early life — but into criticism of errors in rival works! I suggest we stick to the facts as they are now established; any discussion of discrepancies in other biographies should be, in my opinion, removed, or at least placed in a footnote, or kept confined to the "Sources" section.

Out of curiosity, the Dictionary of National Biography has recently been revised; do the errors persist in this version?

These are just my thoughts on what is otherwise a top-notch article. Good stuff! — Matt Crypto 00:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On a related note, I don't suppose someone could add an entry to Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia? — Matt Crypto 00:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see my reasoning in the entry I posted yesterday, just above this! Frankly, if there's no discussion up front in the article of sources and the way they're used here vs. in other reference works, I think we're quite likely to see people "correcting" chronology etc. in this article to conform with EB. (We should remove the gloating once everybody knows Wikipedia is the best, of course...! :-)) About the revised DNB: I'm afraid they do persist, as far as I know, unless there's been some radical (rather than cosmetic) revision very recently indeed. (I have online access to the EB, where the errrors certainly do persist, but not to the DNB, so I cant' check it right now.) Anyway, if they're looking for a really concise summary, I guess the body of the article is, well ... it's quite a full article. For those really after concise, the lead section is your man, I guess. I appreciate the input, though, and the compliment (Giano and I authored it), got to catch a train—I'll think about what you said. Bishonen | Talk 06:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The (major) update of the DNB that I have in mind — the ODNB — was released on 23 September 2004, so "recently" yet not "very recently". And yes, I really should have noticed the above comment, sorry about that. Further, you're right, "concise" is relative! If I've understood you correctly, the reasoning is that we're preempting editors who might try to "correct" the article based on known-to-be erroneous sources? I think we could achieve the same thing by scattering "comments" within the wikicode at critical points, warning editors to think twice. Something like <!-- NOTE! If you're correcting this fact based on the EB or ODB, please see the talk page -- these sources are known to contain inaccuracies on this topic -->. The reasoning is that if something's primarily aimed at an editor, it really belongs either as a comment or on the Talk: page, not integrated within the article text. — Matt Crypto 11:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "you do not own the article"

It's been quite a while since we saw such an aggressive little edit summary but it looks as though the vacation we've been granted is over. We hope this is not the start of a vindictive little control campaign. With 719,384 articles to work on, there must be something to do that's not confrontational. Cluttering articles with "info" boxes that contain no fresh information seems to lack a certain desirable freshness and originality. --Wetman 00:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Lovely. This is a standardised infobox that we will be using on almost all bios. I am going to readd it and start asking others who've used it whether they think it is "dreadful". I mentioned that he doesn't own the article because of the aggressive message on my talk page. I also want to point out that the information that it contains is actually quite spread out in the article, and it gives a good summary of the info. Besides, it's not a dreadful little box. It doesn't take up much more space than the original image did. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

(User:Ta bu shi da yu has contacted nine like-minded Wikipedians to throw their weight around at this Talkpage on this subject. See that User's recent contributions for an idea of what to expect. --Wetman 03:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC))

The infobox is awful and shouldn't be used on any pages at all. Jooler 06:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I have. There is nothing wrong with doing this. I have asked people both opposed to the infobox and those who like it. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Ta bu, I notice some people denounce the new infobox as an ugly waste of space on Template talk:Infobox Biography, among them User:PRiis, a great contributor of many featured biographies. No, it doesn't take up much more space than the original thumb of Kneller's portrait, but that's at the expense of making the image much smaller and surrounding it with a lot of whitespace. What's the advantage, seriously? The image is lovely, it's very expressive. An excellent scan of one of Kneller's best portraits. All right, so it's an infobox, I still can't believe it's mandatory. And I can't believe you're edit warring to reinsert it. Please be careful of the 3RR. Yes, Giano wrote an angry message on your page, but only after you'd been goading him on several fronts. Please stop. Please compare this page. I hope, and believe, that you don't want another excellent contributor to leave. Bishonen | talk 07:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I did not goad him. My adding his FA article to FARC had nothing to do with the man... I didn't even know it was his article when I added it. I was concerned about the style, that is all. As for the oh-so-terrible and personal way I attacked him by adding a standardised infobox to a bio page - oh the humanity! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Could I just point out I have not left, merely later today going to somewhere call the USA, which I am reliably informed does have internet access, but I may not have access to it! The info box looks vile, I cannot be any more explicit. Other subjects are best discussed in the correct place for them; but they will have to wait for further input from me, until I return to civilization (as we know it);-) Giano | talk 07:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Ta bu, I expected you to respond better to me, but whatever. Please note that it's not your insertion of the box I'm criticizing, it's your edit warring to keep it. Bishonen | talk 07:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Ta bu shi da yu has deleted his userpages. I've reported it here. Bishonen | talk 07:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I prefer without the InfoBox, but either way it's not worth edit warring over :( — Matt Crypto 08:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

TBSDY suggested that I weigh in on the infobox debate, so here I am. I've looked at both no-infobox and infobox versions of the article. I'm slightly pro-infobox simply on the grounds that it presents birth and death locations which are otherwise buried in the text. IMO, this outweighs the disadvantage of the slightly smaller portrait - if someone wants to see it in all its glory, they can just click it anyway. --Jacj 16:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally I dislike the edit box considerabley. But then i voted to delete the template recently on WP:TFD. I think it adds nothing to the articel, and significantly detracts. I also objct to "This is a standardised infobox that we will be using on almost all bios" -- Many people object to its existince and use in many palces , and ther has not been anythign like a consensus to make this a standard. DES (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Netoholic, please give a rationale for your edit

Neto, I think your picking up the infobox edit war where Ta bu shi da yu left off was the direct cause of the article getting protected. Your only input on the subject so far has been the single word "infobox" in the edit summary. IMO both Ta bu and you reverted against consensus. If "infobox" is all you have to say about it, I guess the article will stay protected for a good long time. :-( Bishonen | talk 01:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

What a very good idea. We can easily enter any changes we'd make right here at the Talk page. --Wetman 03:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
My input was in the creation of Template:Infobox Biography for the express purpose of presenting biographical information in the same way on every article. Much like how every state article, every country article, and heck even every constellation article is, consistency of presentation is the larger goal. -- Netoholic @ 16:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
(And even the history of the creation of the template is one of edit wars, I see.) Neto, do please stop reinserting the box against consensus on this page. Many people dislike it intensely; Jacj, above, is "slightly pro.infobox", that's the extent of the enthusiasm for the box, besides yourself. There was significant opposition to it on Template talk:Infobox Biography too--well, insofar as anything is significant where there's so little overall interest. It's indeed a pity that most editors, including myself, don't realize what templates are being proposed, or how they'll look, until the boxes start turning up on their favorite pages, but it's just a fact of life. Now that people are starting to see the box around the biography articles, they hate it. Please don't revert again. Bishonen | talk 18:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
People are free to propose changes to the template stylistically. That is a separate discussion than whether some sort of box belongs. With the current plain image frame, a box already exists. This template enhances that so as to provide important biographical information in a consistent manner. As an aside, I have found that when editors find it necessary to procalim that someone is acting "against consensus" that there is often no true consensus at all. I'm sorry if I find that an empty argument. -- Netoholic @ 23:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not think this template enhances at all, it merely repeats information easily obtained from the text. It is ugly, it is overpowering, it is unnecessary. It in no way improves the article. It spoils any page it is on aesthetically. Perhaps more so than pages of a scientific nature, it is important that pages on the arts and architecture etc. are aesthetically pleasing. otherwise we may as well all give up and make each page just a list of dates and facts adorned by a few tables. Giano | talk 07:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "Find it necessary to proclaim"...? I'm sorry you find it necessary to speak dismissively to me when I appeal to you in good faith, Netoholic. The infobox has been nominated on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Bishonen | talk 00:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

I have unprotected this page. No discussion has happened at all in the 10 days it has been protected. Please do not start the edit war again, or I'll be back. :( --Phroziac (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

How can one discuss on a protected page. Please explain less than 100 words. Giano | talk 18:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Protecting an article page does not keep the talk page from being edited. Talk pages are rarely protected. -- Norvy (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm unprotecting again for the same reason as before: no discussion. If there is a resumption of the edit war I will find another way to stop it. I don't think either of the warring parties would like that. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"Either" of the parties? This is not one on one. It is one against community. The one does not get to determine what the community wants.
  • Please Netoholic stop this edit waring. It is quite clear that those who have created this page and many more prefer it without the template. Thank you Giano | talk 15:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • "those who have created this page" do not have any rights or priority when it comes to this decision. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles - "Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia" -- Netoholic @ 06:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  •  :::Quite right Netoholic; but as I said "..and many more". Your views on improving it are noted, but equally please note that untill the "template info box" becomes mandatory it is not wanted here. Thank you for taking an interest in this page, and if you wish to edit I'm sure there are many facets of the page which could be considerably expanded. Best wishes Giano | talk 08:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  •  :::There is a huge gap between ownership and editorial control. Like everyone else, I agree that the people who put effort into an article do not own it, but at the same time it would be insane to say that they have to bend to the wishes of every random person who wanders onto the article and craps on it. It is a matter of fact that the frequent editors of an article are afforded a higher degree of editorial control, and it should not be any different... and when you are trying to edit against the will of not only the regular editors but against many others from elseware in the community, you just succeed in making a nuisance of yourself. --Gmaxwell 13:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This is the most useless edit war ever! The infobox is more or less standard on these articles - plus I think it looks better here. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Considering that almost half of the particapants on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Infobox_Biography would like to see it deleted I don't think you'll get anywhere with this argument. The template is nearly useless, and as such it is terribly ugly. It would have not gone anywhere if not for a few editors bent on leaving their thumb print on these articles... lets hope next time they decide to put their effort into pushing something which is more useful. --Gmaxwell 13:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It's "standard?" You mean that it has been inserted in 300 of 15,000 biographies makes it "standard?" Wow. I knew math wasn't my subject, but this seems a bit like magical thinking. Geogre 15:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If this edit war starts again and is missed by User talk:Phroziac, I'll protect the page. Please try to work out a consensus, preferrably not by polling. Meanwhile, just leave things as they are. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Netoholic is a disgrace. He is constantly warring with other editors. Why has he not been banned yet? Jooler 22:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Would you fine people please stop edit warring over this? For want of a better expression, it's lame. It's only a box, for goodness sake! There are more important things... I know it's not the politically-correct thing, but even a poll would be better than having this page protected every other day. — Matt Crypto 23:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Support for keeping the infobox. Although it seems the regular editors of the article disagree.... perhaps we could come to a comprimise somehow? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The box is stupid, cartoonish, and destructive, but the point here is that no one has the right to keep going to 3RR to insert it. Enumerate the advantages of redundancy here, and exclude "consistency," please, because you'll first need to make all subjects of biography consistent before you can make their lives consistent so that you can consistently jam in a box that half the legitimate voters on TFD want actually deleted, not merely unused. Otherwise, one person inserting it over and over and over and over and over and, when unblocked, over again, while five to six people keep removing it is disruption of Wikipedia. Let Netoholic go find one of those lovely 1911 text dumps and then go find a photo, extract the information, and insert this box-of-destiny, but don't take an article that has already been approved as already exhibiting the best of Wikipedia and try to mangle it to make his childish and churlish point. Geogre 15:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • To think this article was once a 1911 text dump. Now if one reads this page from top to bottom, one realises it is Wikipedia that is becoming the dump. How can things change so much for the worse in one year. The top of the page is two editors (yeah I'm one) discussing how to improve it, Geogre offers help and advice - the perfect wikipedia world. The page then becomes an FA - goes on the front page - all is wonderful. Then along come two editors, never been near the page before, for reasons no one fully understands the begin edit warring, and forcing an unmandatory object on the page, no further content, no expansion just a great ugly box; and those who bought the page up from nothing are forced to defend it - then accused of acting as though they own the page - we don't own it we just care about it. This page reads like a prophecy for Wikipedia and what a sad place it is becoming. Giano | talk 16:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As a contributor to the Welsh Wikipedia, where a template identical to Biography Infobox exists on most of the biography pages (or the more developed ones at any rate), I appreciate that such a template can bring consistency to bio pages. However, there is a difference between a Wikipedia in a minority language, where articles are normally uneven hotchpotches and at best only cover the most rudimentary facts about their topic, and this exhaustive article that probably surpasses anything that any other encyclopaedia has to offer. As far as I can see, 'standard' templates like the one Neolithic, sorry, Netoholic is bent on imposing are just crutches for pages that otherwise offer hardly any information, and the John Vanbrugh article is well beyond that stage. See some sense, Netoholic – on other, less developed pages your template would probably work but on this page it's just an eyesore that contributes nothing. – Ham 20:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox wars

As an "outsider" to the whole edit-war over the infobox on this particular page, I'll put in my own two cents... I generally like the concept of infoboxes as a way of getting some consistency in the articles of a particular type. I created the infobox for top-level domains, for instance, and I was one of the main people putting infoboxes on all the articles on popes (though I didn't actually create that particular infobox). I've also put the infobox for games on several game articles. Thus, I'll speak out in favor of adding the biography infobox here, though I have no intention of getting into an edit war by actually doing it if it's against the view of many others. *Dan T.* 17:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In-line Citations...

This article is a truly wonderful narrative of the man's life, but is there any way that someone could have in-line citations put in. I wasn't involved in the artcicle at all, but I know that today FACs need to have inline references, or they don't make the cut. I count to in line references and one note in this article. Thoughts?--dave-- 20:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Dave, thanks for your concern, and I'm really glad you liked the page. It was a collaboration between Giano and me--long time ago now--our first big article effort. I have a big old soft spot for it. It's quite a coincidence that you should bring up the issue of its inline cites right now, because that was just discussed, with some drama, on the Featured articles with citation problems page. Users Marskell and Sandy, the spearheads of WP:FAR, seem to have ended up deciding John Vanbrugh was adequately referenced, and taking it off the "citation problems" list. It does have some more inline citing than you mention, just not in the specific form that you were perhaps looking for--please compare my argument here. The discussion was wound up on my talkpage, where Marskell mentions he has taken the page off the "problems" list. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 22:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

Thank for the note, Bishonen. Glad to see that the issue has been tackled before...and so recently. I had not noticed the parenthetical documentation in my brief reading of the text. Have a great day. Blessings.--dave-- 01:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification, I don't consider myself a "spearhead" at WP:FAR (more of a "clerk"), although I am a regular reviewer there, and I help keep track of the lists. I was traveling in the midst of the discussion, and did not review this article. Sandy 23:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main page

This article clearly needs inline cites, so why was it allowed for the Main Page? What a joke. LuciferMorgan 13:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_Vanbrugh_d164.html"