Talk:Robert Wilson (tenor)

A fact from Robert Wilson (tenor) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 November 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Robert Wilson was a principal tenor with the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company in the 1930s before beginning a 25-year concert, variety and radio career?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/November.

Wikipedia

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Gilbert and Sullivan Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gilbert and Sullivan 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.Gilbert and SullivanWikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanTemplate:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanGilbert and Sullivan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Broadway 1942 and 1943[edit]

IBDB says that Wilson was on Broadway (other than with D'Oyly Carte) in 1942 and 1943. Is that the same guy? I rather think not. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. The parts are small and wouldn't have attracted an artist of his experience and reputation at that point in his career. The 1930s credits are undoubtedly his, put the 1942-1943 performances were most likely another performer with the same name.4meter4 (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See 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 because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX.

In addition, this article concerns a performer famous for his work in Gilbert and Sullivan operas. Throughout the articles within the scope of WikiProject G&S, the consensus has been not to have infoboxes, so adding an infobox would degrade the consistency of design throughout these articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]