Talk:Georges Feydeau/Archive 1

External links modified
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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments
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)


 * "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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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

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)

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


 * 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)

French to English translations
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)

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)

Navbox
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)

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

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

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)
 * 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)
 * I do hope you realize how pretentious that sounds Dronebogus (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Because it's not an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Don't misrepresent me - particularly by misleading people by claiming it's a quote. - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I reverted it. Davest3r08 (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I already removed it, there's no reason to get mad at this point @Dronebogus. Davest3r08 (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant remove the problematic content from the infobox Dronebogus (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So basically, the person needs to have done something notable enough to get an infobox. Noted. Davest3r08 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * What reasons? That you and two other people don’t like them in certain articles? Dronebogus (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Well, whatever. We both have our ways of seeing the world. Davest3r08 (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

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


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)