Talk:Otto Lucas

Infobox
Okay - so User:Gareth E Kegg is anti-infobox. Personally, I REALLY like them and I think they are ifantastic, offer the details you're looking for in a quick and easily accessible way, and I certainly find them incredibly useful when I need the facts quickly. I find blocks of text can be tricky to get data from quickly sometimes, especially as I am a bit discalculic and find numbers hard to read sometimes, so having dates/figures separated out in a one-glance format is very, very helpful. So I am asking if we can come to a consensus about whether or not this article should have an infobox or not. Given that User:Libby norman's articles always have infoboxes, I don't see why this one should be the exception to the rule. Mabalu (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I've ever been anti-infobox, honest! :) I just felt in Lucas's case that the box added nothing that wasn't in the first line, and looked somewhat ungainly. I've personally never really put infoboxes in biographical articles I've written unless they are ridiculously long, and/or feature official positions. Both you and Libby norman are great writers though, and I've no further objections to the box. Keep up the great work. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment Gareth E Kegg. I now think they are very important on biographies having not always seen their importance. As a regular Afc reviewer I know one of the key questions you are asked before you put an article through is: 'does this article need an infobox'. I see very few good (and highly rated) articles on Wiki without Infoboxes – it would appear to be a prerequisite for moving an article up in terms of quality requirements. I think good infobox templates (which can be developed over time) add to any article related to a company, an individual or something where key information can be 'grabbed' via that box. I also think that in this instance, with the image, it really helps the look of the page to have a box. I think we probably agree it could go back in? Libby norman (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already put it back. I have been burnt by previous infobox discussions though! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Gay
According to https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/milliner-otto-lucas, Lucas was gay. This seems to be an important characteristic that has been left out of this page. In addition, that was probably a major factor in NYT's choice to publish an "overlooked" obituary, since that thread of obits concentrates on "underrepresented" classes, such as women, blacks, gays, other lgbtq. 73.223.94.50 (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)