Talk:Tom Eyen

Pertinent info in Wikipedia articles
An editor claiming to be Eyen's nephew persists in adding irrelevant info to this article. Whether or not he really is related to the subject, detailed facts about the Broadway production and film version of Dreamgirls belong in articles devoted to those topics, not here. Neither the soundtrack's standing on the Billboard charts nor a list of the Oscar nominations warrant a mention here, as they are not Eyen's accomplishments. SFTVLGUY2 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, you both have added useful information to this biography. Can we try to find a way to present all the information without rancor?  Clearly, Dreamgirls is Eyen's most famous accomplishment, as far as the general public is concerned, and a bit more discussion of it is warranted here.  Eyen wrote the lyrics to the songs, making the cast album, soundtrack and several of the songs hits, and that is his accomplishment as much as the performers'.  I revised the article to give Dreamgirls a bit more emphasis but also clarified and expanded information about Eyen's earlier neo-expressionist career.  I was interested to see internet reviews showing that many revivals of Eyen's early plays are still mounted.  I must admit that I was somewhat bemused to read the exchange on your talk pages where SFTVLGUY2 was telling Mr. Eyen pretty much what I've been trying to tell SFTVLGUY2 for some time: One editor should not go against the consensus of editors on Wikipedia in creating a totally different style for his edits on Wikipedia but should respect the guidelines (as expressed, for instance, at WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure).  Best regards, -- Ssilvers 20:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to adapt my writing style to that "established by the consensus of editors" who for the most part appear to be inactive simply because it's preferred by people who seem to do little more than alter the work of others. Even though they don't include egregiously detailed "synopses" that practically include the stage directions or unnecessarily list the names of understudies and standbys, my well-researched articles about musicals and those people related to them are of value to Wikipedia for the simple reason they fill a gap by providing all the pertinent info required for a good, solid overview of the subject matter. If some people spent less time worrying about the guidelines (not rules and regulations) to be found at WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure and actually wrote some original articles, as I do on a daily basis, perhaps the project would be a lot further along than it is. SFTVLGUY2 20:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you don't know what you're talking about. I have written and edited hundreds of articles on Wikipedia, including some "Featured Articles". Please be WP:civil and assume good faith. If you disagree with any of my edits, please let me know, and we can discuss them. -- Ssilvers 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is looking better today, so thanks for everyone's work on this. Eric Eyen would be the first to say he's not an experienced Wikipedist &mdash; but there's no doubt he's the real deal, SFTVLGUY2. Also, if there's an implicit criticism of the content of the article, I think Eyen is important enough to merit a Wikipedia article of the current length.


 * As for additions, I would suggest copy bridging his two careers (that of the avant-gardist, and the other of his commercial/television/Dreamgirls success) by pointing out a trait common to all of his creations: his predilection for creating larger-than-life iconic female figures. He loved creating big-wigged women in wigs &mdash; he also had a signature style for writing snappy, personalized retorts for them. Eyen frequently re-wrote dialogue in his shows, notably "Women Behind Bars", to tailor it to new cast performers. I'm told that when Eyen was around the Los Angeles production, he was always writing, and it was a different show every night. Was that true for all of his productions? Sandover 21:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed infobox
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, as here, do not. Here are some reasons why I disagree with including an infobox in this article: (1) The proposed box emphasizes unimportant factoids, and all the facts it presents are stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points about the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers 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 more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a lot of code near the top of the edit screen that would discourage new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the article. (7) It would 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. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the box on the version of the page where it briefly appeared, and there doesn't seem to me any need for it or advantage in having it. All the same information is in the lead except the cause of death, which though naturally a matter of importance from poor Mr Eyen's own point of view is hardly a key feature of his life and career. I'd go along with omitting a box from this article.  Tim riley  talk    21:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with this too. While IBs are excellent in some articles, they don't always work well, and the one that appeared here added nothing to the article. – SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the time I added the Infobox, only to be told I had to build consensus - on a talk page that had collected dust, since 2007 - I must say that it is a little surprising to see that some consensus has been reached so quickly. On March 29th, in fact. All within a span of 3 hours - in fact, twice within 14 minutes, it appears! Nonetheless, despite the fait accompli appearance of the proceedings, I'm still prepared to contribute an opposing response.
 * I happened upon this article by chance and noticed that despite the long term contributions of some editors, the article still needed a lot of work. This is what it looked like when I first encountered it and this is what it looked like after my last edit. Frankly, it still needs more work. The plan was also to expand upon the Infobox, beyond its nascent stage. But I never got that far, as Ssilvers objected and reverted without discussion. And I might add, without "discussion and consensus" first. So here we are. But in response to the specific claims made about the use of an Infobox in this article:
 * 1) Regarding the claim that the infobox "emphasizes unimportant factoids" and "facts it presents are stripped of context and lacking nuance" the rebuttal is easily - and clearly - found at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which notes: "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."
 * 2) Additionally, the notion that Infobox material is somehow "redundant", completely misunderstands the point of them. Per the Manual of Style/Infoboxes: "per WP:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, all information in an infobox should also be found in the main body of an article." Therefore, all Infoboxes are inherently redundant. But redundancy is not the point. As noted above, "allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance" is.
 * 3) Regarding the claim that it "takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout", that claim is refuted by a simple visual comparison: with vs. without. The Infobox being virtually the same size as the Contents box, thereby balancing the top of the page. Without it, the page layoff is unbalanced with the small, grainy, narrow and rectangular photo being inadequate to prevent the focus from being pulled to the lower left toward the Content box. The Infobox helps the photo balance the right side of the top of the page, so that the top is evenly distributed: with the lead and the Contents box on the left side - and the weak photo and the added Infobox, equalizing the right side.
 * 4) Regarding the notion of "frequent errors and vandalism," the claim is purely speculative, as it's just as easy to vandalize the lead, or any other part of an article, as it is to vandalize an Infobox. Nowhere does the MOS claim a higher percentage of Infobox vandalism than elsewhere within an article. If anything, the lead, not the Infobox, is very likely the most vandalized part of any article.
 * Regarding the notions that Inboxes either 5) "creates a lot of code near the top of the edit screen that would discourage new editors"; 6) "discourage readers" or 7) "distract editors," I would simply respond that:
 * a) There is no evidence whatsoever that any of those concerns is anything more than baseless speculation. The notion that editors or readers are somehow too "discouraged" or "distracted" by those shiny objects known as Infoboxes to function - as though they induce some sort of functional paralysis, is entirely specious and insults both editors and readers. Moreover, it is easily refuted by pointing to the most traveled articles on this project - most, if not all of which, have Infoboxes. I challenge editors who disagree to attempt to disprove this point with sufficient notable examples.
 * b) There is nothing unique to this article about those Infobox claims. If Inboxes were such a scourge, their use would widely "discourage" editors and readers throughout this project everywhere they are in use. Again, there is zero evidence to support this claim and even less than zero evidence to suggest it would somehow, uniquely, be the case here.
 * c) But again, this article is in desperate need of expansion. That's an undeniable fact. Once completed, an Infobox will become even more of a necessity than ever. The only possible reason for not including it now, is the dearth of information which currently exists in the article. But that's a very poor excuse indeed for excluding an Infobox. If anything, it's a more compelling argument for expansion, which includes the box.
 * d) But I will say that it also appears that to some extent, WP:OWNBEHAVIOR appears to apply here: with some editors who have worked on this page over time, now claiming some level of ownership or control over its content moving forward. Obviously, that is unacceptable. So if we're going to discuss guidelines, like the style guide - then we also need to address policies, where they appear to apply.
 * e) And while we're on the subject, perhaps an RfC is appropriate. So we can get the broadest possible input from disinterested and objective editors. X4n6 (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is it that as soon as someone doesn't get their own way the toys come flying out of the pram with an "OWN" accusation. I think this must be an extension of Godwin's Law in operation: smear your opponent with lies just because you can't get your own way. That's pretty low. – SchroCat (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Really wish I had seen this sooner. Wow... When someone bandies about asinine accusations regarding Godwin's Law - proving they clearly have zero idea what they're talking about and nothing of substance or coherence to contribute - Mark Twain really does come to mind: "Better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." If only they were as familiar with Twain as they claim to be. Or even Mike for that matter. X4n6 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't be so tiresome as to go straight to the gutter with yet another personal attack. You've hardly covered yourself in glory with your behaviour so far, and it would be such a shame for all of us if you were to try and go even lower with more disgraceful comments. - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You made an incomprehensibly asinine comment about Godwin's Law. See: Nazis. I found your comment neither appropriate, relevant, civil or in good taste and said so. You're either guilty of sublime ignorance, because you used a term about which you are totally clueless; or pathetic ignorance, because you did so intentionally. Either way, you have zero standing to now try to claim some imaginary moral high ground atop that dung heap. Instead you would be wise to stop while you're behind, before embarrassing yourself any further. If you don't, you'll simply continue to reveal yourself to be the troll which your prior actions indicate. Either way, I am done with you. As you've again just ably underscored that you offer nothing constructive, or of consequence, to this colloquy. X4n6 (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What a charming little editor you are. It's a shame you have chosen to act in such a sub-standard way here, ignoring WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and a few others. I see there is little point in dealing with people like you. Toodle-oo, and hope to see you on the wrong side of a block soon. – SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Still nothing beyond more predictable and diversionary ad hominems. I shall no longer feed this troll. X4n6 (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, still missed the point, I shall try and make the matter clearer for you, except I don't think you're in receiving mode, judging by your comments throughout. I think you need to reread my original comment. I have not called you a Nazi or said that you have broken Godwin's law. I drew a parallel between that and the unfounded and uncivil accusations of ownership. That is all. Your subsequent tirades have been, I think, based on an incorrect impression. That's sad, and if you had taken a second or two to re-read the comment, the veins needn't have started popping out so needlessly. Either way, your additional insults of calling me a troll were yet another unworthy and needed comment. I have also not engaged in any ad hominem comments: you have a pile of them in your comments. Way more than enough for the needs on ANI if you can't just relax a little. Pip pip. – SchroCat (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * is clearly only reading what he/she wants to read and intends to misinterpreting other's comments in order to fit their own perverted agenda in this matter. Maybe ANI should see what an insufferable prick this user is being; they'll certainly be in good company over there!   Cassianto Talk   00:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to see an infobox here, and have nothing to add to the excellent case made already. Edwardx (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes have been the subject of arbitration before. Given the history across Wikipedia, it seems presumptuous to either add or delete one to/from a longstanding article without prior discussion.  Now, pursuant to WP:BRD, here we are discussing.  I stand by all the points I made above, and I find your responses inapposite and don't think you understand the basic idea of MOS:IBOX, which starts with this proposition: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." So, very clearly, an infobox should only be included if it serves a useful purpose with respect to the particular article. Some bio articles, like those for athletes and politicians, tend to  benefit from them.  Many of the best FA and GA articles, however have no infobox, and I think that their use in many articles is a sign of laziness and lack of thought.  I am happy for anyone to edit this article; if anyone has done further library research on Tom Eyen, they should be able to add encyclopedic content that everyone will agree is useful.  By all means, go ahead and add more content and WP:RSs about him.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is a list of reasons why I'm against infoboxes in biographies like this:


 * 1) Undisciplined expansiveness: A maximum-inclusion approach to fields that leads editors to place repetitive, sometimes downright silly information in the box. (There needs to be clear, prominent advice about not using every single field in every circumstance, and rather the need to ration the information, shaping it to the context.)
 * 2) Visual degradation: The way infoboxes squash the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.
 * 3) Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel infoboxes give to articles: here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the boxes says it all.
 * 4) Disconnected particles. Their domination of the very opening of an article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.)
 * 5) Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)
 * 6) Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see WP:Featured lists for what I mean.)

Infoboxes seem to pander to the lowest concentration span. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Their inclusion would be derided in any culture that wasn't saturated with 30-second television ads and news broadcasts featuring 5- to 10-second grabs from politicians, PR consultants and disaster witnesses. Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text.

Infoboxes should be used only occasionally, with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles. Those who are pushing the project to accept this cancer everywhere would do better to put their energy into creating more lists. --  Cassianto Talk   07:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * i am opposed to an infobox in this article as I am opposed to all infoboxes as I have said repeatedly in similar discussions in that they add nothing to an article as they only repeat information included in the lead or elsewhere in the article. Jack1956 (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

With all this massive hand-wringing over Infoboxes, one thing emerges: not a single argument has been made in opposition to them, which offers anything uniquely relevant to this article. These arguments are simply a collection of (in many cases, admittedly so) the same generic retreads of arguments made ad nauseum elsewhere. Unfortunately, they also ignore three basic facts:
 * 1) Infoboxes are a part of this project. Period. They are respected, widespread and incredibly useful. In many cases, inherently so. Those railing against them are fighting a losing battle, with the outcome already pre-determined. Infoboxes are here to stay. And any opposition to them as a concept, should be brought before the ArbComm for a final disposition. But this notion of death by a thousand cuts is disingenuous, simply because the proponents realize failure would be the ultimate result if they did take Infoboxes on as a general principle. Many have tried. All have failed.
 * 2) Infoboxes are provided for the benefit of: the reader. If all the reader wants is bulletpoints, why should they have to sift through countless reams of irrelevant type to find them? It is neither the primary purpose, nor function, of this project to engender reading for its own sake. Its purpose - and its only utility - is to easily and coherently disseminate accurate information. People seem to forget that's why we're here - and lose sight of the forest for the trees. Wikipedia is not a novel. It is an encyclopedia.
 * 3) The majority of people clearly prefer them. Some even find that ("clutch the pearls!"), to the contrary of what has been claimed here, they actually enhance an article; they do not detract from it. Like many readers, I will often peruse the Infobox then read the article. Or as much of it as I care to read. But that option should always be the readers. It is never our place to supplant our intent for that of the readers.

Finally, in direct response to one comment: those in denial of the above facts would do better putting their energies toward improving this particular article, rather than tilting at the same windmills whenever and wherever they find... windmills. There can be little debate about the fact that this article could certainly use the improvement. X4n6 (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

1. Your views which are not shared by everyone. The good thing about this project is that we are all different and see different benefits in different things. You are deluded if you think everyone likes infoboxes.

2. "If all the reader wants is bulletpoints, why should they have to sift through countless reams of irrelevant type to find them?" If it is factoids or bulleted lists the reader wants then they can bugger off to a lesser website. We else do we slave away writing top quality articles when all people do is come here and use the pages we have tenderly authored to be used as a means to cheat in a pub quiz.

3. "The majority of people clearly prefer them." -- Which reliable source has this come from? You seem to do a lot of talking on behalf of others but with very little evidence to back that up.

Finally, in terms of having better stuff to do, the same could be said for you,.  Cassianto Talk   06:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

, the interesting dynamic at play here is that I've never been so myopic as to presume my views were universal. However, I am also quite capable of discerning when positions express majority vs minority views. Those who argue against infoboxes as some universal tenet with universal support, are both myopic and deluded. And re: my view that the majority of people clearly prefer them: their continued existence and widespread use is all the "evidence" I need to "back that up." To paraphrase Descartes: "They exist, therefore they are." But also, you seem to have forgotten whom this project is for. It's not, primarily, for editors - it's for readers. Yet you clearly view our readers with contempt. As unwashed masses incapable of independent thought, or discernment; and unworthy of the pearls of virtuous hunt-and-pecked wisdom that you, oh so graciously, cast upon them. And despite your condescension, they're going to acknowledge you as the true successor to Keats/Ibsen/Coward/Freud/Jung/Shakespeare/Aristophanes/Franklin/Jefferson/Michelangelo/Einstein/Hawking et al, or you'll know the reason why! Absolute rubbish. As for those "top quality articles," once again, your delusion is showing. While I enjoy occasionally editing on this project and will defend its utility, to a point: make no mistake: its purpose is to coherently disseminate accurate information. Nothing more. Not to create "top quality articles." If that's your goal, perhaps you should try your hand at compensated writing. See how you fare against professional writers and experienced journalists. Folks who do original research; interview subjects; write in the first person; photograph their own original and copyrighted images; write entire articles with no collaborators and on deadlines, and finally, sign their own names to their work product once it is finished. WP is unapologetically antithetical to all of that. But those are the facts. So when/if you can manage it, feel free to rejoin the rest of us in the real world. Maybe even with a very specific rationale for why an infobox would not be useful for this particular article. X4n6 (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * When I want advice about how to conduct my private life I'll let you know. In the meantime, maybe you'd care to find me a reliable source which suggests most people think an infobox benefits an article and that all articles should have one. Also, while your scratching around your box of mythical presumptions, maybe you'd also like to explain your dismissive attitudes around featured articles?    Cassianto Talk   16:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Better yet, should I ever decide to offer advice on how you conduct your private life, I'll be sure and let you know. But until then, rest assured that you can safely assume that I truly could not give even less of a damn. My only extremely limited interest regarding you whatsoever, exclusively pertains to this project - and even more specifically, how you edit this article. Something which, most certainly, is not private. And even that interest is rapidly waning as you grow ever more tedious. As such, I also noted, with equal parts dismay and unsurprise, that you had no response for my request that you confine your remarks to the singular subject at hand, to wit: an infobox in this article. Instead, you were clearly more interested in yammering on about "mythical presumptions" - which frankly, just defines your determined failure to accurately restate my positions. I neither claimed every article should have an infobox, nor even discussed featured articles. As for empirical data: when you provide "a reliable source which suggests most people think an infobox does not benefit an article and that no articles should have one" then - and only then - will you have standing to invite me to counter it. Yet even then, it would just be another trip down the rabbit hole with a user who has repeatedly demonstrated a consistent inability to stay on topic. X4n6 (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm bored of you now. Time for you to crawl back under the stone from where you emerged.   Cassianto Talk   22:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Voilà! And there it is for all to see! When a user is totally exposed as being incapable of making any substantive contribution to the discussion at hand, they always revert to the childish (and churlish) ad hominem. Check and mate. But I couldn't help but notice in checking the edit log that it took you two tries to get your final insult just right? Just sad. But now with you appropriately dispatched, perhaps other editors might actually be willing to discuss their specific objections to an infobox on this article. X4n6 (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't get me wrong I'll still be here taking part, opposing people where I see fit and annoying you in the process. It's just that I won't be conversing with you anymore as you bore me.  I've said all I wanted to say and there's little point in repeating myself over and over again.   Cassianto Talk   04:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Annoying me?" Really mustn't flatter yourself. It is unbecoming. But now that it has become painfully clear that you offer nothing constructive in this discourse; from this point forward I will find you imminently - and frankly, enjoyably, easy to ignore. Evanesco! X4n6 (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes
User:Louisalebwohl, I strongly object to your pulling information out of chronological context to stow it into a "legacy" paragraph at the bottom. The reader should understand these things in connection with the decades when they happened. His legacy is not just '70s prolific-ness and 60's experimental theatre, it is also Dreamgirls, so what you did is misleading. I also object to your separating the material into stubby little paragraphs. The paragraphs, as they are now constructed, are sensible groupings of related materials. Now that we disagree on your remaining changes, instead of simply reverting, you should discuss here your *reasons* for desiring each change. Maybe you will persuade me or others. See WP:CONSENSUS. Once there is a new WP:CONSENSUS, new changes can be made. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that all makes sense to me! LouisaLebwohl (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)