Talk:Branka Veselinović

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Branka Veselinović

• ... that Serbian actress Branka Veselinović (pictured) speaks Russian, English, German, Czech, Hungarian, Slovenian, and Macedonian and appeared in Mel Brooks's film adaptation of The Twelve Chairs? Source: [1][2]

• Reviewed: Anaëlle Wiard
• Comment: Hook courtesy: Peaceray

Created by Ashleyyoursmile (talk). Self-nominated at 08:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC).

• Thank you for this wonderful article, Ashleyyoursmile. I must say that the proposed hook is rather underwhelming. Serbian Wikipedia claims that she was still performing at age 100, which would be far more interesting in my opinion. Surtsicna (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Surtsicna, thank you for the comment. Unfortunately, I cannot find a reference that supports the claim. Here's an alternate hook though.
  • ALT1: Branka Veselinović (pictured) speaks Russian, English, German, Czech, Hungarian, Slovenian, and Macedonian and is the oldest living actress in Serbia?Source: [3][4]

• Let me know what you think of ALT1. If you can think of a better hook, please feel free to propose one. Ashleyyoursmile! 10:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I have found references, including [5] and [6]. I would suggest something like the following:
ALT2: ... that Serbian actress Branka Veselinović (pictured), whose career started in 1938, still performs aged 102?
​Surtsicna (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, Surtsicna. ALT2 is great and I have added the hook statement and references to the article. Feel free to strike out the other hooks. Ashleyyoursmile! 12:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• The article is brand new (created today), long enough (c. 2,300 characters), neutral, well-sourced, and free of any copyright issues (which I can attest to as a Serbo-Croatian speaker). QPQ done. All that is left is to approve the hook, which might not be appropriate for me to do given that I proposed it :) Surtsicna (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice work and collaboration and the key fact is referenced. ALT2 for the main page. Thanks for Women in Red contribution. I added Surtsicna to the DYK contributors. Victuallers (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." The infobox is disputed content. It should not be restored without consensus. Infoboxes are not required, and in short articles such as this one they are not particularly helpful. Surtsicna (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I see it differently. The article was created with infobox. Your removal was a bold change. It was reverted, again, and again by a different user, and again by me.

Support keeping the infobox, which was the status-quo-ante. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

But that is not true. This is the first revision. There is no infobox there. The article was created on 20 June and an infobox was first added yesterday. The addition was the bold change, and its reversion should not have been reverted. Status quo ante is sans infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You are right. I just went by the many biographies by Ashleyyoursmile that come with an infobox. I thought that you could leave it to her to revert or not revert. - I really thought the infobox wars were over in 2018, see "Yay!". I wish that to be true. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I had hoped template creep was a thing of 2012, to be honest :D You will recall, hopefully, that I am not against infoboxes per se; but I do not think any template should be added for the template's sake. I agree that Ashleyyoursmile should decide whether the article needs an infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I am sure that no article needs an infobox. I am just as sure that every biography profits from having DOB, POB, DOD and POD together, as every encyclopedia has but not Wikipedia. Compare Beethoven (added in 2015 per community consensus, by one of the arbs who wrote the infobox case). I suggest you revert your hiding of the infobox which was created by Javert, brought back by SpeedyCheetah66, and by me. We don't go simply by main contributor, but argument and consensus. At present I read 3:1 for an infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

But it was you who suggested that we leave it to the main contributor to decide. Her initial decision was to not have an infobox, so it makes sense to not have one while the discussion is taking place. But to both have your cake and eat it is not a fair expectation. Surtsicna (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say "decide", I just said that you are not the main contributor, so - if had been in your shoes - I would have let her decide to revert or not. Sorry for my lack of English. My question was for you: why did you revert when you are only marginally involved in an article? That's what caused this discussion which has a tendency to outgrow the article in length ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

26% of edits and sharing the DYK credit is not something I would call marginal. I was heavily involved in the article before the infobox was added and thought the template was unnecessary, so I reverted its inclusion. I do not think that is controversial. Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Surtsicna, Gerda Arendt, I don't think it's fair for me to decide just because I have made more edits to the page- that would violate WP:OWN. Honestly, I'm okay either way. Although personally I feel comfortable with having an infoxbox especially since I work extensively on music articles, and an infoxbox helps to summarise the vital aspects in a tabular form which often benefits readers. But I also understand why some editors feel strongly about not having an infoxbox in articles. I don't have any specific rule of thumb, the first created version of the article just happened to not include any infobox as opposed to some of the other biographies where I have included it. I agree with Javert2113- didn't think this would be a big deal. Ashleyyoursmile! 17:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Lucky you. I learned that when it comes to infoboxes emotions can run high. I count 4 users now who wouldn't mind an infobox, and one who does. - During the infoboxes wars - which I thought were over 2018 the latest - we came to agree that the principal editor may decide, to shorten the ordeal for everyone. Go ahead, Ashley ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Support keeping the infobox, as it summarises the article handily. The infobox also includes information that is not in the lead (i.e. spouse, awards, etc.) so it is not redundant. For me this is an important point, as the main critique levelled against redundant infoboxes is that they do not add any information that is not already presented in the article lead. As this infobox does contain substantial information, i support re-instating it. SpeedyCheetah66 (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment: For the record, I'd like to say that I thought the infobox I made would be a minor thing, best used for quick reference, especially given how prolific they are on biographies in general. I didn't realize that it would become controversial. My apologies. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia shouldn't be a battleground between sides. I think infoboxes are quite useful but if someone can show me why its not useful on a specific article then I may be inclined to side with them. I've been adding infoboxes to articles on geographical places and features for weeks. Size of the article doesn't necessarily matter. There is even a category for articles without infoboxes. I spent days pouring over this infobox "war". We don't need to go back to that. It seems it was very taxing on many editors and the encyclopedia lost valuable and experienced editors over it. It should be like all other content being added to an article. It gets added, reverted and then discussion, a proposal is made and a course of action is voted on by the community. Boom! Consensus is met and go with it. Let's get back to Wikilove! :) --ARoseWolf 19:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC) Support As a proposal has been made I support inclusion of the infobox in this case. It would summarize information some readers would find valuable. --ARoseWolf 19:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose addition of an infobox. Bio infoboxes, should be limited to bios of politicians, sports figures & monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Any guideline for that? I'd say that more actresses have one than not, both short articles (Hannelore Elsner) and featured articles (Katharine Hepburn). Any specific reason to leave this one without? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Guidelines are irrelevant. Otherwise, why is this general discussion occurring? GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

We have this discussion because the principal editor, Ashleyyoursmile, forgot to add an infobox, and when someone else added one, it was reverted by a third user, instead of waiting what she would do with it. Had that revert not happened, we would not have a discussion. - Skipping over that a fourth user restored the infobox, the third reverted, I restored the infobox, the third reverted, we (three by now) were polite enough to not report that as edit warring, the third then commented the infobox out saying it goes by Ashleyyoursmile, who is polite enough to not want that. If I was the third user I'd have restored the infobox as soon as Ashleyyoursmile posted below. - GoodDay , make my day good by explaining why you believe that guidelines are not relevant, but your personal opinion, stated as if it was a fact, should be relevant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to bios of people who aren't politicans, sports figures, monarch? I chose the "not required" bit. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and I know that it is your choice, only, in the wording you used above, the "should not" sounds like Wikipedia voice. Next time - but I keep praying there will be no next time that a valid infobox is reverted - please make clear that it's your personal preference, - not every user is familiar with earlier discussion, such as this year's Talk:Cary Grant#Infobox? and Talk:Ian Fleming#Should there be an infobox?. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I would also support deleting the infoboxes at Elsner & Hepburn. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

We discuss it here because consensus is policy & part of the civility pillar. That pillar & policy can overule guidelines, as per the no firm rules pillar. In the absence of consensus against a guideline, a guideline usually prevails.

I believe the assertion that infoboxes should be limited to politicians, sports figures, & monarchs to be GoodDay's opinion, since GoodDay has not cited guidance. I will. MOS:INFOBOXUSE states: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Thus, the guideline does not limit it to any class of person, place, or thing.

Furthermore, the {{WikiProject Biography}} notes this in its documentation:

• needs-infobox – set |needs-infobox=yes if the article needs an infobox. Remember that infoboxes are not suitable for all articles, and can overwhelm short articles.
  • This parameter populates Category:Biography articles without infoboxes.

—  Peaceray (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

..."neither required nor prohibited...", exactly. It's up to editors. GoodDay (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Infoboxes are up to editors, the consensus that they attain, & not proscribed for actors. Peaceray (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Support - I don't intend to decide the implementation of an infobox as the main contributor. I feel infoxboxes are useful as these help to summarise the key aspects of an article in the form of a table, which can often make it more accessible to the audience. --Ashleyyoursmile! 16:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Support I will admit to a bias towards infoboxes, as I believe that they a succinct way of presenting pertinent data, as long as the infobox does not overwhelm the rest of article, which would hardly be the case here. I believe that this is particularly important when age is a factor, since the {{birth date and age}} template generally used in an infobox brings the age to a prominent display. Peaceray (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Support Grimes2 (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)