Jump to content

Talk:Lulu Wang (novelist)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Infobox

This article should have an infobox. User:Yngvadottir should have discussed the blunt removals first. – Editør (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It may help some readers and doesn't hurt others,--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
For somer reason my edit summary did not appear when I reverted. This is what I wrote as an edit summary: "no need for it" is not a reason to remove someone else's work. Take it to talk. Apologies for the lack of edit summary; not sure what happened there.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC))
@Editør: As I said on your talk page, you have this the wrong way round. Having been reverted, you get to justify the addition you made; it's WP:BRD, not bold-revert-rerevertanddemanddiscussion. That said, thanks for opening a section. My response is: there is no reason why it should. ArbCom has ruled that they are neither needed nor recommended in general and that editors should defer to those who created and developed the article. Personally, I find them justifiable in some types of article: species, obviously (that's what they were developed for), but also articles involving technical minutiae (ships, artworks, schools) and other kinds of statistics (sportspeople with records and medals, populated places, mountains). In those types of articles, I add them. They are not otherwise useful, and when inappropriate they detract from the prose, undermine the nuances presented in the actual article, and make the encyclopedia look like a junior-high-school textbook or a bubblegum card. This lady's article better reflects her accomplishments without a bubblegum card stuck in the corner, is my position. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, you have it the wrong way round. Any editor may make any good-faith edit that they feel improves the encyclopedia without opening a talk-page discussion. If you disagree and revert that edit, then common courtesy would be to engage in a talkpage discussion - and certainly not to re-revert a different editor who agreed with the first without coming to the talk page.
Your response "there is no reason why it should" is a meritless argument, because there is equally no reason why it shouldn't. That sort of "oh yes it is; oh no it isn't" should be reserved for the pantomime. ArbCom has not ruled that infoboxes are not "recommended in general and that editors should defer to those who created and developed the article" and I'm going to ask you to show the ruling or strike that lie. Ownership of articles is an insidious cancer that is destroying our editor base by alienating new editors, and suggesting that editors defer to "creators" is a key part of that problem.
Your personal perspective is flawed as nobody can pre-judge whether an infobox will be a net asset to any given article without examining it; and any attempt to assign usefulness or otherwise to a whole class of articles flies against the consensus developed in our Manual of Style which states "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" (my emphasis) for good reason.
This article may look worse in your opinion, but that's all it is, an opinion. And you don't get to dictate whether this article has an infobox or not - especially not through edit-warring against multiple other editors - that decision is determined by consensus here. --RexxS (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
It's always amusing to see editors, Yngvadottir in this case, citing BRD as a defence of their actions, while failing utterly to adhere to its guidance themselves. It says "If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD." (emboldening in original). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the wikilawyering, Editor edit warred, and this conversation should be taking place with the status quo of no IB: you all know this is the way it should be done, so it's disingenuous to try and twist circumstances to your own advantage. Secondly, blatant canvassing, and again. This is disgraceful, and you all know you'd be hopping up and down and making the usual indignant noises about ANI or ArbCom if the boot was on the other foot. - SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yngvadottir edit-warred, but I don't see you criticising there - and no, it should be taking place with the status quo of having an infobox. The original article has had one for seven years and no reasoning has been given why this derivative article should not. I'm not prepared to see an improvement to the article removed by edit-warring. You weren't so indignant when Smerus selectively canvassed a single Wikiproject, so now you know how it feels when the boot's on the other foot. --RexxS (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Rexx, that's wililawyering to a ridiculous degree. The use of the IB Dutch article has sweet FA to do with this one, and it's disingenuous to even try and claim it does. - SchroCat (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: as you created the article, I thought this discussion might interest you. As I expended the article and nomed at DYK, it interests me, especially as I am still unable to sort out why this particular article has engendered this IB debate. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rosiestep, and thanks again for bringing it up to DYK status! I'm also at a bit of a loss; I see lots of valuable and good-faith contributors getting cross here over a minor matter. Mind you, I'd rather have an article without the minor matter of an infobox, and without wanting to re-fight all the battles that have already been fought, I'll summarize my utterly objective position: there is no need for infoboxes, they are not mandated, and we don't have a policy against them. Sometimes they're helpful, sometimes they're not. Yngvadottir doesn't like them and that's her good right. Gerda and Pigsonthewing do like them, and that's their good right--but Editor, in notifying only those two, is clearly canvassing, since, well, everyone knows where they stand. Rexx, I don't know who or what the Smerus case is and it doesn't matter so much to me, but you agree, I surmise, that it's canvassing; as far as I'm concerned, the result of this BLATANT (He Spoke In Capitals) canvassing should be exactly nothing--except that Editor needs to take note of the policy and do better next time.
As for the infobox--well, that the Dutch article didn't have it doesn't matter here, ArbCom or not. Let's face it, many of the Dutch articles are crap (Rexx, you should see what I cut out of nl:Joseph Schmidt earlier tonight!), and they should not be made to mean anything on en-wiki. Y has been a rock of Gibraltar to me and has done the project valuable service, and I had something to do with bringing this article in here, so I really appreciate her looking after me; as I said elsewhere, the box itself is not a big deal to me, but I wish that Y had been treated with a little more respect here. That's all. Thanks again Rosiestep--we have more articles to write. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes it's as nonsensical to award special powers of decision to a article creator as it is to award them to a translator. It's time that old chestnut was laid to rest once and for all. I say that no editor has any special right over a content decision such as the presence of an infobox and it must be decided by debate, not by appeal to "special" editors.
You want to tell us that we should respect the decision of the people who created and developed an article? It's nonsense, but when it's pointed out to you that most of the content of this article was developed in Dutch by editors who placed an infobox on the article for seven years, you call it "wiki-lawyering". That word now just means it's inconvenient for your argument. You don't have a leg to stand on trying to tell anybody that the Dutch article hasn't anything to do with this article, because it was created as a translation of the Dutch article. Did you even read the edit summary on the edit that created the page on this Wikipedia? It's a derivative work that many Dutch editors put their effort into creating over many years - those same Dutch authors who preferred an infobox. Yet when that flaw in your logic is pointed out to you, the best you can come up with is "Wiki-lawyering"? You can't have it both ways: either we give no special deference to those who developed an article, or we don't. Either way you have produced no reason why this article should not have an infobox.
If you want to try to force your preference by edit-warring, then two can play at that game, but I promise you, it's no way to settle a dispute.
Now the only reason I've seen given for removing Editør's good faith edit is that it's "neither necessary nor useful". I'd like to know who make the rule that edits have to necessary. What a complete piece of clap-trap. We edit to improve articles, not out of necessity. And as for useful? - well the Dutch seem to have found an infobox useful for seven years on the very same article, and I do too, so I'm rejecting that excuse for a reason because my opinion is worth the same as Yngvadottir's and if that's enough to remove an infobox, then it's enough to put one back again. I'll happily provide some stronger arguments for the value that an infobox adds to this article when I've seen some arguments of any substance at all explaining why removing it improves the article. --RexxS (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: I respect everyone's opinion on whether they like infoboxes, or what sort of infoboxes they like. But to me that's not enough of an argument to remove an infobox that another editor adds in the good faith intention to improve an article. You don't see me going around adding infoboxes to article because I like them; but I will defend an uninvolved editor every time I see their good faith edits reverted with no more than an "I don't like it" reason. If folks can't muster any better reason than that to revert, then they should leave it alone. My previously high opinion of Yngvadottir has been severely dented by her claim that ArbCom has ruled that we have to defer to creators and those who developed an article - it's false but she's chosen not to retract it when I challenged her on the matter. If we ever get to the stage where we have two classes of editors - those who make the decisions and those who have to defer - that'll be the last day I involve myself with this project. As for the canvassing, I've explained the issue gently to Editør on his talk page, but you'll note that nobody on the anti-infobox side would do such a thing when Smerus canvassed to their advantage. I'm playing this with a straight bat, but the whole unnecessary argument leaves a sour taste in my mouth. --RexxS (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, by that logic they must always stay, since adding one, by your definition, is improving an article, while removing one is not and is based on "I don't like it". No? I don't "notice" anything on the anti-infobox side because, as Gerda can confirm, I've always kept out of it; I just don't care enough. I can't speak for Y, but it seems to me she drew the kind of conclusion I drew from the ArbCom case and just put it in stronger words, but that's not telling a lie. Maybe she hasn't answered yet because she was called a liar. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

An info box is content. Where on Wikipedia is it neutral and objective to go to the content on a page remove it and say, "no need" or "not necessary". Why is this content being removed? What are the reasons per policy? There aren't any.

We don't defer to article creators. That's just plain old fashioned ownership. And why? Articles can be created and can be poor, short, poorly sourced. What brings that article to the status that makes it a piece of information that helps the reader is very often theinput of multiple editors some who add much more content than was ever in the new article. This is a collaborative project. Articles are written by the group and only accidentally by individuals.

Its difficult to discuss when reasons given are indistinguishable from opinion. The implied, I don't like it, is an opinion not a reason to remove content from a Wikipedia article. If all editors simply went from one article to another and removed what they didn't like we'd have a very big mess on our hands. We don't do that; we can't, and we shouldn't be doing that here. (Littleolive oil (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC))

LOO, There is no reason to include one per policy either. The MoS guidelines at WP:INFOBOXUSE are quite clear on this, "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article." This was confirmed by ArbCom a couple of years ago to be the case. To somehow claim that the inclusion of an IB is, as a matter of fact, an improvement. This is not the case: it may be an opinion that it improves it, but collecting a few stray factoids to shove in a box at the top certainly isn't an improvement as a point of fact.
Rexx, Please, you're pushing a decidedly tawdry line of argument here, that because the Dutch had an IB on their version, we should have one on our translation? I'm sorry, but that's just laughable, and you really should (and I suspect do) know better. Shall we follow their lead in IBs just where we want? (I hope so, because we can replace the overly-bloated and unhelpful mess of out Angela Merkel IB with a copy of what the Germans have. Brilliant idea. Shall I try it? I suspect you'll be first on the barricades to say that we shouldn't follow the other Wikis (and you'd be dead right too). If you want to discuss the merits of adding an IB here I'm happy to discuss that with you, but only with the status quo ante of it not being in place, which is the fit and proper way of doing things – as you well know. – SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Littleolive oil, an infobox is not content: it is a placement for content that's already in the article, an additional means of organization. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • SchroCat, RexxS, you two are bringing me in the ridiculous position where I have two warn and possibly block two editors with good intentions whom I have worked with frequently. Stop edit warring. SchroCat, what the status quo ante is is yet another bone of contention, no doubt--I don't think it will stand up in court; Rex will argue that the Dutch version is way ante than my box-less version. Come on people. Rex, I just wrote Mary Garrard. It's a terrible stub. Should I add a note on the talk page or in an edit summary stating my preference for an infobox, since I now own the article, not having translated it even from the Chinese? What's funny is that I think I'm the only one who has made a valid argument specifically for the Wang infobox, without resorting to general and unprovable statements (either for or against). Drmies (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Rexx, Your behaviour is reprehensible and utterly hypocritical. I once had great respect for you as an editor: that has gone and I see you are prepared to say or do anything just to force another fucking mindless IB into another article. Your actions have done no-one any good at all, most of all yourself. - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I won't respond to ad hominems as I'm sure you'll agree. I'm sorry, but on a matter of principle, I'm not prepared to let the decision on the infobox be made by edit-warring. I won't revert any more times than SchroCat - you have my assurance on that. I'm willing to discuss Editor's addition of an infobox, but only with it in place so that all can see what we're taking about. My demand is much more reasonable than your demand to only discuss while the article is fossilised in your preferred version. You want to revert an editor's good-faith contribution? You need to explain why. That's the fit and proper way of doing things here.

The reason it's laughable is that all the posturing about giving deference to "creators"/"translators"/"those who developed"/"main editors" has never been Wikipedia policy and is antithetical to our collaborative ideals that seek to treat editors equally. I've clearly proven that point, as you can see it's just as ridiculous to defer to Drmies' view as it is to defer to 84.86.254.12 who originally created the article. You're the one's who insist that we have to follow previous versions; I've simply demonstrated the fallacious nature of that concept by exposing the nonsense that arises when the article is a derivative work - as this article is. My position is clear: we don't afford any more weight to the previous editors' views than we do to an editor who contributes to an article for the first time. Editør's contribution is judged on its own merits and I'm not going to give way to clamours to let a "special" author decide. Again, there's a principle at stake.

An infobox is content. Here's what Worm That Turned - the drafting Arb for that infobox case you're so fond of misquoting - had to say on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Proposed decision #Comments from Worm That Turned:

  • Infoboxes, in general, appear to be a good thing. They allow information to be offer key facts about an article to our readers and facilitate reuse of our content. They are customisable to allow editors to decide what to put in or leave out.
  • Articles do not need infoboxes. If after discussion at a talk page it is decided that an infobox is not needed, that should be accepted.
  • The use of an infobox in an article is a content decision, not a maintenance decision. It should be added as part of content creation, and they should not be added systematically to articles.
  • Edit warring over infoboxes should not happen. Ever.

I accept all of that. We've made no progress since August 2013, have we? Here we are again, with the same problems: an uninvolved editor adds a single infobox to a single article and the forces of reaction remove it for no better reason than they don't like it. There's no thought of "after discussion at a talk page".

I have always accepted "Articles do not need infoboxes." I have never failed to accept any genuine consensus on the decision, but there are far too many people making up their own versions of policy simply to bolster their OWNership of articles. That has to stop. Contributors have to be free to make what they think are improvements to articles, and it's very bad faith to assume that Editør thought anything else when he added an infobox.

As for Yngvadottir, she told a lie and that's what I called her on. Arbcom has never ruled "that editors should defer to those who created and developed the article" or anything so ludicrously inimical to the basic principles of Wikipedia. There's yet another principle at stake, and if she fails to concede that, I'll take her to ArbCom to sort the issue out once and for all. Believe me, I'd much rather not have to cause upset and distress to so many folks I've held in high esteem, but I'm not going to be a doormat when such a fundamental principle as equal treatment of editors is at stake. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I've locked this page down for a few days. The inclusion of infoboxes is a content discussion and we sort content issues through dispute resolution, not through edit warring. I'd much rather see this sorted out through discussion than a whole load of blocks handed out. WormTT(talk) 16:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you Worm. The WRONG version of course, haha. Rexx, it's not clear who you're accusing of misquoting Worm; perhaps you phrased it that way intentionally, but it seems pretty clear that the first point you cite indicates an infobox presents content from the article. But this is all too stupid for words, and we are left with a dictum that a. adding an infobox means adding helpful content (no matter what's in the box?) and b. whoever reverts the addition of an infobox will be dragged to ArbCom. Surely there is something wrong with all this. I think the only way an editor can prevent an infobox from being added is to add one and then remove it, arguing on the talk page and finding consensus with themself that the infobox didn't add anything substantive. That, of course, is as poor an argument as the supposed lack of equal treatment charge. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree 100% that an infobox presents content from an article. As does the lead, or any of the other sections. That's what content is - it lives in these containers that we create. I don't agree that adding an infobox automatically means adding helpful content, nor have I suggested that here. I have stated that I strongly believe Editør thought he was adding helpful content when he added the infobox to this article, and I've seen nothing to make me change my mind, although I respect your right to disagree with me. I won't drag people who revert infoboxes to ArbCom - never have and never will. But I will ask ArbCom to confirm the falsehood of the claim that they ruled we had to defer to those who created and developed the article - unless that misapprehension is retracted - because I'm sick of having to deal with mendacity being propagated by a system of Chinese whispers. Moving on, dear Doctor, isn't there something inherently wrong with wanting to prevent an infobox ever being added to an article? To me it feels like wanting to prevent Walmart ever selling olives because I don't like them. If Editør finds an infobox a useful improvement, why shouldn't he add it? If Yngvadottir disagrees, then why shouldn't she present her reasons, rather than appeal to a non-existent authority to justify a meritless revert? If Editør doesn't get an equal say to Yngvadottir in the infobox decision, then I maintain we don't have equal treatment. The bottom line is I don't care about infoboxes: the absence of a box on an article doesn't offend me. I do care about how we treat good-faith editors. --RexxS (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
As a note before this moves on to more productive fields: All of our policies, and the encyclopedia itself are built around the fact that we will be adding content and creating articles. Suggesting we need some specific policy to add content is a red herring and just isn't true.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC))

Discussion of the value of an infobox

In an attempt to make progress, I'll start a discussion to determine the value of an infobox to this article.

I believe that the addition of an infobox is a net improvement to this article for the following reasons:

  • A casual reader who may never have heard of Lulu Wang before can see - in the expected place - some key information: her age, birthplace, occupation, years active, and a link to her website. A Chinese-speaking visitor can also see her name in Chinese.
  • All of that information may be found or inferred within the rest of the text, but having it in a single, predictable place caters for those who want their information "at-a-glance".
  • The information in Lulu Wang's infobox is structured as key-value pairs that make it easier for third parties to collect and reuse that data.
  • Some of the information is provided as microformats that make it much easier for automatic tools to reuse that data - in this case: name, birthdate, occupation, and website.
  • There is evidence that visitors find the infobox useful as it was added to the original, Dutch, version of the article seven years ago and its value as an improvement to the article never questioned for that length of time.
  • A downside to the infobox is that the size can swamp a short article, especially when - as in this case - there is other right-floating content (a quote).
  • By policy, re-affirmed by ArbCom, an infobox is neither required nor prohibited. That therefore cannot be used to help decide whether an infobox should exist on an article or not.

All of the above factors are, I think, objective and verifiable. I hope that counter-arguments will remain focussed on policy and objectivity. --RexxS (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  • If we're to put aside her wikilawyering, the only argument made by User:Yngvadottir is strikingly, yet unsurprisingly, prescriptivist and feckless, and reeks of a foul mixture of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:OWNERSHIP. Are we doubting the worth of structured information? What "nuance" might there be in Wang's place and date of birth, her Chinese name, occupation, alma mater, the years she's been active, or the link to her website? It's unfortunate that we've got to expend so much time and energy on the prejudices of a minority of biographical-article editors. Alakzi (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Rexx, I appreciate the different tone. Alakzi, I don't know who you are, and I couldn't care less, but your comments here are entirely disrespectful. Yngvadottir was an actual editor and a pretty fine administrator, one who did the legwork--not someone whose sole interest was being an AWB operator with a fixation on infoboxes. So yeah, you got no standing to be judging her. You all can keep your infobox; in the meantime, we'll have to get someone to do the work that Yngvadottir used to do, since she got sick of this. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
      • @Drmies: This is the behaviour I've observed. I speak frankly and mean no disrespect. I've no doubt Yngvadottir is an excellent contributor. Perhaps my language was too strong; for that, I apologise. I don't appreciate the dig at my work, but I won't dwell on it. Alakzi (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    • And in light of all this, I have unprotected the article. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: If anyone is still collecting opinions about the presence of an infobox on this article, I've looked at it both ways and I prefer having an infobox. This infobox offers pertinent information neatly stacked and easily readable. It also provides an interesting structural and visual detail which is lost without it; in comparison, without the infobox the photograph seems to hang in mid-air (for lack of a better way of putting it). Softlavender (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The account of Alakzi is an obvious sock of some of the bove pro-infobox editors on this conflict, Drmies. It started editing only 2 of month ago, January 2015. And it is already involved in THIS discudsion, of all discussions on the English Wikipedia that currently contains 4,740,390 articles. I don't give a damn about infoboxes, but I certainly care that you people and your sock has chased away a VERY valuable editor from Wiki, Yngvadottir, whom you were all ganging together against - and it looks like it is indeed final. Shame on you all. Hafspajen (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Might it not be that I've become aware of the perennial infobox issue through my exposure to TfD and other template editors? I've been contributing to Wikipedia as an IP for quite long before that, and my work's by no means limited to infoboxes. Will I have to put up with many more ad hominems? Alakzi (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I DON*T GIVE A DAMN about any of this, I only care of the editor who was chased off - with whom even I disagreed too, on certain things, because nobody ever agrees with anyone ever in this life. But it was NOT me who chased away her. Now please everybody get over to her page an apologize. Have the decency to do that. Let us have the decency not to blame the weather for it. Hafspajen (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if this helps, and I was only on this page to make an opinion comment ... but we are all (every single one of us) upset that Yngvy left ... however we are all adults here, and we all choose our actions. I had a hard time figuring all this out (this whole sequence of events) but it seems to me that Alakzi has had Andy's Talk page in his watch list for some time, and also posted there right before all this, and must have seen this discussion that way. Also, all of us on Wikipedia have acted unilaterally in haste and removed content we didn't like, we have all edit-warred, we have all not started Talk page discussions when they were warranted, we have all been ganged up on or outnumbered, we have all been called names, we have all been bullied, we have all called names, and we have all bullied, and we have all gotten our feelings hurt and taken things personally, or too personally, and we have all lost our tempers and said things we shouldn't have, or in a way we shouldn't have, and we have all exaggerated our case or our position, and we have all at some point refused to back down or even compromise. And if we haven't done each and every one of those things, either we haven't been on Wikipedia long enough, or we are robots or saints, or we are just the luckiest person in the universe. And we have all thrown in the towel for at least some amount of time for one or many or an overwhelming number of those reasons. So let's just realize that we are all human, all of us who have participated on this page, and maybe if we are lucky Yngvy will come back. At any rate, she seems contactable via email per Google if she isn't reading her Talk page.... So anyway, I will save further philosophizing for somewhere more appropriate like Sunday School, however I did feel like making some remarks of some nature. Love, Softlavender (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 March 2015

I would like to suggest an edit to the end of the section Lulu Wang#Writing career:

In addition to being a best-selling author, Wang works as a columnist for the international Chinese-language magazines World Vision (Chinese: 世界博览, pinyin: Shìjiè Bólǎn) and World Affairs (Chinese: 世界知识, pinyin: Shìjiè Zhīshì).

The existing references should remain and this reference can be added at the end:

(in Dutch) Jeroen Gijselhart, "Nieuwe reeks: Lulu Wang over haar cultuurshock in Nederland", If then is now, 2013. Retrieved on 11 March 2015.

Consequently, the title "Shijie Zhishi (World Affairs)" could be added to the lead. Thanks! – Editør (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. – Editør (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 March 2015

I would like to suggest to change the sentence "the following year, it won the International Nonino Prize" in the section Lulu Wang#Writing career to:

the following year, it won an International Nonino Prize at the Salzburg Easter Festival.

The last two references from the section Lulu Wang#Awards shoud then be added. Thanks. – Editør (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. – Editør (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Citizenship

I would personally like to see citizenship in the infobox, if it can be determined. Is she a Dutch citizen? Dual citizen? (Plus what is her "nationality", if determinable? Is it "Chinese-Dutch"?). Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lulu Wang. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lulu_Wang_(novelist)/Archive_1&oldid=1256744575"