Talk:Adam Rolland Rainy

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Too much detail

I have reverted an edit that deleted an election result on the grounds that 'too much detail' was in the article. I don't think 'too much detail' is a valid reason to delete anything. I would be happy to discuss the matter further. Graemp (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the results again. The data is already in the constituency article, and doesn't need to be duplicated here, where it overwhelms the text. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article is currently a stub with little text, some might think that the image of the subject also overwhelms the text. Perhaps the problem is not so much the inclusion of the tables but the lack of text in the article. I will place this article on my to-do-list for expansion, which should ensure overwhelming isn't an issue. Graemp (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you expand it to the extent that the tables fit within the narrative without overwhelming it, then let's review that version. In the meantime they disrupt the flow of the prose.

Per WP:EMBED, Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another. It is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain.

So I will remove the tables again. As a compromise, you could restore them in a separate section , like I did with Sir Ellis Ellis-Griffith, 1st Baronet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have been a bit hasty with that revert as I actually did expand the text as I had indicated to meet the your overwhelming point, so perhaps that should be reviewed as you suggest. I have therefore undone your revertion to make that review easier.Graemp (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed it, and the boxes still overwhelm the narrative, and disrupt the flow of prose. So I have moved them to a separate section.

I notice that a similar discussion is taking place at Talk:Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett, where User:Ironholds notes that these tables disrupt the flow of content. Inline images are handled in such a way that the text flows around them, allowing for a continuous reading experience: these tables clearly are not. They actively break the flow of text. ... and A quick check of other political articles in the same conceptual category (large, with lots of text) shows that the information is either not presented (Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Bonar Law, Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden], Clement Attlee), or presented in its own section]. I agree entirely with Ironholds. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]