Talk:Dorothy Hepworth

	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 is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Women artists

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women artists 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.Women artistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women artistsTemplate:WikiProject Women artistsWomen artists articles

More information

There is probably more information about Hepworth that could be copied, together with references, from the Patricia Preece article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No infobox?

I added a 'needs-infobox' to the biography banner and this was subsequently removed --> https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADorothy_Hepworth&type=revision&diff=744426873&oldid=744418726 . Wondering what the objection would be to adding an infobox. Is this a trend in biographies, that we are trying to turn away from creation of biography infoboxes, or something special about this article in particular? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes should not automatically be added to articles. 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 in liberal arts fields, as here, do not: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in 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 block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts 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) 18:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, infoboxes certainly aren't essential, though in this case it would be nice to have a photograph in the article in place!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Image added. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig

Her parents ought to be named, to confirm that she's no relation to Barbara Hepworth, who was similar age. Valetude (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. Who were they? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. I thought you might(!) Valetude (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]