This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A fact from Big Fish, Little Fish (play) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 March 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Hugh Wheeler's Big Fish, Little Fish (1961) was one of the first Broadway plays to explore the theme of homosexuality in a sensitive and honest way?
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
After a discussion offline with User:Tim riley, we agreed that I should convert this to American English (which I have now done), since the play was written for Broadway and an American cast, even though the playwright was born in England. Wheeler emigrated to the US in 1934 and became a US citizen in 1942. Also, the story is set in America and is about American characters. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for doing that. Some first-rate additions to the lead, too. Tim riley (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion
An editor has added an info-box that seems to me to add nothing of use to the reader and to clutter the page up rather amateurishly. Interested to know if other editors have a view on this. Tim riley (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
How horrible! I've never seen such a large amount of text in one field for "subject", and so little benefit in one box! Please can we just remove the eyesore! - SchroCat (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I agree. This infobox offers nothing of value to the article, looks ridiculous, and should be removed straight away! Cassiantotalk 23:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Pleased to see views that coincide with my own, but I think perhaps before removing the box we should leave the discussion open for a few days lest there be contrary views. Tim riley (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I also agree with removing the box. I think that all of the information it contains is expressed better in the narrative text, and the box unattractively takes up useful space in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate the subjective criticism, but I disagree on a full removal. The info box is to aid the reader. It may make sense to simply remove fields if you feel they distract from the article. People take in and learn in different ways. Personally I prefer info boxes, and I, as a reader find them incredibly useful, as they quickly summarize key points. I can scan the info box and get the gist of the overall article. I don't have to depend on the judgement of editors who may or may not have covered similar information in the lead. The info box also ideally would cover dry information, and do so without dressing it up in prose.
If the consensus is that it has to go and can't possibly be any good for any readers, which I strongly disagree, then that's the group choice. I'll unlatch this article so my efforts at improving it will come to an end. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Remove totally as totally unnecessary per the comments above. Jack1956 (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Agreed with Tim. Remove it. Looks rather clunky and amateurish.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
