Laurence Olivier is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 12, 2018.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 17, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 23, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 13, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 30, 2006 WikiProject peer review Reviewed August 1, 2006 Peer review Reviewed August 20, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted May 22, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed February 2, 2015 Peer review Reviewed February 14, 2015 Featured article candidate Promoted October 25, 2015 Featured topic candidate Not promoted A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 22, 2019. Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Peerage and Baronetage FA‑class 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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Mid-importance). This article has had a peer review which is now archived. LGBT studies FA‑class 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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Shakespeare FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare 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.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Theatre FA‑class High‑importance 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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. London FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Surrey FA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey 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.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:Vital article

• If you are someone that is reading this discussion for the 1st time only , there is an active discussion in great need of a new perspective. Read ALL the comments relating to the infobox discussion and come to a consensus. The consensus must not be based on what you think but on the comments of the other Wikipedians (For more info, see WP:NHC. 20:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craffael.09 (talk • contribs)

Why is there no infobox? Is this really representative of how the editors of wikipedia operate? It seems like there's a cadre of folks treating this article as their own personal fiefdom. It's downright disturbing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.68.179 (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No reason whatsoever, other than the idea that some people don't like them so nobody gets to use them.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to draw attention to WP:FILMBIO . I see no reason as to why an infobox would hinder the article or in any way make it harder to read. We need to vote. EmilySarah99 (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there is absolutely no good reason for this page to not have an infobox when Alfred Hitchcock, Charlie Chaplin, Orson Welles, Fritz Lang, Marlon Brando, Walt Disney, David Lynch, Steven Spielberg, Clint Eastwood, Spike Lee, and 99.999% of all other notable entertainers do. The infobox is the backbone of biographical pages as it provides convenient access to basic information; it doesn't matter if someone thinks it looks bad or if the info is already scattered throughout the article. Some stuff exists for a reason. Songwaters (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that the editor that was overseeing this discussion/giving final say on it--SchroCat--has since retired from Wikipedia. I am not a regular editor or talent by any means, but this discussion seems worth reopening to get a qualifying consensus. Theirs was frankly the only dissenting voice, and it seems obvious 1000 times over that this page should get an infobox, as I cannot recall the last time I saw a biographical page that didn't (except some stubs). Their arguments didn't seem particularly founded outside of a view of Wikipedia as an art, but it is still an encyclopedia and such non-uniformity with other articles would never be accepted in another reference source. Yoyofsho16 (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A pointless exercise. There is still no good case for adding an info-box. As for the "consistency" argument, Wikipedia policy is specifically that i-bs are to be used or not according to whether they are of use for any particular article. (And see Emerson). We have better use for our time than indulging in this otiose discussion yet again. Tim riley talk 07:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "good case" is that this is literally the only biography page I have ever seen in 20 years of reading Wikipedia that doesn't have one for someone for which the information is known, and users are accustomed to glancing at that area of a page for quick reference for information they expect to be there. They allow users to extract information from articles more efficiently, for the same reasons that Wikipedia standards often fight wordiness or lack of clarity, and for that reason I believe they are strict upside.

That Emerson quote makes sense for variety in life itself, but c'mon, in the context of an encyclopedia that already has hundreds of editorial standards in place? Somehow, I don't think I'd be too popular if I went ahead and changed all of the headers on my favorite Wikipedia articles to hot pink Comic Sans, with an Emerson quote as justification. While there's plenty of room for creativity in journalism, a page on Laurence Olivier is not your passion project, it's an article meant to convey information to people, just like every other page. An infobox would--obviously, objectively in my opinion--further that conveyance.

I'll let it rest, but this obstinate commitment against a change that would ONLY add quality to an article is frustratingly boorish, unnerving, and sad. There's a glaringly obvious petulance going on here that is beyond bizarre, and makes me question my trust in frequent editors' capability to maintain objectivity site-wide. I hope someday by chance, some global admin stumbles across this page and puts an end to this absurdity that could have saved all of our time.Yoyofsho16 (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that user is consistently dismissive of any attempt to discuss the usefulness of infoboxes. Its an ongoing struggle.JOJ ^Hutton 14:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please take the trouble to get your facts right? I do not resist info-boxes where appropriate. Please see articles I have taken jointly or singly to Featured Article here, here, here, here, here, here and elsewhere, with an info-box. I resist them when they are useless and make Wikipedia look unprofessional, and welcome them when they add value to an article, in accordance with Wikipedia policies. No doubt all the articles you have taken to FA have info-boxes, but please do not make unfounded accusations about other editors. Tim riley talk 15:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no reason not to have an infobox here. Apparently Britannica deemed Olivier fit for an infobox. Not sure why we haven't... It doesn't harm anyone and it would benefit the reader. ~ HAL333 04:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How odd! I don't see an info-box on the Britannica page, nor the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, nor any other online reference work I can think of. Am I missing something? Tim riley talk 15:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll down until after the first paragraph of his Britannica article, there is an infobox titled "Quick facts" that contains his birth and death date, family, awards, etc. ~ HAL333 17:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found it after a bit of digging. Not very conspicuous or user-friendly, and Britannica doesn't do info-boxes in the way that we do (where appropriate). Now perhaps you'll point us to all the info-boxes in the other works of reference from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography down? Tim riley talk 18:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• OP, next time you ask a question, please make the header something reasonably related to the subject of the question, so that future readers/editors stand a chance of finding it. "Really?" or that old war horse, "Question", just don't cut it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there should be an infobox. But suggesting it here appears to send certain users into a fit of rage. Quite why I don't know. Anyway, the consensus will probably eventually change... one day --Theimmortalgodemperor (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be nasty! There is room for honest disagreement and respect for others' views. Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom. Tim riley talk 16:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a particular clique of editors on this website who believe that some people -- particularly respected film directors and actors -- are too important to have infoboxes and snobbishly dismiss the UX importance of infoboxes by saying things to the effect of "this person's works cannot truly be appreciated unless one reads the entire article". The same thing happened to Stanley Kurbrik's page where only now, after almost a decade, has it been resolved with an infobox finally being added (for the time being). It's silly bikeshedding which needs to stop. Just put the damn box in. Skymann102 (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you read all the exchanges on the topic you will see that it is not about subjects' being "too important" but rather that an info-box, though helpful to our readers in many biographical articles (clergy, politicians, sportspersons et al, where career statistics can be summarised) is as much use as a chocolate teapot for articles such as this, where a career summary could only say "actor on stage and in films and TV", which is not help to the reader whatever. To coin a phrase, there "seems to be a particular clique of editors on this website" who believe that every article must have an info-box, which is not Wikipedia's agreed policy. Tim riley talk 16:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fancy that, another old account - almost nine years old, to be precise - that has the grand sum of 154 edits, rocking up at an infoboxless article to open wounds, much in the same vein as Stanley Kubrick, Frank Sinatra, Cary Grant and Mary Shelley. 2A02:C7F:7640:1100:7511:BA3A:F7D9:7A27 (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Man, the allure of power sure turns the most timid Internet Janitors into ferocious dictators. LET US HAVE THE INFOBOX! 109.118.69.142 (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a very strange and slightly disturbing contribution! No need to shout, dear colleague. Tim riley talk 21:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support infobox I never understood the argument of not having an infobox and per Songwaters. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an infobox. There is no reason not to have one for this particular article. Infoboxes do provide useful information for basic details about the person. This should have been turned into an rfc. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again! Ho hum! Do info-box absolutists never let up? Do read the WP policy. Tim riley talk 19:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Consensus can change. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. If it does here I shall uncomplainingly comply, but for now I shall add an i-box where it is useful and not where it isn't. A new editor asked my opinion on this point recently and I instanced Cosmo Gordon Lang, Neville Chamberlain, Sachin Tendulkar as articles where an i-box was helpful to our readers, and as ones that are an amateurish waste of space, offering the reader nothing of any use and making Wikipedia look silly Ludwig van Beethoven and Alec Guinness. Horses for courses, you know. Tim riley talk 22:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's just your opinion on Beethoven and Guinness. It seems the lack of an infobox on this article and a few others, mainly from what I've seen, on British actors articles seem to be more for stylistic purposes as if these articles are the sole exceptions to, for lack of a better word, rule, even though it's not one regarding infoboxes. Any claim that it makes it unnecessary or adds nothing to the article is just mere opinion. Even if it's shared among other editors, that's still an opinion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for i-boxes when they are (i) objective and (ii) useful. Would you care to suggest what we could put in an i-box for this article that fulfil those two essentials? It is a matter of opinion – which you abominate – to pick this or that role for which LO was famous or how else his life and work can be summarised to meet Wikipedia's criterion that an i-box is "to summarize … key facts that appear in the article". In the examples I gave of useful i-boxes the career statistics for the politician, clergyman and sportsman are clear, useful and meet the criterion. Which of Olivier's roles are you going to put in, and who agrees with you? All matters of opinion, wouldn't you say? Tim riley talk 22:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never abominated any viewpoint. That's making stuff up. Don't see what was wrong with this one. And frankly, the editor who removed the infobox that started this what seems to be a neverending battle should have brought it up on this talk page to begin with back in 2015. The current image can be used instead of the one from the one around 1961. Maybe the cause of death can be removed. Could be found by reading the article and its sections themselves or by glancing at the categories that has the cause of death in its name. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with that old i-box is that it doesn't tell you a single thing about why Laurence Olivier is famous. He isn't famous for dying of renal failure, for marrying three actresses, for being the nephew of Sidney Olivier and the cousin of Noel Olivier. Nobody looking at our article is likely to give two hoots about all that stuff. Olivier was famous for playing Romeo to Gielgud's Mercutio, Victor to Coward's Elyot, Richard III, and for running the Old Vic with Richardson and the National later, and for his Hamlet, Othello, Lord Marchmain, the list goes on and on. My list would include his Etienne Plucheux in La Puce à l'oreille, but others wouldn't agree. Others would include his Cantor Rabinovitch, but I wouldn't. Everyone's list of his most important roles would be different – a personal choice, not at all encyclopaedic. An i-box that can give unquestioned objective facts is fine, such as these from another article I successfully took to FAC:

• Archbishop of Canterbury
• Other post(s) Dean of Windsor and domestic chaplain to Queen Victoria, 1883–1891
• Clerk of the Closet to the Sovereign 1891–1903
• Bishop of Rochester, 1891–1895
• Bishop of Winchester, 1895–1903

I don't know if you looked at the examples I gave, above, of good info-boxes and bad ones, but if you look at the one on Beethoven you will see that the editors who made it couldn't manage a list of his important works and instead direct the poor reader to another article altogether! How does that conform with the Wikipedia policy that an i-box sums up the key points of the article at a glance?

If you are one of those who holds that all articles should have an i-box, despite Wikipedia's policy to the contrary, I think you should say so openly. My own view follows our policy: have an i-box where it is useful and encyclopaedic and don't have one where the subject doesn't allow for it, as here. I think this is why at Peer Review and FAC there was no pressure whatever for an info-box: it is just a matter of common sense and following Wikipedia's rules. – Tim riley talk 07:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that Peter Sellers had this same debate and eventually it was agreed an infobox was needed. The same can be said for Olivier. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same is true for Stanley Kubrick. Unitl an Rfc was voted in it's favor of including one. It was probably one of the most heated and controversial discussions regarding that article over an infobox. The infobox on there doesn't do any harm as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, you have not answered the relevant questions, above: (i) do you believe all articles should have an info-box regardless of Wikipedia's policy and (ii) what relevant encylopaedic information could go in one for this type of article? "It should have an info-box because it should" is not really a very grown-up or constructive argument. Tim riley talk 17:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of this article, it does provide useful information. As stated with the edit I showed from a few years ago, the only thing I can see not going in is Olivier's cause of death. That's not needed. You've made your point clear. You don't like the infobox. You are not the person this article is edited for. Removing the infobox required a discussion back then. Not after. If that editor had done it today, it would be considered disruptive. The policy on infoboxes is clear, this is not a stub where the information is already stated just by a quick read, thus making such a box redundant. As such, how many people do you think read the article contents word for word? They go to where they need to, article sections for certain information. But the information can be easily acquired because of an infobox. And the very few articles that don't have an infobox is primarly on British actor bio's from what I've seen. And all arguments against is I just don't like it. "Again! Ho hum!" is not very grown-up or constructive either. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we prevail on you to tell us honestly whether or not you think all articles should have an info-box? Tim riley talk 07:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the article. This is one that deserves it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to give us an example of an article that, in your opinion, doesn't? Tim riley talk 16:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time I'm engaging because it's going nowhere. I've said before; Stub articles with only a few lines of information or a paragraph that clearly explains it from the text the basic information that goes on a standard infobox. And there are numerous and/or an unlimited number of stub bio's you can choose from any stub category. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tim Riley that an infobox would not be appropriate here. If we were voting once again on Beethoven or Guinness I would say the same thing: no infobox. I have created dozens of articles with infoboxes, but a select few would not benefit from having one, so I left it out of those few. For instance, when I took the poet biography Ina Coolbrith to GA status, it was without an infobox. There is absolutely no need to force every article into an identical format on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Binksternet, for a contribution that seems to me thoughtful and balanced, with no "must have a box" tanks on the lawn. Tim riley talk 20:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but aren't there numerous biographies that claim that Laurence Olivier was at the very least bisexual? I feel like this article should mention these sources, especially considering he's on the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. Saturdayopen (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may like to read the article in full: e.g. "a brief affair with the actor Henry Ainley". The citation in the list you mention is not to a WP:RS and when I get round to it I'll remove it. Tim riley talk 21:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed it. You don't need to be rude. Saturdayopen (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted, naturally. Tim riley talk 22:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, Tim. And again I am reminded to read Gaudy Night. I have no idea why you effect this fervour. "One never failed to find Wimsey of Balliol planted in the centre of the quad and laying down the law with exquisite insolence to somebody". Ah! Perhaps I do... SN54129 19:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never sure whether I find Ballioty or Wykehamity more irritating in its assumption of omniscience. Tim riley talk 19:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states that Olivier attended St Edward's School, Oxford, from 1920 to 1924: however, recently-released census data records him as still being at at All Saints, London in 1921, according to The Conversation (I haven't paid to see the original census document, but it seems to be a reliable source). Can anyone shed light on this contradictory information? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Holden biography cited here is not easy to follow so far as dates are concerned, but I think you may be right that it was only three years at St Edward's, ending in, if I read it right, early 1924. I'll see if I can find a source with clearer dates. Tim riley talk 18:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found one! The Darlington biography says that he went to St Edward's in the September term of 1921 and left at the end of the summer term in 1924. I'll amend the date in the article from 1920 to 1921. Tim riley talk 18:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for spotting this! Tim riley talk 19:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article contain an infobox? EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please format your responses as either:

• Support
• Oppose

with your explaination following.

Please remain civil and assume good faith. EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Olivier
Olivier in 1972
Born	(1907-05-22)22 May 1907 Dorking, Surrey
Died	July 11, 1989(1989-07-11) (aged 82) Steyning, West Sussex
Occupation	Actor
Years active	1926–1988
Works	Full list
Spouses	Jill Esmond ​ ​ (m. 1930; div. 1940)​ Vivien Leigh ​ ​ (m. 1940; div. 1960)​ Joan Plowright ​ (m. 1961)​
Awards	Full list

For clarity, commenters may imagine an infobox approximately resembling that here. Participants should consider whether an infobox adds value to the lead, and whether it places undue emphasis on relatively minor facts of Olivier’s life (such as his marriages). — HTGS (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - for the reasons previously set out in earlier discussions here. Tim riley talk 08:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As someone else already alluded to below, RfC comments are supposed present actual arguments, rather than merely "voting" for an editor's preference. So the closer of this RfC should disregard the above "oppose", which merely handwaves at unspecified "earlier discussions" while completely failing to explain any valid rationale for the editor's preference. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the previous regurgitation of MUSTHAVEANINFOBOX was only six months ago it seems a little unreasonable to ask informed editors to add, yet again, the reasons for opposing the proposal as it comes through the revolving door yet again. Tim riley talk 14:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in order to maintain continuity with similar biographies EmilySarah99 (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An info box is an easy way to get all the important information in a table. It exists in most biographies and for the sake of consistency should be created here as well. Mnair69 (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. An infobox at this article will tell readers nothing of note about the individual: it contains no important information that helps readers "get a quick overview", but worse: it will likely misinform or mislead them. The pertinent information is in the lead, where it is presented with context and nuance. Looking at the last version that was added most recently and at the example posted here, aside from the born and died fields, we have the following entries for Olivier:

• "Occupation": Obviously more than an actor. Actor, director, producer, theatre administrator ... there are a couple of others we could add, but it's already misleading whichever way you cut it
• "Years active": Apart from being wrong (a major red flag) it's also unsourced (the start years isn't in the article and it one of three possible years) – and should this just be his first professional role, or his amateur ones too? It's also ambiguous "Active" as what? As actor, director, producer, theatre administrator or other? Should we have different "active" fields for each of his occupations? I'm sure some people would think it a great idea, but we're already confusing readers with this with whatever we put in this field
• "Nationality": shouldn't be included (per MoS)
• "Wives": Is he famous for having three wives? The emphasis of having nearly half the lines of text in an infobox taken up with his marriages suggests it's certainly a major focus! This field is often a spurious entry, but given it bypasses Olivier's bisexuality entirely, a completely misleading one here too. Still, we're not in the business of giving people decent information, are we?

So, we're left with the dates of birth and death as the only fields that don't give a misleading or incorrect impression. Is that what this is all for, in order to have a box in the article, the same dates as can be found in the opening sentence? Sure, we can add other factoids (the school he went to or whether he was a crossbench Lord), or anything else, but they serve little purpose for Olivier – they don't help a reader get relevant information that doesn't mislead. It's a truism that infoboxes don't work well with the liberal arts biographies – and that is very much the case with Olivier.

Despite other claims in this discussion, there is no WP guideline or policy that insists on 'consistency' across the project, and the person who put in big bold letters that there is "strong precedent in usage" obviously didn't realise that links to the essay that says "precedent" is one of the "arguments to avoid". Olivier is one of a number of articles that do not have an infobox (it's an error many people have made to claim that all other actor biographies have one), not because certain people don't like them (another error claimed below), but because the information it is likely to contain will actively mislead or misinform readers. It doesn't "help" readers to give them incorrect or misleading information, but that is exactly what this one will do.

as a reminder to the closing admin, ArbCom decisions have stressed that the rationale for whether to include an IB or not should be based on arguments about this article, not IBs in general. Discussions are also supposed to be based on guidelines and policies, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so I do hope that the closing admin won’t just vote count or accept false arguments like ‘consistency’ or 'all other actors have biographies': that would be a refreshing an unexpected change. - The editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:8D69:FD13:9DF1:EB7D (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC); edited by the editor formally known as SchroCat from and at 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:40EB:233E:6297:EF3A (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC) (original version viewable at [1]).[reply]

• Support. Infoboxes are an excellent resource for those wanting a brief overview of the subject and those just wanting to know quick facts about the subject without detracting from the prose for those who want more detail. Sourcing is not relevant as it will only contain information that is sourced in the prose, similarly anything which requires nuance to be correct will be omitted. I'm not overly familiar with the subject here and the lack of an infobox makes it harder and more time consuming for me to begin learning about them. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "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 would emphasize 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 body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, updates are made to articles but not reflected in the box, and IBs tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (6) IBs distract 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. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For clarity, what Ssilvers is quoting in bold font as "arbitration report" above is just one editor's personal opinion from one side of the debate that that Signpost article covered - not at all a community consensus or ArbCom ruling. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (2) is an argument against any infobox everywhere, i.e. clearly inconsistent with the community consensus at MOS:IBX. And the underlying claim that content must never be redundant within an article is directly contradicted by WP:LEDE.

  (3), (5), and (6) are circular WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments - terms like "distract", "take up valuable space" "hamper ... the impact of the lead" are all already based on the assumption that infoboxes are always bad and leads are always good.

  Concerning (4), I strongly suspect that you do not have any quantitative evidence for the bold quantitative claim that errors are more frequent in infoboxes that in the article text.

  And (1) falls apart upon a look at just the article's first sentence, which rubs the reader's nose into these facts among the very first:

  • His rarely used middle name, which appears nowhere else in the article text
  • IPA symbols which many readers will not be able to properly read anyway
  • specifics about honorifics and peerage bestowed by the Commonwealth, which may be important for nobility fans and award counters, but not so much for those trying to understand why he was important and notable.

  Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support. Infobox's are helpful for readers who want a quick summary of information. They are so common it's jarring not to see one included in the article. I think this is the first actor article I have seen that doesn't have one (there are probably others). This seems like a silly thing to oppose. The infobox undoubtedly helps the end user find information quicker. The only reason to oppose the infobox is a preference in style. That's fine, but style at the expense of a better end user experience should be avoided.

Furthermore we can ignore other articles and just concentrate on this article. Not having an infobox on this article makes it more difficult to find valuable information. This isn't a matter of opinion. To argue otherwise simply ignores how end users access information. When accessing this article via the Wikipedia app there's no quick reference to works or awards. That's vital information about an actor. It's not much better on the website. When searching for Olivier's works/awards it requires a full scroll of the article. Part of the reason infobox's exist is to make information easier to find. That's the whole point of this Wikipedia project. This article is rather large at over 60kb of readable prose. Making information easier to consume is the only priority to discuss regarding this issue for this article. The infobox makes this article easier to navigate and access important information. Nemov (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most important awards are in the fourth paragraph of the lead section. That's what the lead section is for, and that's why the lead section of a Wikipedia article gets nearly twice the clicks of an infobox. There is no problem to solve here. People looking for awards can easily skim the lead section and find what they need in the fourth paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (Summoned via bot)
  Support. An infobox helps readers to more quickly access key information about the article's subject. By now, we also have evidence for this from peer-reviewed academic research. In this case, that includes the article' subject's profession, nationality, and life dates. I realize that longtime Laurence Olivier connoisseurs might be bored by such basic information (of course he was English! what else! etc.) and feel that they do not capture the true essence of his genius. But they are not the primary audience of a general encyclopedia - for many readers of this article, this will be the very first time they have heard about the actor.
  Yes, these key facts can also be obtained from the intro paragraph and other parts of the article, but are harder to retrieve and obscured by less relevant information there (see e.g. the three examples above from just the first sentence).
  Lastly, for those who are getting hung up on (some previous versions) of the infobox highlighting some irrelevant information like the cause of death, that can and has been easily addressed (e.g. in this version). Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nationality shouldn’t be in there [in any infobox concerning Olivier] at all (per MOS:INFOBOXNTLY). 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:19E3:CCBF:EA4A:A3FF (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC) Addendum made to clarify that I am obviously only talking about Olivier’s article, not in general. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:19E3:CCBF:EA4A:A3FF (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh? That's not what MOS:INFOBOXNTLY says (and after all, the infobox template has a nationality = parameter). If you meant that this is one of the situations when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth, as specified with |birthplace=, then that's irrelevant to the argument here - either way it is one of the key facts that an infobox helps readers to obtain more easily. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s exactly what INFOBOXNTLY says: that if ever there comes a time when Olivier does have to have an infobox, the nationality field should not be included. As you said in your !vote “of course he was English”. That’s exactly why the field should not be used here, because people infer it from the country of birth, whether that is in the first sentence or in the box. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:19E3:CCBF:EA4A:A3FF (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for correcting your comment above, but it seems you are still confused about several things. For starters, the part of my !vote you quote from ("of course he was English! what else!") was used there to illuminate the misguided view of a hypothetical or not so hypothetical Laurence Olivier connoisseur, who is so deeply immersed into this topic that he does not realize that some of key facts that he (consciously or unconsciously) takes as a given will still be new and important to someone less familiar with the topic - such as the average reader of a general encyclopedia. It is quite telling that you did not realize this and embraced this caricatured view thinking it was consensus.

  Also, you are still misrepresenting MOS:INFOBOXNTLY, even though I already quoted the relevant part above: when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth, as specified with |birthplace=. It does not say "or in the first sentence" or such.

  (I realize that the "connoisseur" bit may sound a bit snarky, so I do want to acknowledge the possibility that some oppose !voters above might be genuinely knowledgeable about the article's topic. But this does not make one better equipped to decide how to best structure encyclopedic information for a general reader - quite the opposite actually, due to a well-known cognitive bias known as curse of knowledge.)

  Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As I have edited Wikipedia since 2006, created numerous articles, (many with infoboxes, many without) written a stack of GAs and FAs, I am not “confused” about any part of what I have written, neither am I misrepresenting anything - quite the reverse: you have twisted what I have said. I have no desire to continue dragging this out, but suffice to say my original comment, that if ever a box is included on the article, the nationality field is one that should not be included, is supported by the guidelines. I’m out. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:4C10:AA23:3F4:84C7 (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support I don't see the harm in having it in, some users may just want to glance his details instead of reading the entire article. I really see very few cases where an infobox wouldn't improve the page.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The lead of this article seems to me to be concise, appropriate and to contain all relevant information. Those who are assumed (I don't know on what evidence) just to wish to 'glance' at WP articles can get their info just as simply by reading the article lead. An infobox would provide only the same, in a more bloated fashion - and/or are likely to provoke futile and timewasting arguments on issues such as nationality (as above in this discussion), the complex issues of which require proper explanation in the article. The article is perfectly clear and informative as it stands. I do not see how an infobox would improve it in any way. By the way, this present discussion is prefaced with a request for contributors either to 'support' or 'oppose'. As it happens I strongly oppose an infobox, but do not seek to flagwave, or to somehow gain my opinions additional points, by doing so strongly. Smerus (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, but throwing around derogatory adjectives such as "bloated" is basically just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Especially given that your claim stands in stark contract to the fact that this allegedly "bloated" infobox had just 6 fields (at least the most recent version that was revert-warred out of the article), compared to that allegedly "concise" lead section being over 450 words long currently, with various low-relevance factoids in just the first sentence (see above) that are absent from the infobox. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty Strong Support. This article is in great need of an infobox as every biography Wikipedian article has one. Even more, it would help make the article easier to read as the introduction is like, 3 pages long and an infobox would greatly help summarise it. Honestly, adding an infobox is fast and easy, let's not make a big fuss about it and just add it already... After all, what's the worst that can happen with adding an infobox, sheesh... It's not as if we're inciting people to sacrifice baby koalas to Satan in order to make Trump president again :) Craffael.09 (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry to say your support is based on a lie, "every biography Wikipedian article has one". In accordance with WP policy we have I-Bs where they are agreed to be useful, and I can think of a dozen or more life-and-works FAs where we have refrained from adding one. I shall not name them as no doubt the MUSTHAVEANINFOBOX tanks would be on the lawn there in a jiffy. Meanwhile, can we refrain from false assertions here? Tim riley talk 14:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Aw c'mon, you know many of WP biographies have infoboxes. And anyways, is that really what made you tick ? Not the koalas, not Satan, not Trump, the WP policy that declares that not every bio has to have an infobox. Don't worry man, I read the policies :) Craffael.09 (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Infoboxes are less useful for creative artists such as poets, authors, actors, composers, etc. The basic facts of a life are best served with nuanced prose in the lead section rather than bald facts in the infobox. This recent attempt at an infobox is wholly redundant to the excellently written lead section. Research shows that users click on links in the lead section 32% of the time versus 18% in the infobox, meaning the lead section is serving as the more important source of information. Regarding whether policy-based arguments are worth more than opinions based on esthetics, Wikipedia does not require an infobox, so the question of having one is a matter of opinion, and every voice counts equally. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Research shows thatusers click on links in the lead section 32% of the time versus 18% in the infobox, meaning the lead section is serving as the more important source of information.

  I don't draw the same conclusion from this data. The infobox serves a quick, easy to read summary of the person's date of birth/age/date of death/etc. It's a quick reference and not an area for link clicking. So it seems perfectly natural that the lead would have higher click rates than the infobox. To be honest, I'm surprised there's not a larger gap in click rates. Also, the example you shared is an excellent example of why an infobox is so valuable. You're entitled to think it's redundant, but it's useful reference without having to read through paragraphs of prose. Nemov (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh no, we wouldn't want our readers to actually "read through paragraphs of prose"! What a vile fate! Binksternet (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct, I don't have an objection to making information easier to find. I'm a monster I know. Nemov (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: everybody knows that I support infoboxes, but I promised myself years ago - partly because of a discussion on this very page - not to take part in the timesink arguing about them has caused the community. I had unwatched this article but saw the topic on a user talk I watch. In 2015, I was told that the design usually goes by the principal editors (who have spoken clearly above). Did anything change since then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I thank Gerda Arendt for that contribution - not the knee-jerk reactions seen in some of the above postings. GA and I have differed strongly on the topic over the years, but I am grateful for her thoughtful take on the matter here. Tim riley talk 14:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: In my view an infobox would be unnecessary and unhelpful for this article - I can't see what it would be trying to achieve and it's not something that's required by Wikipedia policy. 'Some other articles have infoboxes' isn't really an argument why this one should, and that seems to be the stated reason supporters want it. Uakari (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the very good arguments raised by Tim Riley. How sad to see the same old faces mischievously hanging around the same old articles to take part in the same old infobox debates and then duplicitously claiming: I rarely talk about infoboxes and please remind me in case you see me in infobox discussions that I have better things to do and away from any infobox stuff, is what I learned and try to pass on. The fact most of those who dared to question the Wikipedia Establishment on their approach of indiscriminately adding irrelevant infoboxes everywhere have now been chased away, and still these same discussions keep arising on the same articles is, to my mind, illustrative of just who the real trouble makers are. 2A02:C7E:2A55:1500:4DF6:503D:BC76:8165 (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I thank the IP for that addition. (Would I be wrong in supposing the IP has written FAs on Stanley Holloway, Marie Lloyd and the great Frank Matcham before quitting, fed up with sniping?) Tim riley talk 19:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't really understand why people are getting upset over an infobox. Some of the hostility surrounding this discussion is puzzling. Describing people with whom you disagree as mischievously hanging around isn't helpful and it's frankly uncalled for in this discussion. Nemov (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I don't see the reason why an infobox should be removed. It provides an excellent brief overview, more like quick to the point. Almost all articles about actors have an infobox without any debate over its inclusion. I don't see why Olivier and Rod Steiger are an exception. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak to moderate support restoring infobox. First, I see no major loss for not having an infobox, but nor is there any harm in having one, so it is disappointing to see such acidic dialogue here. I am still empathetic to the perspective that not every page needs to be so uniform, and of course the longer the project goes on, the harder it is to avoid infoboxes and navboxes and that sort of clutter on every page. But realistically the previous infoboxes have all been reasonable, without excessive emphasis on distracting detail. I think it is worth remembering that we are not writing only for educated adults. Having a formulaic and unobstructive box to guide readers to the basic facts of the man’s life is a simple way to ease readers into a subject. I hardly think that people will read the infobox and then click away to not read the prose lead unless they have already found exactly the information they are looking for. That, and an infobox feels less ugly and more purposeful than the image box that’s already there. — HTGS (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging editors from the last 5 years who have discussed this topic. I apologized in advance if I've pinged anyone who has already commented on this RfC. @DmitryKo:, @Cassianto:, @William Avery:, @SchroCat:, @Alssa1:, @Xover:, @Ian Rose:, @Bishonen:, @Ssilvers: @Jack1956:, @Dreamspy:, @Ceoil:, @Ceoil:, @Water78:, @MiguelMunoz:, @Jojhutton:, @Yoyofsho16:, @HAL333:, @JackofOz:, @Theimmortalgodemperor:, @Skymann102:, @WikiCleanerMan:. If you still have an opinion on this issue please feel free to contribute. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support WikiProjects that cover actors like Olivier recommend the use of an infobox. One of the six goals of WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers is to "ensure that every article biography related to film uses Template:Infobox person." Consequently, there is a strong precedent in usage; essentially all other actors of similiar stature have an infobox. Just go visit Peter Sellers, Michael Caine, Alec Guinness, Christopher Lee, Albert Finney, Cary Grant, Anthony Hopkins, Ben Kingsley, Ian McKellen, Oliver Reed, John Hurt, Richard Burton, Richard Attenborough, Peter O'Toole Richard Harris, Patrick Stewart, etc. I could continue. Why should this article violate the status quo, this universal precedent? There is nothing unique about Olivier that merits no infobox. I challenge those who oppose to list a single reason inherent to this article. Opposition to the infobox ultimately amounts to a "I don't like it". For almost all users, an infobox makes some the article's content easy to digest in a glance. And I see no possible way it which it can harm a reader's experience. ~ HAL333 04:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose So long as infoboxes are not mandated or prohibited by project-wide policy the issue should be decided by consensus among editors engaged (over time) with the article in question, with deference given to the approach taken by primary contributors and a strong default in favour of the established status quo (that is, an overruling consensus should be very strong to apply). In particular, an RfC and the feedback request service is an inappropriate way to deal with this kind of issue. I also consider the incessant pushing for infoboxes to be outright disruptive behaviour (and the wikilawyering on display regarding whether oppose votes that refer to previous arguments should be discounted is at best disappointing). There is a reason infoboxes (of all the stupid things to fight about) ended up at ArbCom, and this is a case in point. I urge those who find themselves here arguing in favour of an infobox to instead direct their energies towards resolving the issue in project-wide policy, because this trench warfare approach to it does nothing but cause disruption and create bad blood. And I would support any project-wide policy that has a plausible chance of putting an end to the endless bickering, whichever way the knot is cut. --Xover (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think I would support a project wide policy since some articles are too small or limited in scope to justify an infobox. This article has 62kb in readable prose and receives thousands of pageviews per day. Can anyone really argue that an infobox wouldn't help end users find key pieces of information faster in this article? Nemov (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course they can. And they have. Repeatedly. But those who think it very important that articles they have not themselves worked on have an infobox appear incapable of accepting the validity of arguments for other points of view. We've twice had this issue up before ArbCom (with numerous subsequent motions and amendments), and both times ArbCom has urged the community to go make a policy for this so we won't end up back there. It's been a contentious issue since 2003 (or that's the earliest reference to conflicts about this I've seen anyway) and still we're engaged in this war of attrition nonsense that pretty much just wastes time and drives away good contributors (or gets them blocked if they are at all inclined to lose their cool). So my plea to all is: whether you love infoboxes or hate them, go argue your position at the the policy level. Xover (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I am a small-time editor who mostly just corrects errors, so I have few thoughts on the conduct of it, but the reason I became involved in this topic is that I use the infobox for establishing details on any biographical article. I do this because of the long-established consistency of that feature on biological articles has trained me to do it, and I cannot be the only one. That issue makes this not just a stylistic issue in my opinion, but a functional one: this page does not operate as anticipated by readers and is more difficult to navigate for it. The Oppose arguments above seem to take umbrage with the infobox on the whole, which has little to do this article specifically. Whether or not it is redundant due to the header paragraph as they claim, Wikipedia in its current state does use it often and the lack of it on this article impacts readability. Given that, nothing strikes me as unique about Olivier that justifies singling the page out. Yoyofsho16 (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete and utter indifference: Life is too short to waste on trivialities like this. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One of the last articles of its kind to not have one. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – the inclusion of an infobox which clutters the beginning of the lead and provides undue weight to trivial facts from the body of the article to the lead. (Why is the name of an actor's spouse, where they died, the name of their relatives or children of due weight to include in the lead. See for example the Marlon Brando wikipedia article, where such information is all undue. Marlon Brando's personal life section is minuscule in comparison to the blaring weight the infobox provides for such minutiae.) The inclusion of undue weight, trivial information, which the infobox would provide for this article is in violation of the guideline MOS:LEADREL:

"According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article."

The inclusion of the infobox also goes against the guideline of the MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which states:

"The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content."

The ideal infobox for this article is one that solely presents the most important feature that the infobox serves that is to visually identify the subject. For this well written lead, the most concise and informative read is to see the actor stand on the stage with his lead words and not be caged in a template box. --Guest2625 (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Despite the claims of a very vocal minority over the years, infoboxes are an asset to the general Wikipedia reader. It's not clutter to have an infobox. Many well respected print encyclopedias contain infoboxes. This grand encyclopdia that has become a vast array of knowledge over the years wasn't created so that the people who edit them can feel good about how well they have written the articles, it was created as source of information for people who want to learn something about particular topics. Not every reader uses Wikipedia in the same way. Many people rely on the infobox a repository for key information that can be accessed at a glance. These people shouldn't be forced to scan though multiple lines of data just to get the one piece of information that they are looking for. The inclusion of an infobox doesn't hurt anyone, but the lack of an infobox makes the article less convenient for many people.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• It appears that this infobox topix has been discussed a lot over the years. Would it be okay to ping the editors from both sides of the debate on this RfC so they can voice their opinions? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You could just tabulate the votes from past discussions. That way valid opinions from departed users will still have force. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, without tabulating, you can see there is a majority of Oppose. I was orignally for an infobox (See Pretty Strong Support commet) cuz I did not understand why it was so horrible to add an infobox, but seeing the majority, let's just leave the article as it is, and boom, end of RfC ! Craffael.09 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not seeing a majority, but I'll leave it up to the closing editor to decide the consensus. Consensus is not found by counting votes (see:WP:NHC). Nemov (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is one of those rare questions that can be decided by opinions alone. That's because the infobox is not required by Wikipedia, and other policies don't change that. The closer is welcome to apply more weight to carefully constructed arguments, but no opinion should be discounted entirely. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And could we perhaps have at least a year's break this time before the diehards raise this matter yet again? Tim riley talk 19:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nemov: Yes, so long as you do it systematically, you should ping interested editors from previous, related discussions on this talk page. The closing editor will not tally opinions from past discussions; editors will have to voice their opinions at the present RfC to be counted. — HTGS (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I just propose to wait for someone new to come, and that person, after reading all the articles, will become the colser of this dicussion, the judge. (see WP:NHC). Just wait for a new eye on this discussion and that's it ! Craffael.09 (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what this is in response to? My original question wasn't about closing this discussion or about rushing the discussion. It was about pinging people who have discussed it in the past. Nemov (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah no I understand. I was just saying that this discussion about the infobox has not been solved after 2 years of debate, so I was just proposing a solution Craffael.09 (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The solution was to open up a RfC. That's the purpose of the RfC. That's what brought me here and I'm sure a few others. @EmilySarah99 is already ahead of you. I removed the POV tags here since they're not useful in this circumstance. The closing admin should know how to navigate a RfC. Nemov (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, I was thinking, why not bring this conversation to the DRN ! But for that, I need at least 2-3 other editors to post their comment on the DRN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craffael.09 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm down for that. Never done DRN before though, what do you need me to do? EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Great ! For the DRN, I will file this discussion about the infobox. You should receive a DRN case reminder soon telling you that you are part of a conflict resolution effort and that you are welcome to put in your POV on the subject. :) Craffael.09 (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Craffael.09 You should withdraw the DRN. It violates the DRN guidelines. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments. There's already an RfC open on this topic. Nemov (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well then let's just close this discussion until teh DRN mediator comes to a conclusion ! Craffael.09 (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You can learn more at WP:RFCEND, but I don't see any reason to rush this close when it's been open for 6 days.

  An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time.

  Please just be patient and allow this process to play out. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am sorry, but if you look at the first edit on the talk page and look at the date, you can see that this conflict has been going on since the 13th of December 2020 . Craffael.09 (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Infobox matters go back to at least 2015. See the discussion on the hidden message advising people not to add an infobox without discussion on the talk page. There is no rush. An RfC is a perfectly appropriate way to address the dispute; please let it run its course. — HTGS (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  An RfC is a form of dispute resolution. Whatever the outcome, the matter will be settled. To try to take it elsewhere will raise accusations of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. — HTGS (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]