Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers GA‑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 GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Top-importance). Bristol GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-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.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. At least one photograph is included in this article Theatre GA‑class Mid‑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 GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBT studies GA‑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. Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBT studies: This tag does not make any definite assertions about Grant's sexuality; however, having reviewed the text, it is of significant enough note that the banner is warranted.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Template:WP1.0

Why was this articles old infobox removed depsite the fact it provided good information? I fail to understand how this makes any sense at all considering all other actor articles retain their infoboxs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonstopmaximum (talk • contribs) 22:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are far from the only reader to wonder that, as the rest of this talk page shows. Jonathunder (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks much nicer without an infobox. Infoboxes aren't mandatory, and many of them lead to someone then including one of those giant maps which are of little use but sometimes gobble up much of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m in favor of an infobox. Jusdafax 23:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Softlavender commented last time round "Look people, please create an RfC. It's the only way to solve these things. Otherwise, nothing happens except that things go around in circles forever" and the discussion perfectly exemplifies this. If you're determined to add an infobox then launch an rfc, otherwise we're just going in circles (from looking at this talk page) and not benefiting anyone by doing so. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open up an Rfc on the matter. Will it help? don't know. Will it hurt? likely not. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question of the infobox keeps coming up. Perhaps this page could use Template:FAQ to explain the consensus for why the infobox is excluded. Billhpike (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a good idea. But it'll be ignored, trust me. Cassianto^Talk 22:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - an FAQ is an excellent idea. Infoboxes on articles are the norm, so when readers see there isn't one here they will naturally wonder why. As Jayron32 so eloquently noted at the ANI thread, they deserve to be treated with respect, not slapped down with a "not this again" by the article regulars. Let's have an FAQ or similar notice prominently displayed at the top of the talk page - it just might help clear up some of the confusion.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But what would we link to in the FAQ to show that the consensus is not to have an infobox? This is why I suggested holding an RfC, so we could point to that and go- "the RfC ended with no consensus, so any additions of an infobox will be reverted". jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without an RFC, there will always be a questionable “consensus”, especially when every discussion confirms that it’s still a majority of editors in favor of restoring the info box. JOJ ^Hutton 17:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are not "the norm" across the project. They are common in certain fields, such as ships, schools, inhabited places, and films, where there is a lot of technical or list-type information that can be usefully presented in a table at the top of the article, and for species, which was their original purpose: they were developed as "taxoboxes". But to the extent they are common on, for example, biographies, that's because a subset of editors like them and have pushed to have them, among other things for technical reasons ("metadata") that are at best irrelevant to readers and at worse undermine the encyclopedia. In many cases, such as this article, they have been frequently discussed and rejected because they oversimplify: this is particularly a risk with a person, whose work should not be tucked away in a few tidy little boxes without thinking about whether that is a fair summation of their life. Also, they inevitably bring with them debates about things like musical genre, nationality, and religion that are frequently points of contention when someone wants to put a simple statement in a box. Much of our effort on Wikipedia is writing nuanced and well referenced explanations to inform the reader. These should not be automatically preempted by the inclusion of an list of factoids that suggests the reader does not want, or should be discouraged from reading, the more accurate statement or even the summary of it in the article lead. So yes, a FAQ may be a good idea on the talk page of this and other articles where the infobox issue continues to rear its head, but by the same token, infobox fans should read and respect such FAQs. I'm afraid that talk page FAQs on other perennial topics of contention, such as honorifics on religious figures, appear to be rarely heeded. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcc: We could link to the previous discussions. If, as Yngvadottir states, "they have been frequently discussed and rejected because they oversimplify" then there must be many different threads in talk page archive - just link to them all and urge people to read them before starting a new discussion. There's also Template:Round in circles which is another option. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, the previous discussions were very fraught but I don't think there was any clear consensus either way, jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wasn't this a rousing success? And just how much improvement has it sparked for the Harry Lauder article? We hope (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@We hope: Yes: the edit history shows that the warring has stopped- in fact from the history you've linked to, it appears since the RfC, there have been no attempts to re-add an infobox- so on that front, the RfC served its purpose. This bolsters the point I made earlier- that a formally advertised RfC would hopefully end this issue once and for all, exactly like its done on the article you've linked to. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! "once and for all" another of your ideas Kubrick January 2017. back again needing full protection in March. They're no more effective at stopping conflict than other discussions; as said yesterday, one can continue having RfCs until the desired effect is achieved or until those in opposition wear down. Someone was doing this on biographies where he wanted a change to his desired version of article content. Here you see just two of them. This editor eventually had to stop trying to "settle his scores" this way because he's now banned from all bios. We hope (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@We hope: Yes- Kubrick would be a perfect example of where a FAQ could be placed. Looking at the edit history, people have just been able to go "see talk page for consensus" when an infobox has been added by a new editor, pointing to the formal RfC, and that's that- no fraught, drawn out discussion required. Should someone attempt to launch RfC after RfC, then a moratorium can be imposed, similar to that imposed at Talk:Trump. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be able to be solved nicely by a at the top of the page until some people complained about feeling "threatened" by the message. Nothing is a panacea.We hope (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Grant
Publicity photo of Cary Grant for Suspicion (1941)
Born	Archibald Alec Leach January 18, 1904 Horfield, Bristol, England
Died	November 29, 1986 Davenport, Iowa
Occupation	Actor
Years active	1920–1986
Spouses	Virginia Cherrill ​ ​ (m. 1934; div. 1935)​ Barbara Hutton ​ ​ (m. 1942; div. 1945)​ Betsy Drake ​ ​ (m. 1949; div. 1962)​ Dyan Cannon ​ ​ (m. 1965; div. 1968)​ Barbara Harris ​ ​ (m. 1981)​
Children	Jennifer Grant

OK, as this infobox is seen as something of vital value. Let's take a look at it. Largely dominated by a bloated list of wives? The relevance of Bristol and Davenport to Cary Grant's career? That and his wives are some of the most trivial things you can mention when it comes to summarising his article. Years active: 1920–1986. People will get the wrong impression that that was his film career so it's misleading if anything. In reality his film career was 1932-1966. Cary Grant was a film actor and the infobox doesn't even tell me he was a film star. Literally useless. If it actually conveyed important info about his career, his Academy Award wins or noms, Golden Globes, notable films etc then I'd see more point.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an Rfc covering all bios of actors, actress, producers, directors etc. concerning whether or not to have infoboxes. In such an Rfc, a 5-year mandatory freeze after the Rfc result would be ideal. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom ruled that they weren't compulsory. Would it ultimately be their call to make? JAGUAR 22:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom usually stays away from content disputes. Their concerns are on editor behavior. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbcom ruling in the Infoboxes case 2013 was [1] "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. 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." Can an RfC overrule that? I wouldn't think so.Smeat75 (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the same ruling, arbcom said: Community discussion recommended, "The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article." That was in 2013. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not need any data about wives but their names, - the article could give details. I would need no "years active". Yes, the most important awards, please, and the list of his appearances as |work=Cary Grant on screen, stage and radio. Compare Marylin Monroe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least we agree that if there is to be an infobox the information does actually need to be informative and on topic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the time has come, to open up an Rfc on this matter at WP:Village Pump. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Cary Grant or infoboxes on bios in general? This makes me nervous. JAGUAR 23:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Schiff acting like Joseph McCarthy makes me nervous. Anyways, the Village Pump is an option. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

""The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. 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."" Well, their ruling is not adhered to. In practice a lot of people seem certain that infoboxes are a compulsory part of the furniture and as important as referencing. There is no respect for "not required".♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How come the Britannica has an infobox if they are useless? (Hint:easy for primary school aged kids and people with special needs). A collapsed one covers this easily as pleasing both sides. There's no harm with a collapsed one but people would rather be nitpicking over small details. GuzzyG (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks awful, particularly with an advert pushing it further down the page. They didn't use to have infoboxes, I would guess Britannica introduced them to try be more like Wikipedia. They didn't use to allow people to edit either. Perhaps Gerda is also editing for Britannica ;-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

Use a collapsed infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? When the content is of little or no value what's the point of adding one for the sake of it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A collapsed infobox would still invite people to ask why there isn't a full one. JAGUAR 17:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: (in reply to this) I am leaning towards launching an RfC, with a moratorium of say, two years, where should the RfC not be successful, any attempts to add an infobox/discussion of with the intent of adding an infobox can be promptly reverted with a link to the RfC. Thoughts? jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do it. Let's get this over with and to know whether Wikipedia gets with the times (like the gold standard: Britannica) and if it's a site that helps younger children and people with special needs comprehend and compact information. GuzzyG (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't take its editorial cues from Britannica, and I dispute the notion that children and those with reading comprehension issues would benefit from infobox trivia. If someone is unable to read the lead, how would his comprehension of the subject benefit from reading Mr. Grant's date and city of birth; date and city of death; career span (confusingly, not his film career); list of wives' names, marriage years, and divorce years; and child's name? Raw data doesn't inform the reader. A short children's book about Mr. Grant would most likely not include any of this information, preferring instead to explain, in simple words, what was meaningful about his work and life. Rebbing 13:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Should this article include an infobox?

The result of this RfC is to be accepted along with a 2 year mandatory freeze on a repeat RfC, from the date of this RfC's closure. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

• Oppose an infobox. IMHO, bio infoboxes don't belong in bios of actors, actresses, directors, producers. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will accept a collapsed infobox, as a compromise. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose an infobox. As per my prior comment: "I really feel we are back to square one here. The infobox discussion on CG has happened too often. BTW, as Doc pointed out, the lead summarises the article quite well and, usually the lead explains what the infobox does, only in more detail. It points out his DOB, education, career beginnings, hits, screen persona, marriages and business interests."  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead of any article is supposed to summarize an article, that does not stop infoboxes from being useful. Please see false dichotomy for the logical fallacy used here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose an infobox. Note that this RFC was started by an IP who left this hostile post at ANI and was subsequently accused of being User:Singora, a banned editor. I'm not sure he is doing this in good faith. I've given my reasons further up the page, the information in the infobox is trival at best and if anything misleading as his film career was 1932-1966 not 1920 to 1986. Doesn't even tell me he was a film star let alone notable awards and roles. Looks better with just a photograph.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Please provide evidence of your accusation or strike it. I maintain that I have no idea who Signoria is, or why I am being associated with said user. If you don't provide evidence for your accusation or strike it, I will count this as a personal attack and look for further sanctions which will either force you to provide evidence, strike it or be blocked. You can't throw around baseless smears just to discredit someone you see as an opponent. I'm not even arguing for or against - I'm arguing against arguing and set this RfC up to end animosity in good faith. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said "was subsequently accused" and I'm frankly not convinced after the biting tone of some of your ANI posts that this is purely in good faith.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of stating "subsequently accused?" For me, it has the carries the same weight. You are either accusing me (therefore provide diffs or strike the accusation) or you are stating I was "subsequently accused", which doesn't mean you are accusing me - in which case, it doesn't need to be said does it? In which case, strike it or I will take this to ANI. You can't just smear people you disagree with. What sort of things could I make up to accuse (or "subsequently" accuse) you of? Crimes in real life? Would that be fair? I think you would agree it wouldn't. You've seen my IP is from Reading and not Thailand, so you know (as you have always known) I am not Singnoria. So your accusation is false and should be struck from this record. Do the honourable thing, thanks. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment still appears to be there, Blofeld. Diffs, strike or Arbcom. It's a simple request and simple to fix. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose an infobox. It doesn't add any value to the article, rather yet its trivial factoids are easily accessible in the lead. Far more attractive as a standalone image. JAGUAR 17:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Factoids" are assumptions or speculations which are reported and repeated so often that they become accepted as fact (Cummins and Macintyre, 2002:436). I do not see how infoboxes, which are supposed to contain verifiable facts, fall under such a definition. Although I see how such a confusion could lead one to oppose such measures. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My reasons for opposing infoboxes for certain biographies are always clear. By "factoids" I was referring to the trivial items this infobox contains—the only instance I can think of where an infobox is actually useful for listing one's wives is Henry VIII. On top of this it adds no value to the article and is useless to a reader unless they're doing a pub quiz. JAGUAR 13:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Infoboxes are not added to articles to add value, they are added to enhance readability. Which they do just fine. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we'll agree to disagree there. JAGUAR 20:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support collapsable box like in Frank Sinatra. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support:
  • Wikipedia's aim is to to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, and I'll emphasise the benefit readers part.
  • Infoboxes benefit readers- they allow people to quickly access the facts they want- and on this particular article, this is particularly important- a concern raised at its GA review was that the article was too long.
  • From a study- many readers look only at the information box, summary text, lists, sub titles, references, or maybe only keywords (section 2.3).
  • Infoboxes are also useful for metadata outside of Wikipedia.
  • I understand that the article had an infobox on that was later removed in 2016, but I think that in this particular article an infobox would (with the right populated fields, something which can be refined after this RfC), on the whole, be useful to our readers- and that's our aim at the end of the day (support collapsible as a compromise too).

jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Dr. Blofeld. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per precedent set by other articles on the wiki. Ingrid Bergman, for example, has an infobox, as do Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney, and the majority of the other actors I take a look at. Why, exactly, is this article an odd one out? I'm kind of shocked this RfC is even necessary. Gimubrc (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you a sock of, you've made two edits in 18 months and both of those have been in RFCs. Would you mind if I open a Checkuser case?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By all means open a Checkuser case; I have nothing to hide. My opinion stands. Gimubrc (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! So this is your 'thing', is it? You seem to be a bit trigger happy with sock accusations, is it a historical problem for you? I'd advise you wind it in, mate. Accusing people of being socks without evidence is a personal attack and to be honest, it hurts you as much as it (intentionally) hurts the people you are targeting. Doesn't really look particularly clever bludgeoning an RfC with sock allegations against everyone who appears to be in opposition to you. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Infoboxes are not mandatory and "precedent" is better known as other stuff exists. There is no need for further point scoring because all the arguments have been hashed and rehashed. This article has a good lead and is fine the way it is. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Infoboxes benefit some, even if not all, readers. Omnedon (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think infoboxes are of great use to our customers, the readers of Wikipedia. They come to the English Wikipedia from all walks of life and from allover the world, maybe not being able to read much English, maybe not knowing much about the history of film, maybe just learning to read and, as editors, presenting a easy-to-read, "just the facts" short-digest form of the article to our worldwide readership is an important consideration on all these aspects. I understand that some don't like them and some do but just because some other articles have infoboxes and some don't has no bearing on this RFC. Interested editors get to decide, as a community, what goes for this particular article. Shearonink (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I find infoboxes to be very helpful and am always disappointed (and often a bit confused) when I stumble upon a page without one. On the other hand, I've never been disappointed to see an infobox. They contain useful information at a glance and I believe they improve Wikipedia. Dbrote (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't think an infobox is that useful here. It's oversimplifying. Kaldari (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (see my following comment) - As a reader, I cannot properly express my lack of understanding on this topic. There simply does not appear to be good cause to keep infoboxes off of Wikipedia articles, anymore than the Table of Contents. As a sysop, they have been widely known to be utilized by our readers (this research paper published by the University of Strathclyde firmly confirms this - see figure 5 on page 9), and this ownership-level way of treating articles needs to come to an end. If infoboxes have been found to assist our readers, there can be only harm caused by their lack of utilization. In 2017, I honestly can't believe this is even still debatable. As far as I can tell, there doesn't appear to be any reason to keep them off articles besides that their presence irritates some of our editors. I do not see why that should even be considered as a valid reason to oppose this, nor do I believe that circular reasoning such as it being discussed before should be considered logical nor should bear weight in this discussion at all. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To understand the anti-infobox POV, see Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes (and Wikipedia:Too many boxes). Kaldari (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Always good when an admin makes snide and unfounded accusations of ownership and feigned disbelief that other people dare have the temerity to hold an opposing viewpoint to them. Good grief! - SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem and red herrings (how many readers do we honestly believe have read Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes or even Wikipedia:Infoboxes for that matter), do not make my point less logical or valid. Although the expedience with which they were tried is very troubling to me (as it would be when reviewing such a discussion from a third-person perspective). It also goes to show exactly how horridly some editors (and IPs) clearly get treated here the second the word infobox is even thought of. If not for any other reason than to bring a full stop to such corrosive behavior (which we've apparently let grow to such an extent that users think this is actually acceptable), I now strongly support the inclusion of an infobox on this article. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your uncivil and snide accusation of ownership (utterly unfounded, and as an admin you should know much, much better) has no place here. You have your opinion, sure, but that gives you no right to make such accusations against others. If you want to know what's corrosive behaviour is, it's that, Coffee, so dismount the high horse and take on board your first approach is unedifying. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply to Coffee- I have already posted on this page Arbcom's ruling that infoboxes are optional-The Arbcom ruling in the Infoboxes case 2013 was [2] "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. 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."I find it unacceptable for you, an admin, to come here and post the same old stuff pro infobox warriors have been trying to shove down our throats for years - "readers love infoboxes, look here's a study, why are we even talking about this, every article should have an infobox, you don't own this article." You are rude and disrespectful to the editors who have worked hard to create and improve this article and don't want a dumbed down list of trivia at the top of the article. You are attempting to WP:BLUDGEON your opinion in here as the only acceptable one and I find your behaviour disgusting. I strongly oppose an infobox on the article for the reasons given by Cassianto below.Smeat75 (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Coffee, what the hell do you think you are doing giving your opinion on this RfC "As a sysop"? How dare you? Your position as an admin on WP does not give your opinion any more validity than mine or anyone else's and it is a misuse of adminship to try to throw your weight around based on the fact of your having a mop. You should strike that out, if you don't I hope the closer will not give any more weight to your opinion "As a sysop" than to anyone else's.Smeat75 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simply stating what my perspective has been from my responsibilities here. I do not see what there is to get worked up about about stating such (nor about infoboxes at all for that matter). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose (only "strong" because of the rather silly "strong support" above). One cherry picked academic study means little. It doesn't look at understanding or information retention; it doesn't compare between articles with idiotboxes and without (or the comprehension of the topic between the two); and it doesn't look at reader experience/enjoyment. What is does show is that the eye gets drawn to a block of bullet points; it doesn't matter what dross is in the bullet points, just that the eye gets drawn away from text and onto a list of trivial factoids that provide very little intelligent information about the subject in hand.

IBs are not great in certain types of biographical articles, and actors are one of those areas. While great for politicians, the military and sportsmen (those with records or positions to record), but not for actors. Does a list of Grants's wives in any way help understanding of his acting method or record? Reading the lead gives me a summary of Grant's life and his career. Reading the suggested IB above makes me think the only reason we have an article is that this man married several people. It's utterly unhelpful and unenlightening.

The "Don't forget the metadata!" argument is a straw man. There is already an entry in Wikidata (with all the same pointless information), so it does not need to be here again in order for Google and others to use: they strip info from Wikidata, not here, so it's absence here does not affect either Wikidata or third party users.

• Cary Grant-Bing box
• Cary Grant=Google box

The ArbCom case of 2013 stated that discussions about IBs should focus on the IB under discussion at the time, not to "avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general". I read through the comments here and note that there is very little about the box on Grant's article. The IDONTLIKE the absence of the box and the IDONTLIKE the presence of a box arguments need to be focussed more on this article, rather than generalisations.

If we are serious about "helping readers", it isn't by providing such a pointless box that does not aid understanding about a person. That is why we summarise an article (particularly a long one like this) in a lead. Anyone who wants to know anything useful about Grant can find it in the lead, particularly in the first paragraph. Sorry if this is an unfashionable point of view, even if some can't believe this is even still debatable, but dismissing other people's opinions so utterly out of hand is unedifying and uncollegiate. - SchroCat (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "Anyone who wants to know anything useful about Grant can find it in the lead, particularly in the first paragraph." His age when he died is not listed in the first paragraph. Banaticus (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's because it's not useful - it's one of the least useful things imaginable. Anyone can claim not to find some piece of trivia that isn't available, even in the fullest IB (where's his height, inside leg measurement, summary of school exam results, etc - all equally trivial dross along with age at death. Besides, if people are that interested in his age at death, simple maths when looking at his birth and death dates will provide an answer. - SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Things are not "off-topic" simply because you disagree with them. Just as infoboxes are not "disinfoboxes" simply because you don't like how they look. Empirically, it is obvious that infoboxes contain information, as it's typed into them for display. Just as anyone can empirically see the pains of editors who cannot detach themselves from their work for what they are. But that's not what this site is for. This encyclopedia is made for all of the English speaking world to see and edit, not just a privileged few who are selected by nothing other than who put their stake in the ground first. And the editors who wrote, paraphrased, and referenced these articles knew that when they chose to participate here (the very message at the bottom of the edit box reads: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL"). But yet, we still see articles get treated much like this talk page has been by you: as if it is owned by a singular individual or group (as is the case here). This RFC, like every discussion on this site, is not a vote. Therefore, it is not for you, as an editor with a very clear agenda, to make the call on what is or isn't "off-topic". But, you knew that. You especially shouldn't be collapsing anyone's comments. But, you definitely knew that. So, why the disconnect? It appears to be a rather ingenious style of gaslighting utilized to make logical people become unhinged, when them unhinging is the only way to strengthen the gaslighter's position (in this case making several comments that allude to an almost paranoia in the opposing individual, and then furthering that by this edit including its summary where the gaslighting individual tells myself, the opposing editor, to not edit-war while they are doing just that). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin please note: I have made no reference to disinfoboxes, or the aesthetic appeal of such boxes. Neither, despite the comment above, do I come here with an "agenda" or that whoever got here first has their "stake in the ground". These are all misrepresenting my position, which is clearly stated in my main substantive comment above. - SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not mean the singular you (in the second sentence of my comment, which you are referring to), but the plural abstract form. I never said anything else above that implied that your agenda was stated where everyone could read it, nor would I. I also didn't state that you created this article... or any for that matter, the stake in the ground is a reference to the way some of the editors you frequently edit near treat the topics they write on, and to you furthering that cause. Beyond correcting your misleading comment, I see no need to reply to you further (unless you misrepresent this comment as well). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- In light of Singora being here, and nobody appearing to really be bothered at having this troll lurking about, again, I may as well offer my opinion here for personal conformity. I am neither for nor against infoboxes, in general. In fact, I consider them to be a great tool on complicated articles such as royalty, music, film, political, sports, military, and geographical articles; however, I consider them to be completely useless everywhere else. There is a belief on Wikipedia that as infoboxes are used on the majority of our articles, then they must be used everywhere. Wrong. Here are some of my reasons for not including an infobox here:

1. Undisciplined expansiveness: A maximum-inclusion approach to fields that leads editors to place repetitive, sometimes downright silly information in the box. (There needs to be clear, prominent advice about not using every single field in every circumstance, and rather the need to ration the information, shaping it to the context.)
2. Visual degradation: The way this infobox squashes the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.
3. Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel this infobox gives to this article: "here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the box" says it all.
4. Disconnected particles: It's domination of the very opening of this article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.)
5. Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes like this to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)
6. Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see WP:Featured lists for what I mean.)

Finally, this article is not on my watch list and will remain off it in the future. I couldn't give a toss about the outcome. I will not respond here to pings or responses. Good luck. Cassianto^Talk 20:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From the 2013 case:

1.1) This case arises from a series of disputes concerning whether and when Wikipedia articles should include infoboxes. Because there is no project-wide policy governing when infoboxes should be used, disagreements concerning their inclusion arise with some regularity. These disagreements are sometimes resolved as they should be, through collegial discussion and consensus, but too often the consensus-building process has broken down, in a fashion that has been extremely demoralizing to many editors. Reasons for such breakdowns include:

• "It is not clear how infobox disputes are to be resolved (e.g. if 5 editors favor including an infobox in a given article and 5 disfavor it, there is no default rule and no policy guidance for determining how the consensus is to be determined, so the dispute continues indefinitely).
• " It is not clear to what degree, if any, the views of editors with a particular connection to an article (e.g., the editor who created the article or knowledgeable members of a relevant wikiproject) should be accorded any added weight in such discussions, nor is it clear how the potential desirability in uniformity of formatting across articles of a common type should be weighed.
• "A small number of editors have repeatedly behaved poorly and in a polarizing fashion in infobox-related editing and discussions."

Is anyone interested in trying to get ARBCom to rule on something like this? Nothing has changed-the ruling solved nothing. We hope (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom concerns itself with editor behavior, not content disputes. The proper place to go to build a consensus for this topic, would be Village Pump. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were two previous attempts to solve this through ARBCom in August 2016. We hope (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• second try We hope (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• first try We hope (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose infobox per all the good reasons above, as well as it looks classy without a cluttered infobox and a giant map (alas, here lies Cary Grant, coordinates...). If that crying internet guy is still around he might log in and cry his eyes out "Leave Cary Grant alone!" Randy Kryn (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support infobox - Pinged to this section. I have been an editor here for over ten years. Infoboxes are generally not controversial, except when there is a relatively small but determined group opposing them, for example in the area of classical music composers, which is a fine example of a extended time-sink. These are usually turf battles centered on WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDL. I have seen an amazing amount of editor time essentially wasted in lengthy bitter fights. My conclusion: nothing proves that Wikipedia is an arbitrary, parochial children’s playground more than this issue. Since, as noted above, ArbCom is not the way to get this cleared up, I’d be in favor of a Wiki-wide “final decision” Ric to decide this issue once and for all: should Wikipedia info boxes be standard on every biography, or not? Otherwise, this type of situation will keep cropping up. Fellow editors, there are much more important issues to discuss than this. Jusdafax (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support infobox Procedural oppose as far as I can tell, this is the only biography of a prominent person that doesn't have an infobox. I feel the 2013 ruling from ARBCOM is out of date; the "infobox wars" are over, and infoboxes won. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Then you need to look a little more closely. There are many, many biographies of prominent people without IBs, from stubs up to FAs. - SchroCat (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you possibly give me two examples? I specifically checked about 50 random biographies and all had infoboxes, and I cannot recall any examples offhand. There are certainly stubs (Jim Smith (animator) at random) that don't have infoboxes, but not of "prominent" people. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ezra Pound, Claudio Monteverdi, Isabella Beeton, Arthur Sullivan, Golding Bird, Melford Stevenson, Terry-Thomas, Stanley Kubrick, W. B. Yeats ... I could go on, if you wanted – SchroCat (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That's more than enough to prove your point, thank you. I still feel the "per-page" consensus approach is both un-workable and out-of-date, but it's not entirely clear that adding infoboxes everywhere is the right solution. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've switched to a procedural oppose (including opposition to the implicit "moratorium"). There possibly should be an RfC to determine if there's a site-wide consensus to always include infoboxes on biographical Good articles, but an RFC started by a banned user about a single page is not the right way to do it. It probably should happen after the upcoming Wikidata RfC, which also threatens to change how infoboxes are managed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about wikidata:Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Mapping_and_improving_the_data_import_process? Banaticus (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the one from the recent ARBCOM motion. I don't know if there's a link, somebody else should be able to find it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I fully agree with the reasons provided above by Jcc. In my own experience, infoboxes are helpful synopses of key facts. Unlike some other participants in this survey, I find them aesthetically attractive. They enhance articles, and are almost always the second part of an article that I read (after the first sentence of the lede). They were created because they are a good idea, and they still are a good idea. -- WikiPedant (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presenting your POV as fact is not helpful. It is your POV and remains your POV. Cassianto^Talk 19:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose infobox. 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 adequately discussed in the 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, 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 would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) 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. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose infobox. This article has a long, well organised and well written lead section that lays out clearly information such as Grant's citizenship and how many times he was married, which are raised earlier on this page as burning questions that require an infobox to list. The former is an example of the kind of thing an infobox oversimplifies: born in one country, became a naturalised citizen of another. The latter is lengthy and in a box would tend to overshadow the important things about his career; plus there is apparently more information about his relationships than a list of marriages can provide, so it is far better to recount the facts in narrative form. In short, as with many biographies, I do not see that the desire of some potential readers to have their information in pre-digested tabular form justifies pre-empting the nuanced exposition in the lead and, for less important information like his total romantic history, the relevant section of the article body by adding a tabular summary at the top. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose infobox. I like infoboxes even infobox person sometimes; however, this one here is completely unnecessary and trivial. The infobox above tells us about when and where Grant was born and died, his occupation and the most trivial information (ugh): the list of his wives and his daughter, which is also found in the lead. Also, the lead looks rather clean without the over-stuffed box. FrB.TG (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose infobox -- I've had this article on my watchlist for some time, and have made a few edits in the past, but I've waited to see if anyone can post comments convincing me that an infobox is really necessary here. Hasn't happened, and I say this as someone who has used infoboxes in almost every article he's created or heavily edited -- mostly military, where lists of major battles, awards, equipment, etc, lend themselves to such presentation. I don't find that to be the case with actors, directors and other artists, where keeping the vital info to a more nuanced presentation in a well-written lead seems much more appropriate. If all you want is a few brief points like life dates, birth name, spouses, etc, you can just Google or look up IMDb -- I really think we owe our readers something better here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's productive to say that editors should "just Google it" if they want information: the entire point of Wikipedia is to provide information, and infoboxes simply make that information more accessible. Gimubrc (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose infobox for all the reasons so eloquently stated by others above. The well-written lead supplies all the essential information; IBs do not allow for the nuance required in this article. It has already been proven on other articles that a collapsed IB is apparently not acceptable to IB proponents as a compromise. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Infoboxes are a container for standard and recurring statistics that are "at-a-glance" material for readers. It doesn't detract from the article in any way other than for the most banal of reasons. --DHeyward (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I came to this article just to find out how old he was when he died. I had to search the article for it because it was missing an infobox. Obviously the lead sucks if I can't just get that info at a glance. Banaticus (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Infoboxes are designed to give key information at a glance. That is their purpose. Even if all of the same information is included in the lead, we cannot expect anyone to know that everything they are looking for for would be there. What if they are looking for something that is not in the lead, but would and could easily be found or added to a well designed infobox? I agree that not "every" article needs an info box, but my argument is that it's a disservice to Wikipedia as a whole to not include an info box in articles that would benefit readers of this site. Now ask yourself one last question. Does an infobox hurt the article? No, probably not. But not having an infobox does make it less convenient for readers, even if the same information is already in the lead, that much is true.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How much of the infoirmation in the infobox further up the page is actually key information though? It doesn't even tell me he's a film actor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And how much of the info which the box is supposedly vital for, isn't found even before one gets to WP-at search engines like Bing and Google? If this is all someone wants, they've read it in search and don't need to come to WP unless it's for more in-depth-information on a given subject, such as an article. We hope (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just butting in, in between Jojhutton's ludicrous comment and another "thank" by an "ignoring" Gerda on a subject she'd rather forget, might I draw everyone back to the following comment: "But not having an infobox does make it less convenient for readers, even if the same information is already in the lead, that much is true." -- This is just another throwaway, unreliable, unattributed pile of stinking horseshit, uttered by the pro-crowd here to make their arguments sound more justified. Can you evidence this wild and completely baseless claim? If not, which I suspect you can't, Why do you consider yourself to speak for "readers"? Cassianto^Talk 18:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please moderate your tone. There is no need for you to attack people. Omnedon (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind your own business and if you have to comment, please make it accurate. I was not attacking "the person", rather the silly, over-inflated comment that lacks evidence. Cassianto^Talk 20:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Mind my own business"? This is a request for comment. And you were most definitely attacking the person, not just the statement. Be civil. Omnedon (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has requested that you comment on whether this article warrants an idiotbox. And that is all. No one has asked you to stick your nose into things that don't concern you. So yes, "mind your own business" if that business - my comment to someone else - has nothing to do with you. It's really not that difficult to understand. Cassianto^Talk 21:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, this is a group discussion. If you can't be civil you have no place here. Omnedon (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion about the infobox, not my "civility". Again, I'd ask you to mind your own business. Cassianto^Talk 14:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion. I'd again ask you to keep in mind the importance of civility. Without it, discussion is difficult. Omnedon (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating yourself doesn't make you right. Repeating myself pisses the hell out of me. So again, mind your own business and keep to the discussion. Cassianto^Talk 01:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one's making you repeat yourself. You're just repeating incivility. Omnedon (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Omnedon's words which you'd do well to heed, for someone who claims that this article is not on my watch list and will remain off it in the future. I couldn't give a toss about the outcome. I will not respond here... you seem to be determined to really bludgeon this one. Also- for evidence read my support !vote above- From a study- many readers look only at the information box, summary text, lists, sub titles, references, or maybe only keywords (section 2.3). jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now other questions.

• If people can get this information at search engines like Google and Bing, why come to WP at all? It would seem the reason would be for more information, such as an article.

It's doubtful they've come to compare IBs but if we explore that premise, we come up with the questions:

• Why write/expand/improve articles at all and nominate them for DYK, GA and FA? Why does WP count items by X number of articles-not IBs on site? The place could be turned into Wikibox with the probability that a lot of the copyvio and RS issues would cease to exist as there would be no annoying text for possible cutting and pasting? We hope (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore the infobox per WP:INFOBOX, WP:BRD, and our general principle to revert to the status quo ante when consensus cannot be reached about inclusion or removal of something. This article had an infobox for years without any issue. I agree with the comments at the abortive ANI thread that this needs to go back to ArbCom. This "infobox warring" bullshit is really, really tedious (in both the pro and con directions) and needs to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  See also Talk:Kenneth Williams#Infobox, essentially the same discussion with mostly the same people just at a different page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then see what YOU can do about getting ARBCom to hear a case; there were 2 tries in August 2016. Both were tabled.We hope (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, in the absence of any infobox being presented as a sample for this article. Softlavender (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, but only for this page: Here, the info box does not contain anything that isn't in the lead. However, there are cases when the lead is simply too large too accommodate all info box details, so an info box will be apt in those cases. Advice people to use common sense and see if the info box is summarised in the lead section of the article and if not, try to do so. Even if that is unsuccessful, then an info box is needed. But not for this page, please. 2.51.22.88 (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support an infobox. I realize that the main contributing editors here strongly oppose an infobox because they would prefer that readers just read their carefully-written prose. But having an infobox with basic biographical information (there was one in a section up above) does not in any way preclude readers from also reading the delightful prose. Moreover, if people are here to just get that basic information, it really doesn't make sense to force them to read the whole thing no matter how well-written that prose is. Finally, all the talk of how aesthetically displeasing the infobox is falls a little short when it would be just an extension of the photo that is already there. Ca2james (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support an infobox. A useful feature for a bio of this length and depth. Coretheapple (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Almost every other actor has one, and it does provide a useful overview of a person's career. As I'm coming from outside this debate, I'm somewhat even surprised that this is a controversial issue. --Deathawk (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support an infobox. Anecdotally, I found them useful on actor biography articles in finding out key information quickly, which is obviously their intended purpose. It's not as easy finding the same information in the verbose prose, even if it's in the lede. They aren't mutually exclusive. Not sure why the fact that some readers will only read what's in the infobox and then move on instead of reading the prose is such a concern. Not everybody is interested in reading paragraphs nor is everyone interested in the summary provided in the infobox format. Giving readers the option of obtaining whatever information they need in either way is ideal. I agree that they can become bloated and visually intrusive though making it collapsible will remedy that. And while the size of the box and how much information it contains will always be up for debate, the same can be said for prose. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

I will not object, if this RFC is aborted. Seeing as its been started by a possible evading editor. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: I'm not sure it matters too much- this is a discussion we needed to have anyway to establish a consensus for the next two years. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[3], [4] , [5] More diffs from the IP who opened the RFC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: RE: my comment to you above, as you can see (as as you well know) smearing a user with an accusation can discredit their opinion and efforts (as seen here with GoodDay). I will need diffs/evidence of your accusation that I am this banned editor that in reality, I have no connection with. If IP's are not allowed to start RfC's, my apologies - I haven't read that anywhere and was acting in good faith to resolve a dispute. I don't fully understand why you are so upset with an RfC being started, which looks to resolve the matter one way or the other (likely in your favour) and put the argument to bed. But if you continue to smear me, I will seek further sanctions. I'm yet to see what your diffs currently prove, other than a user showing utter bewilderment at the timesink bickering of grown adults. To repeat, you must either back up your accusation or strike it, or I will count it as a bad faith smear and personal attack in an attempt to temper agreement against your POV, which will force me to seek sanctions. Once again, I'm not sure why you need to go after me - I haven't voted one way or the other, nor intend to. I personally have no idea what the fuss is about - include one, don't include one; does it really matter that much? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: As above, I've assked Blofeld to rightly strikes his comment, I will ask that you strike yours. You can't smear people you disagree with (what exactly are you disagreeing with?), with baseless accusations. How about I make up some of my own about you? Would that be fair? Strike it please. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How dare I even 'think' that you could be an banned editor. What is this world coming to. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not really interested in your huff at the world mate. And you didn't 'think' it, you wrote it. How about I dare 'think', in writing, that you are say, a racist? Are you cool with me going around saying "don't forget, GoodDay is a likely racist. I think I've seen him write racist things before. I don't have any links right now, I'm busy eating a sandwich. But keep the whole racist thing in mind when you read his opinion." My money is on you not liking that very much. Strike the accusation, back it up or I'll take it to Arbcom. It's a simple and fair request. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it will stop you from whining? then I apologize for remotely suggesting you're a banned editor. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've notified the relevant Wikiprojects since the starter of the RfC didn't do so and I propose to ping everyone who has participated in the previous informal discussions up to six months ago (so from September onwards) but hasn't commented here yet (regardless of whether they're for/against), which is explicitly allowed under Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. The same guideline states that I should let this talk page know beforehand, which is what I'm doing now. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, plenty of people have posted comments above since, so I'll assume they're ok with this- @WikiPedant, Enlil Ninlil, Littleolive oil, Nonstopmaximum, Randy Kryn, Jonathunder, Jusdafax, Davidbrookesland, Jojhutton, DuncanHill, HughMorris15, Roxy the dog, Pawnkingthree, Yngvadottir, GuzzyG, and Rebbing:. Looking at this notification? An editor has opened a formal RfC on whether an infobox should be included above and you are welcome to comment. You were pinged as you had previously contributed to a discussion within the last six months on the same topic. Let me know if I've missed anyone out. To avoid canvassing, I've pinged everybody who hasn't already commented, regardless of their viewpoint.jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A mandatory freeze on infobox RfCs cannot be enacted via RfC. Softlavender (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, so if there is no consensus this time it can reopen on January 15 for another round of infobox jollies. How sad.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Grant
Publicity photo for Suspicion (1941)
Born	Archibald Alec Leach (1904-01-18)January 18, 1904 Horfield, Bristol
Died	November 29, 1986(1986-11-29) (aged 82) Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, California

How about a simple infobox like this? Several users objected to the list of wives or "years active" or a "stuffed infobox". Lets leave them out. Wikipedia is read by users from all different languages and all different parts of the world. Infoboxes make it easier for those people, and also for computers scraping facts. Banaticus (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is probably the best way to handle it, personally. Support this as an option. Gimubrc (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will cover this in my comment just below this one. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the opposed editors like the clean look of the page, without the imposing and unneeded infobox title 'Cary Grant' and the extra lines around the photograph that an infobox brings. I don't know if it's old school, but in addition to the good points made by editors who don't want an infobox, the page just looks nice, as it is. It makes Wikipedia look a little more classy. The guideline language does allow for exceptions, and since so many editors are arguing to keep it as it is, that seems to qualify an obvious no-consensus close as an exception. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks classier/more professional without it, aside from the infobox containing no important information.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox you've provided here looks utterly ridiculous. Why do you think this is of any benefit at all? Cassianto^Talk 20:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Name - at the top of the article and on the first line of the lead
2. Date of birth - on the first line of the lead
3. Date of death - on the first line of the lead
4. Picture caption - the same with or without an idiotbox

That the information may be in the first paragraph is great, but someone new to the discussion who comes here will only know that they're now faced with the daunting prospect of a giant article and the information found who knows where. Infoboxes provide important information in a way that random editors are used to. They don't know that Cary Grant was rated a great article. They just see an article that's missing something that virtually every other Wikipedia page has, and a giant article that they have to comb through to find whatever it is they're looking for. Also, the article lacks his age at death. Banaticus (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I view the article (without an infobox), there are lines around the image, so I'm not sure that the infobox adds lines that wouldn't be there otherwise... And Cassianto, "looks utterly ridiculous" seems like simply an unsupported opinion. The infobox provided does contain important information: when and where he was born, when and where he died, how old he lived to be, his birth name. How are these items not important? Omnedon (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of "unsupported opinions" on here, such as "the reader likes the clean look"; "the reader needs an infobox"; "infoboxes are a good tool"; and the rest of the bullshit spouted by certain people here. Cassianto^Talk 01:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article lacks his age at date of death while the infobox has it. Additionally, researchers (and their bots) use infoboxes -- having to manually sift through articles imposes an unnecessary burden. The same goes for users unfamiliar with the article who don't know that the information they want is in the lead. All they know is that it's somewhere in a giant article. We need to stop looking at this issue as users familiar with the article and look at it from the viewpoint of someone who just wants information. Some might say, "But we want a user to read the whole article". Yes we do, and someone who wants to read everything about Cary Grant will read the whole article whether or not there's an infobox while someone who just wants quick info will want an infobox. Banaticus (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you assume that our readers are thick and not able to read the very short lead, which itself is a summary of the entire article? Cassianto^Talk 18:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the correct process, if any, for getting an uninvolved third party to assess the consensus here? I think in an argument this bitter, there should be some kind of last word as to whether or not the infobox ought to be included. Gimubrc (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, but it's pretty obvious, at least to me, that there is no consensus. Maybe a point in favor of leaving it as it is is that this article was brought up to 'Good' status in 2016, and was judged so without the infobox. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gimubrc: To explain Cassianto's reverts- RfCs are closed after 30 days in general unless there is still a lot of comments being left, which isn't the case here. I've left a request for closure at WP:ANRFC. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcc: Granted, but given how bitter this argument has been, I can't help but feel like some sort of official closure might be best, if only so we don't have to have this RfC again in a few months. After all, it seems to have brought out the worst in quite a few editors. If you've left a request, though, I suppose that's enough. Gimubrc (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]