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. A field that misleads readers shouldn't be included.
• "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. A field that misleads readers shouldn't be included.
• "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. A field that misleads readers shouldn't be included.
• "Lists of films/awards": these have been added to the example here. They really are quite pointless to include (and I mean that literally). The fields themselves contain zero information, just the words "Full list", which tells us nothing about Olivier. Their purpose therefore is not to directly provide a reader with any information, which seems odd, considering an IB on the page is supposed to summarise key features of Olivier.

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". Nor should an IB be there on the basis of "article navigation": claiming it makes the article easier to navigate" is not only false, but is also not a reason to break the long-standing status quo to include one. 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 will 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' or 'it's jarring not having one'. No article is 'born' with an IB: they have to have a solid rationale for inclusion, which includes whether they will do more harm than good. In the case of Olivier, an infobox full of fields that mislead readers shouldn't be included. - 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]

If a user comes to the article and wants to see a list of works or awards it's more difficult to access that information without an infobox. As I argued before, I disagree with your interpretation of the click data. Users click on links in the lead section 32% of the time versus 18% in the infobox. Given there's more links in the lead I'm not sure how you're drawing a conclusion that an infobox doesn't make the site easier to navigate. The fierce opposition to a helpful navigation tool is bizarre to me. Nemov (talk) 18:33, 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 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]

• What a hurtful contribution! The people (e.g. me) at whom User:Jojhutton is sniping are not anti info-boxes. If I recall correctly the last article I created from scratch contained an i-b, because it was helpful there to our readers. For the Olivier article the main editors, the peer reviewers and the FAC reviewers did not request one, because it is not useful to our readers for that article. Tim riley talk 21:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems to me that I didn’t mention anyone by name. I’m not sure who exactly you are referring to when you say, “The people”, but if you identify under the statement I made, then that’s on you, not me. I was just making a counter argument as to why infoboxes are useful, especially in this article. JOJ ^Hutton 23:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: There is no harm in including an infobox if the article's size is sufficiently big enough. RPI2026F1 (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: For the same reasons set out by RPI2026F1, Jojhutton and for the reasons I've said previously. That some frequent editors of the page seem to believe that they are not useful is no substitute for the very apparent user expectation that an infobox exists. As many have stated previously, the lack of an infobox on certain biographies, particularly in the arts, on seemingly the sole ground that these artists are distinguished or that they raise "factoids" (as if that's not the point of an infobox) is arbitrary and creates a jarring user experience. Skymann102 (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In my opinion an infobox is only weird if the box is larger than all of the text excluding the references, and even then many articles such as geographic locations have infoboxes larger than the rest of the article. RPI2026F1 (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I do not see any reason why there shouldn't be an infobox when basically every other notable entertainer has one.--Ollieisanerd (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: An infobox will be useful to the reader or casual browser. Period. Readers don't care if this particular infobox is part of some smokey-room secret Wikilluminati debate over the general application of infoboxes. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Infoboxes are a useful tool for cataloging brief, factual pieces of information that are often matters of public curiosity ("When did [Person X] die again?"). They don't compete with the lead – rather, they're a supplementary resource, and are especially useful for people who are seeking to check specific facts rather than intending to read the article prose in the first place. For Laurence Olivier in particular, I think one of the primary assets of an infobox would be its provision of an immediately obvious link to Laurence Olivier on stage and screen at the top of the page – these "list of works" articles are helpful information for biographies in arts and entertainment, and readers will benefit from not having to travel to the bottom of the article to find it. (Additionally, while much has been made of the relative unimportance of many of the details included in Olivier's infobox, I would argue that that's not a bug but a feature. For example, it's been stated (correctly) that Olivier isn't famous for having had three wives – but in that case, surely it's better to set that information off to the side in an infobox, rather than having it in the prose of the lead?) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no point digging through prose to find simple information—blindlynx 21:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Infoboxes are useful and time saving tools. Also, most biographies have them. —Wasell^(T) 🌻🇺🇦 12:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support: Infoboxes are incredibly beneficial in my view, and a widely used tool throughout wikipedia. It's very weird that some people who oppose said inclusion see key enclyopedic information (birth date, death date, place of birth, place of death, nationality etc) are somehow "trivial facts" on an online encyclopedia... Alssa1 (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is place of death important? I can't imagine saying to someone: Do you like Olivier's Hamlet? You know, he died in Steyning! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:NOTDATABASE puts it: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As infoboxes just list factoids, they fail to provide the context that is essential to imparting encyclopaedic value. What is the significance of his place of death? Why do we mention his wives? In the rest of the article, paragraphs that just list facts without contextualisation are justly criticised, tagged, and removed, but in an infobox that should suddenly not apply because… reasons? Xover (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they did not impart enclyopedic value, they would not be on the world's largest online encyclopedia. It's curious that some have chosen a potential infobox on the Lawrence Olivier page as a hill to die on. Tell me, why are you not waging this anti-infobox crusade across the entire site, surely your criticisms apply to all infoboxes? Alssa1 (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is circular. We get to decide what gets prominence here. Encyclopedic value can be a sliding scale; we don’t need to feature every last detail in the lead. — HTGS (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My criticisms do apply to all infoboxes, but they are not equally relevant for all articles. Which is why my main argument is that as long as there is no global policy on the project that mandates infoboxes on all articles, the choice of whether or not to include an infobox in a given article should—like citation style, English-language variant, and a number of other issues—be left up to the main long-term contributors to choose and the rest of us should explicitly defer to that choice. Unlike your average BOLD edit (which WP:BRD works fine to handle), infoboxes is not something a drive-by contributor should concern themselves with over the expressed preference of the long-term contributors.

I also do not appreciate your combative language (hill to die on) or casting of aspersions (waging this anti-infobox crusade). I can speak for no one but myself, but I can hardly be accused of "waging an anti-infobox crusade" when I argue the position on one article and based on the preference and long-standing consensus among the major contributors to that article. Particularly when I have explicitly expressed my support for a project-wide policy to mandate infoboxes (different reasoning). If you must apply the label of "crusader" to anyone, a more apt target would be those who here !vote in support of imposing an infobox on an article to which they have not themselves contributed and explicitly against the will of that article's long-term contributors and standing local consensus.

WP:DR says you are absolutely permitted to open an RfC for such things, but it's still a really crap way to treat people on a collaborative project, and one that is most apt to losing us the very contributors that made this into a featured article. Congrats on winning the infobox, I guess? Xover (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is my view, that if you oppose the inclusion of infoboxes generally you should be taking that up with other editors on a more 'global' (cross-wikipedia) basis, rather than focusing on one article specifically. A cursory glance of your edit history shows you're quite comfortable editing pages with infoboxes without bringing up this opposition to their inclusion on those pages. With that in mind the question must be posed: what is it about Lawrence Olivier's page that makes an infobox uniquely inappropriate? As for your suggestion that the views of 'long-term contributors' should somehow have greater say over what's included borders on WP:OWN. Alssa1 (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. As I've noted multiple times in this discussion, I support a project-wide policy to make infoboxes mandatory (with the usual caveats and IAR clauses). I also routinely add infoboxes to all the articles I create (or overhaul). I am saying that because this is a controversial issue, that has twice been before ArbCom and twice ArbCom has asked the community to get its act together and make policy about this, to use a process like RfC to overrule the local consensus on an article is a crap way to treat the contributors that have put in hundreds of hours and sweated every little detail creating a featured article. If there is some overarching need to impose an infobox over their preference then that fact in itself means the issue should instead be settled through project-wide policy rather than this gaming of the system for one single article.

What's going to happen every time another article has an infobox imposed on it through this kind of mechanism is that the long-term contributors to that article are going to feel ill used, defeated, unappreciated, and fed up. If they happen to be the kind of person that is at all prone to losing their cool they are very likely to express this frustration in a way that gets them blocked or even banned. If they're not then we have "merely" put another reason into the big sack of "Why the heck should I bother contributing to this project?". It is going to (keep) costing us contributors we can ill afford to lose, and at least some of those are going to be the kinds of editors that are willing and able to write our featured articles (some of them several tens or even hundreds of featured articles). It creates bad blood, and those prone to nursing grievances will carry this around to cloud their interactions with other editors in other articles and other topics, and we get unneeded conflict and strife generally on the project.

Contrariwise, if those who are so hell-bent on having an infobox on every single article were to channel their energies towards gaining a consensus for a project-wide policy to that effect, those opposed to infoboxes would still be frustrated but now in an impersonal and much more diffuse way. In my experience, this kind of project-wide policy (be it through the MoS or straight up policy policy) may be grumbled at, by those who disagree, but rarely causes the hurts and fights the imposition of an unwanted feature to an individual article does. Having something regulated in the MoS, and having MoS compliance as a FA criteria, also creates a soft incentive to make people comply on their own accord (because they want that star) rather then forcing them directly to do something they do not want in an article they have invested "blood, sweat, and tears" in.

To say that this has anything to do with OWN is as misguided as saying the same about CITEVAR or ENGVAR. We have explicit carveouts for the judgements of the main contributors' judgement on a given article (in general and explicitly in WP:OWN), both because they are best placed to make that (often extremely nuanced) judgement and to avoid the very situation of someone external with a bee in their bonnet running amuck and changing something across the project. CITEVAR in particular exists because someone periodically got it into their heads that all articles must use my preferred citation style and went around changing citations on articles they had never contributed to, and using any and all methods allowed (including RfC) to make it so ("come hell or high water").

Or as a possibly more succinct way to put it: how many of those here !voting support do you think will stick around afterwards to help with actually curating the contents of that infobox? The long-term contributors of the article will be stuck with that massively thankless task, struggling to keep up with the addition of trivial factoids, fighting about what needs inline cites inside the infobox, trying to find ways to express a hugely nuanced issue within the constraints of the infobox and the ~3 words there's room for. Why in the world should we not defer to those who will actually have to do the work? Why in the world would we instead defer to the people who swing by to say "I like it this way, now you do the work to make it so!"? Xover (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world should we not defer to those who will actually have to do the work? Why in the world would we instead defer to the people who swing by to say "I like it this way, now you do the work to make it so!"?

I have worked on articles significantly and changes have been made that I didn't agree with, but I yielded to the consensus. I appreciate editor's work, but if someone quits over an IB that undoubtedly makes articles easier to navigate, I question their long term temperament for editing and getting along with others. Nemov (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is rather an extraordinary thing to say. Are you really prepared to defend the implications of such a stance? That you are so convinced of the "undoubtable" correctness of your opinion that all other viewpoints are clearly aberrant and their adherents best removed from the project sooner rather than later? We are a global collaborative and consensus-based project, and I would hope also one inclusive of all people that wish to contribute. To be frustrated when feeling ill used, and to sometimes express that frustration in non-constructive ways, is as human as using the toilet. If we do not constrain ourselves from pushing people to this point except when the need is pressing (and adding an infobox to one article is hardly pressing) then we undermine the pillars on which the project and the movement as a whole is built. Or put more succinctly: that someone disagrees with you is rarely a sign of their mental deficiency. Xover (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xover, you are missing the point. If someone were to quit when faced with disagreement from the community over a trivial matter—the presence or absence of an infobox—then they may well not have a personality that suits group projects where the community is frequently involved. More broadly, I am often grateful for the external viewpoints brought in by RfCs. There are many pages where an individual or a small group have pushed a particular version that most editors and readers would view as “wrong” when looking at the whole encyclopaedia, and the only way to make change is to bring in outsiders. (This page might be an example, although I don’t personally see the absence of an IB as problematic.) — HTGS (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HTGS: I would assert that the opposite is true: you (collective) are missing the point. You are implying the presence of one of our many types of problematic editors. I am saying normal non-problematic editors are in danger of being driven off by this approach.

If the issue of an infobox is so trivial that getting frustrated when is imposed is out of proportion, then it is not an issue the wider community should put this much weight behind imposing (the amount of force is out of proportion to the importance of the issue). If, however, the issue is important enough to justify steamrolling over those local editors then it is also an issue that should be attacked at a project-wide policy level rather than locally.

And I should add… if you think the matter of an infobox is trivial then you have not been paying attention over the last ~15 years. We know for a fact that this is an issue that causes conflict and lasting bad blood within our community, because we have twice had to hash the resulting fallout out before ArbCom. And both times ArbCom has begged the community to go do precisely what I am tell you now: go make a project-wide policy about this! Xover (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“… normal non-problematic editors are in danger of being driven off by this approach.”

It wasn’t really my point, but the response was more that (hypothetical) people who are driven off by an RfC are probably not as pure and non-problematic as you suggest they are. That issue is open to debate, but I think for the sake of everyone here it’s better to agree to disagree.

My only goal personally is that an RfC would resolve this debate (for at least a good amount of time). As indicated by my !vote above, I don’t care much which way, it goes, but perhaps the resolution of this debate can be used in a possible future discussion on a project-wide standard. (I personally don’t have much hopes for a lot of change there though; the MOS folks these days are very led by WP:CREEP and WP:MOSBLOAT.) — HTGS (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On problematic vs. non-problematic I have a few thousand years of human nature and science on my side of the argument: when something we care about is threatened, or we are otherwise put under stress, we react with various defensive strategies. The ones we notice are the ones that blow up spectacularly. The ones we don't are the ones that quietly taper down and then quit their participation. So by all means let's agree to disagree, but I know where we're headed long term if we do not collectively muster the empathy with and tolerance for those with whom we disagree. For example over whether having an infobox is "unquestionably" better or its addition a "trivial" matter.

Oh well. I hope the process will lay the question to rest, on this article, for the foreseeable future. But I fear the cost of this, and the ongoing slow attrition across the project instead of addressing it head on, will be far dearer than we can afford before the issue is finally settled. Xover (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I find it very useful to have quick, basic biographical details presented in this way. I appreciate some don't find them useful, but the balance between the cost of having one (editors who don't find it useful will have to ignore it, like in almost every article) and the cost of not having one (editors who would find it useful will have to look elsewhere) clearly favours inclusion. I find the arguments that it would lack sufficient nuance to be unconvincing and overly prescriptivist in terms of the "right way" to read an article.--Trystan (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as our data shows the info box is a very important part of the lead to readers dataMoxy- 21:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Helps especially mobile users provide quick info about Olivier. How the infobox is properly executed can be discussed at another appropriate time. George Ho (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I find infoboxes very useful, and while I'm sympathetic to some of the arguments presented against here, I don't find them compelling. Many of the arguments feel more appropriate to have once the infobox is in place, as they seem to hinge on it being used incorrectly. A fair fear, but that's part and parcel of creating content, and I'm confident that the wisdom of experienced editors will ensure the infobox maintains the articles' excellent quality. Otherwise, the value to the reader of having the quick hit info outweighs aesthetic concerns by a country mile, to me. Parabolist (talk) 23:09, 26 November 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]

• We're almost a month into this RfC and I have requested close for this discussion from an outside editor. Nemov (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, Tim Riley wins on nothing but “because i said so” and “because we already talked about it” in lieu of actual arguments, while projecting that others are “hovering around” despite this issue only existing in the first place due to his outright bizarre overprotection of it. I would not be so personal in this response if he himself hadn’t broken discussion rules a dozen times in this discussion! It is actively disgusting that people whose egos’ shine through every word can have such huge sway. This is all one adult’s three-year long temper tantrum, and nothing more. Yoyofsho16 (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I suggest you remove your personal attack? It is both insulting of an editor who is acting in good faith and a tissue of falsehoods. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:395B:F891:FFDB:DAF9 (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]