Template:Vital article

No infobox

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]

Why does Cary Grant not have an infobox when so many other actors do?

Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I wrote an infobox before I saw this protracted debate because i wanted a simple list of Grant's wives/marriages. Reading the article's relevant section takes a fair while to get what should be a snappy result in Wikipedia. I thought I would be doing a service to subsequent readers who could very easily want the same thing I wanted.

Not everyone has the time (or inclination) to wade through verbosity to get simple facts.

In my opinion an infobox should be the norm, and only omitted if a good case for an abnormality is proven (I can't think of a good reason myself).

The consensus so often referred to in this discussion is not relevant..... only the convenience of READERS (not of editors) is important.

--Davidbrookesland (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google has an infobox and boxes for his wives if you're worried about the article not having them..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your view. CassiantoTalk 11:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of intellectual snobbery is out of place in Wikipedia, which I had always presumed was a catholic reference work.

There are times when far greater minds than those that indulge in such offensive terminology need quick and easy reference solutions, and there are times when all readers might need lengthier, more in-depth material.

Infoboxes do not run contrary to Wikipedia's mission to impart knowledge to the widest possible readership; this is not Encyclopedia Britannica.

--Davidbrookesland (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many factors which favour the removal of an infobox. As per the many discussions we've had last year it was agreed that this article should not have one, otherwise I think we would be going around in circles. JAGUAR 12:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are no factors that favor the removal of the info box from this article. JOJ Hutton 12:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are. The photograph simply looks better by itself and the infobox has very limited or no value to the reader. The lede sums the article up well. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. CassiantoTalk 12:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion. But it is, and has always been the minority’s opinion in every discussion. Why does the minority opinion prevail over what has been an overwhelming majority of editors in favor of restoring the info box?JOJ Hutton 13:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. Some even talk out of them, most of the time, but that doesn’t make them right. CassiantoTalk 17:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is the minority of editors who do hard work on here writing the articles which would still be short or bloated unsourced crap if they weren't properly researched. The people who actually write and promote articles should have more say in the formatting of the articles than the people who don't and just drive by to cause trouble. I could for instance start a thread on the talk page of the Richard Nixon article arguing that it would look better with just a photograph. Why don't I? Because I respect that you've written it and that it was your editorial decision to include one in promoting it. Infoboxes, particularly in arts biographies are not compulsory, read the ruling.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OWNJOJ Hutton 14:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This cuts both ways as this attempt to impose a box says "I own this article, so here's the box and shut up about what you've done on it." We hope (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's anything to do with ownership at all - if somebody put in hours of their time writing up an article from scratch and taking the time to nurture it up to a GA or FA standard then nothing could be more frustrating watching uninvolved people battle over infoboxes. I know how it feels and would personally give the authors some consideration. For example the infobox on Winston Churchill was so long half of it recently had to be collapsed. I wouldn't mind advocating its removal but I would never dream of starting up a dispute. From my experience it's been people who demand the addition of infoboxes to be the main cause of these back and forth arguments. JAGUAR 14:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with what you're saying. I don't see editors who don't care for boxes dropping in on articles with them and deciding to hit the TP for removal of the box. We hope (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 14:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Articles which have been written without infoboxes have a nasty habit of attracting people who barely edit Wikipedia and often seem to have been put up to it by somebody. Not to mention the coaxing which goes on behind the scenes. That's nasty. People who turn up to cause a fuss about no infobox are often not very established editors and it's extremely irritating to keep having to discuss it every few weeks and be bullied into submission DuncanHill.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did not mean to contribute to the can of worms that had been opened back in 2016 when a ten-year-old infobox was done away with.

Obviously there has been disquiet with that decision, but I would not have acted as I did (by adding a box) had I known of the circular ongoing debate.

The Grant article failed me by not providing the list of wives and dates I needed quickly. The Relationships section starts well on "Grant was married five times" but then hides them in a mess of information that includes other relationships, Grant's car crash, his citizenship and so on. I did as many others probably do.... go elsewhere. I merely wished to help others with the same problem by a simple contribution.

Nobody doubts the tremendous work that Duncan, Jaguar and others do, but Wikipedia prides itself on its numerous 'little guys' also. They too have a contribution to make and should be listened to, many of them are, after all, big Wikipedia 'customers' (even if they only have small voices). By the way, it is impossible to tell the sum total of contributions from any editor as most edits are anonymous (I frequently edit from my phone or my wife's without signing in). There is also the matter of monetary donations - anonymous or otherwise - which all add to the value of Wiki-individuals.

"Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers," (Five Pllars).

Sorry for the upset and trouble.

Davidbrookesland (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for dropping by! This topic has been breathtakingly interesting. CassiantoTalk 20:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sucks that a simple question/request is being met with sarcasm and bitchy comments. Apparently the idea of having a handy little box containing just the facts—as most, if not all, other articles do—is a touchy subject for some. Shame.

HughMorris15 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I always get a little frisson of happiness whenever I come across an article with no ifnobox. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 05:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just launch an RfC

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]

Perhaps add an FAQ

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. CassiantoTalk 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]

The immense value of an infobox

Cary Grant
Publicity photo of Cary Grant for Suspicion (1941)
Born
Archibald Alec Leach

January 18, 1904
Horfield, Bristol, England
DiedNovember 29, 1986
Davenport, Iowa
OccupationActor
Years active1920–1986
Spouses
  • ​
    ​
    (m. 1934; div. 1935)​
  • ​
    ​
    (m. 1942; div. 1945)​
  • ​
    ​
    (m. 1949; div. 1962)​
  • ​
    ​
    (m. 1965; div. 1968)​
  • Barbara Harris
    ​
    ​
    (m. 1981)​
ChildrenJennifer 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]


RFC on Inclusion of Infobox

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

Will accept a collapsed infobox, as a compromise. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 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]
@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]
  • 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]
jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:22, 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]
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]
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.
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]
Off topic. - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, Argumentum ad ignorantiam is a logical fallacy. Second, the apparent need to post your comment beneath mine, regardless of when you wrote it, should be easily telling to whichever administrator closes this (at least regarding the response you might have been hoping for from your actions here). Lastly, to think that we should judge readers on how they read and then tell them if the information they're looking for is "useful" or not, is to assume what the reader is using our content for should only be what we personally find useful. I do not see that listed in any possible manner as one of our community's pillars. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. There is no "Argumentum ad ignorantiam", so please do not try an misrepresent my comment as such, as it's rather uncivil.
2. I posted directly under you because my comment was, in part, a response to yours. There is no great story behind that, but if you wish to flag that up to the closing admin, I can assure them that it's a trivia matter which I'm surprised you raised.
3. I'm surprised by this comment. As someone who actually writes content, I spend my entire time thinking through what to add and what to leave out of articles. The basis of my decision is how useful a piece of information is to aid understanding of the topic by a reader. This is, I think, a rather common approach by anyone who actually writes things: using editor judgement in order to bring as complete a picture and understanding as possible. You can look at 5 pillars if you want, but last time I looked, they said little about content and bugger all about infoboxes. - SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)'[reply]
For point 3's last sentence, see straw man (another logical fallacy). As for your claim that arguentum ad ignorantiam is not present in your first comment, I simply point to the second non-parenthetical sentence. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bye bye, Coffee. - SchroCat (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin: Please see where our interactions began (uninvited) and the edit summary used by this user during this "final" reply. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure they will take into account your rather odd edit summary accusing me of "edit summary vandalism", whatever that may be. Bye bye, again. - SchroCat (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to gaslight me won't shut me up. Please review WP:SUMMARYNO if you're serious about your failure to understand what is considered acceptable, (this is not). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh stop. There's no gaslighting a time all (you did leave that edit summary, as the diff shows), so I think it would be best if you stopped. - SchroCat (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2017 (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]
  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. CassiantoTalk 20:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
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]
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 Jojohutton'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"? CassiantoTalk 18:17, 28 December 2017 (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]
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]
Categories