I have to admit that I am a bit puzzled reading through the previous RfC regarding the use of an infobox on this page—I was not aware that infoboxes were considered controversial.

However, given 3 years have passed since that consensus was formed, I would like to see if there was still a consensus against the inclusion of an infobox among the editors of this article. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as proposer. I believe an infobox would serve this article better than the lack thereof:

1. Infoboxes are to an article's lead section as a lead section is to an article—an even more summarized, at-a-glance list of key facts about a person. This article's lead section is long, and thus an infobox would provide an outsized benefit to the reader compared to articles with shorter leads.
2. The |nationality= field has been deprecated per MOS:INFOBOXNTLY, and thus, any potential controversy about Bacon's nationality should not be a factor in the addition of an infobox.
3. The debate over Bacon's particular style and movement, too, seem to have settled down—the lead currently describes him solely as a "figurative painter". If additional nuance is desired in the infobox, it can be added via a footnote.

Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support adding an infobox to the article. I'm looking over other articles for artists throughout history, and it seems quite unusual to not have an infobox. Many of the arguments in the previous RfC, in my opinion, don't feel like great arguments in opposition of an infobox as they were two and a half years ago; and they're much less applicable now.

Namely:

• An infobox shrinks the image too much does not feel like a strong argument against the infobox as a whole; a different picture can simply be chosen, or the image reformatted.
• Duplication of information many infoboxes duplicate information in an article lede, such as birth date and name; this is intentional, and I've not seen any issue taken with infoboxes in general.
• but Bacon is singularly unsuited to categorisation is the argument that opposed the addition of the infobox that has confused me the most. I don't see why Bacon specifically is uniquely unsuitable to be categorized; no sources to my knowledge bring this up, and as per nom there is consensus on his style, so this is a non-issue. Though I am also confused as to why this is an argument against the infobox as a whole. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 01:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I've always found the anti-infobox position strange. It's useful information at a glace. Opposition to it is often very elitist feeling... "we have the information in prose, they should just read the article!" Let's have some respect for people's time and give them some quick reference facts in an organized manner at a glance. Fieari (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - What will be the content of the infobox? Senorangel (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably ((Infobox artist)), if I had to assume. It's the same one used in the reverted diff from the previous RfC, as well as what is used on most artists' pages. I suppose ((Infobox person)) could also be used, but that includes no specific parameters for things such as notable works or art style, so preferably the former. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 04:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Where infoboxes have been contentious in the past have seemed to really be about disputes of particular fields, in this case the nationality (not reccommended anyway) and style. We can just omit them if there's no easy option. Infoboxes provide useful structured information at-a-glance that is structured compared to prose. SWinxy (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The proposed box [1] is inoffensively short, with no claims as to genre or major works. Nationality may be an issue, but the box says the same thing as the lead. Like that Dublin is mentioned; this might quell nationality grumbles. Can live with this. Ceoil (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]