Talk:Cary Grant

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

Thanks very much for your view. Cassianto^Talk 11:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

There are no factors that favor the removal of the info box from this article. JOJ ^Hutton 12:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

Fascinating. Cassianto^Talk 12:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. Some even talk out of them, most of the time, but that doesn’t make them right. Cassianto^Talk 17:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

WP:OWNJOJ ^Hutton 14:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• I'm unwatching the article, largely because of the attitude of one or two of the article owners. Suggesting that anyone who is not them is simply "driving by to cause trouble" is a nasty attitude. DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Good. Bye bye then! 👋🏻 Cassianto^Talk 17:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Well, thanks for dropping by! This topic has been breathtakingly interesting. Cassianto^Talk 20:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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
Died	November 29, 1986 Davenport, Iowa
Occupation	Actor
Years active	1920–1986
Spouses	Virginia Cherrill ​ ​ (m. 1934; div. 1935)​ Barbara Hutton ​ ​ (m. 1942; div. 1945)​ Betsy Drake ​ ​ (m. 1949; div. 1962)​ Dyan Cannon ​ ​ (m. 1965; div. 1968)​ Barbara Harris ​ ​ (m. 1981)​
Children	Jennifer Grant

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

""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)

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)

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)

Compromise

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

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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Survey

• Oppose an infobox. IMHO, bio infoboxes don't belong in bios of actors, actresses, directors, producers. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose an infobox. As per my prior comment: "I really feel we are back to square one here. The infobox discussion on CG has happened too often. BTW, as Doc pointed out, the lead summarises the article quite well and, usually the lead explains what the infobox does, only in more detail. It points out his DOB, education, career beginnings, hits, screen persona, marriages and business interests."  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose an infobox. Note that this RFC was started by an IP who left this hostile post at ANI and was subsequently accused of being User:Singora, a banned editor. I'm not sure he is doing this in good faith. I've given my reasons further up the page, the information in the infobox is trival at best and if anything misleading as his film career was 1932-1966 not 1920 to 1986. Doesn't even tell me he was a film star let alone notable awards and roles. Looks better with just a photograph.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose an infobox. It doesn't add any value to the article, rather yet its trivial factoids are easily accessible in the lead. Far more attractive as a standalone image. JAGUAR 17:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support collapsable box like in Frank Sinatra. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support:
  • Wikipedia's aim is to to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, and I'll emphasise the benefit readers part.
  • Infoboxes benefit readers- they allow people to quickly access the facts they want- and on this particular article, this is particularly important- a concern raised at its GA review was that the article was too long.
  • From a study- many readers look only at the information box, summary text, lists, sub titles, references, or maybe only keywords (section 2.3).
  • Infoboxes are also useful for metadata outside of Wikipedia.
  • I understand that the article had an infobox on that was later removed in 2016, but I think that in this particular article an infobox would (with the right populated fields, something which can be refined after this RfC), on the whole, be useful to our readers- and that's our aim at the end of the day (support collapsible as a compromise too).

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

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)

@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)

[2], [3] , [4] More diffs from the IP who opened the RFC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)