Talk:Cary Grant/Archive 5

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)
 * Will accept a collapsed infobox, as a compromise. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 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)
 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 21:14, 19 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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. JAG  UAR   17:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Factoids" are assumptions or speculations which are reported and repeated so often that they become accepted as fact (Cummins and Macintyre, 2002:436). I do not see how infoboxes, which are supposed to contain verifiable facts, fall under such a definition. Although I see how such a confusion could lead one to oppose such measures. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 20:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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. JAG  UAR   13:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are not added to articles to add value, they are added to enhance readability. Which they do just fine. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 14:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we'll agree to disagree there. JAG  UAR   20:12, 20 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)


 * Oppose per Dr. Blofeld. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per precedent set by other articles on the wiki. Ingrid Bergman, for example, has an infobox, as do Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney, and the majority of the other actors I take a look at. Why, exactly, is this article an odd one out? I'm kind of shocked this RfC is even necessary. Gimubrc (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * By all means open a Checkuser case; I have nothing to hide. My opinion stands. Gimubrc (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Oppose Infoboxes are not mandatory and "precedent" is better known as other stuff exists. There is no need for further point scoring because all the arguments have been hashed and rehashed. This article has a good lead and is fine the way it is. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Infoboxes benefit some, even if not all, readers. Omnedon (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I think infoboxes are of great use to our customers, the readers of Wikipedia. They come to the English Wikipedia from all walks of life and from allover the world, maybe not being able to read much English, maybe not knowing much about the history of film, maybe just learning to read and, as editors, presenting a easy-to-read, "just the facts" short-digest form of the article to our worldwide readership is an important consideration on all these aspects.  I understand that some don't like them and some do but just because some other articles have infoboxes and some don't has no bearing on this RFC.  Interested editors get to decide, as a community, what goes for this particular article. Shearonink (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I find infoboxes to be very helpful and am always disappointed (and often a bit confused) when I stumble upon a page without one.  On the other hand, I've never been disappointed to see an infobox.  They contain useful information at a glance and I believe they improve Wikipedia. Dbrote (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think an infobox is that useful here. It's oversimplifying. Kaldari (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 *  Support  (see my following comment) - As a reader, I cannot properly express my lack of understanding on this topic. There simply does not appear to be good cause to keep infoboxes off of Wikipedia articles, anymore than the Table of Contents. As a sysop, they have been widely known to be utilized by our readers (this research paper published by the University of Strathclyde firmly confirms this - see figure 5 on page 9), and this ownership-level way of treating articles needs to come to an end. If infoboxes have been found to assist our readers, there can be only harm caused by their lack of utilization. In 2017, I honestly can't believe this is even still debatable. As far as I can tell, there doesn't appear to be any reason to keep them off articles besides that their presence irritates some of our editors. I do not see why that should even be considered as a valid reason to oppose this, nor do I believe that circular reasoning such as it being discussed before should be considered logical nor should bear weight in this discussion at all. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 19:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To understand the anti-infobox POV, see Disinfoboxes (and Too many boxes). Kaldari (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Ad hominem and red herrings (how many readers do we honestly believe have read Disinfoboxes or even 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 20:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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 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 "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)
 * 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)
 * 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). &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 22:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose (only "strong" because of the rather silly "strong support" above). One cherry picked academic study means little. It doesn't look at understanding or information retention; it doesn't compare between articles with idiotboxes and without (or the comprehension of the topic between the two); and it doesn't look at reader experience/enjoyment. What is does show is that the eye gets drawn to a block of bullet points; it doesn't matter what dross is in the bullet points, just that the eye gets drawn away from text and onto a list of trivial factoids that provide very little intelligent information about the subject in hand.
 * IBs are not great in certain types of biographical articles, and actors are one of those areas. While great for politicians, the military and sportsmen (those with records or positions to record), but not for actors. Does a list of Grants's wives in any way help understanding of his acting method or record? Reading the lead gives me a summary of Grant's life and his career. Reading the suggested IB above makes me think the only reason we have an article is that this man married several people. It's utterly unhelpful and unenlightening.
 * The "Don't forget the metadata!" argument is a straw man. There is already an entry in Wikidata (with all the same pointless information), so it does not need to be here again in order for Google and others to use: they strip info from Wikidata, not here, so it's absence here does not affect either Wikidata or third party users.


 * Cary Grant-Bing box
 * Cary Grant=Google box
 * The ArbCom case of 2013 stated that discussions about IBs should focus on the IB under discussion at the time, not to "". 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)
 * You said, "Anyone who wants to know anything useful about Grant can find it in the lead, particularly in the first paragraph." His age when he died is not listed in the first paragraph. Banaticus (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's because it's not useful - it's one of the least useful things imaginable. Anyone can claim not to find some piece of trivia that isn't available, even in the fullest IB (where's his height, inside leg measurement, summary of school exam results, etc - all equally trivial dross along with age at death. Besides, if people are that interested in his age at death, simple maths when looking at his birth and death dates will provide an answer. - SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 21:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)'
 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 21:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Bye bye, Coffee. - SchroCat (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing admin: Please see where our interactions began (uninvited) and the edit summary used by this user during this "final" reply. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 21:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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). <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 02:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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). <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 07:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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). <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 07:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


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


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

Finally, this article is not on my watch list and will remain off it in the future. I couldn't give a toss about the outcome. I will not respond here to pings or responses. Good luck.  Cassianto Talk  20:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC) 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)
 * Comment From the 2013 case:
 * "It is not clear how infobox disputes are to be resolved (e.g. if 5 editors favor including an infobox in a given article and 5 disfavor it, there is no default rule and no policy guidance for determining how the consensus is to be determined, so the dispute continues indefinitely).
 * " It is not clear to what degree, if any, the views of editors with a particular connection to an article (e.g., the editor who created the article or knowledgeable members of a relevant wikiproject) should be accorded any added weight in such discussions, nor is it clear how the potential desirability in uniformity of formatting across articles of a common type should be weighed.
 * "A small number of editors have repeatedly behaved poorly and in a polarizing fashion in infobox-related editing and discussions."
 * 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)
 * There were two previous attempts to solve this through ARBCom in August 2016. We hope (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * second try We hope (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * first try We hope (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose infobox per all the good reasons above, as well as it looks classy without a cluttered infobox and a giant map (alas, here lies Cary Grant, coordinates...). If that crying internet guy is still around he might log in and cry his eyes out "Leave Cary Grant alone!" Randy Kryn (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support infobox - Pinged to this section. I have been an editor here for over ten years. Infoboxes are generally not controversial, except when there is a relatively small but determined group opposing them, for example in the area of classical music composers, which is a fine example of a extended time-sink. These are usually turf battles centered on WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDL. I have seen an amazing amount of editor time essentially wasted in lengthy bitter fights. My conclusion: nothing proves that Wikipedia is an arbitrary, parochial children’s playground more than this issue. Since, as noted above, ArbCom is not the way to get this cleared up, I’d be in favor of a Wiki-wide “final decision” Ric to decide this issue once and for all: should Wikipedia info boxes be standard on every biography, or not? Otherwise, this type of situation will keep cropping up. Fellow editors, there are much more important issues to discuss than this. Jusdafax (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support infobox Procedural oppose as far as I can tell, this is the only biography of a prominent person that doesn't have an infobox. I feel the 2013 ruling from ARBCOM is out of date; the "infobox wars" are over, and infoboxes won. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Ezra Pound, Claudio Monteverdi, Isabella Beeton, Arthur Sullivan, Golding Bird, Melford Stevenson, Terry-Thomas, Stanley Kubrick, W. B. Yeats ... I could go on, if you wanted – SchroCat (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Are you talking about wikidata:Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Mapping_and_improving_the_data_import_process? Banaticus (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the one from the recent ARBCOM motion. I don't know if there's a link, somebody else should be able to find it. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I fully agree with the reasons provided above by Jcc. In my own experience, infoboxes are helpful synopses of key facts. Unlike some other participants in this survey, I find them aesthetically attractive. They enhance articles, and are almost always the second part of an article that I read (after the first sentence of the lede). They were created because they are a good idea, and they still are a good idea. -- WikiPedant (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Presenting your POV as fact is not helpful. It is your POV and remains your POV.   Cassianto Talk  19:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose infobox. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose infobox. This article has a long, well organised and well written lead section that lays out clearly information such as Grant's citizenship and how many times he was married, which are raised earlier on this page as burning questions that require an infobox to list. The former is an example of the kind of thing an infobox oversimplifies: born in one country, became a naturalised citizen of another. The latter is lengthy and in a box would tend to overshadow the important things about his career; plus there is apparently more information about his relationships than a list of marriages can provide, so it is far better to recount the facts in narrative form. In short, as with many biographies, I do not see that the desire of some potential readers to have their information in pre-digested tabular form justifies pre-empting the nuanced exposition in the lead and, for less important information like his total romantic history, the relevant section of the article body by adding a tabular summary at the top. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose infobox. I like infoboxes even infobox person sometimes; however, this one here is completely unnecessary and trivial. The infobox above tells us about when and where Grant was born and died, his occupation and the most trivial information (ugh): the list of his wives and his daughter, which is also found in the lead. Also, the lead looks rather clean without the over-stuffed box. FrB.TG (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose infobox -- I've had this article on my watchlist for some time, and have made a few edits in the past, but I've waited to see if anyone can post comments convincing me that an infobox is really necessary here. Hasn't happened, and I say this as someone who has used infoboxes in almost every article he's created or heavily edited -- mostly military, where lists of major battles, awards, equipment, etc, lend themselves to such presentation. I don't find that to be the case with actors, directors and other artists, where keeping the vital info to a more nuanced presentation in a well-written lead seems much more appropriate. If all you want is a few brief points like life dates, birth name, spouses, etc, you can just Google or look up IMDb -- I really think we owe our readers something better here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Oppose infobox for all the reasons so eloquently stated by others above. The well-written lead supplies all the essential information; IBs do not allow for the nuance required in this article. It has already been proven on other articles that a collapsed IB is apparently not acceptable to IB proponents as a compromise. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Infoboxes are a container for standard and recurring statistics that are "at-a-glance" material for readers. It doesn't detract from the article in any way other than for the most banal of reasons.  --DHeyward (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I came to this article just to find out how old he was when he died. I had to search the article for it because it was missing an infobox.  Obviously the lead sucks if I can't just get that info at a glance. Banaticus (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Infoboxes are designed to give key information at a glance. That is their purpose. Even if all of the same information is included in the lead, we cannot expect anyone to know that everything they are looking for for would be there. What if they are looking for something that is not in the lead, but would and could easily be found or added to a well designed infobox? I agree that not "every" article needs an info box, but my argument is that it's a disservice to Wikipedia as a whole to not include an info box in articles that would benefit readers of this site. Now ask yourself one last question. Does an infobox hurt the article? No, probably not. But not having an infobox does make it less convenient for readers, even if the same information is already in the lead, that much is true.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  14:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Just butting in, in between Jojhutton's ludicrous comment and another "thank" by an "ignoring" Gerda on a subject she'd rather forget, might I draw everyone back to the following comment: -- 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  evidence this wild and completely baseless claim? If not, which I suspect you can't, Why do you consider yourself to speak for "readers"?   Cassianto Talk  18:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please moderate your tone. There is no need for you to attack people. Omnedon (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please mind own business and if you have to comment, please make it accurate. I was not attacking "the person", rather the silly, over-inflated comment that lacks evidence.   Cassianto Talk  20:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Mind my own business"? This is a request for comment. And you were most definitely attacking the person, not just the statement. Be civil. Omnedon (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone has requested that comment on whether this article warrants an idiotbox. And that is all. No one has asked you to stick your nose into things that don't concern you. So yes, "mind your own business" if that business - my comment to someone else - has nothing to do with you. It's really not that difficult to understand.   Cassianto Talk  21:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Cassianto, this is a group discussion. If you can't be civil you have no place here. Omnedon (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion about the infobox, not my "civility". Again, I'd ask to mind your own business.   Cassianto Talk  14:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion. I'd again ask you to keep in mind the importance of civility. Without it, discussion is difficult. Omnedon (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Repeating yourself doesn't make you right. Repeating myself pisses the hell out of me. So again, mind your own business and keep to the discussion.   Cassianto Talk  01:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No one's making you repeat yourself. You're just repeating incivility. Omnedon (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition to Omnedon's words which you'd do well to heed, for someone who claims that this article is not on my watch list and will remain off it in the future. I couldn't give a toss about the outcome. I will not respond here... you seem to be determined to really bludgeon this one. Also- for evidence read my support !vote above- From a study- many readers look only at the information box, summary text, lists, sub titles, references, or maybe only keywords (section 2.3). jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And now other questions.
 * If people can get this information at search engines like Google and Bing, why come to WP at all? It would seem the reason would be for more information, such as an article.
 * It's doubtful they've come to compare IBs but if we explore that premise, we come up with the questions:
 * Why write/expand/improve articles at all and nominate them for DYK, GA and FA? Why does WP count items by X number of articles-not IBs on site? The place could be turned into Wikibox with the probability that a lot of the copyvio and RS issues would cease to exist as there would be no annoying text for possible cutting and pasting? We hope (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Restore the infobox per WP:INFOBOX, WP:BRD, and our general principle to revert to the status quo ante when consensus cannot be reached about inclusion or removal of something. This article had an infobox for years without any issue. I agree with the comments at the abortive ANI thread that this needs to go back to ArbCom.  This "infobox warring" bullshit is really, really tedious (in both the pro and con directions) and needs to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  22:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC) See also Talk:Kenneth Williams, essentially the same discussion with mostly the same people just at a different page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  22:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Then see what YOU can do about getting ARBCom to hear a case; there were 2 tries in August 2016. Both were tabled.We hope (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, in the absence of any infobox being presented as a sample for this article. Softlavender (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but only for this page: Here, the info box does not contain anything that isn't in the lead. However, there are cases when the lead is simply too large too accommodate all info box details, so an info box will be apt in those cases. Advice people to use common sense and see if the info box is summarised in the lead section of the article and if not, try to do so. Even if that is unsuccessful, then an info box is needed. But not for this page, please. 2.51.22.88 (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support an infobox. I realize that the main contributing editors here strongly oppose an infobox because they would prefer that readers just read their carefully-written prose. But having an infobox with basic biographical information (there was one in a section up above) does not in any way preclude readers from also reading the delightful prose. Moreover, if people are here to just get that basic information, it really doesn't make sense to force them to read the whole thing no matter how well-written that prose is. Finally, all the talk of how aesthetically displeasing the infobox is falls a little short when it would be just an extension of the photo that is already there. Ca2james (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support an infobox. A useful feature for a bio of this length and depth. Coretheapple (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Support Almost every other actor has one, and it does provide a useful overview of a person's career. As I'm coming from outside this debate, I'm somewhat even surprised that this is a controversial issue. --Deathawk (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support an infobox. Anecdotally, I found them useful on actor biography articles in finding out key information quickly, which is obviously their intended purpose. It's not as easy finding the same information in the verbose prose, even if it's in the lede. They aren't mutually exclusive. Not sure why the fact that some readers will only read what's in the infobox and then move on instead of reading the prose is such a concern. Not everybody is interested in reading paragraphs nor is everyone interested in the summary provided in the infobox format. Giving readers the option of obtaining whatever information they need in either way is ideal. I agree that they can become bloated and visually intrusive though making it collapsible will remedy that. And while the size of the box and how much information it contains will always be up for debate, the same can be said for prose. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 04:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support infobox. They're useful in organizing information, and provide consistency to the encyclopedia. --GRuban (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2018 (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)
 * 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)

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


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


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


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

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


 * How about a simple infobox like this? Several users objected to the list of wives or "years active" or a "stuffed infobox".  Lets leave them out.  Wikipedia is read by users from all different languages and all different parts of the world.  Infoboxes make it easier for those people, and also for computers scraping facts. Banaticus (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is probably the best way to handle it, personally. Support this as an option. Gimubrc (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Will cover this in my comment just below this one. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


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

Yes, it looks classier/more professional without it, aside from the infobox containing no important information.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The infobox provided here looks utterly ridiculous. Why do you think this is of any benefit at all?    Cassianto Talk  20:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


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

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

When I view the article (without an infobox), there are lines around the image, so I'm not sure that the infobox adds lines that wouldn't be there otherwise... And Cassianto, "looks utterly ridiculous" seems like simply an unsupported opinion. The infobox provided does contain important information: when and where he was born, when and where he died, how old he lived to be, his birth name. How are these items not important? Omnedon (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of "unsupported opinions" on here, such as "the reader likes the clean look"; "the reader needs an infobox"; "infoboxes are a good tool"; and the rest of the bullshit spouted by certain people here.  Cassianto Talk  01:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The article lacks his age at date of death while the infobox has it. Additionally, researchers (and their bots) use infoboxes -- having to manually sift through articles imposes an unnecessary burden.  The same goes for users unfamiliar with the article who don't know that the information they want is in the lead.  All they know is that it's somewhere in a giant article.  We need to stop looking at this issue as users familiar with the article and look at it from the viewpoint of someone who just wants information.  Some might say, "But we want a user to read the whole article".  Yes we do, and someone who wants to read everything about Cary Grant will read the whole article whether or not there's an infobox while someone who just wants quick info will want an infobox. Banaticus (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you assume that our readers are thick and not able to read the very short lead, which itself is a summary of the entire article?  Cassianto Talk  18:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What's the correct process, if any, for getting an uninvolved third party to assess the consensus here? I think in an argument this bitter, there should be some kind of last word as to whether or not the infobox ought to be included. Gimubrc (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't know, but it's pretty obvious, at least to me, that there is no consensus. Maybe a point in favor of leaving it as it is is that this article was brought up to 'Good' status in 2016, and was judged so without the infobox. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To explain Cassianto's reverts- RfCs are closed after 30 days in general unless there is still a lot of comments being left, which isn't the case here. I've left a request for closure at WP:ANRFC. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Granted, but given how bitter this argument has been, I can't help but feel like some sort of official closure might be best, if only so we don't have to have this RfC again in a few months. After all, it seems to have brought out the worst in quite a few editors. If you've left a request, though, I suppose that's enough. Gimubrc (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See the instigator of all this trouble's opening comment with regards to it being a few years before another RfC is had.  Cassianto Talk  19:25, 17 January 2018 (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  <sup style="color:#CC9900;">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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

I added an FAQ with a link to the RFC results. The FAQ text is at the sub page Talk:Cary Grant/FAQ BillHPike (talk, contribs) 09:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Any reason why this article hasn't got an info box?
Looks ugly as without it.--TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, but the article is being held hostage as an example by a minority faction. JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  00:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Look above and in the archives. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Despite the pointy comment above, there is a consensus not to have one. Even though some people don't like the decision, they seem unable to let the consensus lie peacefully. As to "ugly", that's not a great reason to add an IB - de gustibus non disputandum est, and all that. - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Transatlantic accent?
The article on transatlantic accent states that this is "a consciously acquired accent of English". However, since Mr Grant was an adult before he moved to the US, it seems that English would in fact have been his natural accent (although I can well believer that long residence in the US may have modified it).

I therefore move that this reference be deleted, or at least modified, since it doesn't seem to fit the requisite definition.

Paul Magnussen (talk)


 * I agree that it should be clarified; one source cited in the article discusses his accent, but doesn't mention "transatlantic" or "mid-Atlantic, and the other suggests that his transatlantic accent is naturally-acquired, while others' accents (such as Katherine Hepburn's) are pretentious. There already is an -- perhaps it should be modified/expanded?
 * -- see footnote 16
 * —107.15.157.44 (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * —107.15.157.44 (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Funeral
@ User:Ssven2. As someone who worked for many years providing probate and executor services, I have never previously encountered the expression "refused a funeral" in this context, and I can see no justification for this peculiar wording here. In normal usage, 'refuse' means to decline or reject something actively offered or requested. So a religious leader may 'refuse to conduct a funeral' in some circumstances, but a deceased person is clearly unable to "refuse a funeral". Rather, this is a matter upon which someone takes the initiative during their lifetime and expresses their wishes on the subject, either directly to someone to whom they are close or by including such a wish in their will. And I suggest that is a better description of the situation here. Blurryman (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked the sentence a bit now, Blurryman. Do have a look now and see if its okay. —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 07:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine now. Thank you. Best wishes. Blurryman (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Family from age ten
The article states: When Grant was 10, his father remarried and started a new family that did not include his son. Did Grant stay with his grandmother? This is not clear to me from the article.--176.198.212.216 (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Performing at six?
The claim that he was performing with the Penders at the age of six is nonsense, as is the suggestion that he was with them in Berlin in 1914 (when he would have been ten). He didn't join them until 1917 and even then was not performing in public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.7.60 (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Info box?
Why is there not an infobox under Grant's profile photo at the top right of the Wpage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.65.177.176 (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see this thread, where there is a consensus not to have one. - SchroCat (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I scrolled down in that thread to see what the consensus was and only saw posts agreeing that there wasn't a consensus. I wouldn't call that a consensus to not have one. :p Banaticus (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Huh. That's too bad for some of us. I came to check on the dates of his various marriages and had to dive into the article to retrieve it. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Same. I was looking for some basic information and didn't see an infobox, which was frustrating. I was in the process of adding one when I saw the tag on the page. I personally view infoboxes as extremely useful, especially when it comes to Wikidata purposes, as it makes it easier for people to move over content that would have to search for otherwise. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, you know, something you actually have to read. If you care who Grant' s wives or birthplace etc were Google it. The intro summarises the basics well.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks as if most readers actually find infoboxes a useful tool. Having an infobox doesn't mean that readers won't read through the rest of the article, however they have become an extremly useful tool throughout the history of Wikipedia. Why anyone would purposly decide to make a Wikipedia article difficult and less useful, is beyond me. The fact that readers continue to bring this up time and time again, just solidifies the fact that not having an infobox in this article is a problem.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  15:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact people keep bringing this up "time and time again" proves nothing of the sort. The only thing it does prove is that ARBCOM have failed to solve the issue of infobox disruption from a bunch of people who can't take no for an answer.   Cassianto Talk  17:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We have a very large range of topics on here. On an aircraft article, a footballer etc, something which has a lot of data not easily put into prose, then I'd agree they're important. But articles like this typically only have birth date and place, occupation, and wives. It's not as if iboxes even summarise an actor's career, it's trivia at best. Such a limited use, it cheapens articles in such a context.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That only means that you personally do not find them useful. Yet the constant discussions confirm that many other people do find them useful. I suggest that you simply don't look at the infobox if you don't like them and allow people who actually find them useful, the opportunity to use them as valuable tools.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  11:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not only me. There is currently no infobox because there was a consensus among multiple people that it had limited value, enough in fact to stop there being a clear consensus to reinstate one..♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a small "consensus" among the few people who took the time to comment. Well that could change at any time. Maybe that time is now.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  16:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For somebody who lives in California, likes hiking and has children, I'm surprised you have nothing better to do.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, no personnal attacks. Why are you commenting on me directly? Thats not an argument, thats an attack on my character. Tell me why you would do that? JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  16:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It was your "Maybe that time is now". Seemed threatening to me. Basically "this guy doesn't agree with me and a few of us complaining here so let's enforce our preferences upon him as soon as possible and stop this silliness as we're in the majority and we're in the right". ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the time is not now, as all that would happen is a replay of that 2017 long and thoroughly discussed request. Asking editors to go through that again would be both ultimately meaningless and use up lots of energy that could be used elsewhere. Editors should please read that discussion and supporting information while realizing that pages are not required to have an infobox, and if there is nothing new to add to that discussion then maybe defer from putting up another. Full disclosure, I like the page without an infobox, so am biased, but still think it would be rehashing an already decided question. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The argument for adding them seems ot be based upon "our readers all want a very useful box" yet this article gets 120,000 views a month. 99.9% of our viewers are not enraged that there is no box. In the three or so years without the infobox, how many people have visitied the page? At least 4 million people. How many of those thought it important enough to complain? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Those statistics are a little misleading. Wikipedians says: "The English Wikipedia currently has 37,791,603[2] users who have registered a username. Only a minority of users contribute regularly (135,723[3] have edited in the last 30 days), and only a minority of those contributors participate in community discussions. An unknown but relatively large number of unregistered Wikipedians also contribute to the site."  So going off your presumption that those 120,000 views represent unique visitors, and presuming an equal number of commentators, I would expect 431 people who read this article to edit anything on Wikipedia in the past month and "a minority of those contributors" to participate in a community discussion such as this, anywhere on Wikipedia.  I also presume that, given how people such as yourself have commented on discussions like these so many times over the past three years, those page view numbers do not in any way represent unique views.  I would thus hazard a guess that the number of people who've posted in response to such things as this is roughly on target for your average English Wikipedia visitor/editor and that rather than a lack of outrage being shown, there is instead the appropriately normal amount of outrage shown for your average visitor.  Given that some people have thought it important enough to complain, I would guess that they could be right, or at least more representative of your average reader than the lack of innumerable complaints would otherwise suggest. :) Banaticus (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Infoboxes should be limited to bios of politicians & sports figures. GoodDay (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * (coming to this having clicked through the links on an RfA). I personally like infoboxes (I do a lot of mountain articles, and they are useful there). However, this is a beautifully written article, with every sentence thought about. The opening line gives the core infobox details and the lede is so clear that the other classic infobox details are easy to get there.  I can see why editors of this article would like to avoid an infobox to encourage readers to "read" the sentences they have toiled over (I am guessing)?  It makes sense to me. Britishfinance (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not give our readers a choice of how to get the information. We should not assume all will have the same skill level.-- Moxy 🍁 14:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have had that kind of view, but now that I have read through one of the threads, and seen such an article, where editors don’t want an infobox, I can understand the argument better. There strange avenues you find yourself wandering down on WP! Britishfinance (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Would a collapsible infobox (like the one in Frank Sinatra article) be a compromise? Lemonreader (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Revisiting Edits and Talks
Hello readers,

I would like to first state that I am by no means an expert or skilled user of Wikipedia. I use my account, actually, to edit grammar on the mistakes that I come across because I love grammar. But I also love Cary Grant. He is my favorite actor. While this existing discussion on whether or not he should have an InfoBox almost outdates my account, I would still like to revisit it.

I do not know how to conduct a discussion, or even a vote for that matter and I do not think that I am interested in conducting a vote at all; instead, I think that in the past two years the reasons preventing Grant's InfoBox have been too niche to protect. For the benefit of readers accessing his information more easily and consistently, in line with those pages of other classic Hollywood actors and actresses, I think we should reconsider his InfoBox.

Some have expressed that it would "distract" and "mislead" the information on his page, and others have shared that readers should do more than skim-- Grant's page forcing them to do so-- but these opinions are niche. It would simply benefit his spread of information, easily, consistently, and, frankly, readily for younger readers of his page such as myself. He has no more information than most others, in: marriages, years active, and other personable factors. It deserves its place.

I could go on, I promise-- on this subject, or how wonderful Suspicion (1941) is-- but I am only first interested in sharing this invitation to others who are hopefully more skilled users than myself in garnering support for revisiting Cary Grant. Thank you for reading this revisiting of edits and talks on his page. I hope that others, you readers, will agree with me. If not, I did my part in sharing what I think should be a change on this site. May we now open a discussion that is necessary.

With respect,

StPaddyC (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Fascinating.  Cassianto Talk  20:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Performing at six?
The claim that he was performing with the Penders at the age of six is nonsense, as is the suggestion that he was with them in Berlin in 1914 (when he would have been ten). He didn't join them until 1917 and even then was not performing in public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.7.60 (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Cary Grant and Orry-Kelly
Since this has devolved into an editting war, let's just put it here: The documentary Women He's Undressed detailed a homosexual relationship between Orry-Kelly and Cary Grant (at the time known as Archibald Leach) together, as taken and dramatizes from Mr. Kelly's biography. If no one dispute these claims, let this stay in the article and not reverting this information without any explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:8180:7010:6D5F:5B27:997D:7F45 (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Who cares? It's uninteresting and Wikipedia is not here to keep a tally on someone's previous sexual conquests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:76E4:4400:7CBB:9336:8ACF:BC14 (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sensing a homophobic double standard here. If that is the case, then the mentioned of Betty Hensel, Maureen Donaldson and Victoria Morgan should be removed also. If people want, the entry could be expanded with additional information from the documentary:
 * Orry-Kelly claimed that he warned Virginia Cherrill against marrying Grant because he knows that Grant will break her heart.
 * Orry-Kelly claimed that Grant once met with him drunk and asked for their relationship to be kept secret in the memoir. He refused.
 * Shortly after marry Virginia, he attempted suicide.
 * Grant attended Orry-Kelly's funeral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:8180:7010:6DDD:53F8:1FB7:A4FF (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:SOURCE, WP:RS, and WP:INDY are not satisfied. 1) The suggested edit mentioned a documentary movie but identified a book by ISBN in the citation. Possibly addressed with specific sourcing (e.g. citing book specifics and/or citing a published summary of the movie that covers the content in question). 2) The edit also included IMDb as a source, which is WP:UGC. Possibly addressed with alternate, published content. 3) If the content in question ultimately only has a single primary source (it reduces to: Orry-Kelly claimed X in a book) that's a sticking point (unless the point of discussion is the book/movie itself, in which case it should be discussed in such context). Building out the Women He's Undressed page, which is currently a stub, may help to clarify what sources exist, and the nature of them. Dmoore5556 (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * So this can be remedied by several edit:
 * Mentioned that the possibly romantic relationship (rewatched the documentary and the book, they heavily implied but not outright stated the relationship) between Grant and Kelly is mentioned in the movie and in Kelly's own published memoir Women I've Undressed (the book by ISBN in the citation)
 * Found a New York Post article focus on the portrayal of Cary Grant in the documentary: https://nypost.com/2016/08/08/inside-cary-grants-secret-life-with-men/ as well as a Hammer to Nail article that has the director Gillian Armstrong explained the relationship between Kelly and Grant: http://www.hammertonail.com/interviews/a-conversation-with-gillian-armstrong/
 * Cite the film in question without the IMDB: Possibly this New Zealand International Film Festival: https://www.nziff.co.nz/im:22705/
 * The passage where Grant reconnected with Kelly and asked him to not include their relationship in his memoir is also both in the documentary and the memoir as well as the NY Post article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:8180:7010:AC28:47A4:4A2C:F877 (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The suicide attempt is a misinformation by me and I'm sorry about that. The movie stated that it was Randolph Scott attempted suicide, not Cary Grant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:8180:7010:AC28:47A4:4A2C:F877 (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

English-born American or English-American?
Just tried to change him from English-born American to English-American only to have him changed back relatively quickly. Is there any evidence he actually renounced his UK citizenship, as I always thought he was both? Scf1985 (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

AFAICT, he renounced his British citizenship on gaining American citizenship (during WWII)  as that was US law at the time. https://www.legallanguage.com/legal-articles/dual-citizenship-united-states/ only changed in 1967. And also stopped paying UK taxes. Collect (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the swift response Scf1985 (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

"Archibald alec leach" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Archibald alec leach. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"ArchibaldAlexanderLeach" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ArchibaldAlexanderLeach. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Why no infobox?
First, please excuse me for not reading the days-long archived conversation about whether this article should have an infobox or not in its entirety. Many points there are just personal tastes and other sensitivities. But I want to raise another argument pro inclusion that probably has not been made yet. Therefore I will ask a simple question:


 * What differentiates Cary Grant from other Hollywood actors of his era and status like Humphrey Bogart or Clark Gable that legitimizes a non-inclusion of this element which is pretty much standard in a vast majority of actor/actress articles on the English wikipedia?

In my opinion, if you cannot give a proper answer to that question, the article should include a box. Calling it idiotbox may be a point for a general oppose of it, but why should Cary Grant be given special treatment? One major group of wikipedia users are lazy readers and these people love the online encyclopedia for its easy legibility. Important facts like birthplace, years active etc. may all be in the lead, but considering the fact that this lead consists of more than 500 words, an infobox would definitely provide an easier and much quicker look on the person. --Clemens (Talk) 17:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly, maybe you should read the days-long archived conversation about whether this article should have an infobox or not in its entirety. Many points there are from persons who feel sick and tired of this same, boring thread coming up time and time again. But I want to raise another argument against inclusion that probably has not been made yet. Therefore I will ask a simple question:


 * What differentiates Cary Grant from other Hollywood actors of his era and status, like Rod Steiger or Laurence Olivier, that legitimises an inclusion of this element which is pretty much not standard in a vast majority of actor/actress articles on the English wikipedia?


 * In my opinion, if you cannot give a proper answer to that question, the article should not include a box. Cary Grant is not being given special treatment - check the FA archives to see how many passed the most rigorous of reviews without an infobox being in place. Important facts like birthplace, years active, can all be found in the lead. Present your facts based on their merits rather than dismissing the arguments of others with whom you may disagree.  Cassianto Talk  19:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, as to what differentiates Cary Grant, it is that some of his fans do not like seeing his real name highlighted prominently on the page.  All of their other arguments ultimately fall flat but it's not worth arguing with them. Banaticus (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This article needs an infobox. To not have one is ridiculous and alienates a whole audience who read of their phones and get the "quick facts" about subjects from said infobox. Also, if he never changed his name legally, then his real name needs to be all over this article. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

"Carygrant" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Carygrant. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"Cary Grant." listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cary Grant.. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"Cary grant" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cary grant. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Name usage
, you are wrong to think that Grant should be referred to as "Archibald Alec Leach" throughout this article. Where's the sense in naming the the article "Cary Grant" and then calling him Archibald Leach?  Cassianto Talk  05:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

‘Years active’ field
Can this field be removed as being wrong, completely misleading and one that cannot be adequately completed? The documentation states that the field “Date range in years during which the subject was active in their principal occupation(s) and/or other activity for which they are notable”. The date Grant began acting is unknown. He was performing with "The Penders" or the "Bob Pender Stage Troupe" by 1914, but it’s not recorded when he started. He finished his professional life sometime near the point of his death. Not only was he very active in his second career (his business life, which included positions at MGM, which was because of his film career), he was still active with aspects of his primary career - his tour of A Conversation with Cary Grant in the ‘80s being one example. As we don’t know when his career started or ended, this field (which is normally problematic and flawed) is completely so here. Deleting it would remove at least some of the misleading information from the box. 109.249.185.69 (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Why No Infobox?
I want to see an info box. They're a good way to present standard information like his when he was born and died, age at death, spouses, etc. They're very useful. The article metadata says there's a consensus that this article doesn't need one, but there's no discussion of that issue on the talk page. It seems to me that, with no discussion, there's no consensus. What's up with that? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please try typing "infobox" in the search at the top of this page and enjoy some of the previous discussions. You might also see the FAQ at the bottom of the talk page header. Johnuniq (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I read the long discussion, and there's clearly no consensus. But the comment at the top says there's a consensus against an Infobox, which isn't accurate. (And I don't see a way to change that.) Some actors have Infoboxes (e.g. Katherine Hepburn) and others (e.g. Laurence Olivier) don't. I don't know why, but there should be a standard. Infoboxes are especially useful when using the Wikipedia app on a phone. I don't even know why there's a debate. To the people who oppose them, I say if you don't like them, don't use them! Why deny them to people like me, who like them? But the comment at the top doesn't even allow me to make that kind of comment, which doesn't seem to be in Wikipedia spirit of open debate. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's correct to say there is no consensus to have one (there has been more than one discussion on this). And thankfully there is no "standard" approach on WP: such a one-size-fits-all approach would be detrimental to countless articles. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes there's been more than one discussion on this. I wonder why that is. It's because multiple people keep bringing this up because readers want to see an infobox for a few quick references to information. It's not that difficult to understand that most people find them useful in many ways. But here we are again, having yet another person wondering why there is no infobox to an article that clearly can use one. A few very agressive editors who don't like infoboxes have somehow managed to make this article their battleground on this topic. Luckily they haven't been able to spread this ideology too far past this high traffic article. Here's hoping that clearer minds will some day gain back control of this article in the future, and the infobox will eventually be restored, because continuing to tell people to read past discussions isn't going to cut it forever. Eventually there will have to be a better reason than "read past discussions" in order for keep the current status quo.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  11:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for mischaracterising the actions of some editors and for using inflamatory language that isn't suppoted by reality. I have left an Arb warning on your page, as such an approach is not supposed to be tolerated any more. - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * He's right though. (JOJ) 95.149.126.14 (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Update Infobox
Hi! I was also wondering why there doesnt appear to be an infobox, as there doesn't seem to be a consensus, but Infoboxes are common and I would feel useful. - The One I Left(talk) 6:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support that. ~ HAL  333  16:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I have always wondered why there's no Infobox on Cary's page for years. It definitely needs one IMO, really all articles do.. Velvet (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly. Just like with Stanley Kubrick, the page looks incomplete without an infobox. Songwaters (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with and  - I've wondered why the infobox disappeared as well and why there's been no consensus on bringing back the infobox. It makes total sense for Grant to have one. The vast majority of Wiki pages, be it on notable people, media franchises, countries, books, movies, etc all have infoboxes giving bits of basic info and his Wiki page had an infobox for years. Here's archives of his page as early as 2006 and October 2011 and all archives I saw, all the way up to April 2016 had an infobox, before it mysteriously disappeared in June 2016 and was gone from there on out. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Perennial. The page looks good without an infobox, and this has been discussed for years. Please go over all those well-thought out discussions. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "The page looks good without an infobox" is an opinion. It needs one, as it is helpful for gathering quick information without searching the article for it. Just because it was talked about before and rejected doesn't mean it is the final and perpetual decision. This will be brought up constantly (and it is) because it is ridiculous that every other major actor (and person) on Wikipedia has an infobox, but because a few of the people are against the idea. How can 99% of people that have Wikipedia articles have an infobox and this one doesn't...it goes against everything that Wikipedia stands for. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thoroughly agree, Donaldd23. I’ve read the arguments here and on the Laurence Olivier talk page, and the arguments against having an infobox don’t make any sense. They don’t seem to go beyond “There’s no requirement to have one”, “It looks fine without one”, or, most commonly, “Go back and read the previous conversations on this, you stupid idiot. This has been settled, you moron”. So many articles across a huge number of categories, from actors to planets and albums to cathedrals, have infoboxes. The fact that this keeps getting brought up so often I think shows how little sense this makes. Why some editors are so anal about particular articles not having infoboxes just doesn’t make any sense. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. Claims of WP:PRIOR and WP:DISCUSSED are flawed. There is no reason why Grant shouldn't have an IB. What makes him any different than Clark Gable or the hundreds of others? Some stuff exists for a reason. ~ HAL  333  00:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree also. So many pages have infoboxes, be it a person, music album, country, media franchise, book, television show or movie, etc. So what makes Cary's page so different? It does feel incomplete and doesn't seem like an article that would have a badge saying its considered a "good article" without an infobox and one picture in its place. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Infoboxes are very useful for the reader. SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox?
Should this article contain an infobox? ~ HAL  333  21:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support as proposer. There is a precedent in usage for infoboxes on similar articles (e.g. Clark Gable, Frank Sinatra, Marlon Brando, Gregory Peck, and James Stewart). What makes Grant any different? "It looks better without it" or "we already talked about this" are not valid arguments. An infobox on this article would benefit the reader, making information easier to access at a glance. It would include content not currently present in the lede, such as a full list of his wives. ~ HAL  333  21:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and : Sorry for the ping, but I assume that you would like to contribute. ~ HAL  333  21:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, is this everyone who participated in the 2017 RfC? Randy Kryn (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I just added them. When I have the time, I'll ping editors from other discussions. ~ HAL  333  22:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As I made clear in the previous RfC I unwatched this page because I was fed up with all the palaver. My position has not changed. I will not be watchlisting it again, and I would rather nobody tried to involve me. DuncanHill (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sorry about that. I was just blanket pinging everyone - won't happen again. ~ HAL  333  23:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If this isn't an RfC it should be closed as void, as the decision to keep the infobox was made by the 2017 RfC. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong support. I wholly agree with HAL333. Since infoboxes are used in 99.999% of all other notable entertainers' articles, Grant seems incomplete without one. Same for Stanley Kubrick and Laurence Olivier. The infobox is the backbone of biographical pages as it provides convenient access to basic information; whether or not it looks good is irrelevant. Songwaters (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see why not. --I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me if replying off my talk page. Thank you. 21:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as per all of the above. An infobox would make all the key information (place of birth/death/resting place, marriages, etc) easily accessible. An infobox is standard practice for Wikipedia articles (even though some cite guidance saying it is not compulsory as reason why the article shouldn’t have one), even with much less notable people. Without it, the article appears unfinished. Time to reinstate the infobox. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support for all the reasons given above. It has always made no sense to me why Grant has no infobox - they're very helpful and many other public figures from the same time period have one, whether they were on his level of fame or not. Also don't be sorry about the ping - and thank you for asking and allowing me to participate!
 * Oppose, per past discussions and the valid choices of past editors to leave this page infoboxless. First of all, infoboxes are optional, so "other pages" isn't a valid argument. And yes, the page looks fine without an infobox, and the information which would be used in one is covered in the lead. Sometimes past comments should be adhered to as "Wikipedia long memory" and this seems like one of those. As a "Good" article without the infobox, let's let Grant's picture carry the page forward, as it has all these years. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As HAL333 already said, "we already talked about this" is not a good argument for not having an infobox because it does not address why it should or should not have one. Also, "other pages" is a valid argument here because without an infobox the page looks unfinished to the average viewer. Songwaters (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, since "other pages" isn't a policy based argument. Infoboxes are optional and any iVote for an infobox is an "I like it" comment and should be put aside. The place to change that is at the infobox policy/guideline page, not here. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support for all the reasons given above. It is helpful to users, standard practice, and overall just why not? I haven't seen a compelling argument as to why their shouldn't be an infobox. Repeating but citing examples (Olivier, Kubrick etc.) doesn't make sense to me since they deserve infoboxes as well. Not having one makes the page look unpolished, and unfinished It would just look more accessible and professional for their to be one. Thanks for allowing me to participate! The One I Left (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Some argue that the infobox is useless, but many people who read Wikipedia and are not editors find them extremely useful, even when they contain just the bare minimum of information. Put an infobox in this article.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  02:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Infoboxes in bios should be limited to sports figures & political office holders. Note: I acknowledge the growing trend towards inclusion for all bios & that I'm likely a part of a dwindling minority on this matter :( GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Every single actor mentioned in this article's intro have infoboxes. If Grant's fellow artists and contemporaries are infobox-worthy, then so is he. Cordially,  History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  05:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ifnobox addition. We are supposed to improve the project. This would not be an improvement. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 09:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In what way is having an infobox not improving the article? In what way does having an infobox hurt the article? If readers of articles find infoboxes useful, then that is by definition, an improvment.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  12:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In other words IDONTLIKEIT. Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, there seems to be overwhelming consensus that this article should have an infobox. A couple of editors against it for 'Idontlikeit' and 'its been discussed before' reasons cannot reasonable be construed as leading to a 'no consensus' for this RFC. Can this be fastrack closed and a goddamn infobox be added already? Firejuggler86 (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nono, lets have the process reach a conclusion properly, rather than rush the issue. If it helps to reach a compromise, I would support having an ifnobox at the very bottom of the article, just above the list of references. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 16:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

UTC)
 * Support: infoboxes are useful (imo) in summarising key facts about a person (or other article subject) so that readers don't have to scroll through the whole article to find out something like where they were born, or when they were 'active' in their profession. While some editors may prefer that readers read the whole article, it is our job to make the encyclopaedia better for them, and therefore, it would be beneficial to have an infobox. Many of the reasons I can see for opposing an infobox in the old RfC are along the lines of it would look bad, or that small facts like the ones I've mentioned are 'irrelevant', which imo, are WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. If someone comes to this page looking for a fact on when this person was born or something, then having an infobox would make it easy for that reader to find these facts - definitely easier than reading what currently appears to be a several paragraphs long lead section (also, while I know this isn't a featured article, WP:FA? #2a says "a concise lead section that summarizes the topic" (emphasis added), and adding an infobox would definitely allow the lead to be made more concise). If someone comes here looking for a long read on Grant's career, then they can simply not look at the infobox, or look at it and then move on. If there are rules against having an infobox, then WP:IAR may even apply here. <b style="background:#304747;color:#BED6D6"> Seagull123 </b><b style="color:#304747"> Φ </b> 19:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. As stated by several others, infoboxes provide a summary of key facts, which is particularly valuable to readers who are looking to quickly locate one of those facts. There are no rules against infoboxes, either in general, for biographies, or for biographies of actors. They are in fact very typical for our best biographies: of the 91 featured articles about "actors and filmmakers", 80 of them (88%) have infoboxes. Infoboxes are "optional", which means there is the option to have one or not, as the editors interested in a particular article prefer. The reason this article and a number of similar ones do not have infoboxes is because in the past there was a significant number of editors who opposed infoboxes and were interested in some specific subjects. What subjects? Well, of the 11 FA-class actor/filmmaker articles that do not have infoboxes, 10 of them are about English actors born before 1925, whose careers include stage acting (a pattern that Grant matches, except that this is a GA article rather than FA). Perhaps those same editors will show up to oppose this latest proposal, but if not, there is no policy requirement to continue with the past preference. --RL0919 (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proponents of the 'All articles need an I-B' doctrine have not convincingly explained above how an I-B would be of use to the reader here.  Tim riley  talk   16:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Or do you mean that noone has convinced you on how the infobox would be useful to readers? It's not the job of random editors to decide what information readers might be looking for in articles or how they might want to take in that information. If many readers find them useful, then the article should have an infobox.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  23:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:DISINFOBOX is an essay and not an official guideline. Any random editor can write an essay.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  23:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as it looks as if we are discriminating against this article for some reason.  We are here to help facilitate knowledge in a neutral manner..... as of now it looks like we're discriminating.-- Moxy 🍁 17:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - an infobox is not necessary as everything it would cover should be in a well-written lead. Jack1956 (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not the job of random editors to decide how readers wish to take in information. If someone wants to read the lead, they are more than welcome, but many times readers find an infobox and a well written lead to both be useful.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  23:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the inclusion of an infobox, they are very useful for the average reader looking to get at-a-glance basic biographical information about the subject, especially when the lead being rather lengthy. The article serves its purpose enough to present further detailed information about his life. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  19:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposed infobox will add little to the article that is not already included in the lede section Dreamspy (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The infobox is not supposed to replace the lead, it's supposed to augment and support the lead and inhance the usefulness of the article. Readers find them useful. That's all there needs to be said.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  23:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- an infobox on this article is of no benefit whatsoever, as the one proposed contains a repetition of everything that can otherwise be found, nice and succinctly, in the lead section. This is simply another laborious and wholly unnecessary RfC opened, and very much enabled, by a small group of people who cannot accept "no" for an answer. 90.218.65.76 (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually it's been a minoroty of editors who have been able to keep the infobox out of this article. As for the idea that the infobox is a repetition of what's in the lead, well of course it is. That's the purpose of an infobox. Key facts at a glance. I wouldn't trust an infobox that didn't have information in it that wasn't already in the article. Key facts at a glance. Now who is this ip really?-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  17:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You can probably stop bludgeoning the opposers on this RfC now; you have made your point effectively. Let's please also not insinuate that someone is editing while logged out, which is uncalled for. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm dismayed at the revivals of these discussions. An infobox simply will not benefit anybody in this instance. ♦ jaguar  23:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support If there is still time to vote, there is no good reason not to have an infobox, the same as most other articles. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as presenting information in this way helps our readers, who are the ultimate reason why we are all here. P-K3 (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support An infobox is worthy of inclusion, as it would benefit the readers. Idealigic (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I believe that many people judge this from the perspective of their own reading habits and wonder "why would anyone need an infobox" simply because they rarely glance at it. But Wikipedia users use it in different ways and an infobox is one of the most efficient ways of clearly displaying information. As for "who needs this", anecdotally I know people who genuinely believe that if a biography lacks an infobox on Wikipedia, than the subject of that biography is not "important" or "well known enough". I had that thrown at me during pubquizes and other such discussions about the notably of certain individuals. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It is hard to find standard essential information about a person in a 148,000-bytes article (as it is today). What am I supposed to do: scroll 15 screens down or Ctrl-F key words? It is just bizarre... And let me note that this generates a rather strange feeling that those opposing the infobox somehow own the article and cannot accept it being changed, which is against the whole Wikipedia's collaborative spirit. — 2dk (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Since consensus has been reached for an infobox, we should probably remove the "no infobox" template on the editing page. I assume an administrator has to do that? Songwaters (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

From the closer
Hey everyone, so sorry about the confusion. I agree that close was premature. I really screwed up my math: I think maybe I looked at the timestamp of the most recent comment (which was January 23), looked at my watch (which said it was January 24 because it was a few minutes after midnight), I got confused and thought nobody had commented in the past 24 hours, and closed the discussion because it had come to a natural end. Now that it's morning and I'm wide awake, I can definitely see that the discussion had not ended. Big mistake on my part, for which I deserve a trout.

There is no policy stating that RfCs must run for a month, and indeed, most RfCs fizzle after less than a week. But they should never be closed within 48 hours, and also should not be closed while the discussion is still in progress. (A discussion is normally considered "in progress" if a new argument has been made in the past couple of days.) So, as others have said, my closure was very premature. My apologies. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , hey, don't worry. As long as you learn, you're forgiven. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me if replying off my talk page. Thank you. 18:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

English/American
Would it make sense and provide more clarity to say he was a British/English actor who primarily worked in Hollywood/America as oppose to 'English-born American actor' as the latter reads to me like his parents were American or that he was born in Britain and lived there for maybe a couple of years at most. However he spent his entire childhood up until he was 16 at least it appears in Britain and was entirely British. 86.5.160.43 (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Honestly, this is just some typical wikipedia territorial BS... I expect it'll eventually be settled 20 years down the line... It's like that brief period of time where some fanatics changed the title of MacBeth (King of Scotland) to MacBheatha mac Fhionnlaigh. I don't think anyone British thinks of Cary Grant as anything other than British. Anthony Hopkins's page currently states that he's Welsh, but I expect now that I've said this someone will change it to say "Wales-born American actor" since Hopkins is just as "American" as Grant. 95.149.126.14 (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think he should be "English-American" or "British-American", whatever works. He was born and raised in the UK to British parents. Unless I'm mistaken, they allow dual citizenship. I don't see anything that states that Grant renounced being British. Just his article stating that he got American citizenship in 1942. Fellow Old Hollywood star Greta Garbo also became a naturalized American citizen and is arguably more famous for working in Hollywood/American films, but she still gets described as being "Swedish-American". I also don't think I ever remember Grant being described as just "American". Him being British/English was a pretty important part of his identity/notability. When it comes to citizenship/nationality, especially in the ledes, I know there's usually a lot of debates and back and fourth, and sometimes when it comes to Wikipedia's own policies on past or current citizenship/nationalities/etc, certain article ledes can be made "exceptions" if the consensus deems it so. But as I said, in this case, I don't see why he can't be described as being "English-American" or "British-American". Clear Looking Glass (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * British/American would be best, since England isn't independent, but rather a part of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, there are many articles of people from England who have "English" in their lede, like Emma Watson, and Grant was born/raised in England. I know whether or not the subject should be called "British" or "English/Scottish/Northern Irish/Welsh", etc depends on the context or consensus, but I'd say "English" works fine in this case. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)