Talk:Ian Fleming/Archive 1

Anti-smoking bias
Would a registered user please either provide a source for the statement that Ian Flemming's heart attack was brought on by smoking and drinking habits, or edit it out of the article. The fact is that as it stands this second bio on wikipedia to try and link a famous person's death to smoking, without any proof or evidence. The other was Audrey Hepburn, the author of that article at one point attempted to state that Audrey Hepburn's cancer was a result of life long smoking, a fact that was not substantiated at all.

Despite the fact that many of these statements are read as "may have contibuted" this is still opinion and un-verified. Heart attacks, and cancer, do have other causes than smoking and alcohal consumption, and as there is no source backing up that they were possibly a leading factor in the these people's medical conditions or death, this constitutes a non-neutral anti-smoking bias in these articles. One that is not only mis-leading, but should the person in question have died from entirely un-related medical reasons, down right dishonest.

Fleming almost certainly caused his own death
As stated on this evening's documentary, Ian Fleming: Where Bond Began, he was a chain smoker, and frequently drank large quantities of gin. It was also stated that Fleming's smoking and drinking caused, or at least significantly contributed to, his death. It is statistical fact that most heart attacks in heavy smokers in their fifties are caused by the afflicted person's smoking. The chance that his heart attacks in 1961 and 1965 had nothing to do with either his smoking or drinking is very remote. When such details are known, a biographical article should always include the subject's lifestyle, and its effects. That a person chooses a self-destructive lifestyle, and suffers the appropriate consequences of their actions, is very relevant to a person's life. Such details should not be censored or ignored by fans who wish their idol to always be portrayed as perfect, nor by people who are in denial of the proven fact that smoking currently causes four million deaths per year. Therefore, I have appropriately added to the relevant section of the article. Werdnawerdna (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The typewriter
"On May 5, 1995, Pierce Brosnan, the fifth official James Bond actor, bought the gold-plated typewriter on which Ian Fleming wrote some of his James Bond novels in Jamaica for a reported £52,800."

As I know, Pierce Brosnan has denied this. Should this be deleted?
 * If there's a reputable media source that can be cited for the report, it should be included, though Brosnan's denial certainly needs to be mentioned, too (again, preferably with a source). 23skidoo 23:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"legendary British actor"
"He is not to be confused with the legendary British actor of the same name."

Who he?

I suggest deleting the sentence until somebody writes an article about the actor, and preferably one that separates fact from mere legend. -- Hoary 04:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've heard of an actor named Ian Fleming but I'd hardly consider him to be "legendary". Feel free to cut the sentence. 23skidoo 05:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Incidentally, while Beowulf, Paul Bunyan, Valhalla etc. may indeed be "legendary", this use of the word for minor or even major figures and products in pop culture seems like journalistic gush at its worst, and is certainly unencyclopedic. -- Hoary 07:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Education
Was his prep school Sunningdale? Neither Pearson nor the potted bio on the Ian Fleming site mention refering only to defunct Durnford Preparatory School for Boys in Dorset. Albatross2147 11:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of it. I don't recall Benson's biography or Chancellor (the most recent) mentioning the school. I've removed it. K1Bond007 19:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am an ex-student at sunningdale and i can confirm that he did indeed attend there not durnford. interestingly at the same time as he was there there were boys named bond, bloufeld (who only had one eye and wore a patch) and a couple of others whose names appeared in bond books all in his year group. this fact is not mentioned in the article but as i cant find the evidence for this online i wont put that in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.112 (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Writing career

 * Christine Granville : Is there a source for this statement ? Surely it's unlikely that Fleming would have met her ? Fleming was in DNI and Granville in SOE -- completely different organisations. Given the secrecy and "compartmentalisation" of intelligence units they would have known nothing of each other's agents. Plus Granville spent large parts of the war in Poland and France.
 * in charge of defense of Gibraltar during WW2 --  again is there a source ?  Surely Fleming was too junior a rank -- Gibraltar waould have an Admiral in charge ? Also Fleming spent part / most / all (?) WW2 in UK, so could only be in Gib for a specified period of time. cephas Cefas 09:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's true. I've seen a couple sources on this including Henry Chancellor's latest James Bond The Man and His World. According to him they knew each other, even intimately by some accounts. Fleming was actually given a lot of powers by Admiral Godfrey, not just to be his political assistant. Fleming actually liaised with the SIS, SOE and a number of other agencies/departments on Godfrey's behalf. This lasted until about 1942/1943 when Godfrey was "removed" (never said why) and was replaced by Admiral Rushbrooke who scaled back Fleming's powers.
 * The notion that Vesper Lynd is named after Granville, however, is probably not entirely true. By some other accounts, she was named after a cocktail (possibly homemade) that was served to Fleming and his friend Ivar Bryce while on a plantation in Jamaica. I think it had iced rum, fruit, and something else. It was announced to him as a 'Vesper'. This kind of ties in with the novel where inevitably Bond names a martini cocktail after the character, the 'Vesper'. K1Bond007 16:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for this information and I now accept the entries. Cefas 19:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Connection between "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "Adaptation" : it's interesting to note that Ian Fleming used a literary device in one of his novels. is it necessary to say that a hollywood movie used that same 'innovation' 40 years later?  that tells me something about the hollywood movie, but not anything meaningful about Ian Fleming.  a side question is whether you can call something an innovation when someone else has done it first.  to me this factoid is extraneous to the article about Fleming and it seems out of place.  -jpx
 * ok, i'm making this edit.209.82.111.194 15:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)jpx

Goldeneye
Golden head in Spanish is cabeza de oro or cabeza dorada. This - http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/pages/history/story0048.htm suggests a different derivation - "* Oracabessa, St. Mary: comes from the Spanish for 'aura' meaning 'air or breeze' and 'cabeza' meaning head, resulting in a phrase that could be read as 'fanciful'." -- Beardo 06:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Later life
Being a 'visitor' from the german Wikipedia, I just stumbled across the following sentence: 'Particularly, he collected books relating to science and technology, such as On the Origin of Species, including milestones such as Mein Kampf and Scouting for Boys.'

Now, although I wouldn't dream of comparing Scouting for Boys to Mein Kampf, still, I believe the two have something in common: First, neither of them has anything to do with science and technology. Second, I wouldn't go as far as calling them milestones, especially not Mein Kampf. I was just wondering, whether this was, at least partly some kind of vandalism that had gone unnoticed. Not too firm in the field (of Flemings biography) I didn't want to get involved myself and just wanted to draw your attention to it. --194.94.40.241 15:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sentence dropped after vandalism - why?
I just wonder, if the following sentence was dropped by accident, since some idiot replaced it by this line:

"In 1940 between 1941 and 1946.Ian was the greatest guy ever!!!!!!!!! he made james bond.[1]"

Later the vandalism was taken away, but the original line wasn't restored. Shouldn't this happen?

original line: "In 1940 Fleming and Godfrey contacted Kenneth Mason, Professor of Geography at Oxford University, about preparing reports devoted to the geography of countries engaged in military operations. These reports were the precursors of the Naval Intelligence Division Geographical Handbook Series produced between 1941 and 1946.[1]"

Please someone have a look, who's got the knowledge on the subject to decide this!

Greetings, Joe. 82.83.70.43 02:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've restored the section: I think their removal must have been an accident. Jasper33 15:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

First sentence?
It makes absolutely no sense... he was born to his mother and his wife? Strange...--Pww214 01:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Valentine is a man's name, Valentine Fleming was his father. Ian's mother was indeed his father's wife. &mdash;Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 01:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Affairs?
The Live and Let Die novel page says that Flemming had multiple extra-marital affairs. If this is true, shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in this article? Emperor001 18:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are the affairs noteworthy? More to the point, are they reliably documented? If not, they probably do not bear mentioning. 208.102.58.109 (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Notes to the novels list?
Please correct the notes under the list of the novels. The numbers seem to be running through the entire article and it is not clear to which novel which note refers. Avgusti (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I took the numbers off and reworded the first two, but someone needs to either fix what the numbers were refering to or reword the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.214.146 (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Man Who Was M? Hah!
Fleming, as the DNI's "personal assistant" may be learned a great deal about the spy game that way (just as Eisenhower learned generalship/logistics by being MacArthur's personal assistant). But Fleming wasn't really a spy or (despite lots of imaginative plans, some of which were adopted), a formal spy director. If you're looking for Fleming in the Bond novels, he's not M, or Bond. Fleming is Moneypenny! But I can't put that in the article, because I'm afraid nobody has dared suggest it in print, so I can't reference it. Personal secretaries (Ponsonby, Goodnight) are always given their due in Bond novels, however. In Goldfinger, Bond even acts as personal secretary for Goldfinger--something that *certainly* never made it to the screen. S B Harris 05:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Centenary 100th
I think there should be a section about the centenary events planned like the Imperial War Mueseum in London, The Royal Mail posts, The radio broadcasts, Devil May Care ect and also about the Goldeneye Resort where he wrote the novels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondaholic007 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Alistair Crowley and Winston Churchill
Does this myth have any truth?

During the Second World War, at the request of friend and Naval Intelligence officer Ian Fleming, Crowley provided Winston Churchill with valuable insights into the superstitions and magical mind-set of the leaders of the Third Reich. He also suggested to the Prime Minister, if reports can be believed, that he exploit the enemy’s magical paranoia by being photographed as much as possible giving the two-fingered “V for Victory” gesture. This sign is the manual version of the magical sign of Apophis-Typhon, a powerful symbol of destruction and annihilation, that, according to magical tradition is capable of defeating the solar energies represented by the swastika.

source: Telaviv1 (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Liam O'Flaherty on Fleming
"I just can't stop reading this fellow Ian Fleming. It's a good thing he died, or I might go on reading the appalling bastard for the rest of my unfortunate life. I found out all the people he robbed for copy, mainly Dumas and Verne, although he didn't draw the line at taking chunks from respectable folk like John Galsworthy. Still, like Simenon, another great thief, he had a lot of talent and is quite delightful to read in parts." The Letters of Liam O'Flaherty‎, p. 388.

Not sure if it belongs in the article, but it does make interesting reading. Perhaps if there was a section in the main article featuring quotes from other writers about Fleming. Fanthrillers (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fleming Media
I have just created a page for Fleming Media, a London media investment company run by Fleming's family. Not sure if it warrants inclusion on this page, I'll leave that for otheers to decide. Doesn't seem anywhere obvious for it to go so thought I'd put it on here instead --IcedRockets (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Fleming
For heaven's sake, would someone please put a real photo of Ian Fleming on the page instead of that *cartoon*? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RBinPerson (talk • contribs) 05:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh God, it's awful. Can we not use a tiny crop of a photo from a book jacket? A screenshot from one of the DVDs? Anything? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Knighted
Isn't it SIR Ian Flemming? Robin.lemstra94.226.50.16 (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No. He was never knighted.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  12:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

30 Assault Unit
I noticed the plot of Tarantino's 2009 film Inglourious Basterds is similar to the article concerning 30 Assault Unit, notably the references to 'Red Indians' and 'Scalping'. Can anyone shed any light on whether this was used as inspiration? Fk82 (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyedited
Richard asr (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Signature Line copied from Van Wyck Mason?
The author Van Wyck Mason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._Van_Wyck_Mason) used the "Bond, James Bond" line in an earlier work "The Hong Kong Airbase Murders" in which the protagonist (Hugh North) introduces himself as "North, Hugh North". Any connection? The Mason books (1940 - 1949) were popular prior to the Bond Books (1953+), which would coincide to when Ian Fleming was growing up... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:F._Van_Wyck_Mason

Rudolf Hess
See Talk:Rudolf_Hess; There's no other source for the claims about Rudolf Hess than The Man Who Was M: The Life of Charles Henry Maxwell Knight by Anthony Masters, ISBN 0-631-13392-5

Dates?
Am I reading this wrong? It looks like Flemming died in August 1964, yet his Playboy interview was in December 1964, and two books were published after his death. A bit of irony that they were written after "you Only Live Twice." Just curious about that.

Picture
I can't agree with "better this than no picture". The current, well ex-current, picture really is a pretty hideous piece of work, and as a deliberate caricature can't even be taken as representative of anything much about Fleming. Suppose we had no image of Thatcher other than a Steve Bell insane swivelling-eyed one? Would that work? (er yes I know, but the correct answer is "no") The article truly is better off with no image than with this painting, or whatever - it's just not fit for purpose. If it was the 5th image down after four good photos then maybe, but not as the sole image. Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed it again. I don't see a consensus developing here for its inclusion - not yet anyway - and I do see a number of edits complaining that it should not be here. Maybe some discussion here might help? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fleming was by all accounts a very good looking guy, which makes the current image even more disappointing. Does no regular editor on here have access to a photo? (sadly I don't). Rangoon11 (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the problem of a paint? A free photo would be difficult, by the way other articles in diffrent languages use this picture. Egon Eagle (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of us think that the painting that has been proposed, and removed, is a very bad picture. It is a repulsive caricature, not an informative portrait. There is NO problem with a painting per se: it's just that no good copyright-free picture, whether painted or photographed, has been proposed. I continue to feel that "no picture" is better than the bad painting, and I know that at least some other editors feel so too. If you want it in, you would need to build consensus for that change. At the same time, I must add that what other-language Wikipedias do should have no bearing on consensus here. When I look at some of those other pages using it, I'm afraid it doesn't make me think "wow, that's great, they have a picture, we must be wrong"; it makes me think "why are those sad deluded nice people using that dreadful image"! :) Sorry! Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops sorry! nothing personal! :) DBaK (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that the painting is a repulsive caricature, not a proper portrait. Is it not possible to get a photo from somewhere?Rangoon11 (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well here's a rather depressing beginning:

Q: I have seen a photograph of Ian Fleming and/or of a Bond film in production, and would like to use it in an article or for another purpose. Can I have Ian Fleming Publications Ltd’s permission to use the photograph?

A: Ian Fleming Publications Ltd does not own any photographs of Ian Fleming or of the production of any of the Bond films. We are unable to help with queries about obtaining permission for use of images.

Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The real James Bond
Do not know if this would add anything worthy of inclusion to article, so I'll just leave it here The Real James Bond. --Pawyilee (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Writing Casino Royale
'He started writing his book... on 17 February 1952. ...he finished work on the script in just over two months, completing it on 18 March 1952.'

That makes just one month and one day. 109.154.14.8 (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfinished?
I seem to remember that he left a Bond novel unfinished at his death, and his wife wrote the ending. Readers were challenged to spot which parts were written by Anne Fleming. 109.154.9.58 (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. The last novel he wrote was Man with the Golden Gun, which hadn't gone through the complete edit and re-write process, which is why it was a bit 'thin' in places—and Anne never added or edited that story, or any of the other Bonds. There was nothing else part written or part-finished. -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Changes reverted
I hope I've not caused offence, but I have reverted some changes from 4.243.48.237. Unfortunately it was quite a big package of changes and I may well have thrown out some babies with some bathwater, but I didn't see why, for example, date formats had been changed and some punctuation had been moved from one side of quotation marks to the other, and so on. I'd be very happy if we could discuss changes here and I am sure that some/many of those proposed will be fine, but I do think that some discussion is required, particularly where substantial change is made to the style of an article. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ann Fleming
Ann Fleming's name is "Ann", not "Anne". I cite the following evidence: Further, Margaret Drabble's biography of Angus Wilson mentions that Wilson misspelled Ann Fleming's name when dedicating his final novel (Setting the World on Fire) to her (For Anne Fleming). Fanthrillers (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * link one
 * link two


 * I've corrected it a few times when I was writing the articles - to the correct Ann - but I obviously have a blind spot on spelling the name as Anne! Thanks for doing that - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Writing Career
In this sentence regarding Paul Johnson's review:
 * Although Johnson recognised that in Bond there "was a social phenomenon of some importance",[32] this was as a negative element, as the phenomenon concerned "three basic ingredients in Dr No, all unhealthy, all thoroughly English:...


 * You'll notice that Dr. No is not italicized and is missing the period. This may be how it appears in the source, and if so, it needs to be noted as such: "...Dr No [sic]", to show that you are not introducing an error, but are preserving the one from the original quote. If that quote was pasted from a source, it may be that the italic formatting was present but was lost in the process, so you should verify.
 * BTW, this section needs to be divided into subsections. As a side benefit, it will be easier to edit that way. Dementia13 (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there, thanks very much for all your changes: I've split the main "Writing career" section into two parts along and ensured the correct format is on the Johnson quote. Thanks again - all your efforts have been much appreciated. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Education and early life - quote box
How keen are you too keep the quote box in this section? I don't think it adds much to the article and seems pretty redundant. It's inclusion here would be significant for two reasons: If the "coff" was part of an illness which contributed to an early death or if its highlighting a problem with Dyslexia. I suspect it was neither of these things, and simply a typical letter between mother and child. Not only that, but we could get an image in there in its place which would be far more attractive. Feel free to disagree of course. -- CassiantoTalk 00:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The quote is in my view wholly insignificant in the life of Fleming. It is also not illuminating about Fleming. I have read a couple of biographies about Fleming and if the quote was included in either then I cetainly don't remember it. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just found my copy of the Lycett biography. If we must have quotes from/about Fleming in boxes then there are a few (not from his very early life however) which I feel sum up the man and his life much better:

"I've always had one foot not wanting to leave the cradle, and the other in a hurry to get to the grave. It makes a rather painful splits of one's life"

"We are of course totally unsuited - both Gemini. I'm a non-communicator, a symmetrist, of a bilious and melancholic temperament, only interested in tomorrow. Ann is a sanguine anarchist/traditionalist. So china will fly and there will be rage and tears. But I think we will survive as there is no bitterness in either of us and we are both optimists- and I shall never hurt her except with a slipper."

And this is an excellent quote about Fleming from Forbes Dennis, of Fleming aged 19, long but which really hits the mark:

"Ian's qualities are considerable. His general intelligence is above the average; he has imagination and originality, with the power of self expression. He has excellent tast; a love of books, and a definite desire for truth and knowledge. He his virile and ambitious; generous and kind-hearted... [However with] unusual physical and intellectual maturity he has not yet acquired mental discipline or a working philospohy. He therefore lacks stability and direction. His ambitions are considerable but vague. He has not yet learnt to enjoy work or to subordiante his impulses to his permanent aims, nor has he grown out of the schoolboy's fear of authority and the mental dishonesty which such fear often produces". Rangoon11 (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * IWhen I added it some time ago I quite liked it, but without knowing why: it now just looks entirely orphaned there and I've taken it out - you're right: it adds nothing. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 05:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that is for the best. IMO, I dont think this quote should be replaced with another. I dont like quote boxes all that much as they take up valuable space. I would much prefer that space be used by an image.  If you do add another, like Rangoon11's last suggestion  I think a block quote would be better.  See  WP:QUOTEFARM whilst you think about it. -- CassiantoTalk 08:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Works
I have been thinking about the "Works" section and I think the table is redundant and looks largely unfinished. Can I suggest moving the table's text to the body of the article and deleting it all together? We could sub section each book and have the "notes" text explaing a bit about the film. Failing that, I would mention all the books in a paragraph and just have Flemings more notable works having an expansion of text. -- CassiantoTalk 09:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me have a think about that as I'm not sure the sub-sectioning would work (it may well work, but I need to try and visualise it first!) The benefits of having everything in the one section means that some of the things that are not referred to (such as the unfinished pieces) sit alongside all his known works. I like having them all together, but I can see how it would work separately - I'll get back to you shortly. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick look at the sub-sectioning (See a very quick and rough attempt) and I'm not entirely sure it works very well. This is partly because a couple of the books were published way after they were written (Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang and Thrilling Cities) so the dating hops around a bit. The other problem is that a number of the books are only mentioned in passing, or even not at all, which leaves too many gaps for comfort. Even with a major re-write, the chronology of writing dates vs publishing dates would be a difficult option to overcome. This leaves the option of having all the books referenced in one paragraph, which could be an option, although possibly two paragraphs would be better—one in the first section and one in the second. Your thoughts? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * PS. Feel free to have a play around in litter tray if you can see an obvious way to do it. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
An infobox has been removed from the article having been included for a number of years. An improper canvassing effort of editors known to prefer that infoboxes are not included in biography articles has led to a tainted discussion incapable of establishing proper consensus. Wider input is requested and sorely needed. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

why no infobox? Muk.khan (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I was wondering that. Why has it been removed?Rangoon11 (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does it need one? It's all in the lead. To add one would be repetitive and redundent. -- CassiantoTalk 19:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are wholly standard in WP biography articles. It should not have been removed, I thought it might have been taken down for some maintenance reason. Please put it back.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong to think infoboxes are standard in biographies. What about these? here, here, here here, here, here, here, here, here here, here, here here, not to mention the many more listed at WP:FA.

Here is a list of arguments against infoboxes by User:Cassianto copied from elsewhere:


 * 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 infoboxes squash the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.
 * 3) Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel infoboxes give to articles: here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the boxes says it all.
 * 4) Disconnected particles. Their domination of the very opening of an 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 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.)

Infoboxes seem to pander to the lowest concentration span. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Their inclusion would be derided in any culture that wasn't saturated with 30-second television ads and news broadcasts featuring 5- to 10-second grabs from politicians, PR consultants and disaster witnesses. Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text.

Infoboxes should be used only occasionally, with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles. Those who are pushing the project to accept this cancer everywhere would do better to put their energy into creating more lists.

I will certainly not be adding one. An insertion here would render my previous review void as I disagree with it being added. You will have to approach the nominator (whom I know to be of a similar likemindedness to myself I might add) so good luck there! -- CassiantoTalk 20:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's your view, however infoboxes appear in the great majority of high profile articles. I am huge opponent of "dumbing down" but I personally see infoboxes as very useful and that they help to provide a standard look and feel across the project.
 * However the key point here is that this article has had an infobox for a very long time. It was removed boldly without discussion. That removal has now been challenged and should therefore be reverted until a consensus has been achieved for removal.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have readded the infobox. Please do not remove it again until a consensus has been achieved here.
 * Also - the infomation is not all in the lead, in fact the majority of it is not.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes you think you speak for the majority Rangoon11? Oh, and by the way, you didn't answer my question.  What about the biographies I listed above?  You say  "infoboxes appear in the great majority of high profile articles" they probably do, but in a lot of cases, they dont. All of the above linked articles are FA standard.  Your just another drive by editor who has now forced thier crazy opinion's and preferences on everybody else. It is you who needs to find a consensus to have one included and please do not edit war during FAC.  Comment (if you must) and say you want one included and see if the nominator agrees.  Do not add an info box untill a consensus has been reached.   -- CassiantoTalk 22:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The infobox had been in this article for a number of years with no one else attempting to remove it. And you now attempt to impose its removal through edit warring. Infoboxes appear in the great majority of high profile biography articles. Why don't you try removing the infobox from Adolf Hitler, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or Elizabeth II and see how long it takes before you are reverted. Just as a test. And I repeat, unlike what you said at the start of this thread, the majority of the infomation in the infobox is not in fact in the article lead.
 * "Your [sic] just another drive by editor who has now forced your crazy opinion's and preferences on what was a good article." - really how childish are you? Please. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How many edits have you made to Fleming during its improvements? If the answer is none, then I would suggest that this was a drive by edit.  Am I wrong? -- CassiantoTalk 22:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are resorting to tangential arguments depressingly quickly. For what it's worth I have edited this article occasionally since 13 August 2010 and have the sixth highest number of edits on the article. Although I am unusual in WP in feeling that the most regular editors of articles should have an extra element of influence over their development, it is an argumuent which it has been pointed out to me has no basis in policy.
 * To get back to relevant issues, most of the infomation in the infobox is not in the lead. Do you accept this?Rangoon11 (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I accept most some of what is in the infobox is not covered in the lede. Thats because it is uninteresting.  Why on earth do we need to know who Sellers previous wives were, when he was married to them, when the marriage's dissolved, what he died of, where the exact location was of his birth, where the exact location was of his death etc?  I'm wholly surprised you havent added what his favorite colour was, if he was a fan of marmite or not and when was the last time he caught a bus.  That is the kind of complete rubbish an infobox contains.  A lot of time and effort has been made by SchroCat who has researched constructed and maintained a full biographical account of this writers life to a very high standard.  A person of this standing cannot be summed up in a stupid box which looks thoroughly ugly!   This is what I am trying to tell you, it is either a repeat of what is in the lead (which is far more important by the way) or completely redundant as its neither important nor interesting.  This kind of minuscule and unintelligible information should not be the first thing a reader sees.  All of the salient facts are mentioned in the lead section. -- CassiantoTalk 02:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, Please do not add something back into an article which is under discussion: you should wait until the discussion is concluded before reverting. I removed the infobox on a number of grounds—largely covered above—but also including:


 * This article is currently at FAC and a request has been made to remove the infobox: to include the box will seriously weaken the chances of this article to progress.
 * This is an 8,000 biography which covers 56 years of a full life. To distil this down to ten very short bullet points is to mislead the reader about Fleming's life. The infobox misses out just about everything about him of interest or importance; it contains some information of limited importance, but the lead is the place where the important information summarises Fleming's life.

As per the above, I would be grateful if we could conclude the discussion here (or at FAC, if you would prefer) before any further edits take place. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 04:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support the choice of the main editors not to have an infobox; this is likely to be wholly acceptable at FAC. The information included in the old box can be criticised - does the reader really need to be told that the parents of someone born in 1908 are "deceased"? Johnbod (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they do not - but then that can be fixed without removing the infobox, so your question appears to be a strawman. Nor do we consider, per policy, support special pleading for "the main editor". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think that an infobox is essential either. In fact for biographies I think a clean photograph at the side looks more professional and presentable. Its different for sports people and such where its useful to list data but most of them are redundant I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support not to have an infobox as all the relevant information is in the lede so an infobox is redundant. Jack1956 (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Cassianto has been actively canvassing editors who they know to hold a certain attitude towards infoboxes. This is clear from their posts on the talk pages of the editors who have posted above:, , , , with comments like "Thanks for the support on the info box discussion on Peter Sellers" and "I am so sorry for the multiple requests you have had of late, but as a hater of the damn things, I know I can always count on your support."


 * And the problem with this is? Are the people I asked not part of the WP community? Are you saying their vote does not count?  Its called Drumming up Support.  Sorry, I thought that was what we were doing here. Trying to find those in favour compared to those who are not.  Get a grip! -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 14:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is wholly cynical behaviour and means that the above discussion is completely skewed and not a proper reflection of the attitude of the wider community towards infoboxes in biography articles.


 * The argument regarding the featured article process is also wholly irrelevant as the great majority of featured article biographies do have an infobox.
 * Its absolutley relevent IMO. I dont know how many times I have to explain this to you.  Not every article has to have an infobox The fact this article does not conform to the majority, is completely irrelevant.  Are you blinkered to this fact or are you choosing to ignore it?  I again bring to,your attention

here, here, here here, here, here, here, here, here here, here, here here, not to mention the many more listed at WP:FA. What do you have to say about these? -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 14:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is clear that the only way in which this issue will be addressed in a proper manner is via a RfC, which I shall initiate.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In the meantime the infobox should be reinstated. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned before, please feel free to comment at the FAC. Two reviewers have requested that the infobox be removed and I agree with that request for all the arguments shown above. As the request for removal was made during the review—a request supported by the nominator—the article can remain as it currently stands unless a consensus to replace it develops. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rangoon, Could you please remove your RfC. There is an ongoing FAC nomination at the moment and I suggest that is a far more appropriate place to discuss this as the article is currently under consideration there. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rangoon, your behaviour is completely inappropriate and you are coming accross as a very bullish person. Have same respect for Flemings FAC.  If this INFOBOX is reinstated I will withdraw my FAC support, and that would not be very fair on the editor who has took the time to list it. -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 14:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No this is an issue which requires wider consensus, particularly in view of what appears to be some very cynical canvassing, and Cassianto's involvement in the FAC process. There is a nasty smell around this whole effort to remove an infobox which has been a part of this article for many years. There is no urgency, this should now be discussed properly by the wider community. The canvassing process probably should also be looked at too.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The editors could have turned around and said "I happen to agree" or "I don't want to get involved" such as here.  Feel free to nominate, but after the FAC.  As far as I am aware there is nothing wrong with asking other editors to share their views: Cassianto has not told anyone how to edit or what to say, he has simply brought the matter to their attention. I only hope your actions have not damaged the chances of this article at FAC. -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue of the FAC is entirely irrelevant as the vast majority of FA biography articles have an infobox.
 * Cassianto has clearly canvassed only editors who they know to hold a certain view on infoboxes. This is crystal clear from the wording of their posts on talk pages, they have been hoist by their own petard.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I hardly think the issue of the FAC is "irrelevant" when that is the origin of the orignal requests to remove it. Please address your comments there and allow the FA reviewers to take your opinions into account when the decision of the infobox is made.
 * So you've already said. And as I've already said, there is nothing wrong with raising an issue and asking other editors to share their views. An infobox is not the be-all and end-all of an article and its inclusion is not mandatory. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 99%+ of all GA and FA biography articles have an infobox. And this article has had an infobox for many years. Its removal is therefore an issue which deserves proper discussion. And an RfC is now the only way to go in view of the highly tainted nature of the discussion above and the cyncial canvassing which has been taking place.
 * The FAC process is not one in which major content issues like this are dealt with.
 * Now perhaps you could explain in what ways the article is improved by removing the long standing infobox. Perhaps we could actually discuss what parts of its contents you have an issue with.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

At last! Right, all of it is redundant and repetitive. The only good addition is the photo. That is the easiest way for me to answer. -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 15:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
I am copying the infobox here so that new editors to the discussion can more easily assess the situation, since it is clear that Cassianto and Schrodinger are going to keep removing it. Once again I note that the infobox has been a part of this article for a number of years.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, I will refuse to discuss anything with you until you withdraw your accusation on your talkpage of me taking "underhand action" and apologise. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a few minutes ago you were defending some wholly cynical canvassing efforts because it suited you, and then you wish to feign righteous indignation. Stop trying to distract attention from the issue here, which is the removal of a long standing and integral part of this article. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * it's integral in your opinion. You do not speak for me and a lot of other community members who dislike it's inclusion. -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 14:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Feigning? I'm bloody furious that you have the cheek and audacity to accuse me of "underhand actions" when I have done nothing except follow the advice of the wider community as expressed through the FAC reviewing process. I am feigning absolutely nothing—I am furious at your accusation that appears not to be bothered with WP:GOODFAITH or WP:CIVIL. I still await your withdrawal and apology. – SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are not going to get an apology. You have been defending cynical canvassing efforts because you felt it suited you. Period. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am staggered that you think that you can throw around accusations at someone who has done nothing wrong, not back them up and still feel like you don't have to apologise for your outburst. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What exactly have I accused you of? You have come to my talk page and said that I am selfish and am seeking to deliberately damage the article. You have been shamelessly defending wholly cynical canvassing efforts. This is pure time wasting. I take it that you don't actually wish to discuss the infobox. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have told you what I want: an apology for you accusing me of "underhand actions". Can you point out any actions that I have taken which are underhand? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The canvassing efforts have been underhand and you have associated yourself with them by defending them above. I did not state that you were the one canvassing. You have however been working closely with Cassianto and have been defending their actions. And I haven't even bothered to mention that Cassianto has also been posting messages on talk pages stating that I am a "drive by editor", and that the issue was the addition of an infobox, rather than the removal of one which had been included for a number of years. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I give up. I'll not discuss the infobox with you until I receive an apology for your accusations. I will not be accused of underhand behaviour when I have done absolutely nothing to warrant it. If you want to have a sensible dialogue about this, then withdraw your accusation and apologise. If you fail to do that then you will have my opposition against you but I will not explain or debate further. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Then the disussion will simply carry on in your absence. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that you have not been able to hold this conversation without reckless name calling and been unable to approach this topic to try and gain consensus. I will continue to oppose the inclusion of the infobox, regardless of your debating "style". - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You mean like going to my talk page and calling me selfish. Here's something to play with whilst you sulk.

Rangoon11 (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your approach and attitude is really not conducive to a consensus-led, collegiate approach to editing. Your name calling and abuse do nothing positive for you in the eyes of others. I am not "sulking": I am just not prepared to deal with someone whose first line of argument is abuse and insult. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I think we need to calm down a bit. Rangoon, I will not bow down to your bullish and boorish behaviour.  This discussion and anything to do with stupid infoboxes is secondary to the articles FAC.  May I remind you of your commitments to WP:CIVIL.  I suggest we take a break with this now so everybody can just simmer down a bit.  -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 14:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would be delighted if this discussion could focus solely on the issue of infobox and its removal. Personally I am not a fan of back and forth he said, she said arguments. Let me be clear about a few things. 1. I would also like to see this article achieve FA status. It is not an article which I have merely happened across but I have edited for a couple of years, albeit at a lowish level. However, in view of the fact that infoboxes are a standard (if not compulsory) feature in WP and well over 99% of FA biography articles have an infobox I struggle to see how this has any fundamental relevance to that process. 2. I am very happy to discuss what should and should not be included in the infobox, and am willing to see details removed from it if a reasonable case can be made. 3. I remain firmly of the view that the infobox should be readded until a proper discussion has taken place here and a consensus reached for removal. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adopting a calmer tone. And now to answer your points.

This is not exhaustive and is committed. But these are the salient points. Oh and please remove the picture which is aimed at SchroCat. It is demeaning and is likely to cause further inflammation to an already heated debate. It's also not very mature. -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 15:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)-- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 15:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This article does not have to conform with the majority. A bold decision was made by the main editor to delete it as part of the articles revamp.  There is nothing wrong with that as long as he justifies it which he has done.
 * Information that includes who his family were, his wives, his signature, his exact place of birth, his exact place of death, are all unimportant and should not be the first thing a reader sees.
 * His name, date of birth, date of death, genre of work, is all repetitive.
 * ianfleming.co.uk should go per WP:FANSITE anyway.


 * This article also does not not have to conform with the 99.9% of FA biography articles which do have an infobox. Unless there are very good reasons why it should not follow the standard approach. Plus it has had an infobox for a number of years, with no one trying to remove it, and has achieved GA with it there.
 * It is your subjective opinion that details of closest family (and I note that with the exception of his son these are all notable individuals in their own right, such as his brother Peter who was a highly notable writer), place of birth, place of death, nationality and period of writing are "unimportant". I happen to think that all of these details are highly important in a biography article of a writer and that readers should not be forced to search through the article for the details.
 * The link to the official website of the family/foundation (not a fan site) is consistent with articles such as Michael Jackson, Agatha Christie, and Elvis Presley and seems useful. Why remove it? How is the article improved through removal?
 * Signature? Again I ask myself how is the article improved by its removal. I can't think how it is.
 * The signature is non free so this will be the first thing to go at FAC. Just thought I'd let you know. -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Resting place - I can see a case for leaving this to the article text. I don't see why we need to state that the relatives are deceased either. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Likewise, how is the article "improved" by adding one? -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 17:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not adding, one has been in the article for a number of years. The issue is should the long standing infobox be removed. The reasons for inclusion are clear - key information is provided to save readers needing to search through the article. The infobox also provides a place for other things such as the link to the foundation web site. This is why infoboxes appear on 99.9% of GA and FA biography articles. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Why are the local editors being harassed here over the undesirable disinfobox? It's their call. The infobox is not content.--Wetman (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that you have come here as part of Cassianto's canvassing of users who they knew to have a particular view on the inclusion of user boxes (ie users who do not like infoboxes in biography articles): . Cassianto has now had the good grace to acknowledge that this canvassing was not appropriate and that they were unaware that such canvassing was wrong when it took place. I am happy to accept this and drop the matter, but only if it is accepted that the above discussion is tainted beyond repair and should be disregarded. The rest of your drivel isn't worthy of reply. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you have to be so rude to people! Most of these users would have come here as a result of the RFC anyway. I just know to do things differently for next time.  -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 19:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because I don't like being taken for a fool, nor the comments which I have received today about being "selfish", a "drive by editor", the way in which the removal of a long standing infobox has been continuously misrepresented as an effort to add one, the rubbish posted on my talk page today, baseless comments that I have been harrassing people coming from an editor who has come here purely due to an improper canvass, Schodinger's feigned indignation about my pointing out the improper canvassing etc. This non-discussion has been a complete waste of my time. And my requests for the infobox to be readded pending conclusion of the discussion have been completely ignored.


 * The discussion above is completely tainted. We can either mutually reach the conclusion here that a new discussion is needed, or it will have to be taken to another forum. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't engage with rude people, so that's two people you have now ostracised . I suggest you take a day or two out and come back in a better frame of mind.  -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 20:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you think that you are going to get the infobox removed by failing to discuss then you are mistaken. I think it's time to take this to another forum as this is simply timewasting, and has been all day. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My eyes glazed over before I got to the end of this invective discussion. I generally liked infoboxes. However I understand the arguments against this article having an infobox. The more I contemplate infoboxes, and study infoboxes in other articles, the more pointless they become. I vote to remove it. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Its my opinion there should be an infobox, the majority of articles have them as did this one before the edit warring started but that my opinion not based on any particular piece of evidence because its impossible to form an objective opinion here. However i have no intention of getting involved especially in a poisoned debate such as this It should be noted though that some of the attacks and canvassing here are totally inappropriate you all need to calm down. Maybe try Dispute resolution because this RFC will get you nowhere given the tainted discussion. B   S  20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not ignoring the issue I am taking time out as you are clearly loosing the plot. I am happy to discuss this when you stop attacking other users in such a personal and unnessercery manner. On another note, can you please stop warring. SchroCat removed the infobox as he is the person who has done over 350 edits on the page, nominated for GA and is now nominating for FAC.   Blethering Scot, I realised my mistake in canvassing, as before doing so, I was unaware of such a policy.  I have apologised to Rancoon which has now been accepted.  -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 20:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox continued
I am an editor with no stake in this issue. I came here solely to read the entry on Fleming, and I missed the infobox. They are in every biography article I've ever read and I find them a useful and succinct way to convey standard info about the subject. The article lede is there to tell me why the subject is notable, and should not be cluttered with all the detail the infobox summarizes. Agreed, infoboxes should be concise. The info I like is birth and death dates, areas of work, awards. Description of spouses and children are a quick way to get a sense of the person: straight, gay, family-oriented, libertine. Relatives I would omit unless they are noteworthy enough to have their own Wikipedia entry. The example shown in this discussion could be better: I would lose the resting place, period, and relatives fields. "Children: son (dead)" is silly, give the guy's name and dates, or lose the whole thing. No doubt there are standards for infoboxes; follow them. Good luck! Jeffrw (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Jeffrw, thanks for taking part. You say "The article lede is there to tell me why the subject is notable, and should not be cluttered with all the detail the infobox summarizes." - If you think the information in an infobox is "clutter" then thats a primary reason why one shouldn't be included, as it's the first thing a reader sees.  You also request, quite rightly, that unimportant information be taken out, but want to know his sexuality, family details including relations etc.   What makes his sexual preference important and if he loved his family or not?  I really couldnt care less if he fancied men, women, pigeons or post boxes, that kind of information is uninportant to me. It doesn't help me understand his notable points any better.  To streamline the infobox would be a step in the right direction.  However, if we take out the place of birth, place of death and his son's details, like you suggest, you are simply left with a date of birth, date of death, and what he is notable for.  You should find that this is just repeating what is in the first paragraph of the lead section.  I appreciate what you are saying about wanting to have a quick reference guide without having to read the article, but this defeats the object.  As writers, we *want* people to read them.  An infobox prevents this as people read the listed points (which are a lot of the time ambiguous) and don't bother reading the rest of the article, which is a shame as we spend months (if not years) writing them. -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 09:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your time Jeffrw. A slight correction, if I may: the article lead is to "define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". It's a subtle difference, but an important one as it affects the entire content of the lead. A few points regarding the infoboxes:
 * Just so you are aware, there are a number of articles bigraphies that do not carry infoboxes, including here, here, here here, here, here, here, here, here here, here, here here, here, here, here, not to mention more listed at WP:FA.
 * I'd also like to draw your attention to the reasoned and rational debate that took place here at the Composers WikiProject. The project now discourages the inclusion of infoboxes for composers articles (see Ludwig van Beethoven, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Johann Sebastian Bach, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky etc, all of which articles do not have infoboxes)
 * This is an 8,000 word biography which covers fifty-six years of Fleming's full and interesting life. To distil this down to ten very short bullet points is to mislead the reader about Fleming's life by stripping out too much of his life to be truly useful. The infobox misses out just about everything about him of interest or importance; it contains some information of limited importance, but the lead is the place where the important information summarises Fleming's life, items which are both important and noteworthy.
 * I'm also not sure if you are aware that this article is currently at FAC and the request to remove the infobox was made there by two reviewers, a request that I as nominator strongly support. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And one of the reviewers at the FAC discussion who requested removal of the infobox was.... Cassianto - the same Cassianto who has been engaging in improper canvassing as part of the above discussion.
 * So essentially we have an editor using their position as an FAC reviewer to push their agenda for infoboxes to be removed from biography articles, even when an infobox has been included in the article for a number of years, and then engaging in improper canvassing to try to achieve their objective.
 * It seems highly dubious for the FAC reviewer to be engaging in this discussion at all, let alone engaging in improper canvassing as part of it.
 * The issue of achieving FA is of course wholly irrelevant anyhow, since at least 99.9% of all FA biography articles have an infobox. There is absolutely no reason why an infobox should in any way prevent an article gaining FA status and FA reviewers should not be using the FA process to push their personal prefence for all biography infoboxes to be removed.
 * It is also worth noting here the reason given by the second reviewer, indopug, for removal of the infobox: "I thought infoboxes were deprecated in biographies". This is, of course, completely wrong. Not only are they not deprecated, they are so common as to essentially be standard in WP (if not compulsory). Rangoon11 (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in Johnbod, Rancoon do not revert my talk page responses as you did here Practice what you preach. Taken from revert by Rancoon: :I did canvass but I was not aware of the policy. I apologised for this here. Really, are you that desperate for an arguement that you have to resort going over old ground to generate one.  Please be a bit more mature! -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 18:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They are absolutely not compulsory in bios. The Manual of Style/Infoboxes is entirely clear on this (in "Using infoboxes in articles"): "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. 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." Appeals to general usage merely demonstrate the lack of arguments relating to the specific article. Requests to remove them are not uncommon at FAC, easily outnumbering requests to add them. That "at least 99.9% of all FA biography articles have an infobox" is just not true - that would leave only one or two that don't and that is clearly not the case - see above. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the point of a "discussion" when people do not even reply to the prior post, but to what they wish the prior post contained? Of the thousands and thousands of GA and FA biography articles a handful do not contain infoboxes. These are the ones which have been listed above. I haven't bothered listing the ones which do because it is in the thousands.
 * For an editor to be using their role as a FAC reviewer to push their preference for infoboxes to be removed, and then engaging in improper canvassing in a discussion on the article talk page on the same issue (and Johnbod is of course one of the editors who was improperly canvassed), is blatantly wholly improper. It is clear that this whole FA process, and above discussion, is tainted and will have to be halted and taken to another neutral forum for debate.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fancy footwork, Rangoon! You only said FAs before, now you bring in GAs! There are only 3606 FAs in total, not many of which are biographies.  We all have our personal tastes, but the policy is clear, and that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is beside the point. Do you actually have any relevant arguments to override the preferences of the main editors, which the MOS is clear rule here?  If not I think you have made your views very clear. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is disappointing that despite having come here due to an improper canvassing you have continued to take part in this discussion. The discussion is of course tainted beyond repair. Of the editors who did not come here through that improper canvass, four have stated that they feel the infobox should remain. There is at present no consensus for removal and yet effort are still being made to remove it through edit warring.
 * 'Main editors' - meaning what exactly? Meaning Schrodinger? One editor. So they now have ownership of this article do they? I wasn't aware that was policy. (And of course Schrodinger themself favoured an infobox until it was suggested that it should be removed as part of the FA process).
 * An infobox has been a part of this article, and a stable part of it, for a number of years, including when it gained GA status. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never edited the article at all & so cannot possibly be accused of edit-warring - can you say the same? People are able to discount my views but should not discount my reminders of policy and my rebuttals of some very inaccurate statements made here. The actual views of all drive-by editors should not count for much beside those of the main local editors. You seem to be saying that articles should never be improved, which often involves cuts. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't recall accusing you of edit warring; I merely noted that your presence here is the result of improper canvassing.
 * I am unsure as to how I can be described as a "drive by editor" of the article, having first edited it two years ago and been involved in a couple of other talk page discussions, including one very recently. "Main local editors" means nothing I am afraid.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Cassianto - please do not attempt to change my entries on this Talk page as you just did here:. This is exceptionally poor form. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ill tell you what is poor form, coming on here and warring again, or do you think this is constructive editing? Tell the full story. Did I come onto your page and apologise? Yes or no?

Ironically, it is you who wants a fair debate and when a line is underwritten on the previous section with a view of starting a fair debate, you go off topic and bring up all the stuff you were complaining of others doing. Hahaha! Brilliant! -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 19:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, As per WP:PERSONAL. could you please "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Focussing on the argument surrounding the infobox will be more constructive than anything else. Secondly, "Schrodinger themself favoured an infobox until it was suggested that it should be removed as part of the FA process". No. I'm afraid not; please do not try and mind read me. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just seen your new edit warring. This is not a constructive step in this argument and you really should take a step back, take a deep breath and think about self-reverting. You know it would be the mature and right step to take. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, nothing has been solved by this. You have again ruined another chance at a resolution.  No more from me. -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 19:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The behaviour of Cassianto as an FA reviewer, and in terms of their improper canvassing, is of very great relevance because it has led to a completely tainted discussion and a tainted FA process. I requested that it be agreed that a whole new discussion be started and the discussion involving the improperly canvassed editors be disregarded. This was rejected by Cassianto. I strongly query whether Cassianto should even have been editing the article or participating in this discussion at all.
 * And even now editors who were improperly canvassed are still participating in the discussion. This has become like a travelling circus, a complete farce. I am sorely tempted to walk away but I know that the circus will thensimply move on to other articles and am very reluctant to see such blatantly underhand and cynical behaviour be successful.
 * I have made my specific comments on why I feel that an infobox should be included long ago in this discussion. The replies were pathetic, and I don't see why I should have to repost them here.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've not asked you to repost. I've asked you to self-revert. Could you also please try and restrain your turn of phrase. Calling people's concerns and thoughts "pathetic" just because you don't like them is not conducive to a mature and reasoned debate. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But edit warring by you to impose the removal of the infobox is fine of course? Even though the infobox has been a part of the article for a number of years?
 * And yes a number of the replies which Cassianto made to my arguments (way up) above were pathetic. I made multiple wholly valid points and these were simply ignored.
 * For example, way above I stated "Perhaps we could actually discuss what parts of its contents you have an issue with". Cassianto's reply was "At last! Right, all of it is redundant and repetitive. The only good addition is the photo. That is the easiest way for me to answer". Rangoon11 (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * er...that's my view that why. IMO, It is redundent and repetitive. However my jubilation at your request to streamline the infobox was plain to see with my edit summery. By the way, I  hold No role at FAC.  I am not a delegate, I am not an admin, I am just a normal "Joe Bloggs" who wanted to participate in helping this article to become one of the best on WP.  So far you have contributed diddly squat! Other than to criticise, bully, abuse, warr, and condemn. There is no such role as a delegated FAC reviewer.  I suggest you try reading WP:FAC.  In the interests of this speedy resolution which you are currently holding up, feel free to walk away like you suggested above as currently, you are contributing nothing to this discussion.  Did you bring a coat?  :-) -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 19:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(Again, please stop calling other people's opinions "pathetic": it does you no good in the long run.) As I've already explained, the infobox was removed on the advice of FAC: a decision I as the GAC and FAC nominator wholly support. Can I just tot up the quick show of hands we have had already? Perhaps you may see fit to self-revert after you see the following:

You will note that I am not including any of the people contacted by Cass (, and ) - an action for which he has already apologised numerous times and you have accepted. (With your acceptance should come letting that aspect of the matter lie: that's what the acceptance means, btw). I'm not sure where you accusations about "tainting" of the argument come from, given the weight or argument is against you. Given all this, I am asking that you self-revert and stop jeopardising the chances of this article at FAC. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Muk.khan and Blethering Scot should both be in the want to retain box. Dr. Blofeld was one of those canvassed by Cassianto. Indopug has (rightly) played no part in this discussion as one of the FA reviewers and should not be counted.
 * The entire discussion is any case tainted as it would almost certainly have developed very differently had a number of editors not posted comments in favour of removal at the start (with the canvassing issue, and the fact that Cassianto was one of the FA reviewers, only being discovered later). Inevitably other editors have also been put off joining this discussion as a result of the bullying and tag teaming approach of yourself and Cassianto. Nonetheless it is very clear that at this point there is no consensus for removal of the infobox which has been a part of this article, uncontested, for a number of years. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are right about Blethering Scot - his signature was too small for me to see - and Dr. B. Not for Muk.khan. They have not expressed an opinion, just asked where it was. And of course Indopug is counted. He was one of the original people who suggested its removal and whether his decision is either in FAC or here is, well, neither here nor there. Either way, there is no consensus to have the box in there. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You say Indopug plays no part in this? Good. Seeing as its he who suggested the infobox removal, I have deleted it as his comment was balanced and devoid of this discussion. Don't revert again, there's a good chap! -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 20:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Muk.khan's view is clear but I will ask them to confirm. Or perhaps we can agree to a neutral wording to put on Muk.khan's talk page asking for confirmation, lest I be accused of canvassing (it wouldn't be of course, but I can see that accusation coming).
 * Indopug cannot be counted as they have not taken part in the discussion. Neither should they take part as they are part of the FA review process.
 * I am getting rather sick of making the point again and again but it seems like I must - the infobox has been a stable part of this article for a number of years. 'You need a clear consensus for REMOVAL (and consensus in any case is not taken by vote). There is patently no consensus for removal at present. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

MK's view is not clear until it is expressed. Please don't try mind reading other editors. MK asked where the infobox was. Nothing more. They may look at the arguments and decide that the areticle is better off without it, for all the reasons outlined. They may not, of course, but I really don't suggest posting on their talk page. if they are that interested they will return to see if there has been an answer to the question they asked. As to Indopug, rather like the rest of us he is an editor with an opinion and he has expressed that opinion clearly. if he also wants to add his comments here he can do, regardless of whether he has been part of the FAC or not. I'm not sure what you have againstr the FAC and why you are so intent on keeping this article as less than the best it possibly can be. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I will post on their talk page asking for confirmation then. This is perfectly proper. I fully expected that you would express a desire for me not to do so.
 * What is not proper however is trying to count someone who has not even taken part in the discussion, as you are attempting to do.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

IF YOU POST ON THEIR TALK PAGE IT IS CANVASSING, NO MATTER HOW "NEUTRAL" YOU TRY AND MAKE THE POST. I'm hoping that got through, because it would be horribly hypocritical of you to break that particular policy. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain how. And very amusing this coming from someone who was aggressively defending Cassianto's blatantly improper canvassing.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm slightly surprised that you are asking how. As he has already explained—and for which he has already apologised—Cassianto contacted people without knowing about WP:CANVASS. You are fully aware of it and have accused people of being "underhand" and "tainting the argument" by doing exactly what you propose to do. If you also take that step - the step of "blatantly improper canvassing" then your actions, as well as being utterly improper, will smack of rank and utter hypocrisy. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In fact, sack it, go ahead and ask. I'd like to strike a line through absolutely every part of this discussion as it will have been utterly compromised. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cassianto was, by stealth and without informing this discussion, contacting multiple individuals who they knew to hold a certain view on the inclusion of infoboxes in biography article. The messages which they used were also misleading, presenting the issue as one of the addition of an infobox rather than the removal of one which had been in the article for a number of years. They also described me as a "drive by editor", despite my having first edited the article two years ago. 100%, unambiguous, improper canvassing which has tainted the whole of the above discussion.
 * You seem to think that my openly contacting a single editor, in a wholly neutral manner, who has already posted a message in this discussion, would be improper canvassing and is somehow similar? In fact if I did so you would declare the whole of this discussion "utterly compromised".
 * But, of course, you don't feel that way at present, despite the fact that editors brought here through Cassianto's improper canvassing have significantly affected its course.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's your call entirely. I cannot stop you from taking any steps you want. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC) And yes, your 19 edits have been utterly invaluable in driving it from a second rate article to something that stands on the brink of a possible FA. Well done. Barnstars shall rain forth from the heavens for you. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh Rangoon, why must you keep this utterly boring arguement going. We have identified the users, they are void of the votes, due to my unintentional breach of WP:CANVASS(for which I have apologised for),  now for god's sake lets move on. You are becoming predictable and transparent. -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 21:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox continued continued
I should have responded to <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b> and SchroCat in the appropriate location above but a lot of stuff got written in the day since I posted my comment and I hate to disturb the flow of hate :-)

BTW kudos to all the editors of the Fleming article. It's packed with fascinating material! (I'm no longer disinterested since I edited the article.)

My philosophy very quickly: a biographic encyclopedia article has to satisfy a broad range of consumers, from people who know nothing about the subject, to people like me, in this case, who know the broad strokes about a person but need to quickly look up a specific fact. You must make compromises to achieve the greatest overall utility.

Are infoboxes "clutter" or "redundant"? To me, the best articles have an elegant quadrad of photo, infobox, lead paragraph, and TOC. If I'm clueless about the topic, I can read the lead. If I'm clued in, I can check the infobox, and the TOC for the info I'm searching for.

Infobox/lead/article redundancy. Yes. Standard scholarly papers have abstracts which are redundant with the article. The goal is to be helpful. If a reader can get what is needed from the abstract, without ever delving into the details, then the paper is a success.

Clutter? Visually, no. The infobox is neatly set off, I can read it or not.

What's in the infobox? The eight most likely things consumers will want to know. Your goal as editors is to figure out what those things are. Me, I bet sex is always one of them. Regards, Jeffrw (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment Jeffrw, I respect you view and hopefully we can now discuss what is best suited for the article without any rude interjections. I am curious by your last comment though.  Why do you need to know his sex?  His name is Ian and his picture is of a man. If you mean sexuality, again why is that important?  As I have said above, the fact he is gay, straight or bisexual does not help me understand him any better as a writer. -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 09:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Christ; another infobox bickerfest. I just restored the infobox because the reason given in the recent removal of 'per a FAC comment', is ridiculous. Such comments are not determinative of article content, they are comments, mere opinion.

I Support having this infobox. It's useful to readers. I'm sure many above have said much the same. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * FFS - thanks for continuing the edit war that had just started to calm down a little. Please self-revert while the conversation is still in progress. Your decision is also "mere opinion", as it the rest of ours and edit warring is not the way to resolve this. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't even see this dispute, I saw a bullshite rationale for removal and challenge it. It seems to me that this infobox has been here for years and the onus is on detractors to establish a consensus for removal. It should stay during this RfC. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I disagree with your actions utterly and consider your action to be tantamount to edit warring. The rationale is not "bullshit": 2 reviewers requested its removal and I, as nominator for both GA and FA fully support that removal. Just to correct you, many above have not said it is useful: only a few have - and a few have supported the removal. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One edit is edit warring? How about viewing it as an outside opinion such as the "RFC" up a few sections seeks? Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Could we please refrain from swearing. Br'er Rabbit, can you not come on here and use disgusting language. It was you who used it in the first instance and it is not acceptable per WP:CIVIL. Now please self revert. We are, if nothing else, in favour of deleting the non important information within the info box. If all you are doing is coming on here to be disruptive, I suggest you go and haunt someone else. -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 16:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I called your rationale in the html comment "bullshite". It is. I already said so, above. And no, I'm not reverting my single edit to the page. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure where this "no infobox" thing started, but they have been SOP for many years. Can someone point me to the RfC that says we're doing away with them?  If not - it should stay. Chedzilla (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Chedzilla, there is no requirement either to have or not an infobox in any article, they are entirely a matter of choice. The fact that they mislead by gross oversimplification and repeat information available just a couple of inches away in the lead is ignored by many. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummmm .. well - my compliments to you on your GA work and thanks for your contributions Schrocat - but I suspect you're fighting an uphill battle here. mislead by gross oversimplification... - it may take me a bit to wrap my head around that concept.  Bullet-points are quite common in educational writings, and the "boxes" have been standard issue for a LONG time here.  If you find them objectionable, perhaps a global RfC (posted at WP:CENT) or a proposal at WP:VP would be your best bet.  To be honest though - I doubt you'd get much traction.  I'm just trying to imagine someone attempting to rip out the infobox at ahhhhh ... I don't know ... Barack Obama.  This is a pretty huge change in our standards that you (or whoever) is trying to make, and I seriously doubt it's going to fly. I suspect that trying to get some sort of WP:LOCAL consensus for it here is not really the way you want to go. Chedzilla (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest we ostracise Br'er Rabbit in this discussion until he/she can adopt a more friendly tone. Br'er Rabbit, leave the discussion, pull yourself together, and come back when you have lost the uncivil manner.  I refuse to engage in any kind of edit war as I dont want it to effect the articles chance at FAC.  Right,  Chedzilla, thanks for you comment.  SOP's aside, it is *not* a requirement, and serves no purpose at all, please see here for further guidance. -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 17:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Cassianto, yes, I'm familiar with many of the MoS guidelines. Let me try this approach.  Can you point me to a bio FA (preferably a more recent one) which lacks the infobox?  That way I can review some similar circumstances and compare.  Thank you.  (btw - telling people they can't post here isn't likely to work well either - ijs) Chedzilla (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Chedzilla, if you scroll above, I have posted a few times of all the bio's which lack infoboxes. I will do it again to be helpful. They are here, here, here here, here, here, here, here, here here, here, here here, here,  here, here, not to mention more listed at WP:FA. By the way, I didn't say don't post.  I requested Brer Rabbit leave and come back when he could be more civil towards me.  I find the language he used to be offensive and rude.  I will not engage with people who adopt this kind of tone.  Its a shame, because I want to hear his opinion, but not when he is swearing.  Besides which, it also appears user has form -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 17:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 16, huh. Compare with 14889 uses of Infobox writer and 111790 uses of Infobox person. Bzzt. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't mean this has to conform. -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 18:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Quantity does not equate to quality BR. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Point was, they are common. And I could suggest some more anti-infobox editors, but that would be canvassing. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Checks. Nope, I'm still here. I just some duplicate named refs in the article, too. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Cassianto, I'll look over that info in the next day or so. For the record though, I personally "favor" the infobox.  I'll stop back later when time permits. Chedzilla (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all. Thanks for your views! -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 18:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Chedzilla, please also see the faily reasoned and rational debate that took place here at the Composers WikiProject. That project now discourages the inclusion of infoboxes on the articles of classical composers. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with that. You do know the WikiProject's don't own articles, right? It is a common failing that they seek to. It's all off per WP:CONLIMITED. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I am aware of that. However, what it shows is that there is no need for a knee-jerk "must have an infobox" in every case. Taking 54 years of a full and complex life and putting them into 10 bullet points isn't ditilling down, it's dumbing down and nothing more. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I happen to have stumbled on this rather ill-natured "debate": I have no direct interest either in this specific article or in the GA/FA process. (Label me a drive-by editor if you wish: it's a badge I'll happily accept.) For what it's worth, I just want to register a vote in Support of infoboxes, here and in other biographical articles: by definition they oversimplify, and they're never the be all and end all of an article, but they do have their uses. I write primarily as a Wikipedia user rather than editor. I'm perfectly capable of reading and digesting a long article, but sometimes, if I'm working on another topic that is only peripherally related, I don't want to plough through a long and (for my purposes) irrelevant text in search of some basic fact (how old was the guy when he died? If I'm writing about him in 1922, do I refer to him as Peter Fudge or Lord Foo?). The argument that they clutter the layout is tendentious: they're barely wider than a standard thumbnail image, and, writing as someone who works on a pretty small screen, I've never found them remotely distracting. GrindtXX (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking in and commenting. On a secondary note can I ask what kind of information would you feel you would need to see and what information would you consider to be not so important and therefore do without? -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 21:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, Thanks for your additional comments and editing of headings etc, but the discussion is over and evereyone has gone home now. The RfC has been closed and the decision was made to retain the infobox, but to remove non important information. Thanks for your time, but, at the moment, we're all hoping that this does not spark off anything further. Thanks - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To claim "the discussion is over" while acknowledging (albeit ignoring the content of) my comments is logically inconsistent. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you again, but the consensus has already been reached which has resulted in the infobox being retained. The RfC was closed by the originator and, as you can see at Talk:Ian Fleming, the parties who have been heavily involved to date are trying to move on. Thanks again - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Signature
Rangoon, Please revert that last edit you made. The signature is a non-free image and cannot be justified in an FA article. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess that's why numerous FA biography articles including J. R. R. Tolkien, Ernest Hemingway, Evelyn Waugh, Edgar Allan Poe, Malcolm X and Michael Jackson include signatures? Where exactly is that bit of policy from?Rangoon11 (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * a) This is not an FA article, 2) I don't much care for sigs in infoboxes, so have no objection to it being removed. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As it's a sig from the UK it is subject to UK copyright legislation as it can be classed as a work of art - see WikiCommons for further details. I'm sure you're aware of the use of non-free images in FA articles and that is the aim here, although your actions seem to want this article to fail in that respect. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ScroCat, I would leave the signature for now. The reason being is when an image review is conducted, it will be deleted for being non free anyway.  -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 17:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion for removal of information within the infobox.
With a view of drawing a line underneath and moving on, I want to start a discussion involving the content within the infobox; most of which, IMHO, is unimportant information. Such as: The above are a few bullets which I consider to be useless, uninteresting, unimportant, redundent and repetitive. Please keep this discussion constructive and civil. -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 22:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Who needs to know where the poor chap is buried?
 * Who needs to be reminded of the fact he was a writer?
 * Who needs to know his nationality?
 * Who needs to know about his non important wife and when she died?
 * Who needs to know about his relatives and when they died? (Surely the whole point of a wiki-link no?)


 * Rather than risk getting into more arguments, please add your name to the list and either a yes or no for the particular section that you want to see go. If you want to elaborate then add a comment below.  Many thanks for taking part! -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 23:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "voting is evil". Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

All of the above should remain. I was fine with removing the signature. It's an image, and is unimportant. You seem to wilfully ignore the function of an infobox; it serves as a précis of the article. The vast majority of visitors to any article do not read the article. People are looking for a fact and the obvious ones are what belong in the box. This is also why articles have a TOC; so people can skip right to "Works", for example. I know, you want them to all read the page. But that's not realistic. People browse the web, they skim, and when something catches their interest, then they might buckle down and read teh brilliant prose. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ditch the burial location, wife, son & relatives. All very pointless and uninteresting. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Also ditch "Period 1953-1964". This implies that Fleming's journalism career also began in 1953. Keep the website link. I like the signature, but I'll defer to SchroCat. - Fanthrillers (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

re table; I thought this was a discussion... Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would include the information. Many readers consult us for a quick piece of information, not a lengthy read.  It behooves us to have the significant pieces of quick info the reader likely wants at the top of the article in some easily used format.  The infobox is how it's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Wehwalt, do you mean you'd prefer to keep all of it, even the misleading "Period" info? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 04:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The table is an illustration of who supports and who opposes and is to be used as a quick reference guide. If you find the table misleading, redundant and completeley unnessercery, then ironically, welcome to our world! It is the only way to keep the stupid comments and the bickering out. We wasn't getting anywhere before. Oh, and If voting is evil, then what was the "Support" all about in the previous section? (By the way I have no idea what the below comment means. Can you elaborate?). -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 06:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * <small style="text-transform: lowercase;">(i can see you trolling. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC))

I strongly favour keeping all of the infomation currently in the infobox, with the exception of the place of burial. I note that having failed to get the infobox removed through improper canvassing, lying, improper use of the FA process, tag teaming, bullying, blustering, filibustering and edit warring, efforts are now being made to gutt the infobox. The attempted use of a voting table above is yet another cyncial ploy (as is the very name of this section). 1. not a vote. 2. the table as set up above is blatantly misleading and not a reflection of views expressed in the very long discussion above. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Many people have an interest in the resting places of notable people (there are many books on that subject, for instance). Fleming's is an encyclopedic fact about him (were it not, that parameter would be removed from the template; previous discussions have resulted in consensus to keep it) and should remain in the infobox. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To date myself, Cassianto, Rangoon11, Br'er Rabbit and Fanthrillers have all expressed a desire to remove the resting place from Fleming's infobox. The article is crammed full of sizzling and juicy encyclopaedic facts about Fleming, but this particular one is one that we all felt could remain just in the article, rather than be given the prominence of the infobox. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Br'er Rabbit said "All of the above [a list including burial place] should remain"; but since this is a discussion, not a vote, I'm not clear what point you're making with your list of names. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see User talk:Rangoon11. Thanks - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy, I did agree to cutting that as a compromise; I don't actively want it gone, though. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Civility
'''Please could ALL PARTIES please keep in mind WP:CIVIL and refrain from name calling and accusations. It is not helpful and hardly conducive to finding common ground in this matter.''' - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Everything which I have just said is both correct and relevant. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As per the above Rangoon, please could we try and focus on the matter in hand and not start finger pointing over this. I am try to defuse what has become a nasty, brutal argument that threatens the FA process. Everyone—and I repeat EVERYONE —needs to step back, take a deep breath and think before they post. - Thank you for your consideration. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * One minute you are edit warring, the next you are aggressively telling others not to. One minute you are aggressively defending wholly improper canvassing, the next saying that openly contacting a single person who had already posted in the discussion to seek clarification would wholly invalidate the discussion. You have been tag teaming with Cassianto, a proven liar. The use of the FA process has been improper and deeply cyncial.
 * Why do you wish to waste anymore time on this arid, time wasting exercise. We all have better things to do. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I give up. I'm trying to ensure this article moves forward to FA and a calm conversation is more likely to achieve that aim than any other pathway. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. I don't see you and Cassianto as acting "calming" at all. I see you acting in concert to remove or gut the infobox by any means necessary. You utterly fail to assume good faith and cast plenty of aspersions and offer bait. You've only yourselves to blame that this is scuttling the FAC. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We have set up discussion after discussion in an attempt to form a consensus surrounding the current infobox. SchroCat and I (along with a few others) were in favour of deleting the infobox as we are opposed to it.  Yes I foolishly canvassed, not knowing the rules, and yes upon realising my mistake, I apologised immediately.  Still eager to form a consensus,  we left off the "tainted" users opinions and tried to form another discussion using a simple table to illustrate who is against what as the discussion was resorting to a plethora of bitchy comments and a snatch of foul language.  Typically, this ruined the conversation.  I set up a new section, having given up all hope of a complete deletion of the infobox, in favour off "OK if we keep, what sections SHALL we keep". This, again, turned into an arguement which was then abandoned for a second time.  I created a new table for a quick show of hands to show the weakest sections within the infobox as every opportunity to discuss was hijacked by the arguementetive's.  This was deleted for a second time, a clear breach of WP:TPO. On reflection I feel all is not lost. I have had the pleasure of seeing Fleming flourish during its brief time at FAC, thanks to the review of Dank.   For those who took part who offered an opinion, devoid of nasty comments, I salute you and thank you for your time.  -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 19:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see both SchroCat and yourself followed me to Talk:Georg Solti to oppose an infobox there after I'd supported one:
 * That's usually viewed as WP:Harassment. You two should consider the view that in your zeal to cut infoboxes you are being disruptive, are creating a toxic environment and are doing a disservice to readers. You have only yourselves to blame for this not being an FA. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's usually viewed as WP:Harassment. You two should consider the view that in your zeal to cut infoboxes you are being disruptive, are creating a toxic environment and are doing a disservice to readers. You have only yourselves to blame for this not being an FA. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's usually viewed as WP:Harassment. You two should consider the view that in your zeal to cut infoboxes you are being disruptive, are creating a toxic environment and are doing a disservice to readers. You have only yourselves to blame for this not being an FA. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's usually viewed as WP:Harassment. You two should consider the view that in your zeal to cut infoboxes you are being disruptive, are creating a toxic environment and are doing a disservice to readers. You have only yourselves to blame for this not being an FA. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's usually viewed as WP:Harassment. You two should consider the view that in your zeal to cut infoboxes you are being disruptive, are creating a toxic environment and are doing a disservice to readers. You have only yourselves to blame for this not being an FA. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Making a comment on the same page as someone else is not harassment. BR, I am trying to calm things down on this page and throwing disingenuous accusations around does not help. I have also asked below that people refrain from finger pointing over the FA process and I again ask you to respect that request. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 04:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You continue to be aggressive. For example, to yet another wrong spot. He  and addled the threading, which I'd . But you'll edit war over anything with me, and now none of it really make any sense. If this is your effort at calming, I'd hate to see your deliberate disruption. And your request about finger pointing is patently disingenuous because below, in teh blue box, you certainly *do" imply blame. I call bullshite, again, and Cassianto is free to be aghast at the word. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Liar about what? Trust me, we are not stopping you from going. See ya! -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 19:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * BR why do you think this is harassment. My comments on Solti were not aimed at you, they were aimed at the infobox. I have Solti on my watch list so that led me there, not your edits.  Also, to have a case of harassment, you need to have a course of conduct on at least two occasions.  You approached US here and made the arguement personal,  so technically, Solti is the first time we have met since.  -- <b style="color:#0C40ED;">Cassianto</b>Talk 12:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)