Talk:Laurence Olivier/Archive 4

Really?

 * If you are someone that is reading this discussion for the 1st time only , there is an active discussion in great need of a new perspective. Read ALL the comments relating to the infobox discussion and come to a consensus. The consensus must not be based on what you think but on the comments of the other Wikipedians (For more info, see WP:NHC. 20:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craffael.09 (talk • contribs)

Why is there no infobox? Is this really representative of how the editors of wikipedia operate? It seems like there's a cadre of folks treating this article as their own personal fiefdom. It's downright disturbing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.68.179 (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No reason whatsoever, other than the idea that some people don't like them so nobody gets to use them.-- JOJ Hutton  17:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to draw attention to WP:FILMBIO . I see no reason as to why an infobox would hinder the article or in any way make it harder to read. We need to vote. EmilySarah99 (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, there is absolutely no good reason for this page to not have an infobox when Alfred Hitchcock, Charlie Chaplin, Orson Welles, Fritz Lang, Marlon Brando, Walt Disney, David Lynch, Steven Spielberg, Clint Eastwood, Spike Lee, and 99.999% of all other notable entertainers do. The infobox is the backbone of biographical pages as it provides convenient access to basic information; it doesn't matter if someone thinks it looks bad or if the info is already scattered throughout the article. Some stuff exists for a reason. Songwaters (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed that the editor that was overseeing this discussion/giving final say on it--SchroCat--has since retired from Wikipedia. I am not a regular editor or talent by any means, but this discussion seems worth reopening to get a qualifying consensus. Theirs was frankly the only dissenting voice, and it seems obvious 1000 times over that this page should get an infobox, as I cannot recall the last time I saw a biographical page that didn't (except some stubs). Their arguments didn't seem particularly founded outside of a view of Wikipedia as an art, but it is still an encyclopedia and such non-uniformity with other articles would never be accepted in another reference source. Yoyofsho16 (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * A pointless exercise. There is still no good case for adding an info-box. As for the "consistency" argument, Wikipedia policy is specifically that i-bs are to be used or not according to whether they are of use for any particular article. (And see Emerson). We have better use for our time than indulging in this otiose discussion yet again.  Tim riley  talk   07:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The "good case" is that this is literally the only biography page I have ever seen in 20 years of reading Wikipedia that doesn't have one for someone for which the information is known, and users are accustomed to glancing at that area of a page for quick reference for information they expect to be there. They allow users to extract information from articles more efficiently, for the same reasons that Wikipedia standards often fight wordiness or lack of clarity, and for that reason I believe they are strict upside.
 * That Emerson quote makes sense for variety in life itself, but c'mon, in the context of an encyclopedia that already has hundreds of editorial standards in place? Somehow, I don't think I'd be too popular if I went ahead and changed all of the headers on my favorite Wikipedia articles to hot pink Comic Sans, with an Emerson quote as justification. While there's plenty of room for creativity in journalism, a page on Laurence Olivier is not your passion project, it's an article meant to convey information to people, just like every other page. An infobox would--obviously, objectively in my opinion--further that conveyance.
 * I'll let it rest, but this obstinate commitment against a change that would ONLY add quality to an article is frustratingly boorish, unnerving, and sad. There's a glaringly obvious petulance going on here that is beyond bizarre, and makes me question my trust in frequent editors' capability to maintain objectivity site-wide. I hope someday by chance, some global admin stumbles across this page and puts an end to this absurdity that could have saved all of our time.Yoyofsho16 (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, that user is consistently dismissive of any attempt to discuss the usefulness of infoboxes. Its an ongoing struggle. JOJ Hutton  14:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you please take the trouble to get your facts right? I do not resist info-boxes where appropriate. Please see articles I have taken jointly or singly to Featured Article here, here, here, here, here, here and elsewhere, with an info-box. I resist them when they are useless and make Wikipedia look unprofessional, and welcome them when they add value to an article, in accordance with Wikipedia policies. No doubt all the articles you have taken to FA have info-boxes, but please do not make unfounded accusations about other editors.  Tim riley  talk   15:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's really no reason not to have an infobox here. Apparently Britannica deemed Olivier fit for an infobox. Not sure why we haven't... It doesn't harm anyone and it would benefit the reader. ~ HAL  333  04:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How odd! I don't see an info-box on the Britannica page, nor the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, nor any other online reference work I can think of. Am I missing something?  Tim riley  talk   15:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you scroll down until after the first paragraph of his Britannica article, there is an infobox titled "Quick facts" that contains his birth and death date, family, awards, etc. ~ HAL  333  17:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I found it after a bit of digging. Not very conspicuous or user-friendly, and Britannica doesn't do info-boxes in the way that we do (where appropriate). Now perhaps you'll point us to all the info-boxes in the other works of reference from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography down?   Tim riley  talk   18:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * OP, next time you ask a question, please make the header something reasonably related to the subject of the question, so that future readers/editors stand a chance of finding it. "Really?" or that old war horse, "Question", just don't cut it. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course there should be an infobox. But suggesting it here appears to send certain users into a fit of rage. Quite why I don't know. Anyway, the consensus will probably eventually change... one day --Theimmortalgodemperor (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to be nasty! There is room for honest disagreement and respect for others' views. Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom.  Tim riley  talk   16:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a particular clique of editors on this website who believe that some people -- particularly respected film directors and actors -- are too important to have infoboxes and snobbishly dismiss the UX importance of infoboxes by saying things to the effect of "this person's works cannot truly be appreciated unless one reads the entire article". The same thing happened to Stanley Kurbrik's page where only now, after almost a decade, has it been resolved with an infobox finally being added (for the time being). It's silly bikeshedding which needs to stop. Just put the damn box in. Skymann102 (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you read all the exchanges on the topic you will see that it is not about subjects' being "too important" but rather that an info-box, though helpful to our readers in many biographical articles (clergy, politicians, sportspersons et al, where career statistics can be summarised) is as much use as a chocolate teapot for articles such as this, where a career summary could only say "actor on stage and in films and TV", which is not help to the reader whatever. To coin a phrase, there "seems to be a particular clique of editors on this website" who believe that every article must have an info-box, which is not Wikipedia's agreed policy.  Tim riley  talk   16:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, fancy that, - almost nine years old, to be precise - that has the grand sum of 154 edits, rocking up at an infoboxless article to open wounds, much in the same vein as Stanley Kubrick, Frank Sinatra, Cary Grant and Mary Shelley. 2A02:C7F:7640:1100:7511:BA3A:F7D9:7A27 (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Man, the allure of power sure turns the most timid Internet Janitors into ferocious dictators. LET US HAVE THE INFOBOX! 109.118.69.142 (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What a very strange and slightly disturbing contribution! No need to shout, dear colleague.  Tim riley  talk   21:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support infobox I never understood the argument of not having an infobox and per Songwaters. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

There should be an infobox. There is no reason not to have one for this particular article. Infoboxes do provide useful information for basic details about the person. This should have been turned into an rfc. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again! Ho hum! Do info-box absolutists never let up? Do read the WP policy.  Tim riley  talk   19:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Read Consensus can change. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite so. If it does here I shall uncomplainingly comply, but for now I shall add an i-box where it is useful and not where it isn't. A new editor asked my opinion on this point recently and I instanced Cosmo Gordon Lang, Neville Chamberlain, Sachin Tendulkar as articles where an i-box was helpful to our readers, and as ones that are an amateurish waste of space, offering the reader nothing of any use and making Wikipedia look silly Ludwig van Beethoven and Alec Guinness. Horses for courses, you know.  Tim riley  talk   22:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's just your opinion on Beethoven and Guinness. It seems the lack of an infobox on this article and a few others, mainly from what I've seen, on British actors articles seem to be more for stylistic purposes as if these articles are the sole exceptions to, for lack of a better word, rule, even though it's not one regarding infoboxes. Any claim that it makes it unnecessary or adds nothing to the article is just mere opinion. Even if it's shared among other editors, that's still an opinion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm all for i-boxes when they are (i) objective and (ii) useful. Would you care to suggest what we could put in an i-box for this article that fulfil those two essentials? It is a matter of opinion – which you abominate – to pick this or that role for which LO was famous or how else his life and work can be summarised to meet Wikipedia's criterion that an i-box is "to summarize … key facts that appear in the article". In the examples I gave of useful i-boxes the career statistics for the politician, clergyman and sportsman are clear, useful and meet the criterion. Which of Olivier's roles are you going to put in, and who agrees with you? All matters of opinion, wouldn't you say?  Tim riley  talk   22:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I never abominated any viewpoint. That's making stuff up. Don't see what was wrong with this one. And frankly, the editor who removed the infobox that started this what seems to be a neverending battle should have brought it up on this talk page to begin with back in 2015. The current image can be used instead of the one from the one around 1961. Maybe the cause of death can be removed. Could be found by reading the article and its sections themselves or by glancing at the categories that has the cause of death in its name. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

What is wrong with that old i-box is that it doesn't tell you a single thing about why Laurence Olivier is famous. He isn't famous for dying of renal failure, for marrying three actresses, for being the nephew of Sidney Olivier and the cousin of Noel Olivier. Nobody looking at our article is likely to give two hoots about all that stuff. Olivier was famous for playing Romeo to Gielgud's Mercutio, Victor to Coward's Elyot, Richard III, and for running the Old Vic with Richardson and the National later, and for his Hamlet, Othello, Lord Marchmain, the list goes on and on. My list would include his Etienne Plucheux in La Puce à l'oreille, but others wouldn't agree. Others would include his Cantor Rabinovitch, but I wouldn't. Everyone's list of his most important roles would be different – a personal choice, not at all encyclopaedic. An i-box that can give unquestioned objective facts is fine, such as these from another article I successfully took to FAC:
 * Archbishop of Canterbury
 * Other post(s) Dean of Windsor and domestic chaplain to Queen Victoria, 1883–1891
 * Clerk of the Closet to the Sovereign 1891–1903
 * Bishop of Rochester, 1891–1895
 * Bishop of Winchester, 1895–1903

I don't know if you looked at the examples I gave, above, of good info-boxes and bad ones, but if you look at the one on Beethoven you will see that the editors who made it couldn't manage a list of his important works and instead direct the poor reader to another article altogether! How does that conform with the Wikipedia policy that an i-box sums up the key points of the article at a glance?

If you are one of those who holds that all articles should have an i-box, despite Wikipedia's policy to the contrary, I think you should say so openly. My own view follows our policy: have an i-box where it is useful and encyclopaedic and don't have one where the subject doesn't allow for it, as here. I think this is why at Peer Review and FAC there was no pressure whatever for an info-box: it is just a matter of common sense and following Wikipedia's rules. –  Tim riley  talk   07:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Worth noting that Peter Sellers had this same debate and eventually it was agreed an infobox was needed. The same can be said for Olivier. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The same is true for Stanley Kubrick. Unitl an Rfc was voted in it's favor of including one. It was probably one of the most heated and controversial discussions regarding that article over an infobox. The infobox on there doesn't do any harm as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Alas, you have not answered the relevant questions, above: (i) do you believe all articles should have an info-box regardless of Wikipedia's policy and (ii) what relevant encylopaedic information could go in one for this type of article? "It should have an info-box because it should" is not really a very grown-up or constructive argument.  Tim riley  talk   17:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In the case of this article, it does provide useful information. As stated with the edit I showed from a few years ago, the only thing I can see not going in is Olivier's cause of death. That's not needed. You've made your point clear. You don't like the infobox. You are not the person this article is edited for. Removing the infobox required a discussion back then. Not after. If that editor had done it today, it would be considered disruptive. The policy on infoboxes is clear, this is not a stub where the information is already stated just by a quick read, thus making such a box redundant. As such, how many people do you think read the article contents word for word? They go to where they need to, article sections for certain information. But the information can be easily acquired because of an infobox. And the very few articles that don't have an infobox is primarly on British actor bio's from what I've seen. And all arguments against is I just don't like it. "Again! Ho hum!" is not very grown-up or constructive either. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we prevail on you to tell us honestly whether or not you think all articles should have an info-box?  Tim riley  talk   07:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It depends on the article. This is one that deserves it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you care to give us an example of an article that, in your opinion, doesn't?  Tim riley  talk   16:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the last time I'm engaging because it's going nowhere. I've said before; Stub articles with only a few lines of information or a paragraph that clearly explains it from the text the basic information that goes on a standard infobox. And there are numerous and/or an unlimited number of stub bio's you can choose from any stub category. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Tim Riley that an infobox would not be appropriate here. If we were voting once again on Beethoven or Guinness I would say the same thing: no infobox. I have created dozens of articles with infoboxes, but a select few would not benefit from having one, so I left it out of those few. For instance, when I took the poet biography Ina Coolbrith to GA status, it was without an infobox. There is absolutely no need to force every article into an identical format on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Binksternet, for a contribution that seems to me thoughtful and balanced, with no "must have a box" tanks on the lawn.  Tim riley  talk   20:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Infobox
Should this article contain an infobox? EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Please format your responses as either: with your explaination following.
 * Support
 * Oppose

Please remain civil and assume good faith. EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

For clarity, commenters may imagine an infobox approximately resembling that here. Participants should consider whether an infobox adds value to the lead, and whether it places undue emphasis on relatively minor facts of Olivier’s life (such as his marriages). — HTGS (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for the reasons previously set out in earlier discussions here.  Tim riley  talk   08:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As someone else already alluded to below, RfC comments are supposed present actual arguments, rather than merely "voting" for an editor's preference. So the closer of this RfC should disregard the above "oppose", which merely handwaves at unspecified "earlier discussions" while completely failing to explain any valid rationale for the editor's preference. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As the previous regurgitation of MUSTHAVEANINFOBOX was only six months ago it seems a little unreasonable to ask informed editors to add, yet again, the reasons for opposing the proposal as it comes through the revolving door yet again.  Tim riley  talk   14:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in order to maintain continuity with similar biographies EmilySarah99 (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support An info box is an easy way to get all the important information in a table. It exists in most biographies and for the sake of consistency should be created here as well. Mnair69 (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An infobox at this article will tell readers nothing of note about the individual: it contains no important information that helps readers "get a quick overview", but worse: it will likely misinform or mislead them. The pertinent information is in the lead, where it is presented with context and nuance. Looking at the last version that was added most recently and at the example posted here, aside from the born and died fields, we have the following entries for Olivier:


 * "Occupation": Obviously more than an actor. Actor, director, producer, theatre administrator ... there are a couple of others we could add, but it's already misleading whichever way you cut it. A field that misleads readers shouldn't be included.
 * "Years active": Apart from being wrong (a major red flag) it's also unsourced (the start years isn't in the article and it one of three possible years) – and should this just be his first professional role, or his amateur ones too? It's also ambiguous "Active" as what? As actor, director, producer, theatre administrator or other? Should we have different "active" fields for each of his occupations? I'm sure some people would think it a great idea, but we're already confusing readers with this with whatever we put in this field. A field that misleads readers shouldn't be included.
 * "Nationality": shouldn't be included (per MoS)
 * "Wives": Is he famous for having three wives? The emphasis of having nearly half the lines of text in an infobox taken up with his marriages suggests it's certainly a major focus! This field is often a spurious entry, but given it bypasses Olivier's bisexuality entirely, a completely misleading one here too. A field that misleads readers shouldn't be included.
 * "Lists of films/awards": these have been added to the example here. They really are quite pointless to include (and I mean that literally). The fields themselves contain zero information, just the words "Full list", which tells us nothing about Olivier. Their purpose therefore is not to directly provide a reader with any information, which seems odd, considering an IB on the page is supposed to summarise key features of Olivier.


 * So, we're left with the dates of birth and death as the only fields that don't give a misleading or incorrect impression. Is that what this is all for, in order to have a box in the article, the same dates as can be found in the opening sentence? Sure, we can add other factoids (the school he went to or whether he was a crossbench Lord), or anything else, but they serve little purpose for Olivier – they don't help a reader get relevant information that doesn't mislead. It's a truism that infoboxes don't work well with the liberal arts biographies – and that is very much the case with Olivier.
 * Despite other claims in this discussion, there is no WP guideline or policy that insists on 'consistency' across the project, and the person who put in big bold letters that there is "strong precedent in usage" obviously didn't realise that links to the essay that says "precedent" is one of the "arguments to avoid". Nor should an IB be there on the basis of "article navigation": claiming it makes the article easier to navigate" is not only false, but is also not a reason to break the long-standing status quo to include one. Olivier is one of a number of articles that do not have an infobox (it's an error many people have made to claim that all other actor biographies have one), not because certain people don't like them (another error claimed below), but because the information it will contain will actively mislead or misinform readers. It doesn't "help" readers to give them incorrect or misleading information, but that is exactly what this one will do.
 * As a reminder to the closing admin, ArbCom decisions have stressed that the rationale for whether to include an IB or not should be based on arguments about this article, not IBs in general. Discussions are also supposed to be based on guidelines and policies, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so I do hope that the closing admin won't just vote count or accept false arguments like 'consistency' or 'all other actors have biographies' or 'it's jarring not having one'. No article is 'born' with an IB: they have to have a solid rationale for inclusion, which includes whether they will do more harm than good. In the case of Olivier, an infobox full of fields that mislead readers shouldn't be included. - The editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:8D69:FD13:9DF1:EB7D (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC) ; edited by the editor formally known as SchroCat from and at 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:40EB:233E:6297:EF3A (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC) (original version viewable at ).


 * Support. Infoboxes are an excellent resource for those wanting a brief overview of the subject and those just wanting to know quick facts about the subject without detracting from the prose for those who want more detail. Sourcing is not relevant as it will only contain information that is sourced in the prose, similarly anything which requires nuance to be correct will be omitted. I'm not overly familiar with the subject here and the lack of an infobox makes it harder and more time consuming for me to begin learning about them. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead or body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, updates are made to articles but not reflected in the box, and IBs tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (6) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For clarity, what Ssilvers is quoting in bold font as "arbitration report" above is just one editor's personal opinion from one side of the debate that that Signpost article covered - not at all a community consensus or ArbCom ruling. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (2) is an argument against any infobox everywhere, i.e. clearly inconsistent with the community consensus at MOS:IBX. And the underlying claim that content must never be redundant within an article is directly contradicted by WP:LEDE.
 * (3), (5), and (6) are circular WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments - terms like "distract", "take up valuable space" "hamper ... the impact of the lead" are all already based on the assumption that infoboxes are always bad and leads are always good.
 * Concerning (4), I strongly suspect that you do not have any quantitative evidence for the bold quantitative claim that errors are more frequent in infoboxes that in the article text.
 * And (1) falls apart upon a look at just the article's first sentence, which rubs the reader's nose into these facts among the very first:
 * His rarely used middle name, which appears nowhere else in the article text
 * IPA symbols which many readers will not be able to properly read anyway
 * specifics about honorifics and peerage bestowed by the Commonwealth, which may be important for nobility fans and award counters, but not so much for those trying to understand why he was important and notable.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Infobox's are helpful for readers who want a quick summary of information. They are so common it's jarring not to see one included in the article. I think this is the first actor article I have seen that doesn't have one (there are probably others). This seems like a silly thing to oppose. The infobox undoubtedly helps the end user find information quicker. The only reason to oppose the infobox is a preference in style. That's fine, but style at the expense of a better end user experience should be avoided.
 * Furthermore we can ignore other articles and just concentrate on this article. Not having an infobox on this article makes it more difficult to find valuable information. This isn't a matter of opinion. To argue otherwise simply ignores how end users access information. When accessing this article via the Wikipedia app there's no quick reference to works or awards. That's vital information about an actor. It's not much better on the website. When searching for Olivier's works/awards it requires a full scroll of the article. Part of the reason infobox's exist is to make information easier to find. That's the whole point of this Wikipedia project. This article is rather large at over 60kb of readable prose. Making information easier to consume is the only priority to discuss regarding this issue for this article. The infobox makes this article easier to navigate and access important information. Nemov (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The most important awards are in the fourth paragraph of the lead section. That's what the lead section is for, and that's why the lead section of a Wikipedia article gets nearly twice the clicks of an infobox. There is no problem to solve here. People looking for awards can easily skim the lead section and find what they need in the fourth paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If a user comes to the article and wants to see a list of works or awards it's more difficult to access that information without an infobox. As I argued before, I disagree with your interpretation of the click data. Users click on links in the lead section 32% of the time versus 18% in the infobox. Given there's more links in the lead I'm not sure how you're drawing a conclusion that an infobox doesn't make the site easier to navigate. The fierce opposition to a helpful navigation tool is bizarre to me. Nemov (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * (Summoned via bot)Support. An infobox helps readers to more quickly access key information about the article's subject. By now, we also have evidence for this from peer-reviewed academic research. In this case, that includes the article' subject's profession, nationality, and life dates. I realize that longtime Laurence Olivier connoisseurs might be bored by such basic information (of course he was English! what else! etc.) and feel that they do not capture the true essence of his genius. But they are not the primary audience of a general encyclopedia - for many readers of this article, this will be the very first time they have heard about the actor. Yes, these key facts can also be obtained from the intro paragraph and other parts of the article, but are harder to retrieve and obscured by less relevant information there (see e.g. the three examples above from just the first sentence).Lastly, for those who are getting hung up on (some previous versions) of the infobox highlighting some irrelevant information like the cause of death, that can and has been easily addressed (e.g. in this version).  Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nationality shouldn’t be in there [in any infobox concerning Olivier] at all (per MOS:INFOBOXNTLY). 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:19E3:CCBF:EA4A:A3FF (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC) Addendum made to clarify that I am obviously only talking about Olivier’s article, not in general. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:19E3:CCBF:EA4A:A3FF (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh? That's not what MOS:INFOBOXNTLY says (and after all, the infobox template has a  parameter). If you meant that this is one of the situations when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth, as specified with birthplace, then that's irrelevant to the argument here - either way it is one of the key facts that an infobox helps readers to obtain more easily. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s exactly what INFOBOXNTLY says: that if ever there comes a time when Olivier does have to have an infobox, the nationality field should not be included. As you said in your !vote “of course he was English”. That’s exactly why the field should not be used here, because people infer it from the country of birth, whether that is in the first sentence or in the box. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:19E3:CCBF:EA4A:A3FF (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting your comment above, but it seems you are still confused about several things. For starters, the part of my !vote you quote from ("of course he was English! what else!") was used there to illuminate the misguided view of a hypothetical or not so hypothetical Laurence Olivier connoisseur, who is so deeply immersed into this topic that he does not realize that some of key facts that he (consciously or unconsciously) takes as a given will still be new and important to someone less familiar with the topic - such as the average reader of a general encyclopedia. It is quite telling that you did not realize this and embraced this caricatured view thinking it was consensus.
 * Also, you are still misrepresenting MOS:INFOBOXNTLY, even though I already quoted the relevant part above: when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth, as specified with birthplace. It does not say "or in the first sentence" or such.
 * (I realize that the "connoisseur" bit may sound a bit snarky, so I do want to acknowledge the possibility that some oppose !voters above might be genuinely knowledgeable about the article's topic. But this does not make one better equipped to decide how to best structure encyclopedic information for a general reader - quite the opposite actually, due to a well-known cognitive bias known as curse of knowledge.)
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As I have edited Wikipedia since 2006, created numerous articles, (many with infoboxes, many without) written a stack of GAs and FAs, I am not “confused” about any part of what I have written, neither am I misrepresenting anything - quite the reverse: you have twisted what I have said. I have no desire to continue dragging this out, but suffice to say my original comment, that if ever a box is included on the article, the nationality field is one that should not be included, is supported by the guidelines. I’m out. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:4C10:AA23:3F4:84C7 (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support I don't see the harm in having it in, some users may just want to glance his details instead of reading the entire article. I really see very few cases where an infobox wouldn't improve the page.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The lead of this article seems to me to be concise, appropriate and to contain all relevant information. Those who are assumed (I don't know on what evidence) just to wish to 'glance' at WP articles can get their info just as simply by reading the article lead. An infobox would provide only the same, in a more bloated fashion - and/or are likely to provoke futile and timewasting arguments on issues such as nationality (as above in this discussion), the complex issues of which require proper explanation in the article. The article is perfectly clear and informative as it stands. I do not see how an infobox would improve it in any way. By the way, this present discussion is prefaced with a request for contributors either to 'support' or 'oppose'. As it happens I strongly oppose an infobox, but do not seek to flagwave, or to somehow gain my opinions additional points, by doing so strongly. Smerus (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but throwing around derogatory adjectives such as "bloated" is basically just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Especially given that your claim stands in stark contract to the fact that this allegedly "bloated" infobox had just 6 fields (at least the most recent version that was revert-warred out of the article), compared to that allegedly "concise" lead section being over 450 words long currently, with various low-relevance factoids in just the first sentence (see above) that are absent from the infobox. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty Strong Support. This article is in great need of an infobox as every biography Wikipedian article has one. Even more, it would help make the article easier to read as the introduction is like, 3 pages long and an infobox would greatly help summarise it. Honestly, adding an infobox is fast and easy, let's not make a big fuss about it and just add it already... After all, what's the worst that can happen with adding an infobox, sheesh... It's not as if we're inciting people to sacrifice baby koalas to Satan in order to make Trump president again :) Craffael.09 (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say your support is based on a lie, "every biography Wikipedian article has one". In accordance with WP policy we have I-Bs where they are agreed to be useful, and I can think of a dozen or more life-and-works FAs where we have refrained from adding one. I shall not name them as no doubt the MUSTHAVEANINFOBOX tanks would be on the lawn there in a jiffy. Meanwhile, can we refrain from false assertions here?  Tim riley  talk   14:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Aw c'mon, you know many of WP biographies have infoboxes. And anyways, is that really what made you tick ? Not the koalas, not Satan, not Trump, the WP policy that declares that not every bio has to have an infobox. Don't worry man, I read the policies :) Craffael.09 (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Infoboxes are less useful for creative artists such as poets, authors, actors, composers, etc. The basic facts of a life are best served with nuanced prose in the lead section rather than bald facts in the infobox. This recent attempt at an infobox is wholly redundant to the excellently written lead section. Research shows that users click on links in the lead section 32% of the time versus 18% in the infobox, meaning the lead section is serving as the more important source of information. Regarding whether policy-based arguments are worth more than opinions based on esthetics, Wikipedia does not require an infobox, so the question of having one is a matter of opinion, and every voice counts equally. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Research shows thatusers click on links in the lead section 32% of the time versus 18% in the infobox, meaning the lead section is serving as the more important source of information.
 * I don't draw the same conclusion from this data. The infobox serves a quick, easy to read summary of the person's date of birth/age/date of death/etc. It's a quick reference and not an area for link clicking. So it seems perfectly natural that the lead would have higher click rates than the infobox. To be honest, I'm surprised there's not a larger gap in click rates. Also, the example you shared is an excellent example of why an infobox is so valuable. You're entitled to think it's redundant, but it's useful reference without having to read through paragraphs of prose. Nemov (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh no, we wouldn't want our readers to actually "read through paragraphs of prose"! What a vile fate! Binksternet (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct, I don't have an objection to making information easier to find. I'm a monster I know. Nemov (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: everybody knows that I support infoboxes, but I promised myself years ago - partly because of a discussion on this very page - not to take part in the timesink arguing about them has caused the community. I had unwatched this article but saw the topic on a user talk I watch. In 2015, I that the design usually goes by the principal editors (who have spoken clearly above). Did anything change since then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I thank Gerda Arendt for that contribution - not the knee-jerk reactions seen in some of the above postings. GA and I have differed strongly on the topic over the years, but I am grateful for her thoughtful take on the matter here.  Tim riley  talk   14:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: In my view an infobox would be unnecessary and unhelpful for this article - I can't see what it would be trying to achieve and it's not something that's required by Wikipedia policy. 'Some other articles have infoboxes' isn't really an argument why this one should, and that seems to be the stated reason supporters want it. Uakari (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the very good arguments raised by Tim Riley. How sad to see the same old faces mischievously hanging around the same old articles to take part in the same old infobox debates and then duplicitously claiming: I rarely talk about infoboxes and please remind me in case you see me in infobox discussions that I have better things to do and  away from any infobox stuff, is what I learned and try to pass on. The fact most of those who dared to question the Wikipedia Establishment on their approach of indiscriminately adding irrelevant infoboxes everywhere have now been chased away, and still these same discussions keep arising on the same articles is, to my mind, illustrative of just who the real trouble makers are. 2A02:C7E:2A55:1500:4DF6:503D:BC76:8165 (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I thank the IP for that addition. (Would I be wrong in supposing the IP has written FAs on Stanley Holloway, Marie Lloyd and the great Frank Matcham before quitting, fed up with sniping?)  Tim riley  talk   19:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand why people are getting upset over an infobox. Some of the hostility surrounding this discussion is puzzling. Describing people with whom you disagree as mischievously hanging around isn't helpful and it's frankly uncalled for in this discussion. Nemov (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see the reason why an infobox should be removed. It provides an excellent brief overview, more like quick to the point. Almost all articles about actors have an infobox without any debate over its inclusion. I don't see why Olivier and Rod Steiger are an exception. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support restoring infobox. First, I see no major loss for not having an infobox, but nor is there any harm in having one, so it is disappointing to see such acidic dialogue here. I am still empathetic to the perspective that not every page needs to be so uniform, and of course the longer the project goes on, the harder it is to avoid infoboxes and navboxes and that sort of clutter on every page. But realistically the previous infoboxes have all been reasonable, without excessive emphasis on distracting detail. I think it is worth remembering that we are not writing only for educated adults. Having a formulaic and unobstructive box to guide readers to the basic facts of the man’s life is a simple way to ease readers into a subject. I hardly think that people will read the infobox and then click away to not read the prose lead unless they have already found exactly the information they are looking for. That, and an infobox feels less ugly and more purposeful than the image box that’s already there. — HTGS (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging editors from the last 5 years who have discussed this topic. I apologized in advance if I've pinged anyone who has already commented on this RfC., , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . If you still have an opinion on this issue please feel free to contribute. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support WikiProjects that cover actors like Olivier recommend the use of an infobox. One of the six goals of WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers is to "ensure that every article biography related to film uses Template:Infobox person." Consequently, there is a strong precedent in usage; essentially all other actors of similiar stature have an infobox. Just go visit Peter Sellers, Michael Caine, Alec Guinness, Christopher Lee, Albert Finney, Cary Grant, Anthony Hopkins, Ben Kingsley, Ian McKellen, Oliver Reed, John Hurt, Richard Burton, Richard Attenborough, Peter O'Toole Richard Harris, Patrick Stewart, etc. I could continue. Why should this article violate the status quo, this universal precedent? There is nothing unique about Olivier that merits no infobox. I challenge those who oppose to list a single reason inherent to this article. Opposition to the infobox ultimately amounts to a "I don't like it". For almost all users, an infobox makes some the article's content easy to digest in a glance. And I see no possible way it which it can harm a reader's experience. ~ HAL  333  04:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose So long as infoboxes are not mandated or prohibited by project-wide policy the issue should be decided by consensus among editors engaged (over time) with the article in question, with deference given to the approach taken by primary contributors and a strong default in favour of the established status quo (that is, an overruling consensus should be very strong to apply). In particular, an RfC and the feedback request service is an inappropriate way to deal with this kind of issue. I also consider the incessant pushing for infoboxes to be outright disruptive behaviour (and the wikilawyering on display regarding whether oppose votes that refer to previous arguments should be discounted is at best disappointing). There is a reason infoboxes (of all the stupid things to fight about) ended up at ArbCom, and this is a case in point. I urge those who find themselves here arguing in favour of an infobox to instead direct their energies towards resolving the issue in project-wide policy, because this trench warfare approach to it does nothing but cause disruption and create bad blood. And I would support any project-wide policy that has a plausible chance of putting an end to the endless bickering, whichever way the knot is cut. --Xover (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think I would support a project wide policy since some articles are too small or limited in scope to justify an infobox. This article has 62kb in readable prose and receives thousands of pageviews per day. Can anyone really argue that an infobox wouldn't help end users find key pieces of information faster in this article? Nemov (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course they can. And they have. Repeatedly. But those who think it very important that articles they have not themselves worked on have an infobox appear incapable of accepting the validity of arguments for other points of view. We've twice had this issue up before ArbCom (with numerous subsequent motions and amendments), and both times ArbCom has urged the community to go make a policy for this so we won't end up back there. It's been a contentious issue since 2003 (or that's the earliest reference to conflicts about this I've seen anyway) and still we're engaged in this war of attrition nonsense that pretty much just wastes time and drives away good contributors (or gets them blocked if they are at all inclined to lose their cool). So my plea to all is: whether you love infoboxes or hate them, go argue your position at the the policy level. Xover (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I am a small-time editor who mostly just corrects errors, so I have few thoughts on the conduct of it, but the reason I became involved in this topic is that I use the infobox for establishing details on any biographical article. I do this because of the long-established consistency of that feature on biological articles has trained me to do it, and I cannot be the only one. That issue makes this not just a stylistic issue in my opinion, but a functional one: this page does not operate as anticipated by readers and is more difficult to navigate for it. The Oppose arguments above seem to take umbrage with the infobox on the whole, which has little to do this article specifically. Whether or not it is redundant due to the header paragraph as they claim, Wikipedia in its current state does use it often and the lack of it on this article impacts readability. Given that, nothing strikes me as unique about Olivier that justifies singling the page out. Yoyofsho16 (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Complete and utter indifference: Life is too short to waste on trivialities like this. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support One of the last articles of its kind to not have one. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – the inclusion of an infobox which clutters the beginning of the lead and provides undue weight to trivial facts from the body of the article to the lead. (Why is the name of an actor's spouse, where they died, the name of their relatives or children of due weight to include in the lead. See for example the Marlon Brando wikipedia article, where such information is all undue. Marlon Brando's personal life section is minuscule in comparison to the blaring weight the infobox provides for such minutiae.) The inclusion of undue weight, trivial information, which the infobox would provide for this article is in violation of the guideline MOS:LEADREL:
 * "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article."
 * The inclusion of the infobox also goes against the guideline of the MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which states:
 * "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content."
 * The ideal infobox for this article is one that solely presents the most important feature that the infobox serves that is to visually identify the subject. For this well written lead, the most concise and informative read is to see the actor stand on the stage with his lead words and not be caged in a template box. --Guest2625 (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Despite the claims of a very vocal minority over the years, infoboxes are an asset to the general Wikipedia reader. It's not clutter to have an infobox. Many well respected print encyclopedias contain infoboxes. This grand encyclopdia that has become a vast array of knowledge over the years wasn't created so that the people who edit them can feel good about how well they have written the articles, it was created as source of information for people who want to learn something about particular topics. Not every reader uses Wikipedia in the same way. Many people rely on the infobox a repository for key information that can be accessed at a glance. These people shouldn't be forced to scan though multiple lines of data just to get the one piece of information that they are looking for. The inclusion of an infobox doesn't hurt anyone, but the lack of an infobox makes the article less convenient for many people.-- JOJ  Hutton   12:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What a hurtful contribution! The people (e.g. me) at whom User:Jojhutton is sniping are not anti info-boxes. If I recall correctly the last article I created from scratch contained an i-b, because it was helpful there to our readers. For the Olivier article the main editors, the peer reviewers and the FAC reviewers did not request one, because it is not useful to our readers for that article.   Tim riley  talk   21:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that I didn’t mention anyone by name. I’m not sure who exactly you are referring to when you say, “The people”, but if you identify under the statement I made, then that’s on you, not me. I was just making a counter argument as to why infoboxes are useful, especially in this article. JOJ    Hutton   23:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support: There is no harm in including an infobox if the article's size is sufficiently big enough. RPI2026F1 (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: For the same reasons set out by RPI2026F1, Jojhutton and for the reasons I've said previously. That some frequent editors of the page seem to believe that they are not useful is no substitute for the very apparent user expectation that an infobox exists. As many have stated previously, the lack of an infobox on certain biographies, particularly in the arts, on seemingly the sole ground that these artists are distinguished or that they raise "factoids" (as if that's not the point of an infobox) is arbitrary and creates a jarring user experience. Skymann102 (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion an infobox is only weird if the box is larger than all of the text excluding the references, and even then many articles such as geographic locations have infoboxes larger than the rest of the article. RPI2026F1 (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: I do not see any reason why there shouldn't be an infobox when basically every other notable entertainer has one.--Ollieisanerd (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: An infobox will be useful to the reader or casual browser. Period. Readers don't care if this particular infobox is part of some smokey-room secret Wikilluminati debate over the general application of infoboxes. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Infoboxes are a useful tool for cataloging brief, factual pieces of information that are often matters of public curiosity ("When did [Person X] die again?"). They don't compete with the lead – rather, they're a supplementary resource, and are especially useful for people who are seeking to check specific facts rather than intending to read the article prose in the first place. For Laurence Olivier in particular, I think one of the primary assets of an infobox would be its provision of an immediately obvious link to Laurence Olivier on stage and screen at the top of the page – these "list of works" articles are helpful information for biographies in arts and entertainment, and readers will benefit from not having to travel to the bottom of the article to find it. (Additionally, while much has been made of the relative unimportance of many of the details included in Olivier's infobox, I would argue that that's not a bug but a feature. For example, it's been stated (correctly) that Olivier isn't famous for having had three wives – but in that case, surely it's better to set that information off to the side in an infobox, rather than having it in the prose of the lead?) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support no point digging through prose to find simple information—blindlynx 21:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Infoboxes are useful and time saving tools. Also, most biographies have them. —  Wasell ( T ) 🌻🇺🇦 12:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Support: Infoboxes are incredibly beneficial in my view, and a widely used tool throughout wikipedia. It's very weird that some people who oppose said inclusion see key enclyopedic information (birth date, death date, place of birth, place of death, nationality etc) are somehow "trivial facts" on an online encyclopedia... Alssa1 (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How is place of death important? I can't imagine saying to someone: Do you like Olivier's Hamlet? You know, he died in Steyning!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As WP:NOTDATABASE puts it: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As infoboxes just list factoids, they fail to provide the context that is essential to imparting encyclopaedic value. What is the significance of his place of death? Why do we mention his wives? In the rest of the article, paragraphs that just list facts without contextualisation are justly criticised, tagged, and removed, but in an infobox that should suddenly not apply because… reasons? Xover (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If they did not impart enclyopedic value, they would not be on the world's largest online encyclopedia. It's curious that some have chosen a potential infobox on the Lawrence Olivier page as a hill to die on. Tell me, why are you not waging this anti-infobox crusade across the entire site, surely your criticisms apply to all infoboxes? Alssa1 (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is circular. We get to decide what gets prominence here. Encyclopedic value can be a sliding scale; we don’t need to feature every last detail in the lead. — HTGS (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My criticisms do apply to all infoboxes, but they are not equally relevant for all articles. Which is why my main argument is that as long as there is no global policy on the project that mandates infoboxes on all articles, the choice of whether or not to include an infobox in a given article should—like citation style, English-language variant, and a number of other issues—be left up to the main long-term contributors to choose and the rest of us should explicitly defer to that choice. Unlike your average BOLD edit (which WP:BRD works fine to handle), infoboxes is not something a drive-by contributor should concern themselves with over the expressed preference of the long-term contributors.I also do not appreciate your combative language or casting of aspersions . I can speak for no one but myself, but I can hardly be accused of "waging an anti-infobox crusade" when I argue the position on one article and based on the preference and long-standing consensus among the major contributors to that article. Particularly when I have explicitly expressed my support for a project-wide policy to mandate infoboxes (different reasoning). If you must apply the label of "crusader" to anyone, a more apt target would be those who here !vote in support of imposing an infobox on an article to which they have not themselves contributed and explicitly against the will of that article's long-term contributors and standing local consensus.WP:DR says you are absolutely permitted to open an RfC for such things, but it's still a really crap way to treat people on a collaborative project, and one that is most apt to losing us the very contributors that made this into a featured article. Congrats on winning the infobox, I guess? Xover (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is my view, that if you oppose the inclusion of infoboxes generally you should be taking that up with other editors on a more 'global' (cross-wikipedia) basis, rather than focusing on one article specifically. A cursory glance of your edit history shows you're quite comfortable editing pages with infoboxes without bringing up this opposition to their inclusion on those pages. With that in mind the question must be posed: what is it about Lawrence Olivier's page that makes an infobox uniquely inappropriate? As for your suggestion that the views of 'long-term contributors' should somehow have greater say over what's included borders on WP:OWN. Alssa1 (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me. As I've noted multiple times in this discussion, I support a project-wide policy to make infoboxes mandatory (with the usual caveats and IAR clauses). I also routinely add infoboxes to all the articles I create (or overhaul). I am saying that because this is a controversial issue, that has twice been before ArbCom and twice ArbCom has asked the community to get its act together and make policy about this, to use a process like RfC to overrule the local consensus on an article is a crap way to treat the contributors that have put in hundreds of hours and sweated every little detail creating a featured article. If there is some overarching need to impose an infobox over their preference then that fact in itself means the issue should instead be settled through project-wide policy rather than this gaming of the system for one single article.What's going to happen every time another article has an infobox imposed on it through this kind of mechanism is that the long-term contributors to that article are going to feel ill used, defeated, unappreciated, and fed up. If they happen to be the kind of person that is at all prone to losing their cool they are very likely to express this frustration in a way that gets them blocked or even banned. If they're not then we have "merely" put another reason into the big sack of "Why the heck should I bother contributing to this project?". It is going to (keep) costing us contributors we can ill afford to lose, and at least some of those are going to be the kinds of editors that are willing and able to write our featured articles (some of them several tens or even hundreds of featured articles). It creates bad blood, and those prone to nursing grievances will carry this around to cloud their interactions with other editors in other articles and other topics, and we get unneeded conflict and strife generally on the project.Contrariwise, if those who are so hell-bent on having an infobox on every single article were to channel their energies towards gaining a consensus for a project-wide policy to that effect, those opposed to infoboxes would still be frustrated but now in an impersonal and much more diffuse way. In my experience, this kind of project-wide policy (be it through the MoS or straight up policy policy) may be grumbled at, by those who disagree, but rarely causes the hurts and fights the imposition of an unwanted feature to an individual article does. Having something regulated in the MoS, and having MoS compliance as a FA criteria, also creates a soft incentive to make people comply on their own accord (because they want that star) rather then forcing them directly to do something they do not want in an article they have invested "blood, sweat, and tears" in.To say that this has anything to do with OWN is as misguided as saying the same about CITEVAR or ENGVAR. We have explicit carveouts for the judgements of the main contributors' judgement on a given article (in general and explicitly in WP:OWN), both because they are best placed to make that (often extremely nuanced) judgement and to avoid the very situation of someone external with a bee in their bonnet running amuck and changing something across the project. CITEVAR in particular exists because someone periodically got it into their heads that all articles must use my preferred citation style and went around changing citations on articles they had never contributed to, and using any and all methods allowed (including RfC) to make it so ("come hell or high water").Or as a possibly more succinct way to put it: how many of those here !voting support do you think will stick around afterwards to help with actually curating the contents of that infobox? The long-term contributors of the article will be stuck with that massively thankless task, struggling to keep up with the addition of trivial factoids, fighting about what needs inline cites inside the infobox, trying to find ways to express a hugely nuanced issue within the constraints of the infobox and the ~3 words there's room for. Why in the world should we not defer to those who will actually have to do the work? Why in the world would we instead defer to the people who swing by to say "I like it this way, now you do the work to make it so!"? Xover (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why in the world should we not defer to those who will actually have to do the work? Why in the world would we instead defer to the people who swing by to say "I like it this way, now you do the work to make it so!"?
 * I have worked on articles significantly and changes have been made that I didn't agree with, but I yielded to the consensus. I appreciate editor's work, but if someone quits over an IB that undoubtedly makes articles easier to navigate, I question their long term temperament for editing and getting along with others. Nemov (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is rather an extraordinary thing to say. Are you really prepared to defend the implications of such a stance? That you are so convinced of the "undoubtable" correctness of your opinion that all other viewpoints are clearly aberrant and their adherents best removed from the project sooner rather than later? We are a global collaborative and consensus-based project, and I would hope also one inclusive of all people that wish to contribute. To be frustrated when feeling ill used, and to sometimes express that frustration in non-constructive ways, is as human as using the toilet. If we do not constrain ourselves from pushing people to this point except when the need is pressing (and adding an infobox to one article is hardly pressing) then we undermine the pillars on which the project and the movement as a whole is built. Or put more succinctly: that someone disagrees with you is rarely a sign of their mental deficiency. Xover (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Xover, you are missing the point. If someone were to quit when faced with disagreement from the community over a trivial matter—the presence of an infobox—then they may well not have a personality that suits group projects where the community is frequently involved. More broadly, I am often grateful for the external viewpoints brought in by RfCs. There are many pages where an individual or a small group have pushed a particular version that most editors and readers would view as “wrong” when looking at the whole encyclopaedia, and the only way to make change is to bring in outsiders. (This page might be an example, although I don’t personally see the absence of an IB as problematic.) — HTGS (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @HTGS: I would assert that the opposite is true: you (collective) are missing the point. You are implying the presence of one of our many types of problematic editors. I am saying normal non-problematic editors are in danger of being driven off by this approach.If the issue of an infobox is so trivial that getting frustrated when is imposed is out of proportion, then it is not an issue the wider community should put this much weight behind imposing (the amount of force is out of proportion to the importance of the issue). If, however, the issue is important enough to justify steamrolling over those local editors then it is also an issue that should be attacked at a project-wide policy level rather than locally.And I should add… if you think the matter of an infobox is trivial then you have not been paying attention over the last ~15 years. We know for a fact that this is an issue that causes conflict and lasting bad blood within our community, because we have twice had to hash the resulting fallout out before ArbCom. And both times ArbCom has begged the community to go do precisely what I am tell you now: go make a project-wide policy about this! Xover (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * “… normal non-problematic editors are in danger of being driven off by this approach.”
 * It wasn’t really my point, but the response was more that people who are driven off by an RfC are probably not as pure and non-problematic as you suggest they are. That issue is open to debate, but I think for the sake of everyone here it’s better to agree to disagree.
 * My only goal personally is that an RfC would resolve this debate (for at least a good amount of time). As indicated by my !vote above, I don’t care much which way, it goes, but perhaps the resolution of this debate can be used in a possible future discussion on a project-wide standard. (I personally don’t have much hopes for a lot of change there though; the MOS folks these days are very led by WP:CREEP and WP:MOSBLOAT.) — HTGS (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On problematic vs. non-problematic I have a few thousand years of human nature and science on my side of the argument: when something we care about is threatened, or we are otherwise put under stress, we react with various defensive strategies. The ones we notice are the ones that blow up spectacularly. The ones we don't are the ones that quietly taper down and then quit their participation. So by all means let's agree to disagree, but I know where we're headed long term if we do not collectively muster the empathy with and tolerance for those with whom we disagree. For example over whether having an infobox is "unquestionably" better or its addition a "trivial" matter.Oh well. I hope the process will lay the question to rest, on this article, for the foreseeable future. But I fear the cost of this, and the ongoing slow attrition across the project instead of addressing it head on, will be far dearer than we can afford before the issue is finally settled. Xover (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. I find it very useful to have quick, basic biographical details presented in this way. I appreciate some don't find them useful, but the balance between the cost of having one (editors who don't find it useful will have to ignore it, like in almost every article) and the cost of not having one (editors who would find it useful will have to look elsewhere) clearly favours inclusion. I find the arguments that it would lack sufficient nuance to be unconvincing and overly prescriptivist in terms of the "right way" to read an article.--Trystan (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support  as our data shows the info box is a very important part of the lead to readers data Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 21:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Helps especially mobile users provide quick info about Olivier. How the infobox is properly executed can be discussed at another appropriate time. George Ho (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I find infoboxes very useful, and while I'm sympathetic to some of the arguments presented against here, I don't find them compelling. Many of the arguments feel more appropriate to have once the infobox is in place, as they seem to hinge on it being used incorrectly. A fair fear, but that's part and parcel of creating content, and I'm confident that the wisdom of experienced editors will ensure the infobox maintains the articles' excellent quality. Otherwise, the value to the reader of having the quick hit info outweighs aesthetic concerns by a country mile, to me. Parabolist (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

 * It appears that this infobox topix has been discussed a lot over the years. Would it be okay to ping the editors from both sides of the debate on this RfC so they can voice their opinions? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You could just tabulate the votes from past discussions. That way valid opinions from departed users will still have force. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, without tabulating, you can see there is a majority of Oppose. I was orignally for an infobox (See Pretty Strong Support commet) cuz I did not understand why it was so horrible to add an infobox, but seeing the majority, let's just leave the article as it is, and boom, end of RfC ! Craffael.09 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a majority, but I'll leave it up to the closing editor to decide the consensus. Consensus is not found by counting votes (see:WP:NHC). Nemov (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is one of those rare questions that can be decided by opinions alone. That's because the infobox is not required by Wikipedia, and other policies don't change that. The closer is welcome to apply more weight to carefully constructed arguments, but no opinion should be discounted entirely. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And could we perhaps have at least a year's break this time before the diehards raise this matter yet again?  Tim riley  talk   19:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Nemov: Yes, so long as you do it systematically, you should ping interested editors from previous, related discussions on this talk page. The closing editor will not tally opinions from past discussions; editors will have to voice their opinions at the present RfC to be counted. — HTGS (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can I just propose to wait for someone new to come, and that person, after reading all the articles, will become the colser of this dicussion, the judge. (see WP:NHC). Just wait for a new eye on this discussion and that's it ! Craffael.09 (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what this is in response to? My original question wasn't about closing this discussion or about rushing the discussion. It was about pinging people who have discussed it in the past. Nemov (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah no I understand. I was just saying that this discussion about the infobox has not been solved after 2 years of debate, so I was just proposing a solution Craffael.09 (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The solution was to open up a RfC. That's the purpose of the RfC. That's what brought me here and I'm sure a few others. @EmilySarah99 is already ahead of you. I removed the POV tags here since they're not useful in this circumstance. The closing admin should know how to navigate a RfC. Nemov (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, I was thinking, why not bring this conversation to the DRN ! But for that, I need at least 2-3 other editors to post their comment on the DRN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craffael.09 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm down for that. Never done DRN before though, what do you need me to do? EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Great ! For the DRN, I will file this discussion about the infobox. You should receive a DRN case reminder soon telling you that you are part of a conflict resolution effort and that you are welcome to put in your POV on the subject. :) Craffael.09 (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Craffael.09 You should withdraw the DRN. It violates the DRN guidelines. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments. There's already an RfC open on this topic. Nemov (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well then let's just close this discussion until teh DRN mediator comes to a conclusion ! Craffael.09 (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You can learn more at WP:RFCEND, but I don't see any reason to rush this close when it's been open for 6 days.
 * An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time.
 * Please just be patient and allow this process to play out. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but if you look at the first edit on the talk page and look at the date, you can see that this conflict has been going on since the 13th of December 2020 . Craffael.09 (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Infobox matters go back to at least 2015. See the discussion on the hidden message advising people not to add an infobox without discussion on the talk page. There is no rush. An RfC is a perfectly appropriate way to address the dispute; please let it run its course. — HTGS (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * An RfC is a form of dispute resolution. Whatever the outcome, the matter will be settled. To try to take it elsewhere will raise accusations of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. — HTGS (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We're almost a month into this RfC and I have requested close for this discussion from an outside editor. Nemov (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yet again, Tim Riley wins on nothing but “because i said so” and “because we already talked about it” in lieu of actual arguments, while projecting that others are “hovering around” despite this issue only existing in the first place due to his outright bizarre overprotection of it. I would not be so personal in this response if he himself hadn’t broken discussion rules a dozen times in this discussion! It is actively disgusting that people whose egos’ shine through every word can have such huge sway. This is all one adult’s three-year long temper tantrum, and nothing more. Yoyofsho16 (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest you remove your personal attack? It is both insulting of an editor who is acting in good faith and a tissue of falsehoods. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:395B:F891:FFDB:DAF9 (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox Added to Article
After the resolution of the RfC I have added the infobox that was used as an example during that discussion. That can serve as the starting point.

If there are questions about the inclusion or removal of information from the infobox please feel free to discuss here. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Per BRD please give a good reason for including the marriages. The non-admin closure of the RFC ignored the part of my comment where I referred to parts of the information being misleading: this is one example. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:DC25:E731:33F0:64FA (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The marriages are important enough to be mentioned in the lead and should be mentioned in the infobox. This is consistent with other biographies. What you cited isn't mentioned in the lead. The closing admin summed up the arguments and you can WP:DROPTHESTICK. You've made it clear that you are very anti-infobox on this article and it would be a huge waste of editor's time to have to RfC every time you object to standard infobox information. Nemov (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me to "drop the stick" or try and summarise my approach to IBs - you have zero idea what my thoughts are in them in general. Comment on the content not the editor please.
 * We are not talking about what happens in other articles: we are talking about this article. There are lots of things mentioned in the lead that are not in the OB, and things in the IB that are not in the lead. Having five out of twelve lines of factoids in the box about his wives gives far too much WP:WEIGHT to this aspect of his life. 37.205.58.148 (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is a WP:BLP WP:BIO article on Wikipedia. Marriage info in infoboxes on biographies is a consistent part of the navigation. Again, making information easier to find for users is the goal of the infobox. There would need to be a compelling reason to omit the marriage information from the infobox. I find the argument about WP:WEIGHT to be insufficient. It was important enough to be mentioned in the lead and it's certainly well within the guidelines to have the information in the infobox. Nemov (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. This article isn't a WP:BLP article on Wikipedia. 2. IBs are nothing to do with navigation. If you mean that some IBs have them, you are correct, but some don't either, particularly when they are both misleading by the omission of Olivier's bisexuality and when they give too much emphasis to something that doesn't add to his notability.
 * The inclusion of the additional five lines of information does not help readers any more than knowing whether he sat in the House of Lords for a particular party or what his height was, or many other factoids that people think are standard, but don't actually consider why. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Navigation was one of the central arguments of those in favor of an infobox. The consensus position of supporters of the was clearly outlined above by the closing editor, The infobox, per supporters, would allow for information to be available at-a-glance and would make it easier for readers to find information. I'm not interested in regurgitating the infobox debate here again and in light of no new arguments for removing the marriage information I'll wait for further input from editors. Another RfC could be opened if no compromise can be found. The status quo should be restored until there's a consensus. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Navigation was one of the central arguments": no it wasn't. Only two people mentioned it (one of which was you), but both of you missed the point that navigation is nothing to do with infoboxes and it never has been! The closing statement has zero to do with navigation, so I am not sure what you are trying to claim. There is no "status quo" here for the box. Sure, there's a consensus for some form of IB there, but the fields are open to discussion (please see the final paragraph in the closing statement about BRD and discussion for individual fields). You cannot claim status quo on the individual fields on the basis of the two hours it was there: you need to find good arguments to include the information, rather than assume it should be there by default - that is not how quality content is produced on WP. This is not a regurgitation of the whole debate again (the IB is there, after all), but a discussion about a field that is both misleading and adds too much WEIGHT on something one part of his life that has no connection to his notability. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems there is a real danger that now every change to the infobox will become battleground... Alssa1 (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Untrue, and a rather pointlessly loaded comment. This is an FA, which means all changes should be considered carefully. Those that are not beneficial to the reader should either be removed or discussed to see if they can be refined to become beneficial. If you think discussion of any aspect of an article is a "battleground", that says a more about your attitude than about how WP or featured content is supposed to work. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing loaded about it. The idea that the inclusion of relationships/marriages in the infobox warrants a long discussion seems silly to me. It's a retreading of the ground covered in the rfc, in my view. I foresee it becoming a proxy for including an infobox on the page in the first place. The conclusion of the rfc determined that an infobox should be included on the page, now let's treat that infobox as if it were an infobox on any other page. Alssa1 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you look, there is an infobox on the page. There is no retreading the ground. The RfC was on whether there should be a box. There is one. One field is being discussed. I’m not sure what’s difficult about this. You can drop the crystal ball gazing act: neither you nor I (nor anyone else) can foresee anything. As to ‘treating like an IB on any other page’, there is no set model for any page and fields are determined by discussion. That is all that is happening here. Again, I’m not sure what is difficult about this. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:57A:A859:B924:3CDD (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * real danger that now every change to the infobox will become battleground And much of that battleground appears to be created by 2-3 editors, who oppose every change or expansion of infoboxes. On wikipedia, the faces change but the battles sure don't. For Olivier, it seems an RFC will be created for every single change. This is a real travesty of collaborative editing. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier's marriages in infobox
Should Laurence Olivier's marriages be included in the infobox. An example can be found here. - Nemov (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) The marriages are important enough to be mentioned in the lead so there doesn't seem to be a good reason why they can't be added to the infobox like similar biographies.. - Nemov (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Biographical infoboxes normally contain basic biographical info, including spouses and/or life partners, unless the info is unclear or has some unusual complication. People are not usually famous for what date they were born, what their birth name was, etc., but these details are common inclusions in leads and infoboxes, and the overwhelming majority of editors would never call that a WP:WEIGHT problem. The argument that listing his marriages somehow diminishes his (possible) bisexuality is ludicrous. That he "possibly had a brief affair" (to quote the article) with a man does not undercut the fact that he had multiple marriages that each lasted a decade or more. If he had a long-term male partner, there is a 'partner' field that would support that, but since he didn't, it is hardly a WP:WEIGHT problem to list his actual major relationships. --RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, if supported by WP:RS, as it seems to be the case. A455bcd9 (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) I appreciate the IP editor's concerns about potential misleadings. However, I still think marriages should be included in the infobox, and such inclusion doesn't indicate supposed undue weight. Readers can decide for themselves whether to read further about his relationships... or not. George Ho (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Too late by then. If they don’t go further than the IB, then they’ve already got a misleading picture. It’s a shame that encyclopaedic precision is sacrificed with this dumbing down. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:358D:5BA:AB1A:CE0E (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) When the information is verified by good quality sources, as it is here, such would normally be included. I do not find the arguments against it a convincing reason to make an exception, so yes, the marriages should be included. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. It's a widely used thing to include in the infobox, and takes nothing away from the encyclopedic value of the page. As I've expressed elsewhere, I see this as being a proxy battle for the existence of an infobox on this page. Alssa1 (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Clearly yes, the Leigh and Plowwright relationships are very widely known parts of his professional - as well as his private life. The first marriage less well known, but clearly a substantial part of his life. The only argument against is the (fairly thin and sketchy possibility) that he may have had a brief 'gay' affair at one point in his long life. Shock horror! Who would believe it? An English stage actor maybe having a brief gay dalliance! Pincrete (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. As people love saying when these discussions come up, there is no policy that insists Wikipedia be consistent. Personally, I think it's important that it is, and so will always support decisions made to standardize the Wiki as much as possible.Xx78900 (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. It's simple, if we are having the infobox we must have the marriages as well, as clearly the marriages were a very important part of Olivier's life. Ollieisanerd (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I get that he was bisexual. If he had a long term male partner, they should be included as well. But since he did not, there is no WP:WEIGHT given to shorter term relationships. It's not homophobia, it's WP:DUE/UNDUE. Absolutely these spouses are supported by RSes as significant parts of this man's life, and so they should be included per DUE. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Support There is precedence for allowing a list of spouses in the infobox. I see no reason why this article should be different than others.-- JOJ   Hutton   11:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) As the trend for the last few years, has been to both include infoboxes & marriages within them. One doesn't need a weatherman, to know which way the wind's blowing. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - They are extensively sourced and, his marriage to Leigh for example was notable to both of their careers. If the whole issue is because listing his marriages might diminish his reported bisexuality, then that doesn't sound rational. If he had a male long-term life partner, then that could be added to the partner parameter, but a possible brief affair/short-term relationship shouldn't. As a side comment, I know Wikipedia, as mentioned above has no polices on being entirely consistent, but I also believe that the site should work to standardizing their policies as much as possible. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) Support – per previously-given reasons by other editors.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 23:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - Marriages/life partners and the children that came from those unions should be mentioned Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

No

 * 1) Oppose. It doesn't matter what happens on other articles, it matters what happens on this one. The fact some other biographies include spouses does not determine that all articles must have them (many articles do not include spouses). Is Olivier famous for having three wives? Having five out of twelve lines of factoids in the box about his wives gives far too much WP:WEIGHT to this aspect of his life. (He's not Richard Burton, whose love life was played across the front pages, for example). Secondly, the field would prove misleading to readers: it bypasses his bisexuality, so people looking only at the IB would come away with a misleading impression. A field that misleads readers shouldn't be included. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE reminds editors that "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". The cluttering of the box with five lines of additional information that isn't about the reason we have an article on him goes against the purpose of the box. The editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:3DB0:202C:6615:774E (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose – Layout of the introduction looks great at the moment. No need to add a bunch of extra lines of material that is of undue WP:PROPORTION. On the mobile version, it is important to keep in mind that vertical view space is limited before the need to scroll. For the mobile user, it is important to catch them with a crisp first visual impression, so that hopefully, they scroll down to read the great content that has been created. Key to a good lead section is proper weight of material from the article and a NON-WP:CLUTTERED appearance. The left column on the desktop version would also look much better if the contribute, tools, print/export, and languages options were collapsed. However, it is not clear if the community has control over that visual real estate. --Guest2625 (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose No, to stop bloating. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (marriages)

 * I'm not sure of the need for an RFC on this: a couple of days ago it was agreed to allow time for other people chip in with their thoughts. No-one has raised any comments about the marriages in that very short period, but that doesn't mean we have to go through the rigmarole of another RFC. Never mind, it's open, and if we have to go through the full spectacle, so be it. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:3DB0:202C:6615:774E (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on what I've seen so far this appears to be the appropriate course of action. Nemov (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I'm glad to have the chance to weigh in here, and would not have found this discussion if not for the RFC. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The RFC or the fact that you've now stalked my edits to six or is it seven articles? This is repugnant and shameful behaviour. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:BD00:A400:8804:F9AC (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, I have no idea who you are, and frankly don't care. I came here because I was looking around at Nemov's edits, various other Biography RFCs, and how and whether the Arb candidates have weighed in. I would encourage you to look at Persecution complex. I like editing biographies. Please do not sour my ability to edit biographies and weigh in on these things just because you also like to edit them. (edited for accuracy 15:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm calling BS on this - and on you. Strange how you made it to the Moorgate Tube Disaster page as well. As to trying to suggest I have a mental condition - that's just despicable, and somewhat unethical. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:BD00:A400:8804:F9AC (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry for the confusion. I absolutely did not mean to suggest you have a mental illness. Sometimes I forget what people do and don't know about medicine.Complexes aren't necessarily mental disorders. That's a common misconception. They can be a component of them, but aren't at that level yet. Everybody has complexes. It's like a bias or a prejudice or an interest. It's a feature of the human mind that everyone can have. If they consume your life, then you rise to the level of a disorder. In your case, I just want to make clear: I have not "followed" you around anywhere. You appear to be very interested in a small set of things that other people are also interested in. my interest in them has nothing to do with you. And more importantly, wiki-level harassment has to do with stalking people from page to page in an effort to make their contributions on wikipedia feel less fun. I have only participated in similar discussions, I have no interest in interacting with you further or interacting with your edits in any way. And I will no longer respond. Thanks — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is still utterly inappropriate (and for someone who claims to be a medical professional, borders on the unethical) to try and claim someone is delusional based on limited interaction. It's nothing shortly of gaslighting and a direct personal attack. Your behaviour over the last few days has been reprehensible and disgusting.
 * As to your claim that this is a coincidence, that's bull. Talk me though your edit today on the Moorgate tube crash: which "small set of things that other people are also interested in" led you to that particular page? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:BD00:A400:8804:F9AC (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ASPERSIONS tells us to not make personal accusations on article talk. Please use the appropriate venues (namely your own user talk, or the applicable noticeboards) to discuss editor behavior and do not continue to impinge on my reputation as an editor in these discussions based on your own suppositions. Thanks. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)- The preceding comment was made in response to a previous version of the IP user's comment, which has since been edited.
 * I'm not casting aspersions. I am stating clearly that you have harassed, personally attacked, stalked, removed my comments and attempted to gaslight me over the last couple of days. I am unable to post this to your talk page, as you well know. Stop following me, stop the personal attacks, stop the unethical connection of individuals to mental health issues. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:BD00:A400:8804:F9AC (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:3DB0:202C:6615:774E, there's a No/Yes section for this RfC. Your comment was formatted incorrectly and was edited according to the formatting of the RfC. Nemov (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If I want to say oppose, then I am entitled to. If I want to put my comment in two paragraphs, then that’s the way it was meant. You should not ever edit the wording of someone’s comments. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:358D:5BA:AB1A:CE0E (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making sure it follows the correct formatting. Nemov (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't want to spend time investigating petty feuding so I'm not sure if the following advice is useful but the way to put a paragraph break in a comment is to put pb where you want a new line:  Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I think the inclusion/exclusion of "# of children" should follow what we do here for "spouses". We should either include both or neither. I say that because I think they're the same "level" of detail. Thoughts? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Re: citation needed for “years active” - I cannot find a single article for which that parameter is cited to an RS. Is it not simply SUMMARY of the body of the text? I would point to WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY and ask, humbly: do we really need a citation saying when the first and last movies were?
 * I went with first and last of “title role” but I truly do not care which movies we use to determine this. Whatever consensus supports, I’m in. My position is just that requiring a citation for this is absurd, as not a single article I can find has a citation for this parameter. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 09:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In most articles the dates are to be found within the text. In this article, the date he became active in his principal occupation is a little unclear. Many articles leave this field empty because of a lack of clarity, but if you want to edit war to include it, you have to ensure it is backed up either by the text or a citation. This is an FA: we don’t provide unsupported information in FAs. As to only focusing on “title roles” or film roles, no. That’s not right under any circumstance. 86.162.16.154 (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, please don't suggest I'm edit warring without evidence, it runs afoul of WP:ASPERSIONS. if you have concerns, bring them up on the appropriate noticeboard. Thanks. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 11:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It was added, taken out (with rationale) and you edit warred to add it again (making it even worse than before). Aside from that, is there anything constructive you wish to add to the discussion about the dates. At the moment we have an FA with a CN tag in a prominent position, which is sub-optimal. - 2A01:4C8:440:707F:D486:DF44:65F4:476B (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can add it back with my support. This is a common part of infoboxes for actors and it doesn't need citations. Nemov (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If the information is sourced in the article there is no problem, but it’s not for this field, which is why the CN tag is there. You can’t decide to ignore a stack of policies (including WP:VERIFY just for the dubious inclusion). Plenty for you to report back to the little conversation you have going on (and no, despite what some joker has claimed in that thread, I have not edited anything on the Sophie Dahl article for a few years: that’s a case of WP:ABF, WP:ASPERSIONS, and a few other bits of bad practice. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:28E6:2F85:3EBD:EF4 (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I can support another editor's arguments over your argument. There's a verified list of works and that should suffice. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:VERIFY isn't something you can !vote against. If the information is that obvious, you should be able to find a citation for it. Breaching WP:CIRC to try and use a list article that doesn't claim to be complete doesn't cut the mustard. It needs to be an external source (pre-supposing we agree to ignore his early amateur dramatics at school, etc, which is possibly best, although the dates "active in their principal occupation(s) and/or other activity for which they are notable" could be argued to include amateur activity too). - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:F9F0:EEDB:4180:806C (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are citations for when Olivier's first play was put on, is that what you mean?  Or his first film?   —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Which citations do you mean? Your first - Geograph: unreliable source (and anyway says "one of his earliest" stress on the one of); your second - Beckett: doesn't have a date for his first role (unless I've missed it – perhaps you could quote the passage?). Not sure why you've included his films, which are all later dates. Do you have a source which categorically says when Olivier first appeared on stage?I'm not being awkward over this: the information is not clear in the article and isn't clear in the sources, which means trying to put it into a factoid in an IB is going to be problematic. This is an encyclopaedia and needs to be accurate; this is an FA and needs to carry sourced information. Incorrect and misleading information is a major problem with IBs (IMO), and as there is going to be one on the page from now on, it needs to be correct. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:F9F0:EEDB:4180:806C (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, doesn't seem to be much of a problem over at Laurence Olivier on stage and screen or in the article body here. Those segments seem relatively stable. Sounds a lot more like making a mountain out of a mole hill. For one thing, we're just trying to answer what year in this case, not which specific play. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you can find a reference that states that his first professional appearance was in xxxx year, then great, we'll go with that. There isn't a year referenced in this article because it's not 100% clear from the sources, and while there is a list of his works at LO on stage and screen, it does not claim to be a comprehensive guide, nor does it claim that Unfailing Instinct was his first professional work.This isn't about making a mountain out of a molehill, it's about being correct with providing information, particularly when it's in a prominent position. This is about as basic as it gets for WP: providing information supported by relevant sources. As this is a Featured Article that is supposed to represent our best work; it's also a level 4 vital article with page views of 2-3,000 a day, you need to be 100% sure that the information is correct. Having a CN tag right up at the top of an FA is not an improvement in any way. Get a source that says when his first professional appearance was or take out the field until someone comes up with one. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think if we have a consensus against requiring a CN tag, that would also be a great solution. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can’t vote against WP:VERIFY. Just find a source. If it so important a point to include in an IB, then it should be easy to find. If it’s not important enough to find a clear reference to it, that should be a red flag for people to consider if it’s worth including the field. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:302F:5717:579F:6EE8 (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I've stop about two years ago, going against the growing tide. Infoboxes (and marriages within) are likely here to stay, concerning biographies. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems like an undoubtedly clear consensus. Any objections to closing this RfC? Nemov (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would just list it on WP:ANRFC as approaching a WP:SNOW close. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please let's not have any closures by people involved in the discussion, which is likely to create drama. Listing it at WP:ANRFC is the way to go, followed by patience if it takes a while for someone to get to it. --RL0919 (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly why I asked. Listed at WP:ANRFC. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

sfn "no target" error
There seems to be a problem with refs [1] and [2] in notes [a] and [b] respectively. Should "Coleman 2005" be "Coleman 2006"? 109.144.29.101 (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe @Shibbolethink set up those citations. Nemov (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The year was clearly wrong based on the linked source – it looks like the original publication year was used instead of the year of the specific publication cited. There were also some other minor format errors, so I cleaned them up. I'm also not clear on why the quotations are needed. It looks like a case of Talk page arguments spilling into the citations. --RL0919 (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree they're not needed and yes, you're right. Nemov (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree the citations were not needed. I added them only because I was requested to add them by @SchroCat. Thank you so much for cleaning up the errors, I'm new to the sfn templates and wasn't quite sure what to do. I just previewed them quickly and didn't look closely enough, like the publication years that was just a genuine error on my part. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The citations are needed because they support information not in the body (the start year of his career). What aren’t needed are the quotations. However, if you move the actual year and citation of his first role to the body, you won’t need the citation in the IB. SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Moved the content for 1925 performance to the body, moved the remaining unused citation for 1988 to the body. No quotations. So we are all kosher, yes? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Reworked. The end citation wasn’t needed (there was never any doubt about that), so the info and citation in the body is ok now. SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s now a lot less good than it was, with trivia bloating out the section. SchroCat (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't think it's notable that Olivier fell flat on his face during his first performance or that Thorndike was a daughter of Olivier's father? Both Beckett and Coleman mention this prominently so it's WP:DUE imo. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They wrote full-length biographies, not an encyclopaedic summary of a full life. SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I could probably take or leave the bit about Thorndike's connection to Olivier (even though several sources mention it), but falling flat on his face is interesting and extremely DUE. I left out the bits about why he fell, the nature of the theater etc. because I agree these are definitely UNDUE. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This is what happens when a superbly written article is taken over by a bunch of drive-bys who have no clue how to write an article to C-class level, let alone FA. Until Wikipedia sees sense and locks all FAs upon promotion, there won't ever be a decent article on this website. 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:D9F1:BB43:B2F6:9494 (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)