Talk:Michael Hordern/Archive 1

The Dock Brief, and the BAFTA.
The BBC Genome reference for The Dock Brief is for a radio version, not television. The reference for the 1958 BAFTA is for Donald Pleasence, not Michael Hordern. According to the BAFTA website Hordern got the 1957 TV actor award, but it does not say for what. DuncanHill (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've found a BBC Genome entry for the TV version, and added that. We still need clarification and better referencing for the BAFTA. DuncanHill (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the year, but I haven't found for what role Hordern received the award. I also found that Hordern was nominated for the BAFTA award for Supporting Actor for his role in The Slipper and The Rose. I don't know if nominations are significant enough for a mention. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed the claim that the BAFTA was for The Dock Brief, as no reference found for it. It's worth noting that these referencing errors were present when the article passed FA review over three years ago. DuncanHill (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox
I have finished my revamp of this article and have now moved it into the main space. I have chosen NOT to use an info box for the following reasons:


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

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

Infoboxes should be used only occasionally and with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles. Those who are pushing the project to accept them everywhere would do better to put their energy into creating more lists. I will certainly not be adding one to this article. I would be interested to hear the opinions of others on this subject.  Cassianto Talk   21:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I oppose an infobox in this article, as it would not add anything useful. I believe that all of the key information is better stated narratively, and that an infobox in this article would be not only redundant, but would encourage readers to merely look at the box instead of reading the actual article. Some other reasons:  (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids, stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the WP:LEAD section here emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) As Cassianto argues, it would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (3) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (4) The infobox template creates a lot of code near the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (5) It would distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Better without, thoroughly agreed.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What a load of utter crap. Why on earth even bother having infoboxes if they are not by default a page standard? Again the above wittering only goes to prove that this so called "project" is all about egos and WP:OWN. The unpleasant truth to ego editors is that people (who are NOT aroused by self aggrandisement and hero signalling) only use Wikipedia to get easy access to information. In effect, without an infobox, it means picking out basic facts (like place of birth, place of death, family, and other gems) by having to read reams and reams of unnecessary material. Worse still the article stinks of ego because it's just a narrative that ignores good practise set by thousands of other biographical articles. It's only one step away from buying a biography on Hordern and reading it from cover to cover. By not following the good practice of delineating Early life, Career, Personal life, and death, the article shows itself to be a vanity project (it has to be unique and stand alone instead of just being another one of many). Facts are just jumbled together in a rambling stream of consciousness. Articles are supposed to be built around discernible facts and written in an encyclopedic style; not articles like this which are written from ego in the style of an essay writing contest or school book report. Whoever thinks this is a good article only proves that wikiepdia is failing into a fallacy of its own making. 81.141.32.157 (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Case in point the "Cassianto" character is all over this article like a rash. The edit stats say it all Cassianto · 390 (62.1%). I thought there was supposed to a policy that stopped WP:OWN? Well thanks for putting this article on the front page because it demonstrates to all the world the true nature of Wikipedia. Namely do are you're told, not as we do (All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.). In this case one editor is permitted to set the tone of this article by basically ignoring formatting consensus, and good practice on creating an accessible article and then be rewarded with a "Featured article". Someone who wanted to add an infobox is shutdown. Tell that to the hundred thousand articles that do have an infobox. Derr? Now put this editor's protected position in context with an IP that tries to "go it alone". Hypocrisy, sheer hypocrisy. 81.141.32.157 (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)