Talk:Rod Steiger

RfC on whether or not Rod Steiger should have an infobox
Should the article on Rod Steiger include an infobox? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Had there been any recent discussion on this that would necessitate an RFC? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There was an RfC on this like 10 years ago. I added an infobox to the article the other day, not knowing the history, and was reverted and told the matter would need to go to RfC again. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Status quo, I don't see any arguments or explanations about how an infobox would improve the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes - what a strange question; of course it should have an infobox. I read through some of the previous discussions and I don't understand any of it. 99% of articles about actors contain an infobox; what's special about Rod Steiger? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I already think it's weird that composers don't have infoboxes so I can't see any reasonable case for Steiger not to have one. Also worth noting that Peter Sellers had this same debate and the talk page consensus was to include an infobox. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Voting Yes as OP. This is a long article with a relatively long lead. I think an infobox would be useful to readers. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Soft yes. Inboxes are generally useful to readers, but this particular article isn't especially in want of one.Charlie A. (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, or not the one which was added which was useless: cemetery, 5 wives & children, but no films or awards! Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes. One has to realize infoboxes are the norm on wikipedia for important and notable people. The lack of an infobox for Steiger gives off the (false) impression he is not significant. 2600:1702:5F0:1B00:2129:A188:A6A6:6E01 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. All of his acting peers, equals, etc. I think of have info boxes. No real reason he should not. Besides, to people unfamiliar with him or wikipedia in general, makes the page look unusual and potentially as if he is not notable given the absence of the info box. La rodman (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes Extremely useful for casual readers to see key information at a glance. Actually makes the article look more professional amd official. This is just common sense at this point.-- JOJ  Hutton   10:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, particularly if people are going to edit war to their preference against a long-standing consensus. Such disruptive actions help no-one. Any discussion should be better than IDONTLIKEIT, or ‘it looks better’. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Johnbod, the significant info which would be conveyed isn't made clear. Also wholly oppose the logic of the IP - infoboxes are to convey important summaried info, not to indicate the 'significance' of the subject. Pincrete (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Personal details
Please stop edit-warring and seek consensus for the content you want to include. As Johnbod noted in the discussion above, your proposal over-emphasizes personal details (including naming a non-notable child, which should not be done) and obscures what the individual is actually known for. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, there was a 5 to 2 vote in favour of an infobox, and Johnbod's concerns were not shared by any other editor. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Johnbod was the only person to address specific parameters, either positively or negatively, which indicates that you have not achieved consensus for the contents you propose - only the template, which was in place both with and without your disputed content. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is clearly common practice to include spouses in the infobox when reliably sourced. See articles on comparable actors and actresses: Marlon Brando, Marilyn Monroe, etc. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Which parameters to use in a particular infobox is determined through consensus among the editors at each individual article. Which has not yet been achieved here. Please self-revert until that happens. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to an ibox if it gave me important information about his career and awards won etc. rather than trivia about his five wives and cemetery.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I was watching On the Waterfront last night noticed this article didn't have an infobox. It's kind of funny to find the same editors debating the topic here. An infobox similar to the Laurence Olivier infobox would be an improvement to this article. It might take a RfC or two before it's included, but the community seems to be moving in the pro-infobox direction. Change takes time, but eventually one will be included here. "It wasn't him, Charley, it was you." Nemov (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not determined by vote counting, and that’s not a strong enough discussion to overcome a long-standing consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Remarkable that in over a year only half a dozen odd people turned up here but now below 16 people have already turned up to support. I guess it's suddenly become urgent that this has a box... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Tends to happen when an editor asks for comments via an RFC. MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah how I've missed this lmao. The old and infamous infobox edit wars. Well unless and until there is anything significant that needs to be summarised like military achievements or even important honorary awards like knighthood or position held in parliament and all that stuff (Film awards when it comes to film related topics) I generally don't see the need for an infobox as the article lead would be quite enough as an abstract/summary. —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 10:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There weren't many people commenting in the one from last year... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I posted this at the Village Pump and Acting/BIO projects which is recommended for RfC's that need more attention (which was the lesson from last year's RfC). There's nothing nefarious about promoting a RfC at those locations. Nemov (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Rod Steiger infobox RfC
Should the biography of Rod Steiger include an infobox? Nemov (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Survey
Please leave your comment in one the sections below. If you have questions for commenters please address it in discussion section. Here is an example of an infobox that could be included. Thanks!

Yes

 * 1) The purpose of an infobox is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. I visited this article a few days ago while I was watching On the Waterfront. I wanted some quick facts such as filmography and awards he won. Plus, simple stuff like his age when he died. This type of information I expect to find quickly in an infobox. The information is in this article, but it’s not summarized in a way that’s quick to consume.Infoboxes are a valuable part of the user experience when navigating an article on Wikipedia. Data analysis of Wikipedia articles show that users find the information contained in the infobox valuable. Making information easy to find and consume is one this project's highest priorities and that's the purpose of an infobox. This article would be improved if one were included. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a long article with a relatively long lead. I think an infobox would be useful to readers. The infobox proposed by Nemov is particularly useful, as it links to his filmography and awards. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes per Nemov. Biographies like this are improved with infoboxes that provide quick details for new readers. BogLogs (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. The lead and article are relatively long, and I found myself hunting for certain information that could be easily summarized in an infobox like the above. At the same time, an infobox does not prevent readers from diving into the detail of this well-written article, which is accessible, etc. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, I think it makes the page easier to navigate for many users.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. As others have said, helps the casual visitor to the page. Even for someone who is on Wikipedia all the time (far more as a reader than editor), it just makes a page easier to navigate and helps give a brief intro. I believe that’s why infoboxes are the norm. — La rodman (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 7) Infoboxes are pretty bog standard across the Wikipedia, especially in a biography. They summarize info in a concise and easily accessible manner. Click Special:Random and it takes quite awhile to find a page without one. I find it baffling that this is even contentious contested (was the word I meant to use). It is baffling why there is opposition to using an infobox. Zaathras (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, provides a useful summary to this question. This also isn't a contentious proposal; to the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Provides basic information for those who don't want to plough through the article. Nigej (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per all above. The opposition voters below seem to be quibbling about what specific information is included in the infobox, which is not the question being asked nor should it (or even this question) require an RfC. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Whilst not every article may need an infobox, this is a very long, detailed article, and so having the infobox as a summary of the information is advantageous to the casual reader. The discussion of what precisely should be in/not in the infobox is a separate discussion, but objection to specific information being in/not in one version of the infobox is not a reason to refuse an infobox outright. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 12) Support- Enough people find them useful to warrant an infobox.-- JOJ   Hutton   17:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 13) Support My opinion on infobox content is "when in doubt, leave it it out."  But this one is small with only unquestioned content. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Yes, of course it should. And once it has one, it should be populated with the summary information that is usual in articles on actors. To be further discussed on the talk page, if that in itself is contentious (which I very much doubt) MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 15) Support: The box is small and unobstructive, and though I can see several ways it could be expanded, by design most infoboxes will remain unobstructive without much issue. For an article with a lead this long (probably too long), I doubt there's ever any issue. And of course I agree with many points expressed above, some of which I'm probably just restating here accidentally since I haven't read all of them (golly, that's a lotta votes). QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 04:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Infoboxes are useful and handy! I do agree, however, that they should be used to convey the most relevant information about their subject, and not to mention any old trivia like place of burial. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 17) Though I'd rather infoboxes be limited to politicians, athletes, monarchs. I must accept that the trend across Wikipedia, is to include infoboxes in all bio pages. GoodDay (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. I find it helpful and standard to have a short set of biographical facts beneath the lead image on a biography. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Yes, there should be one. Excluding what makes someone or something notable from the infobox is not contrary to the utility of an infobox; that is, to give structured information to a reader, if I'm making any sense at all. SWinxy (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 20) Support, without preference to any specific proposed infobox. Not saying the proposed specific one is best, just that in general, I find no reason to have no infobox in this one article.  -- Jayron 32 12:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. The proposed infobox is an easily accessible resource for finding useful information – particularly the links to the works and awards pages, which aren't otherwise linked until much later in the article. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No

 * 1) Oppose I generally support infoboxes in articles where there is a lot of data or some important facts to highlight but not in articles where no vital information about the career of the individual is given and it highlights trivia. The proposed box with links to the filmography and awards is an improvement on the one with five wives and cemetery but they are just links. This has gone 8 years without one, read by tens of millions of people, and only a few people have ever complained. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, per Johnbod's comment above, No, or not the one which was added which was useless: cemetery, 5 wives & children, but no films or awards! the significant info which would be conveyed isn't made clear. Also wholly oppose the logic of the IP above The lack of an infobox for Steiger gives off the (false) impression he is not significant - infoboxes are to convey important summaried info, not to indicate the 'significance' of the subject. Pincrete (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Pinging the editors from the previous discussion. Please comment if you are so inclined. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the heads up. La rodman (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding SchroCat, who also commented.Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I copied SchroCat's comment and left a message as well. Nemov (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I notice that both "No" positions at the time of this writing are against one particular infobox, not an infobox in general. What is this RfC really about? If there's some specific context it might be helpful to explain. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * There is a very devoted segment of editors opposed to infoboxes on biographies for a variety of reasons. You can review the previous discussions above. The one oppose from before wrote "I wouldn't object to an ibox if it gave me important information about his career and awards won etc. rather than trivia about his five wives and cemetery." This version of the infobox doesn't mention marriages and links to the list awards/filmography and the editor still opposed this modest infobox. Having a RfC is basically the only way to break the deadlock on some of these infobox discussions. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Was this ever discussed somewhere, i.e. was there a "Infoboxes or No Infoboxes" centralized discussion at one point? It just seems like such a strange thing to contest. Zaathras (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Inbox fix
Should we add his marriages onto the infobox like all the other infoboxes? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Since he was married 5 times I would recommend leaving it out otherwise it'll just dominate what is currently a modest infobox. Nemov (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)