Talk:Laurence Olivier

Really?

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. ~ HAL333 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. ~ HAL333 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, another old account - 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 Wikipedia: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)

Oppose infobox I can't see that anyone has provided any persuasive reason why this article in particular needs an infobox. The argument that 'some other articles have them' isn't really an argument, when infoboxes are not a requirement of Wikipedia policy. In my view, an infobox for this article would be unnecessary and unhelpful, for the reasons already stated by others. Also, the title of this discussion is worded disruptively and unhelpfully and doesn't come across as wanting to engage in good-faith discussion on this matter. 13:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Bisexuality

I'm sorry, but aren't there numerous biographies that claim that Laurence Olivier was at the very least bisexual? I feel like this article should mention these sources, especially considering he's on the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. Saturdayopen (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

You may like to read the article in full: e.g. "a brief affair with the actor Henry Ainley". The citation in the list you mention is not to a WP:RS and when I get round to it I'll remove it. Tim riley talk 21:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I missed it. You don't need to be rude. Saturdayopen (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies accepted, naturally. Tim riley talk 22:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic, Tim. And again I am reminded to read Gaudy Night. I have no idea why you effect this fervour. "One never failed to find Wimsey of Balliol planted in the centre of the quad and laying down the law with exquisite insolence to somebody". Ah! Perhaps I do... SN54129 19:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm never sure whether I find Ballioty or Wykehamity more irritating in its assumption of omniscience. Tim riley talk 19:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Schooling?

The article currently states that Olivier attended St Edward's School, Oxford, from 1920 to 1924: however, recently-released census data records him as still being at at All Saints, London in 1921, according to The Conversation (I haven't paid to see the original census document, but it seems to be a reliable source). Can anyone shed light on this contradictory information? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The Holden biography cited here is not easy to follow so far as dates are concerned, but I think you may be right that it was only three years at St Edward's, ending in, if I read it right, early 1924. I'll see if I can find a source with clearer dates. Tim riley talk 18:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Found one! The Darlington biography says that he went to St Edward's in the September term of 1921 and left at the end of the summer term in 1924. I'll amend the date in the article from 1920 to 1921. Tim riley talk 18:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Great work! ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for spotting this! Tim riley talk 19:42, 20 January 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:

• Support
• Oppose

with your explaination following.

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

• 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 tells readers nothing of note about the individual: it contains no important information that helps readers. The pertinent information is in the lead, where it is presented with context and nuance. An infobox with give dates of life, the always misleading (always unsourced and never entirely correct - yes, this is one field that is opinion and/or OR) “years active” and then ephemeral nonsense that won’t expand a reader’s knowledge of the subject (what schools Olivier went to, what his wives were named, etc). Infoboxes don’t work well with the liberal arts or when there are no career-specific factoids to tabulate. What happens on other articles is immaterial (there is no guideline or policy that insists on ‘consistency’ throughout - and rightly so: that way madness lies). Discussions are 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’: that would be a refreshing an unexpected change. - The editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:8D69:FD13:9DF1:EB7D (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• 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. Nemov (talk) 01:02, 24 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 nationality = 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)
• 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 was told 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)