Talk:Rod Steiger

England residence

did rod steiger ever have a home in england—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.105 (talk • contribs)

Probably. His wife, Claire Bloom, was English. JackO'Lantern 07:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

German ancestry

Does anyone have a source that he's of significant German ancestry? I've removed the category until someone provides one. JackO'Lantern 05:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well Steiger is a German surname.

Pigeon-holing

Quote: Refusing to sign a seven year studio contract, Steiger later turned down the role in the film version in 1955. Signing a studio contract at that time would "pigeon-hole" Steiger as to the roles he would later play and image portrayed on screen. Those two things Steiger objected to throughout his career.

What are the two things being referred to here? I see only his desire not to be pigeon-holed, which is one thing. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Hollywood sign

I just wanted to point out that the movie The Hollywood Sign(2001) does not have a page on Wikipedia. The link in the Filmography section goes to the page for the physical Hollywood sign in California. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Daughters

IMDB doesn't mention a second daughter other than his one with Bloom, and Sally Gracie's entry doesn't mention any children. Do we have a source regarding Claudia Myhers? Rojomoke (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like some random IP added in the mysterious Claudia Myhers and the two grandkids in July 2009 and they've been here ever since. I can find no source for the three that isn't mirroring Wikipedia. I assume it was vandalism that stuck. Span (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

His Last Film Role

His last film role was Poolhall Junkies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No infobox

I recently promoted Meryl Streep and Claudia Cardinale but didn't remove the infobox as the size and content wasn't too bad though I'd rather not have them. But the infobox in this one was particularly long and bloated with five wives and ships listed etc. It really looks better without it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose an infobox 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.)

Infoboxes work on complicated articles, but this article does not fit into that category. My worry is that it simply has one as that is what people perceive to be "normal". -- Cassianto^Talk 06:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Info-boxes have their place, but this isn't one of them, in my view. A list of wives is hardly key information; a list of Steiger's films would be, but would also be unwieldy in an info-box, and belongs in its own space. The box in question added nothing worthwhile and cluttered up valuable screen space – a classic instance of a disinfobox. I wholly concur that it should remain deleted.

In passing, do we really need the hatnote telling readers not to think Rod Steiger is Roy Scheider? In reality, is anyone likely to? – Tim riley talk 07:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't sure either. I do think some people confuse the names, but not as obvious as Bill Pullman and Bill Paxman or something. Best removed I think. They'll soon learn than Steiger wasn't in Jaws or All that Jazz!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You say that, but as a youth, I used to think it was Roy Hudd and Emu. Cassianto^Talk 10:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Support infobox: One of the world's largest public information websites has now been creating infoboxes for its searches. Search for a well-known person, place, or thing, and Google now includes an infobox with images, key facts and website links, which almost looks modeled after Wikipedia's. Another strange change is replacing an obviously better lead image with one of the poorest I've come across in a WP bio, lead or elsewhere. But if you all think that listing his wives makes the infobox unwieldly, you must be appalled at David Lean's infobox. As for the size of the infobox, Mussolini's infobox, whose proud image you borrowed, must be downright shocking. --Light show (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Disagreed. The colour image is a superior one. It's not the sharpest looking image in the world, no, but the previous one is hardly very good either. And yes, Mussolini's infobox is downright shocking and should be removed too, it's beyond ridiculous.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest using this image, which the seller says is blank on the reverse and she will add a scan of the reverse to the listing. --Light show (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant solution, you came up with. Just write some meaningless pretext to get the only good image of him deleted. Combined with your ignoring the above suggestion for getting an even better image, the message is clear. --Light show (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Well we'll see how meaningless it is in a few weeks and if others agree or not. You have an extremely long history of uploading copyvios, and also a nasty habit of commenting against editors on articles that they expand or you've uploaded a photo for and contributed to.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I laughed aloud at the grotesqueness of the Duce's info-box, though in truth something laughably grotesque is well suited to Mussolini. Not quite clear how he fits into the Steiger discussion, though. Still, Dr B is right. In passing, I think perhaps Light Show has misread the earlier comments, and has got muddled about which potential info would be unwieldy: the roles, not the wives. Tim riley talk 21:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

If you think the Duce's infobox grotesque, at a mere 89 lines of information, then take a peep at Winston Churchill's, which has a staggering 166 lines. Unbelievable. And it still manages to entirely distort and misinform – according to this box, he entered parliament in 1945. It's a timely reminder of what can happen when the zeal for infoboxes runs unchecked. There are three kinds of infobox: good, bad and dreadful. It's time the zealots turned away from trying to impose boxes on every article, and applied their energies to tackling the excrescences of which the Churchill monster is a supreme example. Brianboulton (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose There is no requirement to include something just because Google also have something similar for their searches (possibly the most ridiculous argument that I've heard for inclusion of an IB ever). – SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I have on occasion been accused of making "possibly the most ridiculous requests they've heard," as Blo-Schro-Cass note within minutes of each other. --Light show (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

More snarky incivility? if you continue to spout ridiculous points of view, people will keep pointing it out. Better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. - SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Well if the cap fits Light show. At least your barmy ideas are consistent. Cassianto^Talk 21:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm out -- I have content to create. The time wasters below can argue amongst themselves and I'm withdrawing before I tell them what I really think of them and then get blocked. I'm now removing this article from my watch list. Cassianto^Talk 22:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC for Infobox

I am opening this request for comment about the lack of inclusion of an infobox. From my account of it, it appears that some of the editors on this article are against infoboxes entirely. I would like to hear some discussion from additional users on why an infobox should or shouldn't be included. Jcmcc (Talk) 21:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support most infoboxes for biographies. As for this article, the discussion might soon resemble a similar infobox RFC, as the same 3(?) editors are involved. A Google search for Steiger shows Google's own infobox, similar to WPs, but with halfway decent photos. --Light show (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Stop your incivility straight away, Light Show. If you want this to go to ANI and for you to be banned from yet another part of the site for your battlefield attitude and incivility, the you're going the right way about it. - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

We're not google LS. Google is a search engine in which factoids have more value. We're an encyclopedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose -- per my reasons above. I can't be arsed to comment further on yet another ludicrous waste of time such as this RfC. I just think It's pathetically sad that some spend all their time and efforts creating pointless infobox RfCs rather than actually do some good somewhere, like create content. Cassianto^Talk 21:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If you think discussing the construction of an encyclopedia and its manual of style is a "ludicrous waste of time", then why are you here? Jcmcc (Talk) 22:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It's clear I'm here for entirely different reasons than you. For your information I write articles, what's your excuse, other than to waste time on infobox discussions? Why do you assume an infobox forms part of the MoS? They are neither prohibited or required. Cassianto^Talk 22:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Soft Support: If the issue is that the original infobox was too bloated and jumbled, couldnt we agree that a trimmed down infobox would work? DaltonCastle (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No, as that would look silly and redundant. Maybe we should just delete the whole article and just have an infobox, filled with the usual bollocks that come within them? Cassianto^Talk 22:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

About deletions, just a side note that a discussion about your recent one has been posted, in case you want to comment there. --Light show (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't a clue what you're on about. Are you just spewing your usual drivvle Light show? Cassianto^Talk 22:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Please remain civil Cassianto. Wikipedia is not a place to make attacks against other editors. Even when they disagree with you. Jcmcc (Talk) 22:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

What the hell would you know about civility? Civil editors don't go about trying to delete notable articles and respect fellow editors enough to ask them to expand something. You're trolling here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

🎉🎉Ding ding!!🎉🎉 That's the first cliche buzz word used in all infobox discussions ("civil"). I wonder how long it'll be before someone mentions "own? Cassianto^Talk 04:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support infobox for reasons given above. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment on lead image: As Dr. Blofeld's very first edit to this article was to replace a pretty good lead image with a blurry inferior one, without comment or rationale, I think the infobox should have the earlier image restored. And if anyone wants to upload this image for the infobox, that's fine with me, as it meets PD status explained here. The only issue with the first image is that Dr. Blofeld also tagged it for deletion with a meaningless pretext (noted above) and did so just minutes after I commented about his image's poor quality. Some might call that implied retaliation. Any other support for the previous one? --Light show (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose this attempt by Jcmcc450 to impose this. Highly suspicious behaviour from him, including nominating three of my articles for deletion. I don't think this is an honest proposal. I think it's clear that he was contacted by Spaghetti by email asking him to open an RFC and has been stalking my edits and is trolling here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Jcmcc450 has not been blocked for sockpuppetry or anything else, so you really should assume good faith. Just because he nominated three of your articles for deletion doesn't make him a sock either, nor does it mean someone put him up to it. In fact, Jcmcc450 created his account all the way back in December of 2007, making your accusation all the more less likely. You should apologize for making such an accusation. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You're another sockpuppet spaghetti!! It was you who emailed Jc asking him to open an RFC on this! If you think it's not suspicious that he nominated three articles for deletion and then within ten minutes opened this RFC then I'd say your spaghetti is severely lacking in sauce.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No it wasn't!!!!! I don't even know Jcmcc450, I don't know you, and I bear no grudge against you, so why on God's earth would I email him to open an RFC? I'm very well aware of Wikipedia's rules about canvassing, and know that something like that would be improper. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Because you tried to impose an infobox and didn't get your way. You'd have seen Jcm's AFDs of my articles and thought "great, I'll ask him to open an RFC". If Jc did this of his own accord then this amounts to trolling/stalking, given that he clearly knows the history of infobox and civility disputes and lectured Cassianto with the "civility" cliche. This recent backlash by Jc isn't done in good faith, it's motivated by something, possibly Chillum. I have enough experience here to know when there's something dishonest going on. Have you or have you not edited wikipedia under a different account previously?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No, that's the not the type of person I am, I wouldn't canvass other users to support me just because I "didn't get my way". And no, I haven't edited Wikipedia under a different account previously. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So you won't object to me doing a Checkuser on you then? A quick request will show up previous accounts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're too involved in this dispute to be doing such a thing. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no requirement to include an IB, and there is little benefit in this case. The well-written lead is sufficient to cover all the salient points, and does so in a way which provides context for the intelligent reader, rather than factoids, stipped of all context or nuance which don't cater for anyone different. One further point for Jcmcc450. It is uncivil to write "it appears that some of the editors on this article are against infoboxes entirely": please do not be so uncivil as to assign thoughts, motives or opinions to others - that is for editors to do themselves. I suggest you strike this as being inappropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – as stated by SchroCat and others; the lead concisely supplies the essential information. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support. It seams to me that the only arguments against the infobox are "I don't like it" and "it's not mandatory". On the other hand, arguments for having the infobox are more acceptable. Infobox helps new editors to understand the content of the page, it is also consistent with (most of the) other similar articles, and it helps Google search render essential information. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Please do not misrepresent the views of other editor, especially when your own post contains errors of fact. - SchroCat (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The purpose of an infobox, as we've been told time and time again by editors who like them, is to provide an easy-to-take-in summary of the most essential facts of the article at a glance. Nothing in this box fits this description – there's nothing there that is (a) non-trivial, (b) part of the most essential facts about the subject, and (c) not conveyed more efficiently by the lead sentence(s) of the actual article. Much of the information given is not only irrelevant but actively deflects the reader's attention away from the relevant contents (e.g. the "cause of death" entry). If you want to provide readers with a quick summary at a glance, the lead sentence does that job not just equally well but a hundred times better than any box could. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support infobox. I read the discussion (due to it being mentioned at ANI) before I read the article. From the way it was described I thought the infobox must be 500px in with and trailing halfway down the article, but no, it is remarkably brief compared with infoboxes on some other articles. I find the infobox helpful, even when I am going to read the whole article, indeed even after I have read the whole article. Scolaire (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Supplementary comment: I think the colour image – even though the quality isn't the best – is a better representation of Steiger than the old one (strange pose and facial expression) or the suggested new one (excessively close up). Scolaire (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This article passed to GA status without one, and we certainly do not need to degrade it by adding a questionable infobox. Whether Wikipedia helps Google search is completely immaterial. We are not here for Google, we are here for literate human beings. Those who can't read don't belong in an encyclopedia. That includes bots, search engines, and pedants. Scr★pIron^IV 13:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support as it would be useful for readers. I don't see how a standard infobox would "degrade" the article. --Cavarrone 14:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

If you can't respect the opinion of the article writer (me) then I will no longer respect your particular opinion on them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)