Talk:Cary Grant

Infobox

Aww jeez, not this again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchie333 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why should we not put an info box?Thenabster126 (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC) consensus re: no infobox We hope (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC) What Consensus are you referring to? Seems that there was support for restoring it.--JOJ Hutton 00:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC) While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not: "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 emphasizes 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 adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) 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. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts 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) 16:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC) To throw in my two cents, I think infoboxes are an important aspect of an article, and Grant seems to (randomly) be the only famous, impactful person on this entire site without one. I like looking at an infobox and instantly seeing age/spouses/etc instead of having to scroll through the entire article looking for one basic piece of information, which I know "discourages reading entire page" but people will read an article if they want, regardless of condensed info. TropicAces (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC) I don't wish to start a war here, but I agree that of all the well-developed articles on influential, well-known people I've seen on here, this seems to be the only one where the infobox was deliberately removed, and it just looks weird. The infoboxes have become a recognizable feature of Wikipedia, and while they do repeat some info from the main body of the article, they are also really helpful for giving a summary of the main points about a person (birth, death, birthplace, etc.) I hope this isn't the start of some movement to remove them all from articles of famous people who aren't in sports or politics, as doing this would discourage me from using Wikipedia because I don't want to have to read walls of text to get a short summary of a person with a lengthy article. TheBlinkster (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC) For your information, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, not to mention the many more articles listed at WP:FA that don't use infoboxes. But on behalf of other content creators everywhere, I do apologise for making you read the "walls of text" we have sweated blood and tears over. CassiantoTalk 22:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia is supposed to be a useful tool to obtain information, and a feature that makes it easier and quicker to find basic information should be welcomed, not disparaged because then people don't read all the content. Many users of traditional encyclopedias for reference have used them to search for a particular fact or two, with the reading of the longer article an option if you wanted more in-depth information. Encyclopedias aren't about the reader appreciating the hard work of the content creator, but about presenting useful information in the forms in which it will be most useful, in my opinion. TheBlinkster (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Then maybe we should not bother at all then? Let's have a sodding infobox and be done with it. CassiantoTalk 23:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a modification of the above discussion, but a new discussion on the same topic

Placed in a new section per the suggestion here [1]

My suggestion is to mock up one here on the talk page, with the proposed information that would be included in it, and then have an official WP:RfC on whether to include it in this article. There literally is no other satisfactory way to resolve the question, as these discussions tend to be circular and endless otherwise. Softlavender (talk) 7:07 am, Today (UTC−4)

His clothing donated to charity after death

Both New York magazine and The Wall Street Journal reported that his clothing was donated discreetly to the poor and homeless after his death, which is in line with Jennifer working on homeless issues at a law firm before becoming an actress. The article currently says something different, that it went to celebrities and others. I think the article should be corrected on this point, as these are two very high quality sources. I will leave this to regular editors here to decide what to do. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I decided to make the edit myself, adding a new sourced line. 5Q5 (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I've removed it because in my opinion, it adds nothing of value. Feel free to discuss, though, should you feel it particularly important to mention where Grant's clothes went to after his death. Cassianto^Talk 17:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Disagree My edit in the article providing high quality news media sources stating that Cary Grant's clothes were donated to the poor and homeless after his death was reverted by editor Cassianto who called it an "Uninteresting factoid not worthy of inclusion." I therefore wish to store the deleted line and reference here in protest because the line contradicts and corrects the claim currently in the article that is sourced to third party 1997 biographer Graham McCann (the book's copyright actually says 1996, Cary Grant: A Class Apart), who never communicated with Grant's daughter or wife when writing his book and who, according to this Wikipedia article, says his clothes were donated to "Frank Sinatra, Roderick Mann, Stanley Donen, Kirk Kerkorian and others." I could not verify this claim searching for these names in the book on books.google. Here is the "uninteresting" deleted line "not worthy of inclusion" (it could have been tweaked by any editor if necessary, as opposed to deletion):

Finally, I wish to express my position that this article currently suffers from a lack of credibility due its preference for poor quality sources, those being biographies by strangers and fan websites over mainstream news media interviews with Grant's daughter and wife. It therefore isn't worth my time to attempt future edits. The article simply cannot be trusted. Good day. 5Q5 (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You can throw a tantrum as much as you like, your edit was not an improvement. It's as simple as that. Cassianto^Talk 18:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Minor bequests, regardless of who got them, don't belong in the article at all. I'm debating whether to delete the entire last line, in fact. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've axed the last line. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The Black Curtain -- Is this a joke?

Text currently includes the following: "Late in the year he featured in the CBS Radio series Suspense, playing a tormented character who hysterically discovers that his amnesia has affected masculine order in society in 'The Black Curtain'." What is that supposed to mean? I've read the Woolrich source material and heard the radio episode, and it's standard suspense fare about a man who wants to know who he might have been and what crime he might have committed during a protracted period of amnesia. There's no deconstruction of sex roles in it, I assure you. The citation provides no illumination. Unless some justification for the current version can be shown, a more standard synopsis, with citation, is called for. Mandrakos (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2017

His middle name was not Alexander but Alec...see birth certificate http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl Lexmonkey47 (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lexmonkey47: Do you have a link to the birth certificate? CityOfSilver 17:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a birth certificate there, but I do see what looks like a scanned copy of an official list of births (here), and it does say "Alec". However, we do have a cited source that says "Some sources state his middle name to be Alec, but it is generally accepted to be Alexander." That source doesn't say exactly where it got that information. A prior 2006/2007 discussion recorded at Talk:Cary Grant/Archive 1#Middle name asserted that "Both his 1904 birth certificate and his 1920 passenger list to the US report his name as Archibald Alec Leach", so the article was changed to say "Alec" in 2007. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Please also see a scan of his birth record (from here), which also supports "Alec". I haven't yet found the 1920 passenger list, and invite others to look for it. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There isn't any possible doubt that legally his name was Archibald Alec Leach. Whether it was Grant himself who affected it at a later stage or other people merely making the assumption after the fact, the carygrant.net claim that "it is generally accepted to be Alexander" is pretty worthless. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see Reliable Sources board. We hope (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)