Talk:Cary Grant

Hamlet

Cary Grant planned to make a film version of "Hamlet" with director Alfred Hitchcock in the 1940s, but he abandoned the idea after Laurence Olivier released a highly acclaimed version in 1948. The film was certainly not planned after Grant had retired from acting. (86.144.250.234 (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC))

Straw poll question: "Should this article have an infobox?"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The infobox discussions here make for a pretty convoluted read.

Why not just have a simple yes/no/abstain straw poll? I'll gladly start it:

• Yes. -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• See WP:NOTVOTE. Please have a reason to restart disputes—a reason more substantive than your difficulty in reading previous discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes A pointless discussion really, infoboxes provides basic info. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• See WP:NOTVOTE. Please have a reason to restart disputes—a reason more substantive than your difficulty in reading previous discussions. As the last discussion closed three months ago with no consensus to add a box, this is getting into 'disruptive' territory. - SchroCat (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bold, reasoning, and inaccurate edit summaries

Actually. Edit summaries that dictate consensus is necessary to add an info box are wrong. Please show the policy or guideline that says this. Second, consensus can change and is not an infinite. Since the info box has been removed albeit with misleading edit summaries a new discussion is acceptable per WP:BOLD.

The information in an infobox while it may repeat information in the article lead is presented in a different format that is easy to read and so provides quick accessibility to information. Our job is to provide accessibility to our readers and not to decide for them how much and how fast they might need information. I have always felt that forcing readers to read more than they might need to in efforts to make them read all of our articles is a misdirection on our parts. Articles are meant for information. Period. And we must write those article and provide information primarily for that purpose. The return for the editor must first be not that we notch another good article or have written well for our own edification but that we have presented knowledge and are educating the reader in the best way possible and that best way means multiple, reinforcing formats. As well, all people do not learn in the same way, and the presentation provided by an infobox is a visual learning format useful to visual learners not provided in a standard text format.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC))

As there is a consensus not to have one, yes, a consensus is needed to change that. Re-running the same discussion two months after the last one is disruptive (and I would put your post in that category too, as you're trying to continue something that has been decided). Try again in a few months if you want to, but let the consensus lie for a while. - SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't agree. The consensus is over a year old as far as I can see. Am I missing a discussion? No consensus has an unlimited shelf life and a consensus that old is ripe for discussion without being labelled disruptive. However, I've had my say and listed my concerns. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC))

See the thread at the top of the page. Two months old, as I said. - SchroCat (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

For edification:

• revived January 2017
• revived May 2017
• revived June 2017

Small wonder those writing articles are disgusted-some enough to stop content creation when all it leads to is confrontation after confrontation about these boxes. We hope (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for the information. When I see consensus used as a reason to remove content even after two months I am concerned. And my cmt here was not confrontational in the least especially that I am willing to cmt and walk away. It was an opposition though. I am willing to oppose when I can't see what (in my opinion, of course) seems to be little reason for not adding the info box. As an educator I know that multiple ways of dealing with information is the most effective and there's lots of research in this so I would prefer that we as an encyclopedia and educational forum pay attention to that information. So yes, I commented and will continue to do so. In the meantime, I have made my points known and that's all I want to do for now. Best.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC))

"little reason": yes, that is only your opinion, and it has been hashed out several times, as the links above show. - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The box was not in the article as of the time the last discussion ended and has not been there except for an 18 July addition/removal and today's addition/removal.

• no box 29 June
• box added and removed 18 July We hope (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Its all opinion, in fact. None of the discussions relate to how people learn perhaps because the research is hard to refute.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC))

• I have seen lots of research on learning, how the brain prcesses reading material and how people read websites, but none of them have persuaded me that idiotboxes are any good on biographical artices of actors (among some other professions). - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

An info box has a visual component which draws or hooks the visual learner, and only then is read. It's not about what the content is about-biographical-but how it is presented. The so-called logical brain reads, the wholistic brain sees (in a simplistic explanation) the overarching and in this case visual. I am an artist and highly visual learner; I see over- arching information and patterns before I read or see specifics. I am not alone. So my argument is for those who learn this way and there are many. This is an area I teach, not the science of it but rather the way in which students especially artists learns and react. We can't ignore parts of humanity seems to me. Anyway. I'm rushing off. Thanks for the discussion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC))

• Firstly, I know what an IB is; secondly, as I've already said I have read of research on learning, how the brain prcesses reading material and how people read websites, but none of them have persuaded me that idiotboxes are any good on biographical artices of actors (among some other professions). There are huge problems in presenting information this way, and no-one is 'ignoring parts of humanity' (and what an overblown claim that is!) - SchroCat (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me for the delay, I nodded off to sleep! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Smile... sure. All is forgiven.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC))

No infobox

Why was this articles old infobox removed depsite the fact it provided good information? I fail to understand how this makes any sense at all considering all other actor articles retain their infoboxs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonstopmaximum (talk • contribs) 22:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Why does Cary Grant not have an infobox when so many other actors do?

I wrote an infobox before I saw this protracted debate because i wanted a simple list of Grant's wives/marriages. Reading the article's relevant section takes a fair while to get what should be a snappy result in Wikipedia. I thought I would be doing a service to subsequent readers who could very easily want the same thing I wanted.

Not everyone has the time (or inclination) to wade through verbosity to get simple facts.

In my opinion an infobox should be the norm, and only omitted if a good case for an abnormality is proven (I can't think of a good reason myself).

The consensus so often referred to in this discussion is not relevant..... only the convenience of READERS (not of editors) is important.

--Davidbrookesland (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your view. Cassianto^Talk 11:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)