Talk:Cary Grant

"Cary grant" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cary grant. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Name usage

Donaldd23, you are wrong to think that Grant should be referred to as "Archibald Alec Leach" throughout this article. Where's the sense in naming the the article "Cary Grant" and then calling him Archibald Leach? Cassianto^Talk 05:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Why No Infobox?

I want to see an info box. They're a good way to present standard information like his when he was born and died, age at death, spouses, etc. They're very useful. The article metadata says there's a consensus that this article doesn't need one, but there's no discussion of that issue on the talk page. It seems to me that, with no discussion, there's no consensus. What's up with that? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Please try typing "infobox" in the search at the top of this page and enjoy some of the previous discussions. You might also see the FAQ at the bottom of the talk page header. Johnuniq (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I read the long discussion, and there's clearly no consensus. But the comment at the top says there's a consensus against an Infobox, which isn't accurate. (And I don't see a way to change that.) Some actors have Infoboxes (e.g. Katherine Hepburn) and others (e.g. Laurence Olivier) don't. I don't know why, but there should be a standard. Infoboxes are especially useful when using the Wikipedia app on a phone. I don't even know why there's a debate. To the people who oppose them, I say if you don't like them, don't use them! Why deny them to people like me, who like them? But the comment at the top doesn't even allow me to make that kind of comment, which doesn't seem to be in Wikipedia spirit of open debate. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

It's correct to say there is no consensus to have one (there has been more than one discussion on this). And thankfully there is no "standard" approach on WP: such a one-size-fits-all approach would be detrimental to countless articles. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes there's been more than one discussion on this. I wonder why that is. It's because multiple people keep bringing this up because readers want to see an infobox for a few quick references to information. It's not that difficult to understand that most people find them useful in many ways. But here we are again, having yet another person wondering why there is no infobox to an article that clearly can use one. A few very agressive editors who don't like infoboxes have somehow managed to make this article their battleground on this topic. Luckily they haven't been able to spread this ideology too far past this high traffic article. Here's hoping that clearer minds will some day gain back control of this article in the future, and the infobox will eventually be restored, because continuing to tell people to read past discussions isn't going to cut it forever. Eventually there will have to be a better reason than "read past discussions" in order for keep the current status quo.--JOJ ^Hutton 11:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for mischaracterising the actions of some editors and for using inflamatory language that isn't suppoted by reality. I have left an Arb warning on your page, as such an approach is not supposed to be tolerated any more. - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

He's right though. (JOJ) 95.149.126.14 (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Update Infobox

Hi! I was also wondering why there doesnt appear to be an infobox, as there doesn't seem to be a consensus, but Infoboxes are common and I would feel useful. - The One I Left(talk) 6:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The One I Left I would support that. ~ HAL333 16:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I have always wondered why there's no Infobox on Cary's page for years. It definitely needs one IMO, really all articles do.. Velvet (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Just like with Stanley Kubrick, the page looks incomplete without an infobox. Songwaters (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with HAL333 and Songwaters - I've wondered why the infobox disappeared as well and why there's been no consensus on bringing back the infobox. It makes total sense for Grant to have one. The vast majority of Wiki pages, be it on notable people, media franchises, countries, books, movies, etc all have infoboxes giving bits of basic info and his Wiki page had an infobox for years. Here's archives of his page as early as 2006 and October 2011 and all archives I saw, all the way up to April 2016 had an infobox, before it mysteriously disappeared in June 2016 and was gone from there on out. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Perennial. The page looks good without an infobox, and this has been discussed for years. Please go over all those well-thought out discussions. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"The page looks good without an infobox" is an opinion. It needs one, as it is helpful for gathering quick information without searching the article for it. Just because it was talked about before and rejected doesn't mean it is the final and perpetual decision. This will be brought up constantly (and it is) because it is ridiculous that every other major actor (and person) on Wikipedia has an infobox, but because a few of the people are against the idea. How can 99% of people that have Wikipedia articles have an infobox and this one doesn't...it goes against everything that Wikipedia stands for. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thoroughly agree, Donaldd23. I’ve read the arguments here and on the Laurence Olivier talk page, and the arguments against having an infobox don’t make any sense. They don’t seem to go beyond “There’s no requirement to have one”, “It looks fine without one”, or, most commonly, “Go back and read the previous conversations on this, you stupid idiot. This has been settled, you moron”. So many articles across a huge number of categories, from actors to planets and albums to cathedrals, have infoboxes. The fact that this keeps getting brought up so often I think shows how little sense this makes. Why some editors are so anal about particular articles not having infoboxes just doesn’t make any sense. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well. Claims of WP:PRIOR and WP:DISCUSSED are flawed. There is no reason why Grant shouldn't have an IB. What makes him any different than Clark Gable or the hundreds of others? Some stuff exists for a reason. ~ HAL333 00:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree also. So many pages have infoboxes, be it a person, music album, country, media franchise, book, television show or movie, etc. So what makes Cary's page so different? It does feel incomplete and doesn't seem like an article that would have a badge saying its considered a "good article" without an infobox and one picture in its place. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Infoboxes are very useful for the reader. SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox?

Should this article contain an infobox? ~ HAL333 21:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

---

• Support as proposer. There is a precedent in usage for infoboxes on similar articles (e.g. Clark Gable, Frank Sinatra, Marlon Brando, Gregory Peck, and James Stewart). What makes Grant any different? "It looks better without it" or "we already talked about this" are not valid arguments. An infobox on this article would benefit the reader, making information easier to access at a glance. It would include content not currently present in the lede, such as a full list of his wives. ~ HAL333 21:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• SonOfThornhill, Clear Looking Glass, Cooltrainer Hugh, Donaldd23, Randy Kryn, Songwaters, Velvet-twenties, The One I Left, MiguelMunoz, Johnuniq, Jojhutton, Davidbrookesland, Encyclopædius, DutchTina, Jaguar, Ssven2, Roxy the dog, HughMorris15, and DuncanHill: Sorry for the ping, but I assume that you would like to contribute. ~ HAL333 21:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks HAL333, is this everyone who participated in the 2017 RfC? Randy Kryn (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• I just added them. When I have the time, I'll ping editors from other discussions. ~ HAL333 22:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: As I made clear in the previous RfC I unwatched this page because I was fed up with all the palaver. My position has not changed. I will not be watchlisting it again, and I would rather nobody tried to involve me. DuncanHill (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry about that. I was just blanket pinging everyone - won't happen again. ~ HAL333 23:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• If this isn't an RfC it should be closed as void, as the decision to keep the infobox was made by the 2017 RfC. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support. I wholly agree with HAL333. Since infoboxes are used in 99.999% of all other notable entertainers' articles, Grant seems incomplete without one. Same for Stanley Kubrick and Laurence Olivier. The infobox is the backbone of biographical pages as it provides convenient access to basic information; whether or not it looks good is irrelevant. Songwaters (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support I don't see why not. (Summoned by bot) --I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me if replying off my talk page. Thank you. 21:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support as per all of the above. An infobox would make all the key information (place of birth/death/resting place, marriages, etc) easily accessible. An infobox is standard practice for Wikipedia articles (even though some cite guidance saying it is not compulsory as reason why the article shouldn’t have one), even with much less notable people. Without it, the article appears unfinished. Time to reinstate the infobox. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support for all the reasons given above. It has always made no sense to me why Grant has no infobox - they're very helpful and many other public figures from the same time period have one, whether they were on his level of fame or not. Also don't be sorry about the ping - and thank you for asking and allowing me to participate!
• Oppose, per past discussions and the valid choices of past editors to leave this page infoboxless. First of all, infoboxes are optional, so "other pages" isn't a valid argument. And yes, the page looks fine without an infobox, and the information which would be used in one is covered in the lead. Sometimes past comments should be adhered to as "Wikipedia long memory" and this seems like one of those. As a "Good" article without the infobox, let's let Grant's picture carry the page forward, as it has all these years. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Randy Kryn: As HAL333 already said, "we already talked about this" is not a good argument for not having an infobox because it does not address why it should or should not have one. Also, "other pages" is a valid argument here because without an infobox the page looks unfinished to the average viewer. Songwaters (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
    • No, since "other pages" isn't a policy based argument. Infoboxes are optional and any iVote for an infobox is an "I like it" comment and should be put aside. The place to change that is at the infobox policy/guideline page, not here. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support for all the reasons given above. It is helpful to users, standard practice, and overall just why not? I haven't seen a compelling argument as to why their shouldn't be an infobox. Repeating but citing examples (Olivier, Kubrick etc.) doesn't make sense to me since they deserve infoboxes as well. Not having one makes the page look unpolished, and unfinished It would just look more accessible and professional for their to be one. Thanks for allowing me to participate! The One I Left (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support Some argue that the infobox is useless, but many people who read Wikipedia and are not editors find them extremely useful, even when they contain just the bare minimum of information. Put an infobox in this article.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Infoboxes in bios should be limited to sports figures & political office holders. Note: I acknowledge the growing trend towards inclusion for all bios & that I'm likely a part of a dwindling minority on this matter :( GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Every single actor mentioned in this article's intro have infoboxes. If Grant's fellow artists and contemporaries are infobox-worthy, then so is he. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 05:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose ifnobox addition. We are supposed to improve the project. This would not be an improvement. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 09:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In what way is having an infobox not improving the article? In what way does having an infobox hurt the article? If readers of articles find infoboxes useful, then that is by definition, an improvment.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In other words IDONTLIKEIT. Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment, there seems to be overwhelming consensus that this article should have an infobox. A couple of editors against it for 'Idontlikeit' and 'its been discussed before' reasons cannot reasonable be construed as leading to a 'no consensus' for this RFC. Can this be fastrack closed and a goddamn infobox be added already? Firejuggler86 (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Nono, lets have the process reach a conclusion properly, rather than rush the issue. If it helps to reach a compromise, I would support having an ifnobox at the very bottom of the article, just above the list of references. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 16:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support: infoboxes are useful (imo) in summarising key facts about a person (or other article subject) so that readers don't have to scroll through the whole article to find out something like where they were born, or when they were 'active' in their profession. While some editors may prefer that readers read the whole article, it is our job to make the encyclopaedia better for them, and therefore, it would be beneficial to have an infobox. Many of the reasons I can see for opposing an infobox in the old RfC are along the lines of it would look bad, or that small facts like the ones I've mentioned are 'irrelevant', which imo, are WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. If someone comes to this page looking for a fact on when this person was born or something, then having an infobox would make it easy for that reader to find these facts - definitely easier than reading what currently appears to be a several paragraphs long lead section (also, while I know this isn't a featured article, WP:FA? #2a says "a concise lead section that summarizes the topic" (emphasis added), and adding an infobox would definitely allow the lead to be made more concise). If someone comes here looking for a long read on Grant's career, then they can simply not look at the infobox, or look at it and then move on. If there are rules against having an infobox, then WP:IAR may even apply here. Seagull123 Φ 19:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. As stated by several others, infoboxes provide a summary of key facts, which is particularly valuable to readers who are looking to quickly locate one of those facts. There are no rules against infoboxes, either in general, for biographies, or for biographies of actors. They are in fact very typical for our best biographies: of the 91 featured articles about "actors and filmmakers", 80 of them (88%) have infoboxes. Infoboxes are "optional", which means there is the option to have one or not, as the editors interested in a particular article prefer. The reason this article and a number of similar ones do not have infoboxes is because in the past there was a significant number of editors who opposed infoboxes and were interested in some specific subjects. What subjects? Well, of the 11 FA-class actor/filmmaker articles that do not have infoboxes, 10 of them are about English actors born before 1925, whose careers include stage acting (a pattern that Grant matches, except that this is a GA article rather than FA). Perhaps those same editors will show up to oppose this latest proposal, but if not, there is no policy requirement to continue with the past preference. --RL0919 (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The proponents of the 'All articles need an I-B' doctrine have not convincingly explained above how an I-B would be of use to the reader here. Tim riley talk 16:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Or do you mean that noone has convinced you on how the infobox would be useful to readers? It's not the job of random editors to decide what information readers might be looking for in articles or how they might want to take in that information. If many readers find them useful, then the article should have an infobox.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:48, 23 January 2021 (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 adequately discussed in the 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, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (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 would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) 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. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • WP:DISINFOBOX is an essay and not an official guideline. Any random editor can write an essay.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support as it looks as if we are discriminating against this article for some reason. We are here to help facilitate knowledge in a neutral manner..... as of now it looks like we're discriminating.--Moxy 🍁 17:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - an infobox is not necessary as everything it would cover should be in a well-written lead. Jack1956 (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It's not the job of random editors to decide how readers wish to take in information. If someone wants to read the lead, they are more than welcome, but many times readers find an infobox and a well written lead to both be useful.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support the inclusion of an infobox, they are very useful for the average reader looking to get at-a-glance basic biographical information about the subject, especially when the lead being rather lengthy. The article serves its purpose enough to present further detailed information about his life. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 19:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

UTC)

• Oppose The proposed infobox will add little to the article that is not already included in the lede section Dreamspy (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • The infobox is not supposed to replace the lead, it's supposed to augment and support the lead and inhance the usefulness of the article. Readers find them useful. That's all there needs to be said.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Closed in under 48 hrs? Clearly an active talk that has not run is course.--Moxy 🍁 05:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

As someone who had such a weak opinion that my argument was "Why not?", I'll have to agree with Moxy above. Compassionate727, you do realize that RfCs tend to run for a month. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me if replying off my talk page. Thank you. 06:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

An extremely premature close... what is going on Compassionate727? Aza24 (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Gosh. The fix is certainly in. Is the real name of any of the contribs here Donald? -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 12:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment First off, those saying that RFCs tend to run a month, there is no guideline for that, plus this isn't an official RFC, it's just a discussion. There is no definitive guideline that states that discssuons must be open for more than 2 days. Second, there is already nearly 2 to 1 in favor of adding an infobox. There's no policy in favor of having an infobox, nor is there one not in favor of an infobox. It's about what editors feel should be in the article. What more needs to be said?--JOJ ^Hutton 12:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• This isn't a vote or a popularity contest, all the 'infobox' votes are of the 'I like it' variety with no really Earth-shaking reason to add one ("it has information" seems to be the best argument for an infobox, which has been discussed many times on this talk page and is not enough to add one no matter how many editors "like it"). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• If this isn't an RfC then it should be closed and an RfC opened. The decision to keep the infobox was made in a 2017 RfC and can't be overturned unless by another. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • An RFC is just a "request for comment", it's not a court of law. It's sole purpose is to extend a discussion, not to achieve some unbroken law that cannot be overturned at a later consensus. Previous consensus is not binding legislation because consensus can change. There is no policy that states that the decision made from using an RFC to expand discussion 4 years ago can only achieve a new consensus through having another RFC. That's ludicrous.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • It's fair. Since it isn't an RfC, which run a month, you are advocating closing this now because the "I like it" iVotes have a few more adherents than the status quo editors. There has been no good reason put forward why an infobox is needed. Since it is not required then good reasons must appear and not just a head count. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Directly from WP:RFC, There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins,. RFC does not have to last a month. People get confused with the wording because the RFC gets automatically closed after 30 days by the bot, but there is no reason that a discussion cannpt reach consensus in 2 days. So we can put that 30 day myth to rest right now. Next, it's not an "I Like It" vote, its more of the fact the many editors feel that an infobox in this article is useful to the readers and will supplement the article with key facts at a glance, which is what the infobox is designed to do.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
        • You just put up an infobox, which was quickly reverted, so respect for this process shows why an RfC is needed and not a head count. RfC's are not closed within two days, as you just tried to do, which is why that form is preferred over a questionable "I like it" voting contest. And no, since infoboxes are not required and are optional, the iVotes in favor are all "I like it". Of course infoboxes give information at a glance, that's their purpose. But they are not required, and this page became a "Good" article without one, which seems enough, since many editors are agreeing not to have one, to leave it as is. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
          • You keep making false statements in an attempt to vilify the people who disagree with you. You've made your claim that you don't like the infobox in this article and many others have made the claim that an infobox in this article would be useful and actually enhance the article, not detract from it. There seems to be a clear majority that agree with the later postion, no matter how you try and twist their motives.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose -- an infobox on this article is of no benefit whatsoever, as the one proposed contains a repetition of everything that can otherwise be found, nice and succinctly, in the lead section. This is simply another laborious and wholly unnecessary RfC opened, and very much enabled, by a small group of people who cannot accept "no" for an answer. 90.218.65.76 (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

English/American

Would it make sense and provide more clarity to say he was a British/English actor who primarily worked in Hollywood/America as oppose to 'English-born American actor' as the latter reads to me like his parents were American or that he was born in Britain and lived there for maybe a couple of years at most. However he spent his entire childhood up until he was 16 at least it appears in Britain and was entirely British. 86.5.160.43 (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, this is just some typical wikipedia territorial BS... I expect it'll eventually be settled 20 years down the line... It's like that brief period of time where some fanatics changed the title of MacBeth (King of Scotland) to MacBheatha mac Fhionnlaigh. I don't think anyone British thinks of Cary Grant as anything other than British. Anthony Hopkins's page currently states that he's Welsh, but I expect now that I've said this someone will change it to say "Wales-born American actor" since Hopkins is just as "American" as Grant. 95.149.126.14 (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I think he should be "English-American" or "British-American", whatever works. He was born and raised in the UK to British parents. Unless I'm mistaken, they allow dual citizenship. I don't see anything that states that Grant renounced being British. Just his article stating that he got American citizenship in 1942. Fellow Old Hollywood star Greta Garbo also became a naturalized American citizen and is arguably more famous for working in Hollywood/American films, but she still gets described as being "Swedish-American". I also don't think I ever remember Grant being described as just "American". Him being British/English was a pretty important part of his identity/notability. When it comes to citizenship/nationality, especially in the ledes, I know there's usually a lot of debates and back and fourth, and sometimes when it comes to Wikipedia's own policies on past or current citizenship/nationalities/etc, certain article ledes can be made "exceptions" if the consensus deems it so. But as I said, in this case, I don't see why he can't be described as being "English-American" or "British-American". Clear Looking Glass (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

British/American would be best, since England isn't independent, but rather a part of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)