Talk:Hattie Jacques

Infobox

Hi, I'm new here and was wondering why this article doesn't have an infobox. It's one of the first big articles I've seen that doesn't have one. It's a great informative article though. Thanks for putting it on the front page. Simonfreeman (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Simon, There's no need or requirement for articles to have an infobox in any article, and this question was looked at carefully when this had a recent overhaul. There are a lot of articles (and some very, very good ones too) that have not adopted the IB for various reasons, and this follows that practice. I'm glad you enjoyed the article - it was fun to write! - SchroCat (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Is there any reason why we cannot introduce an infobox? GiantSnowman 12:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Why bother? There's no pressing need, and it's not overly helpful, given the fullness of the lead. There is certainly no requirement to have one, and the consensus was not to include one here. SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• I just find them extremely useful. GiantSnowman 12:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Useful in repeating what can be found by shifting your eyes a little to the left? I've heard others say they find them hugely distracting, so it's really not possible to please all the people all the time. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Snowman, they're useful in footballer articles, but the information provided in an infobox in this article would be next to nothing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I like infoboxes when there is stuff to say. But for the most part, actor biographies just dont have anything that a infobox will be needed. For instance, a baseball player will have stuff that wont be sayed in the lead. Actor/actresses probably stuff will usually just be found in the lead. So its redundant. (Plus it squishes up images) Beerest 2 talk 14:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hattie Jacques
Born	Josephine Edwina Jaques (1922-02-07)February 7, 1922 Sandgate, Kent
Died	October 6, 1980(1980-10-06) (aged 58) Kensington, London
Known for	Carry on films

Well, of course the stuff in the lead can all be found just by reading the article, so the lead is redundant as well. There's nothing wrong with redundancy of information and it's certainly no reason on its own to exclude an infobox. We have to remember that some people sometimes want to just pick up a fact or two on a personality and find infoboxes very helpful for that. The problem comes when an infobox get filled with so much irrelevant trivia that it overwhelms a small article. Of course it's not compulsory to place the lead image inside an infobox, and there's much to be said for having a decent-sized (330px+) image for the lead - in which case a sensible-sized infobox could go beneath the lead image without disturbing much. That's all just my humble opinion, naturally, and I'm not going to push for an infobox here as so many of the regular editors seem set against it. Nevertheless, I'll show - merely for your consideration - the briefest of infoboxes that I personally think might not be out of place for Hattie Jacques. --RexxS (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it really worth the candle Rex? It's fairly meaningless as it stands and doesn't explain much beyond the dumbed down basics. Who on earth does that really help? If people want "a fact or two", then it's all nicely covered in the very readable prose a couple of inches away, and in a way that doesn't mislead by exclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I disagree, what's the point of having any infobox if they're not to be used? The infobox is the most simple and effective way of getting a précis of an entire article. It quickly tell the reader things like age, place of birth, partners, kids, even where they're buried etc. It's all very dismissive of everyone here to say they're not needed. Well think about people who read these articles on a mobile device. An infobox is the first thing to be displayed. It is very useful and often saves a lot of effort scrolling down reading an article just to find out did they have kids, where they were born. As far as I am concerned every article should have an infobox because it's the most pertinent, readable and concise way to present information. However looking at the way this article has been padded out by copying reams from Jaques autobiogrpahy by almost one editor, I feel the infobox layout and a lot of other things on this topic probably has a lot of attached ownership issues.81.129.203.221 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to add my vote for an infobox, it's one of those wikipedia standards that people expect on any page about a person, and all the arguments made above claiming that one wouldn't be appropriate here could just as easily be used to suggest that we don't need them at all, when actually a lot of people use them regularly, I know I do. To be honest it makes the page look misleadingly incomplete to not have one there, giving people the initial impression that the whole article may not be that complete. MrDannyDoodah (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I also think infoboxes are useful, but in discussions such as this would people please refrain from making accusations and criticisms about other editors. The editors who brought this article up to FA standard did raise the question of infoboxes before they began most of their recent work. That does not mean the question can't be raised again, but please don't descend into making it personal. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that was meant as a direct reply to me or not, but I apologise if I was sounding like I was accusing or criticising any editor on a personal level, I just wanted to voice my opinions on the subject being discussed. MrDannyDoodah (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"To be honest it makes the page look misleadingly incomplete to not have one there". That's one of the funniest statements I've read for quite some time on here. Just like the living room without the TV... Sure Born, died, known for is really essential and the article shouldn't have been promoted without an infobox.. This sort of thing every time an article hits TFA really has to stop. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

So your argument when boiled down is along the lines of "he's wrong and I'm right"?. At least I tried to justify why I felt this article ought to have an infobox. MrDannyDoodah (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. I just think you treat infoboxes as an essential part of the furniture when they're at best a placid looking jug on the side of the mantelpiece. You form the majority in that opinion on here, which is probably why so little thought goes into writing most articles and more effort goes into discussing trivial things like infoboxes..♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Equally your entitled to your opinion too, and I accept that there will be some people out there who don't refer to the infoboxes, or even find them distracting, but in a world of brevity and immediacy, fuelled by text messaging, on demand tv and internet services and so on, it's a mistake to think that every user wants to read, or even skim, the full article, however much we would like them to. I agree a balance is needed to be found, perhaps with more scholarly subjects not using infoboxes, as presumably their target audience wouldn't need them, whilst mainstream subjects, such as biographies of entertainers, use them to meet the needs of a wider audience. MrDannyDoodah (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

At some point I really hope that infoboxes will be controlled by wiki data and you can suppress and show them according to your preferences. It's just everytime we have an article on the main page this "why doesn't it have an infobox" argument breaks out, when all 10 arbitrators have decided it's up to the article writers to decide and they're not compulsory.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Blue plaques

Noting that the Sandgate blue plaque has Hattie born in 1922 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgFbjizF6uY), but the one used in the article has 1924, perhaps a footnote would work well to indicate why so many sources differ on her year of birth? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Crisco, I had a quick look when we did the recent overhaul, but couldn't find out where the original mistake had come from, or why it had gained so much traction. Most of the major sources (main biographies, DNB, etc,) and now us, all show the date on the birth certificate as being the correct one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks for the clarification. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A connected query is: why is there a picture of a blue plaque on the main page, rather than a picture of Hattie herself? I'm assuming it's a very deliberate choice? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes: there is no free use image that we came across of the lady herself, so both images of her are non-free. The plaque is free, so we're able to drop it onto the front page. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello PaleCloudedWhite, yes it's not ideal, but as SchroCat says above this would be infringement. Copyright laws are the most annoying thing on WP (together with infobox discussions) -- Cassianto^Talk 12:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The blue plaque was better than nothing. Why was it removed?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: That comment by User:Crisco 1492 in the edit summary of removal says that since the date of birth on the plaque is wrong we dont want it. Beerest 2 talk 14:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not that we don't want it, but that it was causing undue confusion on the MP. Never touched it in this article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hattie's weight

For the non-British, one stone = 14 pounds (almost 6.4 kg).

So 5 stone is actually 32kg and 20 stone is 127 kg

Markcymru (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)