Talk:Catherine Zeta-Jones

Picture

The current picture of Catherine Zeta-Jones is not the most flattering and does not do justice to her. I don't know how, but could somebody please change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.124.222 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Zeta Jones.jpg is the only free image I have. No other free license images have been contributed here or at Commons by anyone else; copyrighted non-free images cannot be used in a living person's bio on Wikipedia.  JGHowes ^talk 02:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I agreed that the picture was not so flattering, but now it is completely gone. What happened? OnFire4Jesus (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a new one. It's from 2005, and I'll keep an eye out for more recent ones in the future. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The current picture makes her look like Michael Jackson! Can we really not find a better one? Setwisohi (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

look at a beautiful actor/personality in wiki and chances are there is some comment in the discussion as to whether the picture does her justice or if she is jewish ... it's uncanny ... a picture is a picture, if it's not professionally altered or in the right light, it's still an image of her, let it be, or replace it ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.56.86.35 (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Needed "awards" paragraph

Zeta Jones just received an award of CBE (commander british empire) from prince of Wales on feb 24 , so adding an "awards" paragraph to include this award, along with numerous others is warranted. /s emp hiley selassie, imp of ethiopia sr 69.121.221.97 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

I´m deleting this part because I couldn´t confirm it on the google and it´s out of place. "She confirmed her bisexuality in an interview with Hello magazine in 2003, and also revealed details of her previously unkown lesbian affair with Margaret Russell, a member of the production crew from Chicago.[12]" I think it needs a more reliable source.85.240.23.177 (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancy in surname

The article name uses Zeta-Jones yet the article content uses Zeta Jones. Which is correct? - Mickraus (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Britannica, she was born Jones, Catherine Zeta. At some point she added a hyphen (less reliable sources are more precise, saying that it was when she wanted a stage name). So the page is in the right place and the infobox is correct, Zeta-Jones at the top and Born: Catherine Zeta Jones at the bottom. We just need to go through and make the rest of the article consistent. Nick (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added some more hyphens except where referring to her birth name. We should change it in the lede too, if and only if she has legally changed her name. Nick (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentence "accepting the mistake by the United States press early in her career." seems out of place and incorrect. Maybe to avoid confusion by American audiences or something similar. 70.114.25.202 (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

£10?

After her parents won £10 at Bingo in the 1980s only £10? --85.181.238.41 (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Birthdate

< -- comment removed due to being libellous and a BLP vio -->

Her birth was registered in the 4th quarter of 1969, so the date as given in the article seems correct. The England and Wales Birth Marriage and Death records include:

Name: Catherine Zeta Jones Mother's Maiden Surname: Fair Date of Registration: Oct Nov Dec 1969 Registration district: Swansea Registration county: Wales Volume Number: 8b Page Number: 4595 87.243.194.122 (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Name Zeta

I removed: "The name Zeta is reportedly taken from the Henry Bath ship “Zeta” that was captained by her great-grandfather." This is not a reliable source ("reportedly" by whom? The ship company also says "reportedly" and can't know why people get names). And it is unlikeky that the captain was here great-grandfather. The ship has been build in 1865 and sold and renamed in 1872. So there would have to be at least one generation more. --88.78.120.44 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC).

Why have the Americans changed the pronunciation of her name to Zay-ta? It's Zee-ta - not Zay-ta 82.2.65.119 (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Because Americans like to bastardise the English language as much as possible 86.24.21.139 (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I imagine it's more that many Americans think she's Hispanic as I think she played a Mexican or Colombian character once or twice. So they think of making it close to what it might be in Spanish. To be honest I was surprised to learn she's just Welsh/Irish myself.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Why? There's loads of dark Welsh people; our ancestors come from Spain; after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.71.136 (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The incorrect information about her grandmother being Greek has been re-inserted (I removed it now). See this old discussion thread for why it is incorrect - here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

'Zeta' is not one of her names. It is the first half of her hyphenated last name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.91.144 (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. As many people have pointed out she is Jones (surname), Catherine (1st name) Zeta (middle name). She should not be referred to as "Zeta-Jones" throughout this article but as "Jones". Compare Jamie Lee Curtis, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, Paul Michael Glaser for example. Sussexonian (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Former stripper?

HollyScoop website has her on a list of stars who were former strippers, this should be mentioned IMO even if it is untrue (to dispel it).Historian932 (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Nationality

DUDE I SUGGEST YOU CONSULT YOUR BRITISH PASSPORT. LOOK UP THE PART THAT SAYS "Nationality" and it will say "British Citizen". Nationality and citizenship are synonymous as proven by the UK passport authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.51.72.251 (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Jones's nationality is British citizen. "Welsh", "Scottish" "English" are NOT nationalities! "Irish" however is, Irish refers to a citizen of a sovereign state, with Ireland having gained its independence from the United Kingdom in December 1922. England, Wales and Scotland are part of the United Kingdom and are not separate, sovereign states. SO please stop changing back her nationality to "Welsh". This is incorrect! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.51.73.135 (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing nationality with citizenship. I suggest you consult a reliable dictionary e.g. OED, which defines nationality as: 1. The status of belonging to a particular nation 2. An ethnic group forming a part of one or more political nations. Catherine Zeta-Jones is defined by her Welshness. She is well known to be proud of it and very obviously self-identifies as Welsh. Numerous verifiable, reliable sources identify her as Welsh. To note her as anything else would be ludicrous. Four points: 1. Please respect WP:BRD; 2. Please read WP:UKNATIONALS; 3. That “Jones's nationality is British citizen. "Welsh", "Scottish" "English" are NOT nationalities!” is WP:POV (and contrary to the dictionary definition of the word) and will cause offence to those who do not share that view. 4. Per MOS:INFOBOX, its purpose is “to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears”. The article says Catherine Zeta-Jones is Welsh. Therefore, so should the infobox. I will now reinstate Catherine Zeta-Jones' nationality as Welsh in the infobox, which has been the stable version for several years. Please discuss here rather than edit war. Daicaregos (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I want to add to Daicaregos' comment, that although it is not common, there is a lot of differentiation between citizenship (from 'civitas', state - the membership of a sovereign state) and nationality ( from 'navitas', birth - the membership of a people or country) in other European countries that have a federate character. Examples include Catalan nationals with Spanish citizenship, or Bavarians, Franconians or Sorbs who are German citizens. Since Europe is relatively small and densely populated, some nations exist independently in more than one state, like Danes in Denmark and Germany or French in France and Martinique. In some cases the national territory spreads over two or more states, as with the Irish in Ireland and the UK, the Frisians in both the Netherlands and Germany, or Tyroleans with either an Austrian or an Italian citizenship. A few countries specifically include more than one nationality, like Belgium and Switzerland, while others have so-called national minorities with legally protected tradition, language, flags and hymns. While some coutries differentiate between nationality and citizenship legally, most use the two terms for the same thing - Germans may lose their federal (German) nationality with their citizenship, while retaining their regional (Land - like Bavaria, Saxonia or Hamburg) nationality. Portuguese and Turks may profit or suffer from certain legal rights, duties and liabilities without ever adopting the citizenships of the respective republics through the family heritage of their parents.

An extreme example is the case of the Franconians who are a reportedly a nation since 259 A.D., but are self-governed through three of the seven semi-autonomous districts (Berzirk) of the sovereign Freestate of Bavaria. The Freestate of Bavaria (Land) has given up part of it's national sovereignity to the Federal Republic of Germany (Bund), while it maintains control over legislation, taxation, education and even it's own police force, sovereign actions towards the exterior like national defense and diplomacy are done for the entirety of the German Bund. This can amount to this situation: An Upper-Franconian policeman may work under Bavarian thus German and thus European legislation, while bearing both a German and a British passport and being a Scot, a Welsh, a Saxon, a Franconian aswell as obviously both a Bavarian and a German national - through family heritage, birth, law and/or residency. Yes... I know. So that's why we generally tend to simplify and to equal nationality to citizenship.

A good rule of thumb to distiguish nationality and citizenship is that you may acquire your language and tradition, your family's peoples' customs and habits, or your ethnicity with your nationality, but your citizenship generally comes with a passport issued by a sovereign state. But, if your people have an internationally federated national sports teams, then you may fairly certain assume that it is, in fact a nation. ;-) --93.133.95.224 (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

To IP, I support your changes to British. However, you'll need to get a consensus for that change. GoodDay (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Her ethnicity is Welsh. Her nationality is British. BTW, I've no idea whether we should have a redirect but in the credits to the first episode of the first series of Darling Buds of May she is named as Chatherin Zeta Jones (sic). I think this continued for a while but will have to check. I can provide a screen capture if anyone doubts this. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

To User "GoodDay" and "IP", I support you using British as her nationality and citizenship, which are, for the large part, recognised internationally and used as synonyms. Hey! Don't shoot the messenger here! I'm just stating the way things are, without explicitly endorsing same or claiming that this is the way things should be. I'm just stating that things are like this and not that this is the right way to do things! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibi999 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought this was done and dusted, but "Welsh" is just fine. It is a nationality, and one which she has associated herself with. – SchroCat (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Father and Grandmother's ethnicity

The article states CZJ's father was of Welsh and Macedonian descent. However, most other articles I can find suggest her grandmother was Greek? Is the "Macedonian" Slavic ethnicity or northern Greek (and I know about the ethnic mixes in the region). Are there any sources the say her father considered himself of Slavic-Macedonian descent? (13:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.74.193 (talk)

None I've seen. The Macedonian thing was added by an IP (on 29 December) without citation. I have removed it. I think the Greek connection comes from people assuming she is called Zeta due to Greek extraction. However, her grandmother was named after a ship her great-grandparents saw and liked the name. See here (Torygraph) "The name comes from a merchant ship which carried copper from South America to the Swansea Docks in the 19th century." or here (BBC] "She... took her exotic name from a Swansea merchant ship called The Zeta, which carried copper from south America to Wales." Perhaps it could be included in the article. Daicaregos (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That's disappoint some friends of mine :-)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Catherine Zeta-Jones/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 17:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Will gladly review this either later or tomorrow morning.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

lede

• "Zeta-Jones initially established herself in Hollywood with roles that highlighted her sex appeal in the action film The Mask of Zorro (1998) and the caper thriller Entrapment (1999)". -"such as" the action film

I'm not so sure if that sounds better. I've changed it back to the original sentence for now, please revert if you disagree.--Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• "The latter won her an Academy Award and a BAFTA Award, among other accolades." Tweak to "The latter won her Academy and BAFTA Awards for Best Supporting Actress, among other accolades."
• You say "rest of the decade" but "Parts in smaller-scale features were followed by a decrease in workload, during which she returned to stage and portrayed an ageing actress in A Little Night Music (2009)" -which is 2009. Could tweak to "for much of the decade".

 Done Resolved all your comments here.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Early life

• "sweet-factory" -why the hyphen?

 Done Removed hyphen.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Her father is of Welsh origin, and her mother is of Welsh–Irish ancestry.[5]" -I think they're both Welsh nationality, but her mother has some Irish ancestry. the way it's worded makes it look like she is Irish.

Addressed by Krimuk. :-)  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 10:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Zeta-Jones was a hyperactive child, and her mother sent her t" -"and" doesn't work well here,. You could say "Due to her hyperactive nature as a child, her mother sent her".

 Done Rephrased.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Zeta-Jones participated in stage shows at her school from a young age, and came to attention locally when she was featured in a local " -rep of local/lly. Do we know the paper?

 Done Rephrased. Krimuk, is the paper's name mentioned.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Didn't find any details other than the fact that it was a "local newspaper". --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• "In 1981, she played the lead role of Annie in a Swansea production of the musical, which was staged at the Swansea Grand Theatre.[3][6] Two years later, she played the lead role of Tullulah in a West End production of Bugsy Malone.[10] " -do we have any other background info on how she got to the West End, any quotes of wanting to become an actress etc?

Added.

• "choosing to instead" -presumably she was already in London a lot so perhaps "deciding to stay permanently in London to pursue a full-time acting career"

 Done Rephrased.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Describing her teenage years in London, Zeta-Jones said, "I would queue up for auditions and then change my costume or put on a different leotard and audition again. It might take me two tries, but I always got the job. I figured out what they wanted".[12] She went on to attend the independent Arts Educational Schools in Chiswick, London, for a three-year course in musical theatre.[14] In 1987," -I would move up this into the preceding paragraph and then start a new one with In 1987.

 Done As suggested.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• "In 1987" -a recap of her age here would be good.

 Done As suggested.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Do we have any theatrical quotes from critics? A quote about one of the productions even if not directly on Zeta might be useful.

I tried to find something on these lines, but couldn't find anything that was freely accessible online. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Career

• "Zeta-Jones made her film debut in director Philippe de Broca's French-Italian film 1001 Nights (1990)." -would be best to start it as "In 1990, Zeta-Jones"

 Done As suggested.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• " The film received little success but garnered attention for featuring Zeta-Jones in the nude. Greater success f" -rep of success

 Done Rephrased.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Writing for Empire magazine, critic Damon Wise labelled the film a "dazzling screwball comedy" and felt that Zeta-Jones showed an "an admirable facility for old-school quickfire patter",[69] and other reviewers picked up the chemistry between Clooney and her for praise.[70]" -too many ands, needs rephrasing and splitting sentence. Other reviewers add new sentence.

 Done Rephrased.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Still need to call him Steven Spielberg, even if obvious.

 Done As suggested.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• "and other reviewers picked up the chemistry between Clooney and her for praise" -not sure what you mean by "for praise".

 Done Rephrased.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Having established a reputation in playing strong-willed women, Spielberg offered her the part to prove "how sweetly fragile she becomes when her life is in shambles".[23] Critic A. O. Scott, however, thought that Spielberg was "content to use her for her looks rather than for the arch, self-mocking wit that is her secret weapon as a comic actress".[71] C" -the quotes look a little odd here. I've copyedited this for you.
• Did you link Roger Ebert in first instance?

Yep, it is.

• "She next reteamed with Soderbergh to film Ocean's Twelve, a sequel to the caper film Ocean's Eleven (2001), which also reunited her with stars Clooney, Pitt, and Roberts. S" -something about filming in Italy would be good here.

Added.

• " noted on how "... "but", urgh.

 Done Rephrased.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: Seriously, this is quite a brilliant article you've produced here in such a short space of time. In fact, I'm not sure I could do much better! This definitely has FA potential and I think with some further research and work and a solid peer review this could become a candidate. Will pass once addressed, but well done!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Thank you for the kind words. And Ssven2 much thanks for taking care of so many of the concerns. All seems to be done now. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Excellent job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Image improvements

Could someone please take a look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Catherine_Zeta-Jones#Image_additions 78.148.67.220 (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

Great work on the GA. Just one point, Catherine Zeta-Jones is defined by her Welshness. Prior to the excellent clean up from 1 April, her nationality was cited by three reliable sources (the BBC; The Daily Telegraph; and The Independent) at the end of the first sentence in the Lead. Reliable sources commonly define Zeta-Jones as Welsh, including the the BBC, ITV, The Daily Telegraph, Huffington Post, the Grauniad, Cosmopolitan, and even the Welsh Government. Common usage shows Zeta-Jones is described as Welsh. As MOS:INFOBOX states "The purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article", I have reinstated Zeta-Jones' nationality in the infobox. Please discuss here before changing it back. Daicaregos (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

None of those sources address the question of nationality. No one would dispute she is Welsh, or that she is described as such, especially in an intra-UK context – or suggesting that she should not be described as such ever on this page – so posting lots of links to sources, especially British sources, doing as much is not really very illuminating. Her legal nationality, which is the one used in most people's infoboxes, is of course British. As for sources, the only one I can find explicitly addressing the nationality point is this brief Guardian bio, which says British. As for her own words, she describes herself as a "British subject". N-HH talk/edits 10:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I feel out of depth regarding this issue. Dr. Blofeld, what do you think her nationality should be? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

She's Welsh, and is strongly associated with Wales. More so than most actors I think. If N-HH's argument was true we'd not have Category:Welsh actors or say xxx" is a Welsh" it would all be British. Wales and Scotland have strong cultural identities and should be identified as such.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not arguing she isn't Welsh or arguing for that to be replaced in the opening sentence or any category. Indeed I explicitly said she was Welsh. The point was about the nationality field in the infobox, which is a more explicit assertion and which needs to be dealt with consistently across pages so that it is clear what we are trying to define or say. I also provided a third-party source and evidence of her own words; maybe that was missed too. That said, this is a site-wide minefield and a broader issue that has never been resolved to anyone's agreement, mainly because it's so weighed down by nationalist grandstanding (by both unionists and anti-unionists). Imparting information clearly and consistently to a global readership always seems to be a second priority for some. N-HH talk/edits 10:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue for me would be not be so much her nationality but why she actually needs an infobox anyway, right SchroCat?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it does have a global readership. Describing Zeta-Jones as Welsh does not seem to be a problem across the world, including: The Australian; The Sydney Morning Herald; The Globe and Mail, Canada; China Daily; L'Express, France; la Repubblica, Italy; Indian Express, The Belfast Telegraph, YNEWS, Isreal; La Presse, Montréal; The New Zealand Herald; Today, Singapore; ABC”, Spain; ABC News; New York Daily News; CBS and the Washington Post. But, most importantly, as Tom Jones says Catherine Zeta-Jones self-identifies as Welsh, again and you can watch her say “I am Welsh, very Welsh” and “I'm proud to be Welsh” (1:40, 2:35) on David Letterman. Who are we to define her any other way? Daicaregos (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Use British as her nationality. The last time I checked, Wales wasn't a sovereign state, but rather a part of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

No, Wales is not a sovereign state. That is not in dispute. However, it is a nation and Zeta-Jones belongs to that nation. Reliable sources around the world say so, and so does she. The OED defines nationality as 3a. National origin or identity; b. A group of persons belonging to a particular nation; a nation; an ethnic or racial group. There is no reason her nationality shouldn't be described as Welsh. Daicaregos (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I shall side with those who recommend using "British". GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Why? Do you think you know what her nationality is better than she does herself? Describing her as Welsh conforms to WP:MoS and the numerous sources from across the world demonstrate that editors of quality newspapers believe their readers have no problem understanding the term either. Daicaregos (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I go by sovereignty in these matters. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless she is a British national and citizen as well and someone has provided a source quoting her personally describing herself as British. You really have to stop spreading your Welsh nationalism all over Wikipedia and start accepting that Welsh subjects are British too. One does not exclude the other. Tvx1 19:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Given the stress this issue is causing, I've gone ahead and removed the infobox altogether. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that its removal was not part of this "solution", it has been restored. Where is the "stress" policy found? Scr★pIron^IV 19:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Every human action isn't based on policy now, is it? Also, when I "expanded" the article, you didn't call it an "unilateral move", but this (which finds a temporary solution to a matter that people aren't sure of) you do. Hmm. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm agnostic about infoboxes per se, although they obviously have their uses. The problem here of course is that both infoboxes and UK nationality issues are long-running issues of contention on WP, so there's twice the hassle. As for the Welsh nationality issue itself, as ever User:Daicaregos is missing the point, even though it was clearly set out in my first comment and by others. Of course she is Welsh and of course she is described as Welsh – there's no need to keep piling on the sources. No one is talking about removing this as a description, even the primary one here, in the main text. This is not about "defining her any other way" but about a specific assertion of nationality and about consistency of approach in defining that term and presenting such classifications on WP, as well as providing the full range of information about people to global readers. And, as it happens of course, you are the one trying to expunge any particular description from the top of the page here (as noted, people can have more than one you know). You perhaps ought to read up on WP:SYNTH as well when it comes to your "X is Welsh" .. "the Welsh are a nation" .. ergo "X's nationality is Welsh" reasoning. N-HH talk/edits 08:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I wonder whether it's really necessary to have a nationality parameter in the infobox in the first place. She's mostly notable for being an actress. Her nationality is only a minor part in her professional activities. This is unlike sportspeople who have actually represented their country in an international competition or an army general who has guided his country's troops through a war. Tvx1 17:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

That's true. I support removal of the field from the infobox. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know: I think a brief mention of the country/state of which a person is legally a citizen/subject/whatever is useful information about that person regardless of their profession, especially when, as in this case, the person in question now lives outside that state and the page prefers a subsovereign demonym in the main text (ie Welsh). N-HH talk/edits 09:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to inform you guys, I've opened a peer-review of the article here. Please feel free to point out improvements before I take this to the FAC. Cheers! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Remove infobox. I support removing this infobox. The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most biographies in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. Here are some reasons why I think the infobox should be removed from this article: (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 about 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 lot of code near 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) 05:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Remove infobox -- Here is a list of reasons why I'm against infoboxes in biographies like this:

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 seem to pander to the lowest concentration span. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Their inclusion would be derided in any culture that wasn't saturated with 30-second television ads and news broadcasts featuring 5- to 10-second grabs from politicians, PR consultants and disaster witnesses. Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text.

Infoboxes should be used only occasionally, with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles. Cassianto^Talk 05:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove infobox -agree with Cassianto and Ssilvers. As I stated previously, this definitely looks better without an infobox and looks more professional. The infobox contained nothing of value.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove infobox for the reasons I have cited several times before elsewhere - they add nothing to an article and contain information that is usually covered in the lead anyway. Jack1956 (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove IB. There is little of benefit in its inclusion in this instance. The key factoids are all present in the lead, where all readers expect to find them, and at least one is always problematic to me: the residence. This is something that can change without reference being found in the public domain and is therefore often out of date (making it a BLP issue). - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• How is that a BLP issue? Izkala (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• As I've said, if we show a factoid about someone that is no longer true, it becomes an issue, because we are misrepresenting the truth about them. – SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove Infobox - IMHO, infoboxes in bios are best when it involves a political office. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Why do you (all) discuss? There was an infobox in place from 14 August 2006 which has already been removed. I liked it, but that doesn't matter. Our readers should matter, not our personal opinions and preferences. Compare Marilyn Monroe and Max Reger. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• There was a sub-standard article in place for much of that time too: should we revert to that? As often as not article improvement involves the removal of ephemera as part of the process. As to why we discuss, that's the way to reach a consensus - I thought you understood that? - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that my question was not precise (I'm on vacation, with only moments of time). I should have asked: "Why do you still vote "Remove infobox" when it was already removed as if the consensus was clear? I like the proposal below better than no infobox, but suggest to show birth name, date of birth and place of birth uncollapsed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It was removed per WP:BRD. Cassianto^Talk 22:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Which edit was the bold edit that was reverted? (Reverted while this discussion - which began about certain parameters, not addition or removal - was going on) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The bold edit was the IB all those years ago; the revert was the revert (no rules about when you can revert the bold edit); this discussion is the discussion. The parameters were defunct and as such, needed to be removed. I think the FAC nominator tried to remove the box once but he was reverted, thus going against the BRD. Seeing as there was already a discussion called "Infobox" it made sense to discuss the removal here rather than another section called "Infobox removal" directly below it. Note; the removal was also on the back of the BLP issues SchroCat pointed out above. Cassianto^Talk 09:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the interesting perspective that you can declare an edit bold after about 10 years (14 August 2006) will need some more general clarification than this article talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It matters not: the consensus is rather clear. – SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Still bold, nonetheless Gerda; where exactly does it say that such a historic, bold edit can't be made? I expect you'll say that adding one is not bold at all and that removing it is tantamount to vandalism. Cassianto^Talk 21:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Catherine Zeta-Jones CBE
Zeta-Jones at the 2012 Tribeca Film Festival.
Further information Born Catherine Zeta Jones (1969-09-25) 25 September 1969 Swansea, Wales Occupation Actress Years active 1981–present Spouse Michael Douglas ​ (m. 2000)​ Children 2 Awards Full list

Collapsed info box as per Frank Sinatra there has been a long standing infobox on this article, I see little reason to remove. Why not a compromise over this issue. Having a collapsed infobox, they give a valuable summary for those who do not wish to read the full article. I have generated an example of what could be done. It looks a lot more professional imo. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

"Long standing", maybe, but there was no consensus to have it in the first place. IMO, your collapsed version serves no purpose and looks ridiculous when opened. Cassianto^Talk 22:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Long standing suggests a compromise should be taken. The purpose of the collapsed section is for people who want it. And if it looks ridiculous when opened don't open it, problem solved. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps your right. It's far too much hassle to read one line (the first line) within the lead which already has this information in. It's a pity more editors like you don't take a leaf out of this editors book. Cassianto^Talk 15:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I've long argued that the Sinatra article looks best without one, but the collapsed infobox does at least contain a fair amount of info, however trivial. The info in this one is never going to be worth it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove infobox Per all of the above. It looks much more attractive without one. The lead summarises all of the main text, so we don't need an infobox. JAGUAR  19:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep infobox Our readers expect to see this type of info off the bat and in the normal location. Most readers will never read more then the intro and infobox ...if this info is not here..... off they go to a website that has this info at there fingertips . Do what is best for our readers ...not what you may think looks best. Dont make our readers have to read huge articles for simple info......dont make them go to other less reliable sites for information of this nature. Dont make our readers do math to find the age of someone.....do it for them...why make things hard for our readers...again they will simply go to another site to find said info. Going out of our way to loose readers is never a good thing... I wonder if all understand why we are here?--Moxy (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Please don't impugn people's motives for being here: it's not helpful and will only ratchet up conflict levels. You have made several concrete statements here about what readers expect and what do. Do you have any evidence of readers habits—a study or a paper—that you could point us to. I would find that most interesting reading. – SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia started we have had a format of disseminating information that has worked so well we are a leading website. "Jakob Nielson’s seminal web usability study from way back in 1997 showed that 79% of web users scan rather than read [1]." Thus we have infoboxs for scanning ...the way most view pages [2]. We have had this format because we understand some basics...no info in the top corner is leaving info out of the second most looked at place F-Shaped Pattern For Reading Web Content - -Eye Tracking Web Usability Study Reveals the “Golden Triangle” ...most will never read the article You Won’t Finish This Article.....thus info of the bat is best for our readers. --Moxy (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• It's common sense that editors readers will want summaries of information. Anecdotal I know but I often look at infoboxes for quick guides to subjects. Without the infobox you still have the lead, but the tablature of the data allows for even faster processing. People like summaries: for example see the google summaries when you enter a search term. Surely they're not providing tabled data for no reason. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Common sense? That really isn't a helpful comment: at least Moxy went to the length of leaving some links to articles that aren't about IBs, just internet reading tracts that can be interpreted in numerous different ways. – SchroCat (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Its just disappointing when info is deleted that is there for a reason and has been a way Wikipedia has addressed a certain segment of the reader population (the largest segment). The formate has been so successfully (that is titbits of info in the top right corner) that Google adopted it. We seem to have a growing segment of editors that that dont seem to understand why infoboxs are there in the first place. As articles got bigger that titbit of info feel was being lost ...thus we added infoboxs and made rules for the lead so that readers ...most of who will only scan the article...will still look to Wiki for info ...that is "info at a glance". -- Moxy (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Base gobbets of information, ripped from context and understanding, appearing in things like the boxes on the right hand of a google search? It means that sadly some people looking for knowledge stop at the Google search page and don't bother to visit us, and thus they don't ever actually learn anything, outside the banalest of drops of data. A well-written lead (as we have here) is always superior to the dissemination of trite details, because it provides some context and understanding that even the best-designed idiotbox will always fail to achieve. I'm sorry you don't see that serious and well-considered objections to the one-size-fits-all approach is appropriate, but yes, we do understand why they are there, but that doesn't stop them being poor and amateurish. – SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thus far your argument is based on what some think is best...and is the one size fits all approach. Why would you not allow readers 2 different ways of getting the basics.....one in point form with some basic calculations done for our readers (the infobox) and the other the lead (a summary of info) ? Do what is best for our readers to get information in the manner they prefer and are custom to As seen by the sources above and the wiki tradition we give our readers a choice on how to get information from a page. -- Moxy (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

As with the other discussion, perhaps you'd best concentrate on your own argument, rather than trying to summarise mine (which you've done incorrectly once again). Again, it's not just about the provision of dumbed down facts in a box: it's about providing intelligently presented information from which readers are able to obtain information in context. It's the difference between giving out-of-context factoids that mean little on their own, and readers finding that information from which they gain understanding and knowledge. – SchroCat (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

As per SchroCat, I'm reluctant to have yet another boring fucking to and fro with someone who thinks that they speak on behalf of others. Moxy, do you not think that if inboxes were a bog standard feature of an article, then the infobox would be in place automatically when you hit save when an article is first created? Cassianto^Talk 19:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto: They're working on that as we speak, actually—to have infoboxes automagically appear in articles that have data at Wikidata, but don't have actual articles yet in a particular language. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

What a terrible, terrible idea. Have standards been utterly forgotten? Curly Turkey there an RfC on this anywhere? - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@SchroCat: If there is, it wouldn't be on en.wp—my understanding is they will begin with minor, underpopulated Wikipedias like Irish or Esperanto—in fact, here's an Esperanto example, though it's not in the wild yet (you won't get the article through a search—yet). I learned about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#ArticlePlaceholder, in the middle of an RfC about how Infoboxes have now become automatically Wikidata-aware and have started importing data into infoboxes with no watchlist notice—including, for example, ISBNs for books published before 1970, and other controversial bits like the religions of politicians, genres of books and albums, etc. Message from the Wikidata people: "Fuck you and your 'editorial judgement'." Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

What a mind-numbing crass and stupid decision. There really are some fuckwits driving Wikidata, what it does and how it works. It won't be long before it happens here, and it'll be a dark day for WP, when standards go out of the window. What a clusterfuck! - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how to reply to a what if because there is no auto feature for coding. I think the data speaks for its self as to what is the norm here. As for speaking for others...there is a reason some things are created and guidelines made for them. Its just disappointing to see a small segment of editors that dont want to give our readers options. Could be I am just an old timmer that remembers why things were done and see the change as the opposite of why we are here...that is to help people find info in the best formats' possible.--Moxy (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but why is it so difficult to read what's on the left of the screen? All of the information within the Zeta-Jones box conveys nothing that the first line of the lede doesn't. We are not asking "our readers" to do scan the entire back catalogue of the Reader's Digest here, we are asking them to avert their eyes to the left of the screen. Why is that so bloody difficult? Cassianto^Talk 21:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

So your saying the first sentence of the lead tells us her current age (without having to do math) - tells us how long she has been working - has info on her spouse and children - and a link to her official site....odd I dont see this? Why would it not be best to give our readers an option? Why not do some basic calculations for them. Thus far not one study or source to explain why having an infobox is bad...yet we have sources that explain how people read online content and is why we have titbits of info on the right hand side. We dont do this stuff on a whim...there is a reason an thus far "I dont like infoboxs" does not hold up to our basic reason for being here.--Moxy (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

There has been far more reason presented than the rather basic one you have given (misrepresenting a host of people and their arguments yet again). Thus far not one study or source to explain why having an infobox is good either. There are some tangentially related articles from which numerous tentative conclusions can be drawn, but so far your argument seems to be along the lines of "I'm right and you're too stupid to understand otherwise". I've disengaged with you on one thread already today and this is the second: your inflexibility of approach does no-one any benefit, regardless of how you try and dress it up. - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I find it odd that you seem to believe that suggesting two ways of presenting data is "inflexibility of approach"....odd anyone would advocate only one way to do things when its clear both ways have severed our readers well for over a decade. Thinking one way is better is find but why block they other way if others see a benefit ? Most studies on infoboxs deal with the data benefits to the world at large....there are some that have even looked at tools so that this data can be used more. Infobox Suggestion for Wikipedia Entities Afroza Sultana1, Quazi M. Hasan2, Ashis K. Biswas1, Soumyava Das1, Habibur Rahman1, Chris Ding1, Chengkai Li1 University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX,

An infobox is a table of attribute-value pairs displayed on the top-right corner of a Wikipedia article. The majority of Wikipedia articles describe real-world named entities (in contrast to general concepts). Their infoboxes summarize important facts of corresponding entities. In addition to improving the quality and readability of articles within Wikipedia, information from Wikipedia infoboxes has also been used in several high-profile applications outside of Wikipedia, including the social database Freebase and Google’s Knowledge Graph1 which directly displays infobox information in Google search results. A tool that can automatically generate infoboxes for articles is thus appealing because such a bootstrapping tool will motivate and facilitate contributors in improving article quality."

--Moxy (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was expecting someone to raise the point of the festering turd of Wikidata, a black hole of unsourced ignorant and ill-thrown together fluff. It mistakes data for knowledge and facts for understanding, without ever understanding the difference. It is the triumph of factoids over understanding, and a horrible, horrible concept which will cause deep harm to this site in the medium to long term. But you're right: I'm still too stupid to understand, and maybe I should have been here as long as you have to understand it all. And it's a good thing you've managed to summaraise my argument for me again (incorrectly again, but that's what happens when you try and strip context and nuance out of a balanced situation. - SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You may dismiss all the data, sources and reasoning behind why we made them and there all over....thats fine. All I ask is in the future you take into account that not all absorb information in the same manner and that different ways of presenting data my be beneficial.Moxy (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You somehow seem to think that those of us who do not bow down at the altar of IBs have some brainless knee-jerk rejection of the entire concept. Perhaps you could try and think a little less of your fellow editors, and just allow the idea that others may have actually engaged their brains before coming to their own conclusions. You may even allow the thought to enter your consciousness that none of of those I have seen comment in many IB discussions have such a knee-jerk frame of mind that all IBs are rejected: everyone I have seen commenting has said that they are hugely useful when used properly, and on the right articles; (your comment on Gerda's page about people rejecting it on the basis of looks alone was particularly crass, and fundamentally wrong - you really do need to actually read and try to understand people's replies to you). You may dismiss the well-founded reasons of others, and why people have come to this conclusions, but that does you no credit at all. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep info box. As an encyclopedia the mission is information in formats that readers of all kinds and with diverse interests can access as easily as possible. This means that if the reader wants specific piecers of information they can find it without scrolling through an entire article. Our job though is to provide complete information so that every reader can find what they need within a topic area easily, but we are not an academic institution were we expect readers to necessarily want and need complete information on any given subject. Infoboxes provide certain kinds of specific information for the reader in an easily accessible format. Not sure why we should make finding information harder for them rather than easier. I did check 10 or so other actor BLPs and all had info boxes. I see no reason this one should be different.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC))
  • "This means that if the reader wants specific piecers of information they can find it without scrolling through an entire article." -- Have you even bothered to read this thread, or are you just !voting against the majority for the sheer sake of it? Cassianto^Talk 20:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion since it began and decided finally to cmt. Why some editors have to become nasty when someone disagrees with them is beyond me, and oddly personal attacks do not further any argument in a discussion so why bother.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC))

Of course you have. Cassianto^Talk 12:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Cassianto: Actually, yes In have. I have SchroCat watch listed; he was a visitor on my talk page a few months ago. When I saw his user name connected with an info box I wondered what was up. I also have taught performance-based arts so theater and actors interest me. In my first view I felt there was little I could do to argue against the usual reasons used to remove info boxes in general. Sides are implacable and the arguments are the same in every discussion. From my side, "the information is the same in the lead as in the info box so is redundant" argument is especially hard to understand. I have been harassed on and off Wikipedia and bullied and lied about on WP and I hate to see other editors experience even in small part what I did. It was the attacks that finally brought me here, the nastiness, the move away from reasoned discussion to attacks. I know what its like to be attacked and be alone. Also, there are editors here in this discussion who I have known and followed for most of my WP history so I do watch for them. I deal with no one on Wikipedia who would expect me to move or vote against my own conscience. So yes , again, I have been following this discussion almost from the beginning and per my first cmt, nastiness bugs the heck out of me, so I commented.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC))
• Keep. Over 90% of FA bios include them. Their usefulness is a no-brainer. --Light show (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Please don't be so dismissive of other people's well-thought through opinions: you could find yours being given similar treatment. – SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
    • So because most articles use it, that makes an inclusion on all articles a no brainier, does it? "No brain(er)" is a particularly apt description for a post belonging to you, Light show. Cassianto^Talk 20:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

They give snapshot vital facts to bios, they look good with the photo and have immediate value. As opposed to all the self-added info-trivia User boxes which look silly. --Light show (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're gibbering on about, but thank you for your non-contributions all the same. Cassianto^Talk 19:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Inboxes are useful in most biographies, to give the reader quick facts. There's only a few biographies where I think the infobox is distracting, and those biographies are poets and authors who had no popular media presence, who were known primarily by their written works. Zeta-Jones is not that; she has a strong popular media presence.
  Note that the infobox should be returned without an article section link in the awards parameter. Its most recent version contained this link: Full list. The MOS says that infoboxes should never contain a link to point the reader to article sections: WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. So keep the infobox but without that link. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe you could enlighten us as to the most important information that the infobox had that cannot be easily found within the lead section? Cassianto^Talk 20:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
    • That is a run around question...you should know by now the whole point of the box is to regurgitate simple facts in point form for our readers. The format you like may not be suited for all thus we have a few was to display this information. It has severed or readers well for decades and the format has been adopted by Google and even Britannica. Your advocating a position that offers less choice to our readers. -- Moxy (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Simple facts which can otherwise be found in prose form within the lead section. It's nonsensical repeating it on the other side of the screen. Cassianto^Talk 21:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
    • The burden here is on those who wish to remove the infobox, since the most recent consensus version is represented by the 11 April GA version which has an infobox. By which I'm saying that the argument against the infobox must be very compelling to dislodge the established consensus. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
      • What consensus? An infobox was boldly added ten years ago. The burden, therefore, is very much for those wishing to add one. Cassianto^Talk 21:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your not new and this is basic stuff pls read over WP:EDITCONSENSUS again. To suggest the burden is not on those that want it deleted after its been here for a decade shows a complete misunderstanding of how things work here. If you would had said It appeared that concusses had changed from the above conversation that would have been logical. I suggest you dont offer misleading advice during a FA review...surprised no one said a thing there...you had it all backwards. -- Moxy (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to carry on needlessly repeating myself. I don't know whether you're deliberately not wanting to understand me or whether your don't really give a toss about how BRD actually works. There was no consensus when a box was slapped on all those years ago and there has been no consensus since to keep it. Why do you people think that an infobox should be used for every article regardless of whether it actually helps people or not? Also, please don't tell me how to behave at a FAC. I've been at more FAC's than you've had hot dinners so when I want your advice about how best to advise people I'll call at your talk page. Until then, mind your own business. Cassianto^Talk 04:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Your way off the mark here... this is very concerning that your giving such advice. After ten years and thousands of editors seeing and editing the infobox consensus is assumed especially when there's no evidence of disagreement. Perhaps best you ask for clarification of the policy at Wikipedia talk:Consensus.-- Moxy (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It's very concerning why you're wasting so much of your time here rather than improving something somewhere, but you don't hear me complaining. Cassianto^Talk 07:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Moxy's absolutely right—WP:CONSENSUS clearly states: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Ten years of silence = consensus. If you'd like to see the consensus changed, the onus is on you to build a new one. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

That's the whole point of this fucking thread. Or had you not worked that out? Cassianto^Talk 07:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You know exactly what I was responding to with that comment—the suggestion that there was no consensus for the box—but you'd never pass up a chance to fuck with people's heads, mm? How much content have you produced today, by the way, Cassianto? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It may surprise you to learn that I actually have a life away from this bullshit, so my time on here is limited. I've made no secret of this, as per the note on my talk page. So there really is no need to trawl diffs of my contributions. Cassianto^Talk 10:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Then we won't see you barfing out comments like "It's very concerning why you're wasting so much of your time here rather than improving something somewhere" anymore, will we, Mr Busy? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

No. Just because I currently don't have time to write articles, that doesn't mean others can't too. I know you don't have much intelligence, but surely even you can understand that? Cassianto^Talk 12:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, SchroCat, does this pigfuckery never embarrass you? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you asking him for? Cassianto^Talk 23:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you talking English good for? I'd prefer to talk with someone I respect. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It's Deja Vu All Over Again, sorry to say. --Light show (→talk) 05:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Clearly information in an info box should also be in a lead. The issue is not about the information itself and whether it is repeated or not, but where the information is located and for what reason. The infobox is a format for making information accessible in a glance; the lead summarizes in a sentence/ paragraph form the article information itself. Lead and info box have different purposes. Whether the information is the same is not the point and side steps the real issue The point is whether we want to make information accessible to a reader in a glance. if we do then info boxes are necessary. A general discussion on infoboxes does not address this specific discussion which is why this particular actor BLP should have the info box removed especially when most actor BLP s have information available to the reader in a quick-look format.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC))

• Refer to my last answer; I'm not going to keep on repeating myself. Cassianto^Talk 04:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Lets be clear. The editors here are discussing the use of an info box for this article. Each editor has a right to and should explain their position clearly. A single position may be held by more than one editor. That's how consensus is determined. You are in no way obligated to repeat your position over and over again, to rebut every position held by other editors. I don't accept that your position is the correct one in this discussion; I am saying that. You don't have to repeat your position; I don't expect you to, nor does repeating the same position convince me. There are multiple ways of viewing this situation. Neither yours nor mine is the "right" one.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC))

A suggestion: For those not wanting to do the math to find the actress' age, we can use the age as of date template in the caption of her main display picture. Does that work? Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep infobox. A summary of basic information about the person given at the top of the page is desirable in any biography. ~ Rob^Talk 20:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The summary of basic information is called a "lead section". Maybe you could re-explain why you think it's necessary to repeat this in the infobox? Cassianto^Talk 23:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Before I do, could you affirmatively confirm that you think it's a net positive to relay details like the actress' website, birth place, and years active in prose within the lead? ~ Rob^Talk 23:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I do not think it's a net positive. Usually, within an FA, the first line of the second paragraph tells where the subject was born; their active years are given in the first paragraph; and the website, well, why do we even need to know that? Surely if someone was to google her, her website will come up, possibly even before ours. Moreover, we want to keep the reader on our page which we have lovingly and meticulously written during months and months of research and scrutiny. Not force them away to somewhere else. Would we link to the subjects autobiography on goggle books too? Cassianto^Talk 23:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, if it was being used to source a fact. Alternatively, it would probably be appropriate in a further reading section. The goal of Wikipedia is to connect readers with information, not keep them on our site. If they came here looking for the official site or want information on the official site, I'm happy to "force them" to view the content they wanted to view. Our readers don't all have doctorates, but I trust them to be able to evaluate whether they want to click on a link or not. As per WP:ELOFFICIAL, it's usually desirable to link a single official website. You've conceded that the infobox is not redundant to the lead, so I won't bother to extensively argue against that, but in our "now, now, now" culture, it's a good practice to summarize key details like "years active" in a form more condensed than a multi-paragraph lead. Whenever I go to any article, I read the infobox first for the key details. A good portion of the time, that gives me the information I wanted. ~ Rob^Talk 00:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

As a side note, I just read the FAC review. Please do not repeat the misinformation that WP:BRD supports reverting anyone who restores a boldly removed infobox. As noted in BRD itself, "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once." Additionally, you misstated that all infoboxes require discussion to be added. Compare to your cited BRD, which says "No edit, regardless of how large it is, requires any prior discussion." The infobox has been in the article since at least August 2015. BRD suggests keeping the stable version of a page while discussing. It's incorrect to suggest that all articles should be restored exclusively to the state which you hold to be "correct" during discussion. ~ Rob^Talk 23:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

incivility. That's enough
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
When I want advice on how to quote essays off an editor who has been here just 11 months, I'll let you know. CassiantoTalk 23:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC) You forgot to slag him for being gay, too. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC) [3] -- What a filthy, disgusting specimen you are Curly Turkey. I hope you're proud of yourself. This kind of filthy insinuation is beyond comprehension. I'm out. CassiantoTalk 00:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Vote counting

Capping pointless thread - it's not needed, is becoming an insult magnet and is a distraction to the main conversation which an uninvolved, neutral admin can close without anyone's flawed vote counting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've closed the helpme because this is a discussion, not a "how to edit Wiki" question. Primefac (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC) I suggest someone restore it, as consensus is clearly to keep it in. In any case, it should take an overwhelming consensus to remove it from its decade of stability.--Light show (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Recounted, since Krimuk only wanted to remove the nationality field, not the entire infobox. --Light show (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC) I do agree we should.... BUT......I think it would be best if we asked a trusted third party not involved with infoboxs (hopefully an admin) to look this over..... simply to avoid an edit war. There is no rush its just a box. Must keep in mind that this was a suggestion at the FA review ..does not matter that the editor that suggested it was only there about the box...the suggestion was implemented after a short tlak....yes things have change in my view but again no rush. -- Moxy (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Since when has it been about vote counting Light show? As has been explained to you more than once, the numbers of people turning up as a flashmob on one side is not how things are decided on wiki, it's about the arguments that are brought to bear. So far you personally have not brought any valid policy-based arguments on this particular box, and it is not up to you or anyone who has taken part in this discussion to try and close it. As Moxy has rightly said, a third party - uninvolved, neutral and preferably an admin - needs to close this. You are not even close to trustworthy enough to judge the arguments here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC) There were clearly no "flashmobs" commenting here, although there does appear to be the usual anti-infobox tag team. --Light show (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC) Yes, of course. Any "side" you oppose is always in the wrong and has done 'bad things'. How right you are, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC) Light show, forget Peter Sellers now; c'mon, move on. You lost there and you were made to look like the idiot you are. I do hope history doesn't repeat itself. CassiantoTalk 08:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic-- Moxy (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC) I don't forget Peter Sellers which looks like a compromise to me. What, please, is a flashmob? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep It is useful... how old is she? Who is she married too? Where is she living? These are common questions, especially for actors. These are either not available in the article or difficult to find. As mobile views have started to become the majority and not desktop (mobile/dekstop views on now even on weekends), it becomes harder to find this info if there is no Infobox. Personally.... Without an Infobox, it looks "unprofessional" (not the right word, maybe weird?) as most articles do have Infoboxes. I do alot of vandalism hunting and Infoboxes don't get vandalized anymore than the rest of the article. If somebody is going to vandalize an article, they will no matter if an Infobox is there or not. Infoboxes are not hard for newbies, templates inside Infoboxes are, but templates are in the body of the article too.
  Rhetorical questions.... Why do I keep seeing these discussions with the same people on both sides always involved? When it gets on some certain site, you know these types of discussions have gone too far. Why "obfuscate" (not right word) info? Google is taking views away from Wikipedia because they have "Infoboxes" in their search results, so why remove/hide something people like, use and seek out? We are here for the readers first, not editors. Why waste time arguing again and again when in the scheme of things, removing Infoboxes doesn't do harm or cause problems? Why does Franz, errr, Ernst really want to commit fratricide? Can I tell Hans and Franz jokes to Ernst? (inside joke) Bgwhite (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)