Talk:Cary Grant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Cary Grant/Comments)
Jump to: navigation, search


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

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

Policy dictates that I assume, as a non-involved editor, that this is well-meant and not just intended to stir up the same discussion from June, which certainly distended good faith to the max and unnecessarily expended editors' energy and goodwill to one another! Now, WP:NOTVOTE has already been iterated and reiterated ("most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion", just to remind), but also WP:NOTDEMOCRACY would make profitable reading. What is it about this particular article, I wonder? Poor old Cary. (non-admin closure)fortunavelut luna 13:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The infobox discussions here make for a pretty convoluted read.

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

  • See WP:NOTVOTE. Please have a reason to restart disputes—a reason more substantive than your difficulty in reading previous discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes A pointless discussion really, infoboxes provides basic info. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • See WP:NOTVOTE. Please have a reason to restart disputes—a reason more substantive than your difficulty in reading previous discussions. As the last discussion closed three months ago with no consensus to add a box, this is getting into 'disruptive' territory. - SchroCat (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Bold, reasoning, and inaccurate edit summaries[edit]

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

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

As there is a consensus not to have one, yes, a consensus is needed to change that. Re-running the same discussion two months after the last one is disruptive (and I would put your post in that category too, as you're trying to continue something that has been decided). Try again in a few months if you want to, but let the consensus lie for a while. - SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Don't agree. The consensus is over a year old as far as I can see. Am I missing a discussion? No consensus has an unlimited shelf life and a consensus that old is ripe for discussion without being labelled disruptive. However, I've had my say and listed my concerns. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
See the thread at the top of the page. Two months old, as I said. - SchroCat (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
For edification:
Small wonder those writing articles are disgusted-some enough to stop content creation when all it leads to is confrontation after confrontation about these boxes. We hope (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both for the information. When I see consensus used as a reason to remove content even after two months I am concerned. And my cmt here was not confrontational in the least especially that I am willing to cmt and walk away. It was an opposition though. I am willing to oppose when I can't see what (in my opinion, of course) seems to be little reason for not adding the info box. As an educator I know that multiple ways of dealing with information is the most effective and there's lots of research in this so I would prefer that we as an encyclopedia and educational forum pay attention to that information. So yes, I commented and will continue to do so. In the meantime, I have made my points known and that's all I want to do for now. Best.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
"little reason": yes, that is only your opinion, and it has been hashed out several times, as the links above show. - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The box was not in the article as of the time the last discussion ended and has not been there except for an 18 July addition/removal and today's addition/removal.
  • Its all opinion, in fact. None of the discussions relate to how people learn perhaps because the research is hard to refute.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
  • I have seen lots of research on learning, how the brain prcesses reading material and how people read websites, but none of them have persuaded me that idiotboxes are any good on biographical artices of actors (among some other professions). - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

No infobox[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google has an infobox and boxes for his wives if you're worried about the article not having them..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your view. CassiantoTalk 11:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

This sort of intellectual snobbery is out of place in Wikipedia, which I had always presumed was a catholic reference work.

There are times when far greater minds than those that indulge in such offensive terminology need quick and easy reference solutions, and there are times when all readers might need lengthier, more in-depth material.

Infoboxes do not run contrary to Wikipedia's mission to impart knowledge to the widest possible readership; this is not Encyclopedia Britannica.

--Davidbrookesland (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

There are many factors which favour the removal of an infobox. As per the many discussions we've had last year it was agreed that this article should not have one, otherwise I think we would be going around in circles. JAGUAR 12:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
There are no factors that favor the removal of the info box from this article. JOJ Hutton 12:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes there are. The photograph simply looks better by itself and the infobox has very limited or no value to the reader. The lede sums the article up well. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Fascinating. CassiantoTalk 12:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
That is your opinion. But it is, and has always been the minority’s opinion in every discussion. Why does the minority opinion prevail over what has been an overwhelming majority of editors in favor of restoring the info box?JOJ Hutton 13:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. Some even talk out of them, most of the time, but that doesn’t make them right. CassiantoTalk 17:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Because it is the minority of editors who do hard work on here writing the articles which would still be short or bloated unsourced crap if they weren't properly researched. The people who actually write and promote articles should have more say in the formatting of the articles than the people who don't and just drive by to cause trouble. I could for instance start a thread on the talk page of the Richard Nixon article arguing that it would look better with just a photograph. Why don't I? Because I respect that you've written it and that it was your editorial decision to include one in promoting it. Infoboxes, particularly in arts biographies are not compulsory, read the ruling.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:OWNJOJ Hutton 14:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
This cuts both ways as this attempt to impose a box says "I own this article, so here's the box and shut up about what you've done on it." We hope (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's anything to do with ownership at all - if somebody put in hours of their time writing up an article from scratch and taking the time to nurture it up to a GA or FA standard then nothing could be more frustrating watching uninvolved people battle over infoboxes. I know how it feels and would personally give the authors some consideration. For example the infobox on Winston Churchill was so long half of it recently had to be collapsed. I wouldn't mind advocating its removal but I would never dream of starting up a dispute. From my experience it's been people who demand the addition of infoboxes to be the main cause of these back and forth arguments. JAGUAR 14:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Agree with what you're saying. I don't see editors who don't care for boxes dropping in on articles with them and deciding to hit the TP for removal of the box. We hope (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I really feel we are back to square one here. The infobox discussion on CG has happened too often. BTW, as Doc pointed out, the lead summarises the article quite well and, usually the lead explains what the infobox does, only in more detail. It points out his DOB, education, career beginnings, hits, screen persona, marriages and business interests.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm unwatching the article, largely because of the attitude of one or two of the article owners. Suggesting that anyone who is not them is simply "driving by to cause trouble" is a nasty attitude. DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Articles which have been written without infoboxes have a nasty habit of attracting people who barely edit Wikipedia and often seem to have been put up to it by somebody. Not to mention the coaxing which goes on behind the scenes. That's nasty. People who turn up to cause a fuss about no infobox are often not very established editors and it's extremely irritating to keep having to discuss it every few weeks and be bullied into submission DuncanHill.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I certainly did not mean to contribute to the can of worms that had been opened back in 2016 when a ten-year-old infobox was done away with.

Obviously there has been disquiet with that decision, but I would not have acted as I did (by adding a box) had I known of the circular ongoing debate.

The Grant article failed me by not providing the list of wives and dates I needed quickly. The Relationships section starts well on "Grant was married five times" but then hides them in a mess of information that includes other relationships, Grant's car crash, his citizenship and so on. I did as many others probably do.... go elsewhere. I merely wished to help others with the same problem by a simple contribution.

Nobody doubts the tremendous work that Duncan, Jaguar and others do, but Wikipedia prides itself on its numerous 'little guys' also. They too have a contribution to make and should be listened to, many of them are, after all, big Wikipedia 'customers' (even if they only have small voices). By the way, it is impossible to tell the sum total of contributions from any editor as most edits are anonymous (I frequently edit from my phone or my wife's without signing in). There is also the matter of monetary donations - anonymous or otherwise - which all add to the value of Wiki-individuals.

"Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers," (Five Pllars).

Sorry for the upset and trouble.

Davidbrookesland (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)