Talk:Catherine Zeta-Jones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Catherine Zeta-Jones is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 25, 2017.

Father and Grandmother's ethnicity[edit]

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 (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[edit]

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)

  • "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?
  • "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)
  • "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.[1] 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.
  • " 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)


  1. ^ "Philippe de Broca". The Daily Telegraph. 29 November 2004. Retrieved 25 April 2013. 

Image improvements[edit]

Could someone please take a look at (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


NAC: First, it appears that there never was a proper RFC filed. I see no evidence that this section ever had a formal RFC template. However, the discussion has been going on as it there had been an RFC, and formal closure has been requested as if there had been an RFC. The question seems to have been whether to retain or remove the infobox. Since the infobox has been removed, the question now is whether to restore the infobox. On the one hand, there is a rough consensus in favor of the infobox. On the other hand, a closer is also expected to address strength of arguments. The arguments in favor of keeping or restoring the infobox have to do with the article on Catherine Zeta-Jones. The arguments in favor of deleting or against restoring the infobox appear mostly to have to do with infoboxes in biographies of actors and actresses and other persons in the entertainment industry, that infoboxes are not necessary or not useful. However, that isn’t the question. It is at this time in Wikipedia accepted to use infoboxes when there is an appropriate infobox (although not required), and there is an appropriate infobox for actors and actresses. Therefore, both strength of numbers and strength of arguments are that this article should have an infobox. If those who oppose the infobox think that they are not appropriate for entertainment personnel, they may start an RFC on that subject. I strongly recommend that a second RFC be started for Zeta-Jones as to her nationality, whether Welsh, British, or omitted. This issue is now closed (under ignore rules that complicate things as if there had been a formal RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2016 (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.

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? ScrpIronIV 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. CassiantoTalk 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. CassiantoTalk 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. CassiantoTalk 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. CassiantoTalk 21:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Catherine Zeta-Jones
  • CBE
Catherine Zeta-Jones VF 2012 Shankbone 2.jpg
Zeta-Jones at the 2012 Tribeca Film Festival.
Further information
Born Catherine Zeta Jones
(1969-09-25) 25 September 1969 (age 48)
Swansea, Wales
Residence Bedford Hills, New York, U.S.
Occupation Actress
Years active 1981–present
Spouse(s) Michael Douglas (m. 2000)
Children 2

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. CassiantoTalk 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. CassiantoTalk 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 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 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 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? CassiantoTalk 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? CassiantoTalk 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? CassiantoTalk 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. CassiantoTalk 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. CassiantoTalk 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. CassiantoTalk 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? CassiantoTalk 20:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
      • That is a run around 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. CassiantoTalk 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. CassiantoTalk 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 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. CassiantoTalk 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. CassiantoTalk 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? CassiantoTalk 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. CassiantoTalk 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? CassiantoTalk 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? CassiantoTalk 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. CassiantoTalk 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. ~ RobTalk 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? CassiantoTalk 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? ~ RobTalk 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? CassiantoTalk 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. ~ RobTalk 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. ~ RobTalk 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)

  • 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)

"Without an Infobox, it looks "unprofessional" ". Is that one of the jokes ? ;-) I'd argue exactly the opposite in arts biographies. A largely empty infobox cheapens articles and makes them look amateurish.. A neat photograph in the corner looks more professional IMO, but there you go. It should be the choice of the person who writes article to FA standard to decide whether to include one or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

There are papers that say they improve quality and readability [4]. So a joke no -- Moxy (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. An infobox with little or no data inside it is always redundant. Most BLPs would benefit without them. JAGUAR  12:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm curious why Dr. Blofeld, who was one of the key editors on other bios, such as Sean Connery, Maureen O'Hara and Carole Lombard, never had a problem with their infoboxes. The issue never came up on their talk pages. Yet for this article, where he is only a minor contributor, he, with a few others, is turning the infobox issue into a war zone. Just wondering. --Light show (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Why @Light show:? Because I didn't want another gruelling, pointless debate with a bunch of bleeding imbeciles on the value of an infobox. The article look far better without them but I didn't want a repeat of Sinatra and Zeta Jones.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear... yet again I see it is the 'other side' to your argument that has turned this into a "war zone". Have you forgotten it takes two to tango? As to "war zone", I see plenty of people bandying words around, but no weapons... no-one has died, no-one has been injured. As to the mildly substantive point (and one that puts Moxy's rather silly accusations of "fanatacism" to rest}: some IBs are fantastic, some crucial, some advisable, and some a waste of time and effort. Like others, I try not to hold such an inflexible "one-size-fits-all" approach to every article and will use them where appropriate (Walt Disney being a recent example). In other places, they are not relevant or helpful: this is such an article in my opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep infobox they always seem useful to me. I rely on them. It seems to have been removed here to avoid consensus building debate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
New and improved "Stress Relief" formula: One of the key issues is why the infobox was first removed and why is it being kept off despite the consensus to restore it.
First, it was only removed to relieve stress, as explained, Given the stress this issue is causing, I've gone ahead and removed the infobox altogether. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 7:56 pm, 25 April 2016. And it can be implied after Cassianto's comments, that the article's prime editor, User:Krimuk90, was basically railroaded into removing it and keeping it off. The removal was then supported by the rest of the team, The issue for me would be not be so much her nationality but why she actually needs an infobox anyway, right SchroCat? Dr. Blofeld 3:43 am, 25 April 2016. It's worth noting that the combined contributions to this article by the team are less than 150 bytes! In addition, User:Krimuk90 was only interested in the nationality question, not the IB: I support removal of the field from the infobox. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 6:30 pm, 27 April 2016.
So why is it still kept off? Partly because of flawed advice, noted in "Cassianto's comments" above. That misleading advice was a misinterpretion of BRD guidelines, that since all articles start without an infobox. Therefore any addition of an infobox should be discussed first. Leave this to me. Cassianto 10:24 pm, 16 May 2016. The BRD policy thereby got inverted by pushing for the deletion of a decade-long IB based on consensus without prior disputes, and forcing those who want to put it back to now discuss it as if it had never been there. The result is that 3 minimal contributors have created a fire and brimstone dispute on this talk page, have fought against even current consensus, have misused guidelines, and railroaded a good editor into making bad editorial decisions. So why is the IB still kept off? Again, just wondering. Someone should just restore it and remove the stress. --Light show (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
So many lies... So little time.... The only thing to add, as one of the "minimal contributors", is that I've been involved in the PR fairly recently: how many edits have you made light beer? Or Moxy? Or Gerda? Or many others on either side? The fact that some people are more involved in the article than others has nothing to do with coming to a consensus. — SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Reinstate infobox It is interesting how this devolved from a discussion about her nationality to whether to keep or to remove the infobox altogether (which was removed). IMO, an article with an infobox looks much nicer and is easier to get factoids from. (For example, to find out her spouse's name, you would have to read 354 words first). Anyway, if the discussion is still going and removing the infobox was not final, I would vote to reinstate it. --Fjmustak (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep (i.e. reinstate) infobox. This is the normal practice for actor biographies, and no convincing arguments have been made against it - most opposers seem not to like infoboxes in general. "Nationality" need not be included - it isn't at Sean Connery, whose Scottishness is highly significant. StAnselm (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Collapsed infobox addresses both article aesthetics and quick-glance information concerns. Note that I am against expanding the infobox with zillions of trivial details; the current list of basic facts is enough. — JFG talk 08:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Reinstate (keep) infobox One feature of infoboxes that almost always is overlooked in such discussions is the creation of machine-readable data in the form of microformats (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). At any rate, infoboxes are meant to be supplemental to the prose (for at-a-glance information gathering), so a little redundancy is to be expected. clpo13(talk) 16:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep infobox I would like the infobox to be kept as it provides a quick summary, and I've never read an article on Wikipedia describing a person without an infobox. It just makes it easier to read all relevant information before reading more details about the person. Ralphw (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No comment on your !vote, but just to correct you, there are many, many biographical articles on Wiki—including numerous GAs and FAs—without an IB. – SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Vote counting[edit]

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)

Note to eventual closer[edit]

If this discussion is closed as "no consensus", please be very clear as to what version "no consensus" defaults to – the version with an infobox that has been around since 2006 until recently, or the version without an infobox that has just been introduced at the start of this discussion. Some editors have taken the novel stance that something boldy added over 10 years ago is not the "default" version because there was not a consensus discussion at that time. Please note that over the 10 years when this article had an infobox, there's been a successful GA nomination and peer review, where the infobox was not brought up at all. ~ RobTalk 04:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do not hat this comment again, as one editor did for no valid reason, citing that most admins would do this anyway. That is simply not the case. When something is closed as "no consensus", admins usually have no need to specify which state is the default because (to my knowledge) no editors have ever previously argued for this novel interpretation of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. ~ RobTalk 12:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
That's not a very constructive revert: you seem to think admins don't bother to read the thread, but will just close according to their own devices, without understanding what they are on about. Of course the admin is going to do more than just close with "no consensus" or "consensus": they are, as always, going to read the whole thread and come to a decision based on the strength of the arguments . Having you begging them to close it the way you want it closed looks as desparate as the thread above about vote counting. (By the way, the disconnect between claiming I hatted the thread "for no apparent reason", then repeating the reason I gave looks a bit silly). - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I have not "begg[ed] them to close it the way [I] want it". I've asked them to specify what "no consensus" means. It's exceedingly common for an admin to read the entire thread, look at the nuance, and then close as "no consensus" with a brief description of the arguments for and against. You can pull up any ten random RfC closes as "no consensus" to confirm this, if you care to. At least half will not make specific reference to which version "no consensus" defaults to, probably more, because there's almost never a need to do so. This is an exceptional case, and so I've asked them to be detailed in their close if that happens to be the outcome. ~ RobTalk 12:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
It's fairly fucking obvious that the admins will be clear in what they mean: if they are not they can be asked for clarification, without the need for your rather one-sided suggestions of what they need to do. No point in you continuing to argue the point here: I've not reverted you, despite it being a rather pointless de-hatting you've done. - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Note to closer 2

Please ignore the arguments relating to Wikidata. Aside from the fact there is no consensus on wiki to have to provide data to it, the ability exists to edit WD directly. In the case of CZ-J (and remembering the main Arbcom infobox case instructed all to focus IB discussions on the specific article in question, not the question of IBs in general), the Wikidata entry for CZ-J already contains the required information that the IB contained (and the Google knowledge box that keeps readers from our site also contains that same set of factoids). To argue the IB is needed for WD is a straw man that can safely be put to one side without consideration. - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Our goal here is to help facilitate knowledge and information in a fair use way....we do this in hopes all (regardless of reading ability) have access to the info here on Wiki or some other place that is not here....we are not here to monopolize information or trap readers-- Moxy (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Your comment has no connection to mine at all, so I'm sorry if you misunderstood. Regardless of your misunderstanding, as I've made very clear above, this is aimed at the closing admin, not at you: if you wish to discuss whichever point you think you've read, do so in the appropriate thread above, not here. - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Lets quote you "Google knowledge box that keeps readers from our site" . You seem more concerned with monopolizing readers over disseminating information in a fair-use way. You also seem to think forcing our readers to consume information in one manner is best over giving them an option.-- Moxy (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
"punting 2 and 2 together is not your strong pointt is it?" Is there any chance you could try and be less uncivil for a change? Aside from yet another snide comment (which I begin to see is part and parcel of your discussion 'style'), perhaps you could try not to badly summarise my argument yet again to the point that you have again left an utterly misrepresentative view of my opinion. You've done this so often—and I've asked you not to so often—that my good faith on this point has evaporated entirely: you are deliberately trying to mislead others by lying about what I am saying. I am asking you, for what I hope is the final time, to not do it again. Concentrate on your own arguments, not on misleading others about mine. – SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I have been confronting you over and over again on the fundamentals of why we are here ...this is a big thing. All you keep saying is I got your POV wrong. You dont confront the POV claim with any real rebuttal. I am sorry I am not getting your POV right....but this is what I see by your comments here. So lets be blunt and to the point you believe that readers should only consume information in context (not in point form as in with the boxes) and that we should make internet readers come to our site for said information ( as in we should not let other sites use the information here)? --Moxy (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
As I've said above, this thread is for the closing admin: not you. If you want to discuss your POV it can be done in the right section. As I've also said above, and it was core in the main infobox Arbcom case, discuss the use of the IB about the specific article. What my beliefs are regarding readers to this website are not really germane to the use of the IB on this specific article and are of absolutely no benefit to the closer of this discussion. As to what use other websites make of "our" information, I have already addressed this: it is already available for them to use, in granular form, at Wikidata. – SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Why do you keep trying to control the conversation like this? collapsing etc..... I think this is one of the things that is getting people frustrated. If someone wants to comment on anything or on one of your points from your post just let them and try to reply to said points . No need to close the sections or tell us to go to some other place to respond. Just let the conversation evolve on its own we dont need anyone's help to regulate what is going on.-- Moxy (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not trying to "control" anything, and again I ask you not to try and double-guess what I am saying or doing. (You say people are getting frustrated: try having to deal with someone who misrepresents everything one says, and is heir approach). I'm going to disengage now, noting only that in a thread titled "Note to eventual closer" isn't the place to try and discuss my opinions on something that has nothing to do with 'this specific IB. – SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Listed at ANRFC[edit]

I listed this at ANRFC. With 8 supporting the infobox and 7 against by my rough count and no significant policy/guideline based arguments (at the end of the day, this is a matter of editorial taste), it's clear there was never consensus to remove this infobox. ~ RobTalk 03:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I recounted, and the sum is 14 in support and 7 against.--Light show (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Could you detail which names you're counting "for" and which "against"? I just counted the bolded stuff. ~ RobTalk 04:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
For: Krimuk, Light show, Daicaregos, Scrpiron, N-HH, Gerda Arendt, Mrjulesd, Moxy, Curly Turkey, Littleolive oil, Binksternet, Rob13, BGWhite, TonytheTiger, Fjmustak (15)
Against: Schrocat, Blofeld, Cassianto, Ssilvers, Jack1956, GoodDay, Jaguar. (7)
Note that some did not actually write "Keep" or "Oppose" but simply gave an opinion which implied their leaning. For instance, Krimuk, who removed it, did so to "relieve stress" from being hounded and was only concerned with the nationality field. --Light show (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I never voted one way or the other. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure Krimuk did either, which is why I hatted the thread: well-meaning but poor vote counting has no place somewhere an admin can make a decision withut them. Reverting to vote counting entirely undermines the point of discussion about guidelines. There have been such discussions on both sides (with stronger and weaker arguments presented and refuted or not, by both) and it is for a neutral to make the call on this, not a vote-counter who has been involved in the process. - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
On the note of collapsing yet another section; the notice that this was listed at ANRFC should remain, as per standard practice. Also, see Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, which says "Hiding redundant, outdated, or otherwise superfluous material from view ... should only be done with the original author's consent, or with good cause under policy". If you recollapse this section, please do cite what "good cause under policy" supports it. Cheers. ~ RobTalk 14:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
No, some pointless editor with an inability to count would only re-open it. Try and remember this isn't about vote counting: leave it to a bloody admin to weigh the arguments without forcing the issue one way or the other. - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@Rob13, I'm curious why the IB is not restored pending this RFC. There was never any consensus to remove it, but there was a 10-year old implied consensus to leave it in, and the current consensus agrees. There is something very strange about all this, as guidelines and common sense are no longer relevant. --Light show (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
A stable article is better then editwaring.... I have no doubt by past behavior that any addition would be reverted. Stability is something that the FA review requires.... we should not interrupt that process. As I said before there's no rush..... no content is missing.... it's just a box for a segment of our readers.--Moxy (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Correct. Some editors reverted multiple times to remove the infobox. While many editors agree this is improper, I don't care to edit-war. The closer of this RfC will take into account which version is the true stable version, I'm sure. As a side note, this discussion has already disrupted the FA process. Obviously, this cannot pass FA until this is decided. ~ RobTalk 20:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
And many editors revert multiple times to force in an idiotbox. Still, don't let the truth get in the way of this. As to the close of the FAC, this discussion will have absolutely no impact on the timing of the closure. (You obviously don't understand much about the FA process, given comments like that) – SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
It's hard to force in something that was there for ten years. ~ RobTalk 00:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course. All the fault lies with the side that opposes you. How silly of me to forget. – SchroCat (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
There are no "sides", just an encyclopedia and those who want to improve it. My comment was merely an explanation why the stable version wasn't in the article. I'm still not quite sure why you responded by calling me an idiot. ~ RobTalk 01:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a disagreement over something: of course there are two sides! That doesn't mean an absence of GF, just a different way of approaching things. I'm sorry if you can't quite see that, but never mind. – SchroCat (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2016 (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.

Changes by Light show[edit]

I've reverted the user's unilateral change of several well-sourced information in favour of poorly written fluff. This article is in the midst of an FAC review and such changes are demeaning to me, the nominator, as I've spent months trying to get the article to FA-standard. Of course the article can be improved, and that's what the FAC process is for, so comment there if you have issues with it. Removing information on how much Zeta-Jones' sex-appeal has been spoken about by commentators is horribly unfair. Discuss before you go ahead and do this. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Provide one source that focused on her "sex appeal," which was added five times throughout the article. Redundant? In any case, none of the sources you gave relating to that description used the term. In fact, they used numerous other descriptions, more precise. I also found various other descriptions and quotes with cites which were either inaccurate or clearly misrepresented, even deceptive. Suggest you pick one of my improvements and explain the problem. You need to discuss all these inaccuracies first.--Light show (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Give me specific examples. Also, in which universe is "combination of beauty, intelligence and acting quality" not fluff. Geez! This is attempting to be an FA. If you want to change something, atleast write it well. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
And again, it is your responsibility to explain what specific issues you have and talk about that at the FAC. Unilateral changes, which are poorly-written, while the article is at FAC is a disservice to the entire procedure of an FA review. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The "beauty, intelligence and acting quality" description was pulled directly from statements in various places within the body text, before you erased them and restored it with your "sex appeal" blitz. Were you aware that you were misusing cites and quotations? Did you read the rationales stated? Apparently not, or else you would have picked one and explained. The edits were there. You just mass-erased them with essentially no rationale. No editor needs your permission and approval to improve the article and correct the many defects, whoever created them. --Light show (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
If you think I'm misrepresenting information, then bring up that point at the FAC. I'm not, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Having said that, I am not an idiot and I know what you're doing here, creating a stability issue to further your own cause about infoboxes. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, if you've taken the "beauty, intelligence and acting quality" quote from a source, then you've not attributed it correctly, and that accounts for a WP:COPYVIO. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
That was not a quote when added to the article. I don't know whose edits I might have revised or fixed. I just happened to browse the article and saw some obvious problems and decided to fix them. The FAC wasn't on my mind at any time and I haven't even visited that page. But your psychic ABF comments imply you're also not aware of behavioral guidelines. --Light show (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Any decent FAC reviewer can point out that Light Show's version is far off from FA, or even GA standard. He has removed well-sourced information from The Philadelphia Inquirer and has chosen to use this as a source: "source=Entertainment writer Gayl Murphy". No kidding, that's the reference! He has also added this quote to the article: "What can you say about Catherine, except that she's a gal? She's beautiful, tough, likeable and completely charming when you meet her in person. And most of all, she can really act." and is using something called Visimag as a source. He is also using youtube vidoes from dubious publishers. How does that count as an improvement? Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
This is awful, both in terms of behaviour and in lack of standards. What on earth were you thinking Lightshow? There is no discernible improvement in there at all, and as for the added block quote... Sheesh – that's awful! – SchroCat (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Krimuk. Of the dozen or so edits I made I have no problem with discussing any pros or cons of whether they were an improvement. This is WP, where anyone can edit, recall? The videos were allowable fair use and they helped the commentary where used. If a cite got deleted by accident, fix it. If you don't like an edit or quote, explain. You do not own the article. At this point, none of your comments are rational and seem meant to start or continue an edit war, not to improve the article. Prove me wrong. Pick one of my edits and allow me and others to review and comment. Unless you say otherwise, I'll assume that all of the problems I found and corrected were added by you. P.S. SchroCat & Team is subject to my longstanding IBAN. Read any of his comments above to understand why. --Light show (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

~sigh~ more PAs? In terms of the substantive point in hand: can you explain your rationale for the addition of the block quote. What do you think it adds to the article, Lightshow? – SchroCat (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
"The videos were allowable fair use" that's a new one. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders." A YouTube link you inserted was removed at Cary Grant for that reason. And now it's back to the do it yourself Iban as it was oh, so recently. It seems what you want is to prevent any criticism-WP doesn't have a CBan. We hope (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The uploaders were professional companies that had legal rights to the clips they uploaded. This is typical of promotional clips, such as trailers. So yes, it was allowable fair use, not a copyvio. That 22-second Cary Grant clip you freaked out about and deleted as copyvio, directly supported the text describing that 22-second scene. We certainly don't want a major lawsuit.--Light show (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
@Krimuk. Now that I've visited and read some of the FAC comments, I can understand your apparent over-reaction with the mass deletion. I won't apologize since you simply reverted a dozen edits with "None of these qualify as an improvement." However, while I don't usually join FAC discussions, since this one has been ongoing, I'd be happy to itemize any of the problems I found. The quotes would probably not have been added without discussing here first. So let me know if you want me to list the issues here or there. Like I said, I started browsing the article earlier, did some checking of the cites, and discovered some glaring errors. This isn't the first bio I've worked on. --Light show (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't have an over-reaction but a perfectly reasonable response to the glaring errors you introduced into the article. As I said earlier, none of your edits helped improved the article. I don't want to be so dismissive of fellow editors' contributions, but your edit-war mentality has left me no choice. When other editors too have pointed out that your edits weren't (by any semblance of sanity) an improvement, why do you still wish to dig a deeper hole? I would rather spend my time making constructive edits to articles than have meaningless debates on talk pages. Everything that I had to say about the changes you made, I have said in my previous edit, and I refuse to repeat myself for your benefit. Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Label sex appeal[edit]

Use of the phrase is a label as is pretty or beautiful or whatever else. Source it for starters; this is a BLP. Second, as one label of many that could be applied, and if sourced, it could potentially be included in the body of article as one of many labels. Nothing I'm reading in the article and which is now sourced indicates Zeta- Jones got the roles she did in the US because she was sexy. While her looks matter, to describe an actor's work with a specific label like this does them a disservice. She's good at her craft and not because she's sexy. Sexy does't get you the kinds of jobs she has. If this were the case we could hire any so called sexy woman on the street and expect her to get top-rated movie roles which of course doesn't happen. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC))

That's ridiculous! Stop making sexy a bad word. You are doing a disservice to both men and women by this narrow-minded mentality. This statement that you seem to keen to remove is very much what the sources have to say. Look at the reviews for her performances in Mask of Zorro and Entrapment, and most reviewers talk about her sexuality in them. Her roles in her first few films did rely a lot on her sexuality. Did it end there? No!!! She went on to establish herself as an actress next, with award-winning performances. Look at the first paragraph of her elaborate nytimes interview: "ON screen Catherine Zeta-Jones has been a famous smoulderer, a one-woman heat source. When Antonio Banderas unfastens her bodice in “The Mask of Zorro” — the 1998 movie that introduced her to most Americans, including her husband,Michael Douglas — you feel he ought to be wearing oven mitts. Watching her slither in her jewel-thief cat suit in “Entrapment” (1999), Sean Connery visibly liquefies." How the bloody hell does that not make a reference to her sex appeal? So stop this nonsense. The statement you removed is thus, very much sourced. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto and SchroCat, after Light show, I believe another one of the pro-infobox crowd decided to ruin the FAC. And ironically, it's one of the same reasons about which Light show was creating a ruckus. This is getting ridiculous! Not sure how much longer I can stand these people deliberately trying to ruin it's FA chances. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Whether it has an infobox is irrelevant to the FA criteria. If someone's opposing over it or something, the coordinators will ignore it as "unactionable". The coordinators do their job well, so don't stress out about such a thing. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
My points stand. Exploding with indignation and calling another editor narrow minded, and which in my case is just silly doesn't further this conversation. What info boxes have to do with this or an FA review is beyond me. How a cmt which suggests content be sourced, that implies labels be grouped together, in the article body is mystifying. Some points: At no time do I suggest sexy is a bad word. Sexuality by the way does not mean sexy. I am suggesting that labels are narrow and should be used and grouped as such. As for continuing the conversation. Hard to do with the kind of misunderstanding and attacks going on here. (Littleolive oil (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC))
Content is sourced. Your repeated attempts to sabotage this FAC for no discernible reason is what counts as an "attack". The infobox debate seems to have stalled, so you find another reason to fight about. Horrible thing to do, really. The article was stable, and no one had a problem with these well-sourced commentaries, until your "keep-the-infobox" buddies bundled together to create a ruckus over the sex appeal tag. EVERYTHING to stop an article from being improved, eh? Shameful! Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Assumptive reasoning can lead down a road of, "what the heck are you talking about". Take a break you're seeing shadows.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC))

Not being comfortable with well-sourced media reports is not an existing FA criteria, so stop creating a ruckus over it. If you don't understand what I am talking about, I suggest you go hiking! And the shadows I might be seeing must just be of Zeta-Jones' sexy silhouette. Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Let's lay out what happened here. I disagreed with the wording in the lead and reverted once. I made a cmt here, correct procedure after a revert, and I did not revert again. I did not attack your position, or you, or anyone else. I did not know this article was under review. You are making gross assumptions about me and why I am editing which are personal attacks. Your suggestion that I go hike is an indication of ownership on your part. I suppose had I wanted to interfere with an FA review I would keep reverting. I would attack editors here rather than make a pretty simple cmt, again correct procedure after my revert, after which I intended to walk away having made my point and assuming consensus would decide on the final outcome. Instead you attacked me, you made some incorrect assumptions, and you are the one exhibiting ownership. I care about labels, they are small, narrow descriptions which tell readers very little, and they should be used as such even sourced. Don't make assumptions; you're very wrong in this case and you have created the ruckus yourself out of the cmts you've made here. (Littleolive oil (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC))

You not caring about labels is a personal position that you shouldn't shove down others' throat. As I said earlier, I am not here to please everyone. I'm in the midst of an FAC review, and I will only report on what the media says. So if you're done with your condescending attitude, I suggest you let me carry on with more important things. And FYI, it's ironic you take offense at the "hiking" comment when the first personal attack was from your side: "Take a break you're seeing shadows". Look at the previous infobox thread, when you were so dismissive of both Cassianto and SchroCat, and tried to shove down your opinion on them as well. Take some time out and analyse your behaviour before you begin condescending someone else. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
And you and your friend Light Show's ridiculous position of not knowing about the FA review is horribly flawed. You people have been commenting on this talk page for many days now, and the first thing you see when you open the talk page is the large FAC review sign at the top of this page. So please, these lies won't play with me. Unless you not believing in labels makes you virtually blind to the "FA label" and all the signs that come with it. Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
If there's one word that I hate seeing after some thin-skinned editor, who's "not here to please everyone," but after verbally thrashing multiple editors with personal attacks and bad faith accusations for trying to improve articles, it's the word "Cheers". A very contradictory word. The only other wordless thing I dislike equally is the continual silence from the lurking editors who never tell that editor to edit by the rules or leave. No reply necessary. --Light show (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Haha, sour grapes much? How many more bans do you want, Light show? Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


I have no idea why Littleolive oil is being attacked, both here and on the FAC talk page, but I suggest the attacks be removed or struck through.

Looking at the leads of articles about male actors:

  • Brad Pitt: no mention of "sex appeal." The lead says he got his start in Thelma & Louise, where he played the hitchhiker that one of the women fancied. Obviously, he had to be good-looking for that role, but he got the role because he was a good actor. It would look silly to say he made his name because he was "sexy," though I'm certain that if we searched the tabloids, we'd find sources.
  • George Clooney: no mention of it.
  • Hugh Grant: no mention of it.
  • Denzel Washington: ditto.
  • Some of the James Bonds: Roger Moore, Daniel Craig, Pierce Brosnan: ditto.
SarahSV (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Another point: the lead contains a photograph of Zeta-Jones, so we can see that she's a beautiful woman. What additional thing is being said with "sex appeal"? The way it is written, it looks as though you are saying she got those parts because someone thought she was "sexy," not because of her acting. Bear in mind that lots of your readers are women, and that point will jar for many of them.
An additional issue to consider is that the sentence flows better without "sex appeal." Compare:
"Zeta-Jones initially established herself in Hollywood with roles that highlighted her sex appeal such as in the action film The Mask of Zorro (1998) and the heist film Entrapment (1999)."
"Zeta-Jones established herself in Hollywood with roles in the action film The Mask of Zorro (1998) and the heist film Entrapment (1999)."
SarahSV (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
What's implied is also relevant: "Zeta-Jones initially established herself in Hollywood with roles that highlighted her sex appeal, not her beauty, intelligence or acting ability, in such films as ..." In any case, while I said earlier I thought "sex appeal" is OK a few times in the body, it's used six times in the article and sounds amateurish for a bio. which should clearly state her multiple star characteristics. Noting that Banderas said she had an "incredible sense of humor," is also more precise and gives color and depth to the bio.
I had a similar opinion about the overuse of the "dumb blonde" label on Marilyn Monroe's talk page per the "Infobox image" section. --Light show (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the phrase "dumb blonde" appears in Marilyn Monroe six times. SarahSV (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and it's perfectly justified, it's a label which is most strongly associated with Marilyn, as TrueHeartSusie3 and Loeba will attest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you two amazing people write her bio? I'm done. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Misleading description[edit]

As I tried to fix an out-of-context detail, but was quickly reverted with a meaningless rationale, and the misleading details were again added back by another editor, likewise with no rationale, some discussion is warranted.

The intentionally misleading statement in the article about her role in Entrapment:

"Janet Maslin of The New York Times thought that the film provided Zeta-Jones a platform to 'show off her slithery skills'..."

But source states the correct context for the statement: Z-J is

"actually preparing to dodge a cat's cradle of laser beams during a burglary rehearsal so graceful it suggests the movements of tai chi."

Reviews, New York Times Theater (December 2001). Film Reviews 1999-2000. Taylor & Francis. p. 64. ISBN 978-0-415-93696-5. 
"Truth in advertising department: ads that depict Ms. Zeta-Jones in spidery crouch fake a much lower neckline than she wears in that particular scene and give a sinister cast to what is actually a gymnastic workout. Gin is actually preparing to dodge a cat's cradle of laser beams during a burglary rehearsal so graceful it suggests the movements of tai chi. The film finds many opportunities for Ms. Zeta-Jones to show off her slithery skills in this department."

Without that true context for the description, the "slithery" phrase sounds ridiculous and adds nothing relevant. The reason I claim that the misleading details are intentional is simply because the lack of context for the description was discussed months ago, and again today, but the restorers still prefer to keep it in without any rationale. By doing so, however, their rationale may be implied. --Light show (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Tick tock, tick tock. Time is running out Light show. You continue to upload vios and leave trolling posts on pages. Your wiki career aint going to last much longer unless you stop both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Catherine Zeta-Jones, blurb subject to change by experts and the polisher, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Tabloid sources on FA?[edit]

We can't use tabloid journalism on a BLP per WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we can, when they are direct quotes. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Sigh. And where did you acquire this misconception? Please read WP:BLPSOURCES. I've suggested pulling this from running as TFA as with these sources it does not represent our best work. It will also have to be delisted from FA status, in my strongly held opinion. --John (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Have fun being such a destructive editor. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

So fucking tired of this shit!!! If none of the sources are reliable, how the fuck did this even pass FA? I can't keep having to deal with editors who go about removing stuff only because they don't like it! It's fucking ridiculous!!! And then some of them threaten to have it delisted. Well, go fucking ahead. If they can't make constructive edits and picking non-issues is their only claim to fame, then good for them! I can't possibly spend my time defending an article that has passed an extensive FAC. This place is really awful! Blindly removing things is easy. Try writing an FA for a change! Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended content
none of the sources are reliable, how the fuck did this even pass FA? ... well we agree on something at least. --Hillbillyholiday talk 07:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
How many FA's have you written? You can't even format a reference correctly. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
My formatting skills leave a lot to be desired I'm sure, but that's not the issue here, darling.. In the early 2000s Zeta-Jones was among the highest-paid actresses in Hollywood, and the highest-paid British actress in America, earning an estimated £6 million per film. This comes from the tabloid Evening Standard which cannot be used for claims regarding a persons wealth. [The Standard article does not even support the sentence you insist on keeping. Really, you should read it again: Ms Zeta-Jones...will make around £6 million per film...Hollywood sources today confirmed...However, if she falls pregnant in the next three years, she risks jeopardising the contracts" --Hillbillyholiday talk 08:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
This ere second sentence what you've reinserted (thrice): They initially dated in secret as Douglas, even though separated, was then legally married. sounds a bit gossipy and I would expect a reliable source for such a statement, preferably not a publication recently sued for invasion of privacy by the person in question. --Hillbillyholiday talk 08:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC) No featured articles, I'm afraid..
Ouch, sorry to knock you off from your pedestal, darling, but if you intend to remove information from a FA and add your version of a poorly written/horribly formatted crap, then saying that "your formatting skills leave a lot to be desired" is as big of an understatement as Zeta-Jones and Doughlas dating in secret. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Can you address the concerns listed above? --Hillbillyholiday talk 08:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no issue to address. This is like saying, oh, the source doesn't spoon-feed the information to us, so let's argue just for the sake of it. Or, oh, I don't like the source because the name doesn't appeal to me. I am a constructive editor and don't like to spend my time addressing baseless issues raised by editors who can't contribute constructively so they spend their time with destructive edits. Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
That's a "no" then is it? I may or may not be a "constructive editor", but you seem to be ignoring perfectly reasonable concerns, whilst pouring scorn over my skills, experience and motives - You're not exactly Bob the fucking Builder right now. --Hillbillyholiday talk 09:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
The problem with this source is that it is predictive. There is no confirmation that Jones ever did receive all of this amount, for the nine films planned over three years. In fact there was specific provision in the contract for if she became pregnant - which she did, twice. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please go ahead and delist it. I'm done. Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed a bad time to consider significantly reworking/delisting the article, days before it is scheduled to appear as TFA! Kailash29792 (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, all the FAC reviewers were idiots. And now we have these geniuses (all of whom have written countless FAs, no doubt) who know what's best for the article. So if they think it should be delisted, then we must listen to them. Krimuk|90 (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Please don't resort to personal attacks on other editors, just because you disagree with them. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Calling them a genius is a personal attack? Oh, the horror! Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Saying "all the FAC reviewers were idiots" just makes you seem spiteful? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Martinevans123, I think this was an attempt at sarcasm, comparing us "geniuses" at FAC with the "idiot" others on this page. Krimuk90, I think you should wind your neck in a bit; John is most certainly not an idiot, as you seem to insinuate. He is one of the good guys around here, as is Martin. Go with the flow and trust the judgement of others. I really don't see the point in turning this into one big drama. CassiantoTalk 19:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
"There was all this fuss about which articles I was and wasn't editing. I was a pretty face and a big bust and nothing else.... Maybe I'll move away and start again." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Naah, John and Martin are both "mean and spiteful and nothing else.... Maybe they should move away to something more constructive." Krimuk|90 (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
We all await better sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Naah, you await to create a fuss. Don't need no tabloid to tell me that. Krimuk|90 (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This one isn't a topic I usually edit or comment, but aren't there other sources that confirm the text disputed by John? I always favor searching a bit over the internet before we delete something. And regarding the TFA, I don't think 2 disputed references, which are already gone, should alter what is scheduled.--Retrohead (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the wonderful John was pretty clear that 2 references he didn't like were not just enough to disqualify a TFA but should also result in the article being delisted as an FA. He'll know, given all the FAs he's written. Krimuk|90 (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

(crossposted from Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Catherine Zeta-Jones by request)
Assuming this and this are the "dubious sources" in question I see no issue with either in this context. The Mirror may be lowbrow but has no history of fabricating interviews so is a reliable source for quotations given in interviews with it, while the Evening Standard back then was only a tabloid in the sense that every major newspaper in Britain with the exception of the Daily Telegraph is a tabloid; it didn't become the Russian propaganda sheet it is today until it was bought out in 2009. (The citation is erroneously given to "London Evening Standard", a title it didn't have until Lebedev renamed it in 2009, but that's a trivial matter.) The claim that earning an estimated £6 million per film is "not supported by the source" is flat-out untrue—the first sentence of the source is "Catherine Zeta-Jones has signed a nine-film deal worth £54 million", which works out at exactly £6 million per film. ‑ Iridescent 20:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you show us a source confirming that she ever received that amount, especially in view of her two subsequent pregnancies? Not that Hollywood is ever given to self-publicising hype at all. Perhaps a US source would be better? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Such a pity that people can't google search, or google search some more, but can revert all day. Krimuk|90 (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Did she make those 9 films in three years? Which were they? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
The Guardian ref explicitly states "Britain's highest-paid Hollywood actress, Catherine Zeta Jones" and "Zeta Jones made around £6m last year". But no, let's keep warring! Krimuk|90 (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
The Guardian claim of £6m in one year looks fine. Why not add it? But that's not £54m in three years, is it? Seems slightly below the predicted average? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
There was no mention of the figure £54m in the article in the first place, darling. So you better crosscheck before you conjure things up mid-air. Also, why the hell should I add it? I wasn't the one who decided to go on a bad-faith rampage. Krimuk|90 (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The cited text wasn't claiming she made all 9 films, it was claiming she was earning £6 million per film; the Guardian article says Zeta Jones can now command £5m a film rather than six, but that's likely to be owing to exchange rate wobbles. The exact sums per movie will be commercially confidential, I imagine, but remember this was the period of Chicagoand Ocean's Twelve so it sounds a plausible sum. According to this site, which is probably not an RS but I'd imagine will at least be in the ballpark, she got $8 million for Chicago and $10 million for The Legend of Zorro, and presumably similar sums for the other big blockbusters of this period. ‑ Iridescent 20:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
There might well be adequate material from sources generally considered reliable that Jones was, at one time at least, UK's highest paid actress. And even what she earned from certain films. Quite surprised to see the claim that "every major newspaper in Britain with the exception of the Daily Telegraph is a tabloid". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
"Every major newspaper in Britain with the exception of the Daily Telegraph is a tabloid" is a straightforward statement of fact, aside from the Financial Times and a couple of Scottish papers; broadsheet national newspapers are virtually extinct in Britain. If you mean red-top style journalism, the Evening Standard in the early 2000s certainly doesn't qualify; this was the pre-Lebedev era when it was a well-regarded newspaper. ‑ Iridescent 21:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I think we may be using different meanings of the word tabloid. I'm suggesting that The Guardian is a more worthy source than either the Evening Standard or (especially) the Daily Mirror. Maybe you disagree. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ~sigh~ Nothing unreliable about using a quote from a direct interview (as opposed to a tabloid using the quotes from a third-party's interview). Common sense should be used here about weighing the value of a direct quote (decent enough here) against the wording and spirit of the BLPSOURCES. In the case of the Daily Mirror info, the quote (or parts of it) were used in other sources, but they are also tabloids. The Standard certainly isn't a problem, but I'll look for something that says exactly the same info from another source. - Gavin (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Sigh back. Your opinion is noted, and I have certainly seen this opinion stated before, but it seems obvious that, on the one hand, a paper that will make up its stories will have no problem making up a quote, and on the other, that this sort of material is embarrassingly bad. Cringe-worthy garbage which should never have been allowed near an FA. I mean,

      "There was all this fuss about who I was and wasn't dating. I was a pretty face and a big bust and nothing else. People in the business believed what they read about me. So I decided to move away and start again."

    • Really? At least the second tabloid-sourced quote isn't as unencyclopedic:

Geoffrey Macnab, the editor of Sight & Sound magazine believes that she went on to establish herself as an actress by defying "skepticism from people who doubted she would succeed"; he also considers she "is an accomplished actress who has great versatility. She has been prepared to mix comedy and musicals and switch from screen to stage".

    • but does it need to be a quote? Unlike the first one, which belongs in the recycle bin, this one should be possible to find a proper source for.
    • We have WP:BLPSOURCES to protect our readers and the subjects of our articles from this sort of rubbish, and we also have Criterion 1c to screen material like this from articles we regard as being of good quality. I believe that these sources fail both; I presume that you disagree as you nominated the article for FAR in this state. That's fine to disagree but when I tagged the sources to reflect this discussion we are having about them, you should not have removed them. I believe that you are wrong but I am willing to have the discussion and achieve consensus, as long as it does not take more than a few days. Removing the tags during the discussion is not helpful to this process, in my opinion. --John (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Your opinion is noted, but if you are going to base part of your argument on Sight & Sound being a tabloid, it's not a good argument. Sight & Sound is the official monthly magazine of the British Film Institute. You also claim that I have nominated the article for FAR: presume you mean FAC? Your opinion on 1c is also noted, but when you come up with bollocks like "Cringe-worthy garbage", "embarrassingly bad", etc, I'm afraid I have little respect for the rest of your comments: you are, I'm sure, able to make your comments without running down the work of others, so at least try and treat your fellow editors with an ounce or two of respect. – Gavin (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Good correction; that was a Freudian slip, as FAC is where you sneaked this material through to get the star, and FAR is where we may end up if we need to remove it again. I am sure we will be able to come to a compromise short of that. Respect has to be earned; you could earn some here with a grown-up response to my questions about these tabloid sources. Basically, I propose to remove the first one as worthless fluff sourced to an unreliable source, and find a better source for the second one which should be paraphrased and not quoted. What is your grown-up response to this? --John (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • My "grown up response"? Telling you not to be so damned patronising for a start. FFS, John, do you have to be quite so POINTy? - Gavin (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I would imagine that the Daily Mirror gallantly re-assembled whatever Jones really said into some suitably tasty soundbite morsels that it's academically-challenged readership could enthusiastically gulp down. It certainly makes me cringe. But hey, why resort to the glossy Sight and Sound when we can use something really "popular". We're only an encyclopedia after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC) p.s. ...whatever would Sigmund have said about a pretty face and a big bust and nothing else?

Good grief... And a grown up response was looked for.... I'm out here. - Gavin (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Over-ambitious for me, I'm afraid. John can be a bit harsh, can't he. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if I've been a bit harsh, but seeing tabloids used to support dubious material on a BLP is one of my least favourite things. Never mind, onwards and upwards. I propose that the first quote has no place in a BLP, has no decent source, and should be removed. If the second quote can be attributed directly to Sight and Sound, I would be ok with that. My initial impression is that it cannot; the free archive search yielded no results, and the paid version is beyond my means. If someone has access to that or to old magazines, and can verify the material, I would have no objection to including it. If on the other hand this material only exists in the Daily Express and (currently) on Wikipedia, then I don't think we could keep it. Schrocat, thank you for upgrading the source and removing the false claim and thanks also to Hillbilly for spotting that, which I missed. It was remarkable to get a BLP through FAC with three such glitches, and I think the review process has failed us here. Never mind, onwards and upwards as I say. --John (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Been a bit difficult to keep track of this conversation from the other side of the world; when I woke up yesterday and came to it via the note at WT:TFA, I thought I saw resolution, clearly not. John if you feel the review process has failed us here, you know I've always encouraged your participation at FAC so perhaps you should try and weigh in at the BLPs more if possible. That said, has anyone thought to involve Nikki, source reviewer for the last FAC? Or Sarastro, who was involved in reviewing sources in the first FAC? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hear, hear. We should not be trying the FAC process again, even when we individually disagree with elements of its outcome. Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I reviewed the first FAC, which if I'm being honest turned into a bit of a car-crash. (I noticed the 2nd one, but never really got a chance to comment) My biggest concern was with the use of tabloid sources, and the nominator removed most of them but left a few interview quotes (and if memory serves, one other which I was less happy with, but I have no idea if that source was ever removed, and the whole thing went very pear-shaped shortly after, on many grounds). My general view was, and is, that we should be fine to directly quote a tabloid interview specifically done for that publication. I suspect that if the Mirror drastically mis-represented a direct quotation, the lawyers of any star would be onto it in a shot, and I don't think there is any danger of outright fabrication. But... I agree with John that if a better source has the same quote, that is far preferable. On the first quote, while I think that there is nothing technically wrong with using it, I can agree that "I was a pretty face and a big bust and nothing else" is not ideal, and it is the kind of thing that could be re-worded or have it's emphasis changed by a tabloid. Nor am I keen, for similar reasons, on the quote from the Mirror sourced to the BBC: "I drink, I swear, I like sex". Again, nothing technically wrong, and from a good source in the BBC, but are these really important enough quotations to include? Do such quotations from so long ago (in a very particular type of tabloid culture) need regurgitation? My view is no, but I wouldn't insist on removal. But I think it would be helpful if we didn't take things too personally, threaten to take our bats home or start throwing insults around. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I stand by my point that the system failed here in letting through an article with poor sources and false information. It may be better for now though if we concentrate on improving the article. In that vein I have removed the tits quote sourced to the Mirror and tagged the supposed Sight and Sound quote as needing a better source. The other error has already been corrected. We are getting there.--John (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree with that, and I've taken out the BBC sex quote as well. Anyone can put it back, I won't edit war, but I'd appreciate some discussion here afterwards. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
That's a good cut. I am also unhappy with They initially dated in secret as Douglas, even though separated, was then legally married. sourced only to Hello! magazine. The trouble with stuff like this is that, while we can argue on various philosophical interpretations of what we think WP:BLPSOURCES means, anything we allow that came from tabloid journalism will give us language and factoids with that slightly prurient flavour. "Dated in secret", "legally married"; does this fit in with "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard"? Not even slightly, I would submit. And that's why that was a good cut, and so would the one I propose be. And I only just noticed that User:Hillbillyholiday previously removed this and it was restored. Anybody got a better source and better language for this? --John (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I've removed this meantime. On a BLP the presumption should be against such material. --John (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Another two examples of tabloid-speak were "Dismayed by being typecast" and "Struggling with depression" which I removed here. In British English we say "into hospital", not "into the hospital". Sorry to bang on, but these infelicities along with the more serious sourcing and language problems discussed above should have been picked up in a properly conducted review. --John (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Aren't we all glad that you've picked them up and are shoving your superiority down the throats of every writer, reviewer and coordinator of the FAC? What a charming personality you possess! Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm certainly grateful for John's contributions. A fresh pair of eyes is often useful. Maybe you need to take a few days away from this discussion, Krimuk? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
You many be grateful, but many others are not. Also, I'm not sure why you're repeatedly coming in as John's mouthpiece. I'm sure he can be awfully mean without your help. Krimuk|90 (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm nobody's mouthpiece, thanks. I'm not sure you're helping your cause here by just slinging insults around. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
My only "cause" is to not see a well-written article be butchered by some venom spouting novice. And I'm not the only one who feels this way, so please go easy on painting me as the offender. Krimuk|90 (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Krimuk90, this is a collaborative project. When we submit work here, we explicitly release it for editing and criticism by others. If you are (temporarily?) unable to contribute in this spirit, you may want to take some time away as Martin suggests. Please take this as a polite warning that if you continue to insult others, your behaviour is likely to face wider scrutiny. --John (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Krimuk90, I think your personal attacks are getting out of hand here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm filing an ANI report against the both of you! Enough is enough. You can't keep getting away with this. Krimuk|90 (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
?? What is it I'm "getting away with", exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
With the threats and the ganging up with a friend to intimidate me. Krimuk|90 (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
"the threats"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I will repeat yet again my apology for any hurt feelings regarding this matter. I now regard the current version as being BLP-compliant and FA-worthy. Thanks for all the collegial discussion and the helpful edits. --John (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Authorised biographies[edit]

Partly prompted by the above, has anyone considered that featured articles on BLP celebrities are usually best done (maybe only done) when an authorised biography exists? As far as I can see, no book-length source exists for the subject of this article, apart from the unauthorised biography from 2003 where publication was "indefinitely postponed after her lawyers threatened legal action". I don't think it would be unreasonable to oppose any BLP FAC on principle where no book-length source exists. Putting together a BLP article from various profiles and articles veers dangerously close to original synthesis and aggregation to create a new type of work that has not existed before. It made me wonder whether the above-mentioned lawyers would consider this article an unauthorised biography? I am not saying people should be put off by that, but it would make me think twice. The other thing about the work involved in making the final push to featured status for a BLP, and where where no authorised biography exists, is that the article will need constant updating (like any BLP) and in addition will need to be rewritten if any biography is published. It seems like it would be more efficient to take such articles as far as they can go, and then just be patient and wait for biographies to be published (or obituaries if no biography is ever written in the lifetime of the subject of the article). Carcharoth (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Not an unreasonable suggestion. But you'd need to seek agreement for such a change at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, presumably by means of a standard RfC? I'm pretty sure Jones's lawyers have better things to do than to read Wikipedia articles about her (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC) If you have only basic reading skills, you could always try this one.
Heh. A search of Wikipedia for "Livewire Real Lives" reveals that one of their books is suggested as further reading on Laurie Daley, and one of their books is in Bibliography of works on Madonna (though the entry for that book in that list leaves a lot to be desired. *sigh* On the general case, yeah, I know I'd need to propose it at FAC (the quality and type of sources used should roughly match the progression through the assessment classes), but it is germane to this article as hopefully the editors that work on this article will know if any book-length sources exist. Presumably the lawyers were also unconcerned about this (Catherine Zeta-Jones Unauthorized & Uncensored, 2014, Kindle ebook - "30 pages"). Oh wait, is that a republication of Wikipedia content? This definitely is: Catherine Zeta-Jones 178 Success Facts. *double sigh* Carcharoth (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Very germane, I'm sure. But the problem here might be that all those folks who have worked so hard to bring this to FA status would feel a bit hard done by if the "rules" were suddenly changed at the last minute? We wouldn't want to see anyone "get their panties in a bunch", for instance, would we? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Their panties are already in a bunch because of people like you. Nothing worse that you can do other than driving constructive contributors away altogether, and then the lot of you can bicker about unconstructive policies all day while no one actually writes an article. Krimuk|90 (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the balanced and positive input there. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I've learned the trick for "balanced and positive input" from inspirational figures such as you. So thank you. Krimuk|90 (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems my plan has worked! Bwahahahaaaa....!! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
What worked was the "pretty face and a big bust and nothing else". Krimuk|90 (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There may be something in Carcharoth's idea, but I doubt this is the place for that discussion. I have wondered for some time if a BLP article really can be a FA, but more for the reason that it requires constant updating, and if the primary editors disappear or move onto other areas, there is no guarantee that the updates are of the required standard, or even that they will be done at all. If Ms Zeta-Jones, or any similar actor, works for another ten years, what are the chances of ten years of high quality updates? In sport, the situation can be even worse. But I like the idea of requiring a biography for BLP as it ties into some similar worries I've had at other articles about selection of reviews and media commentary. But that is a conversation for elsewhere. (And again, it would help if these conversations could take place without back-and-forth insults, and without umbrage being taken) Sarastro1 (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Those are very fair points. Sport can be problematic, but at least it mostly escapes the Hollywood-Hello-Magazine-hype that film=stars seem to constantly attract? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Try reading a cricket biography. Harbhajan Singh was a FA until very recently. It isn't any more. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah right, maybe not, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sarastro1, I agree with you. There's only one way to ensure that someone who has written an FA stays around to provide it with high-quality updates. And that's by treating them with some bloody respect. With the way John and Martin treat the ones who actually do the constructive editing out here. you will not have many of us left around. And whose loss will that be? Krimuk|90 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Also pinging Ian Rose, SchroCat and Cassianto who have contributed to this discussion. I lead a comfortable life. So why should I spend hours and hours of my precious time to write something only to have some random person can come in a year later and piss all over it? And say outrageous things such as, the article should be delisted immediately and that it should not feature on the main page days before it's scheduled to? And for what, a minor squabble over two sources that may or may not be "ideal", that has strong arguments both for and against. So honestly tell me, why should I put myself through this again? Why should I contribute to another FA ever again when editors like John get away with being termed a "tad harsh" for doing so much harm? Krimuk|90 (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps. It's not just for these reasons that people leave, though. Sometimes, they just drift away. But, with respect, I'm not sure that taking things so personally and throwing insults around is going to help matters proceed in a constructive manner. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
So the idea is to not improve articles in the present only for the fear that they may not be as good in the future? That's a strange philosophy, isn't it? Also, yes, people do drift away without much cause, sure they do, but there are many who drift away for reasons I previously highlighted. Easy to not take things personally when one is not directly affected, but when you try walking in someone else's shoes, you'll see that it isn't as simple as that. And finally, had I been the only one trading insults, I would have been blocked a long time back. There were other parties who are as guilty as I am, so I shouldn't be the only one taking the heat for it. Krimuk|90 (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I've taken some of this to your talk page, let's try and keep this on the article. My "strange philosophy" isn't that we shouldn't work on BLPs, but that there are arguments that they cannot be stable long-term, and stability is a FA criterion. Carcharoth's point about a biography would address that somewhat, but there is no biography of Ms Zeta-Jones. But I am NOT saying that this article should not be a FA, just that this is something worth bearing in mind and a discussion worth having, possibly elsewhere. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Ms Katherine Hepburn's biography became an FA long after biographies were published on her and those around her. There were still massive stability issues, regarding her sexual orientation and relationship with Mr. Tracy. All I'm saying is, the answer to stability on BLPs isn't so black and white. Issues will always be raised by some, no matter how many biographies have been published on a person. Krimuk|90 (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Very true. There are no easy answers. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There's some discussion about this over at WT:TFA#Catherine Zeta-Jones. - Dank (push to talk) 21:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Article improvement tags[edit]

When I added tags to this article, I justified them in talk. User:Krimuk90, do you intend to justify your addition likewise? --John (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I've removed this tag pending an explanation. --John (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Treboeth or Mumbles?[edit]

I noticed this source, which says this:

"Former Evening Post journalist Jill Forwood, who edited the work, said: “Mumbles really has claimed Catherine Zeta Jones but she moved away when she was 12; she is originally from Treboeth."

It even names Cwmgelli Close. And it seems she's not alone in being misplaced: Joanna Page and Swansea Jack likewise? I guess Jones' lawyers haven't yet caught up with the Treboeth Local History Society, but it looks quite convincing to me. [5] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Might be worth a mention. --John (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we currently have the footnote saying "Certain sources claim that Zeta-Jones was raised in Treboeth." Provided that book is accepted as WP:RS this could be resolved by explaining that "Jones was brought up until the age of 12 in Treboeth, when the family moved to Mumbles", or something similar. I'm surprised that we just have "Swansea" as her place of birth and that no-one has found a source for her actual place of birth within Swansea (presumably Cwmgelli Close): [6] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catherine Zeta-Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catherine Zeta-Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Zorro etc.[edit]

Does anyone know why there's an acute accent on Eléna ? Paul Magnussen (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Paul Magnussen it could be a Hypercorrection by the film's producers (another common one is the use of Isabella as a Hispanic name, when it is Isabel). It doesn't feature on any of the cited references (The NYT ref doesn't even name the character). IMDB are usually very rigid with names from credits. Their page about the character doesn't use accents in the title, but several sub-pages do. This trivial matter is indeed very confusing Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
As English-language references usually omit all accent marks, the one true reference would be the film's credits, which I cannot access. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Suspect a well-meaning added accent to show syllable emphasis for English speakers, completely superfluous in Spanish as that is where it would lie under normal rules. In English the name in its various forms (Ellen, Eleanor, Helen, Helena etc) tends to stress the first syllable. Introduced by a person anonymous and occasionally copied. That's my OR for the day. Davidships (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


It would be helpful to identify when CZJ added the hyphen (looks like early 2000s from a cursory scan of references) and whether this is just a stage name or was a real change to her surname at the time. Davidships (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The reliable sources do not clarify the point, from what I remember. - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Same here. I think it used to appear in the article. The note is sourced to that Daily Telegraph article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The D Tel article just says "The hyphen arrived later and was the first of many self-reinventions", so not much help in dating the change. - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
This source suggests at least from 1999. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. DTel doesn't say much, does it: the hyphen arrived later.... than her birth! Seems like something that emerged in late-1990s, looking at some of the original film posters (hyphen-less on The Phantom (1996 film) and, as you note, with one in 1998 for The Mask of Zorro). The Stage is online for that period, but could find nothing specific. A RS will probably only arrive in an eventual proper biography. Davidships (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)