Talk:Rod Steiger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleRod Steiger 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 24, 2015Good article nomineeListed
September 8, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
October 4, 2015Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Anti-infobox fetish[edit]

Some people, like me, read slower and we really like the summary information at a glance provided by the Infobox. It offers superior functionality under certain circumstances that are quite common. The arguments against the Infobox, here and elsewhere, are made by editors who simply have their own style preference (it's a fetish, really) against the Infobox, and those editors have successfully gamed the Wikipedia governance system to get their way. This is too bad, because as a reader, I find the Infobox to be very, very helpful. 73.73.162.232 (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe you need to read these discussions [1][2][3]. -- Frankie talk 18:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I've found this to be something I'd liken to a fetish as well, and an utterly stupid one at that. It only occurs with some articles, where particular groups of editors unanimously decide infoboxes are tacky or pointless, which there simply is no grounding for. The argument seems to be that they are "not necessary" or there is some aesthetic aversion to them. The fact is that the majority of casual readers on Wikipedia are appreciate of infoboxes for vital details. The editors who have decided this are doing it purely for themselves, and not for the general readership. --Drown Soda (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Gratuitous essay and extraneous commentary[edit]

I removed an unnecessary essay about details during HUAC hearings which do not mention Steiger. That lengthy 200-word commentary is gratuitous since a cited sentence already covers the key facts relevant to Steiger: "In a 1999 interview with BBC News, Steiger said he probably would not have done On the Waterfront if he had known at the time that Kazan provided the House Un-American Activities Committee with names of performers suspected of being Communists." The article should not be used to incorporate only slightly related commentary since every other fact in the article could also warrant such essays. --Light show (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review "I would give whatever info you have for the benefit of readers who know who Kazam is and why he was/is controversial." If you had been involved with the article aside from the infobox question and questionable photos, you would have known why this was there. Why not tend some of your quote farms? We hope (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Per my right to avoid interacting with you from here on, please respect this Interaction ban, and avoid commenting on anything I write. Your irrepressible snideness and hounding is not welcome. Thank you. --Light show (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Until now, this from last August is the last time there was any interaction. Go to AN and see if you can get an Iban on that basis. You're not the only one able to voice an opinion. We hope (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Added to the first comment, now that another extraneous note was restored, that material is also off-topic and a gratuitous digression into degrading the article with trivia. The sentence in the article already states, "Steiger played an obnoxious film tycoon, loosely based on Columbia boss Harry Cohn." The note is unnecessary and further clutters the article. --Light show (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rod Steiger. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)