Talk:Ian Fleming

'Fleming's Sketch'

Ian Fleming did not, of course, draw that sketch of James Bond. He wasn't an artist. He commissioned an artist, whose name seems to be lost, to do that drawing in 1958 when the Daily Express was planning its comic-strip adaptations of the novels. See Colin Woodhead (ed.), Dressed to Kill: James Bond, the Suited Hero (Flammarion, Paris & New York, 1996, ISBN 2-08013-618-6), p.79:- 'During the planning of the Daily Express cartoon strip, Ian Fleming commissioned his own artist's impression of James Bond as a guide to how he saw his hero. The cartoon strip artist, John McLusky, felt it was far too 'pre-war' in spirit and gave his own Bond a much more aggressively masculine look.' According to the book's picture credits, p.200, the drawing remains in the Express archives. No disrespect to Commander Fleming, but the article should not attribute to him an artistic talent which he did not have and never claimed. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree. If he himself did not draw the picture there’s no reason why he should be credited for it. Cj7557 (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Fleming and Dieppe

Yes, Fleming was an observer at Dieppe. No, there was no pinch raid launched. 30 AU did not exist until more than a month later. The current “evidence” regarding the raid suffers a gross lack of hard evidence to back up its erroneous suppositions, and evidence of a complete other unit being embarked (even a “secret” one, as the files are open now) would be easily found. Enderwigginau (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Firstly we reflect the reliable sources;

The official formation was in September, but they were active before the official rubber stamp;

If you want to question this, you have to bring sources to the table. You can’t post “definitive” statements without proof that counter what the sources say. You may well be right, and the sources have made errors, but without sources to counter this, we continue to reflect what has been published. - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

No, you reflect unreliable sources because that’s what you want to believe.

30AU was in minor formation and training prior to it's official raising date.

This has been discussed heavily on the Dieppe Raid page, and I suggest you go and have a read before relying on a single, unreliable source for an event that never occurred. Enderwigginau (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop edit warring please.

If you are so sure of your ground, it has to be based in sources: please provide them here. - SchroCat (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop ignoring the fact that the event never happened. That paragraph event has a link to the Dieppe Raid article, which I’ve worked on for many years, yet you can’t even take two seconds to go and check it as suggested. Enderwigginau (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not “possible”, because they did not exist, and your source has never been able to provide any proof/sources that show anything more than Fleming being present. This is an article about Fleming, not 30AU. Enderwigginau (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop with the bad faith. I looked at the thread from a few years ago, so don’t tell me what I have and have not done please. The Very long and rather tedious thread From a couple of years ago doesn’t mention any sources that refute what we have. As I said right at the top, you may be right on this, but you need to provide sources to counter what appears in other sources. - SchroCat (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The “bad faith” is relying on a source that is known to be incorrect. Enderwigginau (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

So far (aside from using personal attacks twice), all I see is you stating blankly that something didn’t happen, but providing nothing to back that up. Can you leave aside the slurs against me and show sources that back up what you are saying please? If not, then I think we’re done here. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

If suggesting that your professional editing skills are lacking because you cannot simple click a link in the article you are so fond of to confirm that I am correct, I hardly see that as a slur.

As per below:-

No 30 Commando was not formed until a month after the raid and indications of involvement may be erroneous.

An article that ran in Britain at War Magazine in August 2017 provided an alternative view. In that issue, Professor of Naval History, Eric Grove, explained that the 'Enigma Pinch' is "more a reflection of the contemporary fascination with secret intelligence rather than the reality of 1942." Obtaining useful intelligence was among the objectives - including the capture of a four-rotor Enigma cipher machine but it was one of many objectives. Grove concludes that the Dieppe Raid was not, as claimed, cover for a ‘snatch’ and also recognizes that the decision to form the Intelligence Assault Units to gather intelligence material was not made until after Operation Jubilee had been ordered.

Enderwigginau (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Infobox

Why does this article lack an infobox? Is it because it is a Featured Article?

Would anyone mind if I added one? Someone Not Awful (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Search for "infobox" in the archives. Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Dismissive claims of WP:PRIOR and WP:DISCUSSED don't add anything here. ~ HAL333 17:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Terrible choice. I don't understand whatsoever some Wikipedians' obsession with keeping infoboxes out of the pages of "high-class" people such as composers, authors etc. It just serves the purpose of limiting information. I usually look at the infobox to find out 1. place of birth and 2. how old they were when they died. Infoboxes are convenient. They're useful. And literally zero purpose to not have one besides the preferences of a few incredibly snobbish editors. Kingofthedead (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no good reason not to have an infobox same as most other articles. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, there should be an infobox. Very valuable to readers.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• There should absolutely be an infobox. They do NOT clutter the page or discourage others from editing the article. They provide quick and easy access to information that's a little harder to find in the article itself (though this doesn't mean they discourage readers from reading the lead) and even if a few others don't like them, they ARE useful to millions of others. Songwaters (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Songwaters, Infoboxes are very useful for easily locating the article's basic data. Dimadick (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Should there be an infobox?

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.

---

Should this article have an infobox? Songwaters (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Support as proposer. The infobox is not unnecessary clutter that discourages people from editing or reading the article. It's simply a biographical backbone and a quick and easy place to look for basic information that's harder to find in the article itself. Most viewers do find them valuable and the inclusion of an infobox would benefit them; just because a few others just don't like them doesn't mean others can't find them useful. And just because this conversation has happened before doesn't mean it can't happen again when a good number of viewers and editors find infoboxes to be beneficial. @HAL333, SonOfThornhill, Clear Looking Glass, Cooltrainer Hugh, Donaldd23, Velvet-twenties, The One I Left, MiguelMunoz, Johnuniq, Jojhutton, Materialscientist, Nikkimaria, Someone Not Awful, Kingofthedead, Enderwigginau, Timtempleton, Khamba Tendal, Jaguar, Grosseteste, Dimadick, OwlCityzen, Newone, The Image Editor, Ian Rose, and Ian Dalziel: you are invited to weigh in. Songwaters (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Can I ask why these particular editors were pinged? Looking through the archives at the previous discussions, I see others took part who disagreed with the inclusion, but have not been pinged. I note the same thing happened with the recent Cary Grant infobox RfC. 213.205.194.6 (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Most of these editors were chosen from the revision history of the page as well as the archives. Cassianto and Sagaciousphil were not pinged because they seemed to be retired (I didn't realize Cassianto changed their name to Renamed user b9ba6bd682d1ee91a83a175ba10c82ad). I originally pinged SchroCat, but removed them when I learned they were retired as well. I also missed Ritchie333, which was a total accident. I didn't intentionally pick and choose editors to skew the vote. Songwaters (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Songwaters, Cassiano has left the project and courtesy vanished. SchroCat attempted to do the same but was caught socking, so their vanishing was reverted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Support for the reasons listed above. Velvet (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Support For all the reasons listed above, I concur with Velvet, and Songwaters.The One I Left (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - I seem to be in a minority on Wikipedia in that I don't have a strong opinion about infoboxes. However, I was (Summoned by bot) here. Generally speaking, I tend to defer to the primary contributors of an article when it comes to elements like infoboxes. Not because they WP:OWN it but because they are very familiar with the article, sourcing, and what kinds of information can/should be presented. The primary contributor to this article, SchroCat, is retired, but has, I believe, made his opposition to an infobox well known. Absent a consensus to include infoboxes on all pages like this one, arguments along the lines of "infoboxes are good in general" are unpersuasive given WP:INFOBOXUSE (i.e. current consensus against standardization across articles). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Support I feel infoboxes are a particularly useful way to include basic data. Dimadick (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose "And then they came for Fleming..." I find this recent systemic purge of non-infobox articles to be concerning. I only oppose the inclusion of infoboxes when they add no particular value to the article, as was the case with Grant and Sinatra etc. I would encourage those to take a step back and look at the recent infobox on Cary Grant to see if the inclusion of those normative factoids are worthy of the malaise that coincides with these recycled disputes. I also feel it is disrespectful to the wishes of the original writers. ♦ jaguar 09:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons listed above by the proposer. An infobox is a quick and easy way to find relevant information without searching through an article. You can find age of death, where born/died, years active, etc. It isn't a blight on the page to have one, it's on the right hand side and doesn't interfere with the visuals of the article. And, on the app, it is collapsed so that it doesn't get in the way.Donaldd23 (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Most people do not come to Wikipedia looking to undertake lengthy research, delving through all source material to find basic information. Put simply Wikipedia should be straightforward and accessible at the point of use, and an infobox is a simple way to make this article far more conducive to the sort of basic research most people will be looking to do, particularly for such a well known figure as Ian Fleming. To summarise I only see benefits to the addition of info boxes and fail to see how they take anything away from articles, leaving the body of the text the same and available for those who are interested in doing further research in the subject matter.Grosseteste (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose since in this particular case it does a poor job of reflecting what is actually significant about the subject, and per Rhododendrites. Also a reminder to all that general arguments not specific to this article do not carry weight in such discussions; ditto arguments based on what other articles do. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I really see no reason not to have an infobox like many other articles. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

↑ An excellent example of an invalid argument. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Not invalid at all. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Summoned by ping, due to my history with this issue. To counter the argument above, infoboxes are useful for busy people, and those who spent a large part of their Wikipedia engagement editing this article are not the intended audience. The infobox was originally there, and the consensus was to keep it before it was collapsed and then removed with no edit summary. I pointed out this anti-consensus behavior, with diffs, and you can see how that went as well as the original opposition from a group displaying WP:OWN behavior to the newcomers who disagreed with them. Talk:Ian_Fleming/Archive_5#Oh_no_-_not_the_infobox_debate_again! If you have an hour, you can read the original discussion which resulted in a keep consensus for the infobox. Talk:Ian_Fleming/Archive_1#Infobox But some people didn't like that consensus and eventually removed the infobox, and claimed that their preference was actually the consensus. I've been editing for over ten years and this was the most unpleasant group I ever encountered. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per opposers (further reasoning below). Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support There is a precedent in usage for infoboxes on similar articles (e.g. Tom Clancy, Robert Ludlum, Douglas Adams etc.). What makes Fleming any different? It looks better without it" or "we already talked about this" are not valid arguments. An infobox on this article would benefit the reader, making information easier to access at a glance. It would include content not currently present in the lede, such as a more extensive display of his WWII military service. ~ HAL333 19:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I should preface this by saying that I'm a die-hard Wikipedia user, but it's interesting to note that Britannica uses an infobox for their Ian Fleming article. ~ HAL333 21:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• • I mean, to be fair that operates under the assumption that the default is infobox and an absence needs to be explained within the context of that subject, but we could also ask "what makes Tom Clancy and Douglas Adams different from Ian Fleming and the others that don't have infoboxes?" as a reason to remove those infoboxes. I'm not saying we should; it's just there's no default (unless something has changed and I'm unaware). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The precedent in usage link gives many examples, but is careful to avoid saying anything about infoboxes. That the infobox might include "a more extensive display of his WWII military service" - translate as "include a load of factoid clutter of low importance" - is probably true, but a very good reason not to have one. Most infoboxes are in fact much too long to make "information easier to access at a glance", and give too many unimportant facty facts, and too little important information on what makes the subject important, which is what a good lede does. Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that's right. An I-B is excellent for sportspeople, politicians et al - career stats, posts held etc. But for creative artists they don't - can't - list the most important thing about him or her: paintings, novels, plays etc. Look at the I-B chez William Shakespeare: it tells us he was a playwright,poet, actor - hardly a revelation to anyone looking for useful info in the I-B, and tells us where he is buried and the names of his children, but not a mention of King Lear, The Tempest, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet etc. But we can't list all his plays: that would be a wild excess of data for the unfortunate reader. An I-B is simply not helpful to our readers for writers et al. Tim riley talk 22:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is in arts subjects that this is especially a problem - I'll refer the reader to my Standard Rant. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - per the very good arguments from Jaguar, Nikkimaria, and others. 2A02:C7F:76D6:600:F9EB:B18F:3930:A260 (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - concurring with the very sound reasoning of Jaguar, Nikkimaria et al. Tim riley talk 22:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - an infobox will contain nothing that can't be found in a well=written lead. They are irrelevant in listing the achievements of authors and actors, etc. Jack1956 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for the many excellent reasons cited above Dreamspy (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support And for one reason and one reason only. Readers find them useful. That's it. Wikipedia was built for the readers and not for editors who want people to read their excellently written prose. Anything that makes an article more useful to the masses should be included in the article. If someone finds an infobox useful, then it should be included. All other arguments for not having one are invalid.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: While I fully agree that Wikipedia should put its readers before its editors, and that an infobox is useful for millions of many, many readers, let's not be so dismissive of those who may disagree, OK? Songwaters (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Your evidence that "millions of readers" find an info-box useful? Have you asked them? Sounds like a claim from the Trump manual of evidence: "if I say it, it must be true". Can we stick to verifiable facts, please? 14:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tim riley: In the many years of conversing on talk pages, I have never seen a more disgusting and innapropriate comment as the one you just made. I would advice you to strike this comment and apologize to @Songwaters: for trying use politics as a way to demean and shame others into getting you way. Do you really need to be reminded of WP:CIVIL. I have a right mind to open an ANI on this comment alone. There is literally no need for this rudeness.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Good gracious me! No need to get excited. I am merely pointing out that in WP we require statements to be backed up by facts rather than conjured out of thin air. If you can show me the evidence that an info-box will be useful to "millions of readers" I will gladly concede the point. Tim riley talk 19:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tim riley: For starters, whhile I stand by my point that the many of us who find infoboxes useful justify their use, I do apologize for a poor choice of words that made it look like I knew exactly how many people like infoboxes; I don't. But I also think it's a bit insulting to compare me to Trump; a bad choice of words does not mean I have a superiority complex or a sense of omniscience. Nevertheless, @Jojhutton: I don't think an ANI report is appropriate in this instance. Just leave this to me and Tim. Songwaters (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Well that's not all you did. You also violated WP:BLP by denegrating a living former president. That is also unacceptable. As to asking for evidence to the statment that millions find the infobox useful, well thats like trying to prove a negative. We can assume that that millions find them useful as we can assume that millions might find them useless. The English wikipedia gets over 90 BILLION page views a year. By just looking at this discussion, we can assume that at least half of those page views are from people who find infoboxes useful. So I'm not sure why you want to contnue down this rabbit hole. Just accept that people might disagree with you and move on. No need for all the personal attacks.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a bit much Joj. That along with saying "All other arguments for not having one are invalid". ♦ jaguar 19:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's not assume anything about the readership - I could just as easily assume that millions of readers don't like infoboxes based on the same evidence. Jack1956 (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize 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 in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper 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 vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract 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) 02:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ssilvers:

(1) There is literally nothing in the infobox that would be out-of-context or unimportant.

(2) No it wouldn't be. The infobox is simply a convenient box of information for readers who want to read that information—such as age, place of birth, or years active—faster than they can in the text of the article.

(3) No it wouldn't. The lead is still going to exist and be easy to read.

(4) The lead section is just as prone to vandalism as the infobox, but I think we can agree that leads shouldn't be done away with just because of that. As for fancruft and arguments about what to include, simply because a handful of editors can't agree on what should be in an infobox doesn't mean we should burn the whole thing down and ruin the experience for all readers. We should put the readers—many of whom find infoboxes useful—before the editors.

(5) How does it discourage anything? Editors can just scroll down to the section they want to edit and click [edit source] or, better yet, they can simply use CTRL+F to find the part of the article they want to edit.

(6) No it doesn't; I addressed this at the top of the RfC. And even if it did, a good number of people who read Wikipedia aren't there to exhaustively read; in fact, no one should use Wikipedia as a reliable source for a research paper or anything else. Many of us just come to pages like these to get a quick look at the basics of who someone is, just like the "In a nutshell" templates. The infobox serves those readers very well. And for those who do want to read the full article, there is nothing the infobox can do to stop them.

(7) This is simply false. On any page, only a handful of edits relate to the infobox.

Songwaters (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Why do you ping me? I made my points, and you dismissed them. You don't need me to just state that you are totally wrong and restate my arguments again, do you? I don't understand all this pinging. -- 04:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

But none of the points raised in the preceding contribution address the fact, explained above by experienced writers of Featured Articles on creative artists (books, paintings, plays etc), that the important facts about a writer, painter etc cannot be summarised in an info-box. The names of their children and places of burial are peripheral, to put it mildly, and prominently presenting such minor info in an info-box while not listing their creations (which is clearly impracticable) is unhelpful to readers and makes Wikipedia look incompetent, which is a pity. Tim riley talk 18:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said we couldn't list Fleming's works in the infobox. We could simply list James Bond (not every single book), The Diamond Smugglers, and Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang. I sincerely believe that if we can mention these, then we can adequately summarize Fleming's career in a box. Songwaters (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, you cannot adequately summarize Fleming's career in a box; all a box can do is oversimplify and mislead. You can summarize Fleming's career in English in the Lead section of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure you could summarize it in any language, honestly. But you're right, English is what we'd use in the infobox. Parabolist (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• mild oppose (invited by the bot) Info boxes should confine themselves to absolutely clear-cut undisputed info. Anything beyond that is inherently problematic for the inherently brief statements of an info box. If you follow that for this topic you come down to a poor representation of the topic. "Mild" is because maybe this decision should be left to the main workers at the article. North8000 (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Those of us who are impatient and want to get our information quickly appreciate the brevity of an infobox. Those who say we can't represent something effectively with a short infobox should consider that the same argument could be made to remove the lead section altogether. It's all in the eye of the beholder. It may not be for everyone, but it's helpful for many - and it doesn't detract from the article by having one. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • To the closing admin: This user has already !voted in support of the infobox earlier in the discussion. Please do not double count this !vote. 109.249.185.69 (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment - I marked my response as a comment - it's not a second vote. If someone is going to move and collapse my rebuttal, please also collapse the unfounded charge. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support for many of the reasons given above. Andromadist (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Side discussion

I marked this as a comment - it's not a vote. And I'm not sure why you put an arbcom notice on my talk page. Isn't that harassment? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC) No. It’s to alert you to the required standards of discussion. Your first comment is entirely uncivil and falls dismal short of CIVIL, and is about not getting your own way, rather than any constructive comments about an infobox on this article. 109.249.185.54 (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC) I received the same exact notice from an anonomous ip. Most likely the same exact person. These notices also were left on talk pages of editors who have showed support for the inclusion of an infobox, and not the other way around. Clearly an attempt to harrass.--JOJ Hutton 14:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Incorrect on both counts. 2A01:4C8:413:1F92:84F2:676D:1A35:2D4F (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Really rather unnecessary behaviour and I would agree that it borders on harassment, although it is largely representative of previous behaviour I have seen from the anti infobox cult. Interesting that you have decided to make these edits and comments whilst not signed into an account. Grosseteste (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC) I’ve left you a notice as well, not as harassment (which, of course, it isn’t), but if you can’t be civil in your dealings with others, you’ll soon face the consequences. Calling people who hold an opposing viewpoint a cult is uncivil: please don’t do it again. I don’t have an account any more. I used to have one, but have not had access to it for well over a year; I am entitled to edit as an IP and to point out breaches of WP:CIVIL when they occur. Feel free to leave similar notifications on the talk pages of anyone you think has breached WP:CIVIL in this discussion. 213.205.194.93 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC) The use of the term cult was probably inappropriate, although under the circumstances a better description was found wanting at the time. Although use of the term is not always pejorative. I would implore you to refrain from calling those with differing opinions to your own 'pricks' though, as it is at the very least my own personal understanding that this word is only used in a pejorative sense. Targeted harassment by immediate editing of the talk pages of any editor who has expressed a different opinion towards infoboxes should also stop.Grosseteste (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC) You are right: I shouldn’t have called you a prick, but leaving a retaliatory notification on my talk page was harassment. There is also no harassment at all. I have left such notifications on the talk pages of three two editors who have breached WP:CIVIL. The fact that all three two have !voted in the same manner is perhaps coincidental, although such a pattern of similar uncivil behaviour was present at the recent RfC on Cary Grant. 213.205.194.93 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Either it is harassment or it isn't. Particularly when you note that you have made the same edit to three different talk pages in quick succession. It was clear that such a warning needed to be made to you. Particularly when you resorted to personal targeted insults rather than terse commentary. I would suggest that any claim to be a dedicated pursuant of civility rather goes out of the window when in the face of any opposition to your whims you immediately resort to vulgarity. Moreover I had no part in any editing of Cary Grant's article and am not sure of the relevance of the matter. Best Regards, Grosseteste (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC) ”Either it is harassment or it isn't”, errr... no. I left the notes because I was unaware if the two editors were aware of the restrictions (I corrected above: I’ve only left the notification on two pages). As I’ve left the notifications, it’s blindingly obvious to all except single-celled amoeba, that I am aware of the restrictions. Leaving them on my page was simple petty harassment that you shouldn’t have done. The connection with the Cary Grant page is an obvious one, regardless of whether you were there or not. If you’re still unclear, then never mind, I really can’t be bothered to explain further. 213.205.194.93 (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC) That is a matter of dispute as I note three editors who have made such complaints. I would point out to you that all amoebae are single celled, and as a result what you have you just written is an example of a tautology. It is also another example of your repeated incivility and the growing irony surrounding it. I would ask to you to not attempt to create a sense of one rule for yourself and another for everyone else. The warning to you was clearly justified and necessary particularly in the face of your continued incivility. The connection with the Cary Grant page is far from obvious, I'm sure I could name several articles which faced uncivil discussion throughout their talk pages, but that does not mean they have any connection to this one. Unless there is any clear connection between the two pages. However as I have said if there is any it is not to be found through me, and thus holds entirely no relevance. Best Regards, Grosseteste (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC) I’m afraid you are losing me entirely, and I’m not sure you’re actually reading what I’ve written. I’ve not called anyone an amoeba, and haven’t used it as a description of anyone or an insult to anyone, but I think that is entirely clear to most readers. 213.205.194.93 (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC) ″it’s blindingly obvious to all except single-celled amoeba, that I am aware of the restrictions" Incivility through deliberate implication is much the same as overt incivility, although obviously in this case the attempt somewhat backfired. I would note that almost all comments on your talk page relate to your overt and deliberate vandalism which it seems you have an inclination for. Best Regards, Grosseteste (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC) I had hoped not to have to return, but I find I have to in order correct the error. I edit as an IP. It is through an ISP on a dynamic IP address, which means I am assigned a different address frequently. Absolutely none of the warnings on my talk page were aimed at me, but at other users of the same phone network. I am not, and have never been a vandal; that is yet another incivility you have thrown at me. Please stop now. 213.205.194.93 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Stopping short of calling you a liar, I think it best to call an end to this particular discussion but feel free to continue to pitch in on the overall matter at hand. One minor point of advice, repeating the same queries and points made to you to the editor who made them, often almost entirely verbatim without using a shred of evidence (the one aspect in contrary) is poor form and doesn't help your argument (whatever it may be). Best Regards, Grosseteste (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC) ”Stopping short of calling you a liar”... Christ, you really are on a roll with insulting others aren’t you! (And, oh, look: my dynamic IP address has changed again: how many warning on this talk page? I have absolutely no idea what you’re saying in the rest of your comment, but maybe that’s for the best. Please could you try and remain civil to others? 213.205.194.6 (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC) I made it clear I stopped short. As for the rest of what I said I would say that really is quite clear, concise and conducive to straightforward understanding, I haven't come across any amoebae to ask their opinion though unfortunately. Best Regards, Grosseteste (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are a few comments above that make extremely good points, including that the factoids present tell too little about an individual or why there is an article. Yes, there will be some basic information that is incontrovertible (date of birth and death), but that is in the first line, so the repetition in the box is a little pointless. When dealing with career politicians, sportsmen, etc, where a list of positions or statistics can be easily codified, the ‘box works brilliantly. (I see someone wanted to use the excuse that Fleming was in the military, so that information should be included: not so. Like most males in the UK, he served during the war, but to have military service listed in the box would give undue emphasis to that short part of his life). For those in the liberal arts, the position is much less clear, and we’d be left with dates of birth and death, occupation and then some rather ephemeral information that doesn’t help explain who or what he was, or why we have an article about him. In other words, it leaves a misleading impression of the individual and therefore does the reader a disservice. I’ve seen a lot of people claim that these boxes “help readers”, or that “readers find them useful”, but I’ve not seen any evidence of this oft-repeated claim. Leaving disjointed factoids at the top of this article would mislead readers by emphasising on the trivial and unimportant aspects of Fleming’s life, rather than giving a broader picture, complete with the context and nuance needed. - 213.205.194.6 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

a lot of people claim that these boxes “help readers”, or that “readers find them useful”, but I’ve not seen any evidence of this oft-repeated claim -- What forms of evidence do you expect people to produce in support of these claims? I can't help but think you're placing a practically impossible burden of proof here. If a reasonable number of people say they find it useful, why isn't that enough? Destynova (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant and incorrect observation, intended to mislead and manipulate the final count
To the closing admin: Please note that this IP user is curiously close in location to IPs that have previously voted. ~ HAL333 19:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Nonsense. Your inability to judge this matter is clear. This is my first !vote in this RfC (but not my first comment). - The editor formerly known as SchroCat, editing from 213.205.194.6 (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support It's a valuable, helpful thing to have, so put it back. This wasn't even an issue until around eight years ago. If someone finds it useful and handy, then keep it, as it's been stated over and over again, it's not like it's causing harm. If you don't like seeing it, then simply don't look at it. Sro23 (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I suppose I don't have any boilerplate spiel like some of the more veteran faces of infobox discussions, but I find them generally very useful and a fine tool at making articles more approachable. I think a lot of the ruckus about "simplification" can be resolved by collaboratively deciding what should be in it and what shouldn't be, but not having one is as silly has not having pictures, to me. Parabolist (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Every Wikipedia biography should have an infobox as a convenient source of quick facts for readers browsing the article. Eliteplus (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ssilvers.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per several editors above. Idealigic (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• mild Support - archives show that there was an infobox and this has been a recurring topic. So if SchroCat is gone it would seem consensus shifts to have it? I’ll suggest going as far as drafting a specific infobox and get opinion about the actual edit. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • There are a number of other editors—aside from me, SchroCat—who have opposed the box, and the consensus doesn’t appear to be so heavily in favour of including the otiose list of factoids. There is no consensus for an ‘actual edit’ at the moment. - The editor formerly known as SchroCat, editing from IP 213.205.194.214 (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support If there is useful information that can be included in an infobox, then it should be included in an infobox. I find the points made in WP:DIB unpersuasive. If there's specific entries in the infobox that editors feel would be misleading or ambiguous, we can discuss those, but I see no reason to exclude the box entirely. Wikipedia is for readers, and sometimes readers want a quick overview of basic biographical details of a person. It doesn't make sense to demand that they read our prose to get that information. Srey Sros^talk 23:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• Oppose - unnecessary and not an improvement to a featured article. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I have full protected the article for 24 hours after people have been edit warring on the infobox. Any other disruptive behaviour during this RfC runs the risk of getting blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support I find infoboxes very handy for finding basic biographical info in a structured way, rather than skimming through prose. I don't understand why this would be a contentious topic. Destynova (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I also find infoboxes useful for finding biographical info quickly. Tacyarg (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose If this was a deletion debate, I'd be pointing at most of the "Support" views above and saying that too many of them are simply WP:ITSUSEFUL. And then I'd point out that many, indeed probably the majority of them are simply saying "infoboxes are generally useful", without addressing this article. But my third and most important point would be - would an infobox here really be generally useful? I'd agree that infoboxes have their uses in some types of biography, especially people in fields like sport or politics. But here, what are you going to put in this box? Date of birth? Data of death? Who he was married to? All of that information is available by moving your eyes a few inches to the left. No - there's no need to have an infobox, and we shouldn't be blindly inserting them where they have little utility. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Well, in this particular case, it would merely be restoring the article back to how its reviewers intended it; at the point it obtained its bronze star, the article had an infobox. This copperfastened a previous discussion which (albeit grudgingly!) confirmed the IB. It was collapsed without discussion eight months later. I think my aversion to unnecessary infoboxes is well-established, and my respect for the co-authors of this FAC is near adulatory; however, I am also averse to having my tail pulled. (Not by you, I hasten to add.) ——Serial 20:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support — an infobox will give readers basic information, at-a-glance, which they will absorb faster than having to read through the lead (or body). That at-a-glance information includes: name, date of birth, date of death, place of birth, place of death, nationality, occupation, best-known works, spouses and marriage dates, notable relatives, and official website. This is also the information that was in the infobox when this article was promoted to FA 8 years ago [1] as SN points out above. The ubiquity of infoboxes on Wikipedia (that is, the fact that infoboxes have won the infobox wars) demonstrates their utility to our readers, and that our readers desire them. I don't see a persuasive reason to deprive our readers of this useful tool. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support if, as per WP:INFOBOX, it can be kept to relevant and essential details and not become a laundry list of irrelevant details. Arguments that this is "ITSUSEFUL" are out of place; this isn't a deletion debate, it's a discussion about making this a better experience for our readers, which should be our goal in all cases, whether through improving the article or making the information already in it easier to see (which is the purpose of an infobox). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support largely for the same reasons as Levivich above. No compelling reason has been given for why it wouldn't be useful to readers in this article. P-K3 (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support, per my long-standing views on the question: [2]. You can't force someone to read prose by removing the alternative; the prose is not diminished by providing the alternative. Mackensen (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support I think the argument that the article had an infobox when it became a featured article is compelling. The infobox provides basic biographical facts at a glance for the reader who is looking for that type of information; it's an information aid for quick facts. I don't think any reader expects an infobox to summarize an article, so the arguments that an infobox on a creative person's article doesn't adequately summarize the article don't really make sense to me. Schazjmd (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2021 (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.