Talk:Cary Grant/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Using "Grant" when he was still Archie Leach is an anachronism

These references should be changed back to "Archibald" and "Leach". What do other encyclopedia's do? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I did originally use "Archie" and then Leach but people like TrueHeartSusie3 and SchroCat persuaded me to be consistent with Grant.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• The American Dictionary of National Biography uses Grant. Others possibly Leach; to swap part way through would probably jar a bit too much. - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• I think it's better to be consistent and to use the best-known name throughout the article. It's the custom in pretty much all the articles of film stars who used stage names. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

• I'm firmly against switching between names. Cassianto^Talk 22:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• It's partially a holdover from an older style of historiography. We still say 'Queen Victoria was born...' . No she wasn't. A baby was born who within a few hours was declared to be Princess Victoria of Kent, and then 18 years later, etc. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure that's accurate, as I've seen older biographies using two names, and more modern ones using just the one (and it's equally common to see the first names being used as well). To some extent it doesn't matter which version is chosen as long as there is a consistency within the article, which there is here. The MoS does not proscribe either way as being de jure, so I think that we're all good to leave it how it stands at present. - SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

More rumours

Oh dear, Now the Orry Kelly biography is claiming it.. Yawn yawn. I suggest we devote a whole new section reporting what the Daily Mail says ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Again

[1] does several things.

It removes:

Scott's biographer Robert Nott states that there is no evidence that Grant and Scott were homosexual, and blames rumors on material written about them in other books, which was assumed true by historians.

Which was supported by consensus in the past.

It adds:

In 1921 Grant moved into the Greenwich Village apartment of Australian Orry George Kelly, later to be known as the Hollywood designer Orry-Kelly: the apartment was also shared with a fellow Australian, Charles 'Spangles' Phelps, a cross-dressing performer. Kelly and Grant lived together for five years, and it has been speculated they were lovers, but Kelly lost respect for Grant: he was particularly incensed by Grant's subsequent avoidance of military duty during World War II, and their friendship ended badly.

Which appears entirely on line with prior edits implying that Grant was gay, lived with gays, and had gay lovers. I suggest this talk page offers sufficient evidence that there is no consensus for this edit.

"Good Articles" should not have such bold edits without full and complete consensus thereon. Collect (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

For once I agree with Collect. The wording was more neutral and better as it was.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Adding Orry Kelly

The consensus is against the proposed inclusion because it is innuendo, speculation, and undue weight. Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 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.

---

In the Personal Section: propose the following be added: "In 1921 Grant moved into the Greenwich Village apartment of Australian Orry George Kelly, later to be known as the Hollywood designer Orry-Kelly: the apartment was also shared with a fellow Australian, Charles 'Spangles' Phelps, a cross-dressing performer. Kelly and Grant lived together for five years, and it has been speculated they were lovers, but Kelly lost respect for Grant: he was particularly incensed by Grant's subsequent avoidance of military duty during World War II, and their friendship ended badly." References are Kelly's own biography, recently discovered and published this year, and these additional sources:

Orry-Kelly Women I've Undressed: The Fabulous Life and Times of a Legendary Hollywood Designer, Allen & Unwin, 2016; [2]; [3]; [4]; Eliot, Mark Cary Grant: A Biography, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2004, pp42-63 Engleham (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Include – An important friendship/possible relationship in Grants life. (Grant was Kelly's pallbearer.) Also provides convenient opportunity to touch on Grant's avoidance of war service, which article hasn't addressed. Supported by reliable sources, and the speculative statements suitably qualified. Engleham (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Noting prior consensus opposing such inclusions in this "good article", and that the editor is edit warring for inclusion of this material. The Sydney Morning Herald book review does not support the claims made. The Australian book review does not support the claim made. The Eliot biography makes a lot of claims, but does not have those claims supported by other sources, and the specific basis for these claims is insufficiently cited. All that is left is the Australian Dictionary of National Biography. The only claim it supports is that for an unspecified period of time, three people shared living quarters, and nothing more. As a result, with none of the linked sources supporting the claims, and the unlinked source being problematic at best, we have to accept that WP:CONSENSUS is required for weakly sourced material, where the reliable sources specifically do not support the claim. Checking the Eliot book: pg 41 says Orry was "unabashedly gay" but that Grant was not. pg 47 asserts that Grant was the "number one gigolo in town." pg 4 says Grant never referred to Orry in any writings at all (the material was provided to Eliot by Orry). In short, alas, the Eliot biography also does not support the titillating claims made in this RfC. Collect (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  "The Sydney Morning Herald book review does not support the claims made." It really helps any argument you wish to make if you don't lie. The SMH says: when Orry first got to New York...he ended up rooming with a young British actor called Archie Leach. They definitely became lovers and were living together for about five years. Then you write: "The Australian book review does not support the claim made." Here's what The Oz says: "Some glittering reputations were protected for half a century by that pillowslip, not least that of Orry-Kelly’s one time lover, a vaudeville performer named Archie Leach, who, in this account, treated him rather shabbily after he became the movie star Cary Grant." I've qualified both speculations, but the point is, Kelly was a significant figure in his life who deserves inclusion for the facts stated. Whether their close friendship was ever sexual or not is, in the end, beside the point. Engleham (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  And note that book reviews do not make statements of fact on their own of that nature. Calling me a "liar", by the way, does not impress me one whit. A quote from Gillian Armstrong is usable at most as an opinion of hers, and is not a claim of fact, nor does the SMH make it a claim of fact. Biographies do better with facts - especially in "good articles." The Australian states that it is quoting a book. If the book is not a reliable source for claims of fact, the "Oz" saying what is in the book does not then make it a statement of fact. Do you recognize "opinions" and "facts" are not the same? And if no sex was involved (and there is no source which makes that as a claim of fact in its own voice, and one lawsuit opposing stating ti as a claim of fat in the past) than Wikipedia does not make it a claim of fact. Clear? And please stop this business about accusing everyone else in this world of being a "liar" - it ill-suits discussions. Collect (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The statement "it has been speculated they were lovers" goes against guidelines about "gossip." And throwing in that one of the other roommates was a "cross-dressing performer" implies innuendo.--Light show (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Light show Well how would you phrase it? "speculated" states that it is NOT a confirmed fact. What more qualifier do you want? Note that in one of the articles, the woman who found the diaries states it as a certainty, and we're definitely not stating that. Also: Charlie Spangles was exactly what he was: sorry, I can't make him any more butch, and if one objects to the suggestion that two might have been lovers, surely THREE in the apartment is less worrying? Stating his presence, which was a fact, does help the reader make their own assessments.

  Anything that smacks of tabloid journalism should be left for the tabloids. --Light show (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose It's not so much that I have a problem with very briefly saying it was "claimed in Orry George Kelly's biography that the two had a gay relationship", it's the way it's worded which just looks like tabloid fodder. It's poorly written and just looks amateurish.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Dr. Blofeld Well... how WOULD you reword it better? If you don't reply, then of course I'll have to presume...Engleham (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  Presume what? That I'm homophobic too? I'd be very careful with what you say if I was you as you're running to close to being blocked at the moment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Dr. Blofeld Presume that you can't write it better, of course. Just stating you think it could be written better, isn't helpful to anyone. Time to pick up your quill and show us. Étonnez-moi. Engleham (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  For starters it would be good to know exactly what Kelly wrote about Grant. If it was his own memoir he would surely have claimed to have had an affair with Grant himself, so why the "speculation"?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Dr.Blofeld He wrote Grant moved in with him and Spangles, and after a time he lost respect for Grant, and mentions two issues as examples: his personal meanness, and his avoidance of military duty - which, given he himself had volunteered for the US Army despite being less fit than Grant, he considered a line crossed. (See supplied sources.) Kelly was circumspect as to the nature of the friendship -- he may not have wished to hurt Grants wives or child, and in any case had cut him out of his life after Grant did the same; the claim that they were lovers and it was a bitter breakup is based on circumstantial evidence. OK, how would you write all that differently from how I have condensed it? Engleham (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  If Kelly had said in his biography something like "In 1932, I attended a party in West Hollywood. There I met Cary Grant for the first time. We felt an instant mutual attraction, but he married at the time. Later that year I invited him to dinner, ended up getting drunk and we began a six month affair", then you could say "Kelly claimed in his biography that he had a six month affair with Grant". If he doesn't explicitly even mention that he and Grant had a gay affair, and all this is simply tabloid speculation or different interpretations of the text then it definitely doesn't belong in the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Dr.Blofeld Now you're contradicting yourself. As you wrote to @Collect (in vain, of course): "I understand your issues with "Grant da gay", but the problem was your approach and thinking there should be no mention whatsoever of the accusations in the article. Because there was a massive amount of coverage that makes it legitimiate to at least report that he was accused. But it does have to be carefully worded and structured" Talk about being damned by one's words. Bless. But of course, that's exactly the correct position, as Wikipedia holds it. A mass of reliable sources noted Kelly's autobiography upon its rediscovery, that fact that they lived together for five years, and the belief that he and Grant were lovers. Our role as editors is simply to note that in a neutral manner, not claim it is correct or incorrect, or 'tabloid' -- a convenient putdown whenever the issue of gay or bisexuality arises. Again: would you care to 'top me' in rewriting my excellent summary to address that? Or is it now, you realise, perfect? Engleham (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

No I'm not contradicting myself. We report what notable biographers have claimed Grant was gay. As far as I can see Kelly never claimed he and Grant had a gay relationship in his memoirs and it's entirely tabloid/newspaper interpretation of the book. If Kelly had claimed to havehad a gay relationship, then it would definitely be worth mentioning. And the ADB doesn't even claim they had a gay relationship, it simply says "res. He also formed a friendship with a young Englishman Archibald Leach, later known as Cary Grant, sharing living quarters with him and another Australian expatriate Charles ('Spangles') Phelps, a former ship's steward." If you can't understand this then you should take some lessons in researching and writing proper articles. Bless you for being so dense on this. Don't even know what WP:BLP is...♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• At this point it seems appropriate to quote from a Kelly-costumed classic: "Nobody's perfect...!" Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- I tend to agree with Blofeld's thinking on this, keeping it neutral with at most a brief mention along his first suggestion above, and don't change the rest of what's currently there. I am interested in the bit about "avoiding" war service but if it's brought up it shouldn't be through Kelly's opinion: do Grant's biographers discuss it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ian Rose What's not neutral about the proposal the way it is written? How would you rewrite it? And why is it wrong not to mention Kelly's opinion of Grant's avoidance of war service, given that is one the reasons that broke up the friendship?

In terms of improvement, what part of at most a brief mention along his [Blofeld's] first suggestion above did you not follow? For the rest, a bit of perspective: this is a bio of Grant, not Kelly, and attaching that much weight to the break-up and Kelly's opinion re. the war service seems undue, particularly as it only offers Kelly's side. To illustrate: years ago I read David Niven's entertaining memoir Bring on the Empty Horses; Niven talked a lot about his adventures with Errol Flynn, and then finished off by saying that during World War II, he joined up, and Flynn didn't. Despite ostensibly offering no opinion on Flynn's action, the impression I was left with was that Flynn was either a coward, or greedy to keep his film career going. As I now understand it, Flynn was unfit for service but this was never made public at the time. So there are two sides to every story, and your version gives us only one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

At best you could say something like "In 2016, a documentary film written by Katherine Thompson interpreted Orry-Kelly's long-lost memoir Women I've Undressed to have revealed that Grant and Kelly had had a homosexual relationship, based on circumstantial evidence". But it's still an interpretation, I don't think it's worth mentioning unless Kelly had actually said "Grant and I were lovers".♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Or vice-versa.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 11:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Summoned by bot. Because it is only speculation and cannot be confirmed, leave off BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Summoned by bot as well. BLP does not apply here as Grant is neither living, nor recently deceased. However, I tend to agree that this is speculation which is not supported by the WP:WEIGHT of the sources, taken together. As a side note, the editor who proposed this text (and is the only one to endorse it so far) was CBANned from the project last week for disruptive behaviour, some of it in connection with topics similar to this. Under the circumstances, I think this discussion could now be speedy closed under WP:SNOW rationale. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Summoned by bot. The text in question is speculative, POV and is generally tabloid garbage unnecessary especially considering the availability of much higher quality material. Coretheapple (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Summoned by a hard-working bot. Neither innuendo and speculation belong in Wikipedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, exactly per Cullen: Neither innuendo nor speculation belong in Wikipedia articles. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, mainly per Dr. Blofeld's arguments above. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:52, 1 October 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.

"Cash and Cary"

Linking this nickname for Grant's 1942 marriage to the Cash & Carry retail chain which was not founded until 1956 is clearly inappropriate. As the disambiguation page shows, the phrase "cash and carry" has a number of meanings, many of which pre-date the marriage, especially the very obvious Cash and carry (wholesale), but given the timeframe Cash and carry (World War II) may also be relevant. In the absence of any direct evidence, though, it's probably best to leave the phrase unlinked. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Gay or bisexual

The article states that, "Grant lived with actor Randolph Scott off and on for 12 years, which several authors have claimed was a gay or bisexual relationship". The language is inappropriate. A relationship between two men may be a gay relationship, but because both participants are men it is by definition not a "bisexual" relationship. Ssven2, who reverted my correction of the article's language, mentions that "Women visited the place they were staying", but that fact is irrelevant, as the (alleged) relationship in question was between Grant and Scott, not the women. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there is no such thing as a "bisexual relationship", unless, of course, it involves three people of mixed gender. The case here, I suspect, was that as well as sleeping with each other (allegedly) they were also intimate with people of the opposite sex. Cassianto^Talk 23:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Citizenship date source reference

My edit in the article yesterday providing a high quality news media source for the year of 1942 was reverted by editor Ian Rose, who by said action prefers instead to use the unofficial fan website CaryGrant.net as the date source. I am therefore storing my reference here for the talk page archive in case anyone else questions the reliability of the fan website reference currently being used.

Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The Black Curtain -- Is this a joke?

Text currently includes the following: "Late in the year he featured in the CBS Radio series Suspense, playing a tormented character who hysterically discovers that his amnesia has affected masculine order in society in 'The Black Curtain'." What is that supposed to mean? I've read the Woolrich source material and heard the radio episode, and it's standard suspense fare about a man who wants to know who he might have been and what crime he might have committed during a protracted period of amnesia. There's no deconstruction of sex roles in it, I assure you. The citation provides no illumination. Unless some justification for the current version can be shown, a more standard synopsis, with citation, is called for. Mandrakos (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2017

His middle name was not Alexander but Alec...see birth certificate http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl Lexmonkey47 (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lexmonkey47: Do you have a link to the birth certificate? CityOfSilver 17:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a birth certificate there, but I do see what looks like a scanned copy of an official list of births (here), and it does say "Alec". However, we do have a cited source that says "Some sources state his middle name to be Alec, but it is generally accepted to be Alexander." That source doesn't say exactly where it got that information. A prior 2006/2007 discussion recorded at Talk:Cary Grant/Archive 1#Middle name asserted that "Both his 1904 birth certificate and his 1920 passenger list to the US report his name as Archibald Alec Leach", so the article was changed to say "Alec" in 2007. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Please also see a scan of his birth record (from here), which also supports "Alec". I haven't yet found the 1920 passenger list, and invite others to look for it. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There isn't any possible doubt that legally his name was Archibald Alec Leach. Whether it was Grant himself who affected it at a later stage or other people merely making the assumption after the fact, the carygrant.net claim that "it is generally accepted to be Alexander" is pretty worthless. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see Reliable Sources board. We hope (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

1917

The lighting of magician David Devant was at the Bristol Empire theatre, not the Hippodrome. Devant headed the variety bill in the week of November 19, 1917, when Leach was operating the arc lamps. He almost caused a disaster for Devant by letting a spotlight fall on what was supposed to be a concealed mirror (source: Bristol's Forgotten Empire, by Terry Hallett, published in 2000). For information, Devant's only appearance at the Hippodrome had been in 1914. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.14.179 (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC) The text has still not been corrected.

His clothing donated to charity after death

Both New York magazine and The Wall Street Journal reported that his clothing was donated discreetly to the poor and homeless after his death, which is in line with Jennifer working on homeless issues at a law firm before becoming an actress. The article currently says something different, that it went to celebrities and others. I think the article should be corrected on this point, as these are two very high quality sources. I will leave this to regular editors here to decide what to do. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I decided to make the edit myself, adding a new sourced line. 5Q5 (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I've removed it because in my opinion, it adds nothing of value. Feel free to discuss, though, should you feel it particularly important to mention where Grant's clothes went to after his death. Cassianto^Talk 17:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Disagree My edit in the article providing high quality news media sources stating that Cary Grant's clothes were donated to the poor and homeless after his death was reverted by editor Cassianto who called it an "Uninteresting factoid not worthy of inclusion." I therefore wish to store the deleted line and reference here in protest because the line contradicts and corrects the claim currently in the article that is sourced to third party 1997 biographer Graham McCann (the book's copyright actually says 1996, Cary Grant: A Class Apart), who never communicated with Grant's daughter or wife when writing his book and who, according to this Wikipedia article, says his clothes were donated to "Frank Sinatra, Roderick Mann, Stanley Donen, Kirk Kerkorian and others." I could not verify this claim searching for these names in the book on books.google. Here is the "uninteresting" deleted line "not worthy of inclusion" (it could have been tweaked by any editor if necessary, as opposed to deletion):

Finally, I wish to express my position that this article currently suffers from a lack of credibility due its preference for poor quality sources, those being biographies by strangers and fan websites over mainstream news media interviews with Grant's daughter and wife. It therefore isn't worth my time to attempt future edits. The article simply cannot be trusted. Good day. 5Q5 (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You can throw a tantrum as much as you like, your edit was not an improvement. It's as simple as that. Cassianto^Talk 18:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Minor bequests, regardless of who got them, don't belong in the article at all. I'm debating whether to delete the entire last line, in fact. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not a Wiki editor and don't claim to know the hows and whys, but would point out that Grant was and continues to be famous for his sartorial style. There is a reason the WSJ published the story referenced above. 38.116.36.205 (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Mike P

Yeah, I've axed the last line. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Why should we not put an info box?Thenabster126 (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

consensus re: no infobox We hope (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What Consensus are you referring to? Seems that there was support for restoring it.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not: "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 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 in 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 block of code at 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) 16:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

To throw in my two cents, I think infoboxes are an important aspect of an article, and Grant seems to (randomly) be the only famous, impactful person on this entire site without one. I like looking at an infobox and instantly seeing age/spouses/etc instead of having to scroll through the entire article looking for one basic piece of information, which I know "discourages reading entire page" but people will read an article if they want, regardless of condensed info. TropicAces (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't wish to start a war here, but I agree that of all the well-developed articles on influential, well-known people I've seen on here, this seems to be the only one where the infobox was deliberately removed, and it just looks weird. The infoboxes have become a recognizable feature of Wikipedia, and while they do repeat some info from the main body of the article, they are also really helpful for giving a summary of the main points about a person (birth, death, birthplace, etc.) I hope this isn't the start of some movement to remove them all from articles of famous people who aren't in sports or politics, as doing this would discourage me from using Wikipedia because I don't want to have to read walls of text to get a short summary of a person with a lengthy article. TheBlinkster (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

For your information, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, not to mention the many more articles listed at WP:FA that don't use infoboxes. But on behalf of other content creators everywhere, I do apologise for making you read the "walls of text" we have sweated blood and tears over. Cassianto^Talk 22:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a useful tool to obtain information, and a feature that makes it easier and quicker to find basic information should be welcomed, not disparaged because then people don't read all the content. Many users of traditional encyclopedias for reference have used them to search for a particular fact or two, with the reading of the longer article an option if you wanted more in-depth information. Encyclopedias aren't about the reader appreciating the hard work of the content creator, but about presenting useful information in the forms in which it will be most useful, in my opinion. TheBlinkster (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Then maybe we should not bother at all then? Let's have a sodding infobox and be done with it. Cassianto^Talk 23:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion is to mock up one here on the talk page, with the proposed information that would be included in it, and then have an official WP:RfC on whether to include it in this article. There literally is no other satisfactory way to resolve the question, as these discussions tend to be circular and endless otherwise. Softlavender (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Some people above spend too much time deliberating, bitching, making up stupid reasons for doing things. You remind me of software developers. Put the infobox back on this page (and others where it was removed). It's what it's for. Quick information at top - WITHOUT READING THROUGH ENTIRE ARTICLE. That's the whole point is it not? As to whether it makes an actual editor (or user) not read entire article (or less editing is done/etc/blah blah) - those are laughable reasons for removing it. Get real. Most/all the reasons listed above re: removal are just ridiculously anal retentive. People come here for information; YOU ARE NOT HERE to educate them by forcing them to read more than necessary by removing helpful templates. If they want more than an infobox of information, they can still read (or edit) article, obviously/duh. --Brady Shea (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree. It seems that most of the comments above want it restored. I rarely come across a bio of any decent size without one. I'm not actually sure why it hasn't been put back. --Light show (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Here is the previous infobox, with the pertinent information included:

Cary Grant
Cary Grant in 1941
Born	Archibald Alexander Leach (1904-01-18)January 18, 1904 Bristol, England
Died	November 29, 1986(1986-11-29) (aged 82) Davenport, Iowa, U.S.
Cause of death	Cerebral hemorrhage
Resting place	Cremated
Other names	Archie Leach
Education	Bishop Road Primary School Fairfield Grammar School
Occupation	Actor
Years active	1932–1966
Spouse(s)	Virginia Cherrill ​ ​ (m. 1934; div. 1935)​ Barbara Hutton ​ ​ (m. 1943; div. 1945)​ Betsy Drake ​ ​ (m. 1949; div. 1962)​ Dyan Cannon ​ ​ (m. 1965; div. 1968)​ Barbara Harris ​ (m. 1981⁠–⁠1986)​
Partner	Maureen Donaldson (1973–1977)
Children	Jennifer Grant (born 1966)
Awards	Academy Honorary Award (1970) For his unique mastery of the art of screen acting with the respect and affection of his colleagues. Kennedy Center Honors (1981)

• This should work.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Added back. Thanks for posting it. --Light show (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Removed. There is no consensus to add a box, so your bad faith edits have been removed. if you wish to add a box, please do it the right way, by discussing to change the consensus, not by edit warring. - SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  There was never a consensus to remove the infobox in the first place, plus consensus seems to still be in favor of keeping the infobox. I'm pretty sure that consensus doesn't need everyones approval. It just needs enough editors to agree.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• "There was never a consensus to remove the infobox in the first place". There was never a consensus to add one in the first place either. Not everything has to be agreed by committee before it happens. – SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• So far, two editors have removed the infobox against consensus and without attempting to discuss. Please discuss your reasons for going against consensus.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• The stated consensus on the matter is that there is no infobox. You are the one editing to force it in against the consensus. You are the one that needs to produce an arguement based on guidelines and policy as to why the consensus should be overturned. So far no-one has done that. – SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Where is the consensus that agreed to remove it in the first place? There is none from what I can find. It should never have been removed in the first place and should be restored because this is what the majority of editors seem to prefer. And you accusations of bad faith are falling flat and look like poor attempts to steer the conversation away from the true content discussion. That's twice in the same thread..--JOJ ^Hutton 15:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• For the second time: there is not always a need to have every edit agreed to in the first place, and the same level of prior discussion was made to remove it as to add it in the first place. I would not have had to make an accusation of bad faith if you had not edit warred to force your preferred version back onto the page. As to your claim of what users prefer, it is an "argument" I have seen made often, without any evidence to back it up. SchroCat (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Now that's the third time you've accused me of either edit warring or making bad faith edits. I challenge you to either produce evidence of your accusations or stop using uncivil rhetoric. You said that the "stated consensus" was that there was no info box. Where is this consensus discussion located. All I can see is that there are twice as many editors wanting to include an info box than there trying to keep it out. JOJ ^Hutton 16:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• The article did not have an IB. It was added (per Bold); it was removed (per Revert); the next step should be to discuss. You edit warred to re-add. That's not uncivil rhetoric, despite your desperate claims to the contrary. As for "there are twice as many editors wanting to include an info box", this place does not work as a democracy, as I am sure you know. I am still waiting to hear a policy or guideline based argument, which are what count. – SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Consensus

As a reminder, this article had an infobox from June 5, 2006 to June 15, 2016.

Going by the previous infobox consensus and this new discussion, my tally of those offering a clear opinion:

Keep infobox

1) User:Collect 2) User:Gerda Arendt 3) User:Checkingfax 4) User:Jules 5) User:Jojhutton 6) User:SmcCandlish 7) User:Thenabster126 8) User:TropicAces 9) User:TheBlinkster 10) User:Softlavender 11) User:Bmatthewshea 12) Light show

Remove infobox

1) User:Dr. Blofeld 2) User:SchroCat 3) User:Cassianto

4) User:Ssilvers

Light show (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• • You are not very good at vote counting (something that has been mentioned to you before, when you last tried to stack votes and were caught out): in addition to missing out at least one individual, you have added people such as Thenabster126, who asked a question, not provided what you consider to be a clear rationale with their opinion. They have not even given an opinion either way. - SchroCat (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
• WP:NOTAVOTE – SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There were no voters. All of the above editors discussed and gave clear rationales with their opinions.--Light show (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• I would dispute the claim of "clear rationales with their opinions": many of those who wanted the return of the IB, simply said they missed it or wanted it returned. That's not a "clear rationale" based on policy or guideline. I'll also point out that a quick glance shows you have missed at least one individual off the list. - SchroCat (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Very possible. Who? --Light show (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You missed User:We Hope, who participated in both discussions. One extra person in favor of removing the infobox is hardly going to strengthen the oppositions argument.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't miss User:We hope; I just couldn't see their opinion either way.--Light show (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Not the person I saw either! (That's the problem with trying to vote count: didn't you run into similar problems when trying to count on another IB discussion you didn't know anything about?) And again, it's not a question of "one extra person": it's about the arguments as they relate to guidelines and policies, and I see little evidence of that from those wishing to change the consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXUSE...The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article..

If we agree that articles are not "required" in articles, then we must also agree that they are not "prohibited" in articles as well. So it's not incorrect to have an infobox in an article, nor is it incorrect to not have one. Both ways are not against any guideline. So in order to determine whether an article should or should not have an infobox, we have a discussion. We have had that discussion, twice now. Both times there were a majority of editors who are clearly in favor of having an infobox in the article and that is clearly not against any policy or guideline. Wikipedia is not a vote, but is is also not an oligarchy, where a few editors can assert their opinion over the majority.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, things are not decided by who can call on the bigger flash mob to defend their corner, but on the arguments based on guidelines and policies. Simply complaining "I expect to see an IB", or "I miss the IB", isn't any good reason to revert the status quo. – SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And exactly how have you determined what the standard is for other peoples opinions being relevant or not? By what authority are you given this right?--JOJ ^Hutton 19:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Knock off the snark please. Relevance to consensus is based on guidelines and policies, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please answer the question. "I Don't Like It" is a two way street. How are you determining the relevance of other people's opinions? It's not snakiness, it's a valid concern that you may not have the qualifications to make these determinations.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I shall not answer what is moving into an increasingly unconstructive vein. If you are unable to tell the difference between judging the weight of someone saying "I expect to see an IB", or "I miss the IB" and someone who focuses on the specifics of the IB in relation to this article and how it is viewed in terms of guidelines and policies, then I doubt I will be able to explain it for you in short order. - SchroCat (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Since you're so concerned with "consensus", where was it when you removed a Picture of the Day for a "clearer copy" of the photo you uploaded? We hope (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

How exactly is that relevant to the current discussion?JOJ ^Hutton 17:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no discussion; just a load of idiots trying to push their agenda, that's all. Cassianto^Talk 18:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Aside the fact that this thread is about one personal attack away from becoming a full blown ANI discussion, what agenda are you referring to exactly?--JOJ ^Hutton 19:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh no, not ANI! Please, just put the infobox in, but please don't take me to ANI. Cassianto^Talk 19:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

If it went to ANI, it wouldn't be because we don't see eye to eye on the infobox inclusion. It would be for your incivility and personal attacks during that discussion. Just so we are on the same page if it happens.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I couldn't give a fuck about ANI, or it's resident troublemakers. So go ahead. Cassianto^Talk 19:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well that seems obvious. Otherwise, do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?--JOJ ^Hutton 19:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Everything I think can be found above. But should you have selective reading, more can be found here. Cassianto^Talk 20:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion on the matter is noted. It's also noted that you dislike infoboxes, which is your prerogative, but please note that not everyone will hold the same opinion on infoboxes as yourself. Just because you may personally feel that they are "repetitive, visually degrading, intrusive, uncertain, and better as lists", does not mean that other people do not find them useful and informative, as many here have already written. Not every article needs an infobox, but this article should have one.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so please you've noted it. Again, I couldn't really care. This article had a consensus, of sorts, so I fail to see what's changed? Have you had the decency to approach the GA Nominator or the author to see what they think? Maybe they've deserved the right to know of your plans before you go ahead and bastardise all their hard work. I see you're from California; tell me, why is it always the Americans who seem to be even more obsessed over Infoboxes than anyone else? Cassianto^Talk 20:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well you must have cared at some point or you wouldn't have taken the time to type out your opinion on the matter and then link them here. No, sorry to burst your bubble on the consensus issue, but there was never any consensus to remove the infobox. What there was, was a few editors who were very vocal and have, over the past year, berated and attacked anyone who dares question them over the infobox. This thread is full of these attacks. I must also point out that no single editor or groups of editors actually own articles. Anyone is allowed to edit Wikipedia and individual editors do not need to get permission from other editors to make changes or obtain consensus that may otherwise go against the wishes of an article creator or major contributor of an article.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Where was the consensus to add the box in the first place? And please, don't preach essays at me; although permission is not obligatory, a polite note is courteous and respectful. After all, it wasn't your time or money that made this article what it is today; I see you've done the grand total of fuck all in improving this article. That, I think, speaks volumes. Cassianto^Talk 20:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You must read what consensus is. When the infobox remained in the article for 10 plus years without anyone removing it, then it is presumed to have consensus. Not every edit needs to be discussed, but when the infobox was removed a year ago to this day, there was no consensus to remove it, despite the immediate and overwhelming objections of many other editors and the constant attempts over the past year to have it put back in. Therefore there was no consensus to remove the inbox a year ago, and there is still no consensus to keep it removed.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please, stop with your condescending bullshit. I know this is how the pro-infobox wing think they can win arguments, but you're coming across as a complete tool. The fact the article had an infobox for ten years is irrelevant. That is not consensus. But to humour you, I'll assume that it is and I'll remind you that consensus can change. Now, answer my question: where was the consensus when the infobox was added? Or would you like me to answer this for you? Cassianto^Talk 21:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a "pro infobox wing". I just think that this article should contain a useful and pertinent infobox as there was before it was removed.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yove been here since 2008 and you've never been aware of the infobox argument? Again, more selective reading skills in residence, I think. Cassianto^Talk 05:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Look people, please create an RfC. It's the only way to solve these things. Otherwise, nothing happens except that things go around in circles forever. Softlavender (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• That would be nice if I wasn't totally convinced that 3-4 editors just won't accept any outcome except the one that totally and completely removes the infobox from this article. Even though there is already a strong majority in favor of restoring this infobox, are editors see those other opinions as weightless.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• What staggering bad faith you show about double guessing how other people may accept a potential outcome. As for your comment about seeing other people's opinions as weightless, you just haven the bothered reading what people have tried to explain to you, or you don't understand the WP consensus is generated by discussion on guidelines and policies, not vote counting. – SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Sure. Thanks for your opinion on that matter, as I was just paraphrasing your earlier statement as to the weight of other editors opinions. Are you suggesting with your "flash Mob" comments that anyone who partakes in this discussion shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion?--JOJ ^Hutton 22:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have not suggested anything of the sort. Could you please try not to twist other people's comments to mean something's no-one has intended or suggested? – SchroCat (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Your diff [here. Talking about judging the weight of other peoples opinions. You certainly did say it.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Stop trolling. You claimed that with my "flash Mob" comment, anyone who takes part in this discussion shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion: that is utterly untrue. You are simply telling lies to troll. If you want to sink to the gutter that way, carry on, but I'll not bite at such behaviour. – SchroCat (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• You said it, not me. I was just trying to get some clarification as to what you meant by that comment. It just seemed an odd thing to say, and you made that comment not once, but twice today.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• My comments have been clear. You have misrepresented them and you should stop. I suggest you concentrate on putting forward your own arguments, rather than twisting the words of others. – SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Caution advised. The term infobox translated into Russian is ontheritz, and apparently this flash mob wants it on. --Light show (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Save your less than funny stuff for open mike night at the local comedy club; some people are trying to have a real discussion here. We hope (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought the ventriloquism part of the show was over. --Light show (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You're either here to discuss the box question or you're here to be disruptive; the more you post, it definitely looks like the latter. We hope (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Seeing as you're not answering, Jojhutton, I'll tell you. There wasn't a consensus to add one in 2006. Just as there wasn't when it was removed for the revamp last year, apparently, so I guess that's checkmate. But you didn't see us jumping up and down, throwing a paddy like petulant children, when it was added. The only one who appears to not be accepting of this is you. Cassianto^Talk 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• So that we are on the same page, do you mean "by consensus", was there a discussion? Does every edit need to be discussed? How are you defining "consensus" in this matter?

• Well you're discussing this? This was just "an edit". But in the interests of fairness, then yes, when it comes to Infoboxes, I do believe they should be discussed. How is it fair not to discuss them upon implementation, but to demand discussion for removal? That smacks of OWN in itself. Cassianto^Talk 22:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarizing another editor's comments? There was never a consensus to add one in the first place, wrote SchroCat earlier. --Light show (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks will get you nowhere except ANI. We hope (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarising? So he's the only one to have that view? You seem to plagiarise the views of a moron. Cassianto^Talk 22:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Twice! Where was the consensus to add the box in the first place?, Cass wrote. OMG, lifting another's creative efforts.--Light show (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Something, of course, you'd know all about; tell me, haven't you received sanctions over uploading other people's "creative efforts" and then using them illegally on articles that have nothing to do with you? Cassianto^Talk 03:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Another PA-looks like your involvement here with the box question is strictly to stir shit. We hope (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"Arsenic and Old Lace": Which President Roosevelt?

Why was my addition of "Teddy" to specify which Roosevelt in the description reverted? It seems a legitimate clarification, especially since it is likely that a large portion of Wikipedia readers have no experience with either the film or the play. Was it the use of the familiar "Teddy" instead of the formal "Theodore"? If so, why wasn't the edit modified, instead of being reverted? Gil gosseyn (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree and have restored your edit. Dr. K. 01:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Gil gosseyn (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Thank you for the disambiguation. Dr. K. 14:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Remove Filmography and stage work section

I tried to remove the "Filmography and stage work" section, as it has no new information that doesn't already appear elsewhere in the article. Aside from being redundant, to my reading, it feels out of place and disrupts the flow of the article. When my change was reverted, it was stated that it was wrong to remove a whole section that was there when the article was deemed a Good Article. At the time that it got that designation, the sole contents of this section were a link to the "Cary Grant on stage, radio and screen" page. This link has subsequently been included in the "Film Career" section, which seems like a fitting place for it. All of the other text that has been added to that section over time already exists elsewhere in the article. I'll note that another section "See also" has also been removed since this was deemed a Good Article.Slvrstn (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hamlet

Cary Grant planned to make a film version of "Hamlet" with director Alfred Hitchcock in the 1940s, but he abandoned the idea after Laurence Olivier released a highly acclaimed version in 1948. The film was certainly not planned after Grant had retired from acting. (86.144.250.234 (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC))

Straw poll question: "Should this article have 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.

---

The infobox discussions here make for a pretty convoluted read.

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

• Yes. -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• See WP:NOTVOTE. Please have a reason to restart disputes—a reason more substantive than your difficulty in reading previous discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes A pointless discussion really, infoboxes provides basic info. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• See WP:NOTVOTE. Please have a reason to restart disputes—a reason more substantive than your difficulty in reading previous discussions. As the last discussion closed three months ago with no consensus to add a box, this is getting into 'disruptive' territory. - SchroCat (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Bold, reasoning, and inaccurate edit summaries

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

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

As there is a consensus not to have one, yes, a consensus is needed to change that. Re-running the same discussion two months after the last one is disruptive (and I would put your post in that category too, as you're trying to continue something that has been decided). Try again in a few months if you want to, but let the consensus lie for a while. - SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't agree. The consensus is over a year old as far as I can see. Am I missing a discussion? No consensus has an unlimited shelf life and a consensus that old is ripe for discussion without being labelled disruptive. However, I've had my say and listed my concerns. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC))

See the thread at the top of the page. Two months old, as I said. - SchroCat (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

For edification:

• revived January 2017
• revived May 2017
• revived June 2017

Small wonder those writing articles are disgusted-some enough to stop content creation when all it leads to is confrontation after confrontation about these boxes. We hope (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for the information. When I see consensus used as a reason to remove content even after two months I am concerned. And my cmt here was not confrontational in the least especially that I am willing to cmt and walk away. It was an opposition though. I am willing to oppose when I can't see what (in my opinion, of course) seems to be little reason for not adding the info box. As an educator I know that multiple ways of dealing with information is the most effective and there's lots of research in this so I would prefer that we as an encyclopedia and educational forum pay attention to that information. So yes, I commented and will continue to do so. In the meantime, I have made my points known and that's all I want to do for now. Best.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC))

"little reason": yes, that is only your opinion, and it has been hashed out several times, as the links above show. - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The box was not in the article as of the time the last discussion ended and has not been there except for an 18 July addition/removal and today's addition/removal.

• no box 29 June
• box added and removed 18 July We hope (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Its all opinion, in fact. None of the discussions relate to how people learn perhaps because the research is hard to refute.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC))

• I have seen lots of research on learning, how the brain prcesses reading material and how people read websites, but none of them have persuaded me that idiotboxes are any good on biographical artices of actors (among some other professions). - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks very much for your view. Cassianto^Talk 11:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

There are many factors which favour the removal of an infobox. As per the many discussions we've had last year it was agreed that this article should not have one, otherwise I think we would be going around in circles. JAGUAR 12:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

There are no factors that favor the removal of the info box from this article. JOJ ^Hutton 12:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes there are. The photograph simply looks better by itself and the infobox has very limited or no value to the reader. The lede sums the article up well. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating. Cassianto^Talk 12:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

That is your opinion. But it is, and has always been the minority’s opinion in every discussion. Why does the minority opinion prevail over what has been an overwhelming majority of editors in favor of restoring the info box?JOJ ^Hutton 13:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. Some even talk out of them, most of the time, but that doesn’t make them right. Cassianto^Talk 17:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Because it is the minority of editors who do hard work on here writing the articles which would still be short or bloated unsourced crap if they weren't properly researched. The people who actually write and promote articles should have more say in the formatting of the articles than the people who don't and just drive by to cause trouble. I could for instance start a thread on the talk page of the Richard Nixon article arguing that it would look better with just a photograph. Why don't I? Because I respect that you've written it and that it was your editorial decision to include one in promoting it. Infoboxes, particularly in arts biographies are not compulsory, read the ruling.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:OWNJOJ ^Hutton 14:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

This cuts both ways as this attempt to impose a box says "I own this article, so here's the box and shut up about what you've done on it." We hope (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's anything to do with ownership at all - if somebody put in hours of their time writing up an article from scratch and taking the time to nurture it up to a GA or FA standard then nothing could be more frustrating watching uninvolved people battle over infoboxes. I know how it feels and would personally give the authors some consideration. For example the infobox on Winston Churchill was so long half of it recently had to be collapsed. I wouldn't mind advocating its removal but I would never dream of starting up a dispute. From my experience it's been people who demand the addition of infoboxes to be the main cause of these back and forth arguments. JAGUAR 14:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with what you're saying. I don't see editors who don't care for boxes dropping in on articles with them and deciding to hit the TP for removal of the box. We hope (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I really feel we are back to square one here. The infobox discussion on CG has happened too often. BTW, as Doc pointed out, the lead summarises the article quite well and, usually the lead explains what the infobox does, only in more detail. It points out his DOB, education, career beginnings, hits, screen persona, marriages and business interests.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm unwatching the article, largely because of the attitude of one or two of the article owners. Suggesting that anyone who is not them is simply "driving by to cause trouble" is a nasty attitude. DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Good. Bye bye then! 👋🏻 Cassianto^Talk 17:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles which have been written without infoboxes have a nasty habit of attracting people who barely edit Wikipedia and often seem to have been put up to it by somebody. Not to mention the coaxing which goes on behind the scenes. That's nasty. People who turn up to cause a fuss about no infobox are often not very established editors and it's extremely irritating to keep having to discuss it every few weeks and be bullied into submission DuncanHill.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry for the upset and trouble.

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

Well, thanks for dropping by! This topic has been breathtakingly interesting. Cassianto^Talk 20:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It sucks that a simple question/request is being met with sarcasm and bitchy comments. Apparently the idea of having a handy little box containing just the facts—as most, if not all, other articles do—is a touchy subject for some. Shame.

HughMorris15 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I always get a little frisson of happiness whenever I come across an article with no ifnobox. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 05:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

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

No infobox

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

You are far from the only reader to wonder that, as the rest of this talk page shows. Jonathunder (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks much nicer without an infobox. Infoboxes aren't mandatory, and many of them lead to someone then including one of those giant maps which are of little use but sometimes gobble up much of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I’m in favor of an infobox. Jusdafax 23:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Just launch an RfC

User:Softlavender commented last time round "Look people, please create an RfC. It's the only way to solve these things. Otherwise, nothing happens except that things go around in circles forever" and the discussion perfectly exemplifies this. If you're determined to add an infobox then launch an rfc, otherwise we're just going in circles (from looking at this talk page) and not benefiting anyone by doing so. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Open up an Rfc on the matter. Will it help? don't know. Will it hurt? likely not. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The immense value of an infobox

Cary Grant
Publicity photo of Cary Grant for Suspicion (1941)
Born	Archibald Alec Leach January 18, 1904 Horfield, Bristol, England
Died	November 29, 1986 Davenport, Iowa
Occupation	Actor
Years active	1920–1986
Spouses	Virginia Cherrill ​ ​ (m. 1934; div. 1935)​ Barbara Hutton ​ ​ (m. 1942; div. 1945)​ Betsy Drake ​ ​ (m. 1949; div. 1962)​ Dyan Cannon ​ ​ (m. 1965; div. 1968)​ Barbara Harris ​ ​ (m. 1981)​
Children	Jennifer Grant

OK, as this infobox is seen as something of vital value. Let's take a look at it. Largely dominated by a bloated list of wives? The relevance of Bristol and Davenport to Cary Grant's career? That and his wives are some of the most trivial things you can mention when it comes to summarising his article. Years active: 1920–1986. People will get the wrong impression that that was his film career so it's misleading if anything. In reality his film career was 1932-1966. Cary Grant was a film actor and the infobox doesn't even tell me he was a film star. Literally useless. If it actually conveyed important info about his career, his Academy Award wins or noms, Golden Globes, notable films etc then I'd see more point.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

There should be an Rfc covering all bios of actors, actress, producers, directors etc. concerning whether or not to have infoboxes. In such an Rfc, a 5-year mandatory freeze after the Rfc result would be ideal. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom ruled that they weren't compulsory. Would it ultimately be their call to make? JAGUAR 22:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Arbcom usually stays away from content disputes. Their concerns are on editor behavior. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The Arbcom ruling in the Infoboxes case 2013 was [5] "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Can an RfC overrule that? I wouldn't think so.Smeat75 (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

In the same ruling, arbcom said: Community discussion recommended, "The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article." That was in 2013. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I would not need any data about wives but their names, - the article could give details. I would need no "years active". Yes, the most important awards, please, and the list of his appearances as |work=Cary Grant on screen, stage and radio. Compare Marylin Monroe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

At least we agree that if there is to be an infobox the information does actually need to be informative and on topic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the time has come, to open up an Rfc on this matter at WP:Village Pump. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

For Cary Grant or infoboxes on bios in general? This makes me nervous. JAGUAR 23:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Adam Schiff acting like Joseph McCarthy makes me nervous. Anyways, the Village Pump is an option. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

""The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."" Well, their ruling is not adhered to. In practice a lot of people seem certain that infoboxes are a compulsory part of the furniture and as important as referencing. There is no respect for "not required".♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

How come the Britannica has an infobox if they are useless? (Hint:easy for primary school aged kids and people with special needs). A collapsed one covers this easily as pleasing both sides. There's no harm with a collapsed one but people would rather be nitpicking over small details. GuzzyG (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks awful, particularly with an advert pushing it further down the page. They didn't use to have infoboxes, I would guess Britannica introduced them to try be more like Wikipedia. They didn't use to allow people to edit either. Perhaps Gerda is also editing for Britannica ;-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Compromise

Use a collapsed infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Why? When the content is of little or no value what's the point of adding one for the sake of it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

A collapsed infobox would still invite people to ask why there isn't a full one. JAGUAR 17:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay: (in reply to this) I am leaning towards launching an RfC, with a moratorium of say, two years, where should the RfC not be successful, any attempts to add an infobox/discussion of with the intent of adding an infobox can be promptly reverted with a link to the RfC. Thoughts? jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Do it. Let's get this over with and to know whether Wikipedia gets with the times (like the gold standard: Britannica) and if it's a site that helps younger children and people with special needs comprehend and compact information. GuzzyG (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't take its editorial cues from Britannica, and I dispute the notion that children and those with reading comprehension issues would benefit from infobox trivia. If someone is unable to read the lead, how would his comprehension of the subject benefit from reading Mr. Grant's date and city of birth; date and city of death; career span (confusingly, not his film career); list of wives' names, marriage years, and divorce years; and child's name? Raw data doesn't inform the reader. A short children's book about Mr. Grant would most likely not include any of this information, preferring instead to explain, in simple words, what was meaningful about his work and life. Rebbing 13:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Going forward

Editors who want an infobox are apparently under the false impression that Wikipedia is supposed to serve its readers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs I understand that an infobox was in place for some years. If that's correct, then WP:EDITCONSENSUS dictates that the consensus hasn't changed and thus the infobox goes back. EDITCONSENSUS is policy, it's not a suggestion that can be disregard because some editors don't like it. Coretheapple (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

On a quick look the infobox hasn't been on the page since 2016 if not before (someone who has more of an interest will come with the exact date), so the no consensus would mean no infobox. And as I said in the discussion above, when the page was made a "Good" article judged on the state it was in on June 15, 2016, it was without an infobox. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

So what? Did the readers judge it a "good article"? Or was that judgment made by the editors who are obsessed with removing infoboxes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

When was the last time I removed an infobox? Probably June 2016, this. When was the last time any of the pro infoboxers added an infobox? Probably a few hours ago. Contrary to what you think none of us are obsessed with removing boxes, and unlike the pro gang we don't go around trying to enforce our preferences. We just want to produce a high quality encyclopedia and remove them in places where they are unnecessary as part of our duty to clean them up. When you redecorate your living room, sometimes the ugly old sofa or chair needs to go down the tip, that's life. On most arts biographies we believe that infoboxes are nothing more than furniture pieces and can't possibly summarise key facts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I often consult Wikipedia articles for basic facts. When there's no infobox, I assume some control freaks have expunged it, and I look elsewhere on the internet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Good heavens, the purpose of this discussion is not to rehash the previous discussion but to determine what the previous consensus was. Because that's what prevails after a "no-consensus" close. Out-of-sequence archiving is blanking. Please don't do that, folks. Thanks in advance. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2018 (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.