Jump to content

Talk:Rod Steiger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleRod Steiger is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 18, 2023.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 24, 2015Good article nomineeListed
September 8, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
October 4, 2015Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 14, 2017.
Current status: Featured article

RfC on whether or not Rod Steiger should have an infobox

[edit]
CLOSED
Closing since there's an ongoing RfC below to reduce confusion. Copying recent comments below to new RfC. Nemov (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 the article on Rod Steiger include an infobox? ๐•ฑ๐–Ž๐–ˆ๐–†๐–Ž๐–† (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Had there been any recent discussion on this that would necessitate an RFC? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was an RfC on this like 10 years ago. I added an infobox to the article the other day, not knowing the history, and was reverted and told the matter would need to go to RfC again. ๐•ฑ๐–Ž๐–ˆ๐–†๐–Ž๐–† (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. One has to realize infoboxes are the norm on wikipedia for important and notable people. The lack of an infobox for Steiger gives off the (false) impression he is not significant. 2600:1702:5F0:1B00:2129:A188:A6A6:6E01 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. All of his acting peers, equals, etc. I think of have info boxes. No real reason he should not. Besides, to people unfamiliar with him or wikipedia in general, makes the page look unusual and potentially as if he is not notable given the absence of the info box. La rodman (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes Extremely useful for casual readers to see key information at a glance. Actually makes the article look more professional amd official. This is just common sense at this point.--JOJ Hutton 10:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, particularly if people are going to edit war to their preference against a long-standing consensus. Such disruptive actions help no-one. Any discussion should be better than IDONTLIKEIT, or โ€˜it looks betterโ€™. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Johnbod, the significant info which would be conveyed isn't made clear. Also wholly oppose the logic of the IP - infoboxes are to convey important summaried info, not to indicate the 'significance' of the subject. Pincrete (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Personal details

[edit]

@Ficaia: Please stop edit-warring and seek consensus for the content you want to include. As Johnbod noted in the discussion above, your proposal over-emphasizes personal details (including naming a non-notable child, which should not be done) and obscures what the individual is actually known for. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, there was a 5 to 2 vote in favour of an infobox, and Johnbod's concerns were not shared by any other editor. ๐•ฑ๐–Ž๐–ˆ๐–†๐–Ž๐–† (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod was the only person to address specific parameters, either positively or negatively, which indicates that you have not achieved consensus for the contents you propose - only the template, which was in place both with and without your disputed content. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly common practice to include spouses in the infobox when reliably sourced. See articles on comparable actors and actresses: Marlon Brando, Marilyn Monroe, etc. ๐•ฑ๐–Ž๐–ˆ๐–†๐–Ž๐–† (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which parameters to use in a particular infobox is determined through consensus among the editors at each individual article. Which has not yet been achieved here. Please self-revert until that happens. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to an ibox if it gave me important information about his career and awards won etc. rather than trivia about his five wives and cemetery.. โ™ฆ Dr. Blofeld 20:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was watching On the Waterfront last night noticed this article didn't have an infobox. It's kind of funny to find the same editors debating the topic here. An infobox similar to the Laurence Olivier infobox would be an improvement to this article. It might take a RfC or two before it's included, but the community seems to be moving in the pro-infobox direction. Change takes time, but eventually one will be included here. "It wasn't him, Charley, it was you." Nemov (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Steiger infobox RfC

[edit]
CLOSED
I wouldn't normally close my own RfC, but there's a clear consensus to include the proposed infobox. Ordinary discussion and the BOLD, Revert, Discuss cycle are suggested when making changes to the infobox going forward. Nemov (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Rod Steiger
Rod Steiger in Al Capone (1959)
Born(1925-04-14)April 14, 1925
Westhampton, New York, US
DiedJuly 9, 2002(2002-07-09) (agedย 77)
Los Angeles, California, US
OccupationActor
Yearsย active1946โ€“2002
WorksFull list
AwardsFull list

Should the biography of Rod Steiger include an infobox? Nemov (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Please leave your comment in one the sections below. If you have questions for commenters please address it in discussion section. Here is an example of an infobox that could be included. Thanks!

Yes

[edit]
  1. The purpose of an infobox is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. I visited this article a few days ago while I was watching On the Waterfront. I wanted some quick facts such as filmography and awards he won. Plus, simple stuff like his age when he died. This type of information I expect to find quickly in an infobox. The information is in this article, but itโ€™s not summarized in a way thatโ€™s quick to consume.
    Infoboxes are a valuable part of the user experience when navigating an article on Wikipedia. Data analysis of Wikipedia articles show that users find the information contained in the infobox valuable.[1] Making information easy to find and consume is one this project's highest priorities and that's the purpose of an infobox. This article would be improved if one were included. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is a long article with a relatively long lead. I think an infobox would be useful to readers. The infobox proposed by Nemov is particularly useful, as it links to his filmography and awards. ๐•ฑ๐–Ž๐–ˆ๐–†๐–Ž๐–† (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes per Nemov. Biographies like this are improved with infoboxes that provide quick details for new readers. BogLogs (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. The lead and article are relatively long, and I found myself hunting for certain information that could be easily summarized in an infobox like the above. At the same time, an infobox does not prevent readers from diving into the detail of this well-written article, which is accessible, etc. โ€”ย Shibbolethink (โ™” โ™•) 20:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, I think it makes the page easier to navigate for many users.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. As others have said, helps the casual visitor to the page. Even for someone who is on Wikipedia all the time (far more as a reader than editor), it just makes a page easier to navigate and helps give a brief intro. I believe thatโ€™s why infoboxes are the norm. โ€”ย La rodman (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Infoboxes are pretty bog standard across the Wikipedia, especially in a biography. They summarize info in a concise and easily accessible manner. Click Special:Random and it takes quite awhile to find a page without one. I find it baffling that this is even contentious contested (was the word I meant to use). It is baffling why there is opposition to using an infobox. Zaathras (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, provides a useful summary to this question. This also isn't a contentious proposal; to the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Provides basic information for those who don't want to plough through the article. Nigej (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per all above. The opposition voters below seem to be quibbling about what specific information is included in the infobox, which is not the question being asked nor should it (or even this question) require an RfC. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Whilst not every article may need an infobox, this is a very long, detailed article, and so having the infobox as a summary of the information is advantageous to the casual reader. The discussion of what precisely should be in/not in the infobox is a separate discussion, but objection to specific information being in/not in one version of the infobox is not a reason to refuse an infobox outright. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support- Enough people find them useful to warrant an infobox.--JOJ Hutton 17:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support My opinion on infobox content is "when in doubt, leave it it out." But this one is small with only unquestioned content. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Yes, of course it should. And once it has one, it should be populated with the summary information that is usual in articles on actors. To be further discussed on the talk page, if that in itself is contentious (which I very much doubt) MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support: The box is small and unobstructive, and though I can see several ways it could be expanded, by design most infoboxes will remain unobstructive without much issue. For an article with a lead this long (probably too long), I doubt there's ever any issue. And of course I agree with many points expressed above, some of which I'm probably just restating here accidentally since I haven't read all of them (golly, that's a lotta votes). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Infoboxes are useful and handy! I do agree, however, that they should be used to convey the most relevant information about their subject, and not to mention any old trivia like place of burial. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Though I'd rather infoboxes be limited to politicians, athletes, monarchs. I must accept that the trend across Wikipedia, is to include infoboxes in all bio pages. GoodDay (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I find it helpful and standard to have a short set of biographical facts beneath the lead image on a biography. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Yes, there should be one. Excluding what makes someone or something notable from the infobox is not contrary to the utility of an infobox; that is, to give structured information to a reader, if I'm making any sense at all. SWinxy (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, without preference to any specific proposed infobox. Not saying the proposed specific one is best, just that in general, I find no reason to have no infobox in this one article. --Jayron32 12:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. The proposed infobox is an easily accessible resource for finding useful information โ€“ particularly the links to the works and awards pages, which aren't otherwise linked until much later in the article. ModernDayTrilobite (talk โ€ข contribs) 17:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No

[edit]
  1. Oppose I generally support infoboxes in articles where there is a lot of data or some important facts to highlight but not in articles where no vital information about the career of the individual is given and it highlights trivia. The proposed box with links to the filmography and awards is an improvement on the one with five wives and cemetery but they are just links. This has gone 8 years without one, read by tens of millions of people, and only a few people have ever complained. โ™ฆ Dr. Blofeld 08:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, per Johnbod's comment above, No, or not the one which was added which was useless: cemetery, 5 wives & children, but no films or awards! the significant info which would be conveyed isn't made clear. Also wholly oppose the logic of the IP above The lack of an infobox for Steiger gives off the (false) impression he is not significant - infoboxes are to convey important summaried info, not to indicate the 'significance' of the subject. Pincrete (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, Korny O'Near, TDKR Chicago 101, Charlie Awesome, Johnbod, La rodman, and Jojhutton: Pinging the editors from the previous discussion. Please comment if you are so inclined. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up. La rodman (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding SchroCat, who also commented.Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I copied SchroCat's comment and left a message as well. Nemov (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that both "No" positions at the time of this writing are against one particular infobox, not an infobox in general. What is this RfC really about? If there's some specific context it might be helpful to explain. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very devoted segment of editors opposed to infoboxes on biographies for a variety of reasons. You can review the previous discussions above. The one oppose from before wrote "I wouldn't object to an ibox if it gave me important information about his career and awards won etc. rather than trivia about his five wives and cemetery." This version of the infobox doesn't mention marriages and links to the list awards/filmography and the editor still opposed this modest infobox. Having a RfC is basically the only way to break the deadlock on some of these infobox discussions. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was this ever discussed somewhere, i.e. was there a "Infoboxes or No Infoboxes" centralized discussion at one point? It just seems like such a strange thing to contest. Zaathras (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Inbox fix

[edit]

Should we add his marriages onto the infobox like all the other infoboxes? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since he was married 5 times I would recommend leaving it out otherwise it'll just dominate what is currently a modest infobox. Nemov (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rod_Steiger&oldid=1219107051"