Talk:Noël Coward/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

His homosexuality was known to some

MIDDLE EAST DIARY — Noel Coward —Doubleday, Doran ($2).
Noel's Days. Suave, mauve Noel Coward also sang till his pipes cracked, but he found ample time to comment on life in the Mediterranean and Middle East.

• Something for the Boys, TIME Magazin, 6. November 1944

--Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 14:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Quite so, but he never discussed it publicly. As he is quoted in the article as saying, "There are still a few old ladies in Worthing who don't know." Tim riley talk 11:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Noel Coward Allan warren edit 1.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Noel Coward Allan warren edit 1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 16, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-12-16. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Sir Noël Coward (1899–1973) was an English playwright, composer, director, actor and singer. Coward published more than 50 plays, many of which have remained in the regular theatre repertoire. He composed hundreds of songs, well over a dozen musical theatre works, screenplays, poetry, several volumes of short stories, a novel, and a three-volume autobiography. Coward's stage and film acting and directing career spanned six decades, during which he starred in many of his own works and won an Academy Honorary Award in 1943. In the 1950s he achieved fresh success as a cabaret performer, performing his own songs. His plays and songs achieved new popularity in the 1960s and 1970s, and his work and style continue to influence popular culture.Photograph: Allan Warren; edit: Adam Cuerden

@Ssilvers: I think we and others have maintained the article to FA standards since FAC – six years ago, if you please! – what think you? Tim riley talk 16:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't checked to see if any refs have gone dead, but as far as I know, the content of the article continues to satisfy the FAC criteria. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I've checked and mended, replaced and in one case deleted where necessary. Tim riley talk 13:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Needs 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.

---

Ain't nothing wrong with omitting an infobox for a Featured Article like this. But would addition of infobox help a lot? --George Ho (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been considered previously and rejected. Tim riley (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I looked in the talk archives and can't find a discussion. Considered where, by who, how much? -- GreenC 18:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Most of the work on this article was done by Tim riley and me, and I agree with him that an infobox would not be helpful in this article. The WP:LEAD contains the information that would go in an infobox, and it gives that information in context and with more nuance than an infobox would give. See WP:DISINFOBOX for more information, but I would be happy to give a fuller description of why I think an infobox would be a bad idea here, if anyone wants to read more about it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this article would benefit from having an infobox. It would add value by making the vital facts about Coward's life accessible at a glance. I couldn't find the discussion mentioned in the archives either. --Albany NY (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need, to be honest. The key information is held in the lead, with the most important being in the first line or two. - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur with SchroCat. On the whole info-boxes are unhelpful for biographies of musicians, which is why they have generally been eschewed for the relevant Featured Articles. I don't think it would be advantageous to disturb the status quo here. Tim riley talk 07:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope, me neither. Adding a infobox would be a step in the wrong direction for this featured article. As illustrated above, Infoboxes work on some articles, but not on others. This, almost certainly, falls into the latter. Cassianto^Talk 12:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The article had an infobox in 2011, with flaws, and the image could be larger, but looking useful to me to find out at a glance when and where this person did what. There is never a need, but we can be willing to serve readers, even readers who behave differently. - We seem to have an infobox summer-flu ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

There wouldn't be, of course, if it wasn't for your insistence to irritate most infoboxless articles. Cassianto^Talk 00:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Plain wrong, see below also. It must be irritating when I merely point out that an infobox was there but reverted, and that it is common practise that the main editors get the say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right, it is irritating. Cassianto^Talk 08:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, sometimes what's right is irritating. Is it correct that an infobox was there but reverted? Is it common practise that the main editors make the decision, or not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find that its life started out without an IB. Where was the discussion to add one five years later when someone had added this utter joke. That's five, happy years of survival without an infobox, of sorts. Cassianto^Talk 08:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment Not understanding why two old infobox discussions have been re-opened at two Featured Articles in the last two days. Yesterday it was Talk:Gustav Holst and today it's Noël Coward. Yesterday's discussion at Gustav Holst spilled over to my talk page. My opinion expressed there is the same: the addition or exclusion of an infobox is up to the main editor(s) of the article. Again-I don't see a group of editors going through WP removing infoboxes from article because of personal preference. They are added or removed by main editors when an article has undergone major changes. But I have seen infoboxes ADDED to articles despite prior consensus not to have one,and old infobox discussions suddenly being revived (here and at Gustav Holst to name a couple). It's not unusual to see that authors of Featured Articles have been put through the "infobox mill" more than once regarding the subject.

Tempers sometimes flare on both sides of the issue; the bottom line is that it's a giant waste of time and disruptive for both the pro and the anti infobox factions. Everyone is using time to discuss the issue which ought to be put to better use; no one can create content when in the midst of an infobox discussion-the time is spent on the infobox issue. If WP had no content, the subject of an infobox is moot--it would be simply a collection of little fact boxes. With almost 2 million stubs in need of expansion at WP, the time spent on "to infobox or not to infobox" would be better spent in expansion or creation of content. To me, everyone's a loser when one of these discussions breaks out-those on both sides of the question and the readers, who come here for content. We hope (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"the addition or exclusion of an infobox is up to the main editor(s) of the article" .. that is inaccurate. It is up to community consensus. Should someone decide to open a simple RfC "Should this article have an infox" consensus will decide the issue. You can't negate the opinion of other editors based on seniority ie. the "main editor", that is classic WP:OWN. -- GreenC 15:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you take your WP:OWN accusation and stick it where the the sun don't shine? Cassianto^Talk 00:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

So you think? That would be nice, but common practise is different: they come, improve and get rid of an infobox, even if it was there for years, - and seem to be surprised that we object. - Correcting We hope: no discussion was "revived" on Gustav Holst. During an active RfC there about the hidden notice, an editor claimed that a consensus not to have an infobox had been established. That was not yet established but will be ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

And we can continue to argue, dither and otherwise waste the time of those on both sides of the question, so my opinion is to keep the article is it presently is-no infobox. We hope (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

An RfC wouldn't be dithering. Enter a !vote and walk away and let the chips fall where they may. 30 days later the issue gets resolved. Very simple. The alternative is open-ended unresolved threads .. like this one started 2.5 years ago. -- GreenC 22:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

In violation of the infobox arbitration case, Gerda goes around Wikipedia trying to add infoboxes to existing articles. The Infobox arbitration case did not conclude that every article needs to have an RfC about adding an infobox. It said that the editors who are interested in each article can form a consensus, if they wish, to change its IB status. The time and place to forge a consensus about an infobox for a Featured Article is at extensive FAC discussions. It is bad faith to go around trying to insert infoboxes into Featured Articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Plain wrong. There are millions of articles without infobox on Wikipedia (to which I don't go). I didn't come to this one to have an infobox, but was alerted by the header on my watchlist. I didn't insert one in the article (which I could have done, I am no longer restricted.) I didn't even suggest one on this talk. I only pointed out that there was one that was reverted. May I? -- Did you know that only one restriction of the arbitration case is still active: "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general."? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason this issue keeps coming up is that to many Wikipedians, including myself, infoboxes clearly improve articles and not having one appears glaringly incorrect and inconsistent with most other biographical articles (in this case, see the peer articles Arthur Miller, Tennessee Williams, Neil Simon, and Eugene O'Neill). I agree that an RfC would be a better way to deal with this because it has a clear resolution. --Albany NY (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, other editors feel the opposite way. We believe that you are degrading and dumbing down the encyclopedia. The difference is that *we* don't go around sneakily bullying people into letting us remove infoboxes from articles that we haven't even edited before, in violation of the arbitration case, while Gerda and others do. Perhaps you will succeed, and then the good editors will leave the project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this is an accurate summary. There are two groups of editors who express strong views pro- or con- info-boxes. The difference is that the hardcore pro set regularly turn up en bloc at articles to which they have not contributed any content and try to force a box in, whereas those against i-bs for such articles spend much (too much) of our time resisting such attempted take-overs; we, by contrast, do not suddenly appear en masse at articles where we are not contributors and demand the removal of boxes. A certain reciprocity would be welcome in this regard. Tim riley talk 07:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Tim, please give us one example of what you describe as "regularly", just one. I think you may remember a past. - My view: we who like structured information at a glance are not even a group, but single people coming independently with the same view. My socalled flash mob is a myth but got a nice picture (the second) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Earth calling! See all the classical music FAs that have had a sudden swarm of box-pushers in the past few days. You may recognise some names. Amazing outbreak of interest in classical music, amounting to a miraculous mass conversion, in editors who have hitherto contributed nothing to these articles. Tim riley talk 10:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean Gustav Holst, with a discussion about the hidden notice, because someone whose name I never heard in this context removed it. Not a good example. This article is also no good example, I was alerted by the word infobox on my watchlist, have no idea what made those come who were here before me. - What, btw, is a "box-pusher"? - Found on B's talk page: "If we would grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith, we could dispense with some of the drama ...". We could start today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Look, Gerda, do you want to get us both banned? Let us consider a purely hypothetical example: if I could produce numerous emails proving that you invited me to gang up with you on another (frightful) editor, ought I to do so? If such a hypothetical eventuality were the case in reality I should, of course, respect your confidentiality, but let us not pretend that regular off-Wiki plotting doesn't go on. Tim riley talk 16:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

If I did off-Wiki plotting I would hopefully be a little more successful, but I don't. Ganging up: I won you to do a GA review, and you refused the next request, as far as I remember. - If I wanted to have all articles with an infobox I would add infoboxes day and night in fields with no objection. Instead, I invite you to a FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose info box for the reasons I have stated elsewhere, namely that they add nothing to an article and merely repeat the information contained in a well written lead. In addition, other reputable encyclopaedias such as Britannica and ODNB do not see a need for therm. Jack1956 (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Britannica does use infoboxes. See the box on their Noel Coward page. --Albany NY (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Grove and the ODNB and all the dozens of Oxford reference works known to me do not. Tim riley talk 16:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems clear that there is no consensus here either for or against an infobox. It has come to my attention that a similar dispute on the Frank Sinatra article was resolved by using a collapsed infobox. I think this would be a reasonable compromise solution in this case. --Albany NY (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't run away with the idea that it was a happy compromise, because it wasn't. It's just another, more secretive way for you and a bunch of other people to enforce POV onto an article that you have in no way improved and do not care about. Cassianto^Talk 18:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto is right. There being no consensus for a change, the status quo prevails. Tim riley talk 18:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent research "has shown that most readers focus their attention on the content of an article that appears “above the fold” — usually just the lede section and the top of the infobox." The infobox is integral to an article, it's where most readers focus their attention. Lack of an infobox is detrimental. -- GreenC 15:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

If that were so, it would be Wikipedia's policy to make I-Bs compulsory, but it isn't – as we all know. Tim riley talk 18:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Green Cardamom, maybe you could provide a reliable source with regards to your findings, as opposed to a blog on Wikipedia which, as we all know, is not a reliable source. Cassianto^Talk 18:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto: Sources are linked there. Tim_riley: That's a logical fallacy. The existence of studies does not equate to Wikipedia policy, nor does the lack of policy negate the studies. -- GreenC 19:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as you consider policy to be more important than what makes a great article, then get your lushers round this: "An infobox is neither required nor prohibited". There's some policy for you. Cassianto^Talk 19:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"then get your lushers round this" What is a "lushers"?? Do I have lushers? All the policy says is the topic is open for discussion, which we are having. -- GreenC 14:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Lushers mean lips; any old fool knows that. Cassianto^Talk 16:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope, never heard of it, and google search doesn't show anything. I think the American version is "wrap your lips around this" and most of the refs I can find deal with sexual innuendo mostly implying a penis, or figurative one. Is that what the phrase implies there in London too? -- GreenC 00:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Green Cardamom, yes, readers focus their attention at the top: that's old news, but that's the reason why we have a lead that summarises the article, showing the key and important information. At least the information that is shown is in the lead is shown in context and balanced, rather than dumbed-down and out of context factoids that don't actually aid understanding about the subject. – SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

dumbed-down and out of context factoids That's certainly a valid opinion, and there are valid counter-opinions about infoboxes, most articles have them. The link I posted above is evidence, not opinion. That's the difference - it's called evidence based decision making. The evidence is that most readers are focusing their reading on infoboxes (and lead sections). IMO the article is weaker without an infobox, based on the evidence. -- GreenC 14:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the link is not evidence: it makes some statements about the research, but the conclusions people draw from that research are not hard fact, it is their opinion of what the facts may mean. Aside from that, we would have to know on what sort of articles the research was based (i.e., did it just look at articles with IB's or a mixture of some with and some without, which would, rather obviously, give entirely different conclusions). "evidence based decision making" is all well and good, but you have to question the evidence first, to see it is fit for purpose—and the blog does not do that terribly well). People may grasp individual factoids from an IB, but they don't gain knowledge or understanding of a subject, and a well-written lead provides that data in context, with the key facts (name, date of birth/death, reason for importance, etc) in the opening line or two. Interesting that the subject is, I'll leave it here, I think: I am both exhausted and bored by the recent spate of IB discussions that have miraculously appeared recently. – SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

If the "evidence" were correct, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, the Oxford suite of reference works, American National Biography Online, Deutsches Biographisches Archiv, World Who's Who, the Dictionary of Canadian Biography etc ect would have info-box-style additions, and they haven't. Wikipedia doesn't need to stand out like a sore thumb from the professional reference works that it seeks to rival. Tim riley talk 15:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You placed "evidence" in quotes - do you disbelieve the studies that found most people only read the lead section and infobox? -- GreenC 00:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"IMO the article is weaker without an infobox" -- you'd know, of course. Tell me, how many features articles have you authored? Cassianto^Talk 16:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't "author" articles, we contribute to articles. You don't own any articles including the ones displayed on your userpage. It's one thing to display a sense of ownership pride of work, another entirely to use that against other editors to try and invalidate their opinions or work, that is classic WP:OWN. If you think being the author of multiple FA gives you special rights or privileges than we have a problem that goes beyond infoboxen. -- GreenC 00:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Attempting to have a constructive exchange is proving difficult. There's none so deaf as them as wants to be, as the Yorkshire saying has it. The point about taking articles through FA is by no means invalid (and accusing Cassianto of WP:OWN is way off the mark, as he has not been a major contributor to any of the articles currently under assault by the info-box army, though he has elsewhere staunchly stood up their coordinated bombardments at articles where he has been the lead editor). And the repeated assertions about research fail to answer my point that none of the professional reference sites mentioned above find info-boxes, or anything like, them desirable. As the professionals don't think them necessary, we amateurs ought to have the humility to take note. No doubt this is among the reasons why info-boxes have been ruled optional as a matter of poicy across en.WP. Tim riley talk 06:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying the evidence of the study is invalidate because something elsewhere doesn't exist? The study says what it says. It doesn't need other high bars to exist. I have been hesitant to start the RfC until we clear the air on some things and see who else might step in. Clearly there have been multiple opinions on both sides of this issue, with a few loud voices dominating and the less vocal users checking out. That's not healthy for a democratic and fair process, it's why we have RfCs, to give everyone an equal voice. Do you think everyone should have an equal voice on Wikipedia based on merit? What is really concerning is the OWN issues on display which transcend the content dispute. -- GreenC 01:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Aww, what's this? You want to be known for writing an FA just like the big kids? Tough. You are in no way responsible for this article getting to FA, or any other FA, in fact, than my kitchen cactus is. You can use liberal phrases like "we all contribute to articles" and "it's not yours to own" etc, but let me make this clear: I author my articles. I buy or rent the books, subscribe to the research sites, design the layout, pick the pictures, pick the reference styles, choose the headings, choose the categories, and judge the length. As my reward, I steward that article through the FA process, and take a beating or praising when my more intelligent and esteemed colleagues come to review it. That whole process takes months. I am therefore entitled to refer to it as my own and treat it like my own; that means I will protect it from people like you who come here to enforce something onto it that I don't agree with. If this makes me a policy breacher then good, I couldn't give a flying toss. My articles, not including this one, or, as Tim rightly points out above, any of those subjected to the infobox flash-mob scrum down that's been happening recently, mean more to me than being blocked, banned, or any of the other shite that I've been threatened with over the last few weeks. Cassianto^Talk 06:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The whole FA system was made with good intentions but can also be toxic to the community when it adversely impacts egos, like I am therefore entitled to refer to it as my own and treat it like my own. A more blatant case of WP:OWN I have yet to see. If you talk like this in front of admins you very well might get sanctioned. -- GreenC 00:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep linking to OWN? I think we've established the fact that as the author, you should get to have more of a say so on an FA than anyone else? I think you'll find that that is a widely regarded concept. Glad to see you liked my picture, by the way! ;) Cassianto^Talk 06:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you read OWN? Specifically Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#Statements because your posts in this forum are a taxominy of techniques to suppress editorial opinions. Your picture was part of a pattern of uncivil (actually nasty) behavior, and it mocked other editors for not having as many FA as you. That is exactly what OWN behavior is, belittlement of other editors based on an attitude of possessiveness. -- GreenC 13:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

So you haven't got your own way on forcing an IB onto the page, so you're going to re-hash the whole nonsense over an RfC? ~sigh~ There really are bigger and better things to do that constantly re-hash the formatting of repeated factoids on one small part of the page, not forgetting the fact that as it's fairly clear there is no clear consensus to add a box at present, an RfC could be seen as being disruptive. - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

A lack of consensus is why RfC's exist. We don't have RfCs when there is consensus. If your saying the RfC will close no consensus, maybe, who knows? All we have is a few loud minority voices - the point of an RfC is to give the community at large an opportunity to participate because few will want to participate in this monster thread, other than the usual suspects. -- GreenC 13:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• So forum shoping to get your own way? That's just disruptive, particularly as the ususal suspects from the flash mob will (miraculously) turn up once again - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• An RfC is not WP:FORUMSHOP: there has never been consensus established for this article, there are no discussions in other forums about this article. -- GreenC 17:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• Of course there has: this question has been answered several times, and just because you don't like it trying to force it through other areas (particularly at ANI where you made complaints without notifying the editors involved) smacks of an underhanded, toys-out-of-pram forum shop. - SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You might want to wipe the dirt out of your eyes and take another look; I count the consensus on this page to be in favour of not having an infobox. But then that doesn't suit you does it; so because you don't like the answer, you want to open it up to a bunch of people who have no interest in the subject matter and who have probably never even heard of Coward, just because you know they are sheep and will want infobox consistency across the board, without looking at the wider picture. That's disruptive, in my view. Also, in regards to the ownership bollocks you keep droaning on about, in my mind, yes, I do consider myself to have more of a say on the articles I have spent time and money stewarding to FA. If that upsets you, then I suggest you go and deal with it somewhere else because frankly, Green Cardamom, I'm sick of this exchange. I haven't written anything on Coward, true, but I wouldn't dare force something onto it out of respect to those who spent time and effort writing and researching it, policy or not. Cassianto^Talk 14:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Short pause while I rock with bitter mirth at the phrase "the usual suspects". That would, naturally not apply to the dozen hard-core IB warriors who mysteriously appeared en masse at half a dozen music FAs a few weeks ago, having exhibited not the slightest interest in any of them in the years before or since the articles went through the PR and FAC processes. "My last territorial claim in Europe"...then the Sudetenland, Poland etc. - the same tactics, albeit on an infinitely trivial scale. (And still no response to my question why only WP rather than the professional reference sites needs boxes.) Tim riley talk 14:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah warriors a concern on both sides. FWIW I've never been involved in a Infobox discussion before this. I imagine an RfC that required a disclaimer of prior 3 month IB consensus discussion activity (yes or no) might help the closing admin weigh decisions. -- GreenC 17:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Guidance request at ANI. -- GreenC 17:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Moving this to an Requests for Comment discussion to help form WP:CONSENSUS. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

There was already a consensus, despite one editor not agreeing with it. Opening an RfC smacks of forum shopping just because a disruptive approach from someone who doesn't like it is just disruptive. – SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 15 August 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.

Should Noël Coward return to its original FA state with no infobox?

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

---

Should Noël Coward return to its original Featured Article state with no infobox? We hope (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes: a poorly closed RfC that vote counted IDONTLIKEITs is no way to deal with out quality product. - SchroCat (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes – Indeed. At a quick count (subject to audit) I make it 20 ayes to 14 noes, above. That doesn't seem to me to match the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "consensus": "Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons". Even stretching it to omit the "unanimous", you could hardly call a split of 20 to 14 "a collective opinion". Tim riley talk 12:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes Time to end this farce. JAGUAR  12:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes -- the infobox added by Dane2007 is an absolute joke and a slap in the face to all the hard work put in by the FAC nominators. I have a bloody good mind to try and seek an WP:FAR and to try and have this article delisted as an FA. The grounds being that the article is now no longer at the same consensus as it was when it was promoted. As for the close, there was no consensus to close in favour of an idiotbox; like AFDs it should have been closed as "no consensus" as the divide was too narrow to say one way or the other. Shame on the closer -- Cassianto^Talk 15:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy close per WP:FORUMSHOP: Raising essentially the same issue on...talk pages...repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. See also Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures: For...formal RFCs, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself. If you are not satisfied with Guy's closing of the RfC on this question just a few hours ago, request review rather than opening a new (and less neutrally worded) RfC. FourViolas (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Comment restored after Cassianto removed it without a valid rationale under WP:TPO. FourViolas (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

But according to you and your pals, consensus can change, right? Or does this only work for when things are not going your way? Cassianto^Talk 14:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:CCC begins: Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive. There are no new arguments here, and 8 hours can be considered "recent". FourViolas (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

But there was no consensus - see above. Tim riley talk 16:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

According to the closing admin, there was indeed a rough consensus in favor of inclusion. If the seven of you disagree, you must file for review at WP:AN rather than starting a new RfC on the same subject. FourViolas (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Despite the usual orchestral opinion of violists, they are usually credited with an ability to count, more or less. 20 for and 14 against is not a consensus, and the administrator was at fault in failing to do the arithmetic. Tim riley talk 18:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The closing admin was wrong to have closed it in favour for an infobox. There was hardly an overwhelming consensus. Cassianto^Talk 17:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

By who? A year is "recent" as far as I'm concerned! But congratulations to you, your friends and, more specifically, Dane2007 who have helped collectively to bastardise this article beyond all recognition. I hope you're all proud of yourselves. Cassianto^Talk 14:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes -- The infobox includes mostly trivial factoids, devoid of nuance, while the article's WP:LEAD contains an excellent short summary of the subject's life and work and would bring a clearer understanding of the subject without the infobox. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes Per above. Really looked more professional before and I genuinely mean that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. Six ayes and no noes. Shall revert. Tim riley talk 16:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. It's good to see this kind of consensus coming about by thoughtful discussion. I for one shall take the silence from the noes camp to mean they relent and actually think it a good idea to remove the infobox. Cassianto^Talk 16:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment --I also support the article as it was, with no infobox,and am glad it has been put back that way. In closing the above RfC,User:Dane2007 Guy made the strange (to me, anyhow) comment "Importantly, most "outsiders" (i.e. people who were nto already involved in arguing over this) clearly support" the inclusion of an infobox. Why are "outsiders"' opinions given more weight than the people who actually create content on articles about musicians, etc.? seems outrageous to me.Smeat75 (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Smeat75. We all know that the closing process was botched. I don't think the closing admin actually knows what makes a consensus, and I wouldn't be surprised if his involvement came as a result of a few private emails. Nothing would surprise me around here anymore. Cassianto^Talk 16:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Smeat75 I would imagine Guy believes outsiders are not emotionally charged by the infobox wars. Perhaps he will explain. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

While we're waiting for hell to freeze over, maybe you explain what you mean by the term "outsiders"? Cassianto^Talk 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

outsider: a person who is not one of the editors involved in the authorship of this BLP biography. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC) ^{correction 22:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)}

BLP? Of someone who died in 1973? Atsme, are you genuinely expecting anyone to take your contribution seriously? Tim riley talk 18:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, I meant biography. As for the rest of your comment, it only serves to prove how infantile and damaging this whole infobox affair has been on "outsiders". I hope an administrator or ArbCom will step up to the plate and resolve this issue once and for all. I certainly hope for your sake that you don't think your condescension toward me over a simple mistake on a TP is going to change the outcome of the RfC that was correctly closed by Guy or that it will lend credibility to this inappropriate RfC. The content on WP is free to anyone to modify, change, print, publish, or do whatever as long as they cite WP, so you might as well get used to that fact. All the hard work that goes into ANY article is subject to change - that's the name of the game - and if you think otherwise, you're mistaken. The Coward biography does not begin and end here, and neither does the MOS that was used to create it which could change next year. These articles are free to be copied by anyone and can be published anywhere in any form and it would be wise for you to not hook your wagon to that star. You can't even guarantee what the internet will be like 3 years from now, yet you're all up in arms over an infobox? Bludgeoning GF editors over something none of us have any control over is what damages credibility, but I suppose understanding that simple fact requires some level of maturity. Good day, sir. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please don't run away with the idea that you are all GF editors, because you're not. Cassianto^Talk 23:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• No support infobox. The infobox has value. It can give the basic biog information in tabular form: life, death, honours (Gonged? Knighted? When?) and as a frame for a masthead image. Coward's happens to be short, which is still no reason for it to not exist. "Trivial factoids" should be avoided, but that's a question of avoiding trivial factoids, not a condemnation of infoboxes per se. Many people here dislike infoboxes: in which case some minor CSS will make them vanish for you. That is no reason to affect article content for the rest of the readers. As a general principle, we do favour infoboxes. No case has been made as to why Coward is an exception (the case has been made over and over again that some editors dislike all infoboxes). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As a general principle, we do favour infoboxes -who is this "we"? There is no such policy. Perhaps this "we" includes editors such as the one on this page who likes infoboxes so they don't have to read "stupid text" or the one who wants to force an infobox into an article about someone he obviously has no clue who it is since he thinks Coward is still alive.Smeat75 (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Smeat75. What Andy says is simply and verifiably – well, I don't say a lie, but undeniably untrue. Tim riley talk 18:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Smeat75, the moronic comment, made by LaughingVulcan who called the writing "stupid text", is here. I didn't want to interfere with your comment by putting it in. Cassianto^Talk 19:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Of course "we", meaning the body of WP editors, "favour" infoboxes, meaning that we have invested a great deal of effort in them and have applied them to a large proportion of large articles. Most of those where we haven't are just the smaller ones.

If you have a concrete problem with infoboxes, then feel free to explain it. So far I am hearing reasons as individual readers, not regarding how article content is better without them. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• • Can you tell me where in the first paragraph this information you list above isn't given?

"Sir Noël Peirce Coward (16 December 1899 – 26 March 1973) was an English playwright, composer, director, actor and singer, known for his wit, flamboyance, and what Time magazine called "a sense of personal style, a combination of cheek and chic, pose and poise". Cassianto^Talk 18:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Why? Is it harder to parse as prose than as a table? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Is that your style, answering incoherently to avoid answering the question? Cassianto^Talk 22:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• No per original RfC above. This is the most blatent, egregious example of forum shopping that i've ever seen by parties who were disappointed the outcome was not in their favor. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you've caused enough trouble around here of late. There was no consensus to close. Do you realise the shit-storm you've caused? Cassianto^Talk 19:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The forum shopping, as usual, was by those who initiated the Rfc, having failed to pursuade the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes Should have been closed as no consensus, and there is no review process for such closures. The closer's admitted policy of giving more weight to those who had never edited the article is downright bizarre (and I'm far from sure he assessed this correctly anyway). Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• No Infoboxes are good. They give a fast summation of the important data and should always be encouraged. Absconded Northerner (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Would you mind not genrally speaking and actually take the time to consider as to whether this article should have one and maybe give your points? Cassianto^Talk 20:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• No - just in case this inappropriate RfC is wrongfully considered appropriate. My position remains the same - infoboxes are useful, helpful, and do not distract from the article anymore than a taxobox distracts. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• No but I wish we could figure out a long-term solution that will not cost us some of WP's best editors of quality content. Montanabw^(talk) 23:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• No - As with Atsme above, but I'll amend thusly: Specifically, if I'm looking up when a person died or how old they currently are, something I do frequently, I want to look to the place where I can reliably find such information: The infobox. Even if I'm not specifically looking for only those tidbits, I usually want that information before I begin reading the article (if I'm looking to read and not just distill one or two fast facts.) I do not want to have to scan several paragraphs of text to find one isolated fact (that may not be there) that is readily available in a standardized location. Before you ask, "What specifically from the lead is missing?": What age was he at death? Where did he die? Over which years was he active in the arts? What order was he knighted into and what level was he at death? (Missing in the article proper, too?) Although I do think that items in the lead are specifically repeatable in an infobox, too. LaughingVulcan 23:39, 29 August 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.

What does being on the black book imply?

At the moment, the article has the claim "Had the Germans invaded Britain, Coward was scheduled to be arrested and killed, as he was in The Black Book along with..." I deleted the "and killed" bit, which was reverted by Tim riley with the comment "please read rest of para". Yes, of course, for this Rebecca West quote to be meaningful this claim is needed. However, that does not make it right. See The Black Book, where there is no claim whatsoever that the listed persons should be executed automatically, neither have I found any mention of this in a sample of articles on the listed persons. I mean, Neville Chamberlain is on the list, I really cannot imagine that he was scheduled to be executed. Seattle Jörg (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The source quoted says otherwise, and whatever any editor "imagines" is neither here nor there: the sources are key. - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

West's quote says, "...the people we should have been seen dead with", reflecting her assumption that those in the book (or at least the bulk of them) would have been executed, had the Nazis invaded Britain. But, let's see what User:Tim riley has to say. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm away from home and bookshelves until 30th inst, and will comment in detail as soon thereafter as I can. Meanwhile Seasonal Greetings to you all (though perhaps I should say Joyeux Noël.) Tim riley talk 20:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Back in London, and have checked the sources on my Coward shelf: they are clear. There's no suggestion that mere arrest was mooted. "In 1945, when the Nazi list of people marked down for immediate liquidation was unearthed and published…" (Coward (1954), p. 121), and this is Citron (p. 174):

What Noel did not learn until 1945 was that he and a great many other dissenters, intellectuals, patriots, spies, homosexuals and Jews were targeted for immediate execution … Noel was all of these except for being Jewish and would have stood no chance of survival. His name was high on Hitler's black list of those to be immediately 'exterminated'. At the end … came the name of Noel's friend Rebecca West. After VE Day, when the list was published, she wired 'MY DEAR THE PEOPLE WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN DEAD WITH!'

I think it would be right to stick with the present wording in the article. – Tim riley talk 11:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hm. You have references that say that he was to be executed, I do not have references that say that he was not to be executed. But if you please could change the reasoning (...arrested and killed because in black book...): I stand by my claim that being on the black book in itself does not imply immediate execution. See for example the german entry on the Black Book: All the items on the list have some department back in Germany (sometimes specified to the detail of four levels down) the captured were to be transferred to, they were not to be shot on sight. See also what is said here: https://www.forces-war-records.co.uk/hitlers-black-book/

"There seems to be little written evidence that those 'wanted' would have any collective 'fate' as such, although some would obviously have more to fear than others based on what we knew after 1942 of the Holocaust and concentration camps (i.e. Jews, Communists and ex Nazi defectors), however no arrest or incarceration would have been pleasant." And:

"The list also gives a glimpse of the ‘type’ of persons who were to be arrested (if not specifically on the list)- Politicians, press barons, large international company directors, trade unionists, communists/political opponents & Jews, Gypsies, senior clergymen, scientists and everyone who had already escaped the Nazis from occupied Europe, in essence anyone either useful to the Nazi regime or a perceived opponent." -- Seattle Jörg (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we have to stick with what the article sources actually say rather than speculate. Unless any other editor objects I propose we leave the text as drawn. Tim riley talk 15:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Tim riley. Unless you can cite a WP:RS that more clearly shows that everyone understood that it was likely that they would *not* be executed, then I think the text, as written, is clear. Also, please try to format your Talk page contributions compactly. In fact, I try to make my Talk page contributions fit into one paragraph so that it is clear that my signature belongs to my comment. If you use multiple paragraphs in one Talk page comment, it is not always clear who is writing. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Maternal grandfather

An editor has added a link to Henry Gordon Veitch, who at first sight I thought might not actually be the man of that name who was Violet Coward's father – the dates look rather unlikely. But on checking the family tree in the Hoare biography I find that this is indeed the right man (b. 1814, d. 1863, the year of Violet's birth.) I've added this note in case anyone else is as doubtful as I was. Tim riley talk 11:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Citation format

Regarding this revert[1] .. Is there some reason for not using citation templates? (assuming all were changed). -- GreenC 18:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Either form is equally acceptable (though I personally find templates restricting - eg inability to bundle multiple cites) but we must be consistent. Your unexplained change made one citation read "retrieved" when all the others said "accessed". Not very clever in a featured article (or any other kind). Tim riley talk 19:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation templates are a crutch for people to use if they can't remember the elements of a bibliographic citation. It is much better, and easier for people to read on the edit screen, to give the bibliographic details as they are give here. It is too bad that so many editors here think that they have to jam all this ugly coding at our readers. As Tim riley notes, the tamplates are restrictive (although we do use the "Cite Book" template for sources at the bottom). It is much better for our readers to simply present the bibliographic information for non-book citations as follows: author's name (last then first), the title of the article or webpage, the name of the publisher/work, the date of publication, and the page number or url, as well as the access date, if the article is accessed a significant amount of time after it is published. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Edith Nesbit

I removed a sentence that was added to the article today, referring to E. Nesbit. Coward was a fan of her writing and met her in 1922, keeping in touch with her until her death. Some sources say that she was possibly his favorite writer, and it is true that he re-read her books throughout his life, but I see no indication that he (or anyone) credited her as a significant influence on his own writing. That he was reading one of her books at the time of his death is not important, and I can't really see that his admiration for her writing is of encyclopedic interest, although others may wish to comment or disagree. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur. It is always tempting to add such pleasing incidental details when one runs across them, but the temptation is usually better resisted. In a biographical article of encyclopaedic length (5,900 words in this case) it is important to concentrate on the core essentials and avoid peripheral material. Tim riley talk 07:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Summoned by Bots

Why are bots summoning more infoboxers who have never cared about this article before or contributed useful content to it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

More to the point, why are we answerable to the lemmings who turn up as a result of these bots? Cassianto^Talk 18:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this discussion? I find it offensive to be called a lemming simply because I took the initiative to participate in this RfC. The purpose of an RfC is to get COMMUNITY INPUT. This section actually needs to be hatted. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a guideline on the use of infoboxes. It is WP:INFOBOXUSE, and it says: "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." It does not say that if you want to force an infobox into an article that has, for goodness sake, already passed a FAC, you should start an RFC about it. It says the "editors at each individual article." That should be the editors who care about the article and, I think it is fair to say, those who have actually contributed to its content and quality. I don't think the RFC is legitimate. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I won't dispute that fact, Ssilvers. My objection is that the RfC was called, I came here in GF, and I don't appreciate being referred to as a lemming. It's downright offensive. Not having an infobox is certainly not grounds for a FAR, so it may be appropriate for content editors and/or stewards to discuss with the OP a possible retraction of the RfC.^{Atsme📞📧} 19:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

What would you call it then? I think: "A person who unthinkingly joins a mass movement, especially a headlong rush to destruction" is a damn good analogy to use in an an infobox RfC. Cassianto^Talk 19:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I've changed my mind about not disputing the legitimacy of this RfC. I see where an informal discussion was held prior to this RfC which included participation by uninvolved editors that apparently led to this RfC. I'm now of the mind that this RfC should run its course and let the chips fall where they may. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Why? Because infoboxes are a general point, Coward a specific article. It is entirely appropriate for those who hold a general belief over infoboxes (either way) to argue that in application to specific articles, even when they have no previous connection to that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Andy Dingley, my apologies but can you please be more specific? I don't understand to what your "Why?" references. Is it something in my comment? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, a nesting mismatch. That should have been a comment to Cassianto's uncivil dismissal of other editors as "lemmmings". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Mmmmm... Lemmmings! EEng

Everything's considered as "uncivil" isn't it; especially on the side of those who disagree with me. Apparently though it's not uncivil to dismiss someone's hard work as "stupid text". Funny old world. Cassianto^Talk 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

And as I asked an 8 year old just the other day, does that make what you're doing right?

8 year olds can understand this. Where are you having the problem with it? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a funny world, Cassianto. Nice use out of context. Why not reference where the whole exchange between us on this page is visible here? You've certainly tried to milk my error since I last replied here, as have your buddies, these last nine plus days I've been away and week I've been on break. Just decided to keep gnawing the bone while I was away, huh?

I’d note you never replied to the substance of the whole paragraph let alone that sentence in the RfC – I guess the rest of my comment was OK. Maybe that’s why you’re so wound up?

Anyway, your civility problems are still your problems, not mine, to deal with. (Hint: They ain’t so much about dropping f-bombs in my case. And I don’t think mine are as legion as yours, but whatever. I'll try to do better with mine.) To make this one shorter, though, I'll refer anyone reading this to my last answer to you, which still seems to apply except I’ll come out of break for a bit. But that bone you're chawing looks pretty tired, so I’ll give you a new quote to chew on below. LaughingVulcan 23:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Is my fault that you're inconsiderate, rude and unappreciative about people's work? Have you ever considered monitoring your own language before you raise mine up on a flagpole? Cassianto^Talk 23:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion of me is noted, as is the first version of your above comment; be careful with what you refer to as a Freudian slip before one takes you at the literal meaning of that term. I refer you to my last answer. LaughingVulcan 00:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Good. I'm afraid I have no idea what your talking about and I'd ask for you to AGF. Cassianto^Talk 00:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of the WP:FRS is to draw diverse editorial-community viewpoints to RfCs, so that they are less apt to devolve into WP:OWN / WP:VESTED / WP:LOCALCONSENSUS / WP:FAITACCOMPLI / WP:FILIBUSTER messes. The very fact that good-faith respondents to FRS requests for participation in an RfC (that stands for "request for comments", from the entire community, not "request for my faction to back me up and help me get my way") are being mass-attacked as "lemmings" is proof enough why FRS is needed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A propos of nothing...

Ronald Neame told me that it was Coward who insisted on the Rachmaninov as the soundtrack for Brief Encounter. He sent me a copy of his memoir, but it got lost in the transatlantic post and he is now sadly no longer with us. I could ask Donna I suppose, but if anyone has a copy it would be an interesting snippet. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should an Infobox be added to the page?

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.

---

Question: Should an Infobox be added to the article? -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes, in general. Infoboxes are especially helpful for mobile users, who are now our largest userbase. That said, it depends on the details, of course. It is possible to create a terrible infobox full of trivia if someone obsessively tries to complete every possible field, or to fill out some of them in excess. I believe the draft one below is a good start, and would help to summarize this article in a nutshell for people reading quickly for key details, regardless of device screen size.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Updated 22:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes I come though my smartphone browser and the infobox is the first thing I see, and it answers 95% of the questions that made me look the person up. Forcing me to read the prose to answer the questions I have is just silly paternalism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Yes, how silly of us to expect a reader to actually read. CassiantoTalk 22:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC) It is silly to force someone to read something you wrote, just because you wrote it. Force patrons at Starbucks to read your unpublished manuscripts while they wait for their refills, but let Wikipedia readers decide for themselves why they came to the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Agreed with Cassianto. This is an encyclopaedia. It cannot offer the "wealth of human knowledge" by presenting minor factoids in an ugly box. JAGUAR  22:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Visitors to Wikipedia who want to read the article will, regardless of the presence of an infobox. Surely you don't think that anyone looking for detailed information on a subject will visit an article, see an infobox, and say to themselves, "Well, that's that, no need to read the rest of the article." The sort of person who would do that, however, probably won't bother reading the article if an infobox is not present and they can't get their "minor factoids" at a glance. At any rate, this is an argument I'll never understand; an encyclopedia can present the "wealth of human knowledge" and a summary at the same time. One does not preclude the other. clpo13(talk) 23:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC) The lede provides a summary; we don't need an infobox to provide a summary of the lede. CassiantoTalk 23:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC) The lead? Is information about spouses and education in the lead? Offices held? There's a lot more to infoboxes than what's generally included in the lead. clpo13(talk) 23:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Why should non-notable spouses and siblings be one of the first things a reader should see? "Offices" suggests, to me, political articles; this is not a political article. As it happens, I'm in favour of iboxes in political articles, which I've included below. CassiantoTalk 23:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Given that infoboxes have to be read, and are not audio-visual presentations like TV news, the entire "infoboxes are for people too stupid to read" act is ridiculous on its face, and grossly insulting to our readers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. Infoboxes are a staple for these kind of articles in WP. The only reason not to have one is that the majority of the info that might go in the infobox is contentious and cannot be accurately summarized as a single phrase; that hardly seems the case here. We should at least start one and see if it's reasonable. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

So because they are "staple" we should blanket use them accross the encyclopaedia, irrespective of the fact that they might not do the job they set out to do. How blinkered of you. CassiantoTalk 22:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC) RfC's, by design, get wide attention. This kind of attitude will hurt any case you may have. I agree it's possible an Infobox might not work. I don't agree that somehow means we should even think about it. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Attitude? A passionate opposition to an injudicious support? It's healthy discussion, nothing more. But thanks for taking the moral high ground with me, much appreciated. CassiantoTalk 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• No Infoboxes should be used occasionally and taken with a pinch a salt. For one, they degrade the presentation of the article by squashing the lead's text to the left while limiting the size of the image. Furthermore, the lead summarises the article so there is no need to repeat minor factoids in an infobox that not only interferes with presentation, but also brings no benefit to the readers. Do they quickly glance at the infobox and then leave the article without reading the main text (which was no doubt painstakingly crafted by those who worked hard to bring this to FA)? It's ugly, it discourages readers from reading the article, and contains nothing of value. JAGUAR  22:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• No -- Oppose an infobox for the following reasons:
  1. Undisciplined expansiveness: A maximum-inclusion approach to fields that leads editors to place repetitive, sometimes downright silly information in the box. (There needs to be clear, prominent advice about not using every single field in every circumstance, and rather the need to ration the information, shaping it to the context.)
  2. Visual degradation: The way infoboxes squash the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.
  3. Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel infoboxes give to articles: here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the boxes says it all.
  4. Disconnected particles. Their domination of the very opening of an article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.)
  5. Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)
  6. Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see WP:Featured lists for what I mean.)

Infoboxes work on complicated articles, and this article most certainly does not fit into that category. I like infoboxes, generally, and think they work extremely well on royal, political, sports, geographical, and film articles; but my worry is that this article only has one simply because some people perceive it to be "normal practise" for all articles to have an infobox, irrespective of the fact that it might not actually do the job required of it. Cassianto^Talk 22:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

These points are primarily focused on stating all infoboxes are bad. That's off-topic for this RfC; the existence of infoboxes throughout WP cannot be decided here. If infoboxes are inherently wrong, an RfC at Template Talk:Infobox would decide that. This RfC is just for an infobox on this article, only. Comments on issues specific to suitability of an infobox in this article, only, are on-topic. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• No – If infoboxes were useful for biographical articles like this they would, would they not?, have been adopted by the professional reference sites such as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, American National Biography Online, Deutsches Biographisches Archiv, World Who's Who, the Dictionary of Canadian Biography etc ect and they haven't. Wikipedia needs to take note of, and learn from, from the authoritative reference works that it seeks to rival. They are professional and we are amateur, but there's no need for us to emphasise that difference by using pointless add-ons. Tim riley talk 07:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. I'm not a particular fan of infoboxes personally, and I've never participated in infobox wars. Still, I came to believe that we should use them whenever a suitable one exists because of
  1. Wikidata integration – it allows the basic information to be structured and automatically parsed by bots, to maintain the Wikidata database (we don't have persondata anymore);
  2. Consistency – If we use infoboxes in most biographies, we should use them for all. There is no particular reasons why some articles should have it, and others not. Potential information bloat should be resolved by normal editing, and any contentious information (e.g. religion) left out wherever not crystal-clear;
  3. Mobile-friendly – if there are users only want to read an infobox (we don't have actual data how many do just that, but there is an assertion that there are many), there is no reason not to cater to them and force them to read the lead instead, and,
  4. End of disruption – last but not the least, those infobox wars are disruptive, and the current situation encourages WP:OWN by vested contributors and wikiprojects (WP:CLASSICAL springs to mind). If we enforce infoboxes project-wide, we remove a silly WP:BIKESHED ground for arguments, and leave the room to discuss real article content issues instead. I would rather be working on an article right now than composing this opinion piece, but I felt inclined to offer my 2c after I saw it at ANI. For the record, I would equally support "not" having an infobox in any article, but that ain't gonna happen because 95% articles already do have it. So we better fill the remaining 5% and be done with it once and for all. No such user (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Wikidata: A straw man: the information about Coward is already held by Wikidata, so any 'need' to generate for export has already taken place Consistency: WP:OSE. There are also many biographical articles without IBs Mobile-friendly: I find it utterly unfriendly on mobile devices. The IB takes up so much space on the right the text appears almost in a column on the left, detracting from readability. End of disruption: That's a ridiculous thing to say. Should we just give in to anyone to 'end disruption'? Shall we stop fighting vandals or trolls because that might bring an end to disruption? You are right that there are better things to do, and with 5 million-plus other articles, I wonder why there is always so much kerfuffle from the IB warriors trying to force the formatting issue where it isn't needed. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Wikidata: Not really a straw man: Information in infoboxes change, as people marry, divorce, change affiliations and ultimately die. If mere presence of an Infobox ensures that the corresponding Wikidata entry is up to date and hopefully cited there, why should I take extra steps to curate it? Consistency: In styling and article naming discussions, WP:OSE is actually a valid argument – we prefer the stuff to be consistently named and formatted across the field, if suitable. Otherwise, we should scrap MOS and AT. (Um, maybe it's not so bad idea after all...) End of disruption: My experience shows that silly wars end when a vocal minority, after years of resisting change, finally gives up and succumbs to repeated demands by "silent majority" regardless if they were "right". Diacritic wars, American cities naming, breed capitalization... SMcCandlish could probably list quite a few. In the infoboxes case, I think my position is that of the "silent majority": I've never participated in any such debate so far, but eventually came to support that position as a reasonable (probably not "best", but metrics is hard to define) thing to do. If every while a semi-newbie editor unaware of this debate adds an infobox to "your" article in completely good faith, how long do you plan reverting them? And I don't mind being on the losing side: for example, my pet peeve are jammed, amateurish, bloated infobox collage photos that are now featured in pretty much every major {{Infobox settlement}} (although they've never been sanctioned by any MOS entry, on the contrary). You know what? I stopped caring and reverting, and I can focus on things I actually like to do instead. No such user (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Wikidata: "Information in infoboxes change, as people marry, divorce, change affiliations and ultimately die: yeeeesss.... Coward died 43 years ago, so he is unlikely to divorce, change affiliations and die for a second time. He was always unlikely to marry! Consistency: I'm glad you agree we can stick with OSE: there are several biographies, including FA-rated authors, that have no IB. Wikipedia has not fallen over without their absence End of disruption: You are free to do what you want with your approach to articles, but I, for one, will not be bullied off articles by a "silent majority". This isn't a vote: this is aupposed to be a discussion based on arguments about the inclusion of an IB on this article. So far no-one has produced any arguments about this article (and your comment about "people marry, divorce, change affiliations", etc are a stark example of a general discussion that has no place when it comes to discussing this article. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC) No such user, WP:OWN is not limited to those of us who oppose infoboxes here; it could also be said that those who support one OWN it based upon their insistence to have one implemented. CassiantoTalk 08:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Cassianto, That's flawed rubbish, if you don't mind me reusing your expression (it was submitted under CC-BY-SA after all). This is a public RFC, I expressed my honest opinion. I don't insist on anything. No such user (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC) So you don't mind others pointing out their 'honest opinion' about the more widespread and disruptive approach by many others about the ownership of the formatting on top right-hand corner of every article? That's about the same level of sense you're employing. - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC) You can borrow my expressions if you like, No such user, seeing as they very much apply to your comments. It's a sheer fucking travesty that this article is now about to be bastardised by the "public" who have had no prior involvement in its authoring. CassiantoTalk 09:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes The world won't end if a infobox is not included, but as a reader I generally find infoboxes useful and informative. There are occasions where the article is too complex or disputed to be able to accurately portray one, but I don't see that as being a problem here. A simple one as presented below would suffice. AIRcorn (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

So what you're saying is, the world will end of one isn't included? Also, could you explain the benefits for having an infobox in this article and this article alone, rather than genrally speaking. I hate to break it to you, but that's the whole point of this sorry affair. CassiantoTalk 10:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC) No I didn't say that, and if you calmed down a bit you would see that. What I am saying is that the article is fine without an infobox and will also be fine with one. I do not see this as a case of spewing forth benefit or disadvantage rhetoric, but more a matter of editorial judgement. I think there is an advantage to the reader (the person who we should be writing for) to include infoboxs as they provide a neat summary of who the person is. In some articles they don't work (basically because there is no succinct way to provide the required information in context) and some fields just cause headaches and should not be included. I don't see that as an issue here and the example infobox below shows that it is possible. AIRcorn (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Please don't patronise me; I'm perfectly calm and I don't know how you'd know anyway sitting from behind your keyboard, thousands of miles away. Anyway, maybe you could tell me the benefits of repeating the date of birth, death, profession, and years active, given that they are all in the first line of the lead section? Would a "reader" not "read" that to satisfy their own curiosity? CassiantoTalk 06:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC) The quantity and the tone of your comments here suggests otherwise. Using that logic we may as well not have a lead as that is just repeating information in the body. Basically readers will read differing amounts of articles. Some will read the whole thing, some may even read the references and external links as well. Others might just read the lead. And yes some will just look at the infobox. I see no reason to deny them this opportunity unless there is a good reason not too. AIRcorn (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC) No, dont be impertinent. A lead section summarises the whole article; the infobox summarises nothing that can't otherwise be found in the lead section It is merely a repeat of the lead section. Are you seriously suggesting that our readers should be treated like idiots by having a summary of a summary? CassiantoTalk 11:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC) I am suggesting we should give the readers a choice. If you wanted to change my mind you should have put forward reasons why an infobox was not appropriate for this article. I even alluded to that in my original !vote. All I am seeing is a serious case of I don't like it. AIRcorn (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. Or more specifically, if I'm looking up when a person died or how old they currently are, something I do frequently, I want to look to the place where I can reliably find such information: The infobox. Even if I'm not specifically looking for only those tidbits, I usually want that information before I begin reading the article (if I'm looking to read and not just distill one or two fast facts.) I do not want to have to scan several paragraphs of text to find one isolated fact (that may not be there) that is readily available in a standardized location. So I guess you'd consider me an idiot. Before you ask, "What specifically from the lead is missing?": What age was he at death? Where did he die? Over which years was he active in the arts? And this is my first experience with the infoxbox wars. LaughingVulcan 01:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

"I do not want to have to scan several paragraphs of stupid text to find one isolated fact (that may not be there) that is readily available in a standardized location." What an immature, offensive, and down-right moronic thing to say. It's ironic that you should then predict that people may call you an idiot; with comments like that, LaughingVulcan, "idiot" is certainly a word I'd use to describe you in the absence of there being a more suitable word elsewhere. Show some respect! CassiantoTalk 08:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Please explain how my opinion is immature, offensive, or moronic. Please define how I am not showing respect; I disagree with your opinion 100% but I do not see how I have been disrespectful other than having taken your exact words and applied them. Finally, I am at a loss to understand this as other than a rude and disrespectful personal comment - would you care to explain any further? LaughingVulcan 12:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC) How can you be at a loss at trying to understand what is so offensive with the comment above? You've just described someone's hard work as "stupid text". Do you think that's acceptable? CassiantoTalk 14:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC) You are correct. I apologize for saying that narrative text is stupid, which could have implied that the writers or their time investments are stupid - which I did not intend. The article itself is well written and I'm grateful to those who have spent time editing it. However, I also feel you've been offensive by implying that those of us who prefer to read such facts in infoboxes, even if they are in the lead, are idiots. "Are you seriously suggesting that our readers should be treated like idiots by having a summary of a summary?" People who want infoboxes, generally or specifically here, are not idiots nor do you have the right to label those wanting one as wanting to be treated as such. Further, aside from your perception of problems of me, you have now directly called me: An idiot, immature, moronic, and offensive. Those are value judgments and in this context it is hard to read it as something besides a personal attack. I am none of those things. I have not called you or anyone else stupid, personally, nor did/do I intend to. So what's your reasons that I shouldn't be taking your words as personal attacks? Behavior aside, I will revise what I said earlier. After reading the Manual of Style for infoboxes, I'm retracting what I said about what isn't in the lead that would be in an infobox. Repetition from the lead is OK. I'll also still note age at death, place of death, and years active in the arts are not in the lead, and IMO they don't have to be. They are facts that I regard as important when I call up a biography for reading or scanning for facts, and could exist in an infobox along with other facts that may be in the lead. But I don't think either of us will end up convincing the other, and I've had my say. Probably time to get back to more productive Wiki activities. LaughingVulcan 00:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Firstly, no, I think you'll find you called yourself an idiot first; I merely agreed with you as you showed utter contempt for those who authored the "stupid text" to which you referred. Secondly, the desire to have an infobox, which is basically a summary of the lede (which is itself, a summary of the body), is wholly pathetic. It comes across as condescending in articles such as this and does absolutley nothing constructive. Lastly, I called your comment about the "stupid text" moronic, offensive and immature, not you, which I think you have now recognised. So all in all, your nopology is pretty much wasted with me, I'm afraid. CassiantoTalk 00:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Hmm. We are at an impasse and I thought I was through yet I must reply. First: I did not offer a nonpology. I am sorry that I used the word stupid and I acknowledged that was wrong. Take that word out and you get, "I do not want to have to scan several paragraphs of text to find one isolated fact (that may not be there) that is readily available in a standardized location." And yes I'll stand by that sentence without the word stupid. But I am not looking for your forgiveness, especially as I was not aware you were an editor of this article, though I should have guessed it from your compulsion to resopnd to every person in this RfC who's expressed a Yes opinion. Instead I am looking to be as civil as I can be. But now you can rest assured that I am not apologizing to you, and only apologizing for my use of a word. So I wish you luck in your next No True Scotsman fallacy trying to prove all believers in X are asking to be treated as idiots, which I have disproven by having you agree with a false hyperbole. And your argument is that all infoboxes are pathetic, despite being in the manual of style. OK. I cannot agree and I've indicated multiple times that there is data in any typical bio infobox, and specifically here, which is not in the lede and often not stated in the article text at all. And no, you did indeed call what I said, personally, stupid and moronic. You have not apologized or explained it beyond trying to falsely separate some perception of me from what I've written (?) - all you have to go on about me. So goes my assumption of good faith that you are trying to be civil and avoid personal attacks. I think you've shown enough of yourself overall to discredit all your arguments in this RfC to the closer. I'll do my best to stay away from you in the future, but I leave you with the simple observation that at least four separate editors in this RfC have noted you have multiple problems with your civility, ownership, and bludgeoning, and being a dick, and at least three other editors you have offered insulting comments to. I see at your talkpage and on Jimbo's talkpage you don't seem to take well to criticism of your behavior. But if this many people have a problem with you on ONE talkpage, not just your positions but your behavior, I can't help but think it is you who has the problem. LaughingVulcan 06:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• No. The relevant and key information on this article is contained in the lead, and is given with the appropriate amount of context and nuance, with the most important being in the first line or two, rather than boiled-down factoids. Looking at the inclusion of the IB on my mobile (I added in Preview version) the IB takes up so much space on the right that the text appears almost in a column on the left, detracting from readability. The Arbcom case on IBs says not to discuss the general arguments on IBs, but to focus on the use in the specific article. So far I see only ILIKEIT arguments, and nothing in policy, guideline or procedure that argues for the inclusion of an IB on this particular article. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Summarises information in a form the reader can find readily. Personally, and anecdotally, my mobile has no problem with displaying infoboxes in either mobile or desktop view. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Are you even bothering to read the arguments put forward here? CassiantoTalk 11:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC) I have. I have considered them, and given my opinion in brief. Are you snapping (because that's what it comes across as) at everyone who offers an opinion? My opinion can be weighed at the end of the process. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC) I bet it must've taken a lot of thought for you to have come up with that insightful opinion. Maybe you could now offer your opinion in terms of this Infobox? Your view is a generalisation. CassiantoTalk 12:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• No Adds nothing of value whatsoever. Better without.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes In conjunction with the lead, an infobox provides a clear, concise summary of the biographical article in a way that cannot be accomplished by any other mechanism. Alansohn (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

To (mis)quote from A D Monroe III above, These points are primarily focused on stating all infoboxes are good. That's off-topic for this RfC; the existence of infoboxes throughout WP cannot be decided here. If infoboxes are inherently right, an RfC at Template Talk:Infobox would decide that. This RfC is just for an infobox on this article, only. Comments on issues specific to suitability of an infobox in this article, only, are on-topic. - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Let me rephrase so that there is no ambiguity: In conjunction with the lead, an infobox here will provide a clear, concise summary of the biographical article in a way that cannot be accomplished by any other mechanism. Let me know if you have any other misinterpretations. Alansohn (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC) There is absolutely no misinterpretation - not on my account anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Quit your bullshit snark by repeating this in a flippant way. Which parts within this infobox do you find most helpful when compared to the first few lines of the lede section? CassiantoTalk 22:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC) SchroCat, you should have stopped at "(mis)quote". Thanks for the imitation/flattery, but reversing my argument isn't logical; infoboxes are accepted and supported at Template Talk:Infobox, so there's nothing to RfC over there. Any reference to its long-established very broad consensus provides a reason to include an infobox here. There's no way to twist it into somehow implying the opposite. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC) No, nothing wrong in what I have said, which represents the MoS on IBs, which is that there is nothing that rules that any article should or should not have an IB, and the infusion or removal is by consensus on the talk page of that specific article. Twist it all you want, I have represented what our MoS tells us. – SchroCat (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC) What kind of RfC at Template Talk:Infobox are you suggesting would be needed to have infobox here? --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC) You appear to be speaking at cross purposes from the rest of the thread, as the template talk page has nothing to do with the fact you generally like IBs, but haven't come up with a good reason to have one here. I'm moving on to other matters (I did some time ago, and only returned because you pinged me on something unconnected with the immediate conversation). Feel free to enjoy the empty gesture of a final retort: I won't be around to read it, so please cut loose and be creative with a response. – SchroCat (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC) I'm trying to follow your thread. I asked you to explain your logic of trying to reverse my statement. If you can't, then yes, we are done here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, this article would benefit from having an infobox. It would add value by making the vital facts about Coward's life accessible at a glance. The proposed version looks fine to me (I don't see anything "ugly" about it). But if this RfC results in no consensus, using a collapsed infobox (like at Frank Sinatra) would be a reasonable compromise. --Albany NY (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content
No, if this RfC results in no consensus, then there is no consensus to add any IB, collapsed or not. - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• No, per SchroCat. While Iboxen are rightly standard for many types of articles for standard things with standard info, they are of very questionable value in articles like this. I will always be likely to side with editors who have done the work on the article, if they have strong views. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, Infoboxes aren't always required, for example where the information stored in them serves no other purpose then to exist providing minimal information (e.g. name, a date, and an image) and replicate everything written in the first two sentences of the lede they can be dispensed with. In this case, it will provide a neat summation for the reader, even neater than the lede which is at about the maximum size generally allowable (four paragraphs for the lede as I recall). I imagine that many readers don't come to an article to read the whole thing, the lede and an infobox provide the general gist and the reader can then choose whether to read on or not if they have gathered the information they are interested in. I saw the version of the infobox that may be included below, first it takes up not much more space than the lede and second it provides just enough information, although I'd include a few of his works (plays at least) as well, to be useful. Especially given the length of the lede and the general laziness of the human population who are reverting to the attention span of a three year old. Besides, the text of the lede is already squashed to the left barring the very last line due to the size of the image, this will have minimum (let's be honest, absolutely no tangible) impact on the article for a desktop reader. I am not sure if this also applies to mobile readers, to be entirely honest, as I don't regularly use my mobile to read Wikipedia on the count of it being straight out of 2004. I'd also like to comment shortly on point 5 of Cassianto's vote as they pose a series of questions. In my own experience on Wikipedia, the first thing I see when I open an article is the image and infobox and generally also the first thing I read as well. Then, based on the infobox I either move on to read the lede and occasionally entire article or if I was merely interested in the most compact summation of the article possible I read the infobox and move on (tbh, this is usually in search of a date for an event; such as a battle, war, or death). As to the missing functionality without an infobox, simple; the most compact summation possible. Not unusually the very first thing that some (OR; many to most) readers will look at. It is a sad fact that your average reader has neither the time nor the will to learn by reading an article, I myself have learned far more about a subject through researching and writing about it for Wikipedia (an excellent example here is Macrinus and Caracalla as I had never heard of the first and knew only that the second was a tyrant before expanding and indeed re-writing our articles on them) then I would have had I just opened up the article and mostly skimmed it. That said, I also learn a fair amount when reviewing an article as well. So, unless you bring the reader in to write or review the article, I honestly expect them to just skim the infobox or ctrl-f something specific. Let's be real, an article with 100,000 readers a year (for example) has in fact 100,000 clickers on the article and probably less that 10% (or 10,000) actual readers who read the entire thing. But again, citation needed, and this is my own opinion based on both my reading (on Wikipedia) behaviour and those of people I know. I like to learn and so my recourse if I am not writing it is, as I have said, to review it. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, the Infobox as shown above it a quick way for users to get some basic info. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content
So is the lede. CassiantoTalk 07:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC) I've moved SonOfThornhill's comment and Cassianto's reply from below. SarahSV (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, Wikipedia exists for the benefit of the readers, not the content writers. If wikipedia readers want an infobox, we should make one available. Readers who do not like them can simply overlook them. I personally find them useful when I want to quickly glean certain facts instead of looking through an entire article. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content
If it weren't for the "content writers" they'd be no pissing readers. And thanks for trotting out the cliche buzz-words "glean...facts". What a terribly unique view to have! CassiantoTalk 07:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• No I think the lead section as it is gets the job done. Iazyges (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• No, this article does not need an infobox, for the reasons stated by Cassianto, who I entirely agree with, and others.Smeat75 (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Comment -- that's Alansohn, GraemeLeggett, Aircorn, and A D Monroe III who have all failed to answer the whole point of this RfC. Their views are therefore moot as they talk about Infoboxes in general and not this one, specifically. CassiantoTalk 08:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Your attitude seems to be vociferously challenge any opinion counter to yours without a hint of condescension to politeness. Eg accusing me of "simply following the rest of the sheep" (which you thought was worth leaving up for 20 minutes but then though better of but not so far as to warrant a "sorry", or "pardon my tetchiness but this is a subject I feel strongly about"). Perhaps there are reasons people aren't engaging with your challenges. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC) "Your attitude seems to be vociferously challenge any opinion counter to yours..." --Welcome to the art of discussion; I think that's how it's supposed to work: one person has one view, another person has a counter view, and both people then challenge each other. But correct me if I'm wrong about that. Yes, I do get "tetchy" about sheep-like supporting. Nowhere in your comment, or in those of the other editors who I pinged, have given valid reasons as to why they think this article should be inflicted with an infobox. You have all based your comments on infoboxes in general. That is not what this RfC is about. Those people who have given reasons why they want to see this article with an infobox can then notexplain why we need to repeat bulleted information that is otherwise in the first few lines of the lede. This is why RfC's are hated: they put the opinions of those who couldn't give a shit about the subject matter and who will probably never visit the page again over those who spent the time and money creating what we have here today. They also invite idiots like Laughing Vulcan along so they can dismiss the hard work as "stupid text". Maybe that is why I get a bit "tetchy". CassiantoTalk 10:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC) I've explained myself several times. I've reworded my response to meet your demands. I'm just sick and tired of dealing with an argumentative and belligerent WP:DICK who just keeps on saying his unique version of Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and you're doing the exact same bullshit all over again in your most recent reply. I'd make a far better argument that Cassianto and all of his comments should be systematically ignored. It's a sheer fucking travesty that you're allowed to participate here. Alansohn (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC) You said: "Yes In conjunction with the lead, an infobox provides a clear, concise summary of the biographical article in a way that cannot be accomplished by any other mechanism." -- that does not address the reasons as to why you think THIS article should have an infobox. Which part of that do you have trouble understanding? CassiantoTalk 14:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC) We're saying that this article is not exceptional when it comes to infoboxes. The reasons infoboxes exist -- to give a common format for quick info, letting readers know they have right subject -- are applicable to this article. They only reasons I've seen for not having infoboxes for standard infobox subjects is that the majority of such info cannot be accurately summarized. Zero evidence has been provided that any such exception applies to this article. In all of these tedious discussions, despite all the desperate battleground tactics, ad hominem attacks, and lack of AGF and civility, the common reasons to have an infobox here haven't been countered. That's more than sufficient. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Believe it or not, your not actually saying anything at all. You and your friends seem to be talking genrally rather than specifically. Can you tell me why we need to have the first few lines in a list form in an infobox? Why do you think you have the right to treat our readers as if they are morons? CassiantoTalk 17:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC) For what it's worth, in the last discussion I had about infoboxes I was against including one[2]. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Well you are full of surprises; as a matter of fact, in my last discussion, I was for adding one. I even went one step further here by actually adding one. It's on an article where the box actually works, for a change. CassiantoTalk 00:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. One of the infoboxes suggested below might offer structured information for readers who prefer it, and the others can ignore the box, or even opt not to see it. We should request comments from readers rather than authors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

None of the people who have supported as a result of the RfC are here to read the article, Gerda, you must know that. They are not interested in reading the article or editing the article; they even slag it off, such as Laughing Vulcan dos above. They don't even care about the subject matter and have, I'd wager, never even heard of Coward, listened to his music, seen him act, or watched his films. Their opinions, thus, are entirely worthless to me. CassiantoTalk 08:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC) I don't know if you understood me. By readers I mean people who arrive at the article (not people coming to the talk by an RfC or a mentioning of this discussion on a prominent page). Readers. Some of them - as WhatamIdoing pointed out in a recent discussion - may struggle with English, be vision-impaired or dyslexic, may just look for one piece of information. Why not provide them with a bit of structured information, leaving the rest of the article unchanged? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Gerda A.; It's being implied that our opinions don't matter, because only editors who own this article can have valid input here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Nope, I understood you entirely. CassiantoTalk 17:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Someone understanding me "entirely" would add infoboxes to their articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC) "I don't know if you understood me." -- entirely on your point above. I will never understand why you want to treat our "readers" as if they're idiots. CassiantoTalk 19:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC) I don't exclude myself from the group of "idiots" (short for vision-impaired, struggling with English ...). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, the infobox should be restored and a few additional fields added, including nationality.

I agree that infoboxes are not always appropriate, so I have considered the criteria by which to judge whether an infobox is appropriate for a particular article or type of article.

An infobox may be especially useful to those whose first language is not English and may, therefore, find it more difficult to skim through an article looking for key information. This criterion seems, to me, relevant to this article because the subject is internationally known but it is likely that readers will want to take a look at the (featured) English article.

For a person like Noel Coward, I would expect to see at a glance the information presented in the sample infoboxes below. I would also expect to be alerted if he wrote under other names, if membership of a political party or a professed religion was important in his life, etc. and if he held any important office. Absence of information in an infobox (especially for a featured article) can also be informative.

I would like to be able to compare key biographical information easily with that of other playwrights, etc,, say Jean Anouilh, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Harold Pinter, Friedrich Schiller, William Shakespeare, George Bernard Shaw, Oscar Wilde, ...

The reader might wonder why Noël Coward does not warrant an infobox. A few people, I suppose, might be able to infer some useful information from the complete absence of one.

After long consideration (only some of my deliberations being summarized here), I conclude that – for this article – an infobox would be useful and appropriate.

We were asked for our opinions, and that is mine. Other reasonable people might come to a different conclusion.

--Boson (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• No The lead is well written and communicates the key information concisely. I find infoboxes useful when examining comparable information between articles - e.g. the height of skyscrapers, the top speed of a car etc. - but I can't easily imagine what aspects of Coward I'd want to compare, other than his DOB, nationality etc., which is already in the first sentence of the lead. (NB: For those familiar with Compare the Meerkat, the idea of a "Compare the playwright, composer, director, actor and singer" website springs to mind!) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• No - all of the facts can just as easily be gleaned from skimming or glancing at the first sentences of the well written lead in this article. It gives his full name, the date of birth and date of death follow in brackets, which is a standard format in most professional encyclopaedic biographies, his occupations are also detailed. There is little point in repeating them in a box. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• No. Here are some reasons why I disagree with including the infobox in this article: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points about the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into such infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a lot of code near the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the article. (7) It would distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX and This Arbitration case report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader, or include ... irrelevant or inappropriate information". -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - it helps mobile readers get a quick summary of Coward, and yes, I have read all the arguments above. I think that an infobox does provide a structured easy lookup especially to those with shorter attention spans, and whilst an infobox is not for every article, I think that this article would benefit from one, particularly due to its length- if someone wanted to find out his political views for example, an infobox would be beneficial. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content
LoL. Yes, because that's the first thing someone wants to know about a playwright! CassiantoTalk 19:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• No - IMHO, infoboxes belong in bio articles of politicians, monarchs, sports figures, where an office, position or sports team, etc, are a big part of the biography. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• No I honestly feel this fight is rather annoying and should have never been started. It's not necessary to have an infobox in this article via any wikipedia policy that I am aware of. It's also not necessary to exclude one by any policy that I'm aware of. Above the words from the arbitration case sway me to say no. Congrats on the FA status.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes (summoned by bot) without belaboring specifics which have already been addressed above, there are numerous pragmatic benefits to an infobox (especially bearing in mind both analytic uses and recent research demonstrating most articles are read "above the fold" only), whereas I see pretty much zero downside to the use of one in this particular instance, outside idiosyncratic aesthetic concerns which I don't feel carry much weight when set against utility.
• Yes (here by bot) - infoboxes are quite helpful and save time when researching some of the basic facts infoboxes tend to provide. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes Some readers want to settle in for an edifying half-hour; others want a quick, frictionless opportunity to see at a glance who this Coward guy is. An infobox satisfies the desires of the latter without meaningfully harming the desires of the former. Readers first.

Also: I've never engaged in the inbox wars, but am dismayed at the uncivil language badgering pro-infobox !voters here: immature, offensive, and down-right moronic, rubbish, Are you even bothering to read the arguments?, Quit your bullshit snark. Such responses discourage third-party editors from voicing an opinion, make the debate needlessly adversarial, and violate WP:5P4. FourViolas (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

That is what the WP:LEAD section is for. The infobox simply repeats uncontextualized factoids from the Lead section (and not the most important ones!), adds a bunch of code at the top of the article and does the other harmful things that I listed above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC) "Such responses discourage third-party editors from voicing an opinion" -- They'll be the "third-party editors" who couldn't give a flying toss about Coward, don't know who he is, have never seen or heard his work, have never read about him and are never likely to read about him, yet who turn up here to wave the CIVIL and OWN cards the moment someone has a differing opinion to them. The main authors who took this to FAC should be the ones to have the last say on this; not a load of nobodies who have done nothing to get this article where it is today. It is those "third party editors", of whom you speak. whose opinions we could well do without. CassiantoTalk 06:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC) I agree with FourViolas regarding the uncivil language and badgering. It would prove far more helpful if the "emotional" arguments would cease. Editors are not required "to give a flying toss about Coward" or any other topic for that matter. Please let this RfC run its course. Atsme📞📧 12:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC) That's nice for you. There's nothing "emotional" about this; this is about a bunch of people exhibiting lemming-like behaviour, who've never written a FA and don't appreciate what it takes to write one, turning up and trampling over all the hard work put in by others. "Editors are not required 'to give a flying toss about Coward' or any other topic for that matter." and there's the problem right there. Thanks for confirming my initial thoughts about you. CassiantoTalk 12:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC) I'm not a "lemming", I actually have written and reviewed FAs, GAs & DYKs, and I very much appreciate what it takes. What I don't care about is what you think of me. A major difference between you and I is the fact that I don't let FAs go to my head - humility is an open door to knowledge. I've learned from my experiences trying to launch WP:Project Accuracy that any attempt to protect FAs against WP's free-for-all will fail. Perhaps that will change in the future depending on the community's wishes. For the time being, your arguments are unconvincing and indicative of Spiderman climbing the Reichstag. Please stand down, and allow this RfC to run its course without further disruption. Atsme📞📧 14:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Disruption? The ones coming here to force an idiotbox onto this article are the ones disrupting things. And that includes you. CassiantoTalk 15:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Nope. This is a simple process (or at least ought to be); a question is asked of the community, and any user may respond to that question, after a month an uninvolved (preferably disinterested) party comes along reads the whole RfC and makes a calculated decision on the question (based entirely on those comments provided). The end. That is all that should happen, everything above and beyond that contributes to disruption. Every sub-thread and every additional comment makes this process harder longer and more bitter than it needs to be, <- including this. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Yep. This whole RfC fucking stinks. Why was the question asked of the "community" in the first place? What gives the "community" the fucking right to enforce a piece of vandalism onto this article? An article they've had no prior interest in before, and one which only came to their attention by a canvassing technique, otherwise known as an RfC bot. Infoboxes, like this, are a cancer. And the sooner a decision is made about how best to deal with this issue by people much higher up than you and I, the better. CassiantoTalk 18:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Counter-incivility doesn't help. But WP:Consensus and WP:Own are policies, and the idea that dissenting from your position ipso facto constitutes disruption is itself disruptive: WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #5 states that A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: ...Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors. FourViolas (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC) I'm past caring what you think. CassiantoTalk 05:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Notification to the discussion participants at large: I've opened a thread on Cassianto's behavior in this RfC at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cassianto: incivility and rejecting community input at Talk:Noël_Coward. FourViolas (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC) The discussion has been closed without action. FourViolas (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes Some readers want to settle in for an edifying half-hour; others want a quick, frictionless opportunity to see at a glance who this Coward guy is. An infobox satisfies the desires of the latter without meaningfully harming the desires of the former. Perfect reasoning. EEng 07:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

The WP:LEAD section provides a quick summary of Coward's life. The infobox simply repeats uncontextualized factoids (and not the most important ones!) from the Lead section, adds a bunch of code at the top of the article and does the other harmful things that I listed above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC) The infobox is a quicker summary, the lack of context is what makes it so quick, they're not factoids, they can be selected to be the most important ones, I don't give a damn about the code in the article source, and your "other harmful things" are nonsense. EEng 02:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes It's much faster to scan an infobox for a particular fact than it is to look through prose for it, and most No arguments seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. In this case, I think the lead is long and dense enough that highlighting key facts in an infobox would be helpful to our readers. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Two points: - Are you seriously suggesting that if the article has a short lede, an infobox wouldn't be required? - Which information in the "long and dense" lead would you include in the infobox? I only ask because none of the information in the "long and dense" lead section appears in the infobox; therefore your point is moot and makes no sense whatsoever. CassiantoTalk 16:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC) I've moved BU Rob13's comment and Cassianto's reply from below. SarahSV (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• No - I voted for the original article and IMO the current article doesn't need this infobox...Modernist (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Infoboxes are an excellent way of summarising important points about an article, and are especially useful for users of mobile devices. This article is no different. Absconded Northerner (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - I've said my piece previously. I concur with the points made by many of the other folks!voting yes. Montanabw^(talk) 07:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - People often don't have time to read an entire article. The infobox is an invaluable tool for summarizing pertinent information. Other websites that scrape Wikipedia content such as well known search engines make use of the infobox as well. This article is more useful to the reader with an infobox. Sizeofint (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Maybe you could now tell us why you think this article should have an infobox? CassiantoTalk 14:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Sizeofint, just by way of minor correction to one point of your comment: search engines do not "scrape Wikipedia content" from IBs: that is what the engines use Wikidata for. The infomation from WD is used in the Google version of IBs you see if you search there for Noël Coward], for example. - Gavin (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC) I have seen information present in the infobox but not present in Wikidata on the Google IBs. Sizeofint (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Yes, that's obviously true, but misses what I said. My comment was not to question your opinion, but to correct an error in fact: search engines do not "scrape Wikipedia content" from IBs. The rest of your original comment I make no mention of - it's your opinion obviously, but my correction wasn't even aimed at that, just the error you made. – Gavin (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC) My point, which I didn't make clear, is that information that they are not getting from Wikidata or another source they are extracting from the Wikipedia infobox. You see this a lot for entities like schools. Sizeofint (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Cassianto, it is highly unnecessary to comment on every single person who disagrees with your views. We all understand your viewpoint, you have made it abundantly clear. I think most articles should have an infobox by default. Hence, in my view, the question is not why this article should have an infobox but why it should not. I haven't found your arguments persuasive. We're here to help the WP:READER and the Reader doesn't always want to parse prose to obtain essential pieces of information. Sizeofint (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• No Adds nothing that cannot be explained succintly in the lead or in the prose. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox – I work in areas where infoboxes are automatically included because the subject's notability can be summarized on a statistical level, such as with this guy. In cases such as the one currently being debated it is less obvious why an infobox is necessary, and which details should be added to it. I am not offended by it in the way some of its other opponents are but I think the main thrust of their argument is that it takes a reductionist view of the subject: it is very difficult to take someone like Noel Coward and reduce his notability to a few basic factoids. Judging by this, it seems the editors in favor of an infobox don't really have a good idea what should be in there anyway! Infoboxes are most effective when they stand on their own merits i.e. you could discard the rest of the article and you still get a sense of the subject's notability just from the infobox data. If the infobox doesn't do this then it does not justify its inclusion in the article, and is simply there at the whim of whoever is editing. They are not mandated, and the principal editors who have developed the article obviously don't feel that an infobox is appropriate in this particular case, so I am happy to defer to their instincts in this matter. Betty Logan (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• No In general, I am strongly in favor of infoboxes, however, having looked at the article both with and without the infobox, it is my opinion that it looks better without the infobox. Also, I think that if those editors who have contributed the article's content oppose an infobox, it is reasonable to defer to their preference in the matter. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• No In this article the information of importance to most people in the infobox[3] seems to me covered (and better covered) in the first paragraph of the lead.[4] It is very easy to find at a glance. The other stuff (place of birth, etc.) is simply a very small selection of what various people might happen to find important to them. To attempt to cover a more comprehensive selection of facts would overwhelm the start of the article. I think there is a good case for providing objective information in a structured (machine accessible) manner but this should be done in a way that is not damaging to the article from a human reader's perspective – at the foot of articles, in a special section, or in a separate namespace. Wikidata's lack of curation is a shortcoming in this context. Thincat (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Add the infobox and let everyone's blood pressure have time to return to normal. As pointed out, there is no rule that there must be an infobox, so there is no right and wrong opinion on the matter. That doesn't change the fact that keeping off the infobox is cruel to the community. Only a tiny, tiny fraction of good quality articles don't have infoboxes (this is the first I've actually seen in many years), so any reader familiar with Wikipedia should assume there is a precedent in favor of infoboxes. The glaring absence on this one page will strike them as incongruous. Cue helpful attempt to add infobox, cue revert, cue ceaseless warring and conversation over something trivial and subjective. Yvarta (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes Could someone make a "Hide Wikipedia infobox" browser extension? Or could there be made an option in the preferences to solve this? ZN3ukct (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended content
@ZN3ukct: AFAIK, there isn't a browser extension, but you can use CSS to hide infoboxes on Wikipedia. See MOS:INFOBOX#Infoboxes and user style. clpo13(talk) 15:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• No Not in an article of this quality. If the infobox contains elements involving judgment (eg. principal works), rather than incontrovertible fact, there is a risk of over-simplification. (I also draw some comfort from finding that my view is shared by editors of the experience and quality of Tim Riley and Dr Blofeld.)45ossington (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, per SMcCandlish. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Summoned by bot. I don't quite comprehend what there is about this bio so that it should not get an infobox, as compared to the thousands of articles that do. I think that it would be helpful and useful and that the article suffers from not having one. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. I wasn't summoned by a bot. This subject, along with many other playwright and theatre-based articles, is my main interest in Wikipedia. I have read Coward's plays, seen them, seem him act, seen his films, listed to his music, and only last week watched a documentary about him, so I believe I am not indifferent to the article, which, of course, I have also read. Other than contributing, I use Wikipedia in a variety of ways that span the range of modes of engagement that the 'summary style' indicates. At different times, I need different things from an article--sometimes, that is a quick check of a date (birth, death, country of birth, year in which a prize was awarded, years active, etc.); sometimes it involves the brief summary provided by a lede; sometimes it is a link to a play's specific article; sometimes it involves a specific area or period of someone's life; sometimes it involves a sustained engagement with the topic as a whole. Having reviewed some of the comments in the discussion above, I am concerned by what I see. As far as I can see, the overwhelming majority of the objections are founded either on false reasoning or aesthetic grounds. Personally, I find it very useful to be able to access a fact from a page quickly and without scanning text, regardless of how well written the lede or any other section may be. When my engagement is of this nature, I find it a little irritating to have to scan. The assumptions voiced above that this is a thoroughly undesirable mode are ill-founded. That I or anyone else uses this article in that manner sometimes implies nothing whatsoever about my capacity or desire to read more on a different occasion. I also note with some concern the prevalence in comments above of a misuse of the word "factoid". While I appreciate the desire for rhetorical vigour when presenting an argument, again, this is a misrepresentation. The OED defines a "factoid" as: "An assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as a fact; a simulated or imagined fact." This is clearly inappropriate for the subject under consideration, since an infobox presents facts, not factoids. In the arguments presented against that I have reviewed above, the only ones that I have been able to identify that do not appear to be ill-founded or rhetorical sleight-of-hand are those made on aesthetic grounds. I do agree that these questions deserve consideration and debate. I suggest that such discussion is ill-served by some of the strategies evidenced above. The size of a monitor is a consideration. The ugliness of montage pictures is also something I would wish to discourage. I am also responsive to the argument that those editors who have written an article have a very important contribution to make in decisions about its content. In that respect, if the arguments were entirely aesthetic, I would argue they ought to determine the decisions. On balance, however, given that I personally access Wikipedia articles including this one both on a modern monitor in 1920x1080 and on a mobile device, I think that the ease of access offered by an infobox to pertinent facts outweights those aethetic concerns and the wider community, regardless of their personal investment in the particular subect of this article, are capable of contributing to, and appropriately involved in, decisions about it. As someone who also makes use of articles on the other non-English Wikipedias, I am also responsive to the argument that readers of this article for whom English is not their first language are well served by an infobox.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 18:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended content
The foregoing post belonds in the Hall of Fame of Well-Reasoned Talkpage Comments. EEng 01:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes It is beyond comprehension why when everyone else gets a box people of a particular profession should not. Makes no sense. Agathoclea (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• No I am personally in favour of infoboxes, as I think they aid accessibility. But access to poor content is of limited value. The primary editors of this article - who have contributed the bulk of the high-quality content - believe infoboxes are inappropriate for certain types of Arts articles. I happen to think they are wrong. But what I think is irrelevant to Wikipedia, whereas the quality of the content that these editors have brought to this article, and to a great many others, is not. In short, would this article, and many others, be of more value to users of Wikipedia with an Infobox and without the contributions of Tim riley and Ssilvers, or not? Sadly, and pointlessly, it appears we are now to find out. KJP1 (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• No This high-quality article features core-encyclopedic content, and that content is built and maintained by a core group of editors who should be supported by the community, not hounded. This article has survived for five years (August 2011) with no infobox and Wikipedia will continue unharmed if there is no infobox for a few more years. The only problem comes from pointless brawls which drive away editors who build quality articles such as this. If people want to force an infobox here, the correct procedure would be to hold a central discussion to mandate infoboxes on all feasible articles. Is picking pages off one-by-one so satisfying that it justifies such ill-will and damage to the community? Is winning so important? Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• No - It's unnecessary, wouldn't improve this article and would be of no benefit to our readers. In a high-quality lengthy article of this nature, it's impossible to squeeze and give any sort of context to the material into an infobox. This is a case where the introduction of the article serves it's purpose - for those who are just looking for that snippet of info you'd find in the infobox anyway.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Infobox timeline

1. July 13, 2007: {{Infobox actor}}) is added with nine fields filled in. Perhaps because of a transclusion issue, the box appears now to have displayed only three fields in read mode, but the Internet archive from April 22, 2008 shows a box in read mode with name, birth name, image, birth and death dates and locations, and awards.
2. February 21, 2009; promoted to GA with the same infobox (archived page February 27, 2009) ^{added 22:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)}
3. March 24, 2009: promoted to FA with the same infobox (Internet Archive, April 18, 2009); FAC by Tim Riley and Ssilvers
4. August 23, 2009 (Internet Archive, August 25, 2009): TFA with the same infobox.
5. February 25, 2010: by this time the infobox is displaying more fields. - Archived page April 30, 2010 ^{added 22:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)}
6. September 30, 2010: article with expanded infobox
7. November 27, 2010: swapped to {{Infobox person}} (makes no difference to display) - Archived page December 21, 2010 ^{added 22:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)}
8. August 10, 2011: infobox removed by Tim Riley with edit summary stating NO INFOBOX - PLEASE DO NOT ADD, PER WIKIPEDIA:WIKIPROJECT_COMPOSERS#BIOGRAPHICAL_INFOBOXES. NOTE: I looked through the archives and could not find the consensus that supported infobox removal - Archived page October 15, 2011 - after infobox portion removed ^{added 22:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)}
9. Talk:Noël_Coward/Archive_1#Needs_an_infobox? infobox discussion in November 2013

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) (edited by SarahSV)

Atsme, thank you for writing this up. A couple of issues: {{Infobox Actor}} was first added on 13 July 2007 (though for a while it wasn't displaying all the fields because of a formatting error), and it contained that box when it was promoted to GA and FA in 2009. [5][6] See article milestones on talk for the dates and versions. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, didn't see that but will fix the timeline. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) X 2 As with most things relating to IBs, this is only a partial truth.

• 21 February 2009; Good article nominee (only one item in the IB)
• 10 March 2009; Peer review (Still only item)
• 24 March 2009; Promoted as featured article candidate (Still only item)
• 23 August 2009; TFA (Still only one item)

Yes, the tides of the IB ebb and flow, but this article has peacefully remained without an IB for a shade over five years. As for the comment that the editor "could not find the consensus that supported infobox removal", no editor needs a pre-determined consensus to remove an IB, any more than an editor needs a pre-determined consensus to add an IB (if no extant decision or discussion says otherwise). It's called a bold edit: they happen constantly and it's how we develop as an encyclopaedia. – Gavin (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Gavin, as SlimVirgin explained, there was a technical issue (maybe changes made to the template caused the issue) that prevents us from seeing the infobox in its entirety but you can see it in edit view. I thought the same way you did at first until I went into edit source, and saw the Infobox Actor template in its entirety. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, so I read. Everything else—particularly the fact that there was absolutely no problem with someone removing a box, or that there has been a peaceful five years without the box—still stands. – Gavin (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you could provide a diff for the consensus to add an infobox in the first place? If you can't, then easy come, easy go. Cassianto^Talk 20:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Cassianto, it was added in 2007 by an IP - apparently WP was having a few tech issues back then? All I know for certain is that the template remained in the article (as evidenced in edit view) through the GA & FA reviews, and was updated with a new image and more info for the infobox by Tim Riley on February 28, 2010. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• That was not what I asked; why do you people have a problem understanding such simple questions? Cassianto^Talk 21:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Atsme, seeing as you've now taken it upon yourself to be this article's version of Eamonn Andrews, I wondered whether you could add the diff where the discussion took place to add the infobox in the first place? You can ignore me all you like, but your avoidance to answer my question is reflecting worse on you than it is on me. Cassianto^Talk 22:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahhhh, the memories you've stirred Cassianto! I thought I was the only one old enough to remember This Is Your Life!! Annnyway...I can't take all the credit you've afforded me. All I did was make a stab at a timeline to help keep things in perspective but it all became rather confusing because what I saw in edit source wasn't the same as what I was seeing on the page. Once I figured it out, I was happy to oblige SV's request the best I could but she beat me to it. I thought my first response to you answered your question but it appears I didn't do a good job answering, so I'll give it another go. From what I've gleaned reading the 2007 version of MOS/Infoboxes here, I couldn't find any suggestions or requirements for a consensus to be reached before adding an infobox, so I strongly advise against anyone holding their breath in hopes of me finding one. Perhaps you should ask a veteran editor who was here in the beginning. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I have better things to do with my time, so perhaps not. My question to you was not answered the first time, so yes, clarification was needed a second time, which, I'm elated to say, I now have. So, with that in mind, I'll now bring you back to my comment a few hours ago where I said an infobox which was added without a consensus is "easy come, easy go". So what's all this fuss about? Why should it be okay for us to not to have consensus to add one, but a consensus to delete it? Cassianto^Talk 23:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto, most of us who are familiar with your work recognize your proficiency and exceptional talent as a content editor who goes the extra mile, and I certainly understand that you have better things to do with your time. It would be nice if you would recognize the same in others. I won't respond again to your questions because it serves no purpose and I, too, have better things to do with my time. I've come to accept the fact that the community will not allow exclusive protection of FAs - I pointed you to Wikipedia:Project Accuracy earlier and asked you to read the TP discussions as many of the same objections expressed by the community there applies here. Badgering and condescension will not change anything for the better. I sincerely wish you a happy day. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

As I've pointed out on my user page, I do not edit for the benefit of the "community"; I happen to think the whole "community" thing sucks. I belong to no community around here; I edit for my pleasure and for those who I may educate along the way. I do not write articles for those who are rude and disrespectful enough to run roughshod over all my hard work, and that goes for the work of my colleagues, such as here. Frankly, those "community" members can do the other thing. Cassianto^Talk 15:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Atsme, I'm going to check with a technical editor that the way we see that broken template now is the way it would have been seen when it was added in 2007. This is how it was written, and this was the template at the time. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Why don't you look at the Internet Archive? It's all rather pointless: there hasn't been an IB for five years, which is the key point. – Gavin (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Sweet! Thank you, SchroCat. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Gavin, thanks for that link. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

^{SlimVirgin I added archived pages for read/comparison purposes. Atsme📞📧 22:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)}

Atsme, I think you inadvertently reverted my edits, so I restored some of them. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

^{My apologies SV. It wasn't my intention to double your work load. I thought I was simply adding archived links. I guess that little earthquake this morning still has me a little shook-up. I owe you a pound of flesh! Atsme📞📧 23:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)}

• Relevance? I posit "none". The question posed is "should an infobox be added to this page", any historical infobox is irrelevant, although, arguably any lack of one is just as irrelevant. A support outcome = infobox included, an oppose outcome = infobox excluded, a no consensus outcome = infobox excluded. This info coming to light does not in fact change anything, 5 years without an infobox is way too long to be retroactively enforcing an infobox in the event of a no consensus outcome. But, that's just my 2c. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I couldn't agree more. Clearly, Atsme prefers to waste his/her time trawling through diffs rather than to create actual content. Cassianto^Talk 23:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful input. Hopefully it will resolve the entire infobox issues we're facing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

We would not be "facing" an "infobox issue" had you and your friends not felt the need to act on behalf of editors who couldn't give a toss about this article or its content matter. Cassianto^Talk 18:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

What the infobox might look like

A potential version of the proposed infobox
Sir Noël Coward Coward in 1972, by Allan Warren Born Noël Peirce Coward (1899-12-16)16 December 1899 Teddington, Middlesex, England Died 26 March 1973(1973-03-26) (aged 73) Blue Harbour, Port Maria, Jamaica Occupation(s) Actor, playwright, director, composer, singer Years active 1911–1973 Partner Graham Payn

It might be helpful to see what the infobox would look like.
I have here inserted how the infobox looked just before it was removed.
To make it easier to judge whether an infobox would be useful of not, please add any information thought necessary or useful, or change to a different infobox.
--Boson (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not helpful, and it's disruptive for you to distract away from an RfC that has only just begun. Cassianto^Talk 23:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Since the RfC is about whether to include the infobox, I don't see how it is disruptive to show anybody who has not yet formed an opinion what the infobox you are talking about would look like. --Boson (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

People know what an infobox looks like for heavens sake! Moreover, we are most certainly not at the stage of discussing which fields to include or omit. Cassianto^Talk 23:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually WP:BLUDGEONing every's pro-infobox commenter in every infobox discussion, again and again and again, is what's disruptive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I could say the same for your disruptive posts. Cassianto^Talk 23:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You're not one to talk about post length, either in the singular (see [7]) or in the dominate-the-page sense – I see at least 15 posts by you in this RfC (not counting attempts to drown out others in previous rounds of discussion), an RfC in which only 14 people have !voted as of this writing. This is obviously a WP:BLUDGEON problem, Cassianto).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• • Do you even know what a wall of text is? You should do, seeing as you provide at least one in every discussion. The diff you link to is readable as it is broken into sections and a numerical list. Cassianto^Talk 06:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Would expect it to list at least a few of Coward's best-known works, and some major awards, for improved context.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• Looks fine to me, agree notable works would improve it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with the RFC that is drawing up new fields for the infobox. hat_size= and shoe_size=, I am looking up the references for Coward now. I am not sure if we are supposed to use metric or imperial measurements. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Delicious! Neatly points up the inanity of info-boxes for articles like this. They add precisely nothing of value. Tim riley talk 07:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Where in this discussion is anyone proposing adding such pointless trivia to this infobox. Something smells fishy and a bit like burning straw.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Unclick the box and you'll see. Cassianto^Talk 07:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think we can all agree that the images by Allan Warren are amazing. The colors are so vibrant, and the lighting perfect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I thanked him for contributing to Commons. Wish more pros would.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I have put together the second proposed infobox which now lists some notable plays (as some mentioned they'd like to see in the box in the comments above) and his official website. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A second potential version of the proposed infobox with plays and official website listed

Sir Noël Coward Coward in 1972, by Allan Warren Born Noël Peirce Coward (1899-12-16)16 December 1899 Teddington, Middlesex, England Died 26 March 1973(1973-03-26) (aged 73) Blue Harbour, Port Maria, Jamaica Occupation(s) Actor, playwright, director, composer, singer Years active 1911–1973 Notable work Hay Fever, Blithe Spirit, Present Laughter, Design for Living Partner Graham Payn Website www.noelcoward.com

• Good work; these proposed infoboxes keep getting better. I am impressed by how innocuous all of these infoboxes are. Short, helpful, simple info, with nothing contentious about any part of them. I am utterly at a loss to understand any objection to including these. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree. Bloody fantastic, arn't they?! Like you, I'm that excited about the above idiotboxes that I think I might have to go to a darkened room with some soft music, a box of tissue, and a red hankie over a lit lampshade! Cassianto^Talk 14:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I fear the well-meant attempt at an anodyne info-box illustrates with great precision why it is a wretchedly bad idea: "Notable works" - according to whom? A lead can helpfully say "among his best-known works are xxx, yyy, and zzz", but it's a terrible idea to list the same works in an info-box as purportedly the only ones that are notable. And the "partner" field is also objectionably restrictive: Payne was one partner of Coward. Who among the info-box warriors regards himself (or herself) as competent to list the men who could properly be classed as Coward's partners during the various decades of his life? Info-boxes are excellent for statistics and objective, undisputed facts; they are amateurish and misleading if they list selective, subjective opinions, such as those proposed here. Tim riley talk 21:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Sir Noël Coward
Coward in 1972, by Allan Warren
Born	Noël Peirce Coward (1899-12-16)16 December 1899 Teddington, Middlesex, England
Died	26 March 1973(1973-03-26) (aged 73) Blue Harbour, Port Maria, Jamaica
Occupations	Actor playwright director composer singer
Website	www.noelcoward.com

How about a facts version? Parameters are optional, but we can supply at least one decent collection of when and where he was born and died, scattered over the article. (The image is small only here, to take up less room, can be any size in the article.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

It's about as ridiculous as the ones given above. How about we delete the whole soddin' article and replace it with a box? Cassianto^Talk 12:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I trust that some readers would miss something. As it is today, other readers miss something. Why not help both kinds? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arend: As someone who uses wikipedia on my phone, infoboxes are very annoying to deal with, so unless you can have a way to toggle it on and off, I am against it. Iazyges (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a way to opt out infoboxes, ask RexxS or Dr. Blofeld. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

It's actually harder to opt out of infoboxes completely on a mobile than in desktop view. Nevertheless, mobile view simply puts the infobox at the top in the same place as the lead image in an article without an infobox, which means that there are a few lines of extra text to scroll past. @Iazyges: If you're having problems beyond scrolling an extra couple of inches, it may be that you have some custom mods that are causing you the issues - if you can expand a little on what you meant by "very annoying to deal with" and tell us what mobile browser you're using, I might be able to help you isolate the cause. HTH --RexxS (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I just think it's sad that there are true encyclopedists here like Tim riley and Brianboulton, editors we're extremely fortunate to have, yet constantly have to deal with this sort of thing with every article they produce, as if a small infobox is of monumental importance. I think it's time there was an arb ruling to stop this sort of thing (happening nearly daily now). It's getting embarrassing, and some of us have better things to do. There should be ruling in place to stop people trying to enforce infoboxes on articles they've not written and for it to be a blockable offense, as it causes massive disruption. It's reaching a point where I think some editors (myself included) are put off wanting to promote something to featured status because they know they're going to have spend days, even weeks defending their editorial decisions against non editors, so it's time something was done to stop it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Excellently put. I whole-heartedly concur. Cassianto^Talk 16:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

That just seems unworkably broad to me, and too likely to just draw more good actors into the drama. What's more, there's a broader context for this roaming dispute. So if I have the chronology right here, Cassianto shepereded this article to FA and then someone broached the infobox issue because he removed it during a broader set of improvements? If so, it's hard to imagine that whoever did it was oblivious to the drama that would ensue and the amount of volunteer attention which would be consumed--and that would be quite a glib flaunting of community patience, even for the exceedingly ridiculous saga of the "Infobox wars".... But, in any event I do agree something needs to be done. Having just noticed Laser brain's observation in closing an ANI thread on this topic yesterday, I'm inclined to think that proposing lead infoboxes as topic to be covered by discretionary sanctions may in fact be the only real option at this point. I'm sure I can't be the only person (who happens to volunteer time through random RfC) who does the depressed and slow facepalm every time they realize they've been brought (usually by someone familiar) to the same frequently petty (and always tired) debate. I honestly would support a search for community consensus on the content matter, but the truth is, I don't think that conversation can be had sanely right now with current degree of fervor surrounding the issue. At this point, much like the community at large and ArbCom when they analyzed this dispute before, I just want an end to the disruption, and I'm willing to consider any viable option that covers both camps. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with this article's FAC. And in DS's, I take it you include yourself and others of a like-minded opinion in that? Cassianto^Talk 07:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

History: the article was a FAC by Ssilvers and Tim riley, promoted in 2009. The infobox question was asked in 2013 by George Ho, and is still on this page, Green Cardamon missed a discussion in 2016, that's what we are having now. Why the simple questions by GH and GC could be regarded as an attack on this featured article, - I don't know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

*comment regarding the history of this article part of which was mentioned by Gerda Arendt above.

1. February 25, 2010 - the article with an older image/no infobox
2. February 28, 2010 - the new image w/infobox added by Tim Riley - already a FA.
3. September 30, 2010 - how the article looked 6 years ago with expanded infobox.
4. August 10, 2011 - the infobox was removed by Tim Riley with edit summary stating NO INFOBOX - PLEASE DO NOT ADD, PER WIKIPEDIA:WIKIPROJECT_COMPOSERS#BIOGRAPHICAL_INFOBOXES so I went to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Biographical_infoboxes and it states: 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. NOTE: I looked through the archives and could not find the consensus that supported infobox removal.
5. Talk:Noël_Coward/Archive_1#Needs_an_infobox? took place in late 2013.
6. I could not find where the editors who authored, improved and/or worked on getting the article promoted to FA or later improved the article were actually impassioned over keeping/removing the infobox so I question whether WP:OWN should be a consideration as it relates to the article "stewards". It appears to be a case like what WP:AVDUCK addresses. Things did calm a bit when SlimVirgin and JzG stepped in, and some structure was brought to the discussion but again, it's treating a symptom. Perhaps we could lay the blame for questionable behavior on infoboxes but the underlying issues remain. DS may be the answer but I've seen some of the side effects to that remedy as well, although it does make life a tiny bit easier for our overworked mop holders. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)^{See corrected timeline above.Atsme📞📧 21:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)}

[Left]Gosh, Atsme, what a BIG LIE. That is a hugely misleading statement of what Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Biographical_infoboxes say. You left this out: "Most members of this project think that Infoboxes are seldom useful additions to [composer] articles for many reasons, including [the reasons already discussed above by me and others].... [The Wikiproject's members] think it is normally best, therefore, to avoid infoboxes altogether for classical musicians, and prefer to add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page. Particular care should be taken with featured articles as these have been carefully crafted according to clear consensus on their talkpages." Then it links to past relevant discussions and RfCs. How can there be a real discussion here when editors continue to insert such disingenuous and dishonest arguments as this here? Also, since I am here, I'd like to note that it has been said erroneously many times here that concrete arguments against an infobox on this article have not been given above, but I DID give, above, my seven (7) top reasons why I don't think an infobox would be detrimental to this article. I will repeat them now, since you have been unable to find them above:

Here are some reasons why I disagree with including the infobox in this article: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points about the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into such infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a lot of code near the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the article. (7) It would distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX and This Arbitration case report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader, or include ... irrelevant or inappropriate information". See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I. DON'T. LIE. Common sense prevented me from quoting the entire page which is why I wikilinked it so others could read it for themselves. I simply provided a timeline. We've already seen your argument so there's no purpose in repeating it. Furthermore, attacking editors who have a different view from yours is not helpful and often serves to weaken one's argument. At least try to respond with some sense of collegiality. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions attach to a topic, not specific editors; they would apply to everyone's conduct equally. However I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "[myself] and other like-minded editors"; to the best of my memory, I've never contributed to an infobox discussion that I didn't arrive at via a random RfC bot-notice. And while I've !voted on the content issue a few times, increasingly my main observation in the last few years has been exactly what I said above; this is a massive drain on community time and goodwill, that gets more absurd every time the battlelines are re-drawn on an article and the same two camps manifest and face off until an inevitable deadlock. Usually by route of an RfC which draws in significant additional community input via notice (hi there!), but their brief comments are swamped out by the practiced clash between the elite infobox partisans, with their multi-tiered canned and deeply entrenched arguments which cannot be swayed in even the finest details. So, in short, yes. Discretionary sanctions. That cover all volunteers. The only type that exist. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Once we are off-topic regarding this specific article: my approach would be much simpler: treat infoboxes as other content, nothing special, edit normally, if reverted better discuss not war. On the TFA of today, I was reverted by two people who were not very active in making the article, - Brianboulton was, and said "No incivility was intended." in the discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Except idiot boxes are not "content": they are a question of the formatting of selected factoids. – SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Appearance in search engine results

Is there any difference with/without an infobox regarding the way search engines display results? ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• [Moved from the top by SV] There is rough consensus for inclusion of an infobox. Importantly, most "outsiders" (i.e. people who were nto already involved in arguing over this) clearly support its inclusion, and policy-based arguments against are weak at best. A few Wikipedians have genuine reasons for disliking infoboxes on principle, but this appears to be a minority view. It may be time for a new centralised discussion to standardise the approach rather than fighting this battle article by article - remember the School Wars? Guy (Help!) 06:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree with JzG's comments above that there is a "rough" consensus for an infobox. There may be slightly more popular support for them than against them but we don't arrive at a consensus by vote counting. This looks like a classic WP:NOCONSENSUS outcome to me, in the sense that neither side has put forward a decisive argument. This debate has pretty much regurgitated all the same arguments that are wheeled out in every infobox dispute. We all accept there are areas in which infoboxes are indispensible, and then you get articles like this one where they do not offer a qualifiable improvement. Since policies and guidelines do not mandate them the arguments invariably come down to personal preference. Those who want to add them have not been able to provide a compelling argument for adding something to an article that does not offer a substantive improvement, and those who resist them have not really been able to offer a decisive argument as to why infoboxes are to the detriment of the article. And thus the debate goes in circles. The community needs to accept the argument is not winnable for either side and come up with a mechanism for dealing with this. There are two guidelines which do not really apply to this situation but which we can draw inspiration from: WP:CITEVAR and MOS:RETAIN. In the areas these guidelines address, they favor retaining any consistent status quo that has been established. In the case of this article, the two principal editors, Tim riley and Ssilvers, both oppose the inclusion of an infobox, and between them contributed over half the article's content and successfully pursued the article's FA status. In view of this it would seem that ommitting the infobox in this instance is in the spirit of other established practises for resolving other "personal preference" disputes. Top-down impositions by the community should only be invoked to enforce a policy or a guideline, and the community shouldn't really be trying to impose arbitrary conditions on content creators otherwise you will ultimately drive away Wikipedia's most productive editors. Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

In regards to yielding opinion to "significant" content contributors, what then of the concept that, "(c)onsensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." You might want to apply that only to policy and guideline enforcement, but the reality is the collective judgment of the wider Wikicommunity is that which should control over any local discussion. Additionally it is hard then to judge when we would be giving a free pass for entrenched editors to own the article, FA status or not, amount of past or present contributions or not. Weight, fine. That entrenched editors call the shots on articles, no. There will always be "most productive editors" on Wikipedia - our problem is more finding new editors who aren't scared away and never get the chance to become productive. (And please don't take this as an argument against your saying there is or is not consensus. I've got my opinion but I'll yield to the closer as to whether one exists, whatever the closer's decision.) LaughingVulcan 23:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

That is a good point. I admire content creators, but curators are valuable too, and the creator-supremacist view diminishes the importance and value of wikignomes. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Tim riley, who was one of the content creators of this article, has retired because of all this. User:Cassianto User:SchroCat and User:We hope, all very valuable content creators, have announced they are going to finish their commitments and then quit. So congratulations, gnomes, people who don't want to read "stupid text", editors who want to force infoboxes into article about people that they have no idea who they are, admins who deplore "drahma" while increasing it exponentially, you win! You have driven away some of the best content creators here, but I am sure you don't care about that, after all they are no more important than any one else.Smeat75 (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Obviously a local consensus should not override a community consensus, but since the community neither mandates nor prohibits infoboxes there isn't a community consensus to "override" in this case. Since neither policy nor guidelines—which reflect community consensus—mandate an infobox, then the consensus here at this article—if we arrive at one—is only ever a local consensus relating to this particular article, regardless of which competing view prevails. Betty Logan (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but this RfC already is/will be a community consensus on the article of broader scope than the local editors. I'm not saying the local editors can't participate in it - to the contrary. But previously, at least one editor had expressed the opinion that opening the RfC itself so the broader community would have input was incorrect as forum shopping. (See Talk:Noël_Coward/Archive_1#Needs_an_infobox, very last entry by SchroCat.) I think there's a whole subtext about this article's history with an infobox request being overridden by the people you mentioned way back in 2013. See the same archive 1, but from 2013. (I won't speak to that, though.) Then, after the RfC was closed by JzG (right or wrong,) there was a gang who immediately opened up a counter-RfC in an attempt to ignore the immediate prior consensus of the RfC - again right or wrong - and tried to immediately close and impose the opposite decision because they didn't like it. (You can see that below, still, at this time.) Then during that we got the opinion that "outsiders" shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion (from none other than Smeat75. Want a diff?) All mighty strange ways to respect CONLIMITED, IMO. LaughingVulcan 00:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I stand corrected to the above. Smeat75 did not say that outsiders can't participate - he questioned why outsider's views have more weight in JzG's closure. My apologies for the incorrect attribution; I do not typically like to go back and retro-edit my words. LaughingVulcan 01:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not what a local consensus and community consensus necessarily mean. The community consensus to which Betty Logan is referring to is a consensus that impacts all articles. Not the RfC which will decide what happens to this article. What I mean is if an RfC makes a decision on a wiki-global scale that it will override any consensus on a single specific article. Hence the explicit quotation including on a wider scale. This RfC is focused on a single article. Further this RfC is moving towards a no-consensus. 20-14 has already moved to something like 22-18, I noted that the newest set of votes were 4/5 oppose votes and only one additional support. By the time this RfC is closed I expect a no-consensus ruling. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, aside from engaging in the classic error of counting !votes instead of recognizing quality of arguments, though it won't surprise me if this comes up no consensus and that's OK by me, I would suggest that this is a slight misinterpretation of Level of Consensus. Aside from the sentence I quoted above, everything else in that section are examples of the application of it. The process of seeking RfCs is, by its nature, a desire to seek opinion of a wider community effort. And if one is going to yield to the spirit of the Manual of Style and the guideline of Citing Sources, then one should also yield to the spirit of respecting the Policy of Consensus, which not only includes Level of Consensus but also that all editors voices should be heard and weighed. (And IMO, equally, though weight can be added to that of local editors.) But that’s enough from me for one night, I really don’t want my voice dominating and it may be too late, plus I could well be wrong here. LaughingVulcan 01:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Then ask the involved parties whose arguments are better, the bystander response will be they're both stupid. The prevailing argument for is that it is a compact summary of the article and the prevailing argument against is that the compact summary omits nuance. We're at a stalemate, so any closer is going to close based on number of votes. The qualitative arguments are about even in this respect. I voted for for two reasons 1. compact summary and 2. WP:ILIKEIT. In the end, no matter what way you slice it each and every single person accounted for either WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT in their vote. Now that leaves consensus, the input of the wider community doesn't change the scale of the consensus, you're comparing local consensus with conlimited. Conlimited deals with the aspect of how many editors were involved with the consensus building while local deals with the scope of impact of the consensus. Local consensus refers to a single article or instance. CONLIMITED is in reference to a small group of editors agreeing to an approach as one time. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I see my errors then. First, even if a result certain or semi-certain, I'll still let the closer handle the close and decision. But second, CONLIMITED doesn't refer to a small group of editors; it states that a wider scale of consensus can't be overridden by a more limited consensus. As I understand Betty Logan above, if there is no consensus the "significant" contributors voices should decide, by parallel to citevar/retain. I suggest instead if the finding becomes "no consensus," then all local article editors, yes or no, should feel bound to respect the results of the RfC - that there is "no consensus" to add an infobox to the article. IMVVHO that's equal to a "no" answer on the question. She and I may agree that far, dunno.

Where we differ still: RfC process explicitly states disputes and article content are valid purview of RfC, not just policy and guideline advisements. IMO direction of article content to all creators here by the RfC is perfectly valid, limited by the scope of the question. That's arguable, but it's my opinion. There is no need to appeal to some perceived sense that any entrenched contributor gets his/her way because they are entrenched contributors or they were "here first" or contributed "most of the article" or "brought it to FA status." They do not get to dictate how the article will be in the future based on those things. If Riley and Silvers had voted "yes infobox" and it was a newbie who's saying no, a no consensus RfC wouldn't mean the article gets an infobox instead. (FTR I know they didn't vote that way.) But it's not necessary to go there, either. Whether the RfC reaches a close of a "yes" consensus or a "no" consensus or of a "no consensus," then the local editors should feel bound to equally respect the decision. Anything less is an own of the article. LaughingVulcan 22:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course, whatever the outcome of the RfC it should be respected by all editors even the contributors. I to a certain point understand why the people who brought it to FA might be so vociferous in their opposition. Simply put, those article's wouldn't be FA if it weren't for their contributions and I doubt too many people stopped to even consider that. But again, the RfC should be respected even if you disagree with the result. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC bot

On a side note, which I hope will not be leveraged to attack the perspectives of anyone in particular, I get an RfC notice from a bot concerning an infobox discussion four or five times a year in recent years, and it seems to me that I can just about always count on the same ten names popping up in this context, about evenly distributed between the pro- and anti-infobox camps. While I've never seen behaviour associated with this presence that I would say violates the wording of WP:CANVAS, I can't fathom that these same editors should show up again and again without some degree of effort to stake out these issues--which I think is unfortunate, as it means just about every one of these discussions ends in a deadlock/no-consensus outcome and a great deal more wasted editorial time for both sides. Again, I say this not to call anybody out, but rather to observe that this seems to have become a kind of editorial arms race between two groups of editors who have developed some absolutist/inflexible perspectives on the value of infoboxes, wherein neither side wants to back of, for fear the other side will exploit their absence in any particular discussion. I wonder if perhaps the time is not ripe to take the issue to the community at large to develop some more nuanced and explicit policies on when infoboxes are and are not acceptable. By which I mean, a central community discussion begun at WP:CD, WP:VPP or Wikipedia talk:MoS, not a walled-garden effort to set standards at WikiProject, in violation of WP:Advice pages and previous ArbCom rulings in this area. I think some codified standards here might save a lot of effort and prevent a lot of animosity. Food for thought anyway. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing requires some form a communication to draw people here. They could have for instance came here via the RFC bot or they could watch the central log for RFC's. There are a number of reasons that they could legitimately be here and there's no reason to assume malfeasance without evidence.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said. I'm not accusing anyone of gaming the system; I just feel hearing over and over and over from the same two groups of people, with clearly entrenched views, who seem to be seeking these discussions out, is not really healthy for discussion on these articles--however they happen to be arriving here. It's a roving content dispute that has grown incredibly toxic and problematic. I don't have a single answer to solve the problem, nor do I mean to suggest overt bad faith on the part of either camp, but it does seem to me to be a bad use of editorial time that seems to be driving the involved parties into increasingly absolutist views on the issue while drawing others into a battleground and assuring that the ultimate outcome of almost all of these discussions is a lot of wasted time that buys no consensus and leaves the involved articles that get taken over by this contest of wills the worse off for becoming the new stage of the battleground. And all of that is entirely possible without a single editor operating in bad faith or violating a single policy. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC

Canvassing, or rather violating said policy, is an action of bad faith. "I would say violates the wording of WP:CANVAS".-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh cripes, I see the confusion now! That was a typo. It should read "I wouldn't" to emphasize that I didn't think there was an evidence of communication/collusion, just a lot of people who seem really dedicated to not dropping the stick on this topic. Thanks for drawing my attention to that; I have amended the statement above, with a strike-through for continuity. No, wait a minute, that was correctly worded as it was. I think if you re-read the sentence in question you will find you have mis-/partially quoted me. I said I had never seen anyone doing anything which I felt was a WP:CANVAS violation. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolute apologies, I see my mistake, Very sorry. I have a head cold that really isn't agreeing with this white background.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries Joe, clearly an honest mistake! Also obviously one that could happen to anyone, since I mis-read it the same way for an instant! Snow ^{let's rap} 07:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Note

I've reopened the RfC following the discussion on AN, because we don't know when JzG will be online again. People who have already commented should try not to comment again; with so much discussion it becomes difficult for the closing admin to judge consensus. I'm also going to remove the box from the article so that the article returns to the status quo ante.

Someone should ask on WP:AN/RFC for an uninvolved admin to close the RfC when the 30 days is up, or sooner if the discussion stops. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh good, prolonged dramah. If anyone can summarise in less than ten thousand words why some people have such fanatical dedication to including or not including infoboxes I'd appreciate it, but this is not the place. Guy (Help!) 07:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: Might as well be the place. It's a drama because it's a long-term power struggle between editors who want to present a consistent publication aimed at a very broad readership (with different devices, different needs, different reuse plans, etc.), versus those who feel overly vested as "authors" of an article as a work unto itself and not written with average readers ("idiots") in mind, a page they are certain they should be able to control in every detail without interference from "lemmings" (the broader editorial community). This is the basis of most style disputes on Wikipedia, though many take the disguised WP:SSF form: "an article on [topic X] must be written in the exact style it would be written in a journal about [X], or else experts on [X] like me will hate Wikipedia as unprofessional." Same pig, different lipstick.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's depressing. I sort of hoped we'd be beyond the whole style-over-substance thing by now. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: I'm skeptical that will ever happen, because most "style" disputes on WP are not really style disputes but are content and/or policy and/or control disputes, filtered through a style lens. The outcomes tend to matter on at least one of these levels, and many of the participants know that, leading to intensification of struggles over matters that outsiders to the dispute perceive as pointless trivia. The whole reason the infobox thing has been to ArbCom at least four times is because "both" sides (there are really more than two) tend to argue from a generalized position and not about a particular article's needs. This is predictable because infoboxes are essentially a form of information architecture, not pure content. As with navboxes, we need a system of rules (in MoS perhaps, and better than WP:INFOBOX) for when to [not] add one and what it should [not] contain. We take a similar approach to categorization, external links, article leads, use of images, and various other structural matters, so it should work for i-boxes, too.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish; I understand, as a relatively minor content contributor myself, why editors become connected with the articles they have written or greatly expanded. I watch like a hawk the pages that I have expanded greatly and carefully check every single edit to those pages. It's relatively easy though since that number currently sits at 4 articles. I took a look at the article with and without the infobox and did a side-by-side comparison and my feelings have not changed one bit. The infobox looks only a little scrappy but is precisely what I'd expect from an infobox; draws my attention and gives me a super quick overview of the subject. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Cassianto and SchroCat: please don't comment again in the survey section. People understand the arguments; it's now a question of letting them express a view, then someone can close it and this talk page can get back to business. If you have to correct a factual error, you can post in the discussion section and ping the person you're replying to, but keep that to a minimum too. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think they know as much about the arguments as they do about Coward himself. Their "views" are completeley irrelevant to this article and are more of a general opinion which is not what this RfC is about. Cassianto^Talk 18:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

My last two comments have been corrections to errors in fact, (and my input over the last few days has been extremely low anywhere in this thread) where it is appropriate to place it next to the comment. If you wish to reformat the entire thread (which should have been formed properly in the first place), I suggest you do so. Failing that, I suggest you do not try and limit the restriction to just two editors, but to ALL parties, to at least give a semblance of fairness. If you really want to be of optimal use, I suggest you look into the disgusting comments of one of your fellow admins, who decided today would be a good time to question my mental health: that is so far beyond CIVIL to be despicable. That would be a far more constructive use of someone's time. – Gavin (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto, you've posted about 45 times and Schrocat about 13. What's important now is to reduce the heat and let the RfC run its course. This applies to everyone else too. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Rather clumsy dodging of the disgusting comments by an admin. Shall I question someone's mental state and see just how long it would take before you or any other of his chums block me? As to numbers, you could also point to Atsme's 12 comments and Mcandlish's 9 or 10, and that is just at a quick glance. Perhaps you could count up the others and ping them as well, just met make the playing field seem level? - Gavin (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

SchroCat for the record, I posted 3 comments in the Survey section, not 12 as you stated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Not that I particularly care, but neither Sarah nor I limited the counting of comments to individual threads. She said I had shed 13 times: it was actually less than that, and spread over a number of different threads across the whole page. At the time I posted, you had posted 12 comments, also over several threads. If you're going to pick holes in trivia, please make sure it's the right trivia and the right holes before wasting time. – Gavin (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

SchroCat, this is news to me? Who questioned your mental state? I only asked because the same thing happened to me yesterday. I was wholly surprised at it, bearing in mind who posted it. Cassianto^Talk 18:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The charming JzG, who accused me of "bad faith bordering on paranoid conspiracism" (to have someone accuse me of mental health issues who invents invests words like "conspiracism" is doubly insulting). And this, mind you from an admin, one who is "expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others". Still, now I've alerted SlimVirgin, who appears keen to be involved and to take action against all involved parties, not just two, I'm sure she'll investigate fully and take the appropriate administrative action. And to think, I was blocked yesterday because an admin thought I was calling JzG a coward (not picking up the Noel Coward ref: perhaps I should have just questioned his sanity or mental strength, because that's what admins can get away with, it seems... – Gavin (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, just found it. What a vile piece of work. I've left my thoughts which will more than likely be deleted without a response, but it survives in a diff. Cassianto^Talk 19:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's made up my mind about one thing. When the admins will stoop to such despicable levels and their friends take no action, not even a warning note, it's time to leave. I'll finish B&H with you, and then I'm gone. Shame the bullies get their phyrric victory of a snide comment, but life is too short to have to deal with those so lacking in decency or honour—and so keen to hide behind their own veil of power. – Gavin (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracism. Not invented. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and that was of course the meaning I expressed. The irony of extending this to the implications above is rather obvious. The rhetoric here reads like the rantings of anti-vaxers more than a wonkish discussion of trivial technicalities in a Wikipedia articles, and some people have entirely lost their sense of perspective. I know this is something of which I have also accused you in the past, and no doubt will again. I suspect you may have permitted yourself a wry smile there. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• SarahSV You posted above that "What's important now is to reduce the heat ... ... This applies to everyone else too." Bearing that in mind, do you feel that the comment above by your fellow admin does that? SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to point out the bleeding obvious, if your "solution" to the problem involves everybody else changing their uppity ways, then it's not a solution. I am an outsider in this dispute, looking on in utter bewilderment at the vicious rhetoric. Maybe you should all listen more to outsiders, and less to the echo chamber. Just a thought. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

So much of an outsider that you wish to mandate an IB on every article? However, I posed the question to SarahSV. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Guy you have expressed a desire to cool the "drahma" around this issue and expressed bewilderment at the "vicious rhetoric" whilst considerably adding to the drama and adding plenty more vicious rhetoric of your own. Questioning the mental health of editors and comparing those who do not think an infobox is suitable for every article to "the rantings of anti-vaxers" is not helpful, to say the least.Smeat75 (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I urge you to actually read the comments to which I was referring. As to uestioning people's mental health, I didn't. Andy pointed out a relevant article. Paranoid conspiracism is a mindset, not a mental illness (as a depressive I think I know the difference). And I'm not saying either side is worse than the other over the entirety of the project, but on this article? In respect of this RfC? Sure. It reads exactly like the "pharma shill gambit" you get from antivaxers. I am sure that statement makes osme people feel uncomfortable. I recommend you read up a little on cognitive dissonance and think about why that might be. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If there was a vote for a sitwide policy I owuld vote for boxes, out of personal preference, but if it went the other way I would not be upset. I don't care enough about the in versus out, I do care about the vicious tribal rhetoric. In terms of vitriol per unit importance this is the lamest dispute I can ever remember. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

JzG, I asked everyone yesterday not to keep commenting once they'd made their views known, and to respond in the discussion section only if they had to correct a factual error. If people want to discuss what Guy's comment yesterday meant, please take it to user talk. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

CommentThe OP is related to Noel Coward, however, I am concerned a little that people seem to be talking about getting rid of infoboxes in general. I edit animal articles and very frequently use infoboxes as a quick and convenient way of looking up scientific classification - using WP as a reference book as it is intended. I would hate to see them go. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No one on the whole page has advocated banning infoboxes throughout the encyclopedia. We only object to people forcing infoboxes into articles, particularly in the arts, when the content creators and others who have an interest in the subject don't believe that an infobox would be helpful to readers. As someone else noted, it is bizarre that JzG thinks that the opinions of outside users who have no interest in the topic are in a better position to make this call than people who have significantly contributed to the article, especially a mature, high-quality article like this one. That violates the spirit of the Arbcom case and WP:INFOBOXUSE. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is bizarre to assert that the only people who can know what the reader might want are those already intimately involved with the article. That is a fundamental abrogation of Wikipedia's editing model. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I never asserted that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Noting here that I've asked on WP:AN/RFC for an uninvolved admin to close this when the time comes. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It has been more than 30 days, so it's now time for closure. --Albany NY (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunatley it closes not on your say so. Cassianto^Talk 17:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I updated the closure request to indicate the 30 days was met a few days ago. It will be closed whenever someone get's around to it. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

How noble of you. Cassianto^Talk 23:06, 17 September 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.

Closure

Surely the super long RFC can only be closed as a no consensus?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Surely it needs an independent closer, given the contention? And surely that closer can make up his or her own mind? And surely we are not operating under a deadline? LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 13:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

And surely you're not serious in thinking others don't realise this? And surely you have better stuff to be doing? And surely there's an article somewhere which needs improving? Cassianto^Talk 19:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I give your words proper reflection. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 23:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Will someone please step up, count the bold-formatted Yes and No in the RfC and finally close it with the result according to those counts as it should have been for some time now?--*thing goes (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFC#Ending_RfCs? We are not on a WP:DEADLINE with this, even though that is only an essay. It should be done proper, by an experienced uninvolved closer, so it's not contested is my opinion. I doubt that I'm the only one of that view. But if I am alone, *thing goes, go for it and just see if anyone else contests the close. Nobody objects, and we're done. Sorry if I mangled your username and it pings wrong editor. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 00:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Last time I looked, consensus was not a matter of simply counting the occurrences of "yes" or "no"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. Consensus is not a vote and as LaughingVulcan stated, we aren't on a specific timetable. I did update the RfAC Request with the appropriate aging template, not sure if that helps anything. Best we can do is sit and wait for an official closure with consensus. -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think there will be any "consensus"? I doubt that. A decision based on majority might be the only way to resolve this. Leaving it dangling does not do any good, I suppose.--*thing goes (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you asking if I've stopped beating my wife? Or are you merely trying to propose a question repeating the premise that I've already disagreed with Dr. Blofeld over, above? One closer already did determine a consensus - weeks ago IIRC - and was raked over the coals for it. Machs nichts, other than yes a closer may find a consensus that neither you nor I see - and any close may be contested if it looks like the closer end-ran procedure without proper respect to IAR (i.e. shortcutting the !rules had better benefit the 'pedia.) Maybe another closer will determine a consensus the other way. The closer might even decide to look at all the text that SarahSV collapsed and use parts of it in the determination. (While I think I understand why she did that I'm definitely mixed on having the Request reframed that way or really helps.) But anyway, maybe aliens will suddenly arrive and settle the matter for us ex cathedra. The point is this is very obviously a contentious RfC due to the invective hurled around in it. Some of us believe a closer should be old school and not just tally !votes. But in any event, an involved party closing it, or an influenced party closing it, will do much less good than waiting. Why the hurry to "solve" it? It won't affect anything else other than this article, as far as I know a closure will do nothing to heal the rifts caused by the acrimony of it, and it doesn't look like Arbcom will save the day anytime soon either. But mainly yes, I still want an uninvolved closer to come out of WP:AN for this so that the issue is put to bed in a way that I won't see myself back here or elsewhere for DR again, and because I personally can swallow any answer that is given by such a closer. But please, not a "well, folks, I'm partisan so I'll throw out the 'obvious' close that agrees with my biases, yes sir, and if y'all don't like it suck it" kind of close. Sorry. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 12:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Well then—while I strongly believe in a decision based on the "majority vote" being the most fair and objective one, given the totally controversial positions of the proponents on the matter of the RfC, why not just wait and wait and wait some more for some miracle to happen and spontaneously forming a consenus… One party will always be offended by the decision. It's just so Wikipedian nowadays to not decide, leaving any and all disappointed and uncontent. But then again: Why would I care.--*thing goes (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a lot of white noise in this discussion but the only relevant guideline applicable to this debate is WP:INFOBOXUSE which clearly states "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." Looking at the article stats both Ssilvers and Tim Riley contributed over half the content and are against the inclusion of the infobox. Other significant article editors have not voiced an opinion, so the consensus among the editors at the "individual article" (as opposed to the community editors) is to not include the infobox. On that basis it would be consistent with WP:INFOBOXUSE to leave out the infobox (and I say this as someone who generally has no personal issue with infoboxes). Is there a good reason for overriding the primary guideline governing infobox inclusion? Well, that is the question this RFC has set out to resolve. The popular vote is leaning towards inclusion, with 30 editors in favor (58%) and 22 against (42%) but there is still significant support for excluding the infobox, and awarding a "win" solely on the basis of vote size would violate Wikipedia:Consensus which states "nor is it the result of a vote". The question for the closer to determine here is are any of the actual arguments put forward compelling enough to discount the application of WP:INFOBOXUSE in this case? Betty Logan (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This issue now is closure to resolve the issue and move on, not in re-litigating the original issue. That discussion has been closed. All the arguments have been made. Bringing them up again is just counter-productive. SonOfThornhill (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:Thanks for stepping up to the plate and making the tough call. Excellent reasoning in the close, IMVHO. Very much looking forward to un-watchlisting this now and occasionally dropping by for a read. And.... my attention span just dropped so I'm off now, thanks.  ;) LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 11:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Collapsible infobox

In the above RfC, I suggested that if no consensus was reached, a reasonable compromise solution would be using a collapsible infobox as at the Frank Sinatra page (where it was used to resolve a similar dispute). This seems to me to be the best course of action at this point. For people who oppose an infobox, they can keep it collapsed and not have to see it. For people who support an infobox, they can expand it. In such an acrimonious dispute, a compromise where neither side gets its way but each side can live with it is far better than an outcome in which one side gets exactly what it wants. In this case, the outcome was "no consensus", meaning there is no consensus either for or against including an infobox. Therefore, a collapsible infobox compromise better reflects the closure than does the current state of the article, sans infobox. As the essay WP:COMPROMISE states, "If the dispute is over a specific point of editing the entry itself ... then compromise often means finding some editing technique which can incorporate both of the proposed styles or techniques." --Albany NY (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus to add an infobox of any kind. It is disgusting that you want to re-litigate this so soon after this horrible attack on this excellent article just lost the project several incredibly productive and talented editors. One Tim riley was worth 1000 infobox warriors. Please stop. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: No one forced them to go. They chose to go rather than to move past the issue or continue supporting their points of view. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Albany NY: I think it's a valid proposition to review but I personally think the results would be the same. Compromise is definitely something that has been hard for both sides to agree on. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Dane, you should take responsibility for the grave damage that you have done to the project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't roll my eyes any harder at your comment. Opening an RfC is hardly damaging to the community, you should be more grateful that I was bold enough to get us to a firm conclusion. Notice the consensus above and the fact that I didn't "challenge it". I wish that could be said for the people who immediately challenged the first closure because it didn't go their way. Clearly some editors have issues with collaboration. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

We get it. You don't understand the issues and do not care about other editors. Now please find another page to poke people because all the disruption here in the last couple of months has done nothing for the encyclopedia, but has instead caused immense damage. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

You should stop with the bad faith accusations. I fully understood the issues and used the tools to gain consensus on a decision, which has been made and which has not been challenged. Dropping the stick here, this isn't worth a rehash. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Given the damage that has been done already by those trying to force an infobox into the article, I think this is possibly the worst idea that I've heard for a long time. The close was clear that there is no consensus for an infobox, of any type, in this article. Bringing this up so soon afterwards is ... unimpressive. Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)