Talk:Rod Steiger/Archive 1

I am opening this request for comment about the lack of inclusion of an infobox. From my account of it, it appears that some of the editors on this article are against infoboxes entirely. I would like to hear some discussion from additional users on why an infobox should or shouldn't be included. Jcmcc (Talk) 21:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support most infoboxes for biographies. As for this article, the discussion might soon resemble a similar infobox RFC, as the same 3(?) editors are involved. A Google search for Steiger shows Google's own infobox, similar to WPs, but with halfway decent photos. --Light show (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Stop your incivility straight away, Light Show. If you want this to go to ANI and for you to be banned from yet another part of the site for your battlefield attitude and incivility, the you're going the right way about it. - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

We're not google LS. Google is a search engine in which factoids have more value. We're an encyclopedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose -- per my reasons above. I can't be arsed to comment further on yet another ludicrous waste of time such as this RfC. I just think It's pathetically sad that some spend all their time and efforts creating pointless infobox RfCs rather than actually do some good somewhere, like create content. Cassianto^Talk 21:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If you think discussing the construction of an encyclopedia and its manual of style is a "ludicrous waste of time", then why are you

here? Jcmcc (Talk

) 22:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It's clear I'm here for entirely different reasons than you. For your information I write articles, what's your excuse, other than to waste time on infobox discussions? Why do you assume an infobox forms part of the MoS? They are neither prohibited or required. Cassianto^Talk 22:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Soft Support: If the issue is that the original infobox was too bloated and jumbled, couldnt we agree that a trimmed down infobox would work? DaltonCastle (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No, as that would look silly and redundant. Maybe we should just delete the whole article and just have an infobox, filled with the usual bollocks that come within them? Cassianto^Talk 22:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

About deletions, just a side note that a discussion about your recent one has been posted, in case you want to comment there. --Light show (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't a clue what you're on about. Are you just spewing your usual drivvle Light show? Cassianto^Talk 22:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Please remain

civil Cassianto. Wikipedia is not a place to make attacks against other editors. Even when they disagree with you. Jcmcc (Talk

) 22:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

What the hell would you know about civility? Civil editors don't go about trying to delete notable articles and respect fellow editors enough to ask them to expand something. You're trolling here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

🎉🎉Ding ding!!🎉🎉 That's the first cliche buzz word used in all infobox discussions ("civil"). I wonder how long it'll be before someone mentions "

own? Cassianto^Talk

04:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support infobox for reasons given above. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment on lead image: As Dr. Blofeld's very first edit to this article was to replace a pretty good lead image with a blurry inferior one, without comment or rationale, I think the infobox should have the earlier image restored. And if anyone wants to upload this image for the infobox, that's fine with me, as it meets PD status explained here. The only issue with the first image is that Dr. Blofeld also tagged it for deletion with a meaningless pretext (noted above) and did so just minutes after I commented about his image's poor quality. Some might call that implied retaliation. Any other support for the previous one? --Light show (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose this attempt by Jcmcc450 to impose this. Highly suspicious behaviour from him, including nominating three of my articles for deletion. I don't think this is an honest proposal. I think it's clear that he was contacted by Spaghetti by email asking him to open an RFC and has been stalking my edits and is trolling here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Jcmcc450 has not been blocked for sockpuppetry or anything else, so you really should assume good faith. Just because he nominated three of your articles for deletion doesn't make him a sock either, nor does it mean someone put him up to it. In fact, Jcmcc450 created his account all the way back in December of 2007, making your accusation all the more less likely. You should apologize for making such an accusation. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You're another sockpuppet spaghetti!! It was you who emailed Jc asking him to open an RFC on this! If you think it's not suspicious that he nominated three articles for deletion and then within ten minutes opened this RFC then I'd say your spaghetti is severely lacking in sauce.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No it wasn't!!!!! I don't even know Jcmcc450, I don't know you, and I bear no grudge against you, so why on God's earth would I email him to open an RFC? I'm very well aware of Wikipedia's rules about

canvassing, and know that something like that would be improper. Spaghetti07205 (talk

) 08:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Because you tried to impose an infobox and didn't get your way. You'd have seen Jcm's AFDs of my articles and thought "great, I'll ask him to open an RFC". If Jc did this of his own accord then this amounts to trolling/stalking, given that he clearly knows the history of infobox and civility disputes and lectured Cassianto with the "civility" cliche. This recent backlash by Jc isn't done in good faith, it's motivated by something, possibly Chillum. I have enough experience here to know when there's something dishonest going on. Have you or have you not edited wikipedia under a different account previously?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No, that's the not the type of person I am, I wouldn't canvass other users to support me just because I "didn't get my way". And no, I haven't edited Wikipedia under a different account previously. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So you won't object to me doing a Checkuser on you then? A quick request will show up previous accounts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're too involved in this dispute to be doing such a thing. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no requirement to include an IB, and there is little benefit in this case. The well-written lead is sufficient to cover all the salient points, and does so in a way which provides context for the intelligent reader, rather than factoids, stipped of all context or nuance which don't cater for anyone different. One further point for Jcmcc450. It is uncivil to write "it appears that some of the editors on this article are against infoboxes entirely": please do not be so uncivil as to assign thoughts, motives or opinions to others - that is for editors to do themselves. I suggest you strike this as being inappropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – as stated by SchroCat and others; the lead concisely supplies the essential information.
  SagaciousPhil - Chat
  09:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support. It seams to me that the only arguments against the infobox are "I don't like it" and "it's not mandatory". On the other hand, arguments for having the infobox are more acceptable. Infobox helps new editors to understand the content of the page, it is also consistent with (most of the) other similar articles, and it helps Google search render essential information. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Please do not misrepresent the views of other editor, especially when your own post contains errors of fact. - SchroCat (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The purpose of an infobox, as we've been told time and time again by editors who like them, is to provide an easy-to-take-in summary of the most essential facts of the article at a glance. Nothing in this box fits this description – there's nothing there that is (a) non-trivial, (b) part of the most essential facts about the subject, and (c) not conveyed more efficiently by the lead sentence(s) of the actual article. Much of the information given is not only irrelevant but actively deflects the reader's attention away from the relevant contents (e.g. the "cause of death" entry). If you want to provide readers with a quick summary at a glance, the lead sentence does that job not just equally well but a hundred times better than any box could. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support infobox. I read the discussion (due to it being mentioned at ANI) before I read the article. From the way it was described I thought the infobox must be 500px in with and trailing halfway down the article, but no, it is remarkably brief compared with infoboxes on some other articles. I find the infobox helpful, even when I am going to read the whole article, indeed even after I have read the whole article. Scolaire (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Supplementary comment: I think the colour image – even though the quality isn't the best – is a better representation of Steiger than the old one (strange pose and facial expression) or the suggested new one (excessively close up). Scolaire (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This article passed to GA status without one, and we certainly do not need to degrade it by adding a questionable infobox. Whether Wikipedia helps Google search is completely immaterial. We are not here for Google, we are here for literate human beings. Those who can't read don't belong in an encyclopedia. That includes bots, search engines, and pedants. Scr★pIron^IV 13:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support as it would be useful for readers. I don't see how a standard infobox would "degrade" the article. --Cavarrone 14:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

If you can't respect the opinion of the article writer (me) then I will no longer respect your particular opinion on them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, can I be the one who uses the second cliché buzz word

Own? --Scolaire (talk

) 16:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You can, but capitalising it would be wrong. Cassianto^Talk 19:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Summoned by RfC bot. Perhaps there is a backstory to this RfC that escapes me, but I don't understand why an infobox would be excluded from this article. They are indeed customary and useful, especially for prominent people with long careers such as Steiger. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Because it had a long list of five wives, hideous flags and excess which just looked plain ugly and long, not to mention being of very limited use. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Well I'd have to look at it, but the fact is that he was married many times, as are a number of performers over the years. Facts are facts. Mickey Rooney was married seven eight times, and all the wives are in the infobox. I can't recall anyone ever objecting to it either. Certainly no reason to exclude an infobox for Rooney or for Steiger either. Coretheapple (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Who gives a shiny shite who he was married to? If you want trivia, go read IMDb. Cassianto^Talk 19:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

And that too would look far better without the infobox.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Well you can certainly raise the point on that page. Wikipedia is not censored, and if a person is married eight times the infobox will say so. They are there to be informative, to benefit the reader. The presence of information is a reason for having an infobox, not for not having an infobox.Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It depends what you consider information. The content in it looks rather like trivia to me. Does the average person really need to know what his parents were called and number of children? Is it essential? As a film buff I'd be more interested in knowing what films he starred in, what films he won awards for. That's vital information. And that infobox tells me nothing like that, so its use is always going to be very restricted. A good lede should effectively summarise the article, which in Steiger's case it does well.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a classic and utter straw man argument: this has absolutely nothing to do with censorship (absolutely no-one has suggested that it does, apart from you). It's about how to best present information, and IBs are often sub-standard ways of doing that, as they strip out context, nuance and intelligence from the provision of such information. – SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So don't have one. I could care less. I was summoned by bot, remember? From what I've seen of this discussion I can see there are some user conduct issues that might need some working on. Meanwhile I'm unwatchlisting this. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

What nonsense: pointing out that someone is using a straw man argument is not a conduct issue. Trying to smear people with opposing views by raising the conduct card is a conduct issue, ironically enough. – SchroCat (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah the old civility card!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Clearly put @Coretheapple:. We all know why infoboxes are so useful, so the real question is not whether it should be included, IMO, but why so many are so anxious to see it removed. Here are a few basic details I find interesting. The scary infobox that they're trying desperately to hide had only 57 words, after excluding the unnecessary military details (he was no Audie Murphy.) Those 57 words gave many visitors quick and useful details that can't be found now without time and and effort: where was he born? how old was he when he died? where did he die? what caused his death? when was he active? was he married, and to whom and when? did he have children, and how many?

The main arguments for removing it by one editor were because it was "bloated" with wives, had "undisciplined expansiveness," "disconnected particles," "uncertain benefit," etc. All making much ado about a few words. Yet consider what the editors prefer to include as "encyclopedic:" double that amount of words going into minutia about how his mother's alcoholism caused him embarrassment, with excessive quotes. These 108 words came after the article already stated what caused her drinking and its key affect on her life.

Then of course there's triple the number of 57 infobox words placed into a blue quote box, needing 148 words for a single quote about Humphrey Bogart. The entire quote and box are essentially irrelevant filler to Steiger's bio. It was gratuitously placed here as a distraction from the bio, not a contribution to it. Another blue quote box with a 130-word off-topic quote talks about independent filmmaker's and set designer's budgets. Almost totally useless to his bio. So it took me only seconds to find almost 400 words of useless filler, yet so many editors fight tooth and nail, mock the foreign concept called "civility," simply to bury 57 words of useful and common bio details. P.S. This note is for CoretheApple, and no outside comments are welcome.--Light show (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

If you comment on Wiki, anyone can respond, LS, not just the people you want to. You've missed the point entirely, but I'm not surprised, given you've never developed any article up to a recognised standard here, and prefer to have quote farms instead of actually writing something. IBs are useful in places (absolutely vital in others) and utterly pointless in some. They are not a one-size-fits-all replacement for text; if they were the MoS would make them compulsory. In this case the important information is held in the lead, where it's presented in its proper context. I know that it is shocking to think people actually have to read something when they come to a text-based encyclopaedia, but the IB is more about dumbing down than the presentation of useful and important information. What on earth does the word count matter when presenting important information? Less is not always better: that's how misunderstandings creep in when they are not properly explained by supporting facts and information. I doubt any of his will sink in, or hat you'll even read this with a partly open mind, but there you go. As to mentioning civility, your constant references to other editors show you have no idea what our civility policy and guidelines actually are! – SchroCat (talk) 06:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose info-box – Sometimes useful (e.g. for career stats for sportsmen and -women) but a waste of space here, making Wikipedia look rather amateurish. Tim riley talk 16:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Blofeld and SchroCat above, I really don't see any benefits. I think an infobox in this instance shouldn't be called for as the information in the lead is sufficient, and more "list-y" statistics in the infobox would ruin organisation. JAGUAR  16:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note -- I would render this RfC null and void on the basis that it was established on the back of stalking. This should be shut down immediately. Cassianto^Talk 18:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Cassianto; this whole RFC stinks to high heaven of collusion, stalking, and puppetry. Scr★pIron^IV 18:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)