tfa |
→Edit-warring editor: new section |
||
Line 232: | Line 232: | ||
:STATUSQUO and BRD do not advise us to revert two different users. Aside from the points I made in my already-linked edit summary, I'll say that removing the "residence" parameter had more to do with not overwhelming the infobox. Multiple users in that discussion even suggested that it would be appropriate to mention one's residence in prose in the "personal life" section. While it is not as important as their nationality or birthplace, a person's residence is a location with which they have associated themselves, so it is simply not trivia. What other context is necessary? Type of property? Number of years of residency? Roommates? |
:STATUSQUO and BRD do not advise us to revert two different users. Aside from the points I made in my already-linked edit summary, I'll say that removing the "residence" parameter had more to do with not overwhelming the infobox. Multiple users in that discussion even suggested that it would be appropriate to mention one's residence in prose in the "personal life" section. While it is not as important as their nationality or birthplace, a person's residence is a location with which they have associated themselves, so it is simply not trivia. What other context is necessary? Type of property? Number of years of residency? Roommates? |
||
:Here are some [[WP:OSE]] examples of BLPs, including some FA-level articles, that do not adhere to your principle that current residences with little to no context do not warrant inclusion: [[Amy Adams]], [[Andrew Garfield]], [[Anna Kendrick]], [[Anne Hathaway]], [[Billy Eichner]], [[Bryce Dallas Howard]], [[Catherine Zeta-Jones]], [[Chelsea Handler]], [[Christian Bale]], [[Christopher Nolan]], [[Cillian Murphy]], [[Dakota Johnson]], [[Daniel Kaluuya]], [[Elizabeth Olsen]], [[Emma Watson]], [[Ethan Hawke]], [[Greta Gerwig]], [[Jennifer Lawrence]], [[Jessica Chastain]], [[Jimmy Fallon]], [[Joaquin Phoenix]], [[Jonathan Bailey]], [[Joy Behar]], [[Julianne Moore]], [[Katherine Heigl]], [[Kristen Stewart]], [[Kristen Wiig]], [[LaKeith Stanfield]], [[Lupita Nyong'o]], [[Margot Robbie]], [[Maya Rudolph]], [[NeNe Leakes]], [[Nicole Richie]], [[Oscar Isaac]], [[Paul Dano]], [[Paul Mescal]], [[Patrick Wilson]], [[Paul Rudd]], [[Pedro Pascal]], [[Richard Madden]], [[Rosie O'Donnell]], [[Ryan Reynolds]], [[Sarah Paulson]], [[Scarlett Johansson]], [[Taron Egerton]], [[Theo James]], [[Wanda Sykes]], [[Zoë Kravitz]]. I hope this list helps your conviction to rectify those articles' mistakes. [[User:KyleJoan|<span style="font-family:Consolas; color:#CD8C95">'''K'''yle'''J'''oan</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:KyleJoan|<span style="font-family:Consolas; color:#8B6969">talk</span>]]</sup> 01:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC) |
:Here are some [[WP:OSE]] examples of BLPs, including some FA-level articles, that do not adhere to your principle that current residences with little to no context do not warrant inclusion: [[Amy Adams]], [[Andrew Garfield]], [[Anna Kendrick]], [[Anne Hathaway]], [[Billy Eichner]], [[Bryce Dallas Howard]], [[Catherine Zeta-Jones]], [[Chelsea Handler]], [[Christian Bale]], [[Christopher Nolan]], [[Cillian Murphy]], [[Dakota Johnson]], [[Daniel Kaluuya]], [[Elizabeth Olsen]], [[Emma Watson]], [[Ethan Hawke]], [[Greta Gerwig]], [[Jennifer Lawrence]], [[Jessica Chastain]], [[Jimmy Fallon]], [[Joaquin Phoenix]], [[Jonathan Bailey]], [[Joy Behar]], [[Julianne Moore]], [[Katherine Heigl]], [[Kristen Stewart]], [[Kristen Wiig]], [[LaKeith Stanfield]], [[Lupita Nyong'o]], [[Margot Robbie]], [[Maya Rudolph]], [[NeNe Leakes]], [[Nicole Richie]], [[Oscar Isaac]], [[Paul Dano]], [[Paul Mescal]], [[Patrick Wilson]], [[Paul Rudd]], [[Pedro Pascal]], [[Richard Madden]], [[Rosie O'Donnell]], [[Ryan Reynolds]], [[Sarah Paulson]], [[Scarlett Johansson]], [[Taron Egerton]], [[Theo James]], [[Wanda Sykes]], [[Zoë Kravitz]]. I hope this list helps your conviction to rectify those articles' mistakes. [[User:KyleJoan|<span style="font-family:Consolas; color:#CD8C95">'''K'''yle'''J'''oan</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:KyleJoan|<span style="font-family:Consolas; color:#8B6969">talk</span>]]</sup> 01:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
== Edit-warring editor == |
|||
Editor {{u|Nottedeluce}} is edit-warring at this Featured Article to restore his badly written, misformatted version. English is not his native tongue, and he's introduced ''many'' blatant grammatical and style errors, such as redundancies and italicizing quotations. Another editor helpfully fixed the text, correcting the errors and fixing the badly written English, and was instantly reverted. |
|||
I started fixing his errors manually, and quickly realized that there were too many to make it worthwhile, so I restored the good version, only to see it instantly reverted. At this point, within a couple of hours he's reverted me twice, and the other editor once, leaving such edit summaries as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Hoult&curid=2188443&diff=1190257712&oldid=1190257366 his last]: "My English is not correct. It is not my native language. For me it is a good article. DON'T DISREGARD THE WORK OF OTHERS!!" He's getting out of hand. [[User:Carlstak|Carlstak]] ([[User talk:Carlstak|talk]]) 22:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:26, 16 December 2023
Nicholas Hoult is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 28, 2024. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 300 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Infobox 2
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that it's useful for an infobox to be included on this article.
The previous RfC wasn't done in accordance with WP:RFC or WP:THIRDOPINION as four editors were WP:CANVASSED into commenting of which invalid arguments were made that because Numerounovedant has done most of the work on this particular article the editors sided with his preference for the article to use the image rather than the infobox. This is also contrary to WP:OWN and a discussion isn't a WP:VOTE.
The argument that "In fact, every detail is practically mentioned in the first couple of sentences and therefore it is just redundant information" no longer applies as the subject now has a child which would be included if the article had an infobox as well as his alma mater. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't override a general editing guideline. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- His alma matter is already mentioned in the lead and the child can be easily incorporated in the last sentence of last paragraph as is done for spouses; but we should wait till a confirmation comes from the subject IMO. I still don't what an info-box adds to the article expect for the unnecessary space. Here's a check list:
- Birth date and place - Line 1.
- Occupation - Line 1.
- Years active - Line 3.
- Alma matter - Last line, para 1.
- All spouses/children can be mentioned in the last line of the lead.
- I don't even care about the infobox TBH and think that this is the least interesting thing to discuss, but if a consensus can help anyone here, then I'll be fine with whatever the outcome is. Have a great day, you guys. VedantTalk 09:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- comment - still not a properly formed RfC. While it is now clear that we are supposed to be commenting on whether or not to keep the info box, you have now skewed the request by peppering the opening paragraph with your opinions about a previous discussion. In addition to the clear and neutral requirement you can check out this section on neutrality in an essay about RfC opening statement writing. In a nutshell, nothing should be written which predisposes a commenter toward a particular point of view. Cheers Edaham (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Accusing an editor of canvassing is a fairly serious accusation; as such, I would ask that diffs be provided to substantiate said accusation, especially with regards to a formal RfC. Also, are we just casting aspersions, or has the matter been escalated as a conduct dispute? Ordinarily I'd say editor conduct isn't relevant, but given that this argument is being used in an attempt to invalidate the prior RfC, it seems significant. As to the matter at hand, I'm not likely to lose sleep over this article having or not having an infobox, though it does seem to me that having an infobox is typical these days. Of course WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. DonIago (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- DonIago, here is the diff of canvassing where the comments of some editors that is known of by the previous RfC requestor are invited.
- As per WP:OPENPARA, I don't believe how many children the subject has is noteworthy enough to include in the lead.
- He only briefly attended Sylvia Young Theatre School. I'm not sure what content about a performing arts school he attended for a couple of years before leaving for a secondary school adds to the lead as this doesn't appear to be noteworthy enough for inclusion on the lead.
- Subject also has a notable great aunt, Anna Neagle, which would be useful to include in the relative section of an infobox should one exist.
- Also, if the article had an infobox, is current age would be displayed which would be useful.
Moore, Gary Cooper, and Harriet Bosse (it's not OTHERSTUFF, it's general guidelines, right?). Cheers, VedantTalk 19:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- No - I don't believe an infobox would be an improvement. This is an article where the lead is well written and communicates the key information clearly and concisely. Adding an infobox would be unnecessary clutter. I also agree that this RfC is not neutrally worded, it's odd to see this opening statement from the proposer - The previous RfC wasn't done in accordance with WP:RFC - when this RfC wasn't created in accordance with WP:RFC. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- The question is whether the original RfC requestor may have invited those editors to the discussion because they were inclined to agree with him/her hence skewing the consensus.
- However, sticking to the point in question, those examples Numerounovedant has given are notable subjects who have bore children in relationships with other notable subjects, not similar to this example.
- Infoxboxes aren't clutter, they're useful tools which can help navigate brief information without the user having to read large amounts of text, especially when using Wikipedia on mobile devices, in this particular case the lead has 400 words. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, if you have a question about an editor's conduct like WP:CANVASSED or WP:OWN, then a RfC is not the place to raise that question. - The use of requests for comment on user conduct has been discontinued. In severe cases of misconduct, you may try WP:ANI. If the dispute cannot be resolved there, then arbitration may be warranted as a last resort. - If you had a question about editor conduct and/or the close of the previous RfC, you should have raised that question(s) in an appropriate venue and asked for a review of the closure. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Infoxboxes aren't clutter, they're useful tools which can help navigate brief information without the user having to read large amounts of text, especially when using Wikipedia on mobile devices, in this particular case the lead has 400 words. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know, Isaidnoway, I agree that the matter should have been approached through the appropriate forums, and goodness knows that's not the most ideal RfC formatting I have ever seen, but if canvassing is taking place, I prefer to know about it when responding to an RfC, and when judging previous consensus, especially when we are talking about an infobox discussion, a topic area that has been historically second to none when it comes to tendentious editors moving in packs from article to article in a roving battle of wills. Unfortunately, that's also exactly the reason WP:CANVAS has begun to lose all meaning in the context of infobox discussions; I still get notices to a discussion like this about six times every year. And usually I find the same two groups of editors slugging it out when I get there. It's blatantly obvious that these two groups are tracking all of these discussions through various wikiprojects, projectspace pages, and eachother's contribution and talk pages (plus, I suspect, a healthy dose of off-site communication), despite knowing of the community's still-depleted patience on the matter after years of disruption and community response on the matter, up to and including ArbCom cases. And even, as here, when its not so much the usual faces, the issue still seems to generate a lot of heat and bad faith.
- Like you, I don't approve of entangling the procedural issues with the content question in the RfC opener, but at the same time, it's hard for me to imagine how the OP could have otherwise opened this particular discussion without making reference to what they saw as procedural issues and an effort to game the system; not having made their reasons in doing so explicit could have led to their opposition implying that they were ignoring consensus and thus disruptive. Tanbircdq's argument, as I see it, is that there was no previous consensus, that the previous close was made in error, and/or out of lack of appreciation for the fact that there was misconduct going on. Now Tanbircdq, two things though: 1) you probably should have set this context off in a separate note placed just above the main RfC prompt. This would have allowed you to raise your concerns, while keeping your personal perspectives from getting entangled with what is meant to be a neutral presentation of the RfC inquiry, focused on the content and content policies. And 2) if you are going to make accusations of canvassing, you really do need to provide support for your claim in the form of diffs and other evidence demonstrating that some of the participants did not come here organically. And while some of those details may be germane enough to mention here for respondents, the appropriate forum for an extended discussion is, as Isaidnoway pointed out already, WP:ANI. Snow let's rap 08:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, if you have time to spend on 3 pings with a neutral statement then I am sure everyone will appreciate the efforts be made at the right place. VedantTalk 09:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Snow Rise, here is the diff, like you say how was I supposed to open another discussion without making reference to procedural issues to game the system and not doing so could lead to being accused of ignoring consensus and thus disruptive but I still managed to get someone make that accusation here. In addition, it appears that the RfC is branching into different discussions about what parameters to be included which is potentially skewing the discussion by a minority of editors.
- The fact that all editors sided with Numerounovedant without any reference to any guidelines whereas this RfC is clearly going significantly differently says a lot if the efforts were made in the right place or not. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, if you have time to spend on 3 pings with a neutral statement then I am sure everyone will appreciate the efforts be made at the right place. VedantTalk 09:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Like you, I don't approve of entangling the procedural issues with the content question in the RfC opener, but at the same time, it's hard for me to imagine how the OP could have otherwise opened this particular discussion without making reference to what they saw as procedural issues and an effort to game the system; not having made their reasons in doing so explicit could have led to their opposition implying that they were ignoring consensus and thus disruptive. Tanbircdq's argument, as I see it, is that there was no previous consensus, that the previous close was made in error, and/or out of lack of appreciation for the fact that there was misconduct going on. Now Tanbircdq, two things though: 1) you probably should have set this context off in a separate note placed just above the main RfC prompt. This would have allowed you to raise your concerns, while keeping your personal perspectives from getting entangled with what is meant to be a neutral presentation of the RfC inquiry, focused on the content and content policies. And 2) if you are going to make accusations of canvassing, you really do need to provide support for your claim in the form of diffs and other evidence demonstrating that some of the participants did not come here organically. And while some of those details may be germane enough to mention here for respondents, the appropriate forum for an extended discussion is, as Isaidnoway pointed out already, WP:ANI. Snow let's rap 08:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, you might be right about that, but if we can get through the present discussion without having to generate too much debate about behaviour, it will be for the better, I think. As you say, the present RfC is creating a pretty strong consensus for inclusion and I suspect that will continue, so you can afford to be gracious in letting the canvassing issue go if you so choose. That's just pragmatic advice, mind you; I would never tell another community member to outright ignore policy violations if they feel strongly that they must be addressed. But in that context, I must again stress that any lengthy discussion of that sort would need to take place at ANI, and that it would be a messy and time-intensive process that would not do anything to speed up this RfC. That said, infobox content disputes have seen a lot of such coordination in the past, and I suspect that the community will sooner or later come back around to scrutinizing the systemic issues there. Snow let's rap 21:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Tanbircdq: - In the future, when you get this kind of response from the closing admin in relation to your good faith inquiry about the rationale used in their closure, and you feel like their response didn't adequately address the concerns/allegations you raised (as evidenced in your reply to the closing admin), please request a closure review at the administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. As it stands now, there has been no review/determination made that the closure of the previous RfC is not valid. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- The only thing common to the editors at the previous discussion was that they all written BLP FAs and GAs, and that was the basis of inviting them with a very neutral statement, but we can keep going on, of course. Because discarding an opinion because it agrees with the alleged dominant opinion of either RfC is why we are here? ~_~ VedantTalk 16:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Isaidnoway, I've done this now to put this to bed. Had the closing admin given me this information in this first place rather than shrugging their shoulders then I would've done this already. Thanks. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- The only thing common to the editors at the previous discussion was that they all written BLP FAs and GAs, and that was the basis of inviting them with a very neutral statement, but we can keep going on, of course. Because discarding an opinion because it agrees with the alleged dominant opinion of either RfC is why we are here? ~_~ VedantTalk 16:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include infobox Coming from RfC Bio page. Infoboxes are standard in actors' biographies. It would be odd if there were none here. Please include so that that Wikipedia is more consistent. LK (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but the guidelines clearly state that infobox should be included based on the individual article. Consistency isn't really a fair argument; had it been an argument the guidelines for their inclusion (or their absence) would not have come into being in the first place. I hope you have better argument to support the inclusion. Thank you for visiting though. VedantTalk 10:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include (Summoned by bot) A good infobox supplements a well written lead. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keyword: good. That's exactly what the discussion it about: how is it good? You'd really have to share your thoughts on what makes the infobox for this specific article any good. VedantTalk 19:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- yeah, and If I weren't being bludgeoned I just might. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keyword: good. That's exactly what the discussion it about: how is it good? You'd really have to share your thoughts on what makes the infobox for this specific article any good. VedantTalk 19:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include Brought here by the bot. There's clearly enough info here for a well formatted infobox. DocumentError (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include Came here from featured article nomination. For many readers, the infobox is the fastest way of getting some key information they might find useful (such as age). I've seen it on most other biography pages, so I strongly vote for inclusion. Mattximus (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
We can have an infobox for it is not the most significant detail anyway. The article is at FAC and it's better to resolve this quick, so we can have an info box. Cheers, guys. VedantTalk 15:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I hope an admin still weighs in on the allegations flying around also checks the arguments given in favour and against the inclusion of an infobox to make this helpful for future discussion at this/other pages. Thanks again. VedantTalk 18:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually let this go on, with the infobox in the artcile for now, this shouldn't interfere with FAC. I'd like this to continue and be concluded as any other RFC is. VedantTalk 18:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out a couple of things, nothing that has not been said at the previous discussions of course. The infobox here is what is providing the article with misleading information: As has been pointed out in previous discussions that Hoult had only briefly attented Theatre school which has been added in the info-box. I believe that the only way to provide complete information on the Alma matter in this case is to frame a sentence saying that his time their was brief. If there was any other way of conveying complete (rather than misleading) information it is through their and not through bullets which at this point 1. say nothing new and 2. provide misleading information at times. His relation to his great aunt seems a far fetches connection too, how is that in any way a qualitative addition? Does it affect in notability in any way? There isn't anything that is not in the lead, really. VedantTalk 10:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include (Summoned by bot) No compelling reason not to include, and the info provided is helpful for casual readers. It never ceases to amaze me that this inconsequential page design element results in such heated opposition. Coretheapple (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Exclude – as the topic is neither a politician or a sports figure. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include:
- Wikipedia's aim is to
to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia
, and I'll emphasise thebenefit readers
part. - Infoboxes benefit readers- they allow people to quickly access the facts they want- and on this particular article, this is particularly important due to the article's length and reading level (using the Simple Wikipedia tool, the SMOG score of one of the sections was 12.88).
- From an Open University study-
many readers look only at the information box, summary text, lists, sub titles, references, or maybe only keywords
(section 2.3) - I think that in this particular article an infobox would (with the right populated fields, something which can be refined after this RfC), on the whole, be useful to our readers- and that's our aim at the end of the day (support collapsible as a compromise too).
- Wikipedia's aim is to
- jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, Jcc. The inference section of the same study also suggests: "According to the data the sub titles were most commonly used. In addition the Contents list, Summary text (lead) at the top of most articles drew the most attention". The diagrams also illustrates the fixation at the lead in Bill Gates' case, the reading time for leads was also lesser which suggests a quicker way of getting through keywords and information? Also, thanks for your comments. VedantTalk 05:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include - I think the utility of infoboxes in the case of BLPs is manifest, near to the point of being a per se matter. As a compact encapsulation of certain key details that makes for an easy reference format, I can't fathom most of the stock objections we sometimes see to infoboxes from a small but determined minority. Most of these arguments boil down to stylistic or even aesthetic analysis, but I just do not see the logic in sublimating clear utility for a majority of our readers (and various maintenance functions to boot!) to the style preference of a minority of our editors. I can fathom the rare context in which an infobox is not desirable, but I have a hard time imagining when that would ever be the case for a BLP. Snow let's rap 06:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, WP:DISINFOBOX has some examples for BLPs. It also states that: 1. "If a biographical infobox contains only a photo, a person's occupation, and date and place of birth/death, it is a disinfobox.", which would be the case here when the argument for mention of Sylvia Theatre School in a bullet list being misleading is considered (in fact, others seem to agree that the mere mention can be misleading). The far fetched relationship doesn't affect the subject's notability and it's mention in the lead could be completely misleading as it might imply otherwise. The removal of the both the fields would bring us to the the first point: "it is a disinfobox".
- The Solutions at WP:DISINFO suggests: "When unnecessary redundancy (birth details) and miscommunication (the brief stint at the theatre school and the great aunt to an extent of having no bearing on the subject's notability) is unavoidable the best thing to do is to simply remove the infobox" VedantTalk 08:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- WP:DISINFOBOX is an WP:ESSAY. Clearly it aligns with your view of this issue, but I find it idiosyncratic, not particularly well-reasoned, and not consistent with what I find to be best practice. I have no issue with a BLP infobox that has only four elements to it; it still prevails in an analysis of utility measured against offense to some editors' sense of style. That said, I have not looked into the issue of the alma matter sufficiently deep enough to have an informed opinion, so you may very well be right that this parameter is ripe for deletion. But my !vote should be interpreted as a strong support for inclusion of the infobox, even in that event. Snow let's rap 09:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include. Nothing wrong with presenting when he was born where at a glance, even if it appears in the lead. ("where" doesn't.) We can still discuss which other parameters. I use "Education" instead of Alma Mater, don't show Nationality, don't show Children, find a great-aunt borderline interesting. "Actor" could be more precise, - film, theatre, TV, combination? - Btw, I just "discovered" this article in noticeboard discussions. See also: Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation (2014). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'd include List of roles and awards of Nicholas Hoult, possibly both in
|work=
and|awards=
. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)- As per Snow Rise, Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation is an essay and I agree that it isn't particularly well-reasoned, and not consistent with what I found to be best practice.
- Nationality, children, great-aunt are all reliably sourced so I can't see on what policy basis these should be excluded from the infobox. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- According to alma mater, the phrase describes somewhere a university or college that a person studied at, rather than necessarily graduated from. Based on this it's irrelevant if the subject only studied there for two years. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't look at alma mater (article) but alma mater as a parameter of infobox person, where it says (bolding by me): "This parameter is a more concise alternative to (not addition to) |education=, and will often consist of the linked name of the last-attended institution of higher education (not secondary schools). It is usually not relevant to include either parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise, as perhaps at Bill Gates." - I think that - regardless what Hoult studied - many more readers will understand "education" than "alma mater", and therefore always use education. This particular infobox could do without any, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include. I also prefer education to alma mater, it seems odd to use a Latin phrase in the English Wikipedia when a more concise English one is available. My guess is that 90% of people get their answers from the infobox or the filmography, most people do not come to the article to read a biography. --RAN (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Include and not collapsible. The lead of this article is particularly dense and for a casual reader it may be difficult to find basic information such as his nationality age place of birth notable relatives etc. As an example Wikipedia is the first source I personally look at when the questions comes up "how old is he" "where does he come from" and the infobox is where I look first. The "do not include" arguments are not strong enough and seem to be based on the editors' own esthetic preferences. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
Would someone spare me the trouble of going through this article's edit history & explain why an infobox has been added, since the previous Rfc? GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- I briefly mentioned that the infobox might be okay as I thought that the discussion might interfere with the FAC, the Editor who requested the rfc restored the infobox at that point. I eventually decided to go through with the discussion as I came across articles that had info boxes discussions even during active FACs. The box has stayed since. VedantTalk 16:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- It should never have been put back in the middle of an RfC. It's somewhat disruptive to be re-litigating this less than 24 hours after the previous RfC was closed, but to change it back woot he midst of an RfC? Sadly I am no longer surprised by the actions I see around IBs any more. – SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- I see your frustration, SchroCat do you see a possible solution ? VedantTalk 08:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Not my fault that main opposing editor changed his mind from conceding that the article can have an infobox.
- No, what's disruptive is canvassing other editors which skews the discussion like here. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- I see your frustration, SchroCat do you see a possible solution ? VedantTalk 08:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Based on this, I took the liberty to add his works/roles and awards, and move the school from Alma mater to education. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the inputs Gerda, a couple of questions though. Is there a utility of the two links to works and awards since they lead to the same page? Also, he very briefly attented Sylvia School and it barely qualifies as his education in the sense? Having worked closely on the article for a while now, I am of the opinion that most of the fields is the infobox are either redundant or worse: misleading. Text in the lead is really the only way, IMO of course, that we can represent facts accurately in this case. VedantTalk 17:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- The two links go to different sections in the article, and I find it fairer to link to a list, than to select 3 works or 2 awards. Compare Beethoven. I'd like to see that he received awards, more than the individual ones. We don't need education, nor children, nor nationality, nor relatives. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think there was a VP thread on this very topic about a year back, because it came up in a series of article-specific discussions around that time. I'll see if I can find it. For my part, while I support the box in general, I do think you are correct that the precautionary principle should govern in cases where attendance at an educational institution was short term, and that such an "alma matter" claim ought to be presented only in the main body of the article prose, where full context can be provided for what we mean when we connect a given individual with a given institution. As I recall, that has also been the consensus outcome of those discussions I've seen in the past that attempt to parse this issue. Snow let's rap 20:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the inputs Gerda, a couple of questions though. Is there a utility of the two links to works and awards since they lead to the same page? Also, he very briefly attented Sylvia School and it barely qualifies as his education in the sense? Having worked closely on the article for a while now, I am of the opinion that most of the fields is the infobox are either redundant or worse: misleading. Text in the lead is really the only way, IMO of course, that we can represent facts accurately in this case. VedantTalk 17:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Based on this, I took the liberty to add his works/roles and awards, and move the school from Alma mater to education. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay in response. I went searching for the thread in question immediately after posting that, but despite finding a number of short discussions at both WP:VPP and Template talk:Infobox person (rather than introducing the bias of selecting particularly "relevant" discussions for you, I'll just note that they are apparent in search results for the archives at both pages) I could not find as large a discussion as I remembered. The threads I did find were rather inconclusive; I don't think I'd call any of it a formal resolution which identified a community consensus blanket approach--nor even consensus for a single tentative or speculative rule of thumb. I had thought there was one somewhat larger discussion but it's possible I am remembering and amalgamation of discussion in community spaces and a longer article talk page discussion or two which I have not yet been able to isolate in my contributions history.
- Anyway, that means I can only supply my own perspective regarding this scenario: While I fully support the inclusion of the infobox in this context, I also feel that alma mater content is something that sometimes shouldn't be included in the infobox, because the alma mater field is one of the few common parameters wherein a significant fraction of uses just really do need to be discussed only in context in the article prose. 'Alma mater' has a somewhat flexible usage; a significant number of people (maybe a majority?) assume it to mean only an institution that a person graduated from after a majority of work for the degree done at that institution, while others do not think either the graduation or the tenure of attendance criteria are essential features. As such, in borderline cases the situation becomes ripe for confusion if we list a school as an alma mater for someone in a manner which presupposes the reader's perspective on either of those questions. That would be a questionable decision in any article, before you add in the WP:BLP concerns for an article such as this. (FYI: I am basing my stance with regard to this particular article on what I hope is an accurate interpretation of the sourcing here; that is to say, that we don't have a gold standard scenario of a degree accomplished in the majority at the 'alma mater'; if that were to demonstrated to be not the case, my perspective would of course change.)
- Now, needless to say, the WP:WEIGHT of the sources is that which will dictate whether we describe an institution as a given individual's alma mater. But deciding that content belongs in an article does not, in itself, make the argument that it should be covered in the infobox parameters, even if it matches with a parameter that is commonly found non-controversial in most other infoboxes in articles of a similar type. That said, I want to repeat that the rest of the parameters seem just fine in this instance. Snow let's rap 08:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Sample info-box
Nicholas Hoult | |
---|---|
Born | Nicholas Caradoc Hoult 7 December 1989 |
Nationality | British |
Occupation | Actor |
Years active | 1996–present |
Works | Roles in film and TV |
Children | 1 |
Relatives | Anna Neagle (great-aunt) |
Guys this is exactly what i was worried about, I'd like this to go back to the way it was when the FAC started. I don't want the article to fail FAC based on the editing conflicts. The stability should not be compromised. We can discuss the infobox here and edit here accordingly. Kindly bear, I did this in Goodfaith, Cheers, VedantTalk 11:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- If this article is going to end up with an infobox (which I oppose), then we should at least compromise & make it collapsable, like at Frank Sinatra. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- WP:IAR and Include as per what appears to be the consensus above - without it being collapsible as this would make it less useful (as per the detailed comments made by Jcc and Snow Rise), including alma mater which is a phrase that describes somewhere a university or college that a person studied at, rather than necessarily graduated from. Based on this, it's irrelevant if the subject only studied there for two years. Inlude nationality, children and great-aunt as this is all reliably sourced.
- By the way this RfC is to include an infobox to improve the article, the FAC has no bearing on the matter. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think you may be mistaking WP:IAR for WP:BOLD. The community generally takes a dimn view of ignoring BRD, and would not generally accept IAR as good cause for doing so. Personally, I would agree with the assessment that the !votes above paint a picture of an ultimate consensus view for inclusion of the infobox, but personally I would have waited a while longer (until the typical 30 day RfC run-time or at least until a few more !votes were made); it's highly improbable, that the balance of perspectives could yet changebut not outright impossible. That said, I am not encouraging a re-revert as I don't care to encourage any further edit warring; wherever the article is at this present (with or without infobox), let's please leave it there until the close of this discussion.
- As to the narrower issue of the alma mater, your perspective can now be noted for the record, but I do not believe you yet have consensus (or for that matter, a single !vote other than your own) supporting that perspective. Even though I am giving full-throated support to the infobox itself, I believe the more prudent approach is to discuss the alma mater details in the prose of the article alone in any borderline case such as this, so as not to risk confusion or misrepresentation for our readers. I have seen WP:LOCALCONSENSUS along those lines for this topic at other BLPs in the past, and I think it makes sense here as well. I also question whether or not the "[famous] relatives" parameter is really germane; great-nephew/great-aunt is a distant relation and the connection is barely even mentioned in the main body of the article itself and thus is not fruitful for the WP:lead (to which this infobox belongs); there's no indication that the two even met (he was two when she died) or that she had any kind of significant impact on his life. Although I am broadly supportive of infoboxes in BLPs (I have a hard time of thinking of any biography where a infobox is not at least somewhat useful) I think we should restrict the parameters to fairly important/non-incidental information. In short, I strongly support an infobox with: 1) Name, 2) picture, 3) caption, 4) Birthdate/location/age, 5) nationality, 6) occupation, 7) years active, 8) filmography/works link, and then maybe the "children" parameter. All other fields that have been proposed thus far strike me as superfluous. Snow let's rap 21:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- The notable relative is mentioned in a few sources [1][2][3]. Hoult grew up 20 miles from where Neagle died but it's pure speculation as whether they met or not. But surely, we should go by what reliable sources there are available to verify information rather than make POV judgements as to what should or shouldn't go in the infobox?
- As regards the education parameter, yes, it seems a couple more editors have now explicitly endorsed that usage, while several others still oppose it; we'll have to see how consensus comes out by the end of the discussion. I still feel it is the single most problematic element under discussion. Even if we do not use the term alma mater, I still feel like the oppose !votes have a good point about the potential for confusion/misrepresentation here, given the specific facts.
- As regards the notable relative parameter, I think your argument has turned both policy and common sense on its head and you've inadvertently argued against your stated position as a result. The fact of the matter is that the WP:Lead is meant to include a summary of only the most salient of facts discussed in the article (and this extends to a lead infobox). We're talking about a distant relation which you concede has not been demonstrated to have much WP:WEIGHT to Hoult as an encyclopedic topic. Ergo it is not a fruitful topic for the lead, and not appropriate for the infobox. Now normally, I would just gloss over the presence of this parameter in an infobox and not find it a matter worth debating. But given there is much controversy here(silly as that fact is) and we are looking for reasonable middle ground solutions, I would submit that this is a parameter that is ripe as a concession that can be given to the infobox skeptics. We don't know that these two people ever met and we have not so much as a single source saying anything about the pair except that they were distantly related. It is therefore hardly critical information to understanding the subject as an encyclopedic topic (it is, at the very most WP:TRIVIA) and I doubt it would be something the average reader would scan the infobox expecting to find. And respectfully, your WP:V argument does not track; just because something is verifiable in reliable sources does not mean it is prominent enough for inclusion in the lead; if it were then each and every article would be constructed of one long lead. There's no POV involved in that analysis; on the contrary it's just a simple application of WP:WEIGHT, which is in fact a required analysis to meet the requirements of WP:NPOV.
- As regards the children parameter, it's a closer call. It's a pretty common feature of BLP infoboxes, I will grant you that. But I've always wondered what it truly adds to an understanding of a given individual as an encyclopedic subject. Unless the person in question is someone whose notability is connected to their number of children (or at least to their children in some broader sense), I would submit that it is not worth much and represents bloat for the lead/infobox. Again, it's the type of thing I would normally never knit-pick over personally, but given the effort at consensus we are undertaking here, I could certainly support removing it. Snow let's rap 05:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- I've never come across as the lead and infobox being one of the same in terms of policy guidelines, I've always thought they're inherently different things. A lead can have a lot more content than a infobox and vice versa.
- Regarding the education parameter, we'll see what the consensus is.
- Regarding the relative parameter, I don't think compromise should be conceded based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments for removal.
- Regarding the children parameter, if it was a question of notability connected to the number of children the subject has or if the subject has children who are notable in their own right then most BLPs which have this parameter would no longer have it. I very much this would even be up for debate in any other infobox. Again, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't override a general editing guideline. Tanbircdq (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
"Regarding the relative parameter, I don't think compromise should be conceded based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments for removal."
Sure, but that's a pure strawman argument; nobody suggested removing it from the infobox on WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale but rather because it is a WP:WEIGHT/WP:TRIVIA issue. Very different things.
"Regarding the children parameter, if it was a question of notability connected to the number of children the subject has or if the subject has children who are notable in their own right then most BLPs which have this parameter would no longer have it."
Yup, pretty sure I said exactly the same thing in the comment you responded to. My point was (and remains) that there's an argument to be made that this use, while typical, may not be terribly well-justified or consistent with broader policy and encyclopedic needs. Practices can become conventional without being particularly principled. As a point of first order, I noted that the use of this parameter is common (indeed, I'll go farther; its become close to universal in BLPs for those who have children). But as policy arguments go, that is quite literally the weakest one that can be offered to defend the inclusion of any element in any article. That's why we have higher-level policies that make clear that determinations of content have to be made on a case-by-case basis (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Now, as a realist matter, of course custom can often rule the day. But "let's do it because that's the way we've been doing it" is hardly a gold standard for a content or policy argument on this project. Snow let's rap 22:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, GoodDay, collapsible content is strongly discouraged by several policies and community consensus broadly and is to be avoided wherever possible; it creates significant WP:accessibility issues for certain readers and certain devices. I can only assume that the only reason that approach was adopted at such a prominent BLP as the Sinatra article is because there was an intractable infobox discussion there and that was the only solution that could be agreed upon for the local consensus. I think a better middle-ground solution here would be to limit the number of parameters to reasonably relevant vital information. I could see this being reduced to as few as six or seven items, by removing the children and notable relatives paramaters, and perhaps even the "works" field (all the function that item serves is to link a list which is already easily reached via the TOC). If we also remove the alma mater parameter (for reasons other than brevity), we are left with a substantially shorter and more focused box. Would that be acceptably close enough to the middle ground for you? Snow let's rap 21:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
the amount his films grossed
This information was unsourced and not a true reflexion on him. An extra in the first 3 star wars films could claim the same thing for a similar amount. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Way too long
How can this have been identified as 'exemplary'? It's slightly longer than the Churchill entry, consists entirely of puff and needs reducing to within an inch of its life. The point of an encyclopedia is to allow people to look things up quickly, not to make them lose the will to live. Since it's mostly written by his PR people maybe they could make a start. Sartoresartus (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Did you have suggestions for improvement, or did you just come here to complain? Also, do you have evidence that this article has been in any way written by Hoult's PR people? DonIago (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
including "current" residence
Regarding this edit: so just because there is a reliable source for something, it doesn't mean we include it; we're not indiscriminate (not surprising the "residence" field was removed from infobox person in this RfC); where a person currently lives (with no other context) has no bearing on understanding the subject... it's basically trivia; and per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, this is a new addition and it's been reverted, so consensus for its inclusion should be built on the Talk page. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- STATUSQUO and BRD do not advise us to revert two different users. Aside from the points I made in my already-linked edit summary, I'll say that removing the "residence" parameter had more to do with not overwhelming the infobox. Multiple users in that discussion even suggested that it would be appropriate to mention one's residence in prose in the "personal life" section. While it is not as important as their nationality or birthplace, a person's residence is a location with which they have associated themselves, so it is simply not trivia. What other context is necessary? Type of property? Number of years of residency? Roommates?
- Here are some WP:OSE examples of BLPs, including some FA-level articles, that do not adhere to your principle that current residences with little to no context do not warrant inclusion: Amy Adams, Andrew Garfield, Anna Kendrick, Anne Hathaway, Billy Eichner, Bryce Dallas Howard, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Chelsea Handler, Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, Cillian Murphy, Dakota Johnson, Daniel Kaluuya, Elizabeth Olsen, Emma Watson, Ethan Hawke, Greta Gerwig, Jennifer Lawrence, Jessica Chastain, Jimmy Fallon, Joaquin Phoenix, Jonathan Bailey, Joy Behar, Julianne Moore, Katherine Heigl, Kristen Stewart, Kristen Wiig, LaKeith Stanfield, Lupita Nyong'o, Margot Robbie, Maya Rudolph, NeNe Leakes, Nicole Richie, Oscar Isaac, Paul Dano, Paul Mescal, Patrick Wilson, Paul Rudd, Pedro Pascal, Richard Madden, Rosie O'Donnell, Ryan Reynolds, Sarah Paulson, Scarlett Johansson, Taron Egerton, Theo James, Wanda Sykes, Zoë Kravitz. I hope this list helps your conviction to rectify those articles' mistakes. KyleJoantalk 01:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Edit-warring editor
Editor Nottedeluce is edit-warring at this Featured Article to restore his badly written, misformatted version. English is not his native tongue, and he's introduced many blatant grammatical and style errors, such as redundancies and italicizing quotations. Another editor helpfully fixed the text, correcting the errors and fixing the badly written English, and was instantly reverted.
I started fixing his errors manually, and quickly realized that there were too many to make it worthwhile, so I restored the good version, only to see it instantly reverted. At this point, within a couple of hours he's reverted me twice, and the other editor once, leaving such edit summaries as his last: "My English is not correct. It is not my native language. For me it is a good article. DON'T DISREGARD THE WORK OF OTHERS!!" He's getting out of hand. Carlstak (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)