Talk:Hannah Fry

Infobox

Having undone Ritchie333's removal of the infobox, and been undone myself by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi per WP:BRD here we are...

The infobox ensures a standard presentation of biographies. Without it the picture is, on my PC, about 40% of the width of the article, and it looks most un-wiki-like. Its appearance was consistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and more could have been added to the box rather than the box removed to satisfy FIM's objection. Cabayi (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The original issue as I saw it was that somebody used it to put in unsourced personal information, such as how many children she has, without a source. Does anyone care how many children I have? I (and I hope the typical reader) am more interested in her application of Markov chain processing to mathematically prove the optimum returns in Monopoly, which is a bit difficult to cram in an infobox. If she becomes more widely known through sustained coverage via television and the academic circuit, we could revisit the infobox at that point, adding that information in with her alma mater. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. The adding of infoboxes is not standard practise around here, and never has been. Omitting one, such as in this case, is entirely the right thing to do. The ODNB doesn't use them and that is far more superior to Wikipedia. Cassianto^Talk 19:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The number of children was removed 8 days ago. It's a different issue.

Her principal medium appears to be Radio 4 so an emphasis on TV work isn't going to do her any favours, or reflect reality. Cabayi (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Those were just examples of things that could be added, once the article is expanded. Fry's "partner in crime" in pop mathematics, Matt Parker, doesn't have an infobox. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a classic example of a disinfobox. It does nothing to make information about the subject easier for readers to find, and merely clutters the article with framing while making the image smaller. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Electric planes

Interview linked to by the superscript number doesn't say anything about aviation. Notreallydavid (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Wedding invitation

Was updating article to Phil Lythell (husband) in the personal section, and going to link the couple's very creative wedding invitation ("Possibly the world’s best wedding invitation" https://themakedistrict.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/possibly-the-worlds-best-wedding-invitation), however blogs aren't generally considered good sources of information so backed out. Seems a worthy reference to include, but wondered if it is better to just make the name update and not include the reference? Moggie2002 (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image

Image A

Image B

I replaced the current (left) infobox photo with the one on the right a couple of years ago, and didn't notice it being reverted to the original a few weeks later for better showing off her "have fun with maths" persona. If it's important for an infobox photo to reflect the style of the subject's work, I think the right-hand image better conveys her career as a public speaker, and is much better lit. The current photo looks like a candid one taken at a cafe table where she's not really doing anything, and the lighting is quite flat, although it's better for her facing the camera. Both photos were taken at the same event in 2017.

Which is better for the infobox? Belbury (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I personally lean towards Image A, since she is facing the camera. Most of her face is obscured in Image B, which, for an encyclopedic context, seems inferior.--Cerebral726 (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Neither is ideal. A is full face but looks distinctly odd and unflattering; B is a more typical portrait, but less informative. Is something more recent available? --Ef80 (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Image C

I'm not seeing any, although I did find another photo on Commons which had previously only been categorised by the event name. It seems better than either of the above, although the microphone shadow isn't ideal. Belbury (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section:

• Cite templates will be used where possible.
• I prefer capitalization and punctuation to follow the standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, rather than "title case".
• Links (either direct or indirect) to potentially unreliable or incomplete digitised copies and to booksellers may be removed.

This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

How about a filmography of podcast, radio, TV, and online video? .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Birthday

Hannah was born on the 21st. Evidence: https://twitter.com/FryRsquared/status/1363882763846352896 Rudivanhemert (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Details in Early life and education

The personal details listed in the beginning of the “Early life and education” section seem excessive at best. The details about her parents occupations and order of her birth are unnecessary. It reminds me of something you’d find in an elementary students bibliography report. Needless to say it doesn’t meet Wikipedia standards. I was going to clean it up a bit, however I noticed there have already been quite a quite a few edits and reverts on it. So I wanted to see if anyone has any feedback/opinion on it’s relevancy so I can make an informed edit if needed. Herenow44 (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)