Wikipedia

Talk:Ian Fleming/Archive 5

< Talk:Ian Fleming
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Wugapodes in topic Should there be an infobox?
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Oh no - not the infobox debate again!

Latest comment: 8 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion

I was reading one of the hypothetical questions in editor User: Oshwah's request for adminship and came across a not-so hypothetical Ian Fleming infobox scenario. Question 4 on [[1]] asked what the nominee would do in the event of an infobox battle. Curious, I went to this article, and saw that just like the scenario described, there's no infobox.

The Ian Fleming article's talk archive_1 [[2]] shows a long and bitter discussion between two camps, about whether the long standing infobox should be removed or not. The infobox existed, as it does in the vast majority of articles about people, and its removal by an anti-infobox editor generated the controversy. You can save time and skip to the resolution at the bottom where it is decided that the infobox will stay, but as a compromise perhaps some parameters might be weeded out. (How to do this is debatable - you can't change the template for one article. You either include the info in the fields or you don't.) The July 2012 request to archive the discussion summed it up.[[3]]

The pro and anti-infobox camps face this issue quite a bit. Another case Oshwah found in his answer [[4]] ruled that "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. 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." This statement passed 10 to 0 at 00:12, 11 September 2013.

Going back to Ian Fleming, the Man With The No Infobox, it looks like the result of the discussion and consensus back in July 2012 was to keep the infobox, and so it stayed until July 1, 2013. At that point, User:SchroCat changed the infobox to make it collapsible, and in an uncharacteristic move (for him) for a non-revert edit, left no edit summary.[[5]] The first complaints and reverts of the collapsible infobox started shortly thereafter.[[6]], [[7]]. User: Cassianto, one of the earlier supporters from the anti-infobox camp reverted the last one, changing the standard infobox back to a collapsible one.

On August 31, 2013, User:SchroCat posted on the talk page that he was going to ask for permission to remove the infobox. Here's the post, and his follow up ten days later stating he was going to remove the infobox because nobody responding meant that there was consensus.[[8]] On Sept. 10, 2013, with this edit [[9]], User:SchroCat removed the infobox. He added a bold warning on top that says basically "don't add the infobox because consensus was that it be removed." The edit summary simply said "per talk page", rather than "removed infobox due to consensus", which might have raised a few more eyebrows and drawn the proper attention to this. I'm in favor of the infobox myself - it's best for busy people. Those who don't like it are wired differently, but it does have a very important use for quick fact checking. Of greater concern is that the earlier discussion to keep the infobox was ignored. I'm assuming good faith, but don't see how this process was in any way transparent. How many people who like infoboxes are going to read the bottom of a really long talk page, especially a post calling the infobox a "collapsed box". Even calling it infobox in the edit summary might have gotten more interest. This seems like a way to get around consensus, and is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. Since the issue will continue to come up when people see the infobox is missing, and there are very few people going to dig into this like I am, I'd like to see a permanent note of explanation on this talk page instead of just a bold warning in the article to not add an infobox.Timtempleton (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

And? I asked if there were any objections to the removal and there were none, so it was removed.
In future, perhaps you could try to AGF (and you can start with any response you choose to make). Although you claim to have in the above, there is little evidence given some of the misleading and incorrect statements you've made. To come up with accusations that "This seems like a way to get around consensus" is a shoddy and untruthful accusation, and if you had AGF in your error-strewn wall of text it would be less tedious for all concerned. Just to correct another untruth, I am not, and never have been "an anti-infobox editor": quite the contrary. Again, to claim that "the earlier discussion to keep the infobox was ignored" is also untrue: if I had removed the box without posting the question you may have had a point. But I didn't. I used the talk page to,ask if anyone objected and no-one did; since then there has been no discussion on the talk page and there has been peace and quiet on the idiotbox front until now. I wonder how many of the flashmob of warriors will turn up now... – SchroCat (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Timtempleton ← this is how you ping someone, just so you know; your little attempt failed. As for your desire to put a Swan Vesta to yet another a can of Super Unleaded, I think it's pathetic really. I have no desire to discuss this matter with you. CassiantoTalk 07:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a much wider debate here regarding infoboxes. Should they be allowed or not on all articles. It just seems inconsistent to allow them for some authors, like Ernest Hemingway or John Steinbeck, and then not allow them for others. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed for any. Or maybe they should only be allowed for articles on Movies, Novels, etc. It seems that there needs to be a set standard across Wikipedia regarding infoboxes, including what can and cannot be included in an infobox if they are allowed. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I knew you'd see this immediately and felt no need to ping you, any more than you felt you needed to ping the dissenting editors when you removed the infobox. Pinging Ritchie333 since it was his post that brought this to my attention. I posted the information and history, and came to my conclusion, but left it open for you respond. You both did. You disagree that you did anything without full transparency, and that I should assume good faith. My core point still stands in need of a response. Assuming good faith would be easier if 1) there had not already been a decisive decision on this which you agreed with and 2) you didn't wait until things died down before quietly (ie. without an edit summary) changing the infobox to collapsible, without requesting comment, in clear disregard of the long fought consensus. I disagree with you that there is clear consensus with only a quick 10 day post with a vague title (didn't mention infobox) on the talk page, after the troubled history of this issue. I would like to hear from anyone who reads the entire history as I did and doesn't also feel that this is not transparent. The quick anger you show to my note and the tone will also make others think that I hit a nerve. Nonetheless, you can restore the infobox, and post in the talk page and ask the other question - if anyone would like it to be removed. I can ping the others form the discussion and we can do this in the open. That's a good faith act that would help me and others to assume good faith in the future. You've done some great work on the article and we are fellow Fleming fans - let's not let this turn into a referendum on personal preferences.Timtempleton (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course there is quick anger: you have accused other editors of acting in an underhand manner. That's a lie. I have explained the steps I took, and the fact that I took an old discussion into account, which is why I posted the question about removing. Nothing in WP is set in stone, and you should read WP:CCC. You suggest that I should not have "wait[ed] until things died down" before posting the question: that shows an ignorance in how WP works. If I had posted sooner than a year I would have been accused of Disruptive editing. The thread was appropriately named (again, if you think otherwise that's just ignorance of WP). Given the rather aggressive and insulting stance you have taken on this – on a topic you only came to through an AfC, and without knowledge or understanding, I have nothing else to say to you, except I consider you are acting in a tendentious and dishonourable manner. – SchroCat (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Related to User:SonOfThornhill's question, whether or not to have an infobox is personal preference. I think the busier a person is, the more they appreciate it, but I know there are two camps. The only guideline is one that I mentioned above "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. 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." So let's discuss together to get consensus here for removing it, since the earlier decision was to keep it.Timtempleton (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
With millions of other articles about and in need of attention, why are you bothering this one? CassiantoTalk 17:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Also pinging Oshwah since he's familiar with this issue, having studied the history as part of one of the questions for his rfa proceedings. I have not voted on his candidacy yet, and see this as an interesting opportunity to view how he would handle a real life contentious content dispute. Note that my concerns was not addressed in the responses above, and I was essentially told to go away and edit other articles. To answer the question as to why I'm interested - I'm in favor of an infobox on the Ian Fleming article, as I have never found a situation where an article isn't improved with one, but this goes beyond that. The idea of Wikipedia being a democratic process where everyone can work together to build consensus has been corrupted. A decision made with many participants was quietly overruled by a pair of editors who as it appears were unwilling to accept the ruling. Please convince me that this is not how things also appear to others, and I will offer a public apology. I worry that unless this is brought to light now, and resolved as a teaching moment, there's nothing to stop the editors (and indeed others down the road) from practicing the same behavior with other articles. I'm also pinging earlier participant Jeffrw, who in the interest of full disclosure said he liked the infobox, to balance the discussion. I don't think this is WP:CANVASSING because I also pinged User:Ritchie333 whose opinion on this subject I don't know.Timtempleton (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
If there's no infobox, and consensus is stable that there shouldn't be an infobox, don't have an infobox. I don't think the typical reader is bothered about it as much at finding any information they were looking for. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Timtempleton, your "pinging" of various editors, especially those who you know get excited about Infoboxes, is nothing short of canvassing. You are coming across as a troll and your disruptive behaviour is certainly not welcome here. CassiantoTalk 20:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
"The idea of Wikipedia being a democratic process": again, a lack of awareness is evident here. You should read WP:DEM: "Wikipedia is not a democracy". If you think pinging people who you know are going to vote a particular way, should I do it as well—just to ensure a level playing field? Any right-minded admin would take me to task for doing that. To correct what you have inaccurately summarised above: nothing was "quietly overruled", despite your claims to the contrary. That would have entailed me deleting the IB without bothering to try any form of discussion. I made a valid attempt to raise the question the article talk page. No-one objected (although perhaps I should have taken a lead from your book and just pinged people I know would vote a particular way). I made the edit based on the fact that of the c.230 people who have this on their watchlist, not one of them objected to my suggestion. I can't force people to the page, or to make them comment (although if I had canvassed offline to swing the vote this conversation would never have been started). I am bemused by what "behaviour" you want me to stop on other articles... using the talk page to suggest changes? – SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Timtempleton: I can only echo exactly what SchroCat, Cassianto and Ritchie have said and you really are not helping here. As SchroCat states, many people have this article and its talk page on their watch list so would have been fully aware of his talk page suggestion to remove the info box. No one chose to respond or object despite having ample opportunity to do so. To re-ignite this is bordering on disruptive. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
If I was canvassing I'd just ping people who I knew for sure agreed with me - that's only one of the three people I pinged, a minority. I'm open to all opinions, especially if it helps me understand the other side's point. User:Ritchie333 - if consensus was stable there'd be no need for a BIG BOLD WARNING at the top of the article, telling others to not add an infobox, claiming consensus. Most people reading that note and halting mid-edit would just move on - not realizing that their instinct was right, and the original consensus was to have an infobox. I stand behind my facts and know where you all stand as well, but it's important for this discussion to be here on the talk page. Others curious about the lack of an infobox who go to add it and see the warning note sending them to the talk page can now understand the history and decide if there is an issue with the process or not. Off to enjoy a martini - shaken, not stirred.Timtempleton (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
When people explain things to you, it's best to read them fully. When they provide links (like WP:CCC, to explain that the "consensus can change"), it's worth taking the, on board and not keep going on about an "original consensus" that has subsequently been overtaken. See Ritchie's comment above. – SchroCat (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Instead of all the snark and accusations can we discuss the issue of whether the article should have an infobox or not. I'm undecided. What are the pros and cons? SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear God, no! Instead, happy reading. CassiantoTalk 14:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Cassianto's link sends people to a discussion which is summarized thusly "All parties appear to agree that there is no consensus to remove the infobox and thus it should be retained". SchroCat has also inadvertently weakened his own argument by focusing on how consensus can change, while he and the anti-infobox team does everything it can, including calling people trolls and asking them to leave and go edit elsewhere, in order to not have to entertain different viewpoints. Unlike the others quoted above with public promises to not engage, I'm not going to comment any more, although I will monitor this page and read the comments in the hopes that the spirit of Wikipedia is maintained. I think there are enough people who can figure out what's going on without my help, and this will hopefully allow the meanspiritedness to dissipate and be replaced by a discussion all editors can be proud of.Timtempleton (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I have weakened nothing: I have outlined what most editors know – that nothing is ever truly set in stone and can change. A statement of our own guidelines weakens nothing. Can I also correct yet another untruth you have come out with: no-one here is "anti-Infobox". I have added IBs to numerous pages, including ones I have created, as well as others. I have happily taken articles and lists through FAC and FLC and been in full agreement with the inclusion. Other articles have IBs that are disadvantageous to both article and reader, and the rather otiose box is something that isn't needed. Still, glad to hear you are taking a step back. – SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Muriel Wright

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On the night of the 14/15 March 1944, his girlfriend Muriel Wright was killed by a German bomb (during Operation Steinbock). Worthy of mention? It says he was devastated by her death. Dapi89 (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

new section on Works

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

So I separated Fleming's Bond works from his other books on his Works section, but someone reverted it saying "Separate section not needed." What do you guys think? I think it makes for easier finding of his non-fiction books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotoilage (talk • contribs) 16:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

but there is already a link to his bond work. Kellymoat (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

But there is not a link to his work not related to Bond, so it's hard to find it between his other novels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotoilage (talk • contribs) 19:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ian Fleming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ian Fleming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Unlike most other biographical articles, this one does not have an infobox, should one be included? --Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't object. SonOfThornhill (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yawn. There are over 5 million articles on WP, and most of those are in need of improvement. Might I suggest investing your efforts on those rather than dragging this bloody argument up again. As you can see, this laborious time sink happens on nearly every archive.[10], [11], [12], and [13]. CassiantoTalk 13:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ian Fleming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ian Fleming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Having laboriously trawled through the subjects talk page and its respective archived sections, i have in no way in any of the supercilious and often extraneous nonsense seen a consensus on as to why the subjects infobox was removed. Rather i have noticed a pattern, in which a limited number of individuals have hoped to sneak their own preferences into the article, often after an agreement had been reached previously to do exactly the opposite. Hoping to seemingly bore their opposition in submission through frequent and persistent reiteration of niche arguments and view points, and often the use of what can be only be described as underhand tactics, for example the banding together and canvassing of likeminded individuals ( -side note- in effect trying to create an anti infobox movement, a bewildering and in truth embarrassing effort. Those who have been the primary instigators of this have in my findings frequently shown themselves up, through an apparent desire to create some sense of ownership over the subjects article and its goings on. Despite wikipedia being a free and for lack of a better term democratic website, not to mention their frequent use of poor grammar and spelling.) to attempt to create the facade of a dominant opinion on the matter. Wikipedia is in its essence and intent an open and accessible site for the education of the layman, not a place for pseudo-intellectual bickering. An infobox is a clean and sharp way of summarising a number of pieces of basic information, and rather than acting to the detriment of the article, and the work that has gone into it, can instead create an interest in the heart of the reader and encourage further research.

An educated and concise response would be appreciated, otherwise i see no reason why an effective and informative (not a lackadaisical or trivial effort) info box should not be restored to this article. Kind Regards, Grosseteste (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Aside from insulting other editors, do you have any good solid arguments on whether an IB should be added to this page? (Not just points about IBs in general, but specifically about it on this article)? - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The above editor was blocked as a sock within minutes of posting the above. -SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Nationality

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Born in England to a Scottish father, Fleming was raised to, and indeed did, identify himself as Scottish. (See here: https://lecercleclub.com/2012/12/20/the-playboy-interview-ian-fleming-december-1964/). Perhaps avoid controversy and describe him as British rather than English? Tom (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure.
(1) The Playboy interview contains one reference to Scotland, a throwaway joke that is clearly not meant to be construed as a serious claim to identity. The introduction, on the other hand, refers to Fleming as "an Englishman" ... twice.
(2) Fleming's father was really only half-Scottish, and even that only in terms of heritage. Fleming's paternal grandfather was a Scotsman from Dundee but his paternal grandmother was from England. The father was educated in England, spent most of his time in England, served in an English cavalry regiment, and was an MP for an English constituency.
(3) Modern introductions to Bond novels do not seem to mention Scotland at all. They mention Fleming's English place of birth and his English education. From the 2012 Vintage Books edition of Goldfinger, for example: "Ian Lancaster Fleming was born in London on 28 May 1908 and was educated at Eton College before spending a formative period studying languages in Europe." Some introductions stress his specifically English (not British) outlook and the specifically English (not British) nature of his chauvinism. The 2012 Vintage Books edition of Live and Let Die for example points out that Fleming saw the world "as it appeared to a privileged upper-middle-class Englishman with a complete lack of self-doubt."
I'd say there's no strong reason to drag Scotland into this. Kramler (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Fleming's fiancee

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

The article refers to "Monique Panchaud de Bottomes," to whom Fleming was briefly engaged in 1931. This may be the way it was spelt in the Henry Chancellor book that's cited as a source, but it's wrong nonetheless. Her name was Monique Panchaud de Bottens; she later married George de Mestral, the inventor of hook and loop fasteners. Not a source that can be cited I know, but she's at this family tree website. The correct spelling has been provided to me by her son. Hopefully there's another reliable source that can be located to correct that. BlackCab (TALK) 05:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

There are several reliable sources that say otherwise. A Google search even shows a letter from her on sale at Christies, and Google Books shows numerous references. A search using Bottens shows free family tree information and nothing reliable (from a very quick spin through the results). - SchroCat (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Interesting, though as this website acknowledges, the misspelling was a common error while the Ian Fleming.com website spells it differently again. This Swiss website also spells it as Bottens. What are the "reliable sources" and can you provide a link to the letter please? I can't find that one. I'd put my money on her son's spelling any day, but whether "reliable" sources exist that prove that is another thing. BlackCab (TALK) 06:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The book sources I have, including Andrew Lycett's detailed (and heavily researched) biography of Fleming, and Pearson's; it's also in the Macintyre's book and a few others. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
What's the link for the image of the letter? I'm interested in seeing if her surname appears in her own hand. BlackCab (TALK) 06:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
No - my mistake, having read it through more closely, it's not from a letter (it's here). What I suggest is that we add a footnote to the article to provide the alternate spelling, using a couple of the sources that are from the more reliable sources (such as the Fleming website). Does that sound like a way round it? - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
A footnote is the best that can be done, I agree. The Ian Fleming website has a third spelling entirely, which is almost certainly wrong. Given the information from Monique's son, I know Bottens is correct and Bottomes is incorrect (and the website I linked to gives a plausible explanation of how the confusion arose), but I know of no source that would qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes that gives the correct spelling. My guess is that biographers simply copied each other, as I would have done in the (non-Wiki) project I'm working on had it not been for direct contact with the family. Hopefully by raising the issue here it may flush out someone who has a more reliable source. BlackCab (TALK) 07:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Right, a slight U-turn on my part. Looking for a good source for the footnote, not only did I find one (Sunday Telegraph), I also found a tweet from Andrew Lycett saying he was glad they spelled the name correctly. On that basis I've put Bottens in the body and Bottomes in the footnote, which keeps us within the bounds of good practice, and should keep her son happy that we are using the proper name 'up front', rather than just a footnote. Hope this is OK with you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Excellent outcome. Thanks. BlackCab (TALK) 09:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

It's entertaining that certain editors are so dead-set against this for no apparent reason, but the article looks wrong without it. You just wonder where it's gone. All other comparable authors (John Buchan, Graham Greene, John Le Carre, Len Deighton) have one. It would give, at a glance, the author's dates, notability, education, military service (quite distinguished in Fleming's case), wife and son... The article just looks wrong without it. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah well, you can't please all the people all the time. Personally I think other articles sometimes "look wrong" with them - de gustibus and all that I guess. Either way, the "looks" are unimportant - that de gustibus again - it's whether it adequately conveys the information appropriately. As it stands, the lead carries all the important information, and does so with context and nuance that is always lacking in IBs. - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm reminded of the irritable shopkeeper in the old joke: 'You're the tenth person to come in asking for one of those today! I keep telling you, there's no demand!' Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Just because people want something does not mean it should or has to happen. Thankfully the lowest common denominator does not always win, and "the article looks wrong without it" is the weakest of all reasons to add one. - SchroCat (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed that whenever a non-infobox biographical article appears, you are almost always involved. It seems there's a small percentage of editors with a cult-like hatred of infoboxes. DOES ADDING ONE REMOVE ANYTHING IN THE ARTICLE? NO! Removing one however, forces people who regularly use them to check facts easily to have to skim across the article to find what they are looking for... All to appease your ego and have everyone realize what a master writer you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7D25:AA00:91E3:31D2:C773:E8BD (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Sanitisation

For a featured article, which by definition represents the very pinnacle of thoroughness and exhaustive effort, there is literally nothing mentioned about Fleming's sexual predilections (though I note with great interest the epic battles being fought over the placing of full stops). Is this article being deliberately sanitised?

Edit warring

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dilidor, Rather than just continuing to edit war, please could you take note of WP:BRD and WP:STATUS QUO and actually DISCUSS the point, rather than just try and force changes against what has been the long-standing previous version on no other basis than you'd prefer it done your way? Can you explain why you think your changes are an improvement?

If you want is broken down just exactly why the status quo is better than your version, let's take each change from the first paragraph in order:

The NBSP is there per MOS:NBSP. It may not make a difference on a PC, but may do in the narrow mobile view. Either way, as it's hidden code, there is no need to change it. Why introduce a serial comma? It's not used in the rest of the article, so don't add it because you prefer it. Why unlink spy novels? No need to, so leave it alone. Who came from a wealthy family? In the status quo it is Fleming: in your version it describes Bond. No need to have the surname at the front of the sentence; the status quo reads more smoothly, rather than trying to start each sentence with "Fleming". Again, why the serial comma? Why remove "briefly"? We're showing that he did not spend many years studying, but was at the universities for a short spell. That's what's needed in the first para, and a second moves onto a different aspect of his life. It's pointless to bloat the first paragraph by adding the second, as it loses the impact of what we are talking about. Slightly shortly paragraphs, particularly in the lead, makes the reading experience easier for people.

Now, I've outlined just why the status quo is better than your "improved" version in the first para. You really want me to go through the rest and point out why those are also not improvements? I'll jump through the hoops if you really push me to it, but it'll just be more of the same. - SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

'Fleming's Sketch'

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ian Fleming did not, of course, draw that sketch of James Bond. He wasn't an artist. He commissioned an artist, whose name seems to be lost, to do that drawing in 1958 when the Daily Express was planning its comic-strip adaptations of the novels. See Colin Woodhead (ed.), Dressed to Kill: James Bond, the Suited Hero (Flammarion, Paris & New York, 1996, ISBN 2-08013-618-6), p.79:- 'During the planning of the Daily Express cartoon strip, Ian Fleming commissioned his own artist's impression of James Bond as a guide to how he saw his hero. The cartoon strip artist, John McLusky, felt it was far too 'pre-war' in spirit and gave his own Bond a much more aggressively masculine look.' According to the book's picture credits, p.200, the drawing remains in the Express archives. No disrespect to Commander Fleming, but the article should not attribute to him an artistic talent which he did not have and never claimed. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree. If he himself did not draw the picture there’s no reason why he should be credited for it. Cj7557 (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Fleming and Dieppe

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

Yes, Fleming was an observer at Dieppe. No, there was no pinch raid launched. 30 AU did not exist until more than a month later. The current “evidence” regarding the raid suffers a gross lack of hard evidence to back up its erroneous suppositions, and evidence of a complete other unit being embarked (even a “secret” one, as the files are open now) would be easily found. Enderwigginau (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Firstly we reflect the reliable sources;
The official formation was in September, but they were active before the official rubber stamp;
If you want to question this, you have to bring sources to the table. You can’t post “definitive” statements without proof that counter what the sources say. You may well be right, and the sources have made errors, but without sources to counter this, we continue to reflect what has been published. - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
No, you reflect unreliable sources because that’s what you want to believe.
30AU was in minor formation and training prior to it's official raising date.
This has been discussed heavily on the Dieppe Raid page, and I suggest you go and have a read before relying on a single, unreliable source for an event that never occurred. Enderwigginau (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Stop edit warring please.
If you are so sure of your ground, it has to be based in sources: please provide them here. - SchroCat (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Stop ignoring the fact that the event never happened. That paragraph event has a link to the Dieppe Raid article, which I’ve worked on for many years, yet you can’t even take two seconds to go and check it as suggested. Enderwigginau (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
It is not “possible”, because they did not exist, and your source has never been able to provide any proof/sources that show anything more than Fleming being present. This is an article about Fleming, not 30AU. Enderwigginau (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Stop with the bad faith. I looked at the thread from a few years ago, so don’t tell me what I have and have not done please. The Very long and rather tedious thread From a couple of years ago doesn’t mention any sources that refute what we have. As I said right at the top, you may be right on this, but you need to provide sources to counter what appears in other sources. - SchroCat (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The “bad faith” is relying on a source that is known to be incorrect. Enderwigginau (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
So far (aside from using personal attacks twice), all I see is you stating blankly that something didn’t happen, but providing nothing to back that up. Can you leave aside the slurs against me and show sources that back up what you are saying please? If not, then I think we’re done here. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
If suggesting that your professional editing skills are lacking because you cannot simple click a link in the article you are so fond of to confirm that I am correct, I hardly see that as a slur.
As per below:-
No 30 Commando was not formed until a month after the raid and indications of involvement may be erroneous.[1]
An article that ran in Britain at War Magazine in August 2017 provided an alternative view. In that issue, Professor of Naval History, Eric Grove, explained that the 'Enigma Pinch' is "more a reflection of the contemporary fascination with secret intelligence rather than the reality of 1942."[2] Obtaining useful intelligence was among the objectives - including the capture of a four-rotor Enigma cipher machine but it was one of many objectives. Grove concludes that the Dieppe Raid was not, as claimed, cover for a ‘snatch’ and also recognizes that the decision to form the Intelligence Assault Units to gather intelligence material was not made until after Operation Jubilee had been ordered.[2]
Enderwigginau (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "History of 30 Assault Unit 1942–1946". Liddell Hart Centre for Military Archives, King's College London. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
  2. ^ a b Britain at War Magazine, August 2017, Section 'The Dieppe Raid, 75th Anniversary (Article: Dieppe - The Reason Why; Box Panel, The Enigma Factor) p.66

Infobox

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion

Why does this article lack an infobox? Is it because it is a Featured Article?

Would anyone mind if I added one? Someone Not Awful (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Search for "infobox" in the archives. Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Dismissive claims of WP:PRIOR and WP:DISCUSSED don't add anything here. ~ HAL333 17:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Terrible choice. I don't understand whatsoever some Wikipedians' obsession with keeping infoboxes out of the pages of "high-class" people such as composers, authors etc. It just serves the purpose of limiting information. I usually look at the infobox to find out 1. place of birth and 2. how old they were when they died. Infoboxes are convenient. They're useful. And literally zero purpose to not have one besides the preferences of a few incredibly snobbish editors. Kingofthedead (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no good reason not to have an infobox same as most other articles. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There should absolutely be an infobox. They do NOT clutter the page or discourage others from editing the article. They provide quick and easy access to information that's a little harder to find in the article itself (though this doesn't mean they discourage readers from reading the lead) and even if a few others don't like them, they ARE useful to millions of others. Songwaters (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with Songwaters, Infoboxes are very useful for easily locating the article's basic data. Dimadick (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Should there be an infobox?

Latest comment: 3 years ago88 comments46 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The article should include an infobox. The infobox should be well curated and only include details highly relevant to understanding the biography of the subject. What counts as "relevant" should be determined through regular editing.
Supporters had a numerical majority, and oppose arguments were generally weak. Some editors oppose an infobox on the grounds that it is redundant with the lead, and unlike prose it may present information without important context. Others point out that the redundancy is a good thing as our readership is not only people with time to read multiple paragraphs. Those editors argue that including the infobox provides data in a standardized and structured manner, and duplicating information in a different format (like the lead does for the article body) allows us to serve the needs of multiple kinds of readers and therefore more readers than prose alone; those seeking greater context have the option to read the lead, and if they still want more context they may read the full article.
Editors in opposition argue that the support rational---infoboxes are helpful to readers---is without evidence and should be discounted. Leaving aside the arguments from intuition used by those opposing, editors who commented late in the discussion point out that the sheer number of editors in this discussion saying that they are useful shows that skepticism about their usefulness is unfounded (editors are also readers, after all). some editors try to discount opinions in favor of inclusion by pointing out that arguments about infobox usefulness don't address usefulness in this article specifically. Leaving aside the arguments about the harms of infoboxes not specific to this discussion, and also leaving aside that most editors making this point are citing an essay about discussions at articles for deletion (which this isn't), any cooperative reader will recognize the implication that editors who comment here saying "infoboxes are generally useful" probably think that statement applies to this situation too. This is not to say that arguments for exclusion are without merit, rather, many rationales were procedural objections or double-edged.
A strong argument from those wanting to exclude an infobox points out that infoboxes, particularly of liberal artists like Fleming, collect a lot of useless information and attract vandalism. While vandalism or collecting "cruft" are legitimate concerns, supporters point out that these concerns are not unique to infoboxes, let alone the infobox on this article, and participants generally weighed the benefit to the reader more highly than the editorial work needed to curate the infobox. This concern still points out what considerations need to be taken into account when curating the content of an infobox: only include information that is well sourced, factually accurate, and which does not place undue prominence on minor aspects of the subject. As a few editors point out, this article passed FA while containing an infobox, so compliance with our manual of style and content policies is clearly possible. The specifics though are left to the regular editors of this page who know more than I do about what important stuff Fleming did. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Should this article have an infobox? Songwaters (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Support as proposer. The infobox is not unnecessary clutter that discourages people from editing or reading the article. It's simply a biographical backbone and a quick and easy place to look for basic information that's harder to find in the article itself. Most viewers do find them valuable and the inclusion of an infobox would benefit them; just because a few others just don't like them doesn't mean others can't find them useful. And just because this conversation has happened before doesn't mean it can't happen again when a good number of viewers and editors find infoboxes to be beneficial. @HAL333, SonOfThornhill, Clear Looking Glass, Cooltrainer Hugh, Donaldd23, Velvet-twenties, The One I Left, MiguelMunoz, Johnuniq, Jojhutton, Materialscientist, Nikkimaria, Someone Not Awful, Kingofthedead, Enderwigginau, Timtempleton, Khamba Tendal, Jaguar, Grosseteste, Dimadick, OwlCityzen, Newone, The Image Editor, Ian Rose, and Ian Dalziel: you are invited to weigh in. Songwaters (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Can I ask why these particular editors were pinged? Looking through the archives at the previous discussions, I see others took part who disagreed with the inclusion, but have not been pinged. I note the same thing happened with the recent Cary Grant infobox RfC. 213.205.194.6 (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Most of these editors were chosen from the revision history of the page as well as the archives. Cassianto and Sagaciousphil were not pinged because they seemed to be retired (I didn't realize Cassianto changed their name to Renamed user b9ba6bd682d1ee91a83a175ba10c82ad). I originally pinged SchroCat, but removed them when I learned they were retired as well. I also missed Ritchie333, which was a total accident. I didn't intentionally pick and choose editors to skew the vote. Songwaters (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Songwaters, Cassiano has left the project and courtesy vanished. SchroCat attempted to do the same but was caught socking, so their vanishing was reverted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Support for the reasons listed above. Velvet (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Support For all the reasons listed above, I concur with Velvet, and Songwaters.The One I Left (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I seem to be in a minority on Wikipedia in that I don't have a strong opinion about infoboxes. However, I was (Summoned by bot) here. Generally speaking, I tend to defer to the primary contributors of an article when it comes to elements like infoboxes. Not because they WP:OWN it but because they are very familiar with the article, sourcing, and what kinds of information can/should be presented. The primary contributor to this article, SchroCat, is retired, but has, I believe, made his opposition to an infobox well known. Absent a consensus to include infoboxes on all pages like this one, arguments along the lines of "infoboxes are good in general" are unpersuasive given WP:INFOBOXUSE (i.e. current consensus against standardization across articles). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Support I feel infoboxes are a particularly useful way to include basic data. Dimadick (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose "And then they came for Fleming..." I find this recent systemic purge of non-infobox articles to be concerning. I only oppose the inclusion of infoboxes when they add no particular value to the article, as was the case with Grant and Sinatra etc. I would encourage those to take a step back and look at the recent infobox on Cary Grant to see if the inclusion of those normative factoids are worthy of the malaise that coincides with these recycled disputes. I also feel it is disrespectful to the wishes of the original writers. ♦ jaguar 09:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support for the reasons listed above by the proposer. An infobox is a quick and easy way to find relevant information without searching through an article. You can find age of death, where born/died, years active, etc. It isn't a blight on the page to have one, it's on the right hand side and doesn't interfere with the visuals of the article. And, on the app, it is collapsed so that it doesn't get in the way.Donaldd23 (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Most people do not come to Wikipedia looking to undertake lengthy research, delving through all source material to find basic information. Put simply Wikipedia should be straightforward and accessible at the point of use, and an infobox is a simple way to make this article far more conducive to the sort of basic research most people will be looking to do, particularly for such a well known figure as Ian Fleming. To summarise I only see benefits to the addition of info boxes and fail to see how they take anything away from articles, leaving the body of the text the same and available for those who are interested in doing further research in the subject matter.Grosseteste (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose since in this particular case it does a poor job of reflecting what is actually significant about the subject, and per Rhododendrites. Also a reminder to all that general arguments not specific to this article do not carry weight in such discussions; ditto arguments based on what other articles do. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I really see no reason not to have an infobox like many other articles. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
↑ An excellent example of an invalid argument. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Not invalid at all. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I mean, to be fair that operates under the assumption that the default is infobox and an absence needs to be explained within the context of that subject, but we could also ask "what makes Tom Clancy and Douglas Adams different from Ian Fleming and the others that don't have infoboxes?" as a reason to remove those infoboxes. I'm not saying we should; it's just there's no default (unless something has changed and I'm unaware). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    • The precedent in usage link gives many examples, but is careful to avoid saying anything about infoboxes. That the infobox might include "a more extensive display of his WWII military service" - translate as "include a load of factoid clutter of low importance" - is probably true, but a very good reason not to have one. Most infoboxes are in fact much too long to make "information easier to access at a glance", and give too many unimportant facty facts, and too little important information on what makes the subject important, which is what a good lede does. Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I think that's right. An I-B is excellent for sportspeople, politicians et al - career stats, posts held etc. But for creative artists they don't - can't - list the most important thing about him or her: paintings, novels, plays etc. Look at the I-B chez William Shakespeare: it tells us he was a playwright,poet, actor - hardly a revelation to anyone looking for useful info in the I-B, and tells us where he is buried and the names of his children, but not a mention of King Lear, The Tempest, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet etc. But we can't list all his plays: that would be a wild excess of data for the unfortunate reader. An I-B is simply not helpful to our readers for writers et al. Tim riley talk 22:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is in arts subjects that this is especially a problem - I'll refer the reader to my Standard Rant. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - per the very good arguments from Jaguar, Nikkimaria, and others. 2A02:C7F:76D6:600:F9EB:B18F:3930:A260 (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose - concurring with the very sound reasoning of Jaguar, Nikkimaria et al. Tim riley talk 22:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - an infobox will contain nothing that can't be found in a well=written lead. They are irrelevant in listing the achievements of authors and actors, etc. Jack1956 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the many excellent reasons cited above Dreamspy (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support And for one reason and one reason only. Readers find them useful. That's it. Wikipedia was built for the readers and not for editors who want people to read their excellently written prose. Anything that makes an article more useful to the masses should be included in the article. If someone finds an infobox useful, then it should be included. All other arguments for not having one are invalid.--JOJ Hutton 01:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jojhutton: While I fully agree that Wikipedia should put its readers before its editors, and that an infobox is useful for millions of many, many readers, let's not be so dismissive of those who may disagree, OK? Songwaters (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Your evidence that "millions of readers" find an info-box useful? Have you asked them? Sounds like a claim from the Trump manual of evidence: "if I say it, it must be true". Can we stick to verifiable facts, please? 14:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tim riley: In the many years of conversing on talk pages, I have never seen a more disgusting and innapropriate comment as the one you just made. I would advice you to strike this comment and apologize to @Songwaters: for trying use politics as a way to demean and shame others into getting you way. Do you really need to be reminded of WP:CIVIL. I have a right mind to open an ANI on this comment alone. There is literally no need for this rudeness.--JOJ Hutton 19:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Good gracious me! No need to get excited. I am merely pointing out that in WP we require statements to be backed up by facts rather than conjured out of thin air. If you can show me the evidence that an info-box will be useful to "millions of readers" I will gladly concede the point. Tim riley talk 19:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tim riley: For starters, whhile I stand by my point that the many of us who find infoboxes useful justify their use, I do apologize for a poor choice of words that made it look like I knew exactly how many people like infoboxes; I don't. But I also think it's a bit insulting to compare me to Trump; a bad choice of words does not mean I have a superiority complex or a sense of omniscience. Nevertheless, @Jojhutton: I don't think an ANI report is appropriate in this instance. Just leave this to me and Tim. Songwaters (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tim riley: Well that's not all you did. You also violated WP:BLP by denegrating a living former president. That is also unacceptable. As to asking for evidence to the statment that millions find the infobox useful, well thats like trying to prove a negative. We can assume that that millions find them useful as we can assume that millions might find them useless. The English wikipedia gets over 90 BILLION page views a year. By just looking at this discussion, we can assume that at least half of those page views are from people who find infoboxes useful. So I'm not sure why you want to contnue down this rabbit hole. Just accept that people might disagree with you and move on. No need for all the personal attacks.--JOJ Hutton 19:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
That's a bit much Joj. That along with saying "All other arguments for not having one are invalid". ♦ jaguar 19:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Let's not assume anything about the readership - I could just as easily assume that millions of readers don't like infoboxes based on the same evidence. Jack1956 (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration 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". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (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 in 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 infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs 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. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ssilvers:
(1) There is literally nothing in the infobox that would be out-of-context or unimportant.
(2) No it wouldn't be. The infobox is simply a convenient box of information for readers who want to read that information—such as age, place of birth, or years active—faster than they can in the text of the article.
(3) No it wouldn't. The lead is still going to exist and be easy to read.
(4) The lead section is just as prone to vandalism as the infobox, but I think we can agree that leads shouldn't be done away with just because of that. As for fancruft and arguments about what to include, simply because a handful of editors can't agree on what should be in an infobox doesn't mean we should burn the whole thing down and ruin the experience for all readers. We should put the readers—many of whom find infoboxes useful—before the editors.
(5) How does it discourage anything? Editors can just scroll down to the section they want to edit and click [edit source] or, better yet, they can simply use CTRL+F to find the part of the article they want to edit.
(6) No it doesn't; I addressed this at the top of the RfC. And even if it did, a good number of people who read Wikipedia aren't there to exhaustively read; in fact, no one should use Wikipedia as a reliable source for a research paper or anything else. Many of us just come to pages like these to get a quick look at the basics of who someone is, just like the "In a nutshell" templates. The infobox serves those readers very well. And for those who do want to read the full article, there is nothing the infobox can do to stop them.
(7) This is simply false. On any page, only a handful of edits relate to the infobox.
Songwaters (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Why do you ping me? I made my points, and you dismissed them. You don't need me to just state that you are totally wrong and restate my arguments again, do you? I don't understand all this pinging. -- 04:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
But none of the points raised in the preceding contribution address the fact, explained above by experienced writers of Featured Articles on creative artists (books, paintings, plays etc), that the important facts about a writer, painter etc cannot be summarised in an info-box. The names of their children and places of burial are peripheral, to put it mildly, and prominently presenting such minor info in an info-box while not listing their creations (which is clearly impracticable) is unhelpful to readers and makes Wikipedia look incompetent, which is a pity. Tim riley talk 18:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think anyone said we couldn't list Fleming's works in the infobox. We could simply list James Bond (not every single book), The Diamond Smugglers, and Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang. I sincerely believe that if we can mention these, then we can adequately summarize Fleming's career in a box. Songwaters (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Again, you cannot adequately summarize Fleming's career in a box; all a box can do is oversimplify and mislead. You can summarize Fleming's career in English in the Lead section of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure you could summarize it in any language, honestly. But you're right, English is what we'd use in the infobox. Parabolist (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • mild oppose (invited by the bot) Info boxes should confine themselves to absolutely clear-cut undisputed info. Anything beyond that is inherently problematic for the inherently brief statements of an info box. If you follow that for this topic you come down to a poor representation of the topic. "Mild" is because maybe this decision should be left to the main workers at the article. North8000 (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Those of us who are impatient and want to get our information quickly appreciate the brevity of an infobox. Those who say we can't represent something effectively with a short infobox should consider that the same argument could be made to remove the lead section altogether. It's all in the eye of the beholder. It may not be for everyone, but it's helpful for many - and it doesn't detract from the article by having one. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support for many of the reasons given above. Andromadist (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Side discussion
      • I marked this as a comment - it's not a vote. And I'm not sure why you put an arbcom notice on my talk page. Isn't that harassment? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
        • No. It’s to alert you to the required standards of discussion. Your first comment is entirely uncivil and falls dismal short of CIVIL, and is about not getting your own way, rather than any constructive comments about an infobox on this article. 109.249.185.54 (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
          • I received the same exact notice from an anonomous ip. Most likely the same exact person. These notices also were left on talk pages of editors who have showed support for the inclusion of an infobox, and not the other way around. Clearly an attempt to harrass.--JOJ Hutton 14:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
            • Incorrect on both counts. 2A01:4C8:413:1F92:84F2:676D:1A35:2D4F (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
              • Really rather unnecessary behaviour and I would agree that it borders on harassment, although it is largely representative of previous behaviour I have seen from the anti infobox cult. Interesting that you have decided to make these edits and comments whilst not signed into an account. Grosseteste (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
                • I’ve left you a notice as well, not as harassment (which, of course, it isn’t), but if you can’t be civil in your dealings with others, you’ll soon face the consequences. Calling people who hold an opposing viewpoint a cult is uncivil: please don’t do it again.
                • I don’t have an account any more. I used to have one, but have not had access to it for well over a year; I am entitled to edit as an IP and to point out breaches of WP:CIVIL when they occur. Feel free to leave similar notifications on the talk pages of anyone you think has breached WP:CIVIL in this discussion. 213.205.194.93 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
                • The use of the term cult was probably inappropriate, although under the circumstances a better description was found wanting at the time. Although use of the term is not always pejorative. I would implore you to refrain from calling those with differing opinions to your own 'pricks' though, as it is at the very least my own personal understanding that this word is only used in a pejorative sense. Targeted harassment by immediate editing of the talk pages of any editor who has expressed a different opinion towards infoboxes should also stop.Grosseteste (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
                  • You are right: I shouldn’t have called you a prick, but leaving a retaliatory notification on my talk page was harassment. There is also no harassment at all. I have left such notifications on the talk pages of three two editors who have breached WP:CIVIL. The fact that all three two have !voted in the same manner is perhaps coincidental, although such a pattern of similar uncivil behaviour was present at the recent RfC on Cary Grant. 213.205.194.93 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
                    • Either it is harassment or it isn't. Particularly when you note that you have made the same edit to three different talk pages in quick succession. It was clear that such a warning needed to be made to you. Particularly when you resorted to personal targeted insults rather than terse commentary. I would suggest that any claim to be a dedicated pursuant of civility rather goes out of the window when in the face of any opposition to your whims you immediately resort to vulgarity. Moreover I had no part in any editing of Cary Grant's article and am not sure of the relevance of the matter. Best Regards, Grosseteste (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
                      • ”Either it is harassment or it isn't”, errr... no. I left the notes because I was unaware if the two editors were aware of the restrictions (I corrected above: I’ve only left the notification on two pages). As I’ve left the notifications, it’s blindingly obvious to all except single-celled amoeba, that I am aware of the restrictions. Leaving them on my page was simple petty harassment that you shouldn’t have done. The connection with the Cary Grant page is an obvious one, regardless of whether you were there or not. If you’re still unclear, then never mind, I really can’t be bothered to explain further. 213.205.194.93 (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
                        • That is a matter of dispute as I note three editors who have made such complaints. I would point out to you that all amoebae are single celled, and as a result what you have you just written is an example of a tautology. It is also another example of your repeated incivility and the growing irony surrounding it. I would ask to you to not attempt to create a sense of one rule for yourself and another for everyone else. The warning to you was clearly justified and necessary particularly in the face of your continued incivility. The connection with the Cary Grant page is far from obvious, I'm sure I could name several articles which faced uncivil discussion throughout their talk pages, but that does not mean they have any connection to this one. Unless there is any clear connection between the two pages. However as I have said if there is any it is not to be found through me, and thus holds entirely no relevance. Best Regards, Grosseteste (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I’m afraid you are losing me entirely, and I’m not sure you’re actually reading what I’ve written. I’ve not called anyone an amoeba, and haven’t used it as a description of anyone or an insult to anyone, but I think that is entirely clear to most readers. 213.205.194.93 (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • ″it’s blindingly obvious to all except single-celled amoeba, that I am aware of the restrictions" Incivility through deliberate implication is much the same as overt incivility, although obviously in this case the attempt somewhat backfired. I would note that almost all comments on your talk page relate to your overt and deliberate vandalism which it seems you have an inclination for. Best Regards, Grosseteste (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I had hoped not to have to return, but I find I have to in order correct the error. I edit as an IP. It is through an ISP on a dynamic IP address, which means I am assigned a different address frequently. Absolutely none of the warnings on my talk page were aimed at me, but at other users of the same phone network. I am not, and have never been a vandal; that is yet another incivility you have thrown at me. Please stop now. 213.205.194.93 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Stopping short of calling you a liar, I think it best to call an end to this particular discussion but feel free to continue to pitch in on the overall matter at hand. One minor point of advice, repeating the same queries and points made to you to the editor who made them, often almost entirely verbatim without using a shred of evidence (the one aspect in contrary) is poor form and doesn't help your argument (whatever it may be). Best Regards, Grosseteste (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
        • ”Stopping short of calling you a liar”... Christ, you really are on a roll with insulting others aren’t you! (And, oh, look: my dynamic IP address has changed again: how many warning on this talk page? I have absolutely no idea what you’re saying in the rest of your comment, but maybe that’s for the best. Please could you try and remain civil to others? 213.205.194.6 (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
          • I made it clear I stopped short. As for the rest of what I said I would say that really is quite clear, concise and conducive to straightforward understanding, I haven't come across any amoebae to ask their opinion though unfortunately. Best Regards, Grosseteste (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are a few comments above that make extremely good points, including that the factoids present tell too little about an individual or why there is an article. Yes, there will be some basic information that is incontrovertible (date of birth and death), but that is in the first line, so the repetition in the box is a little pointless. When dealing with career politicians, sportsmen, etc, where a list of positions or statistics can be easily codified, the ‘box works brilliantly. (I see someone wanted to use the excuse that Fleming was in the military, so that information should be included: not so. Like most males in the UK, he served during the war, but to have military service listed in the box would give undue emphasis to that short part of his life). For those in the liberal arts, the position is much less clear, and we’d be left with dates of birth and death, occupation and then some rather ephemeral information that doesn’t help explain who or what he was, or why we have an article about him. In other words, it leaves a misleading impression of the individual and therefore does the reader a disservice. I’ve seen a lot of people claim that these boxes “help readers”, or that “readers find them useful”, but I’ve not seen any evidence of this oft-repeated claim. Leaving disjointed factoids at the top of this article would mislead readers by emphasising on the trivial and unimportant aspects of Fleming’s life, rather than giving a broader picture, complete with the context and nuance needed. - 213.205.194.6 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
a lot of people claim that these boxes “help readers”, or that “readers find them useful”, but I’ve not seen any evidence of this oft-repeated claim -- What forms of evidence do you expect people to produce in support of these claims? I can't help but think you're placing a practically impossible burden of proof here. If a reasonable number of people say they find it useful, why isn't that enough? Destynova (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Irrelevant and incorrect observation, intended to mislead and manipulate the final count
  • Support It's a valuable, helpful thing to have, so put it back. This wasn't even an issue until around eight years ago. If someone finds it useful and handy, then keep it, as it's been stated over and over again, it's not like it's causing harm. If you don't like seeing it, then simply don't look at it. Sro23 (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I suppose I don't have any boilerplate spiel like some of the more veteran faces of infobox discussions, but I find them generally very useful and a fine tool at making articles more approachable. I think a lot of the ruckus about "simplification" can be resolved by collaboratively deciding what should be in it and what shouldn't be, but not having one is as silly has not having pictures, to me. Parabolist (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Every Wikipedia biography should have an infobox as a convenient source of quick facts for readers browsing the article. Eliteplus (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ssilvers.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per several editors above. Idealigic (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • mild Support - archives show that there was an infobox and this has been a recurring topic. So if SchroCat is gone it would seem consensus shifts to have it? I’ll suggest going as far as drafting a specific infobox and get opinion about the actual edit. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    • There are a number of other editors—aside from me, SchroCat—who have opposed the box, and the consensus doesn’t appear to be so heavily in favour of including the otiose list of factoids. There is no consensus for an ‘actual edit’ at the moment. - The editor formerly known as SchroCat, editing from IP 213.205.194.214 (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support If there is useful information that can be included in an infobox, then it should be included in an infobox. I find the points made in WP:DIB unpersuasive. If there's specific entries in the infobox that editors feel would be misleading or ambiguous, we can discuss those, but I see no reason to exclude the box entirely. Wikipedia is for readers, and sometimes readers want a quick overview of basic biographical details of a person. It doesn't make sense to demand that they read our prose to get that information. Srey Srostalk 23:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
  • Oppose - unnecessary and not an improvement to a featured article. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have full protected the article for 24 hours after people have been edit warring on the infobox. Any other disruptive behaviour during this RfC runs the risk of getting blocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I find infoboxes very handy for finding basic biographical info in a structured way, rather than skimming through prose. I don't understand why this would be a contentious topic. Destynova (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I also find infoboxes useful for finding biographical info quickly. Tacyarg (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose If this was a deletion debate, I'd be pointing at most of the "Support" views above and saying that too many of them are simply WP:ITSUSEFUL. And then I'd point out that many, indeed probably the majority of them are simply saying "infoboxes are generally useful", without addressing this article. But my third and most important point would be - would an infobox here really be generally useful? I'd agree that infoboxes have their uses in some types of biography, especially people in fields like sport or politics. But here, what are you going to put in this box? Date of birth? Data of death? Who he was married to? All of that information is available by moving your eyes a few inches to the left. No - there's no need to have an infobox, and we shouldn't be blindly inserting them where they have little utility. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Well, in this particular case, it would merely be restoring the article back to how its reviewers intended it; at the point it obtained its bronze star, the article had an infobox. This copperfastened a previous discussion which (albeit grudgingly!) confirmed the IB. It was collapsed without discussion eight months later. I think my aversion to unnecessary infoboxes is well-established, and my respect for the co-authors of this FAC is near adulatory; however, I am also averse to having my tail pulled. (Not by you, I hasten to add.) ——Serial 20:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support — an infobox will give readers basic information, at-a-glance, which they will absorb faster than having to read through the lead (or body). That at-a-glance information includes: name, date of birth, date of death, place of birth, place of death, nationality, occupation, best-known works, spouses and marriage dates, notable relatives, and official website. This is also the information that was in the infobox when this article was promoted to FA 8 years ago [14] as SN points out above. The ubiquity of infoboxes on Wikipedia (that is, the fact that infoboxes have won the infobox wars) demonstrates their utility to our readers, and that our readers desire them. I don't see a persuasive reason to deprive our readers of this useful tool. Levivich harass/hound 21:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support if, as per WP:INFOBOX, it can be kept to relevant and essential details and not become a laundry list of irrelevant details. Arguments that this is "ITSUSEFUL" are out of place; this isn't a deletion debate, it's a discussion about making this a better experience for our readers, which should be our goal in all cases, whether through improving the article or making the information already in it easier to see (which is the purpose of an infobox). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support largely for the same reasons as Levivich above. No compelling reason has been given for why it wouldn't be useful to readers in this article. P-K3 (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, per my long-standing views on the question: [15]. You can't force someone to read prose by removing the alternative; the prose is not diminished by providing the alternative. Mackensen (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I think the argument that the article had an infobox when it became a featured article is compelling. The infobox provides basic biographical facts at a glance for the reader who is looking for that type of information; it's an information aid for quick facts. I don't think any reader expects an infobox to summarize an article, so the arguments that an infobox on a creative person's article doesn't adequately summarize the article don't really make sense to me. Schazjmd (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Fleming/Archive_5&oldid=1120023996"