Talk:Nikki Amuka-Bird

Image removal?

@Davey2010: In this edit, and now in this edit, you removed the image of Nikki Amuka-Bird from the article, leaving only text. Can you explain, please? --GRuban (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, The main reasons for the removal are not only is the image extremely small but it was taken in 2010, Now usually I would move the image to a section below however because the image is extremely small I don't see the point in it being included here - Sure it tells the reader what she looked like however in my eyes you can't really see much and as there's no accompaning images here it looks rather silly to have this one image here and nothing else above or below,

I've since included a External image of her which was taken in 2017 which IMHO is miles better than one that was on here,

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Nikki Amuka-Bird in 2010

Let's include the image, so others weighing in can judge. So it was taken in 2010, that's part of her time as an actress, that doesn't disqualify it. Actually ... 2010 was a fine year ... don't you agree, Davey2010? I agree, it is pretty small, but it's not invisible, you can see enough to identify the actress, which is much better than not having any picture. Honestly, I like pictures in all articles, but think a picture in the article about an actress is especially important; what she looks like is a vital part of what she does. Consider one of our users - "I've read the Wikipedia article about her, I know all about her; but I can't identify her in a movie or on a stage." Doesn't that seem like we're missing something? If linking to content were as good as actual content, we wouldn't even have to write articles, we could just put links to our sources and call it a day, right? Sure, I'd love a better picture. But this is what we have. We should put it in until we have better. --GRuban (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Haha I see what you did there , Yeah it was a great year lol,

I still think it's small and pointless but I do to a point agree with "something is better than nothing" ... it is what it is, Anyway I've reincluded the image,

Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 18:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Thank you –Davey2010^Talk 18:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox?

@Davey2010: I admit, the main reason I want the infobox back is the image in it. I see we discussed it before, just above on this page; and I thought we reached a "something is better than nothing" consensus? --GRuban (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi GRuban, My apologies I thought the image was added sections below but it wasn't so I've done that now, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: you're the only one signalling for it's removal, it's up to you to gain the consensus to remove it, NOT others to gain consensus to put it back. Please revert yourself and start a discussion here. Rusted AutoParts 18:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I removed it back in 2018[1], Nobody reverted and no one had an issue with it, In April 2019 you readded it [2] without bothering to explain why ... so it's you who needs to seek consensus for the addition - Sure I removed it however for an entire year no one raised objections, no one reverted me and no one added it back and explained why it should be there.

You're more than welcome to start an RFC on this. –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not who removed or added back first is irrelevant, an infobox is a standard addition to all actor bios (stubs excluded) unless a consensus to exclude is there (you know this from the Stanley Kubrick discussion(s)). As you've seen other editors than me added it back, onus is on you to gain consensus as to why this particular article doesn't need one. No one raising objections at the time you removed it isn't relevant either cause there's clearly objection now (@GRuban:). Rusted AutoParts 18:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry that's not how this works - I in good faith removed it, no one at that time raised objections with my removal... so as such the onus is now on you to get consensus for its inclusion. Ofcourse who removed or added back first is relevant as is time. If this was a week ago reversion sure I'd agree the consensus would be on me however in this specific case it was a year.

FYI not all actor/actress' articles have infoboxes either. –Davey2010^Talk 19:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of them do however. You came in and removed a part of the article that is now being contested by other editors, onus is absolutely on you to garner the consensus to remove it. This wouldn't be an issue if people didn't see infoboxes as essential aspects of an actor biography. You're essentially coming in, removing the handlebars off a bike and saying consensus is needed to put them back. Rusted AutoParts 20:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

So far yourself, an IP and one newbie had readded the infobox without any edit summary/comment so to me those are invalid contests, I disagree inregards to the onus being on me however we'll agree to disagree there. Thank you for starting an RFC it's very much appreciated. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment - Infobox

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

---

Should this article contain an infobox? This article's infobox has been removed by @Davey2010:, citing "adds nothing to the article (ie it's all directly on the left)". Do others find this to be accurate? Pinging @GRuban: and @Inan Bahadir:, previous editors who restored the infobox to the page for input. Rusted AutoParts 20:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - As stated above I see no advantages or benefits to having one as everything is directly on the left making it redundant, I understand an infobox summaries key points however the lead and article in general are quite small so IMHO for this specific article there isn't any need for one. –Davey2010^Talk 21:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes I like having an infobox, it standardizes presentation of common information. (Can you tell I'm a computer scientist?) It's not the most important thing ever, I'm not willing to fight to the death for it, and I've even made articles without them. But given the choice, yes. --GRuban (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support There is a precedent in usage for actor articles to have an infobox. ~ HAL333 21:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to reply here as I hate those that bludgeon discussions to death however simply wanted to say there is no precedent for this - Infoboxes are included or excluded on a case-by-case basis not on whether they're an actor or not. Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 12:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor here. Infoboxes seem pretty standard for actors/actresses and make the info easier to see at a glance, even though they are almost always redundant. Quick search shows actors with similarly-sized or smaller bios that have info boxes: Kanayo O. Kanayo, Ngozi Nwosu, Tara Lynne O'Neill, Dylan Llewellyn. Perhaps the issue is with redundant info boxes more generally; I can't think of a good reason to disclude this article in particular. Fredlesaltique (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per Fredlesaltique - Idealigic (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• No I'm in favour of infoboxes as they add a lot of detail to articles, but this lassie is an actor and hasn't done much at all. She's is not physician or industrialist or an academic, or an international spy, where you can find plenty to put in it. Currently there is nothing there, it is generic. Delete it and make the image slightly bigger. Those examples describes above are rank, they also firmly the generic information category. It would do to, be removing them. scope_creep^Talk 16:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Containing an infobox for the mentioned article can make it easier for the readers to read/find some special short specifications swiftly. Meanwhile, it needs to add more info./items in the infobox, too; because it seems to be relatively incomplete! Ali Ahwazi (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• No This is a very short infobox and it is redundant on this article. Evidence: The lead says: Nikki Amuka-Bird (born 1976) is a Nigerian-born British actress of the stage, television and film. The infobox gives 4 facts: Born 1976, in Delta, Nigeria. British National. Occupation is actress. The lead literally says 3 of these things, and the fourth (birthplace) is given in the first sentence of the first section. Infobox is absolutely redundant. Replace it with picture of subject. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:17, 18 February 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.