DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:George Formby

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
Featured articleGeorge Formby is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 17, 2014.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 5, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
August 23, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

RFC: Should there be an infobox?

[edit]
NO CONSENSUS, DEFAULTING TO NO.
For several reasons, infoboxes are incredibly fraught on Wikipedia. Remarkably so. I won't go through the early history because it's not greatly relevant here but I will just note that in 2013, we went to the Arbitration Committee, which journalists writing about Wikipedia often if inaccurately called "Wikipedia's Supreme Court", who don't get to make content decisions, and whose opinion is therefore only advisory. Their summary at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes is still worth quoting:
 • It is not clear how infobox disputes are to be resolved (e.g. if 5 editors favor including an infobox in a given article and 5 disfavor it, there is no default rule and no policy guidance for determining how the consensus is to be determined, so the dispute continues indefinitely) and
 • It is not clear to what degree, if any, the views of editors with a particular connection to an article (e.g., the editor who created the article or knowledgeable members of a relevant wikiproject) should be accorded any added weight in such discussions, nor is it clear how the potential desirability in uniformity of formatting across articles of a common type should be weighed.
Arbcom then said: 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. And twelve (12) years later, that's still how we're meant to make decisions. Where the community can't agree, the amount of guidance we give closers about infoboxes is exactly zero.
So I fall back on the generic rules governing consensus on Wikipedia. Insofar as they're relevant to this discussion, they are:
 • WP:ONUS: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content; and
 • WP:NOCONSENSUS: When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common (but not required) result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.
On Wikipedia "Consensus" doesn't mean what it means in natural language. It means a supermajority of interested editors. In a different context, of admin elections, which are much closer to a pure vote than most RfCs are, we say that below 65% fails, above 75% passes, and between 65% and 75% is in the discretionary zone.
I have to treat this as similar to a pure vote because the normal tools for discussion closers aren't available to me. Infoboxes are a Wikipedian thing, so there are no sources about whether or not to have an infobox. There are no policies or guidelines about whether to have an infobox. I've got no basis on which to weigh some votes higher than others.
Therefore, applying the rules that I've mentioned above, I count up the !votes, I get to "no consensus", and I conclude that we default to not having an infobox.
It would be enormously helpful to closers of these discussions if the community could come up with some properly thought out principles and practice notes about which articles should have infoboxes and what they should contain.—S Marshall T/C 22:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 there be an infobox on this page? G-13114 (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a reminder to all who !vote, and by way of background: Infoboxes are classed as a contentious topic, and care should be taken to ensure that comments do not impugn or malign others; please comment on the content, not other editors. Please also avoid WP:BLUDGEONING others. Furthermore, ArbCom's rulings on IB's state that arguments should be based on whether an IB is appropriate on the specific article in question, not a general discussion or vote in favour of IBs in general - decisions of 2013 and 2018, plus many active discussions in the intervening period. - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Policy doesn't require one - per MOS:INFOBOX and WP:MoS - there is a very long standing consensus not to include one for this article - and I am very aware that if the Infobox Wars were to start up again that blade would cut both ways - and, as it happens, I personally feel that this article is the better for not having an infobox - like many, many other high quality articles - and would be the worse for the inclusion of one. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support adding an infobox. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, infoboxes exist to give readers concise, quick information at a glance, which is particularly helpful on substantial biographies. This article is nearly 50 kB of readable prose, and an infobox would help readers orient themselves without detracting from the body text.
    I also appreciate that editor G-13114 asked in good faith about the previously claimed "consensus" against an infobox, after reviewing the TALK page history, it appears no such consensus actually exists. It's disappointing that a RFC was required for this common sense question. In the absence of a standing agreement to exclude one, and given both policy guidance and common practice on large biographies, including an infobox is the option most consistent with improving readability and ease of use for our readers.
    Infoboxes are routinely used across similarly sized and notable biographies, and the priority here should be helping readers consume complex information more easily. Adding one would be beneficial and appropriate. - Nemov (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No.. While sports and politician bios and geographic or scientific articles can often benefit from infoboxes, the "factoids in a box" format is particularly unsuited to liberal arts articles such as this one, where the carefully written WP:LEAD section much more usefully presents and contextualizes the most important information about the subject. An infobox would misleadingly emphasize less important factoids, stripped of context and lacking nuance, and would compete with the excellent Lead section for attention at the top of the article, discouraging busy readers from reading through the Lead section. In addition, the key information about the subject that could be included in the box is already discussed in the Lead and in the body of the article (and also appears in Wikidata), and so the box would contain a 3rd or 4th mention of these facts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Per MOS:INFOBOX are optional but there is no specific reason in there not to include an infobox to a bio. I think in this case, an infobox would greatly improve the article. Generally speaking, summarizing key facts about high-profile personalities in an infobox has become the norm.
    Plus, I agree with @Nemov that the article’s size alone (50k+ of prose) supports including an infobox so readers can quickly locate basic infor without having to search through the entire entry. Frankserafini87 (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. so far I've not seen any good reason why one should add a box. No article is 'born' with one, and (as this is an FA) there has to be a good reason for adding one. (To say there isn't a specific reason not to include one after having had no IB when it went through Peer Review and WP:FAC is very much having the tail wag the dog: after a decade without an IB, there has to be a good reason to change that status quo, and no-one has yet provided a good reason.
    The claim that any article needs an IB because of the length is clutching at straws, I'm afraid. Despite the inaccurate claims, one doesn't have to read the entire article to quickly locate basic information: the key information is in the lead, and the really key information in the opening line, with more context in the opening paragraph. And the lead doesn't have the cluttered list of silly factoids that so often clutters IBs, which characteristically give too much WP:WEIGHT to points that people think should be in an IB, but that are just trivia. In other words, it is just as true to say that 'Infoboxes are routinely omitted across similarly sized and notable biographies'.
    Addendum: As to claims that 'it's what readers expect or want': that's a false claim. There has been no research on the point and no-one has actually asked them, so it's deeply untrue to try and claim it as a fact. One that that is known is that in the decade that this article has been without a box, 1.9 million people have visited it. During that time, there have been a couple of requests for an IB, but these spring from editors, rather than readers. This anecdotal evidence suggests readers either don't care about or even welcome the lack of IB, rather than are clamouring for one to be included. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC) Addendum by SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "This anecdotal evidence suggests readers either don't care about or even welcome the lack of IB" - this is ridiculous. The average reader is not going to engage with the editing process no matter what the issue is.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? The talk pages of articles are full of questions and comments from readers asking about all manner of things. - SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm saying that those readers are unrepresentative of the average reader.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: I agree with @Eldomtom2 statement about readers, Most readers do not engage with the writing process, and I can prove it mathematically. If you look at this articles page statistics you'll see that (at the time of writing) since the article was written in 2003, it has had 1,644 total edits from 749 unique editors, and it has 131 page watchers. In the past 30 days, it has had 9,973 views, 922,289 views since January 1 2020. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's some cock-eyed maths that doesn't "prove" anything about whether IP readers comment on the talk page or not. The fact is that IP editors do comment on talk pages on a range of topics. - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - infobox not needed as it contains nothing that isn't in a well written lead section. Jack1956 (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jack1956, do you have anything specific to say about this article? As SchroCat diligently reminds us in infobox-related RFCs, arguments should be based on whether an IB is appropriate on the specific article in question, not a general discussion or vote in favour of IBs in general. Your comment here feels like it is about "IBs in general", and I find that you used nearly identical wording in basically every infobox RFC you've participated in for a year now.[1][2][3][4][5] Are you expressing your general view on infoboxes, or do you have something specific to this article to say? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Such infoboxes should be restricted to politicians, sportspeople & religious people. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why?
    I looked at the first 25 FAs in the same category as this one. All 25 had infoboxes. And yet you say, without any explanation, that you think none of them should be permitted to have infoboxes. Why do you hold that opinion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove the infoboxes from those bios, too. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A reminder about WP:BLUDGEON. - SchroCat (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes (Summoned by bot) Nemov provides a good argument. Given the size of the article an infobox would assist readers in finding keep facts about the subject. TarnishedPathtalk 00:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Would agree with Nemov's points that the size of the article would mean readers would benefit from having a quick point of reference for essential information. Also think Frankserafini87 makes an interesting point about inboxes for high-profile personalities having become the the norm even if not strictly required by policy. Overall think it would be beneficial on this article Vesuvio14 (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per Ssilvers. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding: the proposal is a MOS nightmare and an excellent example of the issues with this approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per Nemov argument, the sheer size of this article seems better from a visitor perspective. IndrasBet (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Infoboxes should be omitted when an article is bare-bones and the infobox would be pitifully close to empty. For a well-fleshed out article such as this one, an infobox is good. Abductive (reasoning) 03:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, mostly per Ssilvers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes as nominator. Infoboxes have become effectively the de facto standard on biographical articles, notwithstanding a few exceptions here and there. You can for example look at a random sample of bios at Category:1904_births, the same year that George Formby was born and you will see that very few are lacking infoboxes, even on short articles. It is what readers have come to expect from wikipedia. That may not have been the case a decade ago but it is now. As for what are the benefits to this particular article, well it;s a long article which you would have to do a lot of reading to summarise the basic points of his life, which could be easily summed up by an infobox, for example it is notable that he died at a relatively young age in his 50s. G-13114 (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No – unhelpful, non-standard, makes Wikipedia out of step with the major recognised authorities. Tim riley talk 16:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand this reply. "Non-standard" compared to what standard? (I thought Wikipedia's standard was to not have a standard.) Which "major recognised authorities" are you talking about? (The FAC noms? Encyclopedia Britannica? Google?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yhe ODNB, natch! We must strive to keep up to its professional level, which as amateurs it's challenging for all of us. Tim riley talk 20:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - I know this is an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument, but after glancing at other biographical articles I think the more common practice to have an infobox. So, if we're interested in following precedence, we should include one here. Looking at some of the "no" arguments, I'm not seeing any good arguments for not simply following pecedence. I do see some bad ones though. The argument above that an infobox is bad because it might discourage "busy readers from reading through the Lead section" seems like it comes from someone who hates our readers. If our readers want a quick, un-nuanced summary, we should give it to them. We shouldn't force them to read content they may not want. NickCT (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Readers expect to be able to look at the infobox to quickly see vital details like birth and death dates. I don't see why they should be forced to read the lead.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is an encyclopedia. Besides, the birth and death dates, country of birth, occupation etc. is in the FIRST sentence of the article. The rest of the very brief first paragraph gives much more *key information* and context about Formby than any infobox would. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica has a "quick facts box", and I'm pretty sure they're an encyclopedia. And would the "this is an encyclopedia" argument basically extend to ALL aritcles on WP. Should we delete infoboxes everywhere? NickCT (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See above, where several editors, in their comments, have explained when they believe IBs are generally useful. Your argument that you don't think readers should be asked "to read the lead" sections of our articles seems to me antithetical to an encyclopedia project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not Above all on an FA we should defer to the main authors (only one here really) who is firmly against. Has anyone mocked one up? It's hard to discuss, but without seeing that I imagine Formby's career is hard to usefully summarize in an Ib - we will end up with the usual cruft. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all my years editing this wiki, I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've ventured into a Contentious Topic. And it had to be infoboxes? Anyway, I don't have any strong opinion either way (at least not yet). I disagree with Johnbod that the major author of an FA has veto rights. Because WP:OWN. On the other hand, I agree with him that without knowing what were talking about, it's hard to say if it's good or not. I suggest that somebody who thinks we need an IB should indeed mock one up, and then we'll be able to more intelligently form an opinion about whether it would be an improvement or not. RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a case of "veto" rights at all! We're having an Rfc, aren't we? Please don't be silly. But I will normally support the views of the editors who have spent vast amounts of time on the article, and know the subject very well, over drive-bys who want infoboxes everywhere, contrary to policy, and without any arguments specific to the article and the individual subject. Johnbod (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No – Except for politicians or prominent public figures, I believe the inclusion, or exclusion, of an infobox is a stylistic preference and should be left to a major contributor to the article. DannyRogers800 (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subtle arguments for WP:OWNERSHIP are still arguments for WP:OWNERSHIP. As an editor I am thrilled when one of my creations is edited and improved, and I rarely undo any of the changes follow-on editors make. And when I do, it is the same sort of an edit I would make on an article I had never seen before. Abductive (reasoning) 07:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, it is an argument for part-ownership of an article. I think that, as far as style is concerned, major contributors to an article should own it. But as for content and other matters, I generally disagree with ownership. DannyRogers800 (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OWN is a Policy. Abductive (reasoning) 09:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about ownership (something IB warriors are always quick to try throw around). 'First choice' is baked into some of our policies and procedures too, within limits: MOS:RETAIN being just one example. A reminder about WP:BLUDGEON, and I'll withdraw from this now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, per Tim riley; we should approximate to perfection, not Randy from Boise, and avoid reducing complex topics to simple statistics.
Also: I agree with Roy Smith that an article creator shouldn't have a veto over content, but policy requires those who take on the responsibility of creating FAs to maintain them.
Also: Regarding editors "owning" articles, per WP:STEWARDSHIP—also policy—it's best to assume good faith on their part and regard their behavior as stewardship rather than OWNership.
Also: All things being equal, it is preferable for editors not to WP:STALK one and other. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in the WP:OWN policy that says FA noms ("those who take on the responsibility of creating FAs") have any ongoing role at all. If it did, we'd have a WP:PGCONFLICT problem, because it is our policy that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course you won't. Are you trying to tell the many people who give regard to the views of FA creators over drive-bys that we should not? If not, what are you trying to say? Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna said that policy requires those who take on the responsibility of creating FAs to maintain them. I see no evidence that it's true, and I would be very surprised to discover if it were true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add: I know several FA noms who definitely do maintain those articles, and I really, really appreciate that and I want to be sensitive to what we could do that would encourage this. But I don't believe we have a policy that requires them to maintain the FAs, and I would oppose creating any such requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what does that first sentence mean? I recognize most of the words, but I don't understand it. 1brianm7 (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes — this article, George Formby, should have an infobox, because it would generally be helpful to our readers since they aid our readers in quickly locating specific info (hence the name – infobox), on Mr. Formby, and can enhance comprehension and information retention. It is no big secret that the use of infoboxes caters to readers who are seeking quick, and essential, information, and may only be interested in skimming for certain details about Mr. Formby, and it doesn't make any difference if it repeats information found in the lead about Mr. Formby, information saturation is a good thing, not a bad thing. And for those readers who want to deep dive into the content, and learn more about Mr. Formby, the placement of the infobox does not disrupt their reading experience. I'm not seeing any compelling reason to exclude one, and being a FA has no bearing on this discussion, as our readers don't care about that status symbol.— Isaidnoway (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, per Nemov. (I was alerted by some talk page exchange. How about talking about important topics instead of discussing again if an additional feature that may help some readers is there or not?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Most of Wikipedia's readers are on mobile, and to reach the infobox they must scroll past the lead paragraph. In Gerda's infobox, the only information they would gain is his place of birth, father's name and a link to notable works. The reader would be able to access most of this faster without an infobox, as it requires reading information already stated in the first paragraph, yet it is almost all introduced in the first sentence of the second paragraph. For the minority of readers on a computer, the infobox confers some benefit in easy reading, but it comes at the cost of a scaled up image which more prominently and clearly displays the subject's features, uncluttered by text and boxes around boxes. I think the reader gains a better understanding of the subject with this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 14:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I come from Mozart, and its RfC, resulting in the wish to keep an infobox concise. Go ahead and add below which parameters you would like to see filled. I am not against more detail, but learned that less is more. Where in the lead do you find the link to his works? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. There's nothing to lose by having one and everything to gain. Subjective opinion of course, but an infobox makes the article look more professional and finished, and gives the reader a little 'ID card' to accompany the picture. I don't think it's stops users from reading the lead/article, but any argument to that effect sounds like WP:OWNERSHIP ("I don't want the readers attention deflected from MY work!"). I'm surprised Wikipedia hasn't just made it compulsory across all biographies. If the concern is giving undue weight to unimportant information, why not debate the information included rather than the existence of a box that may contain it? Seems like an argument about what to include, not an argument against inclusion altogether. ~2025-33996-33 (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - infoboxes, while not mandatory, are highly standard on biographies. They serve an encyclopedic purpose in collecting relevant information in a condensed form with predictable format and ordering. It's true that most of what would be in the IB is already in the lead, but that lead is also fairly long (slightly over the 250–400 words MOS:LEAD recommends) which makes finding a single detail more laborious than it needs to be. I would be somewhat more sympathetic to the arguments that the lead by itself is sufficient if it correctly reported the date of Formby's marriage to Beryl Ingham, which was in 1924 and not 1923 as it says both currently and in the version that was featured. Let this dispel the notion that featured articles are finished and need only have their perfection preserved for posterity. —Rutebega (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. (Summoned by bot) Policy doesn't require one - per MOS:INFOBOX and WP:MoS - there is a very long standing consensus not to include one for this article No valid argument for inclusion seems to have been made beyond generalities/conjectures about "readers expect them" and "they offer key facts to readers" (who presumably are unable to read the same facts rendered in clear prose in the lead). IMO, as a general principle, when editors have created a good, clear article, those editors should be creditted with knowing what makes the article work, unless there is some strong valid reason to disregard their views. There appears to be here a general view from those who have created the article that an infobox would add nothing. Personally (and I read on a laptop/desktop), I find they add to the visual appeal of a page, but rarely consult them unless hurriedly looking for a 'key fact' (dob, dod, spouses' names etc), they are sometimes distracting. Pincrete (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I second the rationale stated by SSilvers. I do not believe an infobox would best serve the readability of the article in the way that proponents of adding one believe it would be. Barbarbarty (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, it literally doesn't hurt this page in any way. If I just want to glance at some trivial stuff instead of reading an essay on the subject so be it.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes if an editor wants to include an infobox, it should allowed, if not encouraged. While it is not required, I personally find infoboxes useful on biographies for a quick overview of relevant information, and think they look nice on page, giving it a more flushed out look to readers. I see no reason to ever block one from being created if someone wants to put in the energy. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak no per Ssilvers. Weak because I don't believe an infobox likely to help or harm readers much either way. Ajpolino (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The lead already covers most of the information that would be included in the proposed infobox, and an infobox neither is currently required by any policy, nor should it be per WP:CREEP. While I generally do include infoboxes in articles to which I'm the main contributor, I'm not going to impose my own preferences everywhere - we generally afford primary contributors a great deal of flexibility as to the layout of articles, under the constraints of the MOS. I would not be opposed to the possibility of including an infobox if the main contributors wanted it, which seems not to be the case here. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Courtesy pings to the editors who discussed this topic in 2022/2024: Humbledaisy, Nikkimaria, Ghmyrtle, Vesuvio14, RCLeahcar, Evedawn99, GoodDay Shaws username, David_notMD, FeRDNYC, and Martinevans123. I left off the IPs and one editor who has been blocked. Feel free to ping anyone I missed. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Formby
Formby in France during the Second World War
Born
George Hoy Booth

(1904-05-26)26 May 1904
Wigan, Lancashire
DiedMarch 6, 1961(1961-03-06) (aged 56)
Preston, Lancashire
Resting placeWarrington Cemetery
OccupationsActor, singer-songwriter and comedian
Years active1921-1960
SpouseBeryl Ingham
Parents
AwardsOfficer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE)
I have created a mock-up infobox, as several people asked for one to better judge the issue. Pinging Johnbod and RoySmith. G-13114 (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It is at least relatively short, but if we must have an infobox (which I still oppose) the parents and resting place are really not key facts, but his biggest hits surely are. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for this. This is exactly the type of basic info that some of our readers want to see in an infobox, and the |works= param could be used as a navigational aid for a link to George Formby on screen, stage, record and radio.— Isaidnoway (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"exactly the type of basic info that some of our readers want to see in an infobox”: Do you have any basis for making such a claim? Can you point to the research that backs up what you’ve said? You can’t. There isn’t any research and your claim is meaningless.
Thank you for providing this example: it’s a demonstration of just why in some cases an IB is a vacuous waste of space. This one tells readers absolutely nothing about the man or his notability and demonstrates the undue WP:WEIGHT given to trivial factoids by promoting them to an overly prominent position. That’s aside from the MOS-breaching parts (and suggestion). - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not required to give a citation for my "claim", nor am I required to provide a citation for "research" that backs up what I've said, as my opinion is clearly and properly attributed by the attachment of my signature at the end of my reply to G-13114.— Isaidnoway (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except you didn't state it as an opinion ("I think that..."), you stated it as if it were a fact, when it wasn't. Thank you for making it clear that it's just fiction or wish, not backed up by any evidence. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa, I always figured it was common sense that infobox discussions were primarily based on editor's opinions, rather than stated facts. Thank you for your immaterial nitpicking and your opinion in this discussion.— Isaidnoway (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"immaterial nitpicking"? Please retain a semblance of civility by not personalising the debate. There's a difference between spreading misinformation (which is what you did) and facts, as everyone is aware. The problem is that when people make up their own facts, it deceives others. It's concerning that you think this is acceptable and that you seem happy to mislead others. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow the advice you posted at the beginning of this RfC - care should be taken to ensure that comments do not impugn or malign others. Thanks.— Isaidnoway (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's some past user research (in Vector 2010) that indicates readers look first at the Table of Contents, and next at the infobox, which indicates that they use it, but not necessarily that they want it. HaeB might know off hand whether anyone has ever done a test specifically about whether readers want an infobox. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was an eye-tracking study. There are also several other eye-tracking studies that show non-text elements (eg graphics and boxes containing quotes—and IBs would fall into this category) are natural distractions that draw they eye. That doesn’t mean they are “used”, just that they draw the eye. That makes it all the more important that the information the non-text elements contain needs to be on point, not trivia that’s been given too much WP:WEIGHT! Which is the issue here. - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this not an argument over what to include in the box, rather than an argument against the box altogether? Which "factoids" included in this mock-up do you believe are trivial? I'm also confused as to what harm you think is being done by their inclusion. Is giving "undue weight" to say, his spouse or parents or whatever you think is trivial particularly damaging to the article or project? ~2025-33996-33 (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We had two RfCs in 2025 that I am aware of, Erik Satie and W. B. Yeats. For Yeats, we found a way to discuss which parameters were wanted, and could do the same here:
    • honorific_suffix
      • y - OBE here, not under awards --GA
    • birth_name = George Hoy Booth
      • n - not needed --GA
    • birth_date = (1904-05-26)26 May 1904
      • y --GA
    • birth_place = Wigan, Lancashire
      • y - please add: United Kingdom or UK --GA
    • death_date = March 6, 1961(1961-03-06) (aged 56)
      • y --GA
    • death_place = Preston, Lancashire
      • y - please ... --GA
    • resting_place = Warrington Cemetery
      • n - not needed --GA
    • occupation = Actor, singer-songwriter and comedian
      • y - but better with a subtemplate such as {{ubl}} --GA
    • years_active = 1921-1960
      • n - not needed --GA
    • notable_works
    • spouse = Beryl Ingham
      • y --GA
    • mother = Eliza Booth
      • n - not notable --GA
    • father = George Formby Sr
      • y --GA
    • awards = Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE)
      • n - better after name (see there)
  • Please feel free to enter simply y (yes) or n (no) with a short signature, mine is GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this biography (and all biographies) would be improved by the inclusion of an infobox with Birth Date, Birth Place, Death Date (age), occupation, notable works, awards and inclusion of family members only if they are notable themselves. Not sure why the inclusion of any of these would be considered harmful to the article on account of promoting trivia. ~2025-33996-33 (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.