Talk:Noël Coward

Needs an 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.

---

Ain't nothing wrong with omitting an infobox for a Featured Article like this. But would addition of infobox help a lot? --George Ho (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been considered previously and rejected. Tim riley (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I looked in the talk archives and can't find a discussion. Considered where, by who, how much? -- GreenC 18:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Most of the work on this article was done by Tim riley and me, and I agree with him that an infobox would not be helpful in this article. The WP:LEAD contains the information that would go in an infobox, and it gives that information in context and with more nuance than an infobox would give. See WP:DISINFOBOX for more information, but I would be happy to give a fuller description of why I think an infobox would be a bad idea here, if anyone wants to read more about it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this article would benefit from having an infobox. It would add value by making the vital facts about Coward's life accessible at a glance. I couldn't find the discussion mentioned in the archives either. --Albany NY (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need, to be honest. The key information is held in the lead, with the most important being in the first line or two. - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur with SchroCat. On the whole info-boxes are unhelpful for biographies of musicians, which is why they have generally been eschewed for the relevant Featured Articles. I don't think it would be advantageous to disturb the status quo here. Tim riley talk 07:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope, me neither. Adding a infobox would be a step in the wrong direction for this featured article. As illustrated above, Infoboxes work on some articles, but not on others. This, almost certainly, falls into the latter. Cassianto^Talk 12:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The article had an infobox in 2011, with flaws, and the image could be larger, but looking useful to me to find out at a glance when and where this person did what. There is never a need, but we can be willing to serve readers, even readers who behave differently. - We seem to have an infobox summer-flu ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

There wouldn't be, of course, if it wasn't for your insistence to irritate most infoboxless articles. Cassianto^Talk 00:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Plain wrong, see below also. It must be irritating when I merely point out that an infobox was there but reverted, and that it is common practise that the main editors get the say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right, it is irritating. Cassianto^Talk 08:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, sometimes what's right is irritating. Is it correct that an infobox was there but reverted? Is it common practise that the main editors make the decision, or not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find that its life started out without an IB. Where was the discussion to add one five years later when someone had added this utter joke. That's five, happy years of survival without an infobox, of sorts. Cassianto^Talk 08:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment Not understanding why two old infobox discussions have been re-opened at two Featured Articles in the last two days. Yesterday it was Talk:Gustav Holst and today it's Noël Coward. Yesterday's discussion at Gustav Holst spilled over to my talk page. My opinion expressed there is the same: the addition or exclusion of an infobox is up to the main editor(s) of the article. Again-I don't see a group of editors going through WP removing infoboxes from article because of personal preference. They are added or removed by main editors when an article has undergone major changes. But I have seen infoboxes ADDED to articles despite prior consensus not to have one,and old infobox discussions suddenly being revived (here and at Gustav Holst to name a couple). It's not unusual to see that authors of Featured Articles have been put through the "infobox mill" more than once regarding the subject.

Tempers sometimes flare on both sides of the issue; the bottom line is that it's a giant waste of time and disruptive for both the pro and the anti infobox factions. Everyone is using time to discuss the issue which ought to be put to better use; no one can create content when in the midst of an infobox discussion-the time is spent on the infobox issue. If WP had no content, the subject of an infobox is moot--it would be simply a collection of little fact boxes. With almost 2 million stubs in need of expansion at WP, the time spent on "to infobox or not to infobox" would be better spent in expansion or creation of content. To me, everyone's a loser when one of these discussions breaks out-those on both sides of the question and the readers, who come here for content. We hope (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"the addition or exclusion of an infobox is up to the main editor(s) of the article" .. that is inaccurate. It is up to community consensus. Should someone decide to open a simple RfC "Should this article have an infox" consensus will decide the issue. You can't negate the opinion of other editors based on seniority ie. the "main editor", that is classic WP:OWN. -- GreenC 15:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you take your WP:OWN accusation and stick it where the the sun don't shine? Cassianto^Talk 00:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

So you think? That would be nice, but common practise is different: they come, improve and get rid of an infobox, even if it was there for years, - and seem to be surprised that we object. - Correcting We hope: no discussion was "revived" on Gustav Holst. During an active RfC there about the hidden notice, an editor claimed that a consensus not to have an infobox had been established. That was not yet established but will be ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

And we can continue to argue, dither and otherwise waste the time of those on both sides of the question, so my opinion is to keep the article is it presently is-no infobox. We hope (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

An RfC wouldn't be dithering. Enter a !vote and walk away and let the chips fall where they may. 30 days later the issue gets resolved. Very simple. The alternative is open-ended unresolved threads .. like this one started 2.5 years ago. -- GreenC 22:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

In violation of the infobox arbitration case, Gerda goes around Wikipedia trying to add infoboxes to existing articles. The Infobox arbitration case did not conclude that every article needs to have an RfC about adding an infobox. It said that the editors who are interested in each article can form a consensus, if they wish, to change its IB status. The time and place to forge a consensus about an infobox for a Featured Article is at extensive FAC discussions. It is bad faith to go around trying to insert infoboxes into Featured Articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Plain wrong. There are millions of articles without infobox on Wikipedia (to which I don't go). I didn't come to this one to have an infobox, but was alerted by the header on my watchlist. I didn't insert one in the article (which I could have done, I am no longer restricted.) I didn't even suggest one on this talk. I only pointed out that there was one that was reverted. May I? -- Did you know that only one restriction of the arbitration case is still active: "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general."? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason this issue keeps coming up is that to many Wikipedians, including myself, infoboxes clearly improve articles and not having one appears glaringly incorrect and inconsistent with most other biographical articles (in this case, see the peer articles Arthur Miller, Tennessee Williams, Neil Simon, and Eugene O'Neill). I agree that an RfC would be a better way to deal with this because it has a clear resolution. --Albany NY (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, other editors feel the opposite way. We believe that you are degrading and dumbing down the encyclopedia. The difference is that *we* don't go around sneakily bullying people into letting us remove infoboxes from articles that we haven't even edited before, in violation of the arbitration case, while Gerda and others do. Perhaps you will succeed, and then the good editors will leave the project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this is an accurate summary. There are two groups of editors who express strong views pro- or con- info-boxes. The difference is that the hardcore pro set regularly turn up en bloc at articles to which they have not contributed any content and try to force a box in, whereas those against i-bs for such articles spend much (too much) of our time resisting such attempted take-overs; we, by contrast, do not suddenly appear en masse at articles where we are not contributors and demand the removal of boxes. A certain reciprocity would be welcome in this regard. Tim riley talk 07:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Tim, please give us one example of what you describe as "regularly", just one. I think you may remember a past. - My view: we who like structured information at a glance are not even a group, but single people coming independently with the same view. My socalled flash mob is a myth but got a nice picture (the second) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Earth calling! See all the classical music FAs that have had a sudden swarm of box-pushers in the past few days. You may recognise some names. Amazing outbreak of interest in classical music, amounting to a miraculous mass conversion, in editors who have hitherto contributed nothing to these articles. Tim riley talk 10:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean Gustav Holst, with a discussion about the hidden notice, because someone whose name I never heard in this context removed it. Not a good example. This article is also no good example, I was alerted by the word infobox on my watchlist, have no idea what made those come who were here before me. - What, btw, is a "box-pusher"? - Found on B's talk page: "If we would grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith, we could dispense with some of the drama ...". We could start today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Look, Gerda, do you want to get us both banned? Let us consider a purely hypothetical example: if I could produce numerous emails proving that you invited me to gang up with you on another (frightful) editor, ought I to do so? If such a hypothetical eventuality were the case in reality I should, of course, respect your confidentiality, but let us not pretend that regular off-Wiki plotting doesn't go on. Tim riley talk 16:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

If I did off-Wiki plotting I would hopefully be a little more successful, but I don't. Ganging up: I won you to do a GA review, and you refused the next request, as far as I remember. - If I wanted to have all articles with an infobox I would add infoboxes day and night in fields with no objection. Instead, I invite you to a FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose info box for the reasons I have stated elsewhere, namely that they add nothing to an article and merely repeat the information contained in a well written lead. In addition, other reputable encyclopaedias such as Britannica and ODNB do not see a need for therm. Jack1956 (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Britannica does use infoboxes. See the box on their Noel Coward page. --Albany NY (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Grove and the ODNB and all the dozens of Oxford reference works known to me do not. Tim riley talk 16:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems clear that there is no consensus here either for or against an infobox. It has come to my attention that a similar dispute on the Frank Sinatra article was resolved by using a collapsed infobox. I think this would be a reasonable compromise solution in this case. --Albany NY (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't run away with the idea that it was a happy compromise, because it wasn't. It's just another, more secretive way for you and a bunch of other people to enforce POV onto an article that you have in no way improved and do not care about. Cassianto^Talk 18:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto is right. There being no consensus for a change, the status quo prevails. Tim riley talk 18:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent research "has shown that most readers focus their attention on the content of an article that appears “above the fold” — usually just the lede section and the top of the infobox." The infobox is integral to an article, it's where most readers focus their attention. Lack of an infobox is detrimental. -- GreenC 15:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

If that were so, it would be Wikipedia's policy to make I-Bs compulsory, but it isn't – as we all know. Tim riley talk 18:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Green Cardamom, maybe you could provide a reliable source with regards to your findings, as opposed to a blog on Wikipedia which, as we all know, is not a reliable source. Cassianto^Talk 18:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto: Sources are linked there. Tim_riley: That's a logical fallacy. The existence of studies does not equate to Wikipedia policy, nor does the lack of policy negate the studies. -- GreenC 19:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as you consider policy to be more important than what makes a great article, then get your lushers round this: "An infobox is neither required nor prohibited". There's some policy for you. Cassianto^Talk 19:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"then get your lushers round this" What is a "lushers"?? Do I have lushers? All the policy says is the topic is open for discussion, which we are having. -- GreenC 14:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Lushers mean lips; any old fool knows that. Cassianto^Talk 16:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope, never heard of it, and google search doesn't show anything. I think the American version is "wrap your lips around this" and most of the refs I can find deal with sexual innuendo mostly implying a penis, or figurative one. Is that what the phrase implies there in London too? -- GreenC 00:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Green Cardamom, yes, readers focus their attention at the top: that's old news, but that's the reason why we have a lead that summarises the article, showing the key and important information. At least the information that is shown is in the lead is shown in context and balanced, rather than dumbed-down and out of context factoids that don't actually aid understanding about the subject. – SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

dumbed-down and out of context factoids That's certainly a valid opinion, and there are valid counter-opinions about infoboxes, most articles have them. The link I posted above is evidence, not opinion. That's the difference - it's called evidence based decision making. The evidence is that most readers are focusing their reading on infoboxes (and lead sections). IMO the article is weaker without an infobox, based on the evidence. -- GreenC 14:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the link is not evidence: it makes some statements about the research, but the conclusions people draw from that research are not hard fact, it is their opinion of what the facts may mean. Aside from that, we would have to know on what sort of articles the research was based (i.e., did it just look at articles with IB's or a mixture of some with and some without, which would, rather obviously, give entirely different conclusions). "evidence based decision making" is all well and good, but you have to question the evidence first, to see it is fit for purpose—and the blog does not do that terribly well). People may grasp individual factoids from an IB, but they don't gain knowledge or understanding of a subject, and a well-written lead provides that data in context, with the key facts (name, date of birth/death, reason for importance, etc) in the opening line or two. Interesting that the subject is, I'll leave it here, I think: I am both exhausted and bored by the recent spate of IB discussions that have miraculously appeared recently. – SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

If the "evidence" were correct, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, the Oxford suite of reference works, American National Biography Online, Deutsches Biographisches Archiv, World Who's Who, the Dictionary of Canadian Biography etc ect would have info-box-style additions, and they haven't. Wikipedia doesn't need to stand out like a sore thumb from the professional reference works that it seeks to rival. Tim riley talk 15:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You placed "evidence" in quotes - do you disbelieve the studies that found most people only read the lead section and infobox? -- GreenC 00:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"IMO the article is weaker without an infobox" -- you'd know, of course. Tell me, how many features articles have you authored? Cassianto^Talk 16:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't "author" articles, we contribute to articles. You don't own any articles including the ones displayed on your userpage. It's one thing to display a sense of ownership pride of work, another entirely to use that against other editors to try and invalidate their opinions or work, that is classic WP:OWN. If you think being the author of multiple FA gives you special rights or privileges than we have a problem that goes beyond infoboxen. -- GreenC 00:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Attempting to have a constructive exchange is proving difficult. There's none so deaf as them as wants to be, as the Yorkshire saying has it. The point about taking articles through FA is by no means invalid (and accusing Cassianto of WP:OWN is way off the mark, as he has not been a major contributor to any of the articles currently under assault by the info-box army, though he has elsewhere staunchly stood up their coordinated bombardments at articles where he has been the lead editor). And the repeated assertions about research fail to answer my point that none of the professional reference sites mentioned above find info-boxes, or anything like, them desirable. As the professionals don't think them necessary, we amateurs ought to have the humility to take note. No doubt this is among the reasons why info-boxes have been ruled optional as a matter of poicy across en.WP. Tim riley talk 06:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying the evidence of the study is invalidate because something elsewhere doesn't exist? The study says what it says. It doesn't need other high bars to exist. I have been hesitant to start the RfC until we clear the air on some things and see who else might step in. Clearly there have been multiple opinions on both sides of this issue, with a few loud voices dominating and the less vocal users checking out. That's not healthy for a democratic and fair process, it's why we have RfCs, to give everyone an equal voice. Do you think everyone should have an equal voice on Wikipedia based on merit? What is really concerning is the OWN issues on display which transcend the content dispute. -- GreenC 01:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Aww, what's this? You want to be known for writing an FA just like the big kids? Tough. You are in no way responsible for this article getting to FA, or any other FA, in fact, than my kitchen cactus is. You can use liberal phrases like "we all contribute to articles" and "it's not yours to own" etc, but let me make this clear: I author my articles. I buy or rent the books, subscribe to the research sites, design the layout, pick the pictures, pick the reference styles, choose the headings, choose the categories, and judge the length. As my reward, I steward that article through the FA process, and take a beating or praising when my more intelligent and esteemed colleagues come to review it. That whole process takes months. I am therefore entitled to refer to it as my own and treat it like my own; that means I will protect it from people like you who come here to enforce something onto it that I don't agree with. If this makes me a policy breacher then good, I couldn't give a flying toss. My articles, not including this one, or, as Tim rightly points out above, any of those subjected to the infobox flash-mob scrum down that's been happening recently, mean more to me than being blocked, banned, or any of the other shite that I've been threatened with over the last few weeks. Cassianto^Talk 06:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The whole FA system was made with good intentions but can also be toxic to the community when it adversely impacts egos, like I am therefore entitled to refer to it as my own and treat it like my own. A more blatant case of WP:OWN I have yet to see. If you talk like this in front of admins you very well might get sanctioned. -- GreenC 00:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep linking to OWN? I think we've established the fact that as the author, you should get to have more of a say so on an FA than anyone else? I think you'll find that that is a widely regarded concept. Glad to see you liked my picture, by the way! ;) Cassianto^Talk 06:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you read OWN? Specifically Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#Statements because your posts in this forum are a taxominy of techniques to suppress editorial opinions. Your picture was part of a pattern of uncivil (actually nasty) behavior, and it mocked other editors for not having as many FA as you. That is exactly what OWN behavior is, belittlement of other editors based on an attitude of possessiveness. -- GreenC 13:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

So you haven't got your own way on forcing an IB onto the page, so you're going to re-hash the whole nonsense over an RfC? ~sigh~ There really are bigger and better things to do that constantly re-hash the formatting of repeated factoids on one small part of the page, not forgetting the fact that as it's fairly clear there is no clear consensus to add a box at present, an RfC could be seen as being disruptive. - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

A lack of consensus is why RfC's exist. We don't have RfCs when there is consensus. If your saying the RfC will close no consensus, maybe, who knows? All we have is a few loud minority voices - the point of an RfC is to give the community at large an opportunity to participate because few will want to participate in this monster thread, other than the usual suspects. -- GreenC 13:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• So forum shoping to get your own way? That's just disruptive, particularly as the ususal suspects from the flash mob will (miraculously) turn up once again - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• An RfC is not WP:FORUMSHOP: there has never been consensus established for this article, there are no discussions in other forums about this article. -- GreenC 17:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• Of course there has: this question has been answered several times, and just because you don't like it trying to force it through other areas (particularly at ANI where you made complaints without notifying the editors involved) smacks of an underhanded, toys-out-of-pram forum shop. - SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You might want to wipe the dirt out of your eyes and take another look; I count the consensus on this page to be in favour of not having an infobox. But then that doesn't suit you does it; so because you don't like the answer, you want to open it up to a bunch of people who have no interest in the subject matter and who have probably never even heard of Coward, just because you know they are sheep and will want infobox consistency across the board, without looking at the wider picture. That's disruptive, in my view. Also, in regards to the ownership bollocks you keep droaning on about, in my mind, yes, I do consider myself to have more of a say on the articles I have spent time and money stewarding to FA. If that upsets you, then I suggest you go and deal with it somewhere else because frankly, Green Cardamom, I'm sick of this exchange. I haven't written anything on Coward, true, but I wouldn't dare force something onto it out of respect to those who spent time and effort writing and researching it, policy or not. Cassianto^Talk 14:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Short pause while I rock with bitter mirth at the phrase "the usual suspects". That would, naturally not apply to the dozen hard-core IB warriors who mysteriously appeared en masse at half a dozen music FAs a few weeks ago, having exhibited not the slightest interest in any of them in the years before or since the articles went through the PR and FAC processes. "My last territorial claim in Europe"...then the Sudetenland, Poland etc. - the same tactics, albeit on an infinitely trivial scale. (And still no response to my question why only WP rather than the professional reference sites needs boxes.) Tim riley talk 14:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah warriors a concern on both sides. FWIW I've never been involved in a Infobox discussion before this. I imagine an RfC that required a disclaimer of prior 3 month IB consensus discussion activity (yes or no) might help the closing admin weigh decisions. -- GreenC 17:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Guidance request at ANI. -- GreenC 17:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Moving this to an Requests for Comment discussion to help form WP:CONSENSUS. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

There was already a consensus, despite one editor not agreeing with it. Opening an RfC smacks of forum shopping just because a disruptive approach from someone who doesn't like it is just disruptive. – SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2016 (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.

What does being on the black book imply?

At the moment, the article has the claim "Had the Germans invaded Britain, Coward was scheduled to be arrested and killed, as he was in The Black Book along with..." I deleted the "and killed" bit, which was reverted by Tim riley with the comment "please read rest of para". Yes, of course, for this Rebecca West quote to be meaningful this claim is needed. However, that does not make it right. See The Black Book, where there is no claim whatsoever that the listed persons should be executed automatically, neither have I found any mention of this in a sample of articles on the listed persons. I mean, Neville Chamberlain is on the list, I really cannot imagine that he was scheduled to be executed. Seattle Jörg (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The source quoted says otherwise, and whatever any editor "imagines" is neither here nor there: the sources are key. - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

West's quote says, "...the people we should have been seen dead with", reflecting her assumption that those in the book (or at least the bulk of them) would have been executed, had the Nazis invaded Britain. But, let's see what User:Tim riley has to say. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm away from home and bookshelves until 30th inst, and will comment in detail as soon thereafter as I can. Meanwhile Seasonal Greetings to you all (though perhaps I should say Joyeux Noël.) Tim riley talk 20:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Back in London, and have checked the sources on my Coward shelf: they are clear. There's no suggestion that mere arrest was mooted. "In 1945, when the Nazi list of people marked down for immediate liquidation was unearthed and published…" (Coward (1954), p. 121), and this is Citron (p. 174):

What Noel did not learn until 1945 was that he and a great many other dissenters, intellectuals, patriots, spies, homosexuals and Jews were targeted for immediate execution … Noel was all of these except for being Jewish and would have stood no chance of survival. His name was high on Hitler's black list of those to be immediately 'exterminated'. At the end … came the name of Noel's friend Rebecca West. After VE Day, when the list was published, she wired 'MY DEAR THE PEOPLE WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN DEAD WITH!'

I think it would be right to stick with the present wording in the article. – Tim riley talk 11:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hm. You have references that say that he was to be executed, I do not have references that say that he was not to be executed. But if you please could change the reasoning (...arrested and killed because in black book...): I stand by my claim that being on the black book in itself does not imply immediate execution. See for example the german entry on the Black Book: All the items on the list have some department back in Germany (sometimes specified to the detail of four levels down) the captured were to be transferred to, they were not to be shot on sight. See also what is said here: https://www.forces-war-records.co.uk/hitlers-black-book/

"There seems to be little written evidence that those 'wanted' would have any collective 'fate' as such, although some would obviously have more to fear than others based on what we knew after 1942 of the Holocaust and concentration camps (i.e. Jews, Communists and ex Nazi defectors), however no arrest or incarceration would have been pleasant." And:

"The list also gives a glimpse of the ‘type’ of persons who were to be arrested (if not specifically on the list)- Politicians, press barons, large international company directors, trade unionists, communists/political opponents & Jews, Gypsies, senior clergymen, scientists and everyone who had already escaped the Nazis from occupied Europe, in essence anyone either useful to the Nazi regime or a perceived opponent." -- Seattle Jörg (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we have to stick with what the article sources actually say rather than speculate. Unless any other editor objects I propose we leave the text as drawn. Tim riley talk 15:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Tim riley. Unless you can cite a WP:RS that more clearly shows that everyone understood that it was likely that they would *not* be executed, then I think the text, as written, is clear. Also, please try to format your Talk page contributions compactly. In fact, I try to make my Talk page contributions fit into one paragraph so that it is clear that my signature belongs to my comment. If you use multiple paragraphs in one Talk page comment, it is not always clear who is writing. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Maternal grandfather

An editor has added a link to Henry Gordon Veitch, who at first sight I thought might not actually be the man of that name who was Violet Coward's father – the dates look rather unlikely. But on checking the family tree in the Hoare biography I find that this is indeed the right man (b. 1814, d. 1863, the year of Violet's birth.) I've added this note in case anyone else is as doubtful as I was. Tim riley talk 11:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Citation format

Regarding this revert[1] .. Is there some reason for not using citation templates? (assuming all were changed). -- GreenC 18:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Either form is equally acceptable (though I personally find templates restricting - eg inability to bundle multiple cites) but we must be consistent. Your unexplained change made one citation read "retrieved" when all the others said "accessed". Not very clever in a featured article (or any other kind). Tim riley talk 19:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation templates are a crutch for people to use if they can't remember the elements of a bibliographic citation. It is much better, and easier for people to read on the edit screen, to give the bibliographic details as they are give here. It is too bad that so many editors here think that they have to jam all this ugly coding at our readers. As Tim riley notes, the tamplates are restrictive (although we do use the "Cite Book" template for sources at the bottom). It is much better for our readers to simply present the bibliographic information for non-book citations as follows: author's name (last then first), the title of the article or webpage, the name of the publisher/work, the date of publication, and the page number or url, as well as the access date, if the article is accessed a significant amount of time after it is published. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Edith Nesbit

I removed a sentence that was added to the article today, referring to E. Nesbit. Coward was a fan of her writing and met her in 1922, keeping in touch with her until her death. Some sources say that she was possibly his favorite writer, and it is true that he re-read her books throughout his life, but I see no indication that he (or anyone) credited her as a significant influence on his own writing. That he was reading one of her books at the time of his death is not important, and I can't really see that his admiration for her writing is of encyclopedic interest, although others may wish to comment or disagree. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur. It is always tempting to add such pleasing incidental details when one runs across them, but the temptation is usually better resisted. In a biographical article of encyclopaedic length (5,900 words in this case) it is important to concentrate on the core essentials and avoid peripheral material. Tim riley talk 07:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should an Infobox be added to the page?

Question: Should an Infobox be added to the article? -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

!Votes and comments

• Yes, in general. Infoboxes are especially helpful for mobile users, who are now our largest userbase. That said, it depends on the details, of course. It is possible to create a terrible infobox full of trivia if someone obsessively tries to complete every possible field, or to fill out some of them in excess. I believe the draft one below is a good start, and would help to summarize this article in a nutshell for people reading quickly for key details, regardless of device screen size.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Updated 22:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes I come though my smartphone browser and the infobox is the first thing I see, and it answers 95% of the questions that made me look the person up. Forcing me to read the prose to answer the questions I have is just silly paternalism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, how silly of us to expect a reader to actually read. Cassianto^Talk 22:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It is silly to force someone to read something you wrote, just because you wrote it. Force patrons at Starbucks to read your unpublished manuscripts while they wait for their refills, but let Wikipedia readers decide for themselves why they came to the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed with Cassianto. This is an encyclopaedia. It cannot offer the "wealth of human knowledge" by presenting minor factoids in an ugly box. JAGUAR  22:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Visitors to Wikipedia who want to read the article will, regardless of the presence of an infobox. Surely you don't think that anyone looking for detailed information on a subject will visit an article, see an infobox, and say to themselves, "Well, that's that, no need to read the rest of the article." The sort of person who would do that, however, probably won't bother reading the article if an infobox is not present and they can't get their "minor factoids" at a glance. At any rate, this is an argument I'll never understand; an encyclopedia can present the "wealth of human knowledge" and a summary at the same time. One does not preclude the other. clpo13_(talk) 23:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• The lede provides a summary; we don't need an infobox to provide a summary of the lede. Cassianto^Talk 23:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• The lead? Is information about spouses and education in the lead? Offices held? There's a lot more to infoboxes than what's generally included in the lead. clpo13_(talk) 23:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Why should non-notable spouses and siblings be one of the first things a reader should see? "Offices" suggests, to me, political articles; this is not a political article. As it happens, I'm in favour of iboxes in political articles, which I've included below. Cassianto^Talk 23:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Given that infoboxes have to be read, and are not audio-visual presentations like TV news, the entire "infoboxes are for people too stupid to read" act is ridiculous on its face, and grossly insulting to our readers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. Infoboxes are a staple for these kind of articles in WP. The only reason not to have one is that the majority of the info that might go in the infobox is contentious and cannot be accurately summarized as a single phrase; that hardly seems the case here. We should at least start one and see if it's reasonable. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So because they are "staple" we should blanket use them accross the encyclopaedia, irrespective of the fact that they might not do the job they set out to do. How blinkered of you. Cassianto^Talk 22:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC's, by design, get wide attention. This kind of attitude will hurt any case you may have.

I agree it's possible an Infobox might not work. I don't agree that somehow means we should even think about it.

--A D Monroe III (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Attitude? A passionate opposition to an injudicious support? It's healthy discussion, nothing more. But thanks for taking the moral high ground with me, much appreciated. Cassianto^Talk 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• No Infoboxes should be used occasionally and taken with a pinch a salt. For one, they degrade the presentation of the article by squashing the lead's text to the left while limiting the size of the image. Furthermore, the lead summarises the article so there is no need to repeat minor factoids in an infobox that not only interferes with presentation, but also brings no benefit to the readers. Do they quickly glance at the infobox and then leave the article without reading the main text (which was no doubt painstakingly crafted by those who worked hard to bring this to FA)? It's ugly, it discourages readers from reading the article, and contains nothing of value. JAGUAR  22:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• No -- Oppose an infobox for the following reasons:
  1. Undisciplined expansiveness: A maximum-inclusion approach to fields that leads editors to place repetitive, sometimes downright silly information in the box. (There needs to be clear, prominent advice about not using every single field in every circumstance, and rather the need to ration the information, shaping it to the context.)
  2. Visual degradation: The way infoboxes squash the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.
  3. Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel infoboxes give to articles: here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the boxes says it all.
  4. Disconnected particles. Their domination of the very opening of an article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.)
  5. Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)
  6. Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see WP:Featured lists for what I mean.)

Infoboxes work on complicated articles, and this article most certainly does not fit into that category. I like infoboxes, generally, and think they work extremely well on royal, political, sports, geographical, and film articles; but my worry is that this article only has one simply because some people perceive it to be "normal practise" for all articles to have an infobox, irrespective of the fact that it might not actually do the job required of it. Cassianto^Talk 22:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

These points are primarily focused on stating all infoboxes are bad. That's off-topic for this RfC; the existence of infoboxes throughout WP cannot be decided here. If infoboxes are inherently wrong, an RfC at Template Talk:Infobox would decide that. This RfC is just for an infobox on this article, only. Comments on issues specific to suitability of an infobox in this article, only, are on-topic. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• No – If infoboxes were useful for biographical articles like this they would, would they not?, have been adopted by the professional reference sites such as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, American National Biography Online, Deutsches Biographisches Archiv, World Who's Who, the Dictionary of Canadian Biography etc ect and they haven't. Wikipedia needs to take note of, and learn from, from the authoritative reference works that it seeks to rival. They are professional and we are amateur, but there's no need for us to emphasise that difference by using pointless add-ons. Tim riley talk 07:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. I'm not a particular fan of infoboxes personally, and I've never participated in infobox wars. Still, I came to believe that we should use them whenever a suitable one exists because of
  1. Wikidata integration – it allows the basic information to be structured and automatically parsed by bots, to maintain the Wikidata database (we don't have persondata anymore);
  2. Consistency – If we use infoboxes in most biographies, we should use them for all. There is no particular reasons why some articles should have it, and others not. Potential information bloat should be resolved by normal editing, and any contentious information (e.g. religion) left out wherever not crystal-clear;
  3. Mobile-friendly – if there are users only want to read an infobox (we don't have actual data how many do just that, but there is an assertion that there are many), there is no reason not to cater to them and force them to read the lead instead, and,
  4. End of disruption – last but not the least, those infobox wars are disruptive, and the current situation encourages WP:OWN by vested contributors and wikiprojects (WP:CLASSICAL springs to mind). If we enforce infoboxes project-wide, we remove a silly WP:BIKESHED ground for arguments, and leave the room to discuss real article content issues instead. I would rather be working on an article right now than composing this opinion piece, but I felt inclined to offer my 2c after I saw it at ANI. For the record, I would equally support "not" having an infobox in any article, but that ain't gonna happen because 95% articles already do have it. So we better fill the remaining 5% and be done with it once and for all. No such user (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Wikidata: A straw man: the information about Coward is already held by Wikidata, so any 'need' to generate for export has already taken place
• Consistency: WP:OSE. There are also many biographical articles without IBs
• Mobile-friendly: I find it utterly unfriendly on mobile devices. The IB takes up so much space on the right the text appears almost in a column on the left, detracting from readability.
• End of disruption: That's a ridiculous thing to say. Should we just give in to anyone to 'end disruption'? Shall we stop fighting vandals or trolls because that might bring an end to disruption? You are right that there are better things to do, and with 5 million-plus other articles, I wonder why there is always so much kerfuffle from the IB warriors trying to force the formatting issue where it isn't needed. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Wikidata: Not really a straw man: Information in infoboxes change, as people marry, divorce, change affiliations and ultimately die. If mere presence of an Infobox ensures that the corresponding Wikidata entry is up to date and hopefully cited there, why should I take extra steps to curate it?
• Consistency: In styling and article naming discussions, WP:OSE is actually a valid argument – we prefer the stuff to be consistently named and formatted across the field, if suitable. Otherwise, we should scrap MOS and AT. (Um, maybe it's not so bad idea after all...)
• End of disruption: My experience shows that silly wars end when a vocal minority, after years of resisting change, finally gives up and succumbs to repeated demands by "silent majority" regardless if they were "right". Diacritic wars, American cities naming, breed capitalization... SMcCandlish could probably list quite a few. In the infoboxes case, I think my position is that of the "silent majority": I've never participated in any such debate so far, but eventually came to support that position as a reasonable (probably not "best", but metrics is hard to define) thing to do. If every while a semi-newbie editor unaware of this debate adds an infobox to "your" article in completely good faith, how long do you plan reverting them? And I don't mind being on the losing side: for example, my pet peeve are jammed, amateurish, bloated infobox collage photos that are now featured in pretty much every major {{Infobox settlement}} (although they've never been sanctioned by any MOS entry, on the contrary). You know what? I stopped caring and reverting, and I can focus on things I actually like to do instead. No such user (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Wikidata: "Information in infoboxes change, as people marry, divorce, change affiliations and ultimately die: yeeeesss.... Coward died 43 years ago, so he is unlikely to divorce, change affiliations and die for a second time. He was always unlikely to marry!
• Consistency: I'm glad you agree we can stick with OSE: there are several biographies, including FA-rated authors, that have no IB. Wikipedia has not fallen over without their absence
• End of disruption: You are free to do what you want with your approach to articles, but I, for one, will not be bullied off articles by a "silent majority". This isn't a vote: this is aupposed to be a discussion based on arguments about the inclusion of an IB on this article. So far no-one has produced any arguments about this article (and your comment about "people marry, divorce, change affiliations", etc are a stark example of a general discussion that has no place when it comes to discussing this article. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

No such user, WP:OWN is not limited to those of us who oppose infoboxes here; it could also be said that those who support one OWN it based upon their insistence to have one implemented. Cassianto^Talk 08:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto, That's flawed rubbish, if you don't mind me reusing your expression (it was submitted under CC-BY-SA after all). This is a public RFC, I expressed my honest opinion. I don't insist on anything. No such user (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

So you don't mind others pointing out their 'honest opinion' about the more widespread and disruptive approach by many others about the ownership of the formatting on top right-hand corner of every article? That's about the same level of sense you're employing. - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You can borrow my expressions if you like, No such user, seeing as they very much apply to your comments. It's a sheer fucking travesty that this article is now about to be bastardised by the "public" who have had no prior involvement in its authoring. Cassianto^Talk 09:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes The world won't end if a infobox is not included, but as a reader I generally find infoboxes useful and informative. There are occasions where the article is too complex or disputed to be able to accurately portray one, but I don't see that as being a problem here. A simple one as presented below would suffice. AIRcorn (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So what you're saying is, the world will end of one isn't included? Also, could you explain the benefits for having an infobox in this article and this article alone, rather than genrally speaking. I hate to break it to you, but that's the whole point of this sorry affair. Cassianto^Talk 10:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
    • No I didn't say that, and if you calmed down a bit you would see that. What I am saying is that the article is fine without an infobox and will also be fine with one. I do not see this as a case of spewing forth benefit or disadvantage rhetoric, but more a matter of editorial judgement. I think there is an advantage to the reader (the person who we should be writing for) to include infoboxs as they provide a neat summary of who the person is. In some articles they don't work (basically because there is no succinct way to provide the required information in context) and some fields just cause headaches and should not be included. I don't see that as an issue here and the example infobox below shows that it is possible. AIRcorn (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Please don't patronise me; I'm perfectly calm and I don't know how you'd know anyway sitting from behind your keyboard, thousands of miles away. Anyway, maybe you could tell me the benefits of repeating the date of birth, death, profession, and years active, given that they are all in the first line of the lead section? Would a "reader" not "read" that to satisfy their own curiosity? Cassianto^Talk 06:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
        • The quantity and the tone of your comments here suggests otherwise. Using that logic we may as well not have a lead as that is just repeating information in the body. Basically readers will read differing amounts of articles. Some will read the whole thing, some may even read the references and external links as well. Others might just read the lead. And yes some will just look at the infobox. I see no reason to deny them this opportunity unless there is a good reason not too. AIRcorn (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
          • No, dont be impertinent. A lead section summarises the whole article; the infobox summarises nothing that can't otherwise be found in the lead section It is merely a repeat of the lead section. Are you seriously suggesting that our readers should be treated like idiots by having a summary of a summary? Cassianto^Talk 11:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
            • Yes. Or more specifically, if I'm looking up when a person died or how old they currently are, something I do frequently, I want to look to the place where I can reliably find such information: The infobox. Even if I'm not specifically looking for only those tidbits, I usually want that information before I begin reading the article (if I'm looking to read and not just distill one or two fast facts.) I do not want to have to scan several paragraphs of stupid text to find one isolated fact (that may not be there) that is readily available in a standardized location. So I guess you'd consider me an idiot. Before you ask, "What specifically from the lead is missing?": What age was he at death? Where did he die? Over which years was he active in the arts? And this is my first experience with the infoxbox wars. LaughingVulcan 01:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• No. The relevant and key information on this article is contained in the lead, and is given with the appropriate amount of context and nuance, with the most important being in the first line or two, rather than boiled-down factoids. Looking at the inclusion of the IB on my mobile (I added in Preview version) the IB takes up so much space on the right that the text appears almost in a column on the left, detracting from readability. The Arbcom case on IBs says not to discuss the general arguments on IBs, but to focus on the use in the specific article. So far I see only ILIKEIT arguments, and nothing in policy, guideline or procedure that argues for the inclusion of an IB on this particular article. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Summarises information in a form the reader can find readily. Personally, and anecdotally, my mobile has no problem with displaying infoboxes in either mobile or desktop view. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Are you even bothering to read the arguments put forward here? Cassianto^Talk 11:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I have. I have considered them, and given my opinion in brief. Are you snapping (because that's what it comes across as) at everyone who offers an opinion? My opinion can be weighed at the end of the process. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I bet it must've taken a lot of thought for you to have come up with that insightful opinion. Maybe you could now offer your opinion in terms of this Infobox? Your view is a generalisation. Cassianto^Talk 12:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• No Adds nothing of value whatsoever. Better without.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes In conjunction with the lead, an infobox provides a clear, concise summary of the biographical article in a way that cannot be accomplished by any other mechanism. Alansohn (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• To (mis)quote from A D Monroe III above, These points are primarily focused on stating all infoboxes are good. That's off-topic for this RfC; the existence of infoboxes throughout WP cannot be decided here. If infoboxes are inherently right, an RfC at Template Talk:Infobox would decide that. This RfC is just for an infobox on this article, only. Comments on issues specific to suitability of an infobox in this article, only, are on-topic. - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Let me rephrase so that there is no ambiguity: In conjunction with the lead, an infobox here will provide a clear, concise summary of the biographical article in a way that cannot be accomplished by any other mechanism.
  Let me know if you have any other misinterpretations. Alansohn (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no misinterpretation - not on my account anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Quit your bullshit snark by repeating this in a flippant way. Which parts within this infobox do you find most helpful when compared to the first few lines of the lede section? Cassianto^Talk 22:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, this article would benefit from having an infobox. It would add value by making the vital facts about Coward's life accessible at a glance. The proposed version looks fine to me (I don't see anything "ugly" about it). But if this RfC results in no consensus, using a collapsed infobox (like at Frank Sinatra) would be a reasonable compromise. --Albany NY (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• No, if this RfC results in no consensus, then there is no consensus to add any IB, collapsed or not. - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• No, per SchroCat. While Iboxen are rightly standard for many types of articles for standard things with standard info, they are of very questionable value in articles like this. I will always be likely to side with editors who have done the work on the article, if they have strong views. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, Infoboxes aren't always required, for example where the information stored in them serves no other purpose then to exist providing minimal information (e.g. name, a date, and an image) and replicate everything written in the first two sentences of the lede they can be dispensed with. In this case, it will provide a neat summation for the reader, even neater than the lede which is at about the maximum size generally allowable (four paragraphs for the lede as I recall). I imagine that many readers don't come to an article to read the whole thing, the lede and an infobox provide the general gist and the reader can then choose whether to read on or not if they have gathered the information they are interested in. I saw the version of the infobox that may be included below, first it takes up not much more space than the lede and second it provides just enough information, although I'd include a few of his works (plays at least) as well, to be useful. Especially given the length of the lede and the general laziness of the human population who are reverting to the attention span of a three year old. Besides, the text of the lede is already squashed to the left barring the very last line due to the size of the image, this will have minimum (let's be honest, absolutely no tangible) impact on the article for a desktop reader. I am not sure if this also applies to mobile readers, to be entirely honest, as I don't regularly use my mobile to read Wikipedia on the count of it being straight out of 2004. I'd also like to comment shortly on point 5 of Cassianto's vote as they pose a series of questions. In my own experience on Wikipedia, the first thing I see when I open an article is the image and infobox and generally also the first thing I read as well. Then, based on the infobox I either move on to read the lede and occasionally entire article or if I was merely interested in the most compact summation of the article possible I read the infobox and move on (tbh, this is usually in search of a date for an event; such as a battle, war, or death). As to the missing functionality without an infobox, simple; the most compact summation possible. Not unusually the very first thing that some (OR; many to most) readers will look at. It is a sad fact that your average reader has neither the time nor the will to learn by reading an article, I myself have learned far more about a subject through researching and writing about it for Wikipedia (an excellent example here is Macrinus and Caracalla as I had never heard of the first and knew only that the second was a tyrant before expanding and indeed re-writing our articles on them) then I would have had I just opened up the article and mostly skimmed it. That said, I also learn a fair amount when reviewing an article as well. So, unless you bring the reader in to write or review the article, I honestly expect them to just skim the infobox or ctrl-f something specific. Let's be real, an article with 100,000 readers a year (for example) has in fact 100,000 clickers on the article and probably less that 10% (or 10,000) actual readers who read the entire thing. But again, citation needed, and this is my own opinion based on both my reading (on Wikipedia) behaviour and those of people I know. I like to learn and so my recourse if I am not writing it is, as I have said, to review it. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, Wikipedia exists for the benefit of the readers, not the content writers. If wikipedia readers want an infobox, we should make one available. Readers who do not like them can simply overlook them. I personally find them useful when I want to quickly glean certain facts instead of looking through an entire article. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

What the infobox might look like

A potential version of the proposed infobox
Sir Noël Coward Coward in 1972, by Allan Warren Born Noël Peirce Coward (1899-12-16)16 December 1899 Teddington, Middlesex, England Died 26 March 1973(1973-03-26) (aged 73) Blue Harbour, Port Maria, Jamaica Occupation(s) Actor, playwright, director, composer, singer Years active 1911–1973 Partner Graham Payn

It might be helpful to see what the infobox would look like.
I have here inserted how the infobox looked just before it was removed.
To make it easier to judge whether an infobox would be useful of not, please add any information thought necessary or useful, or change to a different infobox.
--Boson (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not helpful, and it's disruptive for you to distract away from an RfC that has only just begun. Cassianto^Talk 23:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Since the RfC is about whether to include the infobox, I don't see how it is disruptive to show anybody who has not yet formed an opinion what the infobox you are talking about would look like. --Boson (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

People know what an infobox looks like for heavens sake! Moreover, we are most certainly not at the stage of discussing which fields to include or omit. Cassianto^Talk 23:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually WP:BLUDGEONing every's pro-infobox commenter in every infobox discussion, again and again and again, is what's disruptive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I could say the same for your disruptive posts. Cassianto^Talk 23:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You're not one to talk about post length, either in the singular (see [2]) or in the dominate-the-page sense – I see at least 15 posts by you in this RfC (not counting attempts to drown out others in previous rounds of discussion), an RfC in which only 14 people have !voted as of this writing. This is obviously a WP:BLUDGEON problem, Cassianto).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• • Do you even know what a wall of text is? You should do, seeing as you provide at least one in every discussion. The diff you link to is readable as it is broken into sections and a numerical list. Cassianto^Talk 06:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Would expect it to list at least a few of Coward's best-known works, and some major awards, for improved context.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• Looks fine to me, agree notable works would improve it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with the RFC that is drawing up new fields for the infobox. hat_size= and shoe_size=, I am looking up the references for Coward now. I am not sure if we are supposed to use metric or imperial measurements. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Delicious! Neatly points up the inanity of info-boxes for articles like this. They add precisely nothing of value. Tim riley talk 07:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Where in this discussion is anyone proposing adding such pointless trivia to this infobox. Something smells fishy and a bit like burning straw.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think we can all agree that the images by Allan Warren are amazing. The colors are so vibrant, and the lighting perfect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I thanked him for contributing to Commons. Wish more pros would.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, the Infobox as shown above it a quick way for users to get some basic info. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So is the lede. Cassianto^Talk 18:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I have put together the second proposed infobox which now lists some notable plays (as some mentioned they'd like to see in the box in the comments above) and his official website. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A second potential version of the proposed infobox with plays and official website listed

Sir Noël Coward Coward in 1972, by Allan Warren Born Noël Peirce Coward (1899-12-16)16 December 1899 Teddington, Middlesex, England Died 26 March 1973(1973-03-26) (aged 73) Blue Harbour, Port Maria, Jamaica Occupation(s) Actor, playwright, director, composer, singer Years active 1911–1973 Notable work Hay Fever, Blithe Spirit, Present Laughter, Design for Living Partner Graham Payn Website www.noelcoward.com