Talk:Cary Grant: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:35, 13 June 2017 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,313 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Cary Grant/Archive 4) (bot← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:23, 20 June 2017 edit undoBmatthewshea (talk \| contribs)403 edits →Infobox Next edit →
Line 41:		Line 41:

	My suggestion is to mock up one here on the talk page, with the proposed information that would be included in it, and then have an official ] on whether to include it in this article. There literally is no other satisfactory way to resolve the question, as these discussions tend to be circular and endless otherwise. ] (]) 11:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)		My suggestion is to mock up one here on the talk page, with the proposed information that would be included in it, and then have an official ] on whether to include it in this article. There literally is no other satisfactory way to resolve the question, as these discussions tend to be circular and endless otherwise. ] (]) 11:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

			^^^You editors/etc spent too much time deliberating. Put the damn infobox back on this page and others where it was removed. It's what it's for. Quick information at top. WITHOUT READING THROUGH ENTIRE ARTICLE FOR WHAT YOU SEEK. That's the whole point is it not? As to whether it makes an actual editor not read entire article so less editing is done - that is a laughable reason for removing it. Get real. --] (]) 21:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

	== His clothing donated to charity after death ==		== His clothing donated to charity after death ==

Revision as of 21:23, 20 June 2017

Cary Grant has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 15, 2016. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cary Grant article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Top-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Bristol High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	At least one photograph is included in this article
	This article has an infobox

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Theatre Mid‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies: This tag does not make any definite assertions about Grant's sexuality; however, having reviewed the text, it is of significant enough note that the banner is warranted.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Template:WP1.0

Infobox

Why should we not put an info box?Thenabster126 (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

consensus re: no infobox We hope (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What Consensus are you referring to? Seems that there was support for restoring it.--JOJ 00:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

To throw in my two cents, I think infoboxes are an important aspect of an article, and Grant seems to (randomly) be the only famous, impactful person on this entire site without one. I like looking at an infobox and instantly seeing age/spouses/etc instead of having to scroll through the entire article looking for one basic piece of information, which I know "discourages reading entire page" but people will read an article if they want, regardless of condensed info. TropicAces (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't wish to start a war here, but I agree that of all the well-developed articles on influential, well-known people I've seen on here, this seems to be the only one where the infobox was deliberately removed, and it just looks weird. The infoboxes have become a recognizable feature of Misplaced Pages, and while they do repeat some info from the main body of the article, they are also really helpful for giving a summary of the main points about a person (birth, death, birthplace, etc.) I hope this isn't the start of some movement to remove them all from articles of famous people who aren't in sports or politics, as doing this would discourage me from using Misplaced Pages because I don't want to have to read walls of text to get a short summary of a person with a lengthy article. TheBlinkster (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

For your information, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, not to mention the many more articles listed at WP:FA that don't use infoboxes. But on behalf of other content creators everywhere, I do apologise for making you read the "walls of text" we have sweated blood and tears over. Cassianto 22:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a useful tool to obtain information, and a feature that makes it easier and quicker to find basic information should be welcomed, not disparaged because then people don't read all the content. Many users of traditional encyclopedias for reference have used them to search for a particular fact or two, with the reading of the longer article an option if you wanted more in-depth information. Encyclopedias aren't about the reader appreciating the hard work of the content creator, but about presenting useful information in the forms in which it will be most useful, in my opinion. TheBlinkster (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Then maybe we should not bother at all then? Let's have a sodding infobox and be done with it. Cassianto 23:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion is to mock up one here on the talk page, with the proposed information that would be included in it, and then have an official WP:RfC on whether to include it in this article. There literally is no other satisfactory way to resolve the question, as these discussions tend to be circular and endless otherwise. Softlavender (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

^^^You editors/etc spent too much time deliberating. Put the damn infobox back on this page and others where it was removed. It's what it's for. Quick information at top. WITHOUT READING THROUGH ENTIRE ARTICLE FOR WHAT YOU SEEK. That's the whole point is it not? As to whether it makes an actual editor not read entire article so less editing is done - that is a laughable reason for removing it. Get real. --Brady Shea (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

His clothing donated to charity after death

Both New York magazine and The Wall Street Journal reported that his clothing was donated discreetly to the poor and homeless after his death, which is in line with Jennifer working on homeless issues at a law firm before becoming an actress. The article currently says something different, that it went to celebrities and others. I think the article should be corrected on this point, as these are two very high quality sources. I will leave this to regular editors here to decide what to do. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. I decided to make the edit myself, adding a new sourced line. 5Q5 (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I've removed it because in my opinion, it adds nothing of value. Feel free to discuss, though, should you feel it particularly important to mention where Grant's clothes went to after his death. Cassianto 17:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Disagree My edit in the article providing high quality news media sources stating that Cary Grant's clothes were donated to the poor and homeless after his death was reverted by editor Cassianto who called it an "Uninteresting factoid not worthy of inclusion." I therefore wish to store the deleted line and reference here in protest because the line contradicts and corrects the claim currently in the article that is sourced to third party 1997 biographer Graham McCann (the book's copyright actually says 1996, Cary Grant: A Class Apart), who never communicated with Grant's daughter or wife when writing his book and who, according to this Misplaced Pages article, says his clothes were donated to "Frank Sinatra, Roderick Mann, Stanley Donen, Kirk Kerkorian and others." I could not verify this claim searching for these names in the book on books.google. Here is the "uninteresting" deleted line "not worthy of inclusion" (it could have been tweaked by any editor if necessary, as opposed to deletion):

The Wall Street Journal reported on August 24, 2016 in an interview with Jennifer Grant that she donated her father's clothing to charitable organizations and the homeless.

Binkley, Christina (24 August 2016). "The Strange Journey of Cary Grant's Suits". wsj.com. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 18 January 2017. Today the clothing of celebrities goes to auction; the actor's daughter gave away his famously stylish wardrobe without anyone realizing. Excerpted also in New York magazine August 26, 2016.

Finally, I wish to express my position that this article currently suffers from a lack of credibility due its preference for poor quality sources, those being biographies by strangers and fan websites over mainstream news media interviews with Grant's daughter and wife. It therefore isn't worth my time to attempt future edits. The article simply cannot be trusted. Good day. 5Q5 (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You can throw a tantrum as much as you like, your edit was not an improvement. It's as simple as that. Cassianto 18:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Minor bequests, regardless of who got them, don't belong in the article at all. I'm debating whether to delete the entire last line, in fact. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not a Wiki editor and don't claim to know the hows and whys, but would point out that Grant was and continues to be famous for his sartorial style. There is a reason the WSJ published the story referenced above. 38.116.36.205 (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Mike P

Yeah, I've axed the last line. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

1917

The lighting of magician David Devant was at the Bristol Empire theatre, not the Hippodrome. Devant headed the variety bill in the week of November 19, 1917, when Leach was operating the arc lamps. He almost caused a disaster for Devant by letting a spotlight fall on what was supposed to be a concealed mirror (source: Bristol's Forgotten Empire, by Terry Hallett, published in 2000). For information, Devant's only appearance at the Hippodrome had been in 1914. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.14.179 (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC) The text has still not been corrected.

"Arsenic and Old Lace": Which President Roosevelt?

Why was my addition of "Teddy" to specify which Roosevelt in the description reverted? It seems a legitimate clarification, especially since it is likely that a large portion of Misplaced Pages readers have no experience with either the film or the play. Was it the use of the familiar "Teddy" instead of the formal "Theodore"? If so, why wasn't the edit modified, instead of being reverted? Gil gosseyn (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree and have restored your edit. Dr. K. 01:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Gil gosseyn (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Thank you for the disambiguation. Dr. K. 14:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Categories: