Talk:John Gielgud

Photo

Can we update the main photo to one of Gielgud to how he actually looked as opposed to what is there now which is a photo of a specific role where he has a particular garb and makeup applied? My suggestion:

Sir John Gielgud in 1972

The One I Left (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

That is Gielgud towards the end of his career. He was still wonderful in the 1970s (I saw him as Spooner) but a photograph of him in his prime is preferable, which is why we chose the Much Ado one. Tim riley talk 06:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on that? Honestly he looks unrecognizable in the Much Ado photo with the garb and makeup.The One I Left (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Well it's the lead image from the article when it was promoted to featured status after community review so, yes, there is consensus for it (though of course consensus can change). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Add Inbox

The inbox of the actor should be added in order to let readers have a rough perspective of the actor's life. Runningman2027 (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

See earlier threads in talk archive. Discussed and rejected for the normal reasons for rejecting info-boxes for arts biographies - there's no objective way to select relevant and important information useful to the reader. Some editors feel that every article should have an info-box, whether useful or not, but that is not Wikipedia's policy. Tim riley talk 09:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is it only ever figures considered highbrow who don't get infoboxes, though? It's a weird phenomenon and I've never heard a compelling argument against it in any case. Humbledaisy (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Humbledaisy, I would like to voice my support for the Gielgud infobox. Seems empty without it, and would be nice for a quick glance of essential information. The One I Left (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I think those top four paragraphs give a better rough perspective and quick glance of essential information in this good article than any info box would do.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC) Sorry - I see it's a featured article... Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding an infobox.

Just following the advice give in the hidden note at the top of the article.

Is it okay to add an infobox to this page? Because, having read the prior discussion, it is clear that it is favored. Also, an infobox is present on just about every major actor's page so I don't see why this one should not have one, especially since it is a featured article. Seems quite incomplete without it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

See earlier discussions. No consensus to add an i-box, and no need for one. Some people want every article to have one, but that is not Wikipedia's policy. Tim riley talk 13:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox (yes, yet again)

Regarding it being a featured article, other featured articles do have one, and I find them only beneficial by having one. It's both aesthetically pleasing on desktop and mobile versions and looks neater at the top.

Aside from that though, the infobox and the lede paragraphs are two completely separate aspects of a Wikipedia BLP article. I don't think just because an article has a terrific lede, it eradicates the purpose of an infobox. There's some upfront information without scouring. Just think infoboxes can be very basic for some, or more detailed for some (let's say those with a long failed marriage rap sheet, or a military career), and still serve a simple purpose.

In any event, even though consensus is not a vote-based matter, for what it's worth, I'd like to discuss it with anyone who's still interested, please. This article and Ralph Richardson. @The One I Left, @Humbledaisy, @Tim riley, @Runningman2027, @Cg2p0B0u8m --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 10:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

See previous entry. You seem to want every WP article to have an i-box, which is not WP's policy. Tim riley talk 11:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I think infoboxes serve a purpose and would be suitable here.The One I Left (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

That's fine if it's not policy. Don't recall where I said every article! I just got here. But certainly highly notable individuals' BLP articles. And without them, their articles feel barren, I'd say. And I see a few users above interested enough that it warrants reopening discussion at least. When a casual reader peruses past measly nobody articles, stubs for example–they might not have an infobox, and so be it. That's natural. But esteemed greats?

There are new voices now, so any naysayers, please give us a fair discussion rather than outright dismissal. Let's discuss pros and cons; new perspectives vs. old ones, etc..

I also have to agree with @The One I Left regarding the image issue. The picture of Gielgud as his lead photo should be a high quality headshot of him, i.e. the one representing him on the roles & awards page. The one in costume is more appropriate for that stage/screen page. So these 2 being swapped feels quite topsy-turvy.

I do hope everyone past and present will at least keep their minds open. Just because something once was doesn't mean it should always be.

@Omnis Scientia My apologies, I forgot to tag you in prior post. And please note, I am tagging proponents and detractors in above chats; no canvassing, all involvement. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 14:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cinemaniac86, indeed the only pages with no infoboxes are usually pages with little information avaliable about that person. Given that casual readers mostly look at the intro and infobox of well-known actors or politicians or sportspeople (and so on), I'm very much in favor of adding an infobox to John Gielgud, Ralph Richardson, and any great actor who does not have one.

Note that Laurence Olivier has an infobox. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. It's taking into consideration those drive-by browsers. Or even those who peruse, stumble upon such a name oblivious to their existence. (Olivier is very well known, Gielgud slightly less, and Richardson even less by the average bloke state-side...especially in today's shallow society.) So, having those key bits of information as the Manual of Style for Infoboxes alludes to for Ralph and John is vital. Even if you see the birthdates at the lede, a birthplace in the next section; eventually learn about Martin Hensler buried, oh, somewhere down below; etc., those are some key aspects. But I'm glad you concur. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 18:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I get a little weary of explaining for the umpteenth time that some articles benefit from i-boxes and others don't. This is, of course, Wikipedia's policy. Where meaningful career stats can be added an i-box is ideal. I use and add them for, e.g., offices held by politicians, benefices held by clergy, and scores achieved by sportsmen and -women. But career stats for actors don't really exist and trying to confect them is not helpful to our readers. Some editors think that despite Wikipedia's policy all articles must have an i-box, and one was unhelpfully forced through by the massed ranks of i-box proselytes (who had not otherwise contributed to the Olivier article in any way). The bullies may steamroller their way through here too, but I hope not. Tim riley talk 16:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's not get hysterical here, steamrolling bullies. I hope we can be civilized and take a sedate approach.

And what I see here, it says on MOS:INFOBOXUSE is that it is neither required nor prohibited. Whether to include one and which parameters to utilize is up to us all chiming in via consensus, should we reach that point.

According to the page (up top), the infobox is meant to "summarizes key features of the page's subject". In no way does this render the article content redundant, according to the description, and that's part of the argument here. It will provide a few key bits with which to intrigue the reader to then learn more. Just basics, and it provides NO DISRUPTION to the content of the article. Not a word amended.

Honestly, this summarizes why perfectly:

• "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content."

--Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 17:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• Perhaps you'd tell us what you'd put in an i-box for JG? People coming to the page will know he was an actor, so no point in adding that: what else would you add? And please don't pooh-pooh the point about bullying. I have sometimes felt extremely bullied about i-boxes, and it is on record that some of the worst i-box bullies have been disciplined by WP for their bullying. Tim riley talk 18:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I am dismayed you had to endure that. I had some similar experiences dealing with a relentless WP:OR attempting to diminish Bette Davis's contributions to the Hollywood Canteen. I'm just saying, moving forward, I sure hope we won't have to deal with that, as I have zero patience for it, regardless.

  Well, the bare minimum is more than enough to warrant an edit box on just about any notable person:

  • Birth date w/ birth place;
  • Death date with death location. These expand beyond what the lede describes, and in particular the latter's detail is muddled in text.
  • One can also add resting place as a parameter.
  • Partner, Martin Hensler, 1962-d.1999. Need to verify the '62, as I read '63 once?
  • Works/Awards - (respectively) Link to the article itself / Link to the subsection further down. Alternate for latter would be to list his EGOT success, but that seems to veer too far from what the MOS:INFOBOX motto is, so I wouldn't recommend that personally.
  • Up top, it'll say Sir John Gielgud OM, CH, as it would any infobox.
  • Years active (quick and easy way to gauge their longevity; in his case, 8 decades)
  • There's also a parameter for monuments? Would the Gielgud Theater count?

  That's my input for right now. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 18:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for a thoughtful answer to my question. I greatly appreciate it, though I don't share your view about the desirability of the suggested additions. But it is such a welcome change from the usual There-should-be-an-ibox-because-there-should be mantras, and I'm grateful to you. Tim riley talk 17:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with User:Cinemaniac86 on his thoughts re: necessary use of infobox. The One I Left (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)