Talk:Harry Lauder

Copyright violation

The original content of this page [1] is a copyright violation of [2], as pointed out by Giano_II. I have begun rewriting the article to avoid this. "Early Life" is rewritten, but further material remains to be removed. Choess 02:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The rewrite is complete. Choess 17:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said to Giano, there's still something of a void at the heart of the article — it doesn't really do a good job of describing what Lauder's act was like, what his talents were, and so on. Music hall performers, alas, are really beyond my competence, but I suppose we'll have to trust in eventualism to fix up the article in that respect. Choess 19:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My Uncle Sir Harry was a Vaudvillian who sang beautifully and was a terrific comedian. He and Charlie Chaplin appeared together on stage and they were much alike...and I have pictures of them together. He was in his glory on stage and quite a crowd pleaser..He was married to my grandfather George T. Vallance's sister Anne...there were 17 children in their family.(8/30/08..Sandra Vallance) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottish girl (talk • contribs) 06:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Knighthood

I understand Sir Harry Lauder was the first musichall artist to be knighted. can anyone confirm this? (Trevek (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

Sir Harry was my great Uncle,he was married to my grandfathers sister Anne and I have many pictures of them. I do believe you are correct, as this sounds familiar to what I have heard. I do remember my grandfather telling me about Sir Harry being Knighted and I will try to look in my family records to confirm. Our family name is Vallance and Anne and my grandfather George T. Vallance had 15 siblings who were born in Scotland...there were 17 total who lived. (Scottish Girl 8/30/08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottish girl (talk • contribs) 06:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's wonderful. Very interesting. Thanks (79.190.69.142 (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Farewell Tours

I have heard that Harry Lauder was so greatly popular that after he made a "Farewell Tour", there was huge demand for another tour, and that this happened so often enough that they came to be described as "Harry Lauder's Annual Farewell Tour".

I think this is a lovely detail. Can anyone provide a source to confirm this? Wanderer57 (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey.

Anyone know what his plaid tartan kilt was called? Thanks. Programmer13 (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is Lauder Ha'?

Where in Strathaven is Lauder Ha'? --RyanTee82 (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.47.9 (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC) 

Chautauqua

I believe Mr. Lauder toured America as an attraction in the Chautauqua movement, though I don't have the paper citation on me. Pittsburgh Poet (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

'Lady Ann' Lauder

She would only be Lady Ann Lauder if she was born Lady Ann. Otherwise she would be simply 'Lady Lauder' or 'Ann, Lady Lauder'. Valetude (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

I have conducted an initial revamp of the first few paragraphs and of the lead section, but I feel the article is hindered somewhat by the brief, repetitive and extremely redundant infobox which I elect to delete. It is not needed here and will not hamper the articles progress into anything more than a B-class, bearing in mind that we already have Dan Leno, Marie Lloyd, Little Tich and Stanley Holloway all at featured article with no infoboxes. Cassianto^talk 19:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the IB offers very little; I was surprised to find it wasn't removed back in 2014 so have now done so. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox removal 2017

The box was added Boldly, a Revert has taken place, now whoever disagrees, Discusses. It's really not that difficult to understand; unless you're you, it appears. Cassianto^Talk 11:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I will reply to you this once. You should know there is implied consensus as a result of the box being there since 2008 and despite your twistings of the BRD policy to fit whatever you want, you are being bold by removing it, and you should have to discuss. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be talking out of your backside again. Let me teach you how WP:BRD works. It was Boldy added in 2008, yes, but the fact nobody has removed it is not a fucking consensus. All that could mean is that the article doesn't have many visitors and no one could care one way or the other. Next on the BRD cycle is Revert, which I have done, as I believe this offers our readers nothing that the lead section doesn't. Now you, or anyone else, are free do Discuss this WP:DISINFOBOX and why you think the three fields given within it (that also appear in the first line of the Lead Section), are of any benefit to this article. Cassianto^Talk 11:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I'm not. The fact that "no one has removed it", according to WP:CONSENSUS is a consensus! It does however say that it is the weakest form of consensus; I am therefore not opposed to having a discussion over removal of the infobox (as opposed to instating one). jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You and I both know that the fact nobody has removed it over the past nine years or so does not constitute a consensus; it was more of the fact that no one really cared one way or the other. While we're on the subject of "consensus's", may I ask where the discussion and then "consensus" was to add one back in 2008? More to the point, and if we go with your logic, may I also ask if such a consensus was in place for one not being added between 2003 and 2008 when the article omitted one? I would say that there was a consensus during this period and therefore, the addition of an infobox was added against consensus. Why do you and the rest of the idiotbox twatteratti insist on eschewing all common sense in favour of the dumbing down of our articles to visiting readers? Cassianto^Talk 12:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: The article doesn't have many visitors Lie. There have been 67,246 visitors in the last two years. I presume the fact that you're now falling back on your crutch of frankly poor insults means that you've now read WP:CONSENSUS and realized that you are being bold in going against nine years of implied, stable, consensus. In response to your extrapolated logic, the person who added the infobox nine years ago was bold. They however, were not reverted. Therefore, no discussion was required then. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I make no apology in telling you how it is. 67,000 visitors is no great shakes on WP, especially over a two year period; I would bet that most of those visitors would be made up of non-editors, bots, or people fucking around with cats. I like the way you've avoided giving me the rather obvious answers to my recently posed questions, so I'll ask them again: 1) Where was the discussion to add an infobox in 2008? 2) As the article survived 5 years without an infobox, was there no consideration for the presumed "no infobox consensus" when one was added in 2008? Moreover, and in response to your added question, the editor who added one has been reverted nine years later; I don't believe there is a time limit, according to policy, so your point here is moot. Cassianto^Talk 12:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Have you read my response? I'm not going to insult you by doing so, but copying it verbatim would give you the answers you want. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It was unintelligible so it has gone unanswered. Cassianto^Talk 12:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oh look, Jcc, a thread (in the section above) by me from three years ago asking the question about an infobox removal. Presumed consensus has therefore been in place for three years as nobody answered me. That's correct, isn't it? Cassianto^Talk 12:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I wondered how long it would take you until you went to the talk page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

These unanswered questions are stacking up. Best you start answering... Cassianto^Talk 12:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Ill ask again, Jcc:

1. Where was the consensus in 2008 when a box was added, apparently against consensus as there had not been a box for 5 years?
2. Was the box added against consensus in 2008 as by your reckoning, a consensus is present when no one objects?
3. I posed the question in the section above in 2014 saying that the box should be removed and asked for input. Nothing was said. So, in light of your view that a consensus exists if no one opposes, was this three year period enough of a time to assume that the removal was in the interests of consensus? Cassianto^Talk 12:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Just a note to those drive-by editors who are currently being summonsed by a bot to offer an opinion on an article that they care very little about and will, I suspect, never visit again in a month of Sunday's; this was Jcc's response to me for asking him to answer my points above. As predicted, and as noted above, it was my suspicions all along that Jcc was in fact talking out of his derrière. Good day :) Cassianto^Talk 14:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC on 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.

---

Context: There has been an infobox on this page from 2008 (with the page being created in 2003). Two editors above have suggested removal, with one going ahead and removing it.

Page with infobox Page without infobox

Question: Should the infobox be removed from Harry Lauder? Also, what about a collapsible infobox? jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC) Amended 13:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Remove The people who prefer no infobox are those actively working at improving/expanding the article. The editor who started this RfC has made a total of two edits to it--both to revert those actually editing Harry Lauder. His/her interest apparently is in the infobox only--not in the article. We hope (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment Since the above was posted, the editor beginning the RfC has now fixed two dead links in the article. We hope (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Remove Agree entirely with We hope. Time would be far better spent developing the article. An incorrect link is given in the evidently overly hurried statement by Jcc above. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Remove per discussion above. Wholly irrelevant, totally redundant, and dumbs down information that can otherwise be found in the well written lead section. Poor show from Jcc who's felt the need to open an RfC just because he couldn't get his own way, initially. My views around info boxes in general, notwithstanding this one, can be found here. Oh, and oppose a collapsible infobox as the reverted box is far too brief and defeats the object. Cassianto^Talk 13:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Remove. The box is redundant and unhelpful. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not: See arbitration report: "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". -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Remove. I don't see what purpose its intended to serve here. Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Remove. The infobox causes unnecessary clutter at the top of the article by duplicating information already to be found in the body of the article. Clutter at the top of an article is particularly obstructive to the increasing number of readers using mobile phones with narrow displays. --Deskford (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. I prefer the look with the infobox, and infobox seems typical ... e.g for the list of vaudeville performers. Markbassett (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Forget the bloody looks; looks are superficial; what purpose does this infobox serve to our readers? Have you actually even seen it? Cassianto^Talk 03:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Cassianto - Keep is in response to the RFC topic and the infobox is shown by links as part of the above. (Collapsible I did not see a specific proposal and gave no input.). Markbassett (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I find your response completely unintelligible. Would you care to make a bit more sense? Cassianto^Talk 12:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Cassianto - I have already made it simple as I can -- the rfc asked keep or not of the world, and I said Keep. You also asked if I had seen it and I pointed out the links that are part of the question so seeing it seemed rather obviously provided. It is an rfc, I gave a simple response after looking... Not seeing how you are finding the word "keep" unintelligible. Markbassett (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I find it unintelligible as you are basing this rather pathetic "keep" purely on aesthetics. My question to you, if you'd have bothered to actually read my comments properly in the first place, was what benefit does this [three-field] WP:DISINFOBOX offer to the visiting reader? I ask this because everything in the linked box can be found in the first line of the lead section, so it is as much pointless as it is repetitive. Therefore, your !vote has offered nothing beneficial to this rather pointless RfC. But hey, it's good to see the RfC doing its typically excellent best by tempting much-needed input from the people who really matter in all of this - you, and people like you who've never visited it, edited it, or are never likely to visit it or edit it again in the future. – Cassianto^Talk 05:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Cassianto - please desist. A WP:RFC is to get opinions on the question asked, especially from uninvolved outsiders. Nothing else belongs here. Markbassett (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't think you'd be able to answer the question - the likes of you never do. Your opinion offers no substance and no common sense; in fact, it offers nothing at all really... . Your input here has been invaluable and, I think, has strengthened the case not to have an infobox at all. Cassianto^Talk 04:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Remove (Summoned by bot) Normally I love infoboxes, but the one shown above gives very little information and looks a little lame. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep While I agree that the infobox so far is not that informative, that is a reason to improve it, not remove it. There is a large blank area next to the table of contents which IMO looks a lot less interesting than the infobox text. My response to above comments:

There is no requirement that an editor initiating or participating at an RFC have been previously working the article involved; those who have don't WP:OWN it, or have more say over its content than others. This is a Straw man argument. Instead of redirecting attention to jcc's edit history, the comments should focus on pros/cons of infobox inclusion in this particular article.

Infoboxes are by definition repetitive. Wikipedia is written for the benefit of the readers, not the editors; as an educator I know that some readers absorb information best by reading paragraphs of text, others through tabular material; also, at one point in time a reader may come looking for comprehensive information, while at another time he/she may just want a quick fact. Why not serve everyone?

The "arbitration report" mentioned above is a series of comments by and quotes from individual editors. The quote about liberal arts is one editor's opinion, not the arbitrators' decision. The actual arbitration case to which it refers is about sanctioning editors for not abiding by consensus in RFCs like this one, and only states "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."

I see no point in making the infobox collapsible. It's not very long anyway, and hiding the info defeats its purpose of providing quick access to facts.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• STRONG Remove I'm a fan of IBs when they are used properly and where they add to the article. They are not at their best in performing arts biographies and tend only to highlight the trivial, repeating what is found both in the lead and the body (and we don't need telling Lauder's DoB three times for crying out loud!). I wondered who would dive for the gutter first with an accusation of ownership: Anne Delong, please read Wikipedia:Stewardship and don't be so crass as to assume such bad faith from the off; as you said in your recent edit summary "focus on the issue, not the editor". - SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

SchroCat, I wasn't making accusations; I was responding with a policy link to an editor who said flat out that the opinions of the regular editors were the only ones that should count. As far as I can tell, the editors on both sides of this discussion are editing in good faith.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I dont see any reason for a flyby infobox removal mainly on the I dont like it grounds, most of the points are covered by User:Anne Delong but we should be improving stuff and the infobox provides a focal point for information about the subject like a very large number of other articles. MilborneOne (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

"...mainly on the I dont like it grounds" [sic] ...Oh dear, and here we are; the first PA by not only an evident infobox warrior, but one who is also an administrator. Go away, and try to be an adult when taking part in adult conversations. Cassianto^Talk 14:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

WMF tool is out at the moment but a check of the article's history shows it was far from a "flyby". Both editors were working on improvements to the article at the time. We hope (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It's clear the likes of MilborneOne don't really worry about such small matters like "the truth" when desperately trying to secure a PA at the earliest opportunity. Cassianto^Talk 14:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Well not a lot off good faith here, reply to an RFC and all you get is attacked. No I didnt look at the history I took the RFC comments on good faith that this was a stable article that has been recently changed. Clearly "evident infobox warrior" is a nice phrase to use against anybody that doesnt agree with them but I would be offended by the "desperately trying to secure a PA at the earliest opportunity" if I had any idea what the chuff you were on about. If you dont want comments from others then perhaps dont advertise a request for comments and if you do try a bit of respect. MilborneOne (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, your accusation that I deleted the box because "I didn't like it" is both factually wrong and a blatant PA. I arrive at this conclusion because you are undermining my decision to make such an edit and are assuming that what I have done goes against constructive editing behaviour. When you adopt a better tone, I'll adopt better respect. Secondly, I didn't start this retched RfC; it was started by someone who manages to obtain some kind of weird kick by stalking my edits and then starting RfC's simply because they don't like my reverts. Cassianto^Talk 16:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Remove I generally like infoboxes (even sometimes in biographies when they add to the article) but one like this, which has little to no (new) information is just unnecessary and a waste of space. Also it should really be up to the author to decide IB's presence in the article. Appreciate all the money, hard work, time and research they are using to build the article. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Remove per We hope and FrB.TG. It really is just taking up space. MarnetteD|Talk 19:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Remove per everyone above - I prefer infoboxes on all articles however there is no info here to warrant one and in short it adds no encyclopedic value to the article, As noted above it's simply a waste of space and IMHO the article is better off without one. –Davey2010^Talk 21:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Remove As I have said numerous times elsewhere, I cannot see what an infobox brings to an article that is not already in a well written lead. I agree with Cassianto's compelling arguments above. Jack1956 (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep (Summoned by bot) No valid reason to remove. It's brief but can and should be expanded. The arguments above for removal make no sense at all. People are saying "oh it's not very long." So expand the fucking thing. Coretheapple (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Rather predictable. Perhaps you could provide a "valid reason" for keeping it seeing as you've not elaborated in your futile comment above? Or perhaps you'll be consistent with the other nobodies here by not answering the questions put to them. Cassianto^Talk 14:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to the reader, Coretheapple (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope, not good enough I'm afraid. Why do you think repeating the first two lines of the lead section in the three-field infobox is "helpful to the reader"? Cassianto^Talk 17:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest making the infobox longer than that. As I understand this RfC, it relates to whether an infobox should be here at all, not that we should permanently have a three field infobox. Its latest incarnation was three fields. I trust it can be made much longer without much difficulty. Coretheapple (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, and for the umpteenth time, why do you think repeating the first two lines of the lead section in the three-field infobox is "helpful to the reader"? Cassianto^Talk 19:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, and for the umpteenth time, what part of "it can and should be longer" don't you understand? Coretheapple (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Look at your answer and compare it to my question, you fool, and stop evading my question. So you'd oppose this three-field box then? That's the box linked by the filing party. Cassianto^Talk 15:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

We don't think it would, Looks like you're the minority here, I would recommend someone closes this as consensus is clearly against. –Davey2010^Talk 14:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, at its current length it isn't very informative. However, if made longer it would be a good summary of the article for a casual reader, which is the purpose of an infobox. If it doesn't belong here it doesn't belong anywhere. I've seen infoboxes on stubs and short articles, which I agree is ridiculous. But this is a substantial article on a major figure in performing arts.Coretheapple (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

See, to me it's almost as if this article is stuck in its current size and configuration. It can and should be expanded, and the absence of an infobox is going to become conspicuous by its absence, as the vast majority of articles on persons of his stature have infoboxes. Just my opinion, as I indicated I was struck by the utter absence of substance in the "opposes" and the fact that they don't make logical sense. Coretheapple (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Counter arguments seldom ever make sense to those who are not willing to try and understand the arguments to the contrary. Cassianto^Talk 17:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I get it that you don't like infoboxes. Coretheapple (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

That unintelligible retort is not in keeping with the above comment. Please try and engage your brain when responding to comments. Cassianto^Talk 19:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

If you go back to where the RfC began, it was started by an editor not involved in work on the article took issue because two editors who were expanding it removed the infobox. Many of those seen as FAs here are of comparable stature and don't have infoboxes. We hope (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Why does it matter that this RfC was commenced by an editor "not involved in work on the article"? Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Because it's disruptive, especially when that "editor" stalks the contributions of another, like a weirdo. The filer has no interest in this article, illustrated perfectly, by their absence in the article's history. Cassianto^Talk 17:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. But it doesn't address how an infobox would harm this article, given that I trust it would be expanded. Coretheapple (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is up to the removers to justify the removal while you get away scott free with not being able to justify why it should have one in the first place? Cassianto^Talk 19:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Point being that people were expanding the article when the disagreement about box removal began. Since they were in favor of removal, they may not be interested in working with it now because of the dispute. We hope (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, but I don't see how that relates to whether there should be an infobox in this article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I plan to expand this article to FA level, but I'm buggered if I'm going to invest my time and money doing it whilst being dictated too by a load of people who have not helped in its construction and want to OWN the space in the top right hand corner of the article. Cassianto^Talk 17:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Well that's an interesting argument but it doesn't really address the infobox on its merits. Coretheapple (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't need to address the merits for inclusion of an infobox; that is not the question of this RfC. Cassianto^Talk 19:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It very much does in practical, article buildings terms. Some best for the encyc pragmatism here please. Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Whether it's best for the project for any particular editor to avoid certain articles, or even not be editing at all, is beyond the scope of this RfC. Coretheapple (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

So no, in other words. That comment reveals two things about your motivation on this page. Ceoil (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey buddy, I was responding to a bot, and was implored by Cassianto and others to expound on my views. A little AGF would be appreciated. Seems to be in short supply here. Coretheapple (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to assume when I can see contrary facts and intentions. Nor am I your buddy. Only a fool would AGF after a comment like "particular editor...not be editing at all". Ceoil (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

But that comment is correct. Whether editors should be editing at all, whether they are a net plus or minus, is not relevant to this RfC, and editors who say that they may withhold their services are going to get that kind of response. Coretheapple (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Tell me: would you rather have a thoroughly researched, expertly written featured article with no infobox, or a long and detailed infobox on a very poor stub? Cassianto^Talk 19:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Dont waste your breath Cassianto. He has been explicit twice now. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Remove I don't think it adds much in this instance. However, I will say this, I care for this issue about as much as what the plotline of next week's Home and Away is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know what "Remove" means when the infobox was removed already. I would like to see born/died templated and together, - the article right now doesn't give me that. For the place of birth, I have to go below the TOC, for the place of death (if I find "Scotland" from the end of the lead too vague) I have to search. Why make it so hard for the reader to find basic information? Restore infobox please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Fancy seeing you here, and without a bot notification, too! Your vote is as thoughtful and carefully considered, as always. Cassianto^Talk 22:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I saw this on WP:Great Dismal Swamp (where I usually don't look, but for some unexplainable reason got curious enough this time.) This is my second and last comment here, 2 comments max per discussion is a good rule ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment saw this RfC referred to at the Great Dismal Swamp. Favor restoring of the infobox per Gerda Arendt. Infoboxes provide information to users in an easily accessible manner, and one should be in this article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Keep/Restore the infobox. Many senseless arguments have been offered in support of infobox removal, such as for example:

(a) the editor who originally wanted to keep the infobox is posting here rarely, while the editors who want it removed are "actively working at improving/expanding the article" [someone needs a remindes that no one owns Wikipedia articles : "... No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page."]

(b) people who use mobile phones cannot easily read infoboxes [let's get rid of all infoboxes, then];

(c) we should not particularly care for the opinion of people "who've never visited [the article], edited it, or are never likely to visit it or edit it again in the future" [a truly amazing argument!];

(d) infobox contains information "already" and "easily" available elsewhere in the article or in the lede [as a matter of fact, infoboxes are actually meant to contain info already in the article/lede and are corrected if they do not]; and so on.

Moreover, a falsehood has been offered in support of infobox removal. Many participants here have presented the opinion of an editor (Smerus) in a discussion as a wikipedia rule, while it is not. There is no rule nor guideline that suggests avoiding infoboxes in articles about subjects related to "liberal arts fields." End of story!

And it is quite relevant to this RfC, and particular to the tone adopted by some editors favoring removal, that the discussion was about the aforementioned rule about article ownership.

Infoboxes, by their nature, can be useful in Wikipedia. (If anyone wants infoboxes banned they are welcome to open a discussion at the relevant forum.) Here is the consensus in the relevant discussion:

-Infoboxes, in general, appear to be a good thing. They allow information on key facts to be offered about an article to our readers and facilitate reuse of our content. They are customisable to allow editors to decide what to put in or leave out.

-Articles do not need infoboxes. If after discussion at a talk page it is decided that an infobox is not needed, that should be accepted.

-The use of an infobox in an article is a content decision, not a maintenance decision. It should be added as part of content creation, and they should not be added systematically to articles.

-Edit warring over infoboxes should not happen. Ever.

I would suggest a cooling down period for some participants. Tempers are flaring and I suspect someone has already been blocked over this. I vote "Keep" and others "Remove." Let's see where it leads. -The Gnome (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Remove Infoboxes may be de rigueur for articles on actors, but they rarely add value. A well written and properly formatted article is easily navigated. Those who are recommending the exclusion of an infobox here are well known for creating well written and properly formatted articles. Let's just end the distraction of endless debate and let excellent content creators do what they do. Scr★pIron^IV 14:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Once again, there is absolutely no merit whatsoever in positions such as this one, immediately above, as far as Wikipedia's rules and guidelines define merit! No one owns an article, no matter how many ostensibly "well written and properly formatted" other articles they have helped formulate. In an RfC, supposed "excellent content creators" are not above other editors, nor are we supposed to defer to the opinion of "excellent" creators without objection. This RfC is not a "distraction" at all! And trying to present it as a "distraction," in conjunction with some other posts above, is getting very close to insulting. This is a very legitimate and proper RfC. People should be encouraged to vote and offer their opinions. They are also encouraged to acquaint themselves more with some of Wiki's rules. -The Gnome (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Almonst as "insulting" as classing the arguments of other editors as "senseless". Perhaps you could stick to arguing against the substantive points raised, or maybe a cooling off period would work as well for you too? - SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You say above "People should be encouraged to vote and offer their opinions." However when others have done so and their views run counter to yours, you discount their thoughts as "senseless". If own/control factors weren't at work from the pro box side, there wouldn't be this rabid desire regarding a box on an article few have worked at or even read before and probably will do nothing else with. BTW-instead of "suspecting" someone's been blocked over the box, reading would have told you this person asked for a voluntary block for personal, non WP related reasons. We hope (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the characterization of various arguments as "senseless" has been made on account of specific faults in these arguments, faults that have been presented in more detail than they are actually worth - and not because these arguments run "counter to [my] position". But hey (picking one such senseless argument at random), since people who use mobile phones cannot easily read infoboxes, let's get rid of all infoboxes. Sounds quite sensible, that. :-) Apologies if the facts make anyone uncomfortable. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your position doesn't make me uncomfortable at all; saying that others' opinions are senseless can lead to people thinking "why bother-it doesn't matter" re: posting any sort of opinion here. Since you reply to all posts, it appears you've assumed OWNership of the voting/discussion. We hope (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Except much of your characterisations are not "facts", per se, simply your opinion of them. The fact that IBs are not easily read on mobiles is a problem for some people, but your dismissal of that concern is not a "fact", it's just that you don't like the argument. I could classify your opinion of that as "senseless" if I wanted to be as uncivil and dismissive as you have been, but I only use to the term so you can understand. - SchroCat (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. Wrong on all counts. I certainly do not "reply to all posts"! Are you confusing me for Cassianto? :-) The argument about mobile phones is probably not senseless, since the term implies the argument might have some sense but actually does not; more accurately, it's an inane argument, since Wikipedia is intended for all formats and has no rules about ...mobile phones. Here I am, then, trying to explain the merits of infoboxes to at least one poster (We hope) who believes that infoboxes are toilets (and their content turds)! I could not care less about the outcome of this RfC. Which is why I'm not posting up anything else. Have at it, folks, and take care. :-) -The Gnome (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Glad to know this snark session is done. We hope (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Comment Assuming those here are interested in Harry Lauder, I'd like to ask what these editors' plans are for improving/expanding this article? Those who do not want an infobox have added information and worked with references most recently. What does the editor who began the RfC plan to do here in the way of improvement/expansion? We hope (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

We hope, the whole purpose of an RFC is to draw in editors who do not have a special interest in the article under discussion, and therefore are more likely to have a neutral point of view because they don't have time and effort invested. Since you are advocating the removal of another editor's work, how about focusing your comments on why you think it should be removed rather than improved, instead of making comments about the editor who started the RFC?—Anne Delong (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Every accusation of OWN has two sides. It can also be leveled when someone refuses to accept the improvements made by other editors of an article. In this case, two editors were working at expanding and improving this article. The one who was not decided to edit war over their removal of the infobox. Before reaching 3RR, the editor then elected to start the RfC. Actions like this say OWN to me as well as WP:DISRUPT to make a point regarding an infobox.

It seems to have worked because little has been done on the article since that time but many words have been written regarding the infobox-pro or con. So what's helping Wikipedia more-time spent on infobox arguments or time spent improving the actual article? There are more than 2 million stub articles, the last time I checked; some are little more than an infobox and a sentence. People are better served by the expansion and creation of needed articles and not by editors needing to spend time debating infoboxes time and again. We hope (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

We hope, I agree that it would save a lot of time if editors could come to an agreement before resorting to an RFC. I much prefer the type of editing you mention (I've improved more than 300 of these so far this year). I also agree that sometimes there are strong feelings on both sides of an argument, and if a small number of editors are involved, calling an RFC to get more opinions is one of several processes listed in Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy to handle disagreements. While it does take up time, it settles the issue fairly and more securely, allowing everyone to get back to productive editing. Editing decisions shouldn't be based on which side can keep arguing the longest. I have seen situations (not saying this is one) where editors came one by one over a period of time to work on the page, and each was browbeaten by a small group who just kept arguing until the editor gave up went away. An RFC short-circuits this situation by getting together a sizable group of editors who haven't been arguing with each other, so that the resulting decisions are less personal and more readily accepted. It's time consuming, but so far no better process has been found to defuse arguments.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Anne Delong, what makes you think it's in any way beneficial having comments from "editors who 'do not' have a special interest in the article"? Frankly, I couldn't give a toss what they think. Cassianto^Talk 17:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, to answer your question, Cassianto, although the editors called to this RFC may not be particularly interested in the subject of the Harry Lauder article, the fact that they took the time to look at it and express their opinions indicates that they care about the integrity and quality of the encyclopedia, and about insuring that the article reflects Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia editors are supposed to view each subject from a neutral point of view. While it's good to have editors who know the subject well, the best articles are created by the collaboration of content specialists, those who have studied the policies and guidelines, those who write in an easily understood, encyclopedia style, and with some attention from our dedicated copyeditors.—Anne Delong (talk)

Oh, you've changed your mind! They, er, apparently do care, now, hence why they've visited. I do wish you'd make your mind up! To date, I have written 21 featured articles with Lauder being a potential 22nd, and I haven't wasted a second of it reading "policies and guidelines". I happen to think that writing content is more important than anything else on this website; if it wasn't for the content then there wouldn't be policies. You say: "Wikipedia editors are supposed to view each subject from a neutral point of view..." Where is the evidence to suggest that that exists here? Cassianto^Talk 04:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of an RfC is to expand the number of editors involved in a discussion. That seems warranted here. Coretheapple (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of this RfC was to derail my progress on improving this article. Nothing more. Cassianto^Talk 22:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I will offer that articles are ultimately done for the uninvolved readers who may only come there once. Also -- kindly just chill and let RFC processes work, thank you. Markbassett (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Kindly stick your patronising comments where the sun doesn't shine. I see you're not going to answer my question, so I value your opinions just about as much as I value the infobox itself. Cassianto^Talk 04:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Cassianto - within a rfc, questions to clarify the rfc topic are fine. Questions not following WP:RFC topic or conduct are to be avoided. So... any question in survey is read as being on RFC topic, and any question about my response was responded to as one does not understand my input says Keep, or wants clarification or expansion such as basis of it or possible words for it. Annnnnd not going off topic. Again -- just let the RFC run. Cheers.Markbassett (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, this is an unintelligiable answer and one I cannot be bothered to translate. As with you previous responses to me, your response here is designed to deliberately skirt around what my actual question to you was: "what benefits does this infobox bring to this article". It's evident you can't answer it so go away and do something else. I won't be responding to you any further. Cassianto^Talk 04:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

[[[User:Cassianto]] -- OK very simply then: your asking indented to my rfc survey is for info about that input. You placed your question wrong if you wanted something else. And here, we are indented to your discussion of benefits of outside opinions, indented within my offering that outsiders are the target audience, and that you should just chill and let the RFC go .... whatever benefits will exist, spending angst over it does not add value. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Whatever. Cassianto^Talk 06:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Anne and Markbasset, and would add, as a person not previously involved in this article, that this strikes me as a very peculiar RfC, almost as if editors are not thinking things through and are instead "falling in line," offering illogical rote explanations, without thinking about it. The "consensus" (quote unquote) is that this infobox is "redundant" and "not long enough." With all due respect that is completely idiotic reasoning. ALL infoboxes are redundant, except to the extent they may contain signatures, which ordinarily are not in the body of articles. They are designed to provide a quick summary of material in the articles, to inform the casual reader. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the "consensus" is that no infobox at ALL is needed. Ceoil (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the reason does appear to be that the editors don't like infoboxes. Coretheapple (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, and that an incoming swarm do. Same old, same old. A question might be, do we prefer incumbent editors or boxes. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that Mark and Anne have made some salient points - not so much as what they think about an infobox, but the way in which the discussion has gone. I have seen far too many of these infobox feuds recently, and the same names keep coming up again and again. I've dropped my opinion into discussions in the hope that it will be useful, and occasionally closed behemoths like the Noel Coward feud some time back, but the conversation here is just bordering on the ridiculous. The problem here is that I like Cassianto, SchroCat and Ceoil, and they're three guys with similar views and ideals to mine, and I could happily sit down and chat over a pint with all of them, but I've also worked with Anne on the AfC project, trying to rescue drafts on worthwhile topics before they get deleted, and it just pains me to see two groups who I both respect and think do a lot of good work for the project at complete and utter loggerheads with each other.

Yes, there've been a few times where I didn't want an infobox for various reasons, but consensus went against me and it stayed in - and frankly, worse things happen at sea. I don't think the reader cares that much - infoboxes are slightly more detrimental on a mobile as they take up too much real estate, but the dedicated mobile site and app is now starting to work around that, so whether there is one or not in an article is not so important as whether the article is well-written, easy to understand, factually accurate and unbiased. So while I don't mind giving my opinion on an infobox if asked, I don't see any value in badgering people who disagree with me.

It's been quite difficult to put all this down, but as I once read, "it takes a lot to stand up to your enemies - it takes even more to stand up to your friends". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

This is my first encounter with infoboxes, but I think that some of the arguments here, especially the ones that relate to the primacy of preexisting editors and denigrating editors like myself dropping in via bot, are pure WP:OWN. I think the problem goes well beyond this article and encompasses a number of articles in the general subject area. In one article, in which I was summoned by bot too and found myself agreeing with the majority, the dissenter was so thoroughly beaten down that he quit the project. Perhaps he's oversensitive, but I think that needs to be taken into consideration by editors who use the "a contributor will stop working on this article if there is an infobox " argument. I have to say that this is the first time I've ever encountered that kind of argument. I'd like to see how well that goes if this ever gets to arbcom. Coretheapple (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

And as above, those on the opposing side of this argument also see the add an infobox as an OWN statement from the opposition. It's also very disruptive to those actively editing an article to have the need to stop working with it to have yet another infobox discussion; this often happens repeatedly at articles other than this one.

I've quit doing any real text content work-did so some time ago because of the continual infobox conflicts. When one needs to stop working on an article because of the interruptions, it's very easy to say the hell with it. The articles I was working on previously have had no one take up the banner and begin working on them since I stopped. I now spend most of my time at Commons where there are no infoboxes and no one discussing them.

In less than a year, there have been two major attempts to get Arbcom to deal with the infobox dilemma. Editors from both sides of the issue made statements and each time, the cases were declined. So if you think you have the magic formula to get Arbcom to hear this, please, by all means, take it there. We hope (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I think Ritchie is being naive and frankly prationising, and I refer to my comments above noting how Coretheapple is basically saying "I am out to get Cass and you know, fuck the ency". And then there is the matter of incoming swarms. Ceoil (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

That's right, I was summoned by the "fuck Cass" bot[3]. That also explains why I sided with him on the Sid James comedian vs. comic issue, also summoned by the "fuck Cass" bot. That was the discussion in which the editor in the minority was hounded so viciously that he left the project.

@WeHope If one is really interested in a subject I find it odd indeed to abandon work entirely just because of the presence and absence of an infobox. I don't even recall whether there are infoboxes in the articles I created. Usually they are put there by others. I could care less. As deployed in this page, the "I'll stop work if there is an infobox here" argument strikes me as a pressure tactic. It's certainly not a valid argument to keep or remove an infobox, and I think would not be viewed favorably by arbcom if indeed someone wants to pursue the subject. My guess would be that if there is an arbcom on this subject area that it will focus on user behavior and not on the userboxes. That has to be determined by the community, in the process encouraged in the last arbcom. Coretheapple (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I am tired of the constant conflicts regarding infoboxes and don't care whether you find it odd or not; some of your actions might seem odd to me. Whether you view this as a "valid" argument or not doesn't matter as I am stating my opinion, which I seem to have a right to. Go into Arbcom and read the old cases and old requests to see the material regarding infoboxes since you seem to be doubting. We hope (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Another feature of the editing of this page that the editors controlling this article, when not threatening to pick up their marbles and go home, lament "conflict," and then hassle, attack, insult[4][5][6] and WP:BLUDGEON[7][8][9] ever single editor opposing your position. Coretheapple (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Try the mirror-you've done the same thing to those in opposition of yours.We hope (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't responded to a single keep !vote. I was asked by bot to offer a comment, and was immediately WP:BLUDGEONed by the editors controlling this article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No, you've been content to confront them indirectly. "pick up their marbles and go home, lament "conflict,"" "editors controlling this article", and so on. We hope (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Coretheapple I judge people by their words, and that you were summonsed by a bot, or whatwever, means less than nothing to me. Stand by your earlier words, retract, or GTF. This passive agressive "they are all bastards for X, Y, Z reasons, but I'm lovely and would never be cruel position hopping is more transparent than you think. You cant play both sides. Ceoil (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know, i've observed that A) You don't let the facts get in the way of a personal attack and B) Only"keep" !voters are being hassled. As for me. I gave my opinion and Cassianto immediatelyj jumped on me to demand that I engage in colloquy, "lest I be consistent with the other nobodies here" who failed to do so. So I granted his request. You just don't like what you're reading. Coretheapple (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually it appears the WP:OWN behavior on garish display here goes well beyond infoboxes, but seems to afflict quite a few articles in this general subject area. We lost one longtime contributor. How many more will be driven off (certainly from the articles, perhaps from the project) by the tactics we've seen deployed here? Coretheapple (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Your inability or unwillingness to WP:DTS and continue your own WP:BLUDGEONing campaign here is amazing. You begin the process each morning then later move on to something else, returning to this TP to start the conflict anew the next day. So how many people decide to get out because of editors who can't or won't DTS? We hope (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

"Passive aggressive" "you fool" "use half a brain"... etc. Who's the one wielding the stick? Responding to direct personal attacks is not a "DTS" situation. I can respond or not respond however I see fit. You just want your chums to have the last word. And if you don't want to have a discussion with me, why are you having a discussion with me? Coretheapple (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

So where did I say I didn't want a discussion with you? The last word in any discussion-friendly or otherwise-is just that--the last word. It doesn't make the one who has it right. And it also doesn't make your accusations "You just want your chums to have the last word." correct either. We hope (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't respond to this repetitious IDHT question from Cassianto and I didn't respond to this baiting from you. If I respond to either one I imagine you'll immediately say "oh no! There he goes again. Drop the stick!" Coretheapple (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a first-not responding.... Re: your accusation of baiting, those are your written words, they're critical of your opponents in the discussion and aren't directly addressing them. Guess the next thing we'll hear is there's a conspiracy... ;) We hope (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Gee, come to think of it there oughta be a law against editors combining to suppress discussion by people they disagree with. (Oh wait.... there is!) Coretheapple (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Still with the stick and the accusatory comments; have the nerve to say OWN instead of linking it. We hope (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you said that already. I'm not uninterested in Lauder - my dad was entertained by him during the war and I may even have a photo from that era that I was thinking of uploading if I can find it. But the behavior of the editors on this and other pages is so hostile to any changes or even minor additions, the WP:OWN tag-teaming is so open and disgraceful, that I will think twice before spending any time on it. Coretheapple (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

And you've accused everyone who doesn't share your keep opinion of OWN already--again, and again and again...We hope (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:OWN was being argued about long before I even knew this RfC existed. Coretheapple (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• You still haven't answered my fairly easy questions to you half the way up the page, Coretheapple. We are all still waiting for that nugget of complete awesomeness. Cassianto^Talk 13:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Ah but you see if I respond to an IDHT question then I really would be beating a dead horse. I've been perfectly clear. You're just either not comprehending or ... who the hell knows. However, to make you happy, I will repeat for the last time that I believe that this infobox should remain but be expanded to an appropriate length. Right now it is small. Often they are when first put in an article. Is anyone suggesting that this infobox be permanently in its current size? I would hope not. Indeed, such a suggestion would be absurd. Everything in an article can and should be expanded or removed, nothing is permanent. Why are you guys so dead set against changes in the articles you control? I've noticed this. In Sid James, where we were in agreement, it was consequential. (Come to think of it I wasn't summoned there by bot, but saw the discussion at ANI, in a thread commenced by a longtime user who was in the minority and was driven off the project by the way you guys attacked him.) Calling Sid James a "comedian" would have been a significant error in my view. But a friggin infobox? Coretheapple (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The user brought his accusations of being attacked to ANI; the result of the ANI discussion was "storm in a teacup". The editor then chose to exit WP; please amend your comment regarding a supposed attack as the ANI discussion says otherwise. We hope (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Uh yeah, I will amend my comment to say that he was subject of vicious personal attacks and, being a rather sensitive chap, decided to retire. But you're right, albeit unintentionally, in that if there were WP:NPA consequences we would probably not be having this discussion. "Tempest in a teapot" in this context means "you are going to be attacked and we are not going to do anything about it, and if you don't like it, you can lump it." He lumped it. Coretheapple (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

And the way this discussion keeps turning back to editors rather than infoboxes, it appears you're more interested in commenting about them and offering your opinion on their actions than the infobox question you supposedly came here to voice your opinion about. We hope (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You can't be serious. I've been targeted with ad hominems - none of which have perturbed you in the slightest - since I offered by very brief "keep" opinion. "Supposedly" is typical of the snideness that has been directed at me. Coretheapple (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Supposedly fits because you're the only one who really knows your motivation for replying here. You've been throwing a lot of crap into the fan regarding other editors, so it can blow back at times. "So expand the fucking thing." That's part of your initial comment. Not exactly a compelling "keep" argument, is it? We hope (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a perfect keep argument because an infobox is no big deal. If it's short, expand it. Simple. Move on. The very fact that an editor is hounding me to change my !vote, and that you keep bashing me over the head over it, shows how you guys have lost all sense of proportion. Coretheapple (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

But if someone said "Blow the fucking thing to hell.", you'd probably take the editor to ANI over the choice of words. During the time you've been replying at this TP, you've ranted more about editors and your perceptions of them & their behavior than regarding the topic of the RfC-should the box stay or go. So who's lost perspective? Those opposing aren't going to sit back and let you insult them. Nobody gives a roach's behind about whether you vote keep or not-except you and your notions. We hope (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Coretheapple, that answer is not consistent with my question and you are either deliberately not answering my question, or I am, perhaps, not making myself clear enough: per the RfC opener that was posed: "Should the infobox be removed from Harry Lauder?" I asked you the following question in order to try and better understand your rather lame "keep": "Why do you think repeating the first two lines of the lead section in the three-field infobox is helpful to the reader?" I am not here to accept your desires to add more fields to this infobox as that is another RfC on its own. We are discussing this fucking infobox, not a future one, or one that didn't exist at all; we are discussing the one I deleted a week or so ago. If you fail to answer it this time, then I can only assume you are doing what you do best: trolling. Cassianto^Talk 14:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
• Also, please bear in mind, that if you say this three-field idiotbox doesn't help the reader, then I'd kindly ask you to either adjust your vote to "neutral" or "delete", as you will be grossly undermining your argument. Cassianto^Talk 15:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Uh, no. My !vote is keep and expand. See, that's how RfCs work. They're discussions. They're not quasi-legal, rigid inquisitions, in which the exact meaning of very word in the RfC is to be slavishly conformed with. Editors are requested input and they provide opinions. Whether they "strictly conform" with the question is utterly beside the point. Many RfCs are poorly or imprecisely phrased. We're editors, not lemmings. You're engaged in Wikilawyering like it's going out of style (which it has). I know you don't like my answer. You are free to lump it. Anything else? Coretheapple (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think your evasive attitude here speaks volumes and will allow people to draw their inferences from it. Thanks for helping our cause. ;) Cassianto^Talk 15:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Not evasive at all. You seem obsessed with WP:BLUDGEONing me to change my !vote to delete or neutral. But that would be a distortion of my position. Now you should feel free to distort my opinion by saying that "keep and expland" means "delete" or "neutral," and see if that carries any weight with the closing administrator. But don't ask me to oblige you, as you have done again and again and again and again. Coretheapple (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Personally, I couldn't give a toss about your !vote and only persisted in getting an answer from you so others didn't think you were foolish. Unfortunately, you've lived up to that now. As you've consistently failed to answer my quite reasonable questions, I consider your !vote to be worth nothing. Your arguments are as flawed as a one-legged arse kicking competition. Cassianto^Talk 18:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I've stayed away from this discussion so far but that comment, Cassianto, goes so far beyond WP:CIVIL it is quite frankly incredible you're allowed to get away with this time after time. Just drop the stick, it doesn't even resemble a carcass anymore. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You started this shit-fest, so embrace it. Cassianto^Talk 21:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: Cassianto has since amended his comments. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

and again. Maybe if I stop feeding you both, you'll both go away and do something else. Cassianto^Talk 22:01, 10 July 2017 (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.

auto 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.

---

Since auto infoboxes are being implemented ......I have listed this article to be omitted from that process because of the RfC above.....but not sure how long that will work.--Moxy (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

What's an auto infobox? EEng 11:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry was not clear these are being implemented. I am making a list of omissions.--Moxy (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

How about giving the writing a polish, Moxy, or maybe you could find some sources in order to reference some of the uncited information that currently exists? Or is the desire to fix a problem that doesn't exist too great to ignore? Cassianto^Talk 12:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

As per the norm your lost about what is being talked about......I have no intention in editing the page. All about make sure editor's like you don't get into conflicts.--Moxy (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"I have no intention in editing the page..." well, you doing a very poor job of not wanting anything to do with this article as you seem to be rattling the gatepost here, very loudly. Now toddle off. Cassianto^Talk 15:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Redacted - NPA --Moxy (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

And what would be helpful here is for the baiting to stop and not to imply someone else has an illness. We hope (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It is odd to be upset with someone trying to make sure the outcome of the RfC is noticed by others before the Wikidata infoboxe is added . As per many times before hes lost as to what is being discussed. We are all aware of his odd behaviour so no surprise here I guess. --Moxy (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

hes [sic] not lost on what's being discussed at all. You still here? Cassianto^Talk 18:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Moxy coming back with more isn't ending the issues mentioned above. I haven't seen you placing warnings on other articles without boxes-maybe you need to get busy doing that. We hope (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Poor little Moxy; nah, let's keep him here and assist him in making himself look like a complete fool. Cassianto^Talk 18:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm hoping we all have better things to do than continue here because it's beginning to remind me of a discussion from early this year. We hope (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

That we do. Cassianto^Talk 19:15, 27 September 2017 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harry Lauder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629213733/http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/specialcollections/collectionsa-z/scottishtheatrearchive/stacollections/sirharrylauder/ to http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/specialcollections/collectionsa-z/scottishtheatrearchive/stacollections/sirharrylauder/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Scottish critics?

From the article you would think that Lauder's musical hall performances were universally praised. There is a strong element in the Scottish intelligencia which was reviled by Lauder's kitsch music hall stuff, not least Hugh MacDiarmid and folk-revivalists who saw Lauder as a kind of cheesy, black-face equivelent. Indeed, MacDiarmid wrote a poem about Lauder in 1932 called "Allelauder". We should mention this. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Portobello

Portobello, in Edinburgh, rightly claims that Lauder was born there in Bridge Street. So proud is Edinburgh that it named a road after him, Sir Harry Lauder Road. Looking at Scotland's People, his birth certificate shows him as illegitimate, admittedly with his father witnessing the registration (his mother could not write). He never seems to have lived in Edinburgh, his family living in Inveresk, East Lothian in 1881 where his one year younger brother, Matt, is shown as born in Musselburgh. I surmise that Isabella, a domestic servant from Forfar, went to her mother's house - as she was working as a servant in a house in Albany Street, Edinburgh. The rather grander description of John Lauder's (the father) ancestry looks quite suspicious. Sebmelmoth (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)