Talk:Nicholas Hoult/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Age

Please stop changing Nicholas's age, he is 20, not 17. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayfox1988 (talk • contribs)

IMDB says he is born in 1989. http://www.mooviees.com/4065-Nicholas-Hoult/celebrity says he is born in 1989. Greswik 21:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not true (or that it is true), but IMDb is not a reliable source of information, because it is mainly user-edited. I've never before seen the website you linked to, but are we sure that it's not user-edited either, or that it got its information from IMDb? I think that the best way to resolve the situation is for anyone who has access to the Births, Marriages & Deaths Index of England & Wales, 1984-2004 (which is the reference for his birth name) to look him up, confirm the right year, and add a reference to the Index.

(That being said, a cursory Google search yields no results that say he was born in 1986, so unless someone can find a reliable source that says he was, I saw we leave it at 1989 for now.) --DearPrudence 00:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop changing Nicholas's age, I know him personally and the man was 20 years old in december. I will try to find a citation of some sort, if only to appease your inquisitive mind.

It's not because we have "inquisitive minds" that we want it referenced, it's because almost every other source we've seen has his birth year as 1989. We're not doubting you, but this is an encyclopaedia, and so any disputed facts should be proven true before they're put into the article. --DearPrudence 20:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop changing the age, thanks.

In the Blockbuster guest blog he did in 2006, he said ""Harold and Maude" is a very funny film, a comedy about an odd twenty year-old man who falls for an eighty year-old woman. It's very dark humour, but I like that. I love watching the relationship between the two main characters. I'm not ready to date any 80 year olds myself yet though. Maybe in a few years as I'm still only 16." so I think it's safe to say that he was born in 1989.

Right, we have confirmation! Thank you, anonymous poster. I'll change the year back and add the reference ([1]), since it's such a contested topic. --DearPrudence 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That is hardly viable confirmation, sorry.

How? Hoult wrote in a blog in 2006 that he was sixteen; therefore, he was born in 1989. --DearPrudence 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A link to the article would be appreciated, until then i will not accept these unviable manipulations of information.

Here: [2] I linked to it in the article. Look at the entry for July 3rd: "'Harold and Maude' is a very funny film, a comedy about an odd twenty year-old man who falls for an eighty year-old woman. It's very dark humour, but I like that. I love watching the relationship between the two main characters. I'm not ready to date any 80 year olds myself yet though. Maybe in a few years as I'm still only 16!" If he was 16 in mid-2006, then he was definitely born in 1989. --DearPrudence 16:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't provide any decent source of information but he's often about where I live as he's friends with my mate who plays basketball with him (or something like that). He's 17. IMDB is correct. How on earth does anyone claim him to be 20? Hehe. He was tiny in About A Boy in 2002... --Python911 13:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The man is 21 this year, my sister who is at a similar age knows him personally and can verify this. Until you can physically prove that he is in fact, 17, then I will not accept changes to this article.

We DO have proof that he's 17. In an exclusive blog he did for Blockbuster.co.uk, he writes, "'Harold and Maude' is a very funny film, a comedy about an odd twenty year-old man who falls for an eighty year-old woman. It's very dark humour, but I like that. I love watching the relationship between the two main characters. I'm not ready to date any 80 year olds myself yet though. Maybe in a few years as I'm still only 16!" You can find it here in his entry for July 3rd, 2006. If he was 16 in mid-2006, he was definitely born in 1989. If you can provide counter-proof, then go ahead, but until you do, our best bet is keeping it at 1989. --DearPrudence 16:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you leave me no other choice than to fight indefinitely until this injustice stops. I will always restore Nicholas to his rightful age, and stop oppressors such as you from undermining him.

Dearprudence, you're becoming quite the antagonist, please withdraw your comments and curve your behaviour before further disciplinary action is required.

I'm not being antagonistic; I have been as reasonable and polite as possible. To be honest, I don't know that much about Hoult, and I don't doubt you when you say that you know him, but as this is an encyclopaedia, and his age is in great dispute, we need a reference. We already have a dated quote from Hoult himself that implies he was born in 1989; if you can provide counter-proof (with a proper citation), then go ahead and post it, but until you do, that quote from Hoult is the best we have.

It was never my intention to sound antagonistic; I didn't start the dispute over his age, anyway, and am only supporting his being born in 1989 because another (unsigned) poster provided a proper reference. --DearPrudence 17:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've stumbled upon this from the request for comment page. A quick look at the sources for this article and I see that this reference already in the article implies that Hoult was 12 at the time of the interview in January 2002 which would coincide with a birthdate of 1989. Unless a source can be found which explicitly states the birth date as 1986 I can't see a reason to change it. Stardust8212 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing this up! I have added the second reference to the article just to be sure, and hopefully this will end the dispute. --DearPrudence 18:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, i would really appreciate it if this article was locked and rendered uneditable, thanks for contributing useful information, but there are too many vandals changing the age. Who agrees?

Look, this is the final time i will draw attention to this: please stop changing the age, leave it at 1985, or risk the page turning into a farce. It's a far more beneficial option to you.

If you have a reliable source stating the birthdate as 1985 please bring it forward. The current date of birth is sourced from two independent articles and the age will remain as stated there until such time as a different source is presented. Stardust8212 15:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already stated that i feel no inclination whatsoever to provide an citation for you or your cult-like followers, nor am i in any way obliged to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.32.135 (talk • contribs)

Erm, okay. --DearPrudence 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Political Stance

I've heard from various sources that Nicholas holds strong socialist views, and is exceedinly interested in the study and practice of Marxism. This is affirmed by the information at the top of the page, that his father is indeed, a marxist theorician.

Does anyone know if this is true? I suppose it's wise to assume so until further evidence is provided.

School

Nick does not, and never has, attended The Henley College.

I've heard from numerous reliable sources, a newspaper, close friends etc, that he does indeed go to that college.

Then cite it. If you can't back up a claim with a reliable reference (hearsay does not count), it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. --DearPrudence 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

How am i supposed to 'cite' it? There is no online evidence of this, and as it is an external fact, there is no possible method of doing so.

I am a student at The Henley College, and I know a lot of the drama department, and I can assure you they would know about it if Nick went to the college. I also know someone who goes to college with him at a DIFFERENT college, in Wokingham I think. But I forget the name of it.

I too am a student at The Henley College, and i am mutually acquainted with Nicholas through a close friend. He studies drama, philosophy and psychology and is a first year, which should clear up your doubts. Please be more thoughtful and empathetic when making statements. Perhaps you should actually ask the drama department for information?

Is this the same personal knowledge that tells you that Hoult is a lesbian, which you also added to the article? -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas is in my Philosophy class at college, he doesn't really speak unless spoken to, and is quite a humble and shy character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneLane1988 (talk • contribs)

Major

I've noticed alot of vandalism and disruptive editing on this page, something that urgently needs to be rectified. We should leave the page as it is at present, and consider the possibility of it being locked. Who agrees?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.196.238 (talk • contribs)

Well, I agree that you should stop the disruptive editing. Your last edit was not exactly helpful to the article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Understanding

You people need to understand, wikipedia is a powerful media tool in the shaping of ones public persona, try to comprehend that you are victim to malicious editing by the media at practically all times, and that only becoming an artisan of people like Nick's destiny, can you truly reach piece of mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.196.238 (talk • contribs)

Response to RFC

A quick google shows up that he is in The Guardian 18th January 2007 as being 17. So he is 17. It's verifiable. Even if it isn't true in real life it is true in WP until someone finds a source as reliable as The Guardian that says otherwise. See Guardian article by Hannah Pool. Itsmejudith 22:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that extra reference. I've added it as one last citation for the birthyear - as it's still a somewhat contested point, we might as well keep a few references up, at least for a little while. --DearPrudence 23:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A very contested point in deed. This calls for a solid citation to backup the ludicrous claims, likewise for the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneLane1988 (talk • contribs)

If you are implying that we need a solid citation to prove that he was born in 1989, we already have three. And if you believe that he does in fact attend The Henley College, please provide a citation before adding it. We have already come to the conclusion that he does not, but if you have proof that he does, then go ahead. --DearPrudence 16:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dearprudence, I'd like to inform you that this is an encyclopedia filled with content by means of user input. Consequently, i am a user, and feel that the three citations stated above are not relevant and do not fill my criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneLane1988 (talk • contribs)

By all means, feel free to show your reliable sources, then. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Janelane, your statement is incorrect. Please read the guidelines provided by your fellow editors. You (along with everyone who edits Wikipedia) must abide by Wikipedia's content policies).TheRingess (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I must state that i think that you people are very, very wrong and slightly delusional. I hope you're satisfied with your attempts to block useful, genuine knowledge, and happy that your efforts have deplored frustrated, and to some extent justified, others opinions of you.

Age dispute?

Has the dispute on this page over Hoult's age been resolved? It's still listed on the Request for Comment list.--Daveswagon 22:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the dispute has been resolved - I didn't remove it from the RfC list because I assumed it would be deleted automatically. I've deleted it now - thanks for letting us know! --DearPrudence 01:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Daveswagon 01:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The debate is far from over. We still do not have reliable citations for his age; they are vastly out of date and derived from unreliable sources such as word of mouth, and school/college newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.196.238 (talk • contribs)

The articles from The Telegraph and The Gaurdian both meet Wikipedia's policy for reliable sources and are neither word of mouth nor are they school/college newspapers. Also regardless of whether they are out of date the rate at which a person ages does not change over time therefore if his age is known at any point in time it can easily be derived at any other point from the simeple use of mathematics, so this is a moot point. The bolg written by Hoult himself could be considered word of mouth however Wikipedia's policy states that the subject of an article may be used to verify facts about themselves such as date of birth. If you wish to change the date of birth in this article the burden is on you to find sources stating what you claim to be fact. There is no reason to continue debating this unless you can provide at least one reliable source for the birth date you claim. Stardust8212 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I do in fact have reliable sources of age confirmation, but contrary to your knowledge, a world exists outside of the internet, and it seems that you only deem online sources to be valuable. It's a silly approach and must be resolved soon by wikipedia, as you are literally ignoring a world full of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.196.238 (talk • contribs)

Actually you're statement is incorrect. Please read wikipedia's guidelines about reliable sources. It is not true that we use only online sources. The important word here is "reliable". We want material from sources that have reputations for checking and rechecking their facts. We also want sources that are easily available to the average reader. A friend of a friend does not count as a reliable source. Don't build up a strawman argument. The burden is still on you to produce a reliable source, onlinee or not.TheRingess (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Ringess, after a long and thorough read through the wikipedian guidelines, I have come to sympathize with the previous user's plight, despite initally condemning him/her. Wikipedia seems to only validate information if it can be proved online, and the majority of facts are derived from the real world. If you were in fact, an admin, I may heed your words, but wikipedia is for the people, by the people. We are the people, and we can create, or destroy this entire system if we wish to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantum Density (talk • contribs)

Quantum Density, please note that the above user has also refused to supply non-internet sources which may meet Wikipedia policies (such as books, newspaper or magazine articles) and continues to vandalize the page. We cannot just trust every random person's word that "I just know it's true ok so trust me" and that is why this site is run the way it is and just because there is a world outside the internet does not make the three published sources for age wrong. Stardust8212 14:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The information has been restored to its earlier - and justified - state. His age has been corrected (nineteen as opposed to seventeen), his ethnicity has been addressed, and his birthplace is accurate. I wish to thank you all for this discussion, but you did not assist us in the accurate distribution of information. Only an intervention from the man himself was deemed relevant and thus the information on the page is now correct.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.220.44 (talk • contribs)

Your changes have been reverted (not by me) because they were unreferenced. Just saying that "the man himself" intervened is not enough, as it is not verifiable. We already have references for the information on the page now (multiple references, in the case of his birthyear). Please do not add unverified information to the article. --DearPrudence 05:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The page is turning into a farce, why are you allowing this to happen? Leaving the content in a relevant state will suffice, I hope you learn this soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.186.129 (talk) 15:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

The page only turns into a "farce" when false information is added without any references to back it up. --DearPrudence 19:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tony main image.jpg

The image Image:Tony main image.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality

Just to preempt anyone who has seen the same video, Nick gave an interview ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opisjb5mMs4 ) where he alleged that he had had a four month relationship with co-star Joseph Dempsie. I can't find any reference to such a relationship other than that interview, and based on their banter on Soccer AM ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPK2M_-12xE ) I would presume the interview was a case of Nick trying to wind up Joseph. See also 4:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTQDZtx99n8 where the presenter in the first video says "I was looking for a story there James, you could have lied for us". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelem (talk • contribs) 00:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

File:NicholasHoultX-Men FirstClass.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:NicholasHoultX-Men FirstClass.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Career

What does "The director noticed and suggested that he should try out for one" mean? "Try out" for one what?203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Production doesn't go in Filmography

Please note that it's the consensus at WP:FILM that films in pre-production should not be included in an actor's filmography. Doniago (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Request to edit September 8, 2013

Wikipedia has been going around a lot with edits and undo edits regarding Nicholas Hoult's personal life. I find it ironic that there have been many edits undone based on "conjecture" that Nicholas Hoult is dating Jennifer Lawrence again in 2013. This is ironic, because Wikipedia is using as a reference a Perez Hilton site to "factually" state that Nicholas Hoult and Jennifer Lawrence broke up early 2013 - how much more conjecture can that be, with no primary source (i.e., person) referenced? Currently, this is what Wikipedia says: Personal life Hoult dated American actress Jennifer Lawrence, whom he met on the set of the movie X-Men: First Class, since 2010. They split in early 2013.[18].

Would it be fair to simply state that "Hoult dated American actress Jennifer Lawrence, whom he met while making X-Men: First Class in 2010." Then we wouldn't have to get into the nit-picking of when this ended. Either that, or take it out all together. Jennifer has acknowledged that she dated him publicly, but neither she nor Hoult have publicly acknowledged that they have broken up. A reference to their dating can be found many places, one at http://www.entertainmentwise.com/photos/71629/1/PHOTOS-The-Hunger-Games-Fever-Hits-London-For-European-Premiere- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.68.255 (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources considered gossip?

Since WHEN did reliable sources start getting considered gossip? Yahoo, NY Daily News, Huffinton Post, People? This same situation happened recently on Bradley Coopers page where sockpuppeted accounts kept reverting perfectly good edits all claiming them to be "gossipy" when WP:BLPGOSSIP states "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true". 4 reliable sources are not gossip. IP users shouldn't be dictating guidelines if they understand them. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether the sources are reliable and whether Hoult dating Lawrence or or is not gossip notwithstanding, versions of this text have been in and out of the article so frequently over the past several...weeks?...months?...that it seemed the best course of action was to bring the matter here to reach a consensus. DonIago (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

With every other source involving a celebrity relationship, the stars themselves have confirmed the status. In this case, the two have not. This makes any source on the matter fishy at best, and until confirmation occurs, it should be treated as gossip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.18.32 (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you even read the sources I referenced? She calls him "my boyfriend", they are confirmed as a couple again. What about this is gossip again? LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

All speculation. Firstly, an anonymous source could be anyone; second, if they are really together, then why haven't they announced it? As I said, something fishy is going on, and we here on this site should use discretion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.18.32 (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

They don't HAVE to announce anything. It's their private life, if they decided to announce it, it's their choice, and so is not announcing to the world that they are back together. That's the point of having a reliable source is not needing to question the information they are posting. Perez Hilton, TMZ, Star, OK magazine - THAT is gossip, THAT is unreliable sources. Huffington Post, NY Daily News, People - is NOT gossip because they are reliable sources. Your reasoning makes no sense if you don't understand what gossip is and is not. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, People is mentioned on the Gossip Magazine page on this site. Secondly, while it is gossip, it's also speculation. Until they confirm it, all the so called "sources" can do is play up innocent events and turn them into something that they're not. When Liam Hemsworth broke up with Miley Cyrus, their people confirmed it in a day. The fact that neither of them have confirmed it after nearly six months of idle chatter does say something. All I'm asking is that we refrain from speculating until there is confirmation one way or the other; I don't think that's a difficult request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.18.32 (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

So by that logic, then nothing should be on Wikipedia except for the statements actually issued by the actual person of topic. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to issues like romantic lives or illnesses, yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.18.32 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

And that's according to who? You? LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Look, I just don't want people to play fast and loose. Let's all use some discretion. This site is about facts, not speculation. We can all be certain that this is speculation until a statement proves otherwise. 98.197.18.32US — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.18.32 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is speculation. Not every celebrity is going to give a 'breaking news' about there life. They don't need to because it's nobodies business but there own. But they were together for 2 years as a couple that much is true and now they are kissing and going to awards shows together with reliable sources saying they are back together. I'm gonna go with they are back together. Unless you can find a reliable source saying they aren't then I don't see why this cannot be in his personal life. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's speculation because they have not once said they are together. If you play fast and loose with everything you read, then it all becomes fair game. Until he or she gives a statement, which hasn't happened, we should just leave well enough alone. This is an encyclopedic site, not a dumping ground for suspect information.

Yes if they were together for two years with photographs all over the Internet it's not exactly gossip..♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That was between 2011-2012. Nothing like that now that isn't suspect or fishy. We can be sure they were together, but not that they got back together. Too many holes.

Where are you getting this whole "Until he or she gives a statement" thing? Where in guidelines does it say that other than this just being your own personal opinion which isn't how this works. You can't just disagree with reliable sourcing because you say so. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm on your side, Lady Lotus. I attempted to revert these edits several times, but gave up after awhile because it just didn't seem worth it. IP, reliable sources are reliable sources, but I see where you're coming from. A compromise could be rewriting as "according to (Huffpost, Yahoo!, etc.)", or even "according to some news outlets", instead of stating it as fact. Corvoe (speak to me) 01:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

All of this is moot now. They are not together, sources confirmed it, and I was right. So take that Lady Lotus, I'm vindicated at last! 98.196.47.193 (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really since they were really together...They JUST now broke up. It will stay in his personal life with reliable sourcing as it was a significant relationship. So I don't know what you consider vindication... LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Caradoc

Why say that "it was revealed that Hoult's middle name of Caradoc is pronounced /ka.rɑː'dɔk". That is not a revelation, this is the normal pronunciation of the word.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• "He was drawn to acting from a young age and appeared in theatre productions as a child" - I'd tweak the structure of this sentence... "Drawn to acting from a young age, he appeared..." and I'd clarify whether it was local or national or regional theater productions
• "Hoult wanted to study English, but chose to pursue a career in acting and made his screen debut at the age of seven in the 1996 film Intimate Relations," - these content don't make much sense together; I doubt he knew he wanted to study English at age 7. I'd split these into two sentences that contain the same content you're trying to convey: ie. one about english/deciding to choose acting and one about when he made his debut
• "and appeared in the television programmes Magic Grandad and Waking the Dead. " - when?
• "Although dismissive of his character, his performance" - these don't match so the sentence's takeaway message gets lost and garbled
• "Hoult's continued associations with big-budget productions have yielded varying results" - what does "continued" add here?
• "He played Jack in the 2013 film Jack the Giant Slayer, which was a box office bomb, while the 2015 film Mad Max: Fury Road in which he played Nux was a blockbuster." - cut dow the verbiage here
• "Hoult is best-known for his supporting roles but he has turned to starring roles—mostly in independent films—including three of his 2017 roles; the romantic drama Newness and the biographical films Rebel in the Rye and The Current War, in which he played J. D. Salinger and Nikola Tesla, respectively. " - again, separate into multiple sentences
• " Outside film, he voiced Elliot in Lionhead Studios' 2010 action role-playing game Fable III, appeared in theatrical productions including the 2009 West End play New Boy, and is involved in philanthropy, supporting numerous charitable organisations." - I'd keep the first two in the same sentence and move his philanthropy to its own sentence and then specify some of the major organizations

Here are my comments on the lead alone. Overall, I think this needs a good amount of copyediting. I think a peer review would be a good move before an FAC. It's good, but definitely needs some fine-tuning. ceranthor 16:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Noted, Ceranthor. I'll start one soon. VedantTalk 05:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

Let's discuss the prospects here, Tanbircdq. What do you think is so significant about the infobox that it needs to stay? Per WP:INFOBOXUSE, the "use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". And your claim that it needs no discussion isn't quite right as the same guidelines suggests "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".

Now, my rationale for not using it is that it is not adding anything exclusive to the article. In fact, every detail is practically mentioned in the first couple of sentences and therefore it is just redundant information. I'd like you take a look at FAs including Deepika Padukone and Catherine Zeta-Jones as neither of those have an infobox. The idea has been discussed at their respective talk pages and we could always address whatever concerns anyone may have. VedantTalk 20:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the question that needs to be asked is what is your objection to this specific BLP article not having an infobox as opposed to the thousands that do? Rather than making the other stuff exists argument of Deepika Padukone where it appears a few editors have taken the decision a few years ago to not have one. Catherine Zeta-Jones's article appears to have an infobox by the way. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The argument to not have it is that it does not add anything to the article. What I meant by pointing (I might have been a little off point earlier) Padukone and ZJ's articles was that both did not have an infobox at one point and the discussions led to varying results, so it's not an other stuff exists argument (that seems to be your only argument in favour of it) but one that says that varying articles can have varying structures as permitted by the MoS. There isn't a single detail in the infobox that isn't covered in the opening two or three sentences. VedantTalk 11:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd say the content on the lead is excessive to WP:OPENPARA. I can't see why the following two sentences needs to be included in the lead; "Born in Wokingham, Berkshire, he was drawn to acting from a young age. Although Hoult initially wanted to study English, he pursued a career in acting and attended Sylvia Young Theatre School." The subject's birthplace or where he studied has no bearing on his notability. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, you don't seem to be interested in discussing before acting. You cannot go on deleting well substantiated information now? And, even if we eventually come up with a paragraph that sums up his notability (there really isn't any substance for that at this point, no awards, no generalisation as he's probably too young for that), the idea of him having acted as a child cannot come up with context of where and how he began acting, can it? Even in an alternate version of the lead, the second paragraph would have to open with his birth and prefrably his first acting stint, which itself was at the age of three. VedantTalk 20:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Other editors do seem to share the view of the info-box being of little value here. VedantTalk 20:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Well there appears to be WP:OWNERSHIP issues with this article if everytime a good faith edit is made, it's reverted. The body of the article it states "He said the change was difficult; his time there was short and he preferred attending a regular school. He still did not want to pursue acting as a profession and at fourteen he left Sylvia Young Theatre School in favour of Ranelagh School." This content about a performing arts school he attended for a year before leaving for a secondary adds very little to the lead and and isn't necessary.

There's plenty of substance which sums up his notability otherwise he wouldn't have an article. A lot of BLPs of actors have "best known for playing..." (like Sean Pertwee or Zoe Saldana).

I'd say WP:IAR and allow the infoxbox on the article. Tanbircdq (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes the "best known for" bit is used widely but there isn't anything that he is particularly known for (a significant genre or a certain type of roles as such, nor has he won any significant award that can be mentioned in the opening paragraph, his films have had varied box office performances), not as of today. He mighy, eventually. I have worked on other articles and haven't removed info-boxes (just to make it clear), but really do not see the requirement here. However, we continue to differ on the infobox and do not seem to be heading towards a consensus, have RfC then ? VedantTalk 11:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Requesting additional comments

• FrB.TG, Aoba47, Krimuk2.0, and Ceranthor are some editors (that I know of), who have worked on BLPs. Their opinions might help. VedantTalk 11:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Infoboxes have always held a contentious space on Wikipedia. I understand the arguments for and against including infoboxes in BLP articles. This issue of the infobox for BLP articles really needs to be addressed on a broader level so that some sort of standard can be established. I do not have any particular preference either way. Since Numerounovedant has done most of the work on this particular article, I am partial to side with his preference for the article and just use the image rather than the infobox. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, my! Another infobox battle. If there's a vote then my preference is to do without one, and as Aoba said before me, the choice of Vendant, who expanded the article, should be respected. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way when it comes to infoboxes. Right now I think the infobox helps summarize otherwise easy-to-be-missed information, and I don't think it's crufty or too detailed. But I don't think it's absolutely necessary either. ceranthor 15:55, 30 March 2018 (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.

Numerounovedant, this is not how to implement WP:RFC or WP:THIRDOPINION. You appear to have WP:CANVASSED four editors into commenting on here, what are your thoughts on this Fish and karate?

I don't believe the arguments made by Aoba47 and Krimuk2.0 that Numerounovedant doing most of the work on this particular article are valid arguments to side with his preference for the article to use the image rather than the infobox as per the WP:OWN observation I mentioned earlier nor is discussion a WP:VOTE.

The argument that "In fact, every detail is practically mentioned in the first couple of sentences and therefore it is just redundant information" not longer applies as the subject has a child which would be included if he had a infobox as well as his alma mater. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't override a general editing guideline. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tanbircdq: - I just closed the RFC. If you feel strongly that new information has come to light and that an infobox is now warranted, you can start a new RFC here, laying out your case for inclusion, but please bear in mind that infoboxes are one of the lamest things you can get dragged into arguing about on Wikipedia, and goodness knows there's a lot of competition. Fish+Karate 09:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: You "just closed the RfC" without appearing to consider how it's been incorrectly conducted.

Yeah so lame that an RfC was put forward to get the infobox removed, I was accused of edit warring in the process and editors were cancassed who just voted in favour of an editor's preference which led you to think that "the infobox is to be removed". Maybe you should consider not contributing to things you think are "lame." I'll open an RfC myself and hope that other editors can follow and respect the rules of consensus.

No, I feel strongly about Wikipedia consensus guidelines being contravened by clear canvassing and voting. As the closing administrator, you appear to not be concerned by this which is worrying but you're more than happy to call out debatable edit warring. However, you don't appear to have answered my question about the CANVASS and VOTE or do I need to take this to ANI? Tanbircdq (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Data box

Page is missing a data box — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:5E0:2489:2C0C:E6A:DDA:972C (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox 2

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.

---

I propose that it's useful for an infobox to be included on this article.

The previous RfC wasn't done in accordance with WP:RFC or WP:THIRDOPINION as four editors were WP:CANVASSED into commenting of which invalid arguments were made that because Numerounovedant has done most of the work on this particular article the editors sided with his preference for the article to use the image rather than the infobox. This is also contrary to WP:OWN and a discussion isn't a WP:VOTE.

The argument that "In fact, every detail is practically mentioned in the first couple of sentences and therefore it is just redundant information" no longer applies as the subject now has a child which would be included if the article had an infobox as well as his alma mater. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't override a general editing guideline. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• His alma matter is already mentioned in the lead and the child can be easily incorporated in the last sentence of last paragraph as is done for spouses; but we should wait till a confirmation comes from the subject IMO. I still don't what an info-box adds to the article expect for the unnecessary space. Here's a check list:
  • Birth date and place - Line 1.
  • Occupation - Line 1.
  • Years active - Line 3.
  • Alma matter - Last line, para 1.
  • All spouses/children can be mentioned in the last line of the lead.

I don't even care about the infobox TBH and think that this is the least interesting thing to discuss, but if a consensus can help anyone here, then I'll be fine with whatever the outcome is. Have a great day, you guys. VedantTalk 09:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• comment - still not a properly formed RfC. While it is now clear that we are supposed to be commenting on whether or not to keep the info box, you have now skewed the request by peppering the opening paragraph with your opinions about a previous discussion. In addition to the clear and neutral requirement you can check out this section on neutrality in an essay about RfC opening statement writing. In a nutshell, nothing should be written which predisposes a commenter toward a particular point of view. Cheers Edaham (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Accusing an editor of canvassing is a fairly serious accusation; as such, I would ask that diffs be provided to substantiate said accusation, especially with regards to a formal RfC. Also, are we just casting aspersions, or has the matter been escalated as a conduct dispute? Ordinarily I'd say editor conduct isn't relevant, but given that this argument is being used in an attempt to invalidate the prior RfC, it seems significant. As to the matter at hand, I'm not likely to lose sleep over this article having or not having an infobox, though it does seem to me that having an infobox is typical these days. Of course WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. DonIago (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

DonIago, here is the diff of canvassing where the comments of some editors that is known of by the previous RfC requestor are invited.

As per WP:OPENPARA, I don't believe how many children the subject has is noteworthy enough to include in the lead.

He only briefly attended Sylvia Young Theatre School. I'm not sure what content about a performing arts school he attended for a couple of years before leaving for a secondary school adds to the lead as this doesn't appear to be noteworthy enough for inclusion on the lead.

Subject also has a notable great aunt, Anna Neagle, which would be useful to include in the relative section of an infobox should one exist.

Also, if the article had an infobox, is current age would be displayed which would be useful.

Has this now become a question of how many things can be crammed into the lead to avoid the article having an infobox? Tanbircdq (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's stick to the matter at hand, right guys? Questioning my intentions or the integrity of (the opinions) of the previous rfc participants aren't serving anyone here right? Let's for once believe that they are experienced editors who know better that what's being implied. I concur with Edaham that here's barely any use bringing up the previous rfc time and again. For what it's worth, children are mentioned in the leads for Jolie and Pitt, Affleck, Adams,

Moore, Gary Cooper, and Harriet Bosse (it's not OTHERSTUFF, it's general guidelines, right?). Cheers, VedantTalk 19:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• No - I don't believe an infobox would be an improvement. This is an article where the lead is well written and communicates the key information clearly and concisely. Adding an infobox would be unnecessary clutter. I also agree that this RfC is not neutrally worded, it's odd to see this opening statement from the proposer - The previous RfC wasn't done in accordance with WP:RFC - when this RfC wasn't created in accordance with WP:RFC. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The question is whether the original RfC requestor may have invited those editors to the discussion because they were inclined to agree with him/her hence skewing the consensus.

However, sticking to the point in question, those examples Numerounovedant has given are notable subjects who have bore children in relationships with other notable subjects, not similar to this example.

Infoxboxes aren't clutter, they're useful tools which can help navigate brief information without the user having to read large amounts of text, especially when using Wikipedia on mobile devices, in this particular case the lead has 400 words. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

No, if you have a question about an editor's conduct like WP:CANVASSED or WP:OWN, then a RfC is not the place to raise that question. - The use of requests for comment on user conduct has been discontinued. In severe cases of misconduct, you may try WP:ANI. If the dispute cannot be resolved there, then arbitration may be warranted as a last resort. - If you had a question about editor conduct and/or the close of the previous RfC, you should have raised that question(s) in an appropriate venue and asked for a review of the closure. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, Isaidnoway, I agree that the matter should have been approached through the appropriate forums, and goodness knows that's not the most ideal RfC formatting I have ever seen, but if canvassing is taking place, I prefer to know about it when responding to an RfC, and when judging previous consensus, especially when we are talking about an infobox discussion, a topic area that has been historically second to none when it comes to tendentious editors moving in packs from article to article in a roving battle of wills. Unfortunately, that's also exactly the reason WP:CANVAS has begun to lose all meaning in the context of infobox discussions; I still get notices to a discussion like this about six times every year. And usually I find the same two groups of editors slugging it out when I get there. It's blatantly obvious that these two groups are tracking all of these discussions through various wikiprojects, projectspace pages, and eachother's contribution and talk pages (plus, I suspect, a healthy dose of off-site communication), despite knowing of the community's still-depleted patience on the matter after years of disruption and community response on the matter, up to and including ArbCom cases. And even, as here, when its not so much the usual faces, the issue still seems to generate a lot of heat and bad faith.

Like you, I don't approve of entangling the procedural issues with the content question in the RfC opener, but at the same time, it's hard for me to imagine how the OP could have otherwise opened this particular discussion without making reference to what they saw as procedural issues and an effort to game the system; not having made their reasons in doing so explicit could have led to their opposition implying that they were ignoring consensus and thus disruptive. Tanbircdq's argument, as I see it, is that there was no previous consensus, that the previous close was made in error, and/or out of lack of appreciation for the fact that there was misconduct going on. Now Tanbircdq, two things though: 1) you probably should have set this context off in a separate note placed just above the main RfC prompt. This would have allowed you to raise your concerns, while keeping your personal perspectives from getting entangled with what is meant to be a neutral presentation of the RfC inquiry, focused on the content and content policies. And 2) if you are going to make accusations of canvassing, you really do need to provide support for your claim in the form of diffs and other evidence demonstrating that some of the participants did not come here organically. And while some of those details may be germane enough to mention here for respondents, the appropriate forum for an extended discussion is, as Isaidnoway pointed out already, WP:ANI. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if you have time to spend on 3 pings with a neutral statement then I am sure everyone will appreciate the efforts be made at the right place. VedantTalk 09:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Snow Rise, here is the diff, like you say how was I supposed to open another discussion without making reference to procedural issues to game the system and not doing so could lead to being accused of ignoring consensus and thus disruptive but I still managed to get someone make that accusation here. In addition, it appears that the RfC is branching into different discussions about what parameters to be included which is potentially skewing the discussion by a minority of editors.

The fact that all editors sided with Numerounovedant without any reference to any guidelines whereas this RfC is clearly going significantly differently says a lot if the efforts were made in the right place or not. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, you might be right about that, but if we can get through the present discussion without having to generate too much debate about behaviour, it will be for the better, I think. As you say, the present RfC is creating a pretty strong consensus for inclusion and I suspect that will continue, so you can afford to be gracious in letting the canvassing issue go if you so choose. That's just pragmatic advice, mind you; I would never tell another community member to outright ignore policy violations if they feel strongly that they must be addressed. But in that context, I must again stress that any lengthy discussion of that sort would need to take place at ANI, and that it would be a messy and time-intensive process that would not do anything to speed up this RfC. That said, infobox content disputes have seen a lot of such coordination in the past, and I suspect that the community will sooner or later come back around to scrutinizing the systemic issues there. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tanbircdq: - In the future, when you get this kind of response from the closing admin in relation to your good faith inquiry about the rationale used in their closure, and you feel like their response didn't adequately address the concerns/allegations you raised (as evidenced in your reply to the closing admin), please request a closure review at the administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. As it stands now, there has been no review/determination made that the closure of the previous RfC is not valid. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The only thing common to the editors at the previous discussion was that they all written BLP FAs and GAs, and that was the basis of inviting them with a very neutral statement, but we can keep going on, of course. Because discarding an opinion because it agrees with the alleged dominant opinion of either RfC is why we are here? ~_~ VedantTalk 16:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, I've done this now to put this to bed. Had the closing admin given me this information in this first place rather than shrugging their shoulders then I would've done this already. Thanks. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include infobox Coming from RfC Bio page. Infoboxes are standard in actors' biographies. It would be odd if there were none here. Please include so that that Wikipedia is more consistent. LK (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the guidelines clearly state that infobox should be included based on the individual article. Consistency isn't really a fair argument; had it been an argument the guidelines for their inclusion (or their absence) would not have come into being in the first place. I hope you have better argument to support the inclusion. Thank you for visiting though. VedantTalk 10:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include (Summoned by bot) A good infobox supplements a well written lead. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Keyword: good. That's exactly what the discussion it about: how is it good? You'd really have to share your thoughts on what makes the infobox for this specific article any good. VedantTalk 19:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

yeah, and If I weren't being bludgeoned I just might. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry if you're feelings are hurt, but bludgeoning, really? VedantTalk 06:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include Brought here by the bot. There's clearly enough info here for a well formatted infobox. DocumentError (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Kindly elucidate. VedantTalk 06:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include Came here from featured article nomination. For many readers, the infobox is the fastest way of getting some key information they might find useful (such as age). I've seen it on most other biography pages, so I strongly vote for inclusion. Mattximus (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

We can have an infobox for it is not the most significant detail anyway. The article is at FAC and it's better to resolve this quick, so we can have an info box. Cheers, guys. VedantTalk 15:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I hope an admin still weighs in on the allegations flying around also checks the arguments given in favour and against the inclusion of an infobox to make this helpful for future discussion at this/other pages. Thanks again. VedantTalk 18:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually let this go on, with the infobox in the artcile for now, this shouldn't interfere with FAC. I'd like this to continue and be concluded as any other RFC is. VedantTalk 18:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out a couple of things, nothing that has not been said at the previous discussions of course. The infobox here is what is providing the article with misleading information: As has been pointed out in previous discussions that Hoult had only briefly attented Theatre school which has been added in the info-box. I believe that the only way to provide complete information on the Alma matter in this case is to frame a sentence saying that his time their was brief. If there was any other way of conveying complete (rather than misleading) information it is through their and not through bullets which at this point 1. say nothing new and 2. provide misleading information at times. His relation to his great aunt seems a far fetches connection too, how is that in any way a qualitative addition? Does it affect in notability in any way? There isn't anything that is not in the lead, really. VedantTalk 10:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include (Summoned by bot) No compelling reason not to include, and the info provided is helpful for casual readers. It never ceases to amaze me that this inconsequential page design element results in such heated opposition. Coretheapple (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude – as the topic is neither a politician or a sports figure. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Since when were infoboxes exclusive to only politicians or sports figures? Tanbircdq (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include:
  • Wikipedia's aim is to to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, and I'll emphasise the benefit readers part.
  • Infoboxes benefit readers- they allow people to quickly access the facts they want- and on this particular article, this is particularly important due to the article's length and reading level (using the Simple Wikipedia tool, the SMOG score of one of the sections was 12.88).
  • From an Open University study- many readers look only at the information box, summary text, lists, sub titles, references, or maybe only keywords (section 2.3)
  • I think that in this particular article an infobox would (with the right populated fields, something which can be refined after this RfC), on the whole, be useful to our readers- and that's our aim at the end of the day (support collapsible as a compromise too).

jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Jcc. The inference section of the same study also suggests: "According to the data the sub titles were most commonly used. In addition the Contents list, Summary text (lead) at the top of most articles drew the most attention". The diagrams also illustrates the fixation at the lead in Bill Gates' case, the reading time for leads was also lesser which suggests a quicker way of getting through keywords and information? Also, thanks for your comments. VedantTalk 05:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include - I think the utility of infoboxes in the case of BLPs is manifest, near to the point of being a per se matter. As a compact encapsulation of certain key details that makes for an easy reference format, I can't fathom most of the stock objections we sometimes see to infoboxes from a small but determined minority. Most of these arguments boil down to stylistic or even aesthetic analysis, but I just do not see the logic in sublimating clear utility for a majority of our readers (and various maintenance functions to boot!) to the style preference of a minority of our editors. I can fathom the rare context in which an infobox is not desirable, but I have a hard time imagining when that would ever be the case for a BLP. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, WP:DISINFOBOX has some examples for BLPs. It also states that: 1. "If a biographical infobox contains only a photo, a person's occupation, and date and place of birth/death, it is a disinfobox.", which would be the case here when the argument for mention of Sylvia Theatre School in a bullet list being misleading is considered (in fact, others seem to agree that the mere mention can be misleading). The far fetched relationship doesn't affect the subject's notability and it's mention in the lead could be completely misleading as it might imply otherwise. The removal of the both the fields would bring us to the the first point: "it is a disinfobox".

The Solutions at WP:DISINFO suggests: "When unnecessary redundancy (birth details) and miscommunication (the brief stint at the theatre school and the great aunt to an extent of having no bearing on the subject's notability) is unavoidable the best thing to do is to simply remove the infobox" VedantTalk 08:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:DISINFOBOX is an WP:ESSAY. Clearly it aligns with your view of this issue, but I find it idiosyncratic, not particularly well-reasoned, and not consistent with what I find to be best practice. I have no issue with a BLP infobox that has only four elements to it; it still prevails in an analysis of utility measured against offense to some editors' sense of style. That said, I have not looked into the issue of the alma matter sufficiently deep enough to have an informed opinion, so you may very well be right that this parameter is ripe for deletion. But my !vote should be interpreted as a strong support for inclusion of the infobox, even in that event. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include. Nothing wrong with presenting when he was born where at a glance, even if it appears in the lead. ("where" doesn't.) We can still discuss which other parameters. I use "Education" instead of Alma Mater, don't show Nationality, don't show Children, find a great-aunt borderline interesting. "Actor" could be more precise, - film, theatre, TV, combination? - Btw, I just "discovered" this article in noticeboard discussions. See also: Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation (2014). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd include List of roles and awards of Nicholas Hoult, possibly both in |work= and |awards=. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

As per Snow Rise, Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation is an essay and I agree that it isn't particularly well-reasoned, and not consistent with what I found to be best practice.

Nationality, children, great-aunt are all reliably sourced so I can't see on what policy basis these should be excluded from the infobox. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

According to alma mater, the phrase describes somewhere a university or college that a person studied at, rather than necessarily graduated from. Based on this it's irrelevant if the subject only studied there for two years. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't look at alma mater (article) but alma mater as a parameter of infobox person, where it says (bolding by me): "This parameter is a more concise alternative to (not addition to) |education=, and will often consist of the linked name of the last-attended institution of higher education (not secondary schools). It is usually not relevant to include either parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise, as perhaps at Bill Gates." - I think that - regardless what Hoult studied - many more readers will understand "education" than "alma mater", and therefore always use education. This particular infobox could do without any, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include. I also prefer education to alma mater, it seems odd to use a Latin phrase in the English Wikipedia when a more concise English one is available. My guess is that 90% of people get their answers from the infobox or the filmography, most people do not come to the article to read a biography. --RAN (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include and not collapsible. The lead of this article is particularly dense and for a casual reader it may be difficult to find basic information such as his nationality age place of birth notable relatives etc. As an example Wikipedia is the first source I personally look at when the questions comes up "how old is he" "where does he come from" and the infobox is where I look first. The "do not include" arguments are not strong enough and seem to be based on the editors' own esthetic preferences. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Would someone spare me the trouble of going through this article's edit history & explain why an infobox has been added, since the previous Rfc? GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I briefly mentioned that the infobox might be okay as I thought that the discussion might interfere with the FAC, the Editor who requested the rfc restored the infobox at that point. I eventually decided to go through with the discussion as I came across articles that had info boxes discussions even during active FACs. The box has stayed since. VedantTalk 16:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• It should never have been put back in the middle of an RfC. It's somewhat disruptive to be re-litigating this less than 24 hours after the previous RfC was closed, but to change it back woot he midst of an RfC? Sadly I am no longer surprised by the actions I see around IBs any more. – SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I see your frustration, SchroCat do you see a possible solution ? VedantTalk 08:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Not my fault that main opposing editor changed his mind from conceding that the article can have an infobox.

No, what's disruptive is canvassing other editors which skews the discussion like here. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on this, I took the liberty to add his works/roles and awards, and move the school from Alma mater to education. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the inputs Gerda, a couple of questions though. Is there a utility of the two links to works and awards since they lead to the same page? Also, he very briefly attented Sylvia School and it barely qualifies as his education in the sense? Having worked closely on the article for a while now, I am of the opinion that most of the fields is the infobox are either redundant or worse: misleading. Text in the lead is really the only way, IMO of course, that we can represent facts accurately in this case. VedantTalk 17:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The two links go to different sections in the article, and I find it fairer to link to a list, than to select 3 works or 2 awards. Compare Beethoven. I'd like to see that he received awards, more than the individual ones. We don't need education, nor children, nor nationality, nor relatives. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I think there was a VP thread on this very topic about a year back, because it came up in a series of article-specific discussions around that time. I'll see if I can find it. For my part, while I support the box in general, I do think you are correct that the precautionary principle should govern in cases where attendance at an educational institution was short term, and that such an "alma matter" claim ought to be presented only in the main body of the article prose, where full context can be provided for what we mean when we connect a given individual with a given institution. As I recall, that has also been the consensus outcome of those discussions I've seen in the past that attempt to parse this issue. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Snow Rise, Gerda seems to have made some changes, but it'd be nice to hear what you find. VedantTalk 10:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in response. I went searching for the thread in question immediately after posting that, but despite finding a number of short discussions at both WP:VPP and Template talk:Infobox person (rather than introducing the bias of selecting particularly "relevant" discussions for you, I'll just note that they are apparent in search results for the archives at both pages) I could not find as large a discussion as I remembered. The threads I did find were rather inconclusive; I don't think I'd call any of it a formal resolution which identified a community consensus blanket approach--nor even consensus for a single tentative or speculative rule of thumb. I had thought there was one somewhat larger discussion but it's possible I am remembering and amalgamation of discussion in community spaces and a longer article talk page discussion or two which I have not yet been able to isolate in my contributions history.

Anyway, that means I can only supply my own perspective regarding this scenario: While I fully support the inclusion of the infobox in this context, I also feel that alma mater content is something that sometimes shouldn't be included in the infobox, because the alma mater field is one of the few common parameters wherein a significant fraction of uses just really do need to be discussed only in context in the article prose. 'Alma mater' has a somewhat flexible usage; a significant number of people (maybe a majority?) assume it to mean only an institution that a person graduated from after a majority of work for the degree done at that institution, while others do not think either the graduation or the tenure of attendance criteria are essential features. As such, in borderline cases the situation becomes ripe for confusion if we list a school as an alma mater for someone in a manner which presupposes the reader's perspective on either of those questions. That would be a questionable decision in any article, before you add in the WP:BLP concerns for an article such as this. (FYI: I am basing my stance with regard to this particular article on what I hope is an accurate interpretation of the sourcing here; that is to say, that we don't have a gold standard scenario of a degree accomplished in the majority at the 'alma mater'; if that were to demonstrated to be not the case, my perspective would of course change.)

Now, needless to say, the WP:WEIGHT of the sources is that which will dictate whether we describe an institution as a given individual's alma mater. But deciding that content belongs in an article does not, in itself, make the argument that it should be covered in the infobox parameters, even if it matches with a parameter that is commonly found non-controversial in most other infoboxes in articles of a similar type. That said, I want to repeat that the rest of the parameters seem just fine in this instance. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Sample info-box

Nicholas Hoult
Hoult at the San Diego Comic Con, 2015
Born	Nicholas Caradoc Hoult (1989-12-07) 7 December 1989 Wokingham, Berkshire, England
Nationality	British
Occupation	Actor
Years active	1996–present
Works	Roles in film and TV
Children	1
Relatives	Anna Neagle (great-aunt)

Guys this is exactly what i was worried about, I'd like this to go back to the way it was when the FAC started. I don't want the article to fail FAC based on the editing conflicts. The stability should not be compromised. We can discuss the infobox here and edit here accordingly. Kindly bear, I did this in Goodfaith, Cheers, VedantTalk 11:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

If this article is going to end up with an infobox (which I oppose), then we should at least compromise & make it collapsable, like at Frank Sinatra. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:IAR and Include as per what appears to be the consensus above - without it being collapsible as this would make it less useful (as per the detailed comments made by Jcc and Snow Rise), including alma mater which is a phrase that describes somewhere a university or college that a person studied at, rather than necessarily graduated from. Based on this, it's irrelevant if the subject only studied there for two years. Inlude nationality, children and great-aunt as this is all reliably sourced.

By the way this RfC is to include an infobox to improve the article, the FAC has no bearing on the matter. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, but where was the consensus? I don't see n number Vs n as a consensus really. VedantTalk 13:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you may be mistaking WP:IAR for WP:BOLD. The community generally takes a dimn view of ignoring BRD, and would not generally accept IAR as good cause for doing so. Personally, I would agree with the assessment that the !votes above paint a picture of an ultimate consensus view for inclusion of the infobox, but personally I would have waited a while longer (until the typical 30 day RfC run-time or at least until a few more !votes were made); it's highly improbable, that the balance of perspectives could yet changebut not outright impossible. That said, I am not encouraging a re-revert as I don't care to encourage any further edit warring; wherever the article is at this present (with or without infobox), let's please leave it there until the close of this discussion.

As to the narrower issue of the alma mater, your perspective can now be noted for the record, but I do not believe you yet have consensus (or for that matter, a single !vote other than your own) supporting that perspective. Even though I am giving full-throated support to the infobox itself, I believe the more prudent approach is to discuss the alma mater details in the prose of the article alone in any borderline case such as this, so as not to risk confusion or misrepresentation for our readers. I have seen WP:LOCALCONSENSUS along those lines for this topic at other BLPs in the past, and I think it makes sense here as well. I also question whether or not the "[famous] relatives" parameter is really germane; great-nephew/great-aunt is a distant relation and the connection is barely even mentioned in the main body of the article itself and thus is not fruitful for the WP:lead (to which this infobox belongs); there's no indication that the two even met (he was two when she died) or that she had any kind of significant impact on his life. Although I am broadly supportive of infoboxes in BLPs (I have a hard time of thinking of any biography where a infobox is not at least somewhat useful) I think we should restrict the parameters to fairly important/non-incidental information. In short, I strongly support an infobox with: 1) Name, 2) picture, 3) caption, 4) Birthdate/location/age, 5) nationality, 6) occupation, 7) years active, 8) filmography/works link, and then maybe the "children" parameter. All other fields that have been proposed thus far strike me as superfluous. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Well it would appear quite a few editors prefer it to be in the education parameter instead. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The notable relative is mentioned in a few sources [3][4][5]. Hoult grew up 20 miles from where Neagle died but it's pure speculation as whether they met or not. But surely, we should go by what reliable sources there are available to verify information rather than make POV judgements as to what should or shouldn't go in the infobox?

The children parameter is certainly helpful to know at a glance, especially as this won't be in the lead anyway. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

As regards the education parameter, yes, it seems a couple more editors have now explicitly endorsed that usage, while several others still oppose it; we'll have to see how consensus comes out by the end of the discussion. I still feel it is the single most problematic element under discussion. Even if we do not use the term alma mater, I still feel like the oppose !votes have a good point about the potential for confusion/misrepresentation here, given the specific facts.

As regards the notable relative parameter, I think your argument has turned both policy and common sense on its head and you've inadvertently argued against your stated position as a result. The fact of the matter is that the WP:Lead is meant to include a summary of only the most salient of facts discussed in the article (and this extends to a lead infobox). We're talking about a distant relation which you concede has not been demonstrated to have much WP:WEIGHT to Hoult as an encyclopedic topic. Ergo it is not a fruitful topic for the lead, and not appropriate for the infobox. Now normally, I would just gloss over the presence of this parameter in an infobox and not find it a matter worth debating. But given there is much controversy here(silly as that fact is) and we are looking for reasonable middle ground solutions, I would submit that this is a parameter that is ripe as a concession that can be given to the infobox skeptics. We don't know that these two people ever met and we have not so much as a single source saying anything about the pair except that they were distantly related. It is therefore hardly critical information to understanding the subject as an encyclopedic topic (it is, at the very most WP:TRIVIA) and I doubt it would be something the average reader would scan the infobox expecting to find. And respectfully, your WP:V argument does not track; just because something is verifiable in reliable sources does not mean it is prominent enough for inclusion in the lead; if it were then each and every article would be constructed of one long lead. There's no POV involved in that analysis; on the contrary it's just a simple application of WP:WEIGHT, which is in fact a required analysis to meet the requirements of WP:NPOV.

As regards the children parameter, it's a closer call. It's a pretty common feature of BLP infoboxes, I will grant you that. But I've always wondered what it truly adds to an understanding of a given individual as an encyclopedic subject. Unless the person in question is someone whose notability is connected to their number of children (or at least to their children in some broader sense), I would submit that it is not worth much and represents bloat for the lead/infobox. Again, it's the type of thing I would normally never knit-pick over personally, but given the effort at consensus we are undertaking here, I could certainly support removing it. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I've never come across as the lead and infobox being one of the same in terms of policy guidelines, I've always thought they're inherently different things. A lead can have a lot more content than a infobox and vice versa.

Regarding the education parameter, we'll see what the consensus is.

Regarding the relative parameter, I don't think compromise should be conceded based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments for removal.

Regarding the children parameter, if it was a question of notability connected to the number of children the subject has or if the subject has children who are notable in their own right then most BLPs which have this parameter would no longer have it. I very much this would even be up for debate in any other infobox. Again, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't override a general editing guideline. Tanbircdq (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"Regarding the relative parameter, I don't think compromise should be conceded based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments for removal." Sure, but that's a pure strawman argument; nobody suggested removing it from the infobox on WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale but rather because it is a WP:WEIGHT/WP:TRIVIA issue. Very different things.

"Regarding the children parameter, if it was a question of notability connected to the number of children the subject has or if the subject has children who are notable in their own right then most BLPs which have this parameter would no longer have it." Yup, pretty sure I said exactly the same thing in the comment you responded to. My point was (and remains) that there's an argument to be made that this use, while typical, may not be terribly well-justified or consistent with broader policy and encyclopedic needs. Practices can become conventional without being particularly principled. As a point of first order, I noted that the use of this parameter is common (indeed, I'll go farther; its become close to universal in BLPs for those who have children). But as policy arguments go, that is quite literally the weakest one that can be offered to defend the inclusion of any element in any article. That's why we have higher-level policies that make clear that determinations of content have to be made on a case-by-case basis (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Now, as a realist matter, of course custom can often rule the day. But "let's do it because that's the way we've been doing it" is hardly a gold standard for a content or policy argument on this project. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, GoodDay, collapsible content is strongly discouraged by several policies and community consensus broadly and is to be avoided wherever possible; it creates significant WP:accessibility issues for certain readers and certain devices. I can only assume that the only reason that approach was adopted at such a prominent BLP as the Sinatra article is because there was an intractable infobox discussion there and that was the only solution that could be agreed upon for the local consensus. I think a better middle-ground solution here would be to limit the number of parameters to reasonably relevant vital information. I could see this being reduced to as few as six or seven items, by removing the children and notable relatives paramaters, and perhaps even the "works" field (all the function that item serves is to link a list which is already easily reached via the TOC). If we also remove the alma mater parameter (for reasons other than brevity), we are left with a substantially shorter and more focused box. Would that be acceptably close enough to the middle ground for you? Snow ^{let's rap} 21:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Would still prefer that the entire infobox be deleted. But, having read through the Rf, I can see that won't be happening. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2018 (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.