Jump to content

Talk:Frankie Grande

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Frankie Grande on Social Media

[edit]

Hello. So, I suppose you can keep the comment as it does have a valid reference, but I just made it sound less promotional and wrote it in a more neutral tone. Do you agree with this edit? ~~JHUbal27 22:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with your edit. Paul Badillo (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it's OK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother section

[edit]

The Big Brother section of the article is too long, and it will likely get longer. We should give only the highlights in Grande's article, because the full details appear in the house guests list article and in the Big Brother 16 episode descriptions. Including all this in Grande's article is WP:RECENTISM and unbalances the article, because only a small part of Grande's career has been on Big Brother. His most significant accomplishments to date are as a producer of Broadway and other shows and as a performer. I suggest that the section say the following:

In mid-2014, Grande is appearing on the television series Big Brother 16. He became the show's first Head of Household (HoH) in week one and was HoH again in week four. Grande is one of three house members whom fans voted to participate in this season's twist, Team America.[1] Grande received the news of his grandfather's death on the show, but decided against leaving Big Brother.[2][3] He became HoH again in week five.[4] -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree I will shorten it a little bit, but it will be what I want it to say. Thanks for adding your input and posting it on the talk page before being bold and editing it. ~~JHUbal27 07:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This statement is false. This is the first season to have a twist where there are 2 HOH's initially, but one of them is dethroned by the Battle of the Block competition. This is what happened to Frankie. Watch the show and check your facts before trying to give him such an accolade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizto1959 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC+9)
Reduced section because it is too long per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. Jack1956 (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jack. It's only going to be a matter of time before this section engulfs the entire article with pointless information to do with BB. It is in serious need of reducing as it is. I disagree with JHUbal27's "I will shorten it a little bit, but it will be what I want it to say". This smacks of ownership and that is not on. Cassiantotalk 20:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree! All other BB articles have the exact same information! Y'all are being way too serious! This stuff is not pointless. It is important information about the game. So stop removing it and just let it go. See other articles about famous Big Brother people: Aaryn Gries, Candice Stewart, Andy Herren, Ian Terry. You guys have no idea what you're talking about. I am a huge BB fan and I have the right to contribute. 66.87.87.208 (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about Big Brother. I note that in all of those articles you linked to, the Big Brother information is largely unreferenced, unencyclopedic and poorly written. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

I recommend leaving all previous info in situ pro tem. Review when historic events pan out. Tim riley talk 17:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain it in English? ~~JHUbal27 18:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means that we should leave the article alone for now, and review it when something new and important happens. I do think that we've come to a reasonable compromise on it, at least until the AfD is closed. I think we can take off the tags at the top now, except for the notice about the AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the hard of thinking: pro tem is a common and useful quick way of saying "for the time being". In situ is another common short phrase meaning "in the same place". I can also recommend "et cetera" (even shortened to "etc") which means "and other things". In Europe our schools teach such elementary things, but I realise, naturally, that standards may be different elsewhere. Hope this is helpful. And obviously the tags should be purged. Tim riley talk 18:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HOH historic first, or not?

[edit]

The article made the assertion that Grande is "the first houseguest in Big Brother history to win HoH two weeks in a row." I asked for a citation for this assertion, but I don't believe that the citation given stated this. I looked on the internet, but I couldn't verify it. Can anyone find a reference that verifies this assertion? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you have been watching the show, then you know that the HoH can only win every other week. It is impossible to win HoH twice in a row, so this does not need a reference. You have other stuff that is unreference, so why should I need one to such a simple statement? ~~JHUbal27 22:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly does need a reference in which someone specifically states that this is a historic first. See WP:V Please let me know if anything else is unreferenced, and I will happily add references. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third party tag

[edit]

This tag is not appropriate, as the vast majority of the 24 references in this article do not rely on information released by the subject. Note also that the Playbill.com references to "Who's Who" sections are further verified by the IBDb and by the original theatre programs themselves. The couple of other refs that rely on self-published materials qualify under WP:SELFPUB, which states: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities ... so long as:

  • the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook."

It is not true that the article relies "excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject." Unless someone can explain why this tag is appropriate, I will remove it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the sources cited in this article include the following:

I think that is enough to establish notability, and to show that the information in the article is verified by third-party sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources tag; bad behavior by user:JHUbal27

[edit]

On July 26, 2014, I started an article about this Broadway theatrical producer and entertainer.

The article is thoroughly referenced. It has 25 footnotes, some of which have more than one ref in them. Most of the references are to national newspapers and magazines, or other recognized sources, as discussed on the Talk page and on the AFD. A few of them are based on non-controversial WP:SELFPUB sources.

JHUbal27, you have not been able to identify a single unreliable source in this article. If you believe there are any, please discuss them here. You should carefully read WP:RS. Putting yet another tag on the article without first reaching a consensus here is, at this point, vandalism, since we have been discussing this article both here and at the AfD, and other editors besides myself have objected to the tags. Please do not make further unconstructive edits. See also WP:POINT. Stop tagging the article, and wait until there is action on the AfD, unless you have any constructive edits to make. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie's name and birthday

[edit]

I do realize that there has been a lot of disruptive editing to this article as of late, and content and references sometimes get lost or shifted around. But, is there a source for this young man's name and birthday. He has an awful long name that I think our readers should be able to verify through a source. His birthday too. I glanced at Ariana's article and she uses Grande as well for a stage name, but she also uses her father's last name. I'm assuming that Marchione is Frankie's fathers name? Should Frankie's mother and father be listed like it is in Ariana's article? Isaidnoway (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions. I was afraid to add anything new until the edit war was over. The ref below lists his full name. It also gives his birthplace and more information about his early childhood – It's actually the most complete bio of Grande on the web. I think it is OK to cite under WP:SELFPUB. Does everyone agree that it is a WP:RS for this purpose? Should we add the birthplace and early childhood info?: [2]. Grande's birthday is all over the internet, but I can't find a WP:RS. His CBS bio says that he is 31, so we could at least say (c. 1983). [3]. We could put in info about his mother, Joan Grande (as you say, the info is in Ariana's article), but I do not see any info about his father. Can anyone find more? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's OK to use as a source per WP:BLPSELFPUB. A secondary source would be nice though to back it up. I think his birthplace is OK too, I personally don't have any objections to early childhood info. It does seem that there is RS for his mother, but we can't speculate about who his father is without RS to back it up, I haven't been able to find anything about him either. I also agree about the infobox as it is redundant info that is clearly stated in the opening para in the lead, but I would defer to consensus on that issue. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This source also has him celebrating his 29th birthday in 2012. gobonobo + c 01:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The CBS.com cite says his age is 31. Anonymous1005, however, is claiming that is an error and that Grande is really 28 years old, citing this site to support that claim. This may be true, but is it verifiable. The live-feed site requires registration, which does not disqualify it outright as a reliable source, but does make it a little hard to verify. Should the live-feed be treated as a primary source or third-party source and should it be considered to be reliable? Thanks in advance. -Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I commend you all for your work in trying to get this right. It should be noted that, in his public pronouncments, Mr Grande would be nowhere close to the first, and certainly wont be the last, person to shave a few years off their age. This is a perfect example of why secondary and tertiary sources are required here at WikiP. Thanks again for your efforts. MarnetteD|Talk 03:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys! I watch Big Brother and the live feeds on CBS. I am a fan of Frankie's so getting his public information right definitely concerns me. However I am new to Wikipedia editing and referencing so i don't think I am the best editor to clean up his page. I would like to say Frankie himself has said that he is 28 on the live feeds multiple times. Of course he could be lying, but I don't think its plausable that he would lie about something like this on live television. I suggest that everyone looks into this a bit further. Also please tell me if I should continue to correct his page or if I should wait until my senior editors figure things out. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous1005 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymous1005:: There's nothing wrong with being bold and trying to improve an article. Once your edit was undone the first time, however, it would've been best to not try and re-add the same thing again and again in order to avoid any appearance of edit warring. Although your heart may have been in the right place, there were not only problems in the content of the information you were adding, but also technically in how you were trying to add it. Since the issue of Grande's age is currently being discussed here by other editors, please feel free to participate and contribute whatever you can, but I would advise against changing Grande's age again until a consensus to do so has been reached. There is really no rush and Wikipedia is a work in progress. Since you are a fan, you may be able to locate information that others have so far not been able to find. Some editors may have been around longer than you and, therefore, know a little bit more about how Wikipedia works than you, but that doesn't mean your suggestions are valued any less. If you find something that you think is of value, then please add it here for others to discuss. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not a silver bullet, but this bio indicates that he moved to Boca Raton when he was 10. Ariana was born in Boca Raton in 1993, and if that happened after their move, that would put his birth year at around 1983. gobonobo + c 12:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, I will be sure post if I come by any new information. I will leave Frankie's page alone for a while, but in the mean time I would to learn a little more about wiki and editing and such. And I would be very thankful if someone could help me along the way or direct to someone/where that could. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous1005 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to say I (GuitarMan98) was the one who added the cite to CBS.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuitarMan98 (talk • contribs)
I found another source for the name and birthdate and added it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disinfobox

[edit]

I would like to remove the redundant infobox, which adds nothing and has already accumulated erroneous information that has had to be reverted several times. Thoughts? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep the infobox because it keeps everything succinct. Most articles about people, in my opinion, should have an infobox in case people do not read the lead section. If you disagree with me, feel free to elaborate. ~~JHUbal27 03:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JHUbal27, why on earth would someone be clicking onto an article about someone and not be reading the first few lines of the lead section? Surely that is what they went there for, right? The information found within the idiotbox can be found within the first few lines of the lead section. It is you who needs to "elaborate" on exactly why you want to dumb down this information on the subject by restricting it all to a trivial and redundant list. Cassiantotalk 08:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Pretty much every article on Wikipedia needs an Infobox to be considered "good" in my opinion. Getting rid of it would be a step in the wrong direction. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, are you for real? So are you saying that, for instance this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and a whole load of others are bad? I will be deleting the idiotbox as it is completely redundant. Cassiantotalk 07:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the unneeded PA's in your edit summaries you will want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yes the wikiproject dealing with composers has chosen not to use infoboxes. That does not apply to other projects, including the wikiproject for biographies, or articles. MarnetteD|Talk 10:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't give a damn what the wiki projects think. They don't make the rules around here and they most certainly don't own articles under their umbrella. Idiotboxes should be added to aid the reader and should be based on suitability only, not added simply because others have them. All of my above diffs relate to biographical featured articles. If the projects you have listed "choose" to have infoboxes, then how come these don't have them? Cassiantotalk 00:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
H:IB says "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. 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." Does WP:MUSICALS or WP:THEATRE have any preference either way? WP:IBT#Purpose of an infobox lists a few benefits, including some technical ones, of having an infobox. "H:IB#What should an infobox contain?" also says it should include information already cited elsewhere and expanded upon in the article which is exactly what this one seems to be doing. None of H:IB#What should an infobox not contain? seems to apply here. So, are there any other policy reasons why it's use in this article is inappropriate? The fact that the same information appears in the lead may seem silly, but that seems to be what it is intended to do. Unless there's a really good reason based on policy for immediately removing it, I suggest leaving it in per WP:STATUSQUO until there's a clear consensus either way. Is that acceptable? - Marchjuly (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where was the discussion when the idiotbox was added? For your information, Infoboxes do not aid Metadata, so that is a false argument. This infobox does nothing that the lead doesn't. Cassiantotalk 00:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that the sentence "Using an infobox also makes the data within it available to third party re-users such as DBpedia in a granular, machine readable format, often using microformats." in "WP:IB#Purpose of an infobox" meant some kind of "technical" benefit. If I used the word "technical" incorrectly, then my mistake. I don't know anything about "metadata", so I do not know whether the sentence in question is true or related to "metadata" at all. However, if it is not, it seems it would be better to discuss that mistake on that talk page than on this one.
The infobox seems to have been first added with this edit . It was expanded by the same editor a few times after that. I have no idea as to why they didn't discuss things first; Perhaps, they were just being bold. Ssliver did, however, start a discussion that still seemed to be unresolved when you deleted the infobox. For what it's worth, I am not dismissing your arguments. I think you're raising some valid points. All I am suggesting is leaving things as is per WP:STATUSQUO until a consensus can be reached. If that consensus is to delete, then so be it. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of discussion, suppose Cassianto' assessment is correct. Is deleting the infobox, then, the only acceptable option? Is there no possible way to improve it? Grande is listed as a "producer, dancer, singer, actor, and YouTube personality". Is there another type of infobox that would work better than the one currently being used? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would the following be considered an acceptable improvement?
 
{{Infobox person
| name = Frankie Grande
| image = <!-- just the filename, without the File: or Image: prefix or enclosing [[brackets]] -->
| birth_name = {{nowrap|Frank James Michael Grande Marchione}}
| birth_date = {{Birth date and age|mf=yes|1983|01|24}}
| birth_place = <!-- Grande was NOT born in Boca Raton.  He moved there around age 10. -->
| residence = [[New York City]]
| alma_mater = [[Muhlenberg College]] 
| occupation = Producer, dancer, actor, singer, [[YouTube]] personality
| years_active = 2007–present 
| relatives = [[Ariana Grande]] (sister)
| website = [http://www.frankiejgrande.com/ FrankieJGrande.com] }}
- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that any infobox is appropriate in this article. It is a short article, and WP:LEAD says that the key information in the article should be summarized in the Lead section. Having the infobox means that all the key information is repeated three times in this short article, which is redundant and silly. Plus, infoboxes tend to attract errors, which this one certainly did, before I corrected it. What we need at the beginning of this article is a free image of Grande, not an infobox. I do not think that the infobox adds anything useful here, and I suggest that it emphasizes some less important facts that are better presented in the order given in the article. One could also argue that it discourages people from actually reading the article by taking up prime real estate near the top of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: I've been busy in the real world so sorry for not responding sooner. First, let me say that I was not aware of WP:DISINFOBOX. I just assumed that was a name you created. Since reading through that and looking at all of the examples given, I have to say that I do better understand what both you and "Cassianto" are saying. Actually, I never thought that adding an infobox just for the sake of adding one was a good reasoning. Moreover, to expand on what MarnetteD mentions above, just because something exists somewhere else doesn't mean it has to exist everywhere else. My suggestion as an improvement was just an attempt to find some middle ground. After looking through "WP:DISINFO", I realize that my version may be an improvement over the version currently being used, but it doesn't really improve the article at all. Furthermore, I now agree that perhaps an infobox is not really (currently) necessary at all for this article. An infobox doesn't irreparably harm the article or dramatically "disimprove" the reader's understanding of the article, but it doesn't really improve that understanding at all either. If this was a discussion regarding whether to add the current infobox to the article, I would say no based upon what I now know. But, "WP:DISINFO" is only an essay, not policy, so I don't think it can be used as a reason for immediately removing the box. I still think we need a consensus to do that. Therefore, I am suggesting we just wait a reasonable amount of time (whatever that may be) to give others who have participated in this discussion such "MarnetteD", JHUbal27 and Jjj1238 as well as anyone else who wants to discuss have a chance to respond. If there is no response, then I think we can assume WP:SILENCE and just remove the box. Since both you and "Cassianto" have been around Wikipedia longer than me, I'll defer to your judgement as to what constitutes a "reasonable" amount of time. Does any of this make sense at all, or am I being unnecessarily cautious? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: This is not about how the infobox could be improved, the short answer is it can't. I am not opposed to all infoboxes; film, military and political infoboxes work. However, there is just not enough information on Grande for it to justify having one. For instance his name, birth date, birth name and occupation can all be found on the top line of the lead. His place of residence is unimportant; college, unimportant; years active, well that can also be garnered from the lede; relatives, if notable, are usually listed at the end of the lead, or if it is a particularly good lead, then it will usually be in the second paragraph. Nothing in the box above is of any use or importance to justify it being repeated in such a prominent position. Cassiantotalk 08:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassianto: I wasn't assuming that you were engaged in a holy war against infoboxes. As stated in my reply to Ssilvers above, I was merely looking for a possible compromise that would be acceptable to all. I hope what I wrote above makes sense to you. I'm not interested in having a prolonged discussion; I just feel since it's already there, it should be reasonably discussed and a consensus achieved before it is removed. For what it's worth, I do agree with you now, but I wasn't the one who undid your edit. I think it would be courteous to at least wait a bit to see if MarnetteD would like to further comment before removing the infobox again. This is just a suggestion. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what is wrong with the infobox? It is completely fine and necessary to have. Removing it would be a step in the wrong direction. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do please elaborate on how you think this is a "step in the wrong direction"? Cassiantotalk 02:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jjj1238:Thank you for the feedback. Although I do agree with "Ssilvers" and "Cassianto" regarding the infobox, I am interested in hearing some specifics as to why you feel that removing it would be a step in the wrong direction. We are trying to reach a consensus, and the quality of the arguments on each side matter more than simple numbers. So, if have strong policy/guideline, etc. based reasons as to why this infobox is essential to the health of the article, then please state them here.
I do acknowledge that all infoboxes are repetitive to some degree simply because they are intended to be summaries of information contained within the article. MOS:INFOBOX#Purpose of an infobox says, "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." In this particular case, however, the key facts (excluding Grande's residence) the infobox in question is summarizing are clearly stated in the first sentence of article. To me that does seem like unnecessary repetition. Moreover, WP:INFOBOXUSE says that "the use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited" which means according to Wikipolicy that an infobox is clearly not "necessary" for any article at all. "WP:INFOBOXUSE" goes on to say that "[infobox usage] should be determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article", which means that usage depends on each particular article. The infobox probably should have been discussed before it was added in the first place, but that is all water under the bridge now. What we are trying to figure out now is the same thing we try and figure out regarding any "controversial" edit made to an article: "Is it an improvement over the status quo?". I no longer think it is, but that is just my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you look at any featured articles of a person on the main page, do any of them lack an infobox? No. Although it is not officially a necessity, it is an unwritten necessity in my book. I don't know how this infobox is taking away from the article or putting it in a step in the wrong direction or why'd you guys even think that. You can do what you want but honestly taking away the infobox would make the article look unfinished and unprofessional. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simply wrong. Lots of FAs for people have no infobox. Cassianto already listed a bunch of them, but look at Noel Coward as an example of an entertainer/producer like Grande. Your argument boils down to WP:I just don't like it. Just to clarify my position, I think that including this totally redundant infobox is detrimental to the article because, among other things, it delays the reader from getting into the article itself and does not emphasize the most important things about the article. I also disagree with you that the article looks better with the box. What would make the article look better is a photo of Grande. There must be a free image of him somewhere. Maybe someone who has not yet contributed to the article content could make a helpful contribution by searching for one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly deleted this box when I came to the page: good thing I checked the talk page first! It's a bit of a pointless blot in the page that doesn't really do much except for those who can't be bothered to read. Most of the information is in the front line, and it really does nothing positive for the article. I'd suggest getting rid of here he blessed thing altogether! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

[edit]

There have been no comments added to this thread for almost 3 months, and it appears that the consensus is for removing the infobox. Therefore, I propose that the infobox be removed per WP:INFOBOXUSE based upon the discussion above. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll do it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need free photo

[edit]

By the way, this article is getting more than 2,000 views per day. It really could use a photo. Can anyone find a free photo? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked for such a photo, but have not had any luck finding one. Is it possible or proper in such situations to contact the subject directly and ask them to upload one to Commons? I have a feeling that is the only option we have at the moment, unless some Wikipedian is lucky enough to take a photo of Grande themselves. Non-free content would most like not apply here because he is still living and, therefore, there still is a chance his photo may be taken someday by someone and uploaded to Commons. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we change the picture for this? It's not very flattering and it's from 2018. Narbine (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Narbine. Do you have a better copyright-free photo? See WP:IUP for an explanation of Wikipedia's rather draconian image use rules. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British English vs. American English

[edit]

No edit sum was left for these edits (here and here ) changing "theatre" to "theater" and "travelling" to "traveling" by Bammie73, and the edits created a situation when both the British English "theatre" and the American English "theater" are now being used together in the article. This is a situation that did not exist before, and this type of inconsistency is contrary to WP:ARTCON. Therefore, I have changed everything back to its British spelling.

I do think, however, that this might be a good time to come to some kind of consensus as to which style of English should be used in this article. On one hand, the British English spelling "theatre" was what was originally there, and it was consistent throughout the article, so it can be argued that there is no need for a change. On the other hand, MOS:TIES does say that "a topic that has strong national ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation." Grande is, after all, an American though, and the sources cited do seem to be primarily American. Moreover, the date format used in the article is also the one used in American English.

Personally, it makes no real difference to me as long as the usage is consistent, except when acceptable according to WP:ARTCON. But, it would be good if there was a consensus on this either way. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post M. FG is an American so, as you point out, perWP:ENGVAR American style spelling and dates should be use throughout. Theater(re) can be tricky though. If referring to them generically then it should be theater but if there is a specific one (for example the Denver Center Theatre Company) that uses the "tre" then that is proper even in an article about an American. Now this is just one editors opinion and other input is welcome but I do think policy and guidelines are clear on this. MarnetteD|Talk 15:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Obviously, this article should use American spelling, since Grande is an American. I have worked for more than 8 years on Wikipedia mostly on theatre- and musical theatre-related articles. American theatre industry people and scholars use the spelling theatre, so it is acceptable as an alternate spelling in American English. Since this is an international encyclopedia, and theatre is an artform popular in both America and Britain, it is helpful if we can use the same spelling on all theatre articles (except, as noted below, where a theater building is named "x Theater"). Both the WP:Theatre project and the WP:Musicals project have accepted the spelling "Theatre" for most uses related to works of theatre in all English variations. Therefore, I believe that "theatre" is the spelling that should be used in this article [see my further comments below]. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good Ss. Having been around just a year or so longer it is always good to see your name on my watchlist and on talk pages. After your post the only exception that I would note is the reverse of what I said above. That being if any of the venues he has performed in are a "XXXX Theater" - and that is verified by a RS then we should switch the spelling on that item. Otherwise it is full speed ahead on enhancing the article as well protecting it from the ongoing nonsense edits that keep appearing. Cheers and thanks for your clarification of the situation. MarnetteD|Talk 17:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, MarnetteD, I agree. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If "theatre" is the spelling by both WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS for the common noun, then personally that's fine with me. WP:ARTCON allows exceptions for proper nouns, so dealing with "XXXX Theater" or "XXXX Theatre" is not a problem at all. The only possible problem I foresee is the occasional invoking of MOS:TIES by a well-meaning editor who, unfamiliar with the relevant policy/guideline, decides to change every common noun back to "theater". Therefore, I think it would be really helpful to add links to where both projects clearly say that "theatre" is the preferred spelling for such articles. As long as the rationale is sound, there should be no need to explain it every time. However, simply just saying it's the preferred spelling without any providing any policy/guideline backup may not be a convincing argument to some. Playing devil's advocate, "Level of consensus" says the following:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

"MOS:TIES" is part of the community-wide MOS guideline, so some people may legitimately wonder why the preferences of "WP:THEATRE" or "WP:MUSICALS" are taking precedence. Is there a specific link showing that this specific usage is accepted by the entire Wikipedia community as a whole, and not just by two project groups? A link perhaps to something like the "advice page" referred to in WP:PROJPAGE, or a link to a "MOS:THEATRE" or "MOS:MUSICAL" which function like MOS:JAPAN, MOS:TV, MOS:MATH or MOS:MUSIC, etc. do for their respective articles. Was there an actual proposal or RFC regarding "theatre" in which the clear consensus was "theatre is the preferred usage in such articles even as a common noun"? If there was, then even better would be to link to that; If there wasn't, then some editors may claim this usage is only optional, and is not policy. Just some suggestions. Not trying to be a pain in everyone's behind. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a discussion of it at WP:MUSICALS (Note also that the Musical Theatre and Theatre projects use that spelling on their own pages). Just to clarify my statements above, I am not saying that we have to spell it this way just because the projects reached consensus to so spell it, but rather because it makes good sense that in an international encyclopedia, if we can find a word that is acceptable in *both* American and British usage, as here, then it is helpful to use that spelling uniformly. See WP:COMMONALITY. BTW, note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". See also usage in American theatre journals, such as Playbill, American theatre organizations, like the Broadway League, and the major books about theatre and musical theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ssilvers for all that extra information. I apologize if it seemed as if I was trying to nit pick at your post. Your reasoning was (and is still) quite sound. Moreover, as long as this usage is consistent throughout the article and follows the style used in other similar articles, then there's no problem in my mind. I was just trying to "write for the other side" and point out some possible objections others might have. This information you added is going to come in handy when explaining why "theatre" is preferred to "theater". Thanks again for taking the time to help clear things up. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your question was a good one. Thanks for your help with the article. Given the vandalism problems it has had, we need as many editors watching it as possible. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother again

[edit]

I don't think that this trivia belongs in the article. These minor details of Big Brother are not important to Grande's life or career. They are already contained in the Big Brother article, which we cross-reference. Can others comment, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the key thing to determine is whether WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies here. The focus of the article does seem to be Grande "the producer, dancer, actor, etc." who just also happens to be a participant on the show "Big Brother 16". The later surely seems to have helped make him (more) famous, but it's doesn't seem to be the basis for his notability according to WP:BLPNOTE. If Grande's notability is not derived from just one event, then it's important to maintain balance. Personally, I think that maybe a simple mention of "Team America" is OK, i.e., "Grande is appearing on the reality television series 'Big Brother 16' as a member of the Team America alliance", but I don't see how "eligible to win $5000 for each task completed" helps improve the reader's understanding Grande the person, unless (and this is a big unless) it is absolutely essential to further understanding the amount of money he might donate to charity once his run on the show is over. In my mind, this is not the case and that particular information seems more important to understanding "Big Brother 16" than "Franke Grande". Just my two cents. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:: Just a general comment about "Big Brother 16" and this article. This is apparently still on going which means Grande's situation is still in flux. In my opinion, trying to add too much information too quickly not only runs the risk of trivializing his participation, but it also means a lot is going to have to be cleaned up at a later date. So, I'm not sure why this info needs to be update quickly; It kind of makes the section seem like a personal diary. Would it really be so detrimental to the reader's understanding of Grande if we waited until after "Big Brother 16" has finished before expanding this section any further? After all, Wikipedia can wait, so we should be able to as well. The benefit of waiting is that everything can be worked through and added in one fell swoop in a way that ensures it will be encyclopedic and lasting. There would be no need for anything resembling edit warring because everything could be sufficiently discussed and a consensus reached. I can see frequent updates might be beneficial to the "Big Brother 16" article, but I don't think that is necessarily the case with "Frankie Grande". This article is not as time-sensitive as an article about an ongoing TV show. Again just my personal opinion. -Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should avoid WP:RECENTism. Also, of course if we add something new, we need to cite a WP:reliable source. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BuildOn

[edit]

Are you sure he is donating his entire prize money? Who in their right mind would do such a thing. I would donate some, but not all of it! So are you sure that the references are reliable. You are completely misunderstanding it. He is donating the money from his Team Ameroca missions, not the $500,000 or $50,000 or $25,000 if he wins or is the runner-up or wins America's favorite. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ~~JHUbal27 06:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JHUbal27, I am not sure if your question is specifically directed to me, or just people in general since "you" can be interpreted both ways. I was just going by what was written in the article. It currently states that "he announced that if he wins the season, he will contribute his winnings to the a charity he works with, buildOn". No specific amount is mentioned so I don't know what those winnings might be. This bit of information, however, does seem to be an accurate representation of what is said in those two sources: He told the others he's playing for charity and will donate his winnings if he wins. The article does not make any prediction ala WP:CRYSTAL at all as to whether Grande really will donate or how much he will donate if he does, i.e., it is not synthesis. FWIW, this is why I used the word "might" when I posted "the amount of money he might donate to charity once his run on the show is over".
Regarding the reliability of those sources, I don't know anything about "Bustle.com", it seems OK and it is cited in lots of other Wikipedia articles. "Entertainment Weekly", on the other hand, is pretty well known and should not be a problem per WP:RS. It's not really the job of us as editors to try and figure out Grande's state of mind or whether he really intends to donate the money. If, however, you find a reliable source where Grande himself states that he only really intends to donate a part of his winnings to charity or just the winnings from Team America, then please be bold and add that information to the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources say that he plans to donate his winnings from the show. If there are reliable sources that specify that he will not donate any part of his winnings, I would like to see them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers: I saw that you added another source. At first glance it looks like you left out a </ref> tag. I almost always use templates when adding sources so I am not very familiar with all of the quirks of the style used in this article. Did you intend to group the two bustle.com references together like that? - Marchjuly (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did intend to group the two articles together like that. The two news articles are from the same source and concern the same fact, and this keeps the Grande entry from bristling with too many numbers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia so I never came across that before. Learn something new everyday. Thanks for the clarification. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JHUbal, I have reverted your change, which is clearly erroneous, based on the statements in all three sources cited: Grande did not say that he "might" donate the money, he announced that he would do so. Obviously, we need to wait until after the show to see if he actually does so. If you discuss something on a talk page, and people disagree with you, and then you go ahead and make a change that is not consistent with the discussion, as you just did at this article, that is disruptive editing. Given your history of vandalizing this article, I strongly suggest that you reach a clear consensus before making any change to this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grande donated the money. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More Big Brother

[edit]

The description seems too detailed for Grande's article. It reads: "His "Battle of the Block" partner sat out the competition in an attempt to lose, but Grande won without assistance". Can we just instead add, at the end of the prev. sentence, "but won his "Battle of the Block" competition"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether to comment here, or the thread just above on this, but I find myself in general agreement about there being too much information about Big Brother here. There are much more important aspects to his career which we mention in a fraction of the words, and BB will be forgotten in a few months, with the information we have giving undue weight to the appearance. I'm not sure it needs its own section (it's not that important) and the whole thing only really needs to be covered in a sentence at most (possibly with a second sentence about his winnings). Just my thoughts: please feel free to adopt or ignore as necessary. If you want me to clarify, please ping. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Grande is no longer a competitor on the show, I have followed the above suggestions and reduced the amount of information about this part of Grande's career to a more reasonable amount, per WP:UNDUE and and WP:RECENTISM. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible source; fan photo?

[edit]

I came across what might be a possible source for use in the article. Just adding it here for discussion to see if it is worth using.

  1. Ariana's Brother Frankie J. Grande Looks Like A Cartoon At The 2014 American Music Awards: Could possibly used to provided additional support the Rock of Ages and "Ariana Grande's half-brother" info. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, I saw this article. I think that all the facts mentioned in it are already well-supported in the article by equal or better sources, so I don't think it adds anything. What I would like to see is a review (in a RS) of his performance as Franz and, of course, a free image that we could use. Some fan, if approached, might be willing to let us have a photo that they took with Grande at the stage door. BTW, did you see this: "Good Morning, New York"? It's a big media appearance, but I haven't found a good ref for it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just came across the HP article by accident and figured it wasn't probably needed , but just thought I post it here to see what other thought. I wasn't aware of the "Good Morning, New York" stuff. I'll see if I can find a source for it. Finally, I posted a request for a photo at Commons a few months back, but nothing so far. I have a feeling we might be waiting a long time for some fan, etc. to upload a photo that Wikipedia can use. Is it possible to contact either Grande or his people and ask that a photo be donated per WP:DCM or would that be improper? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not improper, and worth trying. But I am guessing that you would get further by trying to contact some of the fans who have posted YouTube videos of Grande and asking them if they want to donate a photo. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting idea. I never thought of that possibility. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014 TV appearances

[edit]

@Ssilvers:: I think the show is called Good Day New York. I found Frankie J. Grande gushes about sister Ariana, but I'm not sure how useful it is. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, thanks! I'll add this ref. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers: I tried rewording the "Nightline" and "GDNY" sentences a bit in an attempt to get more out of the "GDNY" reference. It seems as if they can both be somehow tied together by "In November 2014" since both appearances seem to have been only a f day apart. It might also be a good idea to put them in chronological order of appearance. Anyway, I hope I didn't muck things up too badly. If I did, please revert or revise as needed. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea -- I put it in chrono order, as you suggested. I removed the statement about the mother, because what he said about her was that she let them sing at home and was supportive (60% of performers would say that, while 40% would say the opposite); but he did perform the whole song on the show, so I noted that -- Did you see a source we can use that states that he sang the song on the show? The YouTube clips that I found [4] [5] are both copyright vios, so we can't use them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK with the mother info. I was just trying to add stuff from the article's text. To be honest, I watched only a bit of the video because I was at the office and didn't listen to the audio at all. I will see if I can find a source for the song. One thing, might it be better to say "Franz's song from the show" or something like that or is that last part unnecessary? I saw "Franz's song" and thought "That's Pat Benetar's song, isn't it?" Probably just over thinking on my part. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I added "from Rock of Ages". Pat Benetar? You must be old like me! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This Behind the Curtain theater column says Grande (as "Franz") sings "HMWYBS" in "ROA". Not sure if that helps with the Fox stuff though. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[left] Nope. It would help if we had something that says that he sang the song on Good Day New York, but I don't think it's essential; there are multiple YouTube clips that show the fact indisputably, even if we can't cite them because of copyright. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

In the external links section of the article, there are various links which are irrelevant to Grande's article (specifically the three YouTube videos (this, this, and this), his IDBD profile, and his bio on CBS), so I propose that they be deleted. Additionally, I would like to propose the addition of Grande's Twitter to the external links section. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the CBS bio, which is already used as a ref. That leaves six ELs, including (1) Grande's official website; (2) his official YouTube channel; and (3) his IBDB page. It is customary to include the IBDB link. I do not think we should delete the YouTube videos. The first one is a professionally produced video by Broadway.com in which Grande leads a backstage tour of the Broadway show, Rock of Ages (musical), in which he was then playing the role of Franz. The second is performance footage of Grande on Broadway. The third shows Grande singing with his sister Ariana Grande, and it is the best footage on YouTube of the two siblings singing together. I don't think it's necessary to link to Grande's Twitter account, which is already used as a ref in the text of the article. One could argue that the YouTube channel link is not necessary for the same reason. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grande's introductory paragraph

[edit]

In this article's introductory paragraph, I feel that the sentence

He is the older half-brother of singer and actress Ariana Grande.

is irrelevant and should not be included. Though he is, in fact, the half-brother of Ariana, it does not need to be included in the first paragraph as the information is included elsewhere in the article and he is notable in his own right. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because I think that many of the readers who come to this article are looking for confirmation of that information. If you look at WP:Featured Articles of people with important relatives, that sort of information is included in the Lead. For example, Maggie Gyllenhaal's article and George W. Bush's both mention their siblings in the first paragraph. In this case, the information is even more important, as his sibling is more famous than he is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, Frankie would be included in Ariana's article in the first paragraph. Though they are siblings, they are each notable in his or her own right; I definitely agree that the information is relevant and should be included in the article, however, as their careers are completely independent of each other, it is not the type of information which should be introduced so early in the article. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ssilvers - in my opinion people will be lead to this article because of his connection to his more famous sister - so the connection needs to be mentioned in the Lead. Jack1956 (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that he doesn't have an article because he has a famous half-sibling; he has an article because he is notable on his own. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we all agree with that, and you've pointed it out at least 3 times already. That is why I started this article. It has nothing to do with what content should go in the Lead. The Lead should be an overview of the most important things about Frankie Grande. If you read interviews of Frankie, he nearly always mentions her. Most news articles about him mention her (note, however, that most articles about her do *not* mention him). Under WP:LEAD, I'd say that it is required that she be mentioned in the Lead of his article. You may not agree with me. You may not agree with Jack1956. You may not agree with SchroCat. But your opinion is clearly a minority opinion and, IMO, ignores the meaning of WP:LEAD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tenure at Style Code Live

[edit]

In the introductory section and the 2014–present section, the references to co-hosting Style Code Live sound past tense. While it's true Frankie is currently participating in Celebrity Big Brother in the UK, he will be returning to Style Code Live once he is done. Style Code Live has confirmed this to fans on Twitter, and have discussed Frankie doing CBB on the show several times (here from 0:38 to 2:06). To have his co-hosting SCL in the present tense seems like it would more accurately reflect his status on the show. --Junglecat916 (talk) 07:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Performance of TV special

[edit]

Many actors and hosts have the commerical performance of their projects on their Wikipedia pages. It is important for the Wikipedia page to state these things. Musicians pages note when albums flop, actors for ratings and box office. This is no different, and it should be noted that Worst.Post.Ever. got low ratings. Sdfakjdfjklklasdf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for engaging on the Talk page. I disagree with your assertions. We note if an album charts. We rarely say that an album "flopped". There may be some poor-quality articles that include such trivia, but it should be removed from those articles. It is not customary to note the ratings of one-off performances or productions that are not especially important to the person's career; it should not have been in the Lead of the article, and I have now deleted it there. Grande was not the producer of the special, and its ratings are not encyclopedic information with respect to Grande. In this encyclopedia, we are supposed to discuss noteworthy information about the person's life and career, not tangential information about projects in which they have participated. If you believe that "Worst.Post.Ever" is an encyclopedic topic, you can write an article about it and discuss its ratings there. Or maybe in an article about the relative ratings of shows on Oxygen. Also see WP:BLP, which requires that special care be given to the WP:neutrality of biography articles of living people. Also, generally please review WP:CITE, as you have been neglecting to include key bibliographic information in your citations. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frankie Grande. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo in Use

[edit]

Is there consensus that the current photo in use is the best one that is available? It doesn't seem to be the best photo of him. Nauseous Man (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We had a really good photo that was deleted. Do you know of (or can you find) a better photo that would be permitted under Wikipedia's (rather strict) Image use policy? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Readding infobox?

[edit]

I noticed that this article lacks an infobox. When I went to add it, I saw a NoWiki text asking not to add one "without consensus on the talk page, where this has been discussed". However, the discussion is from 2014; the article has evolved a lot over the past eight years and I believe that readding the infobox would improve the summarisation of relevant information now that the article has more content. I therefore would like to reopen the discussion. Bizarre BizarreTalk modern to me 16:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The boilerplate infobox templates create a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with adding an infobox Spiderwinebottle (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frankie_Grande&oldid=1206056636"