# Talk:Hannah Fry

Having undone Ritchie333's removal of the infobox, and been undone myself by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi per WP:BRD here we are...
The infobox ensures a standard presentation of biographies. Without it the picture is, on my PC, about 40% of the width of the article, and it looks most un-wiki-like.
Its appearance was consistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and more could have been added to the box rather than the box removed to satisfy FIM's objection. Cabayi (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The original issue as I saw it was that somebody used it to put in unsourced personal information, such as how many children she has, without a source. Does anyone care how many children I have? I (and I hope the typical reader) am more interested in her application of Markov chain processing to mathematically prove the optimum returns in Monopoly, which is a bit difficult to cram in an infobox. If she becomes more widely known through sustained coverage via television and the academic circuit, we could revisit the infobox at that point, adding that information in with her alma mater. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Wrong.  The adding of infoboxes is not standard practise around here, and never has been. Omitting one, such as in this case, is entirely the right thing to do. The ODNB doesn't use them and that is far more superior to Wikipedia. CassiantoTalk 19:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The number of children was removed 8 days ago. It's a different issue.
Her principal medium appears to be Radio 4 so an emphasis on TV work isn't going to do her any favours, or reflect reality. Cabayi (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Those were just examples of things that could be added, once the article is expanded. Fry's "partner in crime" in pop mathematics, Matt Parker, doesn't have an infobox. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
This is a classic example of a disinfobox. It does nothing to make information about the subject easier for readers to find, and merely clutters the article with framing while making the image smaller. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Interview linked to by the superscript number doesn't say anything about aviation.
Notreallydavid (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Was updating article to Phil Lythell (husband) in the personal section, and going to link the couple's very creative wedding invitation ("Possibly the world’s best wedding invitation" https://themakedistrict.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/possibly-the-worlds-best-wedding-invitation), however blogs aren't generally considered good sources of information so backed out. Seems a worthy reference to include, but wondered if it is better to just make the name update and not include the reference? Moggie2002 (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I replaced the current (left) infobox photo with the one on the right a couple of years ago, and didn't notice it being reverted to the original a few weeks later for better showing off her "have fun with maths" persona. If it's important for an infobox photo to reflect the style of the subject's work, I think the right-hand image better conveys her career as a public speaker, and is much better lit. The current photo looks like a candid one taken at a cafe table where she's not really doing anything, and the lighting is quite flat, although it's better for her facing the camera. Both photos were taken at the same event in 2017.
Which is better for the infobox? Belbury (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I personally lean towards Image A, since she is facing the camera. Most of her face is obscured in Image B, which, for an encyclopedic context, seems inferior.--Cerebral726 (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Neither is ideal. A is full face but looks distinctly odd and unflattering; B is a more typical portrait, but less informative. Is something more recent available? --Ef80 (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any, although I did find another photo on Commons which had previously only been categorised by the event name. It seems better than either of the above, although the microphone shadow isn't ideal. Belbury (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section:

Cite templates will be used where possible.
I prefer capitalization and punctuation to follow the standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, rather than "title case".
Links (either direct or indirect) to potentially unreliable or incomplete digitised copies and to booksellers may be removed.
This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

How about a filmography of podcast, radio, TV, and online video? .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hannah was born on the 21st.
Evidence: https://twitter.com/FryRsquared/status/1363882763846352896 Rudivanhemert (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The personal details listed in the beginning of the “Early life and education” section seem excessive at best. The details about her parents occupations and  order of her birth are unnecessary. It reminds me of something you’d find in an elementary students bibliography report. Needless to say it doesn’t meet Wikipedia standards. 
I was going to clean it up a bit, however I noticed there have already been quite a quite a few edits and reverts on it. So I wanted to see if anyone has any feedback/opinion on it’s  relevancy so I can make an informed edit if needed. Herenow44 (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Is HonFREng an honorific or a qualification (clue in the name?) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I just grabbed from a Google search; feel free to revert if it doesn't fit the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Any source for her middle name? Her Companies House entry here does not even give a middle initial. FreeBMD here says it's Mary. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the general rule for BLPs is, if in doubt, leave it out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure there is very little doubt. She is clearly attributed as H. M. Fry in her publications e.g. here. But yes, I would agree that, unless there are other Hannah Frys who might be confused with this one, a middle name or initial is not necessarily needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It seems clumsy and inappropriate to say 'In 2023, Fry revealed [my emphasis] she could no longer have children...', since it's mentioned just above that she'd had a hysterectomy. Might it not make more sense to put 'reflected on the fact that', 'first talked about the fact that', or similar, rather than 'revealed'? Kitb (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

In the absence of any criticism of, or improvement on this notion, I've made the change! Kitb (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
That change looks worse than what was just looked at in the GA review above; I've replaced it with something simpler. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
So she was a hoping for "a third like her mother"? Presumably the current two are not like her mother! But I tend to agree that, after the hysterectomy in February 2021, any more children were no longer an option. I think it's her regret that might need to be mentioned for 2023.  Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
The whole sentence is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. That a hysterectomy prevents pregnancy is not something this article needs to point out. How many children Fry might have wanted, or how many her mother had, is not encyclopedic. I am inclined to remove the whole sentence, and to thin the reproductive health part, which I think is overwritten. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I think her personal views on her own medical procedures and motherhood are wholly appropriate. But I'd agree the text currently seems to point out that a hysterectomy prevents pregnancy. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
The article misrepresented her view on the cancer surgery (she said it was unnecessarily conservative, not that it was unnecessary) and said those views were about the reconstructive surgery, rather than the initial surgery. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 15:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree with your corrections, which are good improvements. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I see at the top of this talk page I was concerned about the "Personal life" section over 7 years ago (although back then is was because it was of unsourced BLP violations) and I still think this section should be kept to a minimum to keep due weight in order, particularly on a BLP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't expect to see such a large amount of material about someone's reproductive health in most BLPs, but as she has made a whole documentary about it (and that documentary is consonant with her other work as a science communicator), I don't think it's undue here. What's left (her husband and children) is minimal and well sourced. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 10:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
If Fry wasn't specifically a science communicator, and the documentary partly about the scientific and mathematical problems of medical decision making (if, instead, it was some famous singer talking about their cancer) then what we have would, I think, be undue. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 11:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)