Talk:Laurence Olivier

Template:V0.5

Anti-Infobox fetish

Unhelpful discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some people, like me, read slower and we really like the summary information at a glance provided by the Infobox. It offers superior functionality under certain circumstances that are quite common. The arguments against the Infobox, here and elsewhere, are made by editors who simply have their own style preference (it's a fetish, really) against the Infobox, and those editors have successfully gamed the Wikipedia governance system to get their way. This is too bad, because as a reader, I find the Infobox to be very helpful. 73.73.162.232 (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC) A question for Schro and Cass (below): have you ever recommended in favor of including an Infobox in any Wiki article? 73.73.162.232 (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC) I might've treated your comment with an element of good faith had you of not resorted to mud slinging by claiming that we (SchroCat and I) have a "fetish" and that we "successfully game the system". Because of that, I will treat you as a troll and take no further part in this discussion. CassiantoTalk 07:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC) Please do whatever you like. Your reply is completely unsurprising and as expected because that is how you have always addressed opposing viewpoints on this question. My question was rhetorical because obviously you systematically oppose Infoboxes, and you have mastered the art of suppressing dissent on this topic. Your successful gamesmanship has rendered the entire discussion process pointless and laughable, and has left the written product less useful than it could be. That is too bad. 73.73.162.232 (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC) Your repeated removal of this part of the infobox discussion further supports the points made immediately above. Certain editors acting in concert have gamed the Wiki governance system to impose their own stylistic preferences. You sir are a bully. 73.73.162.232 (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC) You can label me a troll, and keep deleting this entire section of the discussion. It is merely another online bullying tactic. 73.73.162.232 (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC) To build an encyclopedia: The sole purpose of my comments is to improve this and other articles. Reinstating the infobox would do so for many readers. You do not like the infobox as a matter of style, not utility, and you are more clever than most contributors in the art of controlling the editorial product. These observations are legitimate aspects of the editorial discussion, and the editorial governance discussion. 73.73.162.232 (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC) My point exactly. You sirs are bullies and trolls. Worse, you are just like the web censors in Iran, Russia and China. 73.73.162.232 (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Btw, obviously this Infobox is not coming back. You have already seen to that. I am simply pointing out the drawbacks of this outcome, and the unrepresentative character of this decision. You just want the discussion to go away, since you have long ago gotten your way. 73.73.162.232 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC) How observant of you to notice. Trolls are best starved, so no more from me. CassiantoTalk 21:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC) No, troll. The consensus of the community was not to have one. To answer your earlier pointy question, yes, I have argued in favour of an IB (obviously). I've also added IBs to several articles, created articles with IBs. and taken articles with IBs to both GA and FA. Troll away elsewhere with your misguided questions, your insults and your inability to consider that other people may have a valid opinion that may differ from yours. – SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC) I say this as a person that prefers to have an infobox: IP 73, you are WAY out of line here. Discussion of content is fine (although it's better that you log in first) per WP:FOC - personal attacks on individual editors is NOT allowed (see: WP:NPA. — Ched :  ?  00:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Children? Personal life in general?

There is relatively nothing about his personal life/views, although he lived in a rather turbulent century and the article is quite long. And one-sided, indeed, I am not sure his children are even mentioned for instance, pretty weird IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.43.15 (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

==I don't know if you realize what a can of worms you are opening if you are getting into this subject! You can read all about it on the internet as long as you avoid Wikipedia.

Perhaps the Wikipedians forget what century we are living in!Ed (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)==

How old?

Missing age — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.80.8 (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

"Sir Prefix"

Olivier was knighted in 1947, and, as is customary with people that have received Knighthoods, his name should be prefixed with a "Sir". That this has only just been added to his Wikipedia page is something of an oversight.

Examples of other knighted English actors' Wikis with first line including "Sir":

- Ian McKellen

- Daniel Day-Lewis

- Michael Caine

And of course his two contemporaries that this Wiki specifically puts focus on:

- John Gielgud

- Ralph Richardson

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 0521Steven (talk • contribs) 07:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• You miss the point that while Olivier was "Sir Lawrence" for some of his life, he was also "Lord Olivier", which is why the Sir is omitted here. (Just a note for the future, could you add talk new page threads to the bottom of the page? Thank you) - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• • Ok that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0521Steven (talk • contribs) 07:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• The title 'Lord' outranks the title 'Sir' so they should never be both used. It's like calling someone in the Army General-Captain-Lieutenant -- SteveCrook (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)