Talk:Laurence Olivier/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Infobox

I am very surprised to learn that the infobox was removed from this article. I quite baffled about this because I find infoboxes extremely useful in articles about persons and I see no clear consensus in support of the removal on the discussion page.

Please explain to me in simple words why this article should not have an infobox. --Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 19:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has to explain anything to you. Everything can be found within the archives. Now, please go and find something more constructive to do. Cassianto^Talk 19:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Archives? What archives? Can somebody please supply me a link, like I'm a fifth grader? - 74.95.112.141 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.112.141 (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier does not deserve this dumb debate over the ugliness or redundancy of infoboxes. I don't like infoboxes, I really don't for the same reasons other people don't. But I recognize that every article for every major actor has one. For the sake of consistency, unless some petty guy wants to literally delete the infobox for actors like Katherine Hepburn, Ian McKellen, Richard Burton, Sean Connery, Michael Caine, and even Olivier's own wife, Joan Plowright, I believe firmly that this article needs an infobox despite my dislike for them. I also recognize that for others, infoboxes effectively summarize important information, and decrease the need to 'search' an article for basic information, despite being redundant and offering up no new information. To some extent, I believe the entire purpose of an infobox is to summarize key details in a article, as they do in so many page. So I think this argument should end, and those against infoboxes should just claim defeat, or else we should follow through with our beliefs and delete every other infobox on wikipedia. 138.16.119.220 (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has ruled otherwise, that use of an infobox is to be decided article by article. - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Use_of_infoboxes William Avery (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud are quite famous actors who also have no infoboxes. William Avery (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I will point out that there needs to be consensus among users, yes. But this argument can be used both in favor of keeping and of removing the infobox. Not all users agree to remove the infobox, so why should the few who do get their way? Also, pointing out the small number of actors who have no infoboxes is an ineffective argument considering the much much larger number of those who do. 138.16.119.220 (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is there not an infobox for this article, when there are ones for actors such as John Mills and Christopher Lee, is it not standard practice for most people who are notable enough to have an infobox, as well, it makes the page far more accessable for people looking for the key information, than having to read a mass of text instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LARobson1998 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The guidelines state that "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". There is a consensus against the inclusion of one here. - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no any "consensus". An infobox for this article is necessary GorgonaJS (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"Necessary"? Not really. It may be wanted or preferred, but it is not "necessary". No information is missing without the IB, and the article is entirely complete. If it's a personal choice to want to see an IB, that's an entirely different matter. - SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

If there is no clear consensus for change, then the article should stay as it is. William Avery (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm very much in favour of the inclusion of an infobox for this page and would be grateful if someone can direct me to the discussion that led to its removal. Alssa1 (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alssa1: An infobox was not removed; the article never had one (modulo various trolling and POINTy behaviour). You can find the archive links at the top of the talk page; there's only two of them and the relevant discussions are easy to find). Also, please be aware that infobox discussions are subject to ArbCom-imposed remedies and special rules apply (thread carefully!). --Xover (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I stopped to care but it's simply wrong that it never had one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda Arendt: I stand corrected!

But I think the point stands that it has not had an infobox since 2010 January 2015 (almost 4 years ago), so in any conversation happening in 2018 the framing cannot be that an infobox has been removed. It's simply that the status quo is that the article has no infobox. And what with one thing and another, I would very much prefer to not see that discussion come up again now (I can see nothing good that can come of that). --Xover (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC) [Amended to correct the span of time based on further prodding (thank you Gerda!) to get my facts straight. --Xover (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)]

@Xover: as per the principle of WP:Bold, I feel it necessary to add the infobox back in. Would anyone take particular issue with this and if so why? Alssa1 (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alssa1: I suppose because the onus would be on you to establish a consensus for inclusion, rather than you present a fait accompli. ——SerialNumber54129 19:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

It could be difficult to establish consensus when the removal of the infobox was done seemingly without any discussion and therefore without an explanation as to why people feel the need to not include an infobox. Perhaps you will be able to provide an explanation as to why you would be opposed to it (if that is indeed your position)? Alssa1 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

There was plenty of opportunity for discussion of the removal of the infobox when the article went to Peer Review and FAC, both of which were well-patronised (the removal was in fact clearly mentioned by the main editors at the top of the PR, see under Article Milestones above). So the consensus for not having an infobox is not simply that it's been like that for a few years, but because formal community review hasn't identified the need for one. I think that brings it back to you, as SN suggests above, to try and establish consensus for inclusion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

It's about personal preference (a preference that a number of people share, due to the fact this issue has been brought up a lot previously). Perhaps I shall WP:BOLD and re-insert it? Alssa1 (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

And a preference that a lot of people don't. I advise against rashly inserting one. - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

So you tried adding one anyway, despite advice from Ian Rose, others and myself here, despite the hidden note advising not to, and despite having previously being given an AE warning about infoboxes? - SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• There have been disputes over time as to whether this article should have an infobox or not. There's a hidden note in the article urging people to "please discuss on the talk page before adding an infobox", but IMO it's quite easy to miss, in amongst the various top templates. And indeed, a user was just WP:BOLD, per above, and inserted an infobox, and was promptly reverted. To avoid edit warring and/or bad blood in the matter, I've added a big shouty bold-face edit notice to the article, which people can hardly avoid seeing as soon as they click "edit". That notice is now also reproduced at the top of this talkpage. Please discuss before adding an infobox, and don't do it unless you get consensus. Bishonen | talk 13:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC).

• Not BOLD: disruptive. This user received an Arb warning three months ago, was referred to the decision in the thread above, ignored the edit notice, ignored the advice from several people about what to do and what not to do, but sure, let's call it "Bold". It wasn't Cass, so there's no need to bring out the big stick to punish anyone. - SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't care whether this article has an infobox or not, but I do note that this discussion began with a simple enquiry about why there wasn't an infobox on this article. At no point did anyone respond to the good faith question with a simple answer, expecting them instead to be familiar with unspecified and unlinked previous discussions that may or may not contain a simple answer - despite multiple explicit requests. Had someone actually answered the question then most of the rest of the discussion would have been completely unnecessary. Regardless of your opinion about infoboxes you have a duty as an editor to engage with good faith questions about them in a good faith manner - for example by providing a link to the previous discussion(s) where consensus was established. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You are right, that should have been pointed out, or at least several links to the archives to point it out. However, DmitryKo, who opened the thread, has been a user since 2005 and has 8,000 + edits under their belt, Alssa1 since 2009 with 1,000 + edits, so both should have been able to find something in the archives (come on - it's not that difficult: we even have a search box to help users look in the archives). Yes, link(s) should have been provided, but informing people there have been threads that are easy to find in the archives is engaging in good faith. As to Alssa1, despite being warned about the ArbCom penalties on their talk page and here, despite the advice about not forcing the issue and despite the hidden notice, they still thought it appropriate to ignore all that and be disruptive. It's fairly obvious that the most recent Arb case was a farce, with no intention to stop disruption like this, but was solely focussed on trying to get rid of one or two editors. - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is not an example of "disruptive editing". As for the talk page archives, I have read them but cannot see an explanation as to why the infobox was removed in January 2015. Would you be able to explain your position SchroCat regarding why you take issue with the infobox here? Alssa1 (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

No, disagreeing me isn't disruptive, but ignoring advice from three months ago and earlier today, ignoring the ArbCom alert that is still on your talk page, ignoring the information about the ArbCom decision mentioned above, ignoring the long-standing consensus and ignoring the hidden text is disruptive. My position has been made clear before, and if you've read the threads in the archive, you can find them again. I really have little wish to be have to go through yet another IB discussion, particularly with someone who ignores things they do not wish to hear. If you wish to change the consensus (which is the way to bring about change) it is you who has to bring arguments (based on policies and guidelines) to suggest why such a change should be brought about. These should be about the use of an IB for this specific article, not in general. - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The advice given to me was to establish a consensus, a consensus can't be established without having those that oppose the change giving an explanation as to why they oppose the change. The policies and guidelines don't say anything about a requirement for an infobox, and I've never claimed that they do. This disagreement is fundamentally about individual editors preferences, and Wiki policies surrounding infoboxes give individual pages the discretion to come up with their own consensus about infoxboxes. You have said that your "position has been made clear before"; well I must say that I beg to differ, if you had made your reasoning clear I would not be informing you that you hadn't (it would be helpful to at least direct me to where you actually explain your reasoning). As for you stating that you "have little wish to be have to go through yet another IB discussion", I must say that your actions undermine that statement. You have rightfully accepted that the consensus can change (archive 2), but you strangely suggest that it's too much of a chore to defend the status quo against a change in consensus. If engaging with new editors is too much of a chore for you, why do you bother watching this page? As for the rest of the people who oppose the presence of an infobox, I have the following to say: I (and I'm sure many others) find the presence of an infobox useful, it assists my enjoyment and/or usage of individual pages (I'll leave the disability argument to one side for now). How does the presence of an infobox on this (and other) page(s) damage your ability to enjoy/make use of this page? Alssa1 (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

"...fundamentally about individual editors preferences". Wrong. Untrue. Fundamentally about what suits the nature of the article. True. ——SerialNumber54129 11:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

So your argument for adding an IB on this article is that you like them? That really is not a sufficient basis to warrant a change of the WP:STATUS QUO. SchroCat (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Why do you engage in a discussion that you've just stated is too much of a chore for you to engage in? Why does not having an infobox on this page mean so much to you? Alssa1 (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

So you want an IB on no stronger ground than the fact you like them? - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: "Fundamentally about what suits the nature of the article." Then please explain how the existence of an infobox somehow doesn't suit the "nature" of the article? @SchroCat: yet again you fail to answer a question designed to build consensus, why is this? Surely it is more effort for you to behave in this manner than to simply explain your reasoning (or alternatively direct to where you have stated your reasoning previously)? Alssa1 (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Wrong way round. There is a long-standing consensus on this page not to include an IB. That’s the STATUS QUO on the article. That’s the reality of the situation here. As I’ve already explained, f you wish to overturn that STATUS WUO, you need to provide arguments to do so. Simply saying it’s your preference to have one, that’s just not enough. So, the question remains, Alssa1, what arguments can you put forward for adding an IB here? If you can’t put forward any arguments, the STATUS QUO remains. (There is no need to ping me - I have this watchlisted). - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I also oppose the infobox. 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 infobox template creates 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) 13:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I wholly concur with Ssilvers. I-Bs have their place, and this is not one of them. Not merely a repetitive waste of space but, as Ssilvers rightly says, a definite disimprovement. Tim riley talk 16:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose infobox. I agree with Ssilvers above; an infobox is not required here as all necessary information is already in the lead. Dreamspy (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - infobox not needed for the reasons so eloquently stated above by others and as I have repeatedly said elsewhere. Jack1956 (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - My view is that the box in this instance adds confusion and subjectivity without providing any utility benefit. Also, sigh, this again. Dont the proponents have better things to do. I agree with Ssilvers's first point, and its the basis for my oppose; don't really buy the rest. Ceoil (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox 2

Discussion about Infobox is fruitless. Here's one for future reference.

Extended content
Laurence Olivier Olivier in 1972 Born Laurence Kerr Olivier, Baron Olivier (1907-05-22)May 22, 1907 Dorking, Surrey, England Died July 11, 1989(1989-07-11) (aged 82) Steyning, West Sussex, England Resting place Westminster Abbey, Westminster, London Occupation Actor Years active 1920–1989 Spouses Jill Esmond ​ ​ (1930⁠–⁠1940)​ Vivien Leigh ​ ​ (1940⁠–⁠1960)​ Joan Plowright ​ ​ (m. 1961;  1989)​

--Water78 (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

What, on god's green earth, is the point of that? SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2019‎

As an exercise in trolling, it's magnificent. As a contribution to improving the article—less so? ——SerialNumber54129 20:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

PMSL! - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat: The unsigned timestamp (like it?) was to indicate the degree to which you actually gave a fuck  :) ——SerialNumber54129 21:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that degree could be adequately described without being rude about it! - 21:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It was extremely inappropriate to call your edit "FFS". --Water78 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope. - SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, Jan --Water78 (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I’m just an IP address, so write me off if you want. But I thought you might want to know how your article appears to the average Wikipedia user.

I randomly wound up on this article, and only came to the Talk page because I found it strange that it did not have an infobox. I understand that one is not required, as a coterie of editors seemingly love to point out, but it’s definitely standard practice. Thus the lack of one here looks sloppy, inconsistent, and more like a mistake than a deliberate editorial decision.

To be clear: I have no stake in this. I don’t even particularly like or dislike Laurence Olivier. But the gatekeeping and YouTube-comment-level rhetoric around this issue is nauseatingly pedantic and at times childish (a number of WP:CIVIL violations I won't single out).

The main argument against IB seems to be redundancy with content in WP:LEAD. Yet there is redundancy throughout this article, “Awards” for example. Moreover, NOT all IB-type details are currently in WP:LEAD. Using Robert Downey Jr.’s page for comparison because he’s at the top of my mind: his infobox includes his birthplace, his alma mater, his children, his parents, and his (admittedly irrelevant) signature. None of this info is in your lead. What’s worse, this article has absolutely no mention of Olivier’s first son, Tarquin, who is himself an actor and producer of some note. An infobox almost definitely would have rectified this egregious oversight.

Once again, I don’t have any stakes here. I don’t care about Olivier, infoboxes, or the integrity of Wikipedia editing. But to an average user, this article looks sloppy—and if you read the Talk page, silly. –G.S. 172.254.184.2 (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreeing with this. I have no particular interest in Laurence Olivier, but not having an info box just because of some baseless bickering is silly, and says a lot about the current state of Wikipedia editing. BariNeon (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Dross edits, over complicating and over linking

I see some terrible editing going on with regards to the titles. Perhaps the edit warrior could use the talk page to discuss, rather than keep forcing in the rubbish they are insisting on? - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• ”And P.S.: for such silly and minor edits I'm not going to start a lengthy discussion of the talk page”: what a charmless and uncollegiate thing to say. Always good to acknowledge that the way things are decided on WP is beneath you. Edit warring is always so much easier. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier's funeral

• Moved from here

Why have you removed my addition about Olivier's funeral, which is well attested by the reliable news service I have referenced? The cremation took place later that day, as can be seen from the article referenced. The funeral itself is of interest, as at his request it was held in a small church in a tiny village, which is very unusual for somebody as notable as Olivier. I can see no reason why you removed this to leave only details of the (less interesting) cremation. Please explain. [[User:Molly Romanov|Molly Romanov]] (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, because Laurence Olivier is a Featured Article and your edit was well below average in terms of its quality. Is it notable to know where his funeral was? No, I don't think so. Cassianto^Talk 20:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I think his funeral is of much more interest than his cremation, as it is very rare for such a notable person's funeral to be held in a small, rural church like that. And why do you say that my edit "was well below average in terms of its quality"? I provided a top-quality citation for the facts which I added, and can see no reason why my contribution should be removed.[[User:Molly Romanov|Molly Romanov]] (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, whilst you may think that your edit was of interest and top in quality, others may disagree with it. That's what's great about WP:BRD. When it comes to a Featured Article (indicated by the gold star on the page) you must expect to have everything scrutinised and you must remember, this is nothing personal to you. Just because something exists, doesn't mean it has to be included. I could add that Olivier's aunt was the wife of one of my favourite ecclesiastical architects from the 20th-century, and that she is now buried, along with her husband, in a church near to where I grew up. Personally, I find that incredibly interesting, as I would, being from near to an area that up until 1947, was only known for an ancient battle] a thousand years ago. But I appreciate that others wouldn't be interested in it and so I have to err on the side of caution. It's knowing where to draw the line.

Secondly, your prose is questionable: "His funeral was held at the 12th-century St James's Church in the tiny village of Ashurst, West Sussex, and his cremation was held at Findon" The village may be "tiny" in your view, but when compared to surrounding villages? Why the need to add the church's date? The cremation detail has been tacked on using a rather awkward conjunction, why? Also, you mention the citation, but "apnews"? I've never heard of it. Is it an approved source? Cassianto^Talk 08:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The point of the insertion was that for most people of such note, their funeral would be held in a large and accessible place; whereas in his case the local church, situated down a country lane, was chosen. OK, I would be content to remove the church's date - and indeed the cremation detail, although I left it in because the earlier poster had seen fit to include it, despite its lack of interest.

And I am a little surprised that you have not heard of the Associated Press news service, but I do not think that this is a reason to reject the contribution. And yes, AP is indeed on the Approved Source page you mention, under News Organizations. [[User:Molly Romanov|Molly Romanov]] (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard of the Associated Press, but I was not familiar with its name within a web address (which is abbreviated), so apologies for that; so that's reliable, fine, but what about everything else? I'd say that's more pressing. Cassianto^Talk 11:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

"interest" is rather subjective, and adding a funeral because the venue was small? That's not a reason for inclusion. If he had been buried there, that is a reason for inclusion, but the key point is to cover whatever the resting place is: with the ashes being scattered, we have to mention that and the cremation, but a small family funeral in a small church isn't encyclopaedic. - SchroCat (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah well, there seems little point in my continuing to put my case, since two of you are now determined that the funeral should receive no mention whatsoever. However, I certainly would not consider a funeral to be "a small family funeral" when the source which I cite reports that "Among those attending the 30-minute service were several of Olivier’s closest friends from his profession: Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Sir Alec Guinness, Sir John and Lady Mills, Franco Zefferelli, Maggie Smith and Lady Richardson, widow of Sir Ralph Richardson... Anthony Hopkins, who recently played King Lear at the Olivier Theater in London, paid the final tribute...". The whole point of my contribution was the very unusual combination of world-wide fame and a remote and somewhat inaccessible church.[[User:Molly Romanov|Molly Romanov]] (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I find the attendees of more interest than the venue, but listing them would make the article look like an upmarket Hello! (the Tatler?). It is a question of editorial judgement and discrimination. William Avery (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I don't find either a funeral or a cremation more important than each other, and with a little tweaking so as not to end up with a massive sentence I think they would compliment each other—and the article—nicely. Still what do I know? The Wild Geese 2—only the film The Wild Geese could have been :) ——SN54129 13:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Awards, honours and memorials section

Mophon, Do you have any basis in policy or guideline that supports the changes you are trying to force on the article? You need to discuss the changes, rather than just edit warring. - SchroCat (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Morphon, please read WP:EDIT WAR. If you disagree with something in the article, please explain your objection here. As you can see, numerous editors disagree with you. Please also see WP:CONSENSUS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

External Links

Due to sanctions on this page, could I just confirm that it is ok to add to the external links section a permalink to the Olivier archive catalogue held at the British Library? Many Thanks, ECasson (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why not. I think that would actually be very helpful. Tim riley and SchroCat, thoughts? Cassianto^Talk 16:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

An excellent idea for the External Links section. - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Concurring. Does one of us need to help in adding it? Tim riley talk 16:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for getting back to me so quickly, I will try to edit in the external link now. ECasson (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Splendid! Good job. Tim riley talk 18:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Why No 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.

---

Where's the infobox? I like InfoBoxes. They're a good, quick way to get information. They're especially useful when using the Wikipedia app on a phone. Some actors have them, others don't. It makes no sense to leave it out. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a consensus not to have one here. The most recent reiteration of this is here, but there were previous discussions too. - SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Ever notice why there are multiple discussions on articles without infoboxes on why there is no infobox, and never discussions at articles with infoboxes, as to why there is an infobox? Maybe it's because people find infoboxes useful and that the presence of an infobox has no derogatory impact on the content of the article, but not having an infobox always seems to make the article less useful to many readers.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe it's because with those who allow a degree of flexibility of approach don't feel the need to push at every opportunity? Maybe those who allow a degree of flexibility of approach don't feel the need to insist on "their" way, regardless of circumstance or common sense? Maybe those who insist upon standardisation haven't thought a little more flexibly about the matter? There are a myriad of reasons, and maybe, just maybe, asking such pointy questions is disruptive in itself? - SchroCat (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2020 (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.

Edit warring

There has been edit warring over the last lines of the lead, regarding Olivier’s marriages. The information was there five years ago when the article went through FAC and appears to have been there ever since. Songwaters removed it a couple of hours ago and has edit warred to keep it out. Rather than this roundabout way of forcing the issue further, could Songwaters and MarnetteD please bear in mind BRD and discuss why this long-standing information should be removed? 109.249.185.61 (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I do apologize for reverting once rather than discussing, but just because Olivier's marriages have been in the lead for five years is not a good enough reason for them to be there. You have provided no evidence that Olivier's marriages are notable enough to be in the lead paragraphs; even if we don't add an infobox, we should definitely include a "personal life" section where mention of his marriages would belong. Instead of constantly reverting the removal of this information over and over, I invite you to explain why Olivier's marriages are notable enough to be mentioned there rather than simply because it's been there for a long time. Songwaters (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead summarises the article. The main points of his professional life are summarised in the first parts of the lead, his personal life is summarised in the last couple of lines. 109.249.185.61 (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why his personal life is significant enough to be mentioned in the lead. Just because it's there (and has been there for a long time) doesn't mean it should be there. Olivier is most widely known for his professional career, not his private life. Just as Gerda Arendt has stated (see how I linked to them?), since Olivier's private life is not a well-known part of him, it is not lead material. Songwaters (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It’s an article about an individual. He has a public and private life, and in this case, all three are notable enough individuals to have their own articles which is notable (and despite what you say, relatively well known). It’s a tiny part of the lead and its fairly clear it should be retained. 109.249.185.61 (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the IP comment above. We are required by WP:LEAD to summarise the main points of the article, and this has been done in this case. If Songwaters cares to read any of the source biographies or the ODNB, or the obituaries, s/he will find extensive detail of Olivier's life, both professional and private, and we have done our best (approved by the FA reviewers, happily) to touch on the main points in the lead here. Tim riley talk 22:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. My main point about “The information was there five years ago when the article went through FAC” was misunderstood by Songwaters: it’s not that it was there for a long time (although we do have to take note of WP:STATUS QUO), but because it went through FAC and peer review, where it was reviewed by several experienced editors. 109.249.185.61 (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict, twice) I don't know the article well. What I saw was an IP edit-warring with two others which I don't like for whatever topic. I looked at the sentence in question, and found it a strange conclusion for the lead, at the final position where I'd rather expect a summary of achievements. Looking a bit closer, I found that the marriages are part of the biography, which is fine, but that Leigh's is not mentioned (only before and after), which is strange. How about thinking about the lead, instead of just insisting that it should be preserved as it was? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

You might like to read the article again, more carefully this time. You will see that what you say above is untrue. Tim riley talk 22:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to read the article again, and found it, so apologise. "They were married" appears after they were called "the couple", and next to an image of the third wife, - interesting, - I had stopped looking before. Sorry for intruding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

You dislike edit warring that much that you ... er ... edit warred yourself. Nice one. 2A02:C7F:76D6:600:A5CF:AD17:C83D:AC1E (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not presume to know what I am thinking - that is rather rude. I am not “insisting that it should be preserved as it was”, but thinking of the information the reader is likely to want, and to take away with them. Most readers will only read the lead, and we should ensure that the main points of an individual’s life are covered. I’ve mentioned above that his three marriages are to three notable actresses and that part of his life is relatively well known, so of course they should be included in the lead. 109.249.185.61 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that FA status for an article does not mean that things are set in stone and cannot be altered. It should also be noted that I was mistaken in removing the item from the lede. The point about a lede summarizing items in the article is correct. In Olivier's case the marriages were a part of both his personal life and professional career. The mention in the lede is brief and completely within the guidelines biography articles. My apologies to all for not being more rigorous in paying attention to what my edits were doing to the article. MarnetteD|Talk 23:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, very well then. We do have plenty of other celebrities, such as Brad Pitt and Elizabeth Taylor, whose private lives are noteworthy enough for their lead sections. Olivier's isn't to my knowledge, but if that's how everyone else feels, I will concede and move on. Songwaters (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

FTR I support Songwaters' removal. I blocked the IP as a sock. Nothing about his marriages merit inclusion in the lead. Why not also add his children to the lead, or every other personal detail? Just because it's been there five years does not make it the word of god that must never be challenged. Sro23 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

As everyone except Sro23 in his/her drive-by comments has agreed, most courteously, that the lead is right as it is, I suggest the matter can be regarded as closed. Tim riley talk 19:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

He’s only here because he’s stalking me. He’s also lied for the third time when blocking me. Standards really have slipped recently when admins turn to lying, double standards and stalking to wind up some petty grudge. 213.205.194.43 (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. One of those! Heigh ho. One presses on as best one can nonetheless. Tim riley talk 20:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Education

For a FEATURED ARTICLE there is a surprising lack of information on where Laurence Olivier was educated - I had to use external sources to find out he graduated from Lancing College and in addition, there is no infobox? Ehhh? What's that about? Definitely needs some editing done here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:A0C4:3300:356B:E371:1E14:83F9 (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Graduated from Lancing College? He was never there. We give full details of his education in the article. Tim riley talk 19:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Postnominal

Olivier received a knighthood (Kt) in 1947, a life peerage in 1979, and the Order of Merit (OM) in 1981. Shouldn't his style be Laurence Kerr Olivier, Baron Olivier, OM, Kt? --Peter Philim (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not one of those who sleeps with Debrett under his pillow, and I may be wrong, but I think once a chap is a peer his knighthood is not listed in his postnominals. Tim riley talk 15:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

That has always been my understanding. FWIW. Xover (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

That's the opposite: as a peer, the tile "sir" disappears but he retains his post-noms. In the case of Knight Bachelor, having a higher title is the only time the post-nom (Kt) is used [1]. So as Baron Olivier, he gains a post-nom, as its the only way of indicating that he has a knighthood as well (because his "sir" disappears). Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 09:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That source says: In formal documents the post-nominal 'Kt.' is often adopted by Knights Bachelor who are also peers, baronets or knights of the various statutory orders. That says to me that certain such people choose to do this, but it is a private decision and is still not a recognised standard practice. I doubt you'd see it on the Court Circulars, for example. We should not be lending support to this, as if it were a universally accepted convention. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, and a good point, Jack. If you google "Lord Olivier, OM, Kt" nothing looking like a reliable source comes up. I think you're right and that the "Kt" should be omitted. Tim riley talk 18:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Structure

I am not sure why some people can’t open talk page threads - it’s not a sign of weakness or that you’re losing the argument, but there we go. Marnette, minor(ish) point, but this isn’t a GA, but an FA. While it doesn’t mean an article is untouchable, it does mean it’s been through two community review processes, which gives it a very strong consensus to overturn, not just change and edit war over.

The sectioning together of notes and references is common enough, and this article has followed that structure for many years. It follows the same structure as Olivier’s contemporaries Gielgud and Richardson (also both FAs), so I am wondering why change that. The MOS is flexible enough to allow the current consensus version, so what benefit is there in splitting the section apart? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:3005:CFD6:D85C:99FB (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

These days I tend to have one top-level heading "Notes, references and sources" and then second-level sub-headings for each of the three components, but there's nothing wrong with the layout in the FA version of this article and – a key point me judice – it maintains consistency with the FAs on Richardson and Gielgud whom we specifically bracket with LO in the the lead. – Tim riley talk 09:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Using the same section header words twice is sloppy and inefficient. Are readers unable to distinguish between the two with only one header? I've seen the single use separate headers used far more often including in FA's and GA's. Yes I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF so if repetitiveness is what the way others want this then fine. BTW this notion that an FA version can't be edited is a straw man argument at best per WP:BUREAU. This article alone has had hundreds if not thousands of edits since passing FA and some of those were style changes. This is now off my watchlist so enjoy your redundancy. MarnetteD|Talk 17:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

”this notion that an FA version can't be edited is a straw man argument at best” But no-one has claimed that at all - in fact quite the opposite (If you haven’t done so so far, please read the last sentence of my first paragraph, above). The only straw man is you trying to use that as an accusation of other people’s behaviour. You are right to say there have been some changes since it went through FAC, but the fact that the beneficial changes have been retained while the poor ones have been removed just shows there is an acceptance of change. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:3005:CFD6:D85C:99FB (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

'Wheelchair-bound'

I would like to change 'wheelchair-bound' to 'wheelchair user', or 'elderly soldier who uses a wheelchair' in the description of Olivier's last role - a change I've been making across WP because it's now the preferred terminology. Just checking first as I see the article is protected. Persicifolia (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Entirely reasonable, it seems to me. Accepted usage changes, and this, I should say, is a recognised change from an outdated to a more acceptable modern form. And thank you for checking here. I wish everyone was as scrupulous and courteous. – Tim riley talk 15:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes 'wheelchair-bound' was always an odd term really, because nobody is literally bound to a wheelchair (I sincerely hope!) and most people who use one are ambulatory, i.e part-time wheelchair users. I shall go ahead and change it then. Have a lovely evening! Persicifolia (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Schooling?

The article currently states that Olivier attended St Edward's School, Oxford, from 1920 to 1924: however, recently-released census data records him as still being at at All Saints, London in 1921, according to The Conversation (I haven't paid to see the original census document, but it seems to be a reliable source). Can anyone shed light on this contradictory information? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The Holden biography cited here is not easy to follow so far as dates are concerned, but I think you may be right that it was only three years at St Edward's, ending in, if I read it right, early 1924. I'll see if I can find a source with clearer dates. Tim riley talk 18:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Found one! The Darlington biography says that he went to St Edward's in the September term of 1921 and left at the end of the summer term in 1924. I'll amend the date in the article from 1920 to 1921. Tim riley talk 18:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Great work! ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for spotting this! Tim riley talk 19:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Bisexuality

I'm sorry, but aren't there numerous biographies that claim that Laurence Olivier was at the very least bisexual? I feel like this article should mention these sources, especially considering he's on the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. Saturdayopen (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

You may like to read the article in full: e.g. "a brief affair with the actor Henry Ainley". The citation in the list you mention is not to a WP:RS and when I get round to it I'll remove it. Tim riley talk 21:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I missed it. You don't need to be rude. Saturdayopen (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies accepted, naturally. Tim riley talk 22:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic, Tim. And again I am reminded to read Gaudy Night. I have no idea why you effect this fervour. "One never failed to find Wimsey of Balliol planted in the centre of the quad and laying down the law with exquisite insolence to somebody". Ah! Perhaps I do... SN54129 19:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm never sure whether I find Ballioty or Wykehamity more irritating in its assumption of omniscience. Tim riley talk 19:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)