Talk:Laurence Olivier - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Binksternet (talk | contribs) at 15:25, 1 March 2015 (→Infobox: adding my voice against infobox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:25, 1 March 2015 by Binksternet (talk | contribs) (→Infobox: adding my voice against infobox)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Laurence Olivier article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Laurence Olivier article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Laurence Olivier is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 17, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
March 23, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
July 13, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
July 30, 2006	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
August 1, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
August 20, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
May 22, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 2, 2015	Peer review	Reviewed
February 14, 2015	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Peerage and Baronetage

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Shakespeare High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Theatre High‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

London Mid‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Surrey Mid‑importance

	Surrey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2006-07-05

General Expansion of all Sections
Discussion of Work
- Successes
- Failures
LO's view of own work
Critical Commentary
Legacy

Template:V0.5

Pronunciation

Olivier pronounced his name /ˈɵˈlɪviɵ/, as did other members of his family. At some point in his career, journalists etc began to pronounce it /ˈɵˈlɪvi.ei/ as though he were French. I think the pronunciation guide in the introduction should reflect this somehow.Ordinary Person (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The sources are clear that LO's father, Gerard, was insistent on the French pronunciation of the surname. Tim riley talk 23:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Nationality

While I have no objection as such, should he not be called an English actor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.89.220 (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Olivier would have possessed a British passport, not an English one. Philip Cross (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Applause. There is no official nationality as English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish. We are all (for now) British. -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is helpful to readers to say that, e.g., Dylan Thomas was Welsh, Alex Salmond is Scottish, Oscar Wilde was Irish, and Olivier was English. They were/are all British, but there are four countries (as opposed to nation states) in the UK. "The British poet Dylan Thomas" or "the British politician Alex Salmond" would be unhelpful and would make Misplaced Pages look silly. – Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Why would that be silly? It's accurate. I thought that Misplaced Pages strove to be accurate. They all carry (or carried) passports giving their nationality as British. You can say that they were born in and live(d) in Wales or Scotland but there has been no nationality of Welsh or Scottish, or even of English since the various acts of union -- SteveCrook (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, their passports were/are British, but they were respectively Welsh, Scottish, Irish and English. Alex Salmond is not the leader of the British National Party. Nationalities and nation states are not the same thing, and WP has a policy of describing people as they would wish to be described: "Nationality should refer to national identity, in other words the national group with which the person identified, not the state of which the person was a citizen or subject." Tim riley (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde was born a British citizen/subject. Dublin was a part of the UK when he was born. Dylan Thomas wasn't very Welsh, he didn't speak the language. Alex Salmond is a politician looking for individual power and thinks he can get it by playing the nationalist card. None of them are very good examples to use in this argument. If that's how WP wishes to define nationality it wouldn't be the first case where it's just wrong. Although I see that that extract you refer to is just a guideline, not a rule. Nationality is a legal construct, people can't pick and choose their nationality and we shouldn't pick and choose a nationality for them. Maybe you're really wanting to describe these people's ethnicity -- SteveCrook (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You are, natch, entitled to your view, but just try to think what our readers require of WP. Robbie Burns the well-known British poet. W B Yeats, the well-known British playwright. It would make us look silly. Tim riley (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You are also entitled to your view. You think it looks silly, but it's accurate :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

But calling an Englishman English and a Scotsman Scottish is as correct as calling them British, and has the benefit of avoiding the inanity of "the British poet Robert Burns". The best of both worlds: it's accurate and it won't have our readers thinking we've gone mad. Tim riley (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Do what you want. I gave up expecting Misplaced Pages or Wikipedians to do anything accurate years ago -- SteveCrook (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That's terribly sad, and I'm genuinely sorry to hear it. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It is sad, but nobody does anything about it - now that's sad -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Steve, if you've been around for years, you will know these debates have raged since the beginning, on pretty much every biog of a famous N. Irish, Welsh and Scottish subject. There are two views - yes and no. There it is. Span (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there's the accurate way of doing things and then there's the Misplaced Pages way. Never the two shall meet :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Steve, out of conscience I looked to see what other encyclopaedias do about this. Burns, having been mentioned above, seemed a good reference point, as he was born after the Act of Union.

Britannica is straightforward ("Robert Burns – Scottish poet Jan. 25, 1759 Alloway, Ayrshire, Scot. July 21, 1796")
The ODNB – by policy, I suspect from a quick look at one or two other prominent Scots – avoids the matter altogether, so: "Burns, Robert (1759–1796), poet, was born on 25 January 1759 in a two-room clay cottage … at Alloway, Ayrshire", carefully (I guess) avoiding the controversy above by not mentioning "Scottish" or "British" at all.
The Chambers Biographical Dictionary, a much-used standby, has him as "Burns, Robert, Scottish poet".
Of Oxford University Press publications I can lay hands on:
- A Dictionary of Writers and their Works ("Burns, Robert ( 1759–1796) Scottish poet"
- Oxford World Encyclopedia ("Burns, Robert ( 1759–96 ) Scottish poet")
- The Oxford Companion to English Literature ("Burns, Robert ( 1759–96 ) Scottish poet")
- Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language ("Burns, Robert , Scottish national poet.")
- The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations ("Robert Burns 1759 – 96 Scottish poet")

I must in fairness add that at least as many Oxford reference books follow the ODNB line and don't call Burns Scottish in the opening line. But, crucially, no reference book I can find calls him "British". So it isn't "the accurate way of doing things and then there's the Misplaced Pages way", I'm afraid, but the SteveCrook way and everyone else's.

Hope this clarifies matters. Tim riley (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Where is the infobox? Don't worry guys, i'll set about building one for you :] 195.89.48.249 (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't. As per WP:INFOBOXUSE, it states: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". I note you are the same edit warring IP editor who has been disruptive on the Stanley Holloway article on this issue, and I suspect you are now engaged in stalking through my edit history on this single issue. I strongly suggest you desist now. - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that an infobox would be helpful in this article. All of the key facts that would be contained in one are clearly stated in the WP:LEAD, and in infobox would, at best, be redundant and interfere with the clean, attractive lead image in the article. Please see WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither do I. What I would find to be helpful IP is that you disappear rather quickly. Cassianto 18:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I second Cassianto's proposal. If the anonymous editor will stop frivolous and disruptive editing it will be one less obstacle in the path of serious editors. Tim riley talk 20:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I third that. Graham Beards (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC).

Yep, while not anti-infobox per se -- I find them useful in several types of article -- I don't see the value-add in an arts bio. I'd note further that when MOS is equivocal on a requirement, it's common practice for the main editors' preference to be respected. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please let me know what defines a "main editor" for an article which existed for 10 years and had an infobox for most of these years? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think people who make substantial edits to an article and shepherd it through FAC would certainly figure highly in the "main editor" stakes... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You think that their personal preference is more important than the article history and the expections of the readers? Trying to imagine that someone would "improve" an article I wrote and by that would win the right to remove the infobox is not a pleasant thought. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That's shades of ownership there Gerda! (And in many cases the removal of an IBS is an improvement to the article!) As always, if there re two min editors who disagree over the inclusion of an IB, then the stable extant version remains (after a quick WP:BRD dance) until there is a new local consensus to decide. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ownership? If I add an infobox to inform readers, and someone removes it because he claims he added more to the article: that "shades of (new) ownership" (thank you for a new phrase) to me. - I don't agree with your statement about the "many cases". I don't know a single case in which data about time and place of the subject would not help some readers, and it doesn't take away for the others, - see Chopin. If information in an infobox is wrong, that part can be corrected or omitted. - Report me to arbitration enforcement now, I made a third comment ;) - Please continue, more generally than for this particular article, in Respect each other (started before I even noticed this). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That's where you and I will have to disagree, I'm afraid Gerda: I do not believe every article is improved by an IB. I'm a big fan of them, and I think of all the articles I've created most have one. Most of those I've helped take through GA have one, and a good percentage of those I've taken through FA have one (including my most recent), but certainly not all by a long stretch. Dates and places? They often mean little without the context, which an IB cannot provide. - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Graham, Ian and the others. Like Ian Rose I'm not anti-infobox generally, but in actor biographies they're really of limited use and part of the furniture and the main article writers should really be respected in their decision.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

TOTAL UTTER BULLCRAP. The above discussion just sums up Misplaced Pages in a nutshell. Why have infoboxes if they're not going to be used? Why does one need to wade through an entire solo editor's "ego trip" to find out what was once succinctly conveyed in the infobox? DOB, place of birth, internment details, wives, children and relatives etc. This sort of editing serves no one but the writer (who will no doubt add another achievement tick to their user page for "articles I have done"). Work like this is done solely for reasons of vanity and not for any potential value of conveying concise information to any potential readership. Rather than this being once an article of consensus, it was not perfect but at least it was pluralistic in tone and content; now it's the work of almost one highly-self satisfied writer. Hmmm and are they going to take kindly to others coming along and doing what they think is right? Hardly as the above BS proves. Why presume everyone is just like you? I for one don't often have the time to read a verbose article. Basic details should be quickly available. Isn't that why Misplaced Pages has infoboxes? Besides this article is already in violation of WP:OWN as the above discussion outlines. No infobox heh? (My mystic ball suggests this will run and run) but in a few years (when the above writers have thrown their hands in their and slapped "retired" on their work pages) there will eventually be an infobox but meanwhile for the next 24 to 36 months it'll be the same old Misplaced Pages drama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.45.206 (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL and try to take the message on board, thank you. The consensus of the Misplaced Pages community is summed up in the MoS - it has been quoted above to you "neither required nor prohibited" - and that is the position here. If you wish to change the community's consensus you will need to start a discussion on the talk page of the MoS for all parties to discuss. - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we ignore the idiotic IP's comment above and treat it with the contempt it deserves. Cassianto 12:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

IP editor: It really is unfortunate that you were unable to resist the impulse to use profanity at the beginning of your comment and later ("as the above BS proves") because you have some valid points. It is too bad that you don't have confidence in the persuasiveness of your arguments. The profanity and the tone you used overshadow your arguments. I'm new to this discussion, but I've seen disagreement about infoboxes before. I would like to express agreement with the IP editor that infoboxes can be helpful to someone who only wants, or has the time for, basic details about the subject of an article, including people. If one has the time to read an entire article, or parts of it, one can ignore the infobox, which I've done many times, but it is nice to have it there in case one only wants basic details. I understand what Dr. Blofeld is saying, that for actor biographies they are of limited use, but I've seen infoboxes of various lengths, and the infobox on a person does not have to be long. It could be short, with the photo (or painting) of the person at the top. Regarding the other issue, I don't know if there was any background to this, but it seems that any hint of ownership of an article, by either one or a group of editors, clearly touched off something in the IP editor. I think, given that Misplaced Pages advertises itself as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, there should be no ownership of articles, not even by the original writer or a group of editors who has been working on an article. It is possible that, if it is perceived that there is an editor or small group of editors who act like an article is "theirs", an editor on the outside could feel excluded, provoking resentment in that person. I do think, though, that any significant changes to an article that has been stable for a while should be reached through discussion and consensus. I would just like editors who are opposed to infoboxes to consider the reader who does not have a lot of time to read through an article to find key information. For that reader, the infobox is very helpful. For the reader who does have the time and inclination to read the article, the infobox is not overly distracting and can be skipped. I would just like to end by asking editors to show more kindness toward other editors. On the one hand, it is both possible and more effective to express one's opinions without resorting to profanity, and on the other, it is possible to overlook the profanity, recognize feelings of exclusion and resentment, extend kindness, and respond only to the ideas. CorinneSD (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Readers were considered during the last re-write and, beyond some banal points that can largely be found in the first paragraph of the lead, there was no justification of including an IB. The reader in search of some basic factoids is best served by reading the first para, where they will get a much better picture of Olivier than any IB could paint. I'll only add that there was nothing in the discussion about ownership until the IP raised the issue. I'm sorry, but the foul-mouthed and insulting tantrum thrown by an IP who doesn't understand the concept of a consensus has little impact on me, and certainly doesn't aid any sort of discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I am delighted to see no infobox at this biography. I think biographies of persons in the arts are represented best without the infobox (because the infobox is simplistic and a tool for pigeonholing), and every time I see a local consensus against one I agree with it. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Filmography

The link to the full list of his stage and screen roles is in a rather odd place; I'd suggest it'd be better as a "See also", as that makes it far easier to find. Adam Cuerden 22:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree AC. The way it is labeled and its position in the article give the reader no clue that it is a list of performances and roles. It look much more like a link to another article about his acting. OTOH putting it in a "See also" section is problematic. In an article of this length readers who aren't Misplaced Pages editors would look for a link to a filmography in the TOC and, not seeing one, think that one might not exist. They could also be forgiven for not thinking to look in a "see also' section. I have been WP:BOLD and moved it so that it looks the way it does in many other actor articles. Now I know that WP:OTHERSTUFF can be used if other editors disagree with my actions so feel free to revert or alter. But I do think that the way it was is not helpful to readers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Categories: