→Infobox: I can't remember the text to do a face palm emoji, but I hope you get the idea |
Edit notice: infobox restriction |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Ds/editnotice|1=may not add an infobox to the article without first achieving consensus on the talk page,|topic=cid}}{{Talk header|search=yes }} |
|||
{{Talk header|search=yes }} |
|||
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=People|class = FA}} |
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=People|class = FA}} |
||
{{Article history |
{{Article history |
||
Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
:::And a preference that a lot of people ''don't''. I advise against rashly inserting one. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 11:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC) |
:::And a preference that a lot of people ''don't''. I advise against rashly inserting one. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 11:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::So you tried adding one anyway, despite advice from {{u|Ian Rose}}, others and myself here, despite the hidden note advising not to, and despite having previously being given an AE warning about infoboxes? - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 11:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC) |
:::So you tried adding one anyway, despite advice from {{u|Ian Rose}}, others and myself here, despite the hidden note advising not to, and despite having previously being given an AE warning about infoboxes? - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 13:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC). |
|||
== Four Oscars? == |
== Four Oscars? == |
Revision as of 13:13, 18 January 2019
Before you edit this page:
This page relates to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, which is a contentious topic. Your behavior on this page is subject to special rules. You must follow:
If you do not follow those rules then you may be banned from editing on the topic or blocked from editing entirely. This restriction is authorised by the Arbitration Committee. Before making edits in this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the contentious topics policy. |
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 Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 12, 2018. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. CassiantoTalk 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
2010January 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)
- Thank you Gerda Arendt: I stand corrected!But I think the point stands that it has not had an infobox since
- I stopped to care but it's simply wrong that it never had one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 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'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)
- There is no any "consensus". An infobox for this article is necessary GorgonaJS (talk) 11:45, 28 August 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)
- 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)
- 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).
Four Oscars?
The Academy Award website (oscar.com), under its 1947 list of nominees and winners, says that Henry V got a "special award", but does not specify that Olivier received an Oscar for it.Decembermonday (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
He did indeed receive an Oscar statuette for "Henry V". It was presented to him by fellow Briton Ray Milland on the set of "Hamlet" in 1947. Visit the website "Vivien Leigh & Laurence Olivier". There are two photos of him with the Oscar. O Murr (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Need displayed chart of films and TV-shows
There should be a displayed chart of Olivier's films and TV shows. Having a long wordy article is all fine and good, but I assume that many people (like me) just came to the website looking for that list. I don't want to have to read through all the verbiage to try to extract it.
2601:184:497F:8D29:A1A7:FBDA:E76F:E2DA (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Such a chart exists at Laurence Olivier on stage and screen. MarnetteD|Talk 22:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
"The Royal Family" retitled "Theatre Royal" in UK
The retitling of The Royal Family (play) as "Theatre Royal" is mentioned in "Letters of Noel Coward", p. 299, This link may work for a while: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4qJOBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA299&lpg=PA299&dq=%22Laurence+Olivier%22+%22Royal+Family%22+1934&source=bl&ots=XaH0dZSplo&sig=4bFd5RRX68ePMPUC9nzlRQK1q38&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjXm-TkrZrfAhUGxxoKHY3eAqwQ6AEwFnoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Laurence%20Olivier%22%20%22Royal%20Family%22%201934&f=false
- William Avery (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)