The Haiku Master (talk | contribs) added info re: the music video; sourced to liner notes in AC/DC's Family Jewels DVD 2-Disc Set, Wikipedia's main AC/DC page, and a The Age article published 9/10/04 |
Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) →Infobox: should not make another comment but can't let ownership stand - report me to arbitration enforcement |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header |search=yes }} |
|||
{{Infobox Song | |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
Name = It's A Long Way To The Top (If You Wanna Rock 'n' Roll)| |
|||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|||
Cover = Acdc-tnt.jpg| |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|||
Artist = [[AC/DC]] | |
|||
|counter = 1 |
|||
from Album = [[T.N.T. (album)]] | |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|||
Released = [[1975]] | |
|||
|algo = old(90d) |
|||
Genre = [[Hard Rock]] | |
|||
|archive = Talk:Laurence Olivier/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
Length = 5:51 | |
|||
}} |
|||
Label = [[Albert Productions]] | |
|||
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months }} |
|||
Producer = [[Harry Vanda]], [[George Young]] |}} |
|||
{{ArticleHistory |
|||
|action1=FAC |
|||
'''''It's A Long Way to the Top (If you Wanna Rock 'n' Roll)''''' is a song by the [[Australian]] [[hard rock]] band [[AC/DC]]. It is the first track of their Australian album [[T.N.T. (album)|T.N.T.]]. The song, written by [[Angus Young]], [[Malcolm Young]] and [[Bon Scott]], is about the perils of becoming a rock star. The song was later on the worldwide release of ''[[High Voltage (international album)|High Voltage]]'', released [[1976|a year later]]. |
|||
|action1date=09:05, 17 March 2006 |
|||
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laurence Olivier/archive1 |
|||
|action1result=not promoted |
|||
|action1oldid=44168055 |
|||
|action2=PR |
|||
The perils of becoming a rock star include getting: |
|||
|action2date=02:28, 23 March 2006 |
|||
|action2link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Laurence Olivier/archive1 |
|||
|action2result=reviewed |
|||
|action2oldid=44873038 |
|||
|action3=GAN |
|||
* Robbed |
|||
|action3date=13 July 2006 |
|||
* Stoned |
|||
|action3link=Talk:Laurence_Olivier/Archive_1#GA_passed |
|||
* Beat up |
|||
|action3result=listed |
|||
* Broken boned |
|||
|action3oldid=63567980 |
|||
* Had |
|||
* Took |
|||
* Old |
|||
* Grey |
|||
* Ripped off |
|||
* Under-paid |
|||
* Sold second hand |
|||
|action4=WPR |
|||
== Personnel == |
|||
|action4date=23:47, 30 July 2006 |
|||
* [[Bon Scott]] - lead vocals |
|||
|action4link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Laurence Olivier |
|||
* [[Angus Young]] - lead guitar |
|||
|action4result=reviewed |
|||
* [[Malcolm Young]] - rhythm guitar |
|||
|action4oldid=66762898 |
|||
* [[Mark Evans (musician)|Mark Evans]] - bass guitar |
|||
* [[Phil Rudd]] - drums |
|||
plus |
|||
* [[Harry Vanda]] - producer |
|||
* [[George Young]] - producer |
|||
|action5=PR |
|||
== Music Video == |
|||
|action5date=02:19, 1 August 2006 |
|||
The music video for "It's a Long Way to the Top (If You Wanna Rock 'n' Roll)" was filmed on [[February 23]] [[1976]] for [[Australia]]'s ''Countdown'' music program. It featured the band's then-current lineup, along with members of the [[Rats of Tobruk Pipe Band]], on the back of a flat-bed truck traveling on [[Swanston Street, Melbourne|Swanston Street]] in Melbourne, Australia. The Young brothers, Evans, Rudd and the Rats of Tobruk Pipe Band all appeared to be playing their instruments, while Scott sang and appeared to play bagpipes, as well. The video is dubbed with the studio track from the [[T.N.T. (album)|T.N.T.]] album. |
|||
|action5link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Laurence Olivier/archive2 |
|||
|action5result=reviewed |
|||
|action5oldid=66966685 |
|||
|action6=GAR |
|||
On [[October 1]] [[2004]] [[Melbourne]]'s Corporation Lane was officially renamed "[[ACDC Lane, Melbourne|ACDC Lane]]" in honor of the band (street names in the [[City of Melbourne]] cannot contain the "[[/]]" character). It is near [[Swanston Street, Melbourne|Swanston Street]]. The Melbourne City Council's decision to rename the street was unanimous. |
|||
|action6date=20 August 2006 |
|||
|action6link=Talk:Laurence_Olivier/Archive_1#Delisted |
|||
|action6result=delisted |
|||
|action6oldid=70728016 |
|||
|action7=GAN |
|||
Known members of the Rats of Tobruk Pipe Band at the time of the video's filming include: Alan Butterworth, L. Kenfield, and Kevin Conlon. |
|||
|action7date=14:49, 22 May 2008 |
|||
|action7link=Talk:Laurence_Olivier/Archive_1#GAC_fail |
|||
|action7result=not listed |
|||
|action7oldid=213987786 |
|||
|action8=PR |
|||
== Cover Versions == |
|||
|action8date=13:18, 2 February 2015 |
|||
Performed by: |
|||
|action8link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Laurence Olivier/archive3 |
|||
* [[Jack Black]] ([[School of Rock]] Motion Picture, 2003) |
|||
|action8result=reviewed |
|||
* [[Pat Boone]] (''In a Metal Mood: No More Mr. Nice Guy'', 1997) |
|||
|action8oldid= 645208093 |
|||
* [[Dropkick Murphys]] (''The Singles Collection, Vol. 2'', 2005) |
|||
* Electric (''A Tribute to AC/DC'', 2006) |
|||
* [[John Farnham]] (''Age of Reason'', 1990) |
|||
* [[Iced Earth]] (''Tribute to the Gods'', 2002) |
|||
* [[Motörhead]] (''Thunderbolt: A Tribute to AC/DC'', 1998) |
|||
* Nantucket (''Long Way to the Top'', 1980) |
|||
* Rawkus (''AC/DC: Hometown Tribute'', 2000) |
|||
* [[W.A.S.P]] |
|||
* [[Sandra Weckert]] (''Bar Jazz'', 2003) |
|||
|action9=FAC |
|||
The song was covered during the credit sequence of the movie [[School of Rock]], performed by [[Jack Black (actor)|Jack Black]] and the class of children he taught while masquerading as a teacher. However, the children adlibed their own lyrics towards the end of the song. |
|||
|action9date=2015-02-14 |
|||
|action9link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laurence Olivier/archive2 |
|||
|action9result=promoted |
|||
|action9oldid=646627319 |
|||
|currentstatus=FA |
|||
== External Links == |
|||
}} |
|||
* [http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/IT'S-A-LONG-WAY-TO-THE-TOP-IF-YOU-WANNA-ROCK-'N'-ROLL-lyrics-AC-DC/EBDE7EEDA80B9A604825686B000ABF90 Lyrics] |
|||
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=People|class = FA}} |
|||
* [http://youtube.com/watch?v=ChMEX76D2nY The music video of this song] |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{WPBiography|living=no|class = FA|old-peer-review=yes |
|||
|filmbio-work-group=yes|filmbio-priority=Top |
|||
|peerage-work-group=yes|peerage-priority=Mid |
|||
|listas=Olivier, Laurence}} |
|||
{{LGBTProject |class = FA|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{Wikiproject Shakespeare|class = FA|importance=high}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Theatre|class = FA|importance=High}} |
|||
{{WikiProject London|class = FA|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Surrey|class = FA|importance=mid}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{todo|small=yes}} |
|||
{{V0.5|class = FA|category=Arts|small=yes}} |
|||
== 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.[[User:Ordinary Person|Ordinary Person]] ([[User talk:Ordinary Person|talk]]) 14:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:AC/DC songs]] |
|||
:The sources are clear that LO's father, Gerard, was insistent on the French pronunciation of the surname. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:1.05em;">[[User:Tim riley|<font color="#0A0A2A">Tim riley</font>]][[User talk:Tim riley|<font color="#848484"> talk</font>]]</span>''' 23:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:1975 songs]] |
|||
==Nationality== |
|||
While I have no objection as such, should he not be called an English actor? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/95.150.89.220|95.150.89.220]] ([[User talk:95.150.89.220|talk]]) 21:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
: Olivier would have possessed a British passport, not an English one. [[User:Philip Cross|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:SteveCrook|SteveCrook]] ([[User talk: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 Wikipedia look silly. – [[User:Tim riley|Tim riley]] ([[User talk:Tim riley|talk]]) 17:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::: Why would that be silly? It's accurate. I thought that Wikipedia 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 -- [[User:SteveCrook|SteveCrook]] ([[User talk: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." [[User:Tim riley|Tim riley]] ([[User talk: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 -- [[User:SteveCrook|SteveCrook]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tim riley|Tim riley]] ([[User talk: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 :) -- [[User:SteveCrook|SteveCrook]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tim riley|Tim riley]] ([[User talk:Tim riley|talk]]) 10:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Do what you want. I gave up expecting Wikipedia or Wikipedians to do anything accurate years ago -- [[User:SteveCrook|SteveCrook]] ([[User talk:SteveCrook|talk]]) 11:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::That's terribly sad, and I'm genuinely sorry to hear it. [[User:Tim riley|Tim riley]] ([[User talk:Tim riley|talk]]) 12:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::It is sad, but nobody does anything about it - now ''that's'' sad -- [[User:SteveCrook|SteveCrook]] ([[User talk: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. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:Spanglej|Span]] ([[User talk:Spanglej|talk]])</font> 15:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: Yes, there's the accurate way of doing things and then there's the Wikipedia way. Never the two shall meet :) -- [[User:SteveCrook|SteveCrook]] ([[User talk: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 [ 1759–96], 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 Wikipedia way", I'm afraid, but the SteveCrook way and everyone else's. |
|||
Hope this clarifies matters. [[User:Tim riley|Tim riley]] ([[User talk: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 :] [[Special:Contributions/195.89.48.249|195.89.48.249]] ([[User talk:195.89.48.249|talk]]) 12:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:I wouldn't. As per [[WP:INFOBOXUSE]], it states: {{tq|"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. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk: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]]. -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk: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. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">[[User:Cassianto|<font face="Papyrus">Cassianto</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Cassianto#top|<font face="Papyrus">Talk</font>]]</sup></span>''' 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. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:1.05em;">[[User:Tim riley|<font color="#0A0A2A">Tim riley</font>]][[User talk:Tim riley|<font color="#848484"> talk</font>]]</span>''' 20:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I third that. [[User:Graham Beards|Graham Beards]] ([[User talk: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, [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk: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 {{diff|Laurence Olivier|642502304|642434285|most of these years}}? --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk: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, [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk: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. 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 [[User talk:Nikkimaria#Respect each other|Respect each other]] (started before I even noticed this). --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 10:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Agreed with Graham, Ian and the others. Like {{u|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.♦ [[User:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 21:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
'''TOTAL UTTER BULLCRAP'''. The above discussion just sums up Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VcrNn8AiWMc/Tq2CavD4Y1I/AAAAAAAABCs/iv07lVmamsE/s1600/Someone+is+wrong+on+internet.png it'll be the same old Wikipedia drama]. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/31.51.45.206|31.51.45.206]] ([[User talk:31.51.45.206|talk]]) 14:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Please read [[WP:CIVIL]] and try to take the message on board, thank you. The consensus of the Wikipedia 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. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 14:15, 28 January 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup></span> 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 Wikipedia 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. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]|[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 22:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:21, 28 February 2015
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 is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Wikipedia look silly. – Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Why would that be silly? It's accurate. I thought that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
- That's terribly sad, and I'm genuinely sorry to hear it. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Do what you want. I gave up expecting Wikipedia or Wikipedians to do anything accurate years ago -- SteveCrook (talk) 11:49, 9 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)
- You are also entitled to your view. You think it looks silly, but it's accurate :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:50, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Why would that be silly? It's accurate. I thought that Wikipedia 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)
- 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 Wikipedia look silly. – Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 8 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 Wikipedia 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 [ 1759–96], 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 Wikipedia way", I'm afraid, but the SteveCrook way and everyone else's.
- 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.
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. CassiantoTalk 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. 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I third that. Graham Beards (talk) 23:16, 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)
- Neither do I. What I would find to be helpful IP is that you disappear rather quickly. CassiantoTalk 18:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
TOTAL UTTER BULLCRAP. The above discussion just sums up Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
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 (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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)