Misplaced Pages

Talk:Laurence Olivier: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:39, 1 December 2022 edit2a00:23c7:2b86:9801:6562:a1fc:f7f2:51bf (talk) →Infobox Added to Artice← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:37, 26 October 2024 edit undoSchroCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers113,334 editsNo edit summary 
(193 intermediate revisions by 52 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Talk header}}
{{Talk header|archive_age=3|archive_units=months|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{Article history {{Article history
|action1=FAC |action1=FAC
Line 65: Line 64:
|otd1date=2019-05-22|otd1oldid=898177479 |otd1date=2019-05-22|otd1oldid=898177479
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1= {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Olivier, Laurence|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class = FA|old-peer-review=yes {{WikiProject Biography|old-peer-review=yes|filmbio-work-group=yes|filmbio-priority=Top|peerage-work-group=yes|peerage-priority=Mid}}
{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies}}
|filmbio-work-group=yes|filmbio-priority=Top
{{WikiProject Shakespeare|importance=high}}
|peerage-work-group=yes|peerage-priority=Mid
{{WikiProject Theatre|importance=High}}
|listas=Olivier, Laurence}}
{{WikiProject LGBT studies|class = FA|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject London|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Shakespeare|class = FA|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Surrey|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Theatre|class = FA|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject London|class = FA|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Surrey|class = FA|importance=low}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=People|class = FA}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 81: Line 76:
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 3 |counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 2
|algo = old(90d) |algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Laurence Olivier/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Laurence Olivier/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Ds/talk notice|restriction=Editors may not add an infobox to the article without first achieving consensus on the talk page.|topic=cid}}
{{Annual readership}} {{Annual readership}}


== Olivier's first performance and falling flat on his face ==
== Really? ==


{{!xt|his first stage appearance was in a sketch called&nbsp;''The Unfailing Instinct''&nbsp;at the&nbsp;]&nbsp;in August 1925.<u>He tripped and fell on his face during the performance.</u>}}{{pb}}(underlined was removed)
* '''If you are someone that is reading this discussion for the 1st time only ''', there is an active discussion in great need of a new perspective. Read ALL the comments relating to the infobox discussion and come to a consensus. The consensus must not be based on what you think but on the comments of the other Wikipedians (For more info, see ]. 20:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
<!-- ] 23:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1669676468}}
Why is there no infobox? Is this really representative of how the editors of wikipedia operate? It seems like there's a cadre of folks treating this article as their own personal fiefdom. It's downright disturbing. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:No reason whatsoever, other than the idea that some people don't like them so nobody gets to use them.--] ] 17:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
:I'd like to draw attention to . I see no reason as to why an infobox would hinder the article or in any way make it harder to read. We need to vote. ] (]) 07:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, there is absolutely no good reason for this page to not have an infobox when ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and 99.999% of all other notable entertainers do. The infobox is the backbone of biographical pages as it provides convenient access to basic information; it doesn't matter if someone thinks it looks bad or if the info is already scattered throughout the article. ]. ] (]) 21:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


This detail was added by me on during ] about the start date of Olivier's career. There were several other editors who massaged the text, it went back and forth, but this detail was ultimately included for 3 months, until today, when @]/] removed it. <small>(also pinging other original discussion participants ] and ]).</small> I think it's overall a pretty good case for ]. It's also clearly ] for the body of the article, as it is mentioned in detail in numerous ]:
I've noticed that the editor that was overseeing this discussion/giving final say on it--SchroCat--has since retired from Misplaced Pages. I am not a regular editor or talent by any means, but this discussion seems worth reopening to get a qualifying consensus. Theirs was frankly the only dissenting voice, and it seems obvious 1000 times over that this page should get an infobox, as I cannot recall the last time I saw a biographical page that didn't (except some stubs). Their arguments didn't seem particularly founded outside of a view of Misplaced Pages as an art, but it is still an encyclopedia and such non-uniformity with other articles would never be accepted in another reference source. ] (]) 06:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


Donald Spoto's :
::A pointless exercise. There is still no good case for adding an info-box. As for the "consistency" argument, Misplaced Pages policy is ''specifically'' that i-bs are to be used or not according to whether they are of use for any particular article. (And see ). We have better use for our time than indulging in this otiose discussion yet again. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 07:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
::::The "good case" is that this is literally the only biography page I have ever seen in 20 years of reading Misplaced Pages that doesn't have one for someone for which the information is known, and users are accustomed to glancing at that area of a page for quick reference for information they expect to be there. They allow users to extract information from articles more efficiently, for the same reasons that Misplaced Pages standards often fight wordiness or lack of clarity, and for that reason I believe they are strict upside.
::::That Emerson quote makes sense for variety in life itself, but c'mon, in the context of an encyclopedia that already has hundreds of editorial standards in place? Somehow, I don't think I'd be too popular if I went ahead and changed all of the headers on my favorite Misplaced Pages articles to hot pink Comic Sans, with an Emerson quote as justification. While there's plenty of room for creativity in journalism, a page on Laurence Olivier is not your passion project, it's an article meant to convey information to people, just like every other page. An infobox would--obviously, objectively in my opinion--further that conveyance.
::::I'll let it rest, but this obstinate commitment against a change that would ONLY add quality to an article is frustratingly boorish, unnerving, and sad. There's a glaringly obvious petulance going on here that is beyond bizarre, and makes me question my trust in frequent editors' capability to maintain objectivity site-wide. I hope someday by chance, some global admin stumbles across this page and puts an end to this absurdity that could have saved all of our time.] (]) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::Yep, that user is consistently dismissive of any attempt to discuss the usefulness of infoboxes. Its an ongoing struggle.] ] 14:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
::::::Would you please take the trouble to get your facts right? I do not resist info-boxes ''where appropriate''. Please see articles I have taken jointly or singly to Featured Article ], ], ], ], ], ] and elsewhere, with an info-box. I resist them when they are useless and make Misplaced Pages look unprofessional, and welcome them when they add value to an article, ''in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies''. No doubt all the articles you have taken to FA have info-boxes, but please do not make unfounded accusations about other editors. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 15:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::::There's really no reason ''not'' to have an infobox here. Apparently deemed Olivier fit for an infobox. Not sure why we haven't... It doesn't harm anyone and it would benefit the ]. ~ ]] 04:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
::::::::How odd! I don't see an info-box on the Britannica page, nor the ], nor any other online reference work I can think of. Am I missing something? '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 15:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::If you scroll down until after the first paragraph of his Britannica article, there is an infobox titled "Quick facts" that contains his birth and death date, family, awards, etc. ~ ]] 17:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::I found it after a bit of digging. Not very conspicuous or user-friendly, and ''Britannica'' doesn't do info-boxes in the way that we do (where appropriate). Now perhaps you'll point us to all the info-boxes in the other works of reference from the ] down? '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 18:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
* OP, next time you ask a question, please make the header something reasonably related to the subject of the question, so that future readers/editors stand a chance of finding it. "Really?" or that old war horse, "Question", just don't cut it. -- ] </sup></span>]] 22:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


:{{tq|After four weeks on tour with this trifle in Manchester, Liverpool and Brighton, his salary of two pounds was slightly augmented when he was asked to be assistant stage manager and play the silent policeman in a melodrama, The Ghost Train, in which ‘Miller had scored a great success in London. No such success was Olivier’s: the Brighton drama correspondent alluded to him only to note his unintentionally dramatic entry onstage.. '''Heedless of the stage manager’s warning about the set’s raised doorsill, Olivier reduced a tense scene to giddy farce as he tripped, sliding precariously toward the footlights'''. He fared no better in his next employment...}}"
Of course there should be an infobox. But suggesting it here appears to send certain users into a fit of rage. Quite why I don't know. Anyway, the consensus will probably eventually change... one day --] (]) 10:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
:No need to be nasty! There is room for honest disagreement and respect for others' views. Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 16:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
: There seems to be a particular clique of editors on this website who believe that some people -- particularly respected film directors and actors -- are ''too important'' to have infoboxes and snobbishly dismiss the UX importance of infoboxes by saying things to the effect of "this person's works cannot truly be appreciated unless one reads the entire article". The same thing happened to Stanley Kurbrik's page where only now, after almost a decade, has it been resolved with an infobox finally being added (for the time being). It's silly bikeshedding which needs to stop. Just put the damn box in. ] (]) 12:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
::If you read all the exchanges on the topic you will see that it is not about subjects' being "too important" but rather that an info-box, though helpful to our readers in many biographical articles (clergy, politicians, sportspersons et al, where career statistics can be summarised) is as much use as a chocolate teapot for articles such as this, where a career summary could only say "actor on stage and in films and TV", which is not help to the reader whatever. To coin a phrase, there "seems to be a particular clique of editors on this website" who believe that every article must have an info-box, which is ''not'' Misplaced Pages's agreed policy. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 16:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
::Well, fancy that, {{u|Skymann102|another old account}} - almost nine years old, to be precise - that has , rocking up at an infoboxless article to open wounds, much in the same vein as ], ], ] and ]. ] (]) 00:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
:::Man, the allure of power sure turns the most timid Internet Janitors into ferocious dictators. LET US HAVE THE INFOBOX! ] (]) 18:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
::::What a very strange and slightly disturbing contribution! No need to shout, dear colleague. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 21:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support infobox''' I never understood the argument of not having an infobox and per Songwaters. --] (]) 12:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


Anthony Holden's :
There should be an infobox. There is no reason not to have one for this particular article. Infoboxes do provide useful information for basic details about the person. This should have been turned into an rfc. --] (]) 19:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
:Again! Ho hum! Do info-box absolutists never let up? Do read the WP policy. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 19:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
::Read ]. --] (]) 21:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
:::Quite so. If it does here I shall uncomplainingly comply, but for now I shall add an i-box where it is useful and not where it isn't. A new editor asked my opinion on this point recently and I instanced ], ], ] as articles where an i-box was helpful to our readers, and as ones that are an amateurish waste of space, offering the reader nothing of any use and making Misplaced Pages look silly ] and ]. Horses for courses, you know. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 22:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
::::That's just your opinion on Beethoven and Guinness. It seems the lack of an infobox on this article and a few others, mainly from what I've seen, on British actors articles seem to be more for stylistic purposes as if these articles are the sole exceptions to, for lack of a better word, rule, even though it's not one regarding infoboxes. Any claim that it makes it unnecessary or adds nothing to the article is just mere opinion. Even if it's shared among other editors, that's still an opinion. --] (]) 22:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::I'm all for i-boxes when they are (i) objective and (ii) useful. Would you care to suggest what we could put in an i-box for this article that fulfil those two essentials? It is a matter of opinion – which you abominate – to pick this or that role for which LO was famous or how else his life and work can be summarised to meet Misplaced Pages's criterion that an i-box is "to summarize … key facts that appear in the article". In the examples I gave of useful i-boxes the career statistics for the politician, clergyman and sportsman are clear, useful and meet the criterion. Which of Olivier's roles are you going to put in, and who agrees with you? All matters of opinion, wouldn't you say? '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 22:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
::::::I never abominated any viewpoint. That's making stuff up. Don't see what was wrong with this . And frankly, the editor who removed the infobox that started this what seems to be a neverending battle should have brought it up on this talk page to begin with back in 2015. The current image can be used instead of the one from the one around 1961. Maybe the cause of death can be removed. Could be found by reading the article and its sections themselves or by glancing at the categories that has the cause of death in its name. --] (]) 23:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
What is wrong with that old i-box is that it doesn't tell you a single thing about why Laurence Olivier is famous. He isn't famous for dying of renal failure, for marrying three actresses, for being the nephew of Sidney Olivier and the cousin of Noel Olivier. Nobody looking at our article is likely to give two hoots about all that stuff. Olivier was famous for playing Romeo to Gielgud's Mercutio, Victor to Coward's Elyot, Richard III, and for running the Old Vic with Richardson and the National later, and for his Hamlet, Othello, Lord Marchmain, the list goes on and on. My list would include his Etienne Plucheux in La Puce à l'oreille, but others wouldn't agree. Others would include his Cantor Rabinovitch, but I wouldn't. Everyone's list of his most important roles would be different – a personal choice, not at all encyclopaedic. An i-box that can give unquestioned objective facts is fine, such as these from another article I successfully took to FAC:
*Archbishop of Canterbury
*Other post(s) Dean of Windsor and domestic chaplain to Queen Victoria, 1883–1891
*Clerk of the Closet to the Sovereign 1891–1903
*Bishop of Rochester, 1891–1895
*Bishop of Winchester, 1895–1903


:{{tq|Twenty-two years his junior, Joan Plowright was young enough to be Olivier's daughter, precisely the role she played at the Palace Theatre, taking over the part of Jean Rice from Dorothy Tutin....Though she too was married - to the actor Roger Gage - there followed a "euphoric" progress through Glasgow, Edinburgh and Oxford to '''the Brighton Hippodrome - the scene of Olivier's first professional stage entrance, flat on his face, over thirty years before'''.}}"
I don't know if you looked at the examples I gave, above, of good info-boxes and bad ones, but if you look at the one on Beethoven you will see that the editors who made it couldn't manage a list of his important works and instead direct the poor reader to ''another article altogether''! How does that conform with the Misplaced Pages policy that an i-box sums up the key points of the article at a glance?


John Cottrell's :
If you are one of those who holds that all articles should have an i-box, despite Misplaced Pages's policy to the contrary, I think you should say so openly. My own view follows our policy: have an i-box where it is useful and encyclopaedic and don't have one where the subject doesn't allow for it, as here. I think this is why at Peer Review and FAC there was no pressure whatever for an info-box: it is just a matter of common sense and following Misplaced Pages's rules. – '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 07:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


:"{{tq|That summer Olivier made his first professional stage appearance since leaving drama school, and he literally fell flat on his face. The occasion was a sketch called Unfailing Instinct, put on as a curtain- raiser before a Brighton Hippodrome production of Arthur Ridley's new play The Ghost Train. Again and again the eighteen-year-old novice had been warned about the importance of lifting his feet as he came on stage via a door built into the scenery on a wooden base. It made not a dime's worth of difference. '''On the cue for his entrance he stumbled stupidly into the base of the door frame and plunged head- first into the footlights''' with sufficient impact to earn his first, brief notice as a pro: "Mr. Laurence Olivier made a good deal out of a rather small part."}}
:Worth noting that ] had this same debate and eventually it was agreed an infobox was needed. The same can be said for Olivier. ] (]) 02:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
::The same is true for ]. Unitl an Rfc was voted in it's favor of including one. It was probably one of the most heated and controversial discussions regarding that article over an infobox. The infobox on there doesn't do any harm as well. --] (]) 15:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Alas, you have not answered the relevant questions, above: (i) do you believe all articles should have an info-box regardless of Misplaced Pages's policy and (ii) what relevant encylopaedic information could go in one for this type of article? "It should have an info-box because it should" is not really a very grown-up or constructive argument. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 17:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
:::In the case of this article, it does provide useful information. As stated with the edit I showed from a few years ago, the only thing I can see not going in is Olivier's cause of death. That's not needed. You've made your point clear. You don't like the infobox. You are not the person this article is edited for. Removing the infobox required a discussion back then. Not after. If that editor had done it today, it would be considered disruptive. The policy on infoboxes is clear, this is not a stub where the information is already stated just by a quick read, thus making such a box redundant. As such, how many people do you think read the article contents word for word? They go to where they need to, article sections for certain information. But the information can be easily acquired because of an infobox. And the very few articles that don't have an infobox is primarly on British actor bio's from what I've seen. And all arguments against is ]. "Again! Ho hum!" is not very grown-up or constructive either. --] (]) 21:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
::::Can we prevail on you to tell us honestly whether or not you think all articles should have an info-box? '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 07:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::It depends on the article. This is one that deserves it. --] (]) 14:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
::::::Would you care to give us an example of an article that, in your opinion, doesn't? '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 16:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::::This is the last time I'm engaging because it's going nowhere. I've said before; Stub articles with only a few lines of information or a paragraph that clearly explains it from the text the basic information that goes on a standard infobox. And there are numerous and/or an unlimited number of stub bio's you can choose from any stub category. --] (]) 17:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
{{od}}Agree with Tim Riley that an infobox would not be appropriate here. If we were voting once again on Beethoven or Guinness I would say the same thing: no infobox. I have created dozens of articles with infoboxes, but a select few would not benefit from having one, so I left it out of those few. For instance, when I took the poet biography ] to GA status, it was without an infobox. There is absolutely no need to force every article into an identical format on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
:Thank you, Binksternet, for a contribution that seems to me thoughtful and balanced, with no "must have a box" tanks on the lawn. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 20:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


Francis Beckett's :
== Bisexuality ==


:"{{tq| one of the most dramatic: '''he fell headlong, his face coming to rest in the footlights.''' There was a torrent of laughter from the packed house, and when he eventually left the stage, they gave him a round of applause.}}"
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 ]. ] (]) 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 ] and when I get round to it I'll remove it. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 21:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
::Sorry I missed it. You don't need to be rude. ] (]) 21:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
:::Apologies accepted, naturally. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 22:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
::::Fantastic, {{u|Tim riley|Tim}}. And again I am reminded to read '']''. 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... ] 19:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::I'm never sure whether I find Ballioty or Wykehamity more irritating in its assumption of omniscience. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 19:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


Terry Coleman's :
== Schooling? ==


:"{{tq|The first time he appeared on stage as an actor, in public, was at the Brigthon Hippodrome at a charity gala at the beginning of August 1925, and it was in music hall, and '''he fell flat on his face'''...Olivier was in the one straight act of the evening, a short curtain-raising sketch called The Unfailing Instinct."}}"
The article ] that Olivier attended St Edward's School, Oxford, from 1920 to 1924: however, recently-released census data records him as still being according to '']'' (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? ] (]) 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. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 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. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 18:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
:::Great work! ] (]) 18:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
::::Many thanks for spotting this! '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 19:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


It's also mentioned prominently in of Olivier's 1985 Autobiography ''Confessions of an Actor'':
== RfC on Infobox ==
{{archive top|status=Consensus to add Infobox|result=In this discussion, editors offered arguments in support and in opposition to adding an infobox to this article. Discussion largely focused around the extent to which the infobox would add ''net'' value to the article from the perspective of the reader and whether the addition of the infobox is consistent with Misplaced Pages's ]. In this discussion, '''editors attained a consensus to add an infobox to this article.'''


:"{{tq|In 1925 he made his first appearance on a professional stage, on a variety bill in Brighton, and '''he made his entrance by tripping over the sill of a door in the scenery. He sailed through the air right into the footlights, and the accident provoked the largest laugh he has ever received in his life as an actor.'''}}"
Supporters of adding an infobox to this article offer a number of reasons in support of the inclusion of an infobox. Many editors argued that adding an infobox would allow for a concise presentation of basic biographical facts about Oliver in a way that is easily digestible by a reader, and that the use of infoboxes is common among articles of people who are notable for similar reasons. The infobox, per supporters, would allow for information to be available at-a-glance and would make it easier for readers to find information. While this information is also available in the lead and in the article, supporters argue, readers are better served by compiling all of that information and presenting that in the way that only an infobox can do. Some supporters see infoboxes as a supplementary resource rather than as an attempt to summarize the article or compete with the lead; they are unconcerned by claims of redundancy put forward by those in opposition to adding an infobox.


All of this adds up to a detail about Olivier's early career that is clearly ] inclusion in the body, in a short sentence as above. There are numerous other details in the article currently which are not mentioned in so many biographies. It's an interesting fact that Olivier often mentioned to his biographers, and is especially notable as an actor with such great stage presence and poise as a dramatic leading man, who had such a clumsy foible in his first ''professional'' role. —&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 14:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Opponents of adding an infobox to this article offer a variety of reasons in support of their opposition. These include arguments that the infobox would ] about Oliver and that an infobox would not be able to achieve sufficient nuance to fully capture key biographical details about this article's subject. Some see the infobox as containing only redundant information, and believe that the value-add in making information formatted in an infobox would not be sufficient to outweight concerns about the quality of the infobox's content or the extent to which the infobox would reduce the likelihood that readers would read the prose content of the article. Some infobox opponents also stated their belief that the creation of an infobox would increase the amount of work required to maintain this page, such as to revert vandalism and remove good-faith errors.
:Trivia. We are not writing a book-length biography, we are writing a summary of his career. Trying to compare full biographies with a summary is like comparing apples and spark plugs. Looking at summaries of Olivier’s life (ODNB and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, neither of which mention this triviality. ] (]) 16:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
::Our entry is quite a bit longer and more detailed than either of those sources. The NYT review does, however, mention it. And saw it as important enough in a much shorter format. —&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 17:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Just because our article is slightly longer, it doesn’t mean we have to fill it with trivial fluff. Does it explain anything about Olivier, his career, his approach to acting or anything at all? Are readers enlightened in any way about him for the inclusion of this nonsense? ] (]) 17:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
::::I found it an interesting and insightful <u>10 words</u> which highlighted the difference between Olivier at the very beginning of his career compared to the end. But that's all irrelevant nonsense. Our personal opinions of Olivier are not the point of ]. —&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 17:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::"Interesting" does not equal encyclopaedic. And if you are trying to make a comparison from beginning to end, that’s Unclear to the point of ridiculous. - ] (]) 17:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::I concur with SchroCat. Our job as editors is to try to boil down to a few thousand words the key contents of 500-page biographies. Tempting though it may be to add amusing incidental anecdotes they are not what an encyclopaedia article is about. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 17:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I also agree with SchroCat. It is neither possible or necessary to include every trivial detail on a subject’s life. ] (]) 18:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
:{{smalldiv|1='''Note:''' This discussion has been listed at the ], ], and ]. —&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 17:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)}}
:(from NPOVN) That a legendary actor tripped and fell in his first stage appearance is not trivia, it's obviously a salient detail of his career, as evidence by the inclusion of this detail in what appears to be every biography, including those that are ''shorter'' than ours. Of course, my mind would be persuaded if someone showed me six biographies of equal quality that did ''not'' mention this detail. But based on these sources: include. ] (]) 18:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
::Shall we refer to every other occasion he bumped into furniture? This is about as trivial an incident I can think of and is not encyclopaedic in any way. Can you provide a link to a biographies that are short than ours that include this vital piece of information? - ] (]) 19:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
:::He dedicated '''5 of 330 <u>pages</u>''' in his autobiography to the incident (~1.6% by word count). The ''NYT'' includes it in a '''60-word mention''' in a review that's only '''1780 words''' (3%). We can manage to include <u>10 words.</u> —&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 19:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
::::Can you not interrupt the flow with non sequiturs? I have asked a question of someone else to provide information: you are providing ridiculous numbers that prove or mean absolutely zero in this context. Writing biographies entries by statistics? No wonder things like Rylance and the misrepresentation of sources happen. Turgid rubbish. ] (]) 19:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::Shib is showing the "weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material"... it's kind of a key part of figuring out if something is ] for inclusion or a ]. ] (]) 19:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Not every other occasion, we should treat each occasion ]. In other words, it doesn't matter at all if ''you'' think it's trivial or not, it matters how much coverage it receives in RS biographies of Olivier. So, all the bumps and falls the RSes cover. But to cut the bullshit, you're being disingenuous by pretending you don't see why a famous actor falling on stage in his first performance would be a detail people would include in a biography of that actor. To treat that as just bumping into furniture is transparently disingenuous. You're not stupid and we know it. :-) ] (]) 19:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the slur - that's very kind of you. I am waiting for the supposed biographies (plural) that are shorter than ours and still contain this crucial piece of information that somehow enlighten or explain something about Olivier - can you do that? At some point the penny may drop that ] should actually mean something. - ] (]) 19:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::What slur, "disingenuous" or "not stupid"? The NYT autobiography review linked above. ] (]) 19:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::That's a review in a newspaper, not a biography; there is a considerable amount of difference between newspaper copy and an encyclopaedic article. Now, can you provide the biographies (plural) that are shorter than this that include this crucial piece of information? - ] (]) 19:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
*Keep it in. I'd say. ] (]) 19:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
** Seems like there's a enough coverage of it happening to warrant an inclusion, but it should remain short if included. ] (]) 19:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
***If this seems indispensable to some editors, we could at a pinch treat it as we do another amusing anecdote, ''viz'' the dog Roger and his fascination with Olivier's genitals, and put it in a footnote. See footnote k for Roger and Olivier's private parts. I remain unconvinced that a one-off onstage accident needs inclusion, but if there is a consensus to add it, I recommend we add it in a footnote. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 19:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
***:Which biographies ''about Laurence Olivier'' cover that detail about Roger the dog and in how much proportional detail do they cover it? I don't see it in any of the above linked sources. Seems it's a fact about ], not Olivier. Not sure why it's in the article since it doesn't appear in a cursory search of sources about Olivier. This fact about Olivier's ''first'' professional on-stage role seems quite a bit more DUE. Talk about "]". {{pb}}To put these two pieces of information on the same level in any way is bizarre. —&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 20:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
*I can see both sides. It is fairly trivial in such a long and distinguished career. On the other, it's widely mentioned in the source material. I'm loathe to disagree with the authors of such an excellent FA, but if there was a consensus for inclusion I could support a brief mention. We could re-cast the sentence slightly so that the fall is not the main subject and uses fewer words. ] &#124; ] 20:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
*I would leave it out. It may be amusing to note that a famous actor tripped during his maiden outing on stage, and it may help to sell a memoir or biography, but it doesn't give the reader any enyclopedic information about his life or career. -- ] (]) 01:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
=== Proposal: to meet above compromises ===
{{tq|In Olivier's first professional stage appearance in a sketch called ''The Unfailing Instinct'' at the Brighton Hippodrome in August 1925, he tripped and fell on his face.}}


That's 7 words versus 10. Any other suggestions? I would ref this to the sources which best summarize the incident, Cottrell and Beckett.—&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 15:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
The vast majority of editors in this discussion favored adding an infobox to this article. Consensus, however, is ] as if this were a vote. Rather, consensensus is ] by viewing the quality of the arguments made in this discussion through the lens of ]. And, through that lens, there is a '''consensus to add an infobox''' to this article.
*Still unencyclopaedic trivia. Again, what do these seven words add to the understanding of Olivier, his work or his life? - ] (]) 17:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
*:See above. If you think a footnote about an imaginary dog in ''someone else's'' biography is encyclopedic, but this fact isn't, then I don't know if there is anything I can say to convince you otherwise. —&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 18:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Are you going to answer my question? - ] (]) 19:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::I explained my answer above in short , and in detail over at ]: . To repeat, I think this detail adds an understanding of how much Olivier's stage presence evolved over the course of his career, from extremely humble beginnings to being perhaps one of the greatest such actors in our time, with an incredible presence. I provided sources to back up this interpretation, and I also described how I would elaborate on it if necessary. My best guess is that you don't consider those answers satisfactory. And as I said, if that's true, then I'm not sure anything I could say would be. —&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 19:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::I don't think you're likely to get a consensus one way or the other, Shibbolethink. But if it is to be included, I'd suggest reframing the sentence so the fall isn't the subject, like {{xt|Olivier's first professional stage appearance was in a sketch called The Unfailing Instinct at the Brighton Hippodrome in August 1925, during which he tripped and fell}}. I don't think "on his face" adds anything, though now I see it without that I'm leaning more towards excluding the whole thing. ] &#124; ] 19:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|1=I don't think you're likely to get a consensus one way or the other, Shibbolethink}}<br>If that's true, then the article should revert to the ] which, most recently, was inclusion (for 3 months). —&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 19:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::STATUSQUO is an essay and this is a featured article so, barring major developments in the subject matter or major new sources, we should take the version that passed FAC as the consensus version. ] &#124; ] 19:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::You think those seven words expresses exactly what? That this was in the same city where Olivier and his wife “spent their golden years”, to quote you. How exactly does it do that, and what exactly does it add? - ] (]) 20:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::Whatever you think about Shibbolethink's judgement you have to acknowledge his persistence. Nonetheless, I think we can now conclude that there is no consensus to alter the agreed FAC text in the matter under consideration. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 23:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


== Infobox image ==
The specific infobox was proposed as an example of what the proposer had in mind, but was proffered as one that would "approximately resemble" the infobox to be added to the article at this time. Ordinary discussion and the ] are suggested when making changes to the infobox going forward. As always, ] regarding the content of the infobox.
The present image is a little disturbing. I kind of prefer reverting it back to the one with Olivier in old age. I'm also open to other suggestions. ] (]) 07:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


:What makes you think the current image is disturbing? ] (] • ]) 09:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
<small>(])</small> — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 20:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
::Yourlocallordandsavior and Ollieinsanerd, what do you think about ]? ] (]) 09:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
}}
Should this article contain an infobox? ] (]) 08:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC) ::It’s probably the smile, although I myself think it’s okay. ] (]) 04:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
:I prefer the too. It's in colour, is higher resolution than the current lead image, and was taken by a ]. ] (]) 08:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

::Laurence is too old in that photography, as the infobox photo should feature the individual (Olivier) in its prime. ] (]) 13:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Please format your responses as either:
:::The current image works in that he's at his most recognisable. Ultimately that's the aim for an infobox image. We already have an image of him as a much older man (photographed by Allan Warren) in the appropriate section. ] (]) 16:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
*I've put back in the 1972 picture: it's a higher resolution and there isn't a consensus for change. Given his career was a long and rich one, to try and claim the b&w one is "in his prime" is a bit questionable, given the Warren one was in '72, the same year he was in Sleuth (1972) and before he appeared in Marathon Man (1976) and The Boys from Brazil (1978): he was nominated for Oscars for those three films, which suggests he was still pretty much in his prime. Feel free to open an RfC to discuss the options if you wish. - ] (]) 16:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''
with your explaination following.

Please remain ] and ]. ] (]) 08:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

{{Infobox person
| name = Laurence Olivier
| image = Lord Olivier 6 Allan Warren.jpg
| caption = Olivier in 1972
| birth_date = {{Birth date|1907|05|22|df=y}}
| birth_place = ], ]
| death_date = {{Death date and age|1989|07|11|1907|05|11}}
| death_place = ], ]
| occupation = Actor
| years_active = 1926–1988
| works = ]
| spouse = {{unbulleted list|{{marriage|]|1930|1940|end=div}}|{{marriage|]|1940|1960|end=div}}|{{marriage|]|1961}}}}
| awards = ]
}}
For clarity, commenters may imagine an infobox approximately resembling that here. Participants should consider whether an infobox adds value to the lead, and whether it places ] emphasis on relatively minor facts of Olivier’s life (such as his marriages). <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 06:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - for the reasons previously set out in earlier discussions here. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 08:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
*:As someone else already alluded to below, RfC comments are supposed present actual arguments, rather than merely "voting" for an editor's preference. So the closer of this RfC should disregard the above "oppose", which merely handwaves at unspecified "earlier discussions" while completely failing to explain any valid rationale for the editor's preference. Regards, ] (]) 01:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*:*As the previous regurgitation of MUSTHAVEANINFOBOX was only six months ago it seems a little unreasonable to ask informed editors to add, yet again, the reasons for opposing the proposal as it comes through the revolving door yet again. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 14:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' in order to maintain continuity with similar biographies ] (]) 00:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' An info box is an easy way to get all the important information in a table. It exists in most biographies and for the sake of consistency should be created here as well. ] (]) 02:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. An infobox at this article will tell readers nothing of note about the individual: it contains no important information that helps readers "get a quick overview", but worse: it will likely misinform or mislead them. The pertinent information is in the lead, where it is presented with context and nuance. Looking at the that was added most recently and at the example posted , aside from the born and died fields, we have the following entries for Olivier:

:* "Occupation": Obviously more than an actor. Actor, director, producer, theatre administrator ... there are a couple of others we could add, but it's already misleading whichever way you cut it. A field that misleads readers shouldn't be included.
:* "Years active": Apart from being wrong (a major red flag) it's also unsourced (the start years isn't in the article and it one of three possible years) – and should this just be his first professional role, or his amateur ones too? It's also ambiguous "Active" as what? As actor, director, producer, theatre administrator or other? Should we have different "active" fields for each of his occupations? I'm sure some people would think it a great idea, but we're already confusing readers with this with whatever we put in this field. A field that misleads readers shouldn't be included.
:* "Nationality": shouldn't be included (per MoS)
:* "Wives": Is he famous for having three wives? The ] of having nearly half the lines of text in an infobox taken up with his marriages suggests it's certainly a major focus! This field is often a spurious entry, but given it bypasses Olivier's bisexuality entirely, a completely misleading one here too. A field that misleads readers shouldn't be included.
:* "Lists of films/awards": these have been added to the example here. They really are quite pointless to include (and I mean that literally). The fields themselves contain zero information, just the words "Full list", which tells us nothing about Olivier. Their purpose therefore is not to directly provide a reader with any information, which seems odd, considering an IB on the page is supposed to summarise key features of Olivier.

:So, we're left with the dates of birth and death as the only fields that don't give a misleading or incorrect impression. Is that what this is all for, in order to have a box in the article, the same dates as can be found in the opening sentence? Sure, we can add other factoids (the school he went to or whether he was a crossbench Lord), or anything else, but they serve little purpose for Olivier – they don't help a reader get relevant information that doesn't mislead. It's a truism that infoboxes don't work well with the liberal arts biographies – and that is very much the case with Olivier.
:Despite other claims in this discussion, there is no WP guideline or policy that insists on 'consistency' across the project, and the person who put in that there is "]" obviously didn't realise that links to the essay that says "precedent" is one of the "arguments to avoid". Nor should an IB be there on the basis of "article navigation": claiming it makes the article easier to navigate" is not only false, but is also not a reason to break the long-standing status quo to include one. Olivier is one of a number of articles that do not have an infobox (it's an error many people have made to claim that all other actor biographies have one), not because certain people don't like them (another error claimed below), but because the information it will contain will '''actively mislead or misinform readers'''. It doesn't "help" readers to give them incorrect or misleading information, but that is exactly what this one will do.
:As a reminder to the closing admin, ArbCom decisions have stressed that the rationale for whether to include an IB or not should be based on arguments about '''this''' article, not IBs in general. Discussions are also supposed to be based on guidelines and policies, not ], so I do hope that the closing admin won't just vote count or accept false arguments like 'consistency' or 'all other actors have biographies' or 'it's jarring not having one'. No article is 'born' with an IB: they have to have a solid rationale for inclusion, which includes whether they will do more harm than good. In the case of Olivier, an infobox full of fields that mislead readers shouldn't be included. - The editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from ] (]) 08:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)<small>; edited by the editor formally known as SchroCat from and at ] (]) 08:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC) (original version viewable at ).</small>
*'''Support'''. Infoboxes are an excellent resource for those wanting a brief overview of the subject and those just wanting to know quick facts about the subject without detracting from the prose for those who want more detail. Sourcing is not relevant as it will only contain information that is sourced in the prose, similarly anything which requires nuance to be correct will be omitted. I'm not overly familiar with the subject here and the lack of an infobox makes it harder and more time consuming for me to begin learning about them. ] (]) 09:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: '''''' 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 ] 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 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, updates are made to articles but not reflected in the box, and IBs tend to draw '', fancruft'' and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) It would ''discourage readers from reading the text of the article''. (6) 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. -- ] (]) 18:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
*:For clarity, what Ssilvers is quoting in bold font as "arbitration report" above is just one editor's personal opinion from one side of the debate that that Signpost article covered - not at all a community consensus or ArbCom ruling. Regards, ] (]) 00:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
*:(2) is an argument against any infobox everywhere, i.e. clearly inconsistent with the community consensus at ]. And the underlying claim that content must never be redundant within an article is directly contradicted by ].
*:(3), (5), and (6) are circular ] arguments - terms like "distract", "take up valuable space" "hamper ... the impact of the lead" are all already based on the assumption that infoboxes are always bad and leads are always good.
*:Concerning (4), I strongly suspect that you do not have any quantitative evidence for the bold quantitative claim that errors are more frequent in infoboxes that in the article text.
*:And (1) falls apart upon a look at just the article's first sentence, which rubs the reader's nose into these facts among the very first:
*:*His rarely used middle name, which appears nowhere else in the article text
*:*IPA symbols which many readers will not be able to properly read anyway
*:*specifics about honorifics and peerage bestowed by the Commonwealth, which may be important for nobility fans and award counters, but not so much for those trying to understand why he was important and notable.
*:Regards, ] (]) 04:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
* '''Strong Support'''. Infobox's are helpful for readers who want a quick summary of information. They are so common it's jarring not to see one included in the article. I think this is the first actor article I have seen that doesn't have one (there are probably others). This seems like a silly thing to oppose. The infobox undoubtedly helps the end user find information quicker. The only reason to oppose the infobox is a preference in style. That's fine, but style at the expense of a better end user experience should be avoided.
:Furthermore we can ignore other articles and just concentrate on this article. Not having an infobox on this article makes it more difficult to find valuable information. This isn't a matter of opinion. To argue otherwise simply ignores how end users access information. When accessing this article via the Misplaced Pages app there's no quick reference to works or awards. That's vital information about an actor. It's not much better on the website. When searching for Olivier's works/awards it requires a full scroll of the article. Part of the reason infobox's exist is to make information easier to find. That's the whole point of this Misplaced Pages project. This article is rather large at over 60kb of readable prose. Making information easier to consume is the only priority to discuss regarding this issue for this article. The infobox makes this article easier to navigate and access important information. ] (]) 01:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
::The most important awards are in the fourth paragraph of the lead section. That's what the lead section is for, and that's why the lead section of a Misplaced Pages article gets nearly twice the clicks of an infobox. There is no problem to solve here. People looking for awards can easily skim the lead section and find what they need in the fourth paragraph. ] (]) 17:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
:::If a user comes to the article and wants to see a list of works or awards it's more difficult to access that information without an infobox. As I argued before, I disagree with your interpretation of the click data. Users click on links in the lead section 32% of the time versus 18% in the infobox. Given there's more links in the lead I'm not sure how you're drawing a conclusion that an infobox doesn't make the site easier to navigate. The fierce opposition to a helpful navigation tool is bizarre to me. ] (]) 18:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
*''( via bot)''{{pb}}<!--
-->'''Support'''. An infobox helps readers to more quickly access key information about the article's subject. By now, we also have evidence for this from ]. In this case, that includes the article' subject's profession, nationality, and life dates. I realize that longtime Laurence Olivier connoisseurs might be bored by such basic information (of course he was English! what else! etc.) and feel that they do not capture the true essence of his genius. But they are not the primary audience of a general encyclopedia - for many readers of this article, this will be the very first time they have heard about the actor. {{pb}}<!--
-->Yes, these key facts can also be obtained from the intro paragraph and other parts of the article, but are harder to retrieve and obscured by less relevant information there (see e.g. the three examples above from just the first sentence).{{pb}}<!--
-->Lastly, for those who are getting hung up on (some previous versions) of the infobox highlighting some irrelevant information like the cause of death, that can and has been easily addressed (e.g. in ). Regards, ] (]) 04:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
*:<small>Nationality shouldn’t be in there at all (per ]). ] (]) 05:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC) Addendum made to clarify that I am obviously only talking about Olivier’s article, not in general. ] (]) 06:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)</small>
*::Huh? That's not what ] says (and after all, the infobox template has a <code>nationality =</code> parameter). If you meant that this is one of the situations {{tq|when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth, as specified with {{para|birthplace}}}}, then that's irrelevant to the argument here - either way it is one of the key facts that an infobox helps readers to obtain more easily. Regards, ] (]) 05:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::It’s exactly what INFOBOXNTLY says: that if ever there comes a time when Olivier does have to have an infobox, the nationality field should not be included. As you said in your !vote “of course he was English”. That’s exactly why the field should not be used here, because people infer it from the country of birth, whether that is in the first sentence or in the box. ] (]) 06:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
*::::Thanks for correcting your comment above, but it seems you are still confused about several things. For starters, the part of my !vote you quote from ("of course he was English! what else!") was used there to illuminate the misguided view of a hypothetical or not so hypothetical Laurence Olivier connoisseur, who is so deeply immersed into this topic that he does not realize that some of key facts that he (consciously or unconsciously) takes as a given will still be new and important to someone less familiar with the topic - such as the average reader of a general encyclopedia. It is quite telling that you did not realize this and embraced this caricatured view thinking it was consensus.
*::::Also, you are still misrepresenting ], even though I already quoted the relevant part above: {{tq|when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth, as specified with {{para|birthplace}}}}. It does '''not''' say "or in the first sentence" or such.
*::::(I realize that the "connoisseur" bit may sound a bit snarky, so I do want to acknowledge the possibility that some oppose !voters above might be genuinely knowledgeable about the article's topic. But this does not make one better equipped to decide how to best structure encyclopedic information for a general reader - quite the opposite actually, due to a well-known cognitive bias known as ].)
*::::Regards, ] (]) 01:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::::As I have edited Misplaced Pages since 2006, created numerous articles, (many with infoboxes, many without) written a stack of GAs and FAs, I am not “confused” about any part of what I have written, neither am I misrepresenting anything - quite the reverse: you have twisted what I have said. I have no desire to continue dragging this out, but suffice to say my original comment, that if ever a box is included on the article, the nationality field is one that should not be included, is supported by the guidelines. I’m out. ] (]) 05:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' I don't see the harm in having it in, some users may just want to glance his details instead of reading the entire article. I really see very few cases where an infobox wouldn't improve the page.--] (]) 12:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The lead of this article seems to me to be concise, appropriate and to contain all relevant information. Those who are assumed (I don't know on what evidence) just to wish to 'glance' at WP articles can get their info just as simply by reading the article lead. An infobox would provide only the same, in a more bloated fashion - and/or are likely to provoke futile and timewasting arguments on issues such as nationality (as above in this discussion), the complex issues of which require proper explanation in the article. The article is perfectly clear and informative as it stands. I do not see how an infobox would improve it in any way. By the way, this present discussion is prefaced with a request for contributors either to 'support' or 'oppose'. As it happens I strongly oppose an infobox, but do not seek to flagwave, or to somehow gain my opinions additional points, by doing so '''strong'''ly. ] (]) 19:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
*:I'm sorry, but throwing around derogatory adjectives such as "bloated" is basically just ]. Especially given that your claim stands in stark contract to the fact that this allegedly "bloated" infobox had just 6 fields (at least the most recent version that was revert-warred out of the article), compared to that allegedly "concise" lead section being over 450 words long currently, with various low-relevance factoids in just the first sentence (see above) that are absent from the infobox. Regards, ] (]) 01:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Pretty Strong Support'''. This article is in great need of an infobox as every biography Wikipedian article has one. Even more, it would help make the article easier to read as the introduction is like, 3 pages long and an infobox would greatly help summarise it. Honestly, adding an infobox is fast and easy, let's not make a big fuss about it and just add it already... After all, what's the worst that can happen with adding an infobox, sheesh... It's not as if we're inciting people to sacrifice baby koalas to Satan in order to make Trump president again :) ] (]) 22:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
*:I'm sorry to say your support is based on a lie, "every biography Wikipedian article has one". In accordance with WP policy we have I-Bs where they are agreed to be useful, and I can think of a dozen or more life-and-works FAs where we have refrained from adding one. I shall not name them as no doubt the MUSTHAVEANINFOBOX tanks would be on the lawn there in a jiffy. Meanwhile, can we refrain from false assertions here? '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 14:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*:: Aw c'mon, you know many of WP biographies have infoboxes. And anyways, is that really what made you tick ? Not the koalas, not Satan, not Trump, the WP policy that declares that not every bio has to have an infobox. Don't worry man, I read the policies :) ] (]) 21:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Infoboxes are less useful for creative artists such as poets, authors, actors, composers, etc. The basic facts of a life are best served with nuanced prose in the lead section rather than bald facts in the infobox. at an infobox is wholly redundant to the excellently written lead section. users click on links in the lead section 32% of the time versus 18% in the infobox, meaning the lead section is serving as the more important source of information. Regarding whether policy-based arguments are worth more than opinions based on esthetics, Misplaced Pages does not require an infobox, so the question of having one is a matter of opinion, and every voice counts equally. ] (]) 03:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*:{{tq|]users click on links in the lead section 32% of the time versus 18% in the infobox, meaning the lead section is serving as the more important source of information.}}
*:I don't draw the same conclusion from this data. The infobox serves a quick, easy to read summary of the person's date of birth/age/date of death/etc. It's a quick reference and not an area for link clicking. So it seems perfectly natural that the lead would have higher click rates than the infobox. To be honest, I'm surprised there's not a larger gap in click rates. Also, is an excellent example of why an infobox is so valuable. You're entitled to think it's redundant, but it's useful reference without having to read through paragraphs of prose. ] (]) 13:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*::Oh no, we wouldn't want our readers to actually "read through paragraphs of prose"! What a vile fate! ] (]) 13:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::Correct, I don't have an objection to making information easier to find. I'm a monster I know. ] (]) 13:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': everybody knows that I support infoboxes, but I promised myself years ago - partly because of a discussion on this very page - not to take part in the timesink arguing about them has caused the community. I had unwatched this article but saw the topic on a user talk I watch. In 2015, I {{diff|Talk:Laurence Olivier|649093452|649007586|was told}} that the design usually goes by the principal editors (who have spoken clearly above). Did ] since then? --] (]) 07:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*:I thank Gerda Arendt for that contribution - not the knee-jerk reactions seen in some of the above postings. GA and I have differed strongly on the topic over the years, but I am grateful for her thoughtful take on the matter here. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 14:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': In my view an infobox would be unnecessary and unhelpful for this article - I can't see what it would be trying to achieve and it's not something that's required by Misplaced Pages policy. 'Some other articles have infoboxes' isn't really an argument why this one should, and that seems to be the stated reason supporters want it. ] (]) 14:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per the very good arguments raised by Tim Riley. How sad to see the same old faces mischievously hanging around the same old articles to take part in the same old infobox debates and then duplicitously claiming: and and . The fact most of those who dared to question the Misplaced Pages Establishment on their approach of indiscriminately adding irrelevant infoboxes everywhere have now been chased away, and still these same discussions keep arising on the same articles is, to my mind, illustrative of just who the real trouble makers are. ] (]) 19:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*:I thank the IP for that addition. (Would I be wrong in supposing the IP has written FAs on ], ] and the great ] before quitting, fed up with sniping?) '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 19:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*:I don't really understand why people are getting upset over an infobox. Some of the hostility surrounding this discussion is puzzling. Describing people with whom you disagree as {{tq|mischievously hanging around}} isn't helpful and it's frankly uncalled for in this discussion. ] (]) 20:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I don't see the reason why an infobox should be removed. It provides an excellent brief overview, more like quick to the point. Almost all articles about actors have an infobox without any debate over its inclusion. I don't see why Olivier and ] are an exception. --] (]) 17:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Weak support''' restoring infobox. First, I see no major loss for not having an infobox, but nor is there any harm in having one, so it is disappointing to see such acidic dialogue here. I am still empathetic to the perspective that not every page needs to be so uniform, and of course the longer the project goes on, the harder it is to avoid infoboxes and navboxes and that sort of clutter on every page. But realistically the previous infoboxes have all been reasonable, without excessive emphasis on distracting detail. I think it is worth remembering that we are not writing only for educated adults. Having a formulaic and unobstructive box to guide readers to the basic facts of the man’s life is a simple way to ease readers into a subject. I hardly think that people will read the infobox and then click away to not read the prose lead unless they have already found exactly the information they are looking for. That, and an infobox feels less ugly and more purposeful than the image box that’s already there. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 21:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
* Pinging editors from the last 5 years who have discussed this topic. I apologized in advance if I've pinged anyone who has already commented on this RfC. {{ping|DmitryKo}}, {{ping|Cassianto}}, {{ping|William_Avery}}, {{ping|SchroCat}}, {{ping|Alssa1}}, {{ping|Xover}}, {{ping|Ian_Rose}}, {{ping|Bishonen}}, {{ping|Ssilvers}} {{ping|Jack1956}}, {{ping|Dreamspy}}, {{ping|Ceoil}}, {{ping|Ceoil}}, {{ping||Water78}}, {{ping|MiguelMunoz}}, {{ping|Jojhutton}}, {{ping||Yoyofsho16}}, {{ping|HAL333}}, {{ping|JackofOz}}, {{ping|Theimmortalgodemperor}}, {{ping|Skymann102}}, {{ping|WikiCleanerMan}}. If you still have an opinion on this issue please feel free to contribute. Thanks! ] (]) 03:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' WikiProjects that cover actors like Olivier recommend the use of an infobox. One of the six goals of ] is to "ensure that every article biography related to film uses Template:Infobox person." Consequently, there is a ''']'''; essentially all other actors of similiar stature have an infobox. Just go visit ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] ], ], etc. I could continue. Why should this article violate the status quo, this universal precedent? There is nothing unique about Olivier that merits no infobox. I challenge those who oppose to list a single reason inherent to this article. Opposition to the infobox ultimately amounts to a "]". For almost all users, an infobox makes some the article's content easy to digest in a glance. And I see no possible way it which it can harm a reader's experience. ~ ]] 04:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' So long as infoboxes are not mandated or prohibited by project-wide policy the issue should be decided by consensus among editors engaged (over time) with the article in question, with deference given to the approach taken by primary contributors and a strong default in favour of the established status quo (that is, an overruling consensus should be very strong to apply). In particular, an RfC and the feedback request service is an ''inappropriate'' way to deal with this kind of issue. I also consider the incessant pushing for infoboxes to be outright disruptive behaviour (and the wikilawyering on display regarding whether oppose votes that refer to previous arguments should be discounted is at best disappointing). There is a reason infoboxes (of all the stupid things to fight about) ended up at ArbCom, and this is a case in point. I ''urge'' those who find themselves here arguing in favour of an infobox to instead direct their energies towards resolving the issue in project-wide policy, because this trench warfare approach to it does nothing but cause disruption and create bad blood. And I would support any project-wide policy that has a plausible chance of putting an end to the endless bickering, whichever way the knot is cut. --] (]) 08:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
*:I don't think I would support a project wide policy since some articles are too small or limited in scope to justify an infobox. This article has 62kb in readable prose and receives thousands of pageviews per day. Can anyone really argue that an infobox wouldn't help end users find key pieces of information faster in this article? ] (]) 13:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
*::Of course they can. And they have. Repeatedly. But those who think it very important that articles they have not themselves worked on have an infobox appear incapable of accepting the validity of arguments for other points of view. We've twice had this issue up before ArbCom (with numerous subsequent motions and amendments), and both times ArbCom has urged the community to go make a policy for this so we won't end up back there. It's been a contentious issue since 2003 (or that's the earliest reference to conflicts about this I've seen anyway) and still we're engaged in this ''war of attrition'' nonsense that pretty much just wastes time and drives away good contributors (or gets them blocked if they are at all inclined to lose their cool). So my plea to all is: whether you love infoboxes or hate them, go argue your position at the the ''policy'' level. ] (]) 21:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. I am a small-time editor who mostly just corrects errors, so I have few thoughts on the conduct of it, but the reason I became involved in this topic is that I use the infobox for establishing details on any biographical article. I do this because of the long-established consistency of that feature on biological articles has trained me to do it, and I cannot be the only one. That issue makes this not just a stylistic issue in my opinion, but a functional one: this page does not operate as anticipated by readers and is more difficult to navigate for it. The Oppose arguments above seem to take umbrage with the infobox on the whole, which has little to do this article specifically. Whether or not it is redundant due to the header paragraph as they claim, Misplaced Pages in its current state does use it often and the lack of it on this article impacts readability. Given that, nothing strikes me as unique about Olivier that justifies singling the page out. ] (]) 08:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
* '''Complete and utter indifference''': Life is too short to waste on trivialities like this. -- ] </sup></span>]] 19:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' One of the last articles of its kind to not have one. --] (]) 02:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' – the inclusion of an infobox which clutters the beginning of the lead and provides undue weight to trivial facts from the body of the article to the lead. (Why is the name of an actor's spouse, where they died, the name of their relatives or children of due weight to include in the lead. See for example the ] wikipedia article, where such information is all undue. Marlon Brando's personal life section is minuscule in comparison to the blaring weight the infobox provides for such minutiae.) The inclusion of undue weight, trivial information, which the infobox would provide for this article is in violation of the guideline ]:
::"{{tq|According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article.}}"
:The inclusion of the infobox also goes against the guideline of the ] which states:
::"{{tq|The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, ''wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content''.}}"
:The ideal infobox for this article is one that solely presents the most important feature that the infobox serves that is to visually identify the subject. For this well written lead, the most concise and informative read is to see the actor stand on the stage with his lead words and not be caged in a template box. --] (]) 03:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Despite the claims of a very vocal minority over the years, infoboxes are an asset to the general Misplaced Pages reader. It's not clutter to have an infobox. Many well respected print encyclopedias contain infoboxes. This grand encyclopdia that has become a vast array of knowledge over the years wasn't created so that the people who edit them can feel good about how well they have written the articles, it was created as source of information for people who want to learn something about particular topics. Not every reader uses Misplaced Pages in the same way. Many people rely on the infobox a repository for key information that can be accessed at a glance. These people shouldn't be forced to scan though multiple lines of data just to get the one piece of information that they are looking for. The inclusion of an infobox doesn't hurt anyone, but the lack of an infobox makes the article less convenient for many people.--] ] 12:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
:*What a hurtful contribution! The people (e.g. me) at whom ] is sniping are not anti info-boxes. If I recall correctly the ] I created from scratch contained an i-b, because it was helpful there to our readers. For the Olivier article the main editors, the peer reviewers and the FAC reviewers did not request one, because it is not useful to our readers for that article. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 21:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:*:Seems to me that I didn’t mention anyone by name. I’m not sure who exactly you are referring to when you say, “The people”, but if you identify under the statement I made, then that’s on you, not me. I was just making a counter argument as to why infoboxes are useful, especially in this article. ] ] 23:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
* '''Support''': There is no harm in including an infobox if the article's size is sufficiently big enough. ] (]) 21:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
* '''Support''': For the same reasons set out by ], ] and for the reasons I've said previously. That some frequent editors of the page seem to believe that they are not useful is no substitute for the very apparent user expectation that an infobox exists. As many have stated previously, the lack of an infobox on certain biographies, particularly in the arts, on seemingly the sole ground that these artists are distinguished or that they raise "factoids" (as if that's not the point of an infobox) is arbitrary and creates a jarring user experience. ] (]) 08:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
*:In my opinion an infobox is only weird if the box is larger than all of the text excluding the references, and even then many articles such as geographic locations have infoboxes larger than the rest of the article. ] (]) 16:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I do not see any reason why there shouldn't be an infobox when basically every other notable entertainer has one.--] (]) 17:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''': An infobox will be useful to the reader or casual browser. Period. Readers don't care if this particular infobox is part of some smokey-room secret Wikilluminati debate over the general application of infoboxes. ] (]) 00:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support.''' Infoboxes are a useful tool for cataloging brief, factual pieces of information that are often matters of public curiosity ("When did die again?"). They don't compete with the lead – rather, they're a supplementary resource, and are especially useful for people who are seeking to check specific facts rather than intending to read the article prose in the first place. For Laurence Olivier in particular, I think one of the primary assets of an infobox would be its provision of an immediately obvious link to ] at the top of the page – these "list of works" articles are helpful information for biographies in arts and entertainment, and readers will benefit from not having to travel to the bottom of the article to find it. (Additionally, while much has been made of the relative unimportance of many of the details included in Olivier's infobox, I would argue that that's ]. For example, it's been stated (correctly) that Olivier isn't famous for having had three wives – but in that case, surely it's better to set that information off to the side in an infobox, rather than having it in the prose of the lead?) ] (] • ]) 16:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' no point digging through prose to find simple information—] 21:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Infoboxes are useful and time saving tools. Also, most biographies have them. —<span style="font-family: serif">''''']<sup>]</sup>'''''</span> 🌻🇺🇦 12:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
* '''Strong Support''': Infoboxes are incredibly beneficial in my view, and a widely used tool throughout wikipedia. It's very weird that some people who oppose said inclusion see key enclyopedic information (birth date, death date, place of birth, place of death, nationality etc) are somehow "trivial facts" on an online encyclopedia... ] (]) 11:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
::How is place of death important? I can't imagine saying to someone: Do you like Olivier's ''Hamlet''? You know, he died in Steyning! -- ] (]) 22:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
::As ] puts it: {{tq|To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.|q=y}} As infoboxes just list factoids, they fail to provide the context that is essential to imparting encyclopaedic value. What is the ''significance'' of his place of death? ''Why'' do we mention his wives? In the rest of the article, paragraphs that just list facts without contextualisation are justly criticised, tagged, and removed, but in an infobox that should suddenly not apply because… reasons? ] (]) 08:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:::If they did not impart enclyopedic value, they would not be on the world's largest online encyclopedia. It's curious that some have chosen a potential infobox on the Lawrence Olivier page as a hill to die on. Tell me, why are you not waging this anti-infobox crusade across the entire site, surely your criticisms apply to all infoboxes? ] (]) 21:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
::::This is circular. We get to decide what gets prominence here. Encyclopedic value can be a sliding scale; we don’t need to feature every last detail in the lead. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 01:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
::::My criticisms do apply to all infoboxes, but they are not equally relevant for all articles. Which is why my main argument is that as long as there is no global policy on the project that ''mandates'' infoboxes on all articles, the choice of whether or not to include an infobox in a given article should—like ], ], and a number of other issues—be left up to the main long-term contributors to choose and the rest of us should explicitly defer to that choice. Unlike your average BOLD edit (which ] works fine to handle), infoboxes is not something a drive-by contributor should concern themselves with over the expressed preference of the long-term contributors.{{pb}}I also do not appreciate your ] language ({{tqi|hill to die on}}) or casting of ] ({{tqi|waging this anti-infobox crusade}}). I can speak for no one but myself, but I can hardly be accused of "waging an anti-infobox crusade" when I argue the position on ''one'' article and based on the preference and long-standing consensus among the major contributors to that article. Particularly when I have explicitly expressed my ''support'' for a project-wide policy to mandate infoboxes (different reasoning). If you must apply the label of "crusader" to anyone, a more apt target would be those who here !vote in support of ''imposing an infobox'' on an article to which they ''have not themselves contributed'' and explicitly ''against the will'' of that article's long-term contributors and standing local consensus.{{pb}}] says you are absolutely permitted to open an RfC for such things, but it's still a really crap way to treat people on a collaborative project, and one that is most apt to losing us the very contributors that made this into a featured article. Congrats on ] the infobox, I guess? ] (]) 15:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::It is my view, that if you oppose the inclusion of infoboxes generally you should be taking that up with other editors on a more 'global' (cross-wikipedia) basis, rather than focusing on one article specifically. A cursory glance of your edit history shows you're quite comfortable editing pages with infoboxes without bringing up this opposition to their inclusion on those pages. With that in mind the question must be posed: what is it about Lawrence Olivier's page that makes an infobox uniquely inappropriate? As for your suggestion that the views of 'long-term contributors' should somehow have greater say over what's included borders on ]. ] (]) 12:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::You misunderstand me. As I've noted multiple times in this discussion, I ''support'' a project-wide policy to make infoboxes mandatory (with the usual caveats and IAR clauses). I also routinely add infoboxes to all the articles I create (or overhaul). I am saying that because this is a controversial issue, that has twice been before ArbCom and twice ArbCom has asked the community to get its act together and make policy about this, to use a process like RfC to overrule the local consensus on an article is a crap way to treat the contributors that have put in hundreds of hours and sweated every little detail creating a featured article. If there is some overarching need to impose an infobox over their preference then that fact in itself means the issue should instead be settled through project-wide policy rather than this gaming of the system for one single article.{{pb}}What's going to happen every time another article has an infobox imposed on it through this kind of mechanism is that the long-term contributors to that article are going to feel ill used, defeated, unappreciated, and fed up. If they happen to be the kind of person that is at all prone to losing their cool they are very likely to express this frustration in a way that gets them blocked or even banned. If they're not then we have "merely" put another reason into the big sack of "Why the heck should I bother contributing to this project?". It is going to (keep) costing us contributors we can ill afford to lose, and at least some of those are going to be the kinds of editors that are willing and able to write our featured articles (some of them several tens or even hundreds of featured articles). It creates bad blood, and those prone to nursing grievances will carry this around to cloud their interactions with other editors in other articles and other topics, and we get unneeded conflict and strife generally on the project.{{pb}}Contrariwise, if those who are so hell-bent on having an infobox on every single article were to channel their energies towards gaining a consensus for a project-wide policy to that effect, those opposed to infoboxes would still be frustrated but now in an impersonal and much more diffuse way. In my experience, this kind of project-wide policy (be it through the MoS or straight up ''policy'' policy) may be grumbled at, by those who disagree, but rarely causes the hurts and fights the imposition of an unwanted feature to an individual article does. Having something regulated in the MoS, and having MoS compliance as a FA criteria, also creates a ''soft'' incentive to make people comply on their own accord (because they want that star) rather then forcing them directly to do something they do not want in an article they have invested "blood, sweat, and tears" in.{{pb}}To say that this has anything to do with OWN is as misguided as saying the same about CITEVAR or ENGVAR. We have explicit carveouts for the judgements of the main contributors' judgement on a given article (in general and explicitly in WP:OWN), both because they are best placed to make that (often extremely nuanced) judgement ''and'' to avoid the very situation of someone external with a bee in their bonnet running amuck and changing something across the project. CITEVAR in particular exists because someone periodically got it into their heads that ''all articles must use my preferred citation style'' and went around changing citations on articles they had never contributed to, and using any and all methods allowed (including RfC) to make it so ("come hell or high water").{{pb}}Or as a possibly more succinct way to put it: how many of those here !voting ''support'' do you think will stick around afterwards to help with actually curating the contents of that infobox? The long-term contributors of the article will be stuck with that massively thankless task, struggling to keep up with the addition of trivial factoids, fighting about what needs inline cites inside the infobox, trying to find ways to express a hugely nuanced issue within the constraints of the infobox and the ~3 words there's room for. Why in the world should we ''not'' defer to those who will actually have to do the work? Why in the world would we instead defer to the people who swing by to say "''I'' like it this way, now ''you'' do the work to make it so!"? ] (]) 13:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|Why in the world should we not defer to those who will actually have to do the work? Why in the world would we instead defer to the people who swing by to say "I like it this way, now you do the work to make it so!"?}}
:::::::I have worked on articles significantly and changes have been made that I didn't agree with, but I yielded to the consensus. I appreciate editor's work, but if someone quits over an IB that undoubtedly makes articles easier to navigate, I question their long term temperament for editing and getting along with others. ] (]) 14:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::That is rather an extraordinary thing to say. Are you really prepared to defend the implications of such a stance? That you are so convinced of the "undoubtable" correctness of your opinion that all other viewpoints are clearly aberrant and their adherents best removed from the project sooner rather than later? We are a global collaborative and consensus-based project, and I would hope also one inclusive of all people that wish to contribute. To be frustrated when feeling ill used, and to sometimes express that frustration in non-constructive ways, is as human as using the toilet. If we do not constrain ourselves from pushing people to this point except when the need is pressing (and adding an infobox to one article is hardly pressing) then we undermine the ] on which the project and the movement as a whole is built. Or put more succinctly: that someone disagrees with you is rarely a sign of their mental deficiency. ] (]) 06:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::@], you are missing the point. If someone were to quit when faced with disagreement from the community over a trivial matter—the presence {{em|or absence}} of an infobox—then they may well not have a personality that suits group projects where the community is frequently involved. More broadly, I am often grateful for the external viewpoints brought in by RfCs. There are many pages where an individual or a small group have pushed a particular version that most editors and readers would view as “wrong” when looking at the whole encyclopaedia, and the only way to make change is to bring in outsiders. (This page might be an example, although I don’t personally see the absence of an IB as problematic.) <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 21:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::@]: I would assert that the opposite is true: you (collective) are missing the point. You are implying the presence of one of our many types of problematic editors. I am saying normal non-problematic editors are in danger of being driven off by this approach.{{pb}}If the issue of an infobox is so trivial that getting frustrated when is imposed is out of proportion, then it is not an issue the wider community should put this much weight behind imposing (the amount of force is out of proportion to the importance of the issue). If, however, the issue is important enough to justify steamrolling over those local editors then it is also an issue that should be attacked at a project-wide policy level rather than locally.{{pb}}And I should add… if you think the matter of an infobox is trivial then you have not been paying attention over the last ~15 years. We know for a fact that this is an issue that causes conflict and lasting bad blood within our community, because we have twice had to hash the resulting fallout out before ArbCom. And both times ArbCom has begged the community to go do precisely what I am tell you now: ''go make a project-wide policy about this!'' ] (]) 11:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::“{{tq|… normal non-problematic editors are in danger of being driven off by this approach.}}”
:::::::::::It wasn’t really my point, but the response was more that ({{em|hypothetical}}) people who are driven off by an RfC are probably not as pure and non-problematic as you suggest they are. That issue is open to debate, but I think for the sake of everyone here it’s better to agree to disagree.
:::::::::::My only goal personally is that an RfC would resolve this debate (for at least a good amount of time). As indicated by my !vote above, I don’t care much which way, it goes, but perhaps the resolution of this debate can be used in a possible future discussion on a project-wide standard. (I personally don’t have much hopes for a lot of change there though; the MOS folks these days are very led by ] and ].) <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 22:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::On ''problematic vs. non-problematic'' I have a few thousand years of human nature and science on my side of the argument: when something we care about is threatened, or we are otherwise put under stress, we react with various defensive strategies. The ones we notice are the ones that blow up spectacularly. The ones we don't are the ones that quietly taper down and then quit their participation. So by all means let's agree to disagree, but I know where we're headed long term if we do not collectively muster the empathy with and tolerance for those with whom we disagree. For example over whether having an infobox is "unquestionably" better or its addition a "trivial" matter.{{pb}}Oh well. I ''hope'' the process will lay the question to rest, on this article, for the foreseeable future. But I ''fear'' the cost of this, and the ongoing slow attrition across the project instead of addressing it head on, will be far dearer than we can afford before the issue is finally settled. ] (]) 11:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I find it very useful to have quick, basic biographical details presented in this way. I appreciate some don't find them useful, but the balance between the cost of having one (editors who don't find it useful will have to ignore it, like in almost every article) and the cost of not having one (editors who would find it useful will have to look elsewhere) clearly favours inclusion. I find the arguments that it would lack sufficient nuance to be unconvincing and overly prescriptivist in terms of the "right way" to read an article.--] (]) 14:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support ''' as our data shows the info box is a very important part of the lead to readers <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 21:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Helps especially mobile users provide quick info about Olivier. How the infobox is properly executed can be discussed at another appropriate time. ] (]) 05:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I find infoboxes very useful, and while I'm sympathetic to some of the arguments presented against here, I don't find them compelling. Many of the arguments feel more appropriate to have once the infobox is in place, as they seem to hinge on it being used incorrectly. A fair fear, but that's part and parcel of creating content, and I'm confident that the wisdom of experienced editors will ensure the infobox maintains the articles' excellent quality. Otherwise, the value to the reader of having the quick hit info outweighs aesthetic concerns by a country mile, to me. ] (]) 23:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

=== Discussion ===
* It appears that this infobox topix has been discussed a lot over the years. Would it be okay to ping the editors from both sides of the debate on this RfC so they can voice their opinions? Thanks! ] (]) 20:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*:You could just tabulate the votes from past discussions. That way valid opinions from departed users will still have force. ] (]) 21:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*:: Well, without tabulating, you can see there is a majority of '''Oppose'''. I was orignally for an infobox (See '''Pretty Strong Support''' commet) cuz I did not understand why it was so horrible to add an infobox, but seeing the majority, let's just leave the article as it is, and boom, end of RfC ! ] (]) 21:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::I'm not seeing a majority, but I'll leave it up to the closing editor to decide the consensus. Consensus is not found by counting votes (see:]). ] (]) 22:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*::::This is one of those rare questions that can be decided by opinions alone. That's because the infobox is not required by Misplaced Pages, and other policies don't change that. The closer is welcome to apply more weight to carefully constructed arguments, but no opinion should be discounted entirely. ] (]) 20:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::::And could we perhaps have at least a year's break this time before the diehards raise this matter yet again? '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 19:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*:@]: Yes, so long as you do it systematically, you should ping interested editors from previous, related discussions on this talk page. The closing editor will not tally opinions from past discussions; editors will have to voice their opinions at the present RfC to be counted. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 02:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
* Can I just propose to wait for someone new to come, and that person, after reading all the articles, will become the colser of this dicussion, the judge. (see ]). Just wait for a new eye on this discussion and that's it ! ] (]) 20:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*:I'm not sure what this is in response to? My original question wasn't about closing this discussion or about rushing the discussion. It was about pinging people who have discussed it in the past. ] (]) 20:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*:: Yeah no I understand. I was just saying that this discussion about the infobox has not been solved after 2 years of debate, so I was just proposing a solution ] (]) 08:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::The solution was to open up a RfC. That's the purpose of the RfC. That's what brought me here and I'm sure a few others. @] is already ahead of you. I removed the POV tags here since they're not useful in this circumstance. The closing admin should know how to navigate a RfC. ] (]) 12:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
*Hey, I was thinking, why not bring this conversation to the ] ! But for that, I need at least 2-3 other editors to post their comment on the DRN. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*:I'm down for that. Never done DRN before though, what do you need me to do? ] (]) 08:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
*:: Great ! For the DRN, I will file this discussion about the infobox. You should receive a DRN case reminder soon telling you that you are part of a conflict resolution effort and that you are welcome to put in your POV on the subject. :) ] (]) 09:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
*:@] You should withdraw the DRN. It violates the DRN guidelines. {{tq|We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments}}. There's already an RfC open on this topic. ] (]) 12:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
*::Well then let's just close this discussion until teh DRN mediator comes to a conclusion ! ] (]) 17:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::You can learn more at ], but I don't see any reason to rush this close when it's been open for 6 days.
*::::{{tq|An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time.}}
*:::Please just be patient and allow this process to play out. Thanks! ] (]) 17:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
*::::I am sorry, but if you look at the first edit on the talk page and look at the date, you can see that this conflict has been going on since the 13th of December '''2020''' . ] (]) 22:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::::Infobox matters go back to at least 2015. See the ] advising people not to add an infobox without discussion on the talk page. There is no rush. An RfC is a perfectly appropriate way to address the dispute; please let it run its course. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 01:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::An RfC is a form of dispute resolution. Whatever the outcome, the matter will be settled. To try to take it elsewhere will raise accusations of ]. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 19:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
* We're almost a month into this RfC and I have requested ] for this discussion from an outside editor. ] (]) 18:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yet again, Tim Riley wins on nothing but “because i said so” and “because we already talked about it” in lieu of actual arguments, while projecting that others are “hovering around” despite this issue only existing in the first place due to his outright bizarre overprotection of it.
I would not be so personal in this response if he himself hadn’t broken discussion rules a dozen times in this discussion! It is actively disgusting that people whose egos’ shine through every word can have such huge sway. This is all one adult’s three-year long temper tantrum, and nothing more. ] (]) 20:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
*Can I suggest you remove your personal attack? It is both insulting of an editor who is acting in good faith and a tissue of falsehoods. ] (]) 23:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Infobox Added to Artice ==


== IB bloating ==
After the resolution of the RfC I have added the infobox that was used as an example during that discussion. That can serve as the starting point.


I've removed the rather pointless information about his peerage from the IB. Olivier never sat as a Lord, so it's entirely pointless having it there. Like all Lords, he went and swore his oath of allegiance once he was ennobled, but took no further activity there. Ever. We already acknowledge he was a Lord (his title is at the top of the box), but we don't need empty information further cluttering up the box.{{pb}}I've also removed the list of roles and awards from the box, as there is a navbox right below it which has the exact same links. Such close duplication of links is unnecessary. It's either lose those in the IB, or the Navbox. - ] (]) 16:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
If there are questions about the inclusion or removal of information from the infobox please feel free to discuss here. Thanks! ] (]) 20:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:Per BRD please give a good reason for including the marriages. The non-admin closure of the RFC ignored the part of my comment where I referred to parts of the information being misleading: this is one example. ] (]) 06:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
::The marriages are important enough to be mentioned in the lead and should be mentioned in the infobox. This is consistent with other biographies. What you cited isn't mentioned in the lead. The closing admin summed up the arguments and you can ]. You've made it clear that you are very anti-infobox on this article and it would be a huge waste of editor's time to have to RfC every time you object to standard infobox information. ] (]) 13:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Don't tell me to "drop the stick" or try and summarise my approach to IBs - you have zero idea what my thoughts are in them in general. Comment on the content not the editor please.
:::We are not talking about what happens in other articles: we are talking about ''this'' article. There are lots of things mentioned in the lead that are not in the OB, and things in the IB that are not in the lead. Having five out of twelve lines of factoids in the box about his wives gives far too much ] to this aspect of his life. ] (]) 14:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
::::''This article'' is a <s>]</s>] article on Misplaced Pages. Marriage info in infoboxes on biographies is a consistent part of the navigation. Again, making information easier to find for users is the goal of the infobox. There would need to be a compelling reason to omit the marriage information from the infobox. I find the argument about ] to be insufficient. It was important enough to be mentioned in the lead and it's certainly well within the guidelines to have the information in the infobox. ] (]) 14:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::1. ''This article'' '''isn't''' a ] article on Misplaced Pages. 2. IBs are nothing to do with navigation. If you mean that some IBs have them, you are correct, but some don't either, particularly when they are both misleading by the omission of Olivier's bisexuality and when they give too much ] to something that doesn't add to his notability.
:::::The inclusion of the additional five lines of information does not help readers any more than knowing whether he sat in the House of Lords for a particular party or what his height was, or many other factoids that people ''think'' are standard, but don't actually consider why. - ] (]) 16:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::Navigation was one of the central arguments of those in favor of an infobox. The consensus position of supporters of the was clearly outlined above by the closing editor, {{tq|The infobox, per supporters, would allow for information to be available at-a-glance and would make it easier for readers to find information.}} I'm not interested in regurgitating the infobox debate here again and in light of no new arguments for removing the marriage information I'll wait for further input from editors. Another RfC could be opened if no compromise can be found. The status quo should be restored until there's a consensus. Thanks! ] (]) 16:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::"Navigation was one of the central arguments": no it wasn't. Only two people mentioned it (one of which was you), but both of you missed the point that navigation is nothing to do with infoboxes and it never has been! The closing statement has zero to do with navigation, so I am not sure what you are trying to claim. There is no "status quo" here for the box. Sure, there's a consensus for some form of IB there, but the fields are open to discussion (please see the final paragraph in the closing statement about BRD and discussion for individual fields). You cannot claim status quo on the individual fields on the basis of the two hours it was there: you need to find good arguments to ''include'' the information, rather than assume it should be there by default - that is not how quality content is produced on WP. This is not a regurgitation of the whole debate again (the IB is there, after all), but a discussion about a field that is both misleading and adds too much WEIGHT on something one part of his life that has no connection to his notability. ] (]) 16:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
:It seems there is a real danger that now every change to the infobox will become battleground... ] (]) 01:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
::Untrue, and a rather pointlessly loaded comment. This is an FA, which means all changes should be considered carefully. Those that are not beneficial to the reader should either be removed or discussed to see if they can be refined to become beneficial. If you think discussion of any aspect of an article is a "battleground", that says a more about your attitude than about how WP or featured content is supposed to work. - ] (]) 08:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:37, 26 October 2024

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.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Featured articleLaurence 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 12, 2018.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 17, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 23, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 13, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 30, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
August 1, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 20, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 22, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
February 2, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
February 14, 2015Featured article candidatePromoted
October 25, 2015Featured topic candidateNot promoted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 22, 2019.
Current status: Featured article
This  level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography: Actors and Filmmakers / Peerage and Baronetage
WikiProject iconThis 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
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Mid-importance).
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis 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
WikiProject iconShakespeare High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTheatre High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLondon Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSurrey Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Olivier's first performance and falling flat on his face

his first stage appearance was in a sketch called The Unfailing Instinct at the Brighton Hippodrome in August 1925.He tripped and fell on his face during the performance.

(underlined was removed)

This detail was added by me on 17 December during this discussion about the start date of Olivier's career. There were several other editors who massaged the text, it went back and forth, but this detail was ultimately included for 3 months, until today, when @SchroCat/HJ Mitchell removed it. (also pinging other original discussion participants Nemov and RL0919). I think it's overall a pretty good case for WP:STATUSQUO. It's also clearly WP:DUE for the body of the article, as it is mentioned in detail in numerous high quality reliable sources:

Donald Spoto's 1941 biography (page 44):

After four weeks on tour with this trifle in Manchester, Liverpool and Brighton, his salary of two pounds was slightly augmented when he was asked to be assistant stage manager and play the silent policeman in a melodrama, The Ghost Train, in which ‘Miller had scored a great success in London. No such success was Olivier’s: the Brighton drama correspondent alluded to him only to note his unintentionally dramatic entry onstage.. Heedless of the stage manager’s warning about the set’s raised doorsill, Olivier reduced a tense scene to giddy farce as he tripped, sliding precariously toward the footlights. He fared no better in his next employment..."

Anthony Holden's 1947 biography (page 326):

Twenty-two years his junior, Joan Plowright was young enough to be Olivier's daughter, precisely the role she played at the Palace Theatre, taking over the part of Jean Rice from Dorothy Tutin....Though she too was married - to the actor Roger Gage - there followed a "euphoric" progress through Glasgow, Edinburgh and Oxford to the Brighton Hippodrome - the scene of Olivier's first professional stage entrance, flat on his face, over thirty years before."

John Cottrell's 1975 biography (page 34):

"That summer Olivier made his first professional stage appearance since leaving drama school, and he literally fell flat on his face. The occasion was a sketch called Unfailing Instinct, put on as a curtain- raiser before a Brighton Hippodrome production of Arthur Ridley's new play The Ghost Train. Again and again the eighteen-year-old novice had been warned about the importance of lifting his feet as he came on stage via a door built into the scenery on a wooden base. It made not a dime's worth of difference. On the cue for his entrance he stumbled stupidly into the base of the door frame and plunged head- first into the footlights with sufficient impact to earn his first, brief notice as a pro: "Mr. Laurence Olivier made a good deal out of a rather small part."

Francis Beckett's 2005 biography (page 16):

" one of the most dramatic: he fell headlong, his face coming to rest in the footlights. There was a torrent of laughter from the packed house, and when he eventually left the stage, they gave him a round of applause."

Terry Coleman's 2006 biography (Pages 25, 485):

"The first time he appeared on stage as an actor, in public, was at the Brigthon Hippodrome at a charity gala at the beginning of August 1925, and it was in music hall, and he fell flat on his face...Olivier was in the one straight act of the evening, a short curtain-raising sketch called The Unfailing Instinct.""

It's also mentioned prominently in this New York Times review of Olivier's 1985 Autobiography Confessions of an Actor:

"In 1925 he made his first appearance on a professional stage, on a variety bill in Brighton, and he made his entrance by tripping over the sill of a door in the scenery. He sailed through the air right into the footlights, and the accident provoked the largest laugh he has ever received in his life as an actor."

All of this adds up to a detail about Olivier's early career that is clearly WP:DUE inclusion in the body, in a short sentence as above. There are numerous other details in the article currently which are not mentioned in so many biographies. It's an interesting fact that Olivier often mentioned to his biographers, and is especially notable as an actor with such great stage presence and poise as a dramatic leading man, who had such a clumsy foible in his first professional role. — Shibbolethink 14:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Trivia. We are not writing a book-length biography, we are writing a summary of his career. Trying to compare full biographies with a summary is like comparing apples and spark plugs. Looking at summaries of Olivier’s life (ODNB and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, neither of which mention this triviality. SchroCat (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Our entry is quite a bit longer and more detailed than either of those sources. The NYT review does, however, mention it. And saw it as important enough in a much shorter format. — Shibbolethink 17:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Just because our article is slightly longer, it doesn’t mean we have to fill it with trivial fluff. Does it explain anything about Olivier, his career, his approach to acting or anything at all? Are readers enlightened in any way about him for the inclusion of this nonsense? SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I found it an interesting and insightful 10 words which highlighted the difference between Olivier at the very beginning of his career compared to the end. But that's all irrelevant nonsense. Our personal opinions of Olivier are not the point of WP:RSUW. — Shibbolethink 17:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
"Interesting" does not equal encyclopaedic. And if you are trying to make a comparison from beginning to end, that’s Unclear to the point of ridiculous. - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I concur with SchroCat. Our job as editors is to try to boil down to a few thousand words the key contents of 500-page biographies. Tempting though it may be to add amusing incidental anecdotes they are not what an encyclopaedia article is about. Tim riley talk 17:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I also agree with SchroCat. It is neither possible or necessary to include every trivial detail on a subject’s life. Jack1956 (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been listed at the NPOV noticeboard, WP Actors and Filmmakers, and WP Theater. — Shibbolethink 17:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
(from NPOVN) That a legendary actor tripped and fell in his first stage appearance is not trivia, it's obviously a salient detail of his career, as evidence by the inclusion of this detail in what appears to be every biography, including those that are shorter than ours. Of course, my mind would be persuaded if someone showed me six biographies of equal quality that did not mention this detail. But based on these sources: include. Levivich (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Shall we refer to every other occasion he bumped into furniture? This is about as trivial an incident I can think of and is not encyclopaedic in any way. Can you provide a link to a biographies that are short than ours that include this vital piece of information? - SchroCat (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
He dedicated 5 of 330 pages in his autobiography to the incident (~1.6% by word count). The NYT includes it in a 60-word mention in a review that's only 1780 words (3%). We can manage to include 10 words. — Shibbolethink 19:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Can you not interrupt the flow with non sequiturs? I have asked a question of someone else to provide information: you are providing ridiculous numbers that prove or mean absolutely zero in this context. Writing biographies entries by statistics? No wonder things like Rylance and the misrepresentation of sources happen. Turgid rubbish. SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Shib is showing the "weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material"... it's kind of a key part of figuring out if something is WP:DUE for inclusion or a WP:MINORASPECT. Levivich (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Not every other occasion, we should treat each occasion with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. In other words, it doesn't matter at all if you think it's trivial or not, it matters how much coverage it receives in RS biographies of Olivier. So, all the bumps and falls the RSes cover. But to cut the bullshit, you're being disingenuous by pretending you don't see why a famous actor falling on stage in his first performance would be a detail people would include in a biography of that actor. To treat that as just bumping into furniture is transparently disingenuous. You're not stupid and we know it. :-) Levivich (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the slur - that's very kind of you. I am waiting for the supposed biographies (plural) that are shorter than ours and still contain this crucial piece of information that somehow enlighten or explain something about Olivier - can you do that? At some point the penny may drop that WP:NOTEVERYTHING should actually mean something. - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
What slur, "disingenuous" or "not stupid"? The NYT autobiography review linked above. Levivich (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
That's a review in a newspaper, not a biography; there is a considerable amount of difference between newspaper copy and an encyclopaedic article. Now, can you provide the biographies (plural) that are shorter than this that include this crucial piece of information? - SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep it in. I'd say. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Seems like there's a enough coverage of it happening to warrant an inclusion, but it should remain short if included. Nemov (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
      • If this seems indispensable to some editors, we could at a pinch treat it as we do another amusing anecdote, viz the dog Roger and his fascination with Olivier's genitals, and put it in a footnote. See footnote k for Roger and Olivier's private parts. I remain unconvinced that a one-off onstage accident needs inclusion, but if there is a consensus to add it, I recommend we add it in a footnote. Tim riley talk 19:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
        Which biographies about Laurence Olivier cover that detail about Roger the dog and in how much proportional detail do they cover it? I don't see it in any of the above linked sources. Seems it's a fact about Nöel Coward, not Olivier. Not sure why it's in the article since it doesn't appear in a cursory search of sources about Olivier. This fact about Olivier's first professional on-stage role seems quite a bit more DUE. Talk about "trivia". To put these two pieces of information on the same level in any way is bizarre. — Shibbolethink 20:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I can see both sides. It is fairly trivial in such a long and distinguished career. On the other, it's widely mentioned in the source material. I'm loathe to disagree with the authors of such an excellent FA, but if there was a consensus for inclusion I could support a brief mention. We could re-cast the sentence slightly so that the fall is not the main subject and uses fewer words. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I would leave it out. It may be amusing to note that a famous actor tripped during his maiden outing on stage, and it may help to sell a memoir or biography, but it doesn't give the reader any enyclopedic information about his life or career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: to meet above compromises

In Olivier's first professional stage appearance in a sketch called The Unfailing Instinct at the Brighton Hippodrome in August 1925, he tripped and fell on his face.

That's 7 words versus 10. Any other suggestions? I would ref this to the sources which best summarize the incident, Cottrell and Beckett.— Shibbolethink 15:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Still unencyclopaedic trivia. Again, what do these seven words add to the understanding of Olivier, his work or his life? - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
    See above. If you think a footnote about an imaginary dog in someone else's biography is encyclopedic, but this fact isn't, then I don't know if there is anything I can say to convince you otherwise. — Shibbolethink 18:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Are you going to answer my question? - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I explained my answer above in short , and in detail over at WP:NPOV/N: . To repeat, I think this detail adds an understanding of how much Olivier's stage presence evolved over the course of his career, from extremely humble beginnings to being perhaps one of the greatest such actors in our time, with an incredible presence. I provided sources to back up this interpretation, and I also described how I would elaborate on it if necessary. My best guess is that you don't consider those answers satisfactory. And as I said, if that's true, then I'm not sure anything I could say would be. — Shibbolethink 19:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think you're likely to get a consensus one way or the other, Shibbolethink. But if it is to be included, I'd suggest reframing the sentence so the fall isn't the subject, like Olivier's first professional stage appearance was in a sketch called The Unfailing Instinct at the Brighton Hippodrome in August 1925, during which he tripped and fell. I don't think "on his face" adds anything, though now I see it without that I'm leaning more towards excluding the whole thing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think you're likely to get a consensus one way or the other, Shibbolethink
If that's true, then the article should revert to the WP:STATUSQUO which, most recently, was inclusion (for 3 months). — Shibbolethink 19:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
STATUSQUO is an essay and this is a featured article so, barring major developments in the subject matter or major new sources, we should take the version that passed FAC as the consensus version. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
You think those seven words expresses exactly what? That this was in the same city where Olivier and his wife “spent their golden years”, to quote you. How exactly does it do that, and what exactly does it add? - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Whatever you think about Shibbolethink's judgement you have to acknowledge his persistence. Nonetheless, I think we can now conclude that there is no consensus to alter the agreed FAC text in the matter under consideration. Tim riley talk 23:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

The present image is a little disturbing. I kind of prefer reverting it back to the one with Olivier in old age. I'm also open to other suggestions. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

What makes you think the current image is disturbing? Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 09:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Yourlocallordandsavior and Ollieinsanerd, what do you think about this image? 88.29.165.207 (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
It’s probably the smile, although I myself think it’s okay. Dantus21 (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I prefer the old lead image too. It's in colour, is higher resolution than the current lead image, and was taken by a famous photographer. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Laurence is too old in that photography, as the infobox photo should feature the individual (Olivier) in its prime. 88.28.10.208 (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The current image works in that he's at his most recognisable. Ultimately that's the aim for an infobox image. We already have an image of him as a much older man (photographed by Allan Warren) in the appropriate section. Duffy BT (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I've put back in the 1972 picture: it's a higher resolution and there isn't a consensus for change. Given his career was a long and rich one, to try and claim the b&w one is "in his prime" is a bit questionable, given the Warren one was in '72, the same year he was in Sleuth (1972) and before he appeared in Marathon Man (1976) and The Boys from Brazil (1978): he was nominated for Oscars for those three films, which suggests he was still pretty much in his prime. Feel free to open an RfC to discuss the options if you wish. - SchroCat (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

IB bloating

I've removed the rather pointless information about his peerage from the IB. Olivier never sat as a Lord, so it's entirely pointless having it there. Like all Lords, he went and swore his oath of allegiance once he was ennobled, but took no further activity there. Ever. We already acknowledge he was a Lord (his title is at the top of the box), but we don't need empty information further cluttering up the box.

I've also removed the list of roles and awards from the box, as there is a navbox right below it which has the exact same links. Such close duplication of links is unnecessary. It's either lose those in the IB, or the Navbox. - SchroCat (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: