Talk:Laurence Olivier/Archive 2

RFC opinions
" maybe we need a new RFC to further explore adding an infobox to this article". Exactly. This is obviously what is planned here so good luck with it.. It's still disrespectful to the editors who put in hours and hours of hard work in promoting this.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea on the history of this, so your assertions are false and merely another uncivil attack. I suggest you stop commenting on other editors and focus instead on the editorial content of this article.  I don't see how finding consensus and having an RFC is being 'disrespectful' to anyone.  YDreadstar  ☥   17:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * HJs arrival on the scene given what he said at arb a few weeks back makes it perfectly clear to me what is happening here. You're just another innocent bystander gravely concerned with a hidden message behind the article screen which you came across purely by accident. Sure, you know nothing about infoboxes disputes and the fact that Olivier (like most of Schro/Tim's FAs) is one of the primary targets for "victory" in enforcement.. All innocent... In the glimmer of a chance that you really didn't know, the primary editors of the article are frequently subject to infobox disputes over articles they take all the way to FA and prefer not to have one. At some stage there's always an attempt to impose one, this is exactly why the message and indeed its tone is appropriate. And yes, if you spend weeks promoting a core article to FA you should be extended the courtesy and respect to have more of a say on article layout and design. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The above section is to discuss the hidden text issue, not your personal views on the motivations, behavior and connections regarding this issue. There's really no place for that on this article talk page. Dreadstar  ☥   18:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's all related Dreadstar. This article is watched like a hawk and I would have a hunch that you've already received a few "thankyou" messages for what you've said already on this by the infobox warriors.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is an agenda operating here. This argument is grounds for those wanting an infobox to force an infobox onto this article. The admins here, I feel, are now honey-trapping the main editors so they come across as "uncivil" and "nasty".  This whole situation stinks.   Cassianto Talk   18:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok guys, an article talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss the behavior of other editors per WP:TPNO, WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Instead, follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE and use this article talk page to focus only on the editorial content of the article.  Dreadstar  ☥   18:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Its a pity you don't practice what you preach Dreadstar Cassianto Talk   18:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's very appropriate. I smell a rat. People should just move on and expand articles...♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you all can't simply write a less aggressive hidden comment so everyone can move on with their lives. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree and will draft something shortly for discussion. Unfortunately it's not quite that simple, as a bad decision by an WP:INVOLVED admin has locked the article for a while. – SchroCat (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:DROPTHESTICK. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What a curious comment to make. You asked about redrafting the comment; I pointed out that I was going to but couldn't because the article is locked. There is no stick for anyone to have to drop. – SchroCat (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you used discussion of the comment as an excuse for an unrelated snipe at Dreadstar. Locking the page does not inhibit talk page discussion.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. I'm going to draw an end to this increasingly unconstructive sub thread. (And it's obvious talk continues: that's why I said I would prepare something for discussion). – SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Per Gamaliel: The hidden comment is aggressive and threatening. If there must be a hidden comment I would support something that is less chilling to the editing environment.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

I would prefer not to see any page, much less a featured article, full-protected for a week due to a dispute about hidden text. If there is any objection to unprotecting, please let me know here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as there's no further edit warring to re-add the disputed hidden text until the rewrite has been completed in the section above, then I'm fine with it. I think any editor re-adding the original text now should be blocked immediately, if we can agree on that then feel free to unprotect.  Dreadstar  ☥   19:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Two days having passed without further comments in this thread, I am unprotecting. Full protection for a week to address a dispute over a hidden comment&mdash;or even an infobox&mdash;is undesirable, and particularly in the case of an FA. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , many thanks for your actions. Given the thread above ("Hidden text") would you think it acceptable if I added the following replacement aas hidden text:
 * "There is a consensus not to include an infobox on this page. Should you wish to try to form a new consensus to include an infobox, please discuss on the Talk page"
 * Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , (sorry to be a pain) Could you also look into the rather unusual activity of Dreadstar in his "cleaning" of comment, some of which fall outside the levels of incivility he thinks need to be censored. I think these are the actions of an overly-involved admin whose perspective on this issue is slightly off base here - SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer not to get into evaluating the conduct of a fellow administrator at this point. Seven years of that job were enough. Suffice it to say that I'd like to see best behavior going forward by everyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No problems, I understand. I will add the version and see if anyone is going to press suc a minor point by pointlessly removing it, despite what I take to be a broad agreement above to include it. - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Refactoring talk pages is very clear; and backs my refactoring of those comments. I invite scrutiny; I believe it will not shine brightly on the editors posting such material.  And no, do not add the hidden text, there is no consensus for it.  Dreadstar  ☥   15:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How predictable, petty and pointless.There is a sort of broad agreement to it in the secton above and you've unilaterally decided to take it out. You are not acting in a constructive way at all, which is both sad and shameful. - SchroCat (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've reviewed the FAC and the PR, I see no consensus either way on an infobox; and the dispute above clearly shows there is no consensus either way. The addition of the hidden text at this point would be inappropriate, and I expect any editor continuing the edit war to re-add it at this point to be blocked for disruptive editing. Dreadstar ☥   15:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read WP:consensus properly. When you've learnt what it actually is - particularly going through two community processes, which give a consensus to the last processed version, then you may be in a better position to comment. As it is, you are not anywhere close to neutral enough to deal with this. - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Lack of comments on an infobox in the 'community processes' you refer to, for this particular article does not make a consensus either way. We will need to have a proper RFC to discuss an infobox for this particular article to find consensus.  If you believe otherwise, edit warring to your preferred version is not the appropriate way to handle this.  I also note that the article had an infobox from 2006 to when you recently removed it in Jan 2015.  Dreadstar  ☥   15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring to any version, you uncivil little editor. Just because you don't understand how things work, doesn't mean you get to stamp your feet and scream the loudest to get your own way. - SchroCat (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * SchroCat Consensus, even if there was consensus and I don't see that, can change. So what's the problem? This is a community project; asking the community for input on an issue that clearly has become contentious is the next step in resolution. Step back and let the community decide what consensus is on this issue. (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC))
 * Yes, of course consensus can change: that's why the note (before it was pointlessly deleted) specificlaly said "Should you wish to try to form a new consensus to include an infobox, please discuss on the Talk page". I think it makes it rather obvious that I know the consensus can change. - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The next step is probably an RfC and probably not a rehash of your position placed on the top of the article page. Maybe save a statement of your [position for the RfC where it will carry some weight.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC))
 * If there was an infobox on this article from 2006-January 2015, I'd say the consensus was to have an infobox and it needs to be shown that this consensus changed two months ago to have it removed. Liz  Read! Talk! 17:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. As this has gone through two community review processes, a new consensus would be needed to add one. - SchroCat (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've been asked to comment here. I will declare that I am not pro-infobox, though I don't remove them (as far as I'm aware); indeed, I will edit them, and build on them, and add them where it seems appropriate. I'm not sure a RfC is needed here. While it is true that for some years the article had an infobox, it is also true that the article was not in good shape. The article has undergone a transformation, and is now one of our Featured Articles. As part of the improvement process, the main editors felt it appropriate to do a number of things, one of which was to remove the infobox. There was a talkpage objection, as noted above, on removal of the infobox. The objection was by a barely used IP account which was already in an editing dispute regarding use of infoboxes. There were eight comments in support of removing the infobox, and three in favour of keeping it, including one from this account. The editors then submitted the article to our highest level scrutiny, a FAC, prior to which it had an intense Peer Review by eight respected and experienced editors. During these two high level examinations there was no objection to the lack of an infobox. So far so OK. Then on 22nd March a dormant account helicopters into the article and places an infobox. This was reverted. Another account then reverts back to the infobox, and that account has not since edited.
 * From my perspective it appears that for this particular article there is significant consensus both spoken and unspoken not to have an infobox. Helicopter edits from barely used accounts which speak more of adopting a stance on infoboxes rather than seriously considering the issue regarding an infobox on this particular article, carry little weight.
 * Regarding the hidden text. I am not in favour of using them. In this case they are designed to pre-empt the sort of edit warring over a prominent article that does Wikipedia no favours. However, would hidden text really stop a little used account from flying in, inserting an info-box, and then flying out again? It might stop a good faith editor who noticed the text, though one would assume a good faith editor might consider why there isn't an info-box on a Featured Article, and would look on the talkpage first for any notices. As such, I feel a talkpage notice might be more appropriate than hidden text.
 * I'm not watching this page, so if anyone wants me to comment further, please leave a notice on my talkpage.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  18:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * An RFC would provide true community input into the issue of an infobox for this article, as opposed to allowing the 'main editors' to make that decision for us. I have no personal stake in an infobox one way or another, but if we're proposing hidden text regarding such a consensus, then we should find a clear and undeniable consensus so it can be linked to.  This also goes for any talk page notification of such a consensus.  I certainly can't agree that comments on an IP's talk page show consensus, and neither does the "infobox' section above.  I think  an RFC is a necessary next step.  Dreadstar  ☥   19:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Dreadstar threatened that "I expect any editor continuing the edit war to re-add it at this point to be blocked for disruptive editing" Considering you are edit warring by reverting here and here, I find your actions again fall short of acceptable standards. Again, you are involved in deleting text from the article based on your own personal preference, and have threatened to use your admin tools to block. This is unacceptable behaviour. - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Dreadstar you have edi warred for the third time based on your own personal preferences. Should you revert again I will have no hesitation in reporting you in the appropriate forum. - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

,, is there anything that can be done to reign in this increasingly rogue admin who is over-stepping the mark rather badly now? - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , my condition was that no editor edit war to re-add the disputed hidden text, User:SchroCat immediately violated that., and the edit war continues. Dreadstar  ☥   20:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The lack of self awareness here is terrifying and hilarious. Arkon (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, although I find the comments and actions of the 'main editors' and their supporters to be far from hilarious. Take stock of yourself. Dreadstar  ☥   20:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's almost funny if it wasn't such an abuse of admin tools or position! "My position..." : looks like someone has lost any sense of perspective over this. As to "the 'main editors' and their supporters", it looks like those with opinions that don't fit a certain pattern are now being branded as some form disruptive influence by an edit warrior. - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that's progress at least. You acknowledge that there is support for this hidden text (in some flavor).  Good job!  Arkon (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

[Comment removed.] CorinneSD (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you relighting this debate? I don't agree with half of what you've said, but it's been almost two months, Dreadstar has since abandoned the project, and we agreed on a different wording for the note. Alakzi (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * Neither do I. What I would find to be helpful IP is that you disappear rather quickly.   Cassianto Talk   18:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I second Cassianto's proposal. If the anonymous editor will stop frivolous and disruptive editing it will be one less obstacle in the path of serious editors.  Tim riley  talk    20:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I third that. Graham Beards (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC).
 * Yep, while not anti-infobox per se -- I find them useful in several types of article -- I don't see the value-add in an arts bio. I'd note further that when MOS is equivocal on a requirement, it's common practice for the main editors' preference to be respected. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please let me know what defines a "main editor" for an article which existed for 10 years and had an infobox for ? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I think people who make substantial edits to an article and shepherd it through FAC would certainly figure highly in the "main editor" stakes... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You think that their personal preference is more important than the article history and the expections of the readers? Trying to imagine that someone would "improve" an article I wrote and by that would win the right to remove the infobox is not a pleasant thought. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's shades of ownership there Gerda! (And in many cases the removal of an IBS is an improvement to the article!) As always, if there re two min editors who disagree over the inclusion of an IB, then the stable extant version remains (after a quick WP:BRD dance) until there is a new local consensus to decide. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ownership? If I add an infobox to inform readers, and someone removes it because he claims he added more to the article: that "shades of (new) ownership" (thank you for a new phrase) to me. - I don't agree with your statement about the "many cases". I don't know a single case in which data about time and place of the subject would not help some readers, and it doesn't take away for the others, - see Chopin. If information in an infobox is wrong, that part can be corrected or omitted. - Report me to arbitration enforcement now, I made a third comment ;) - Please continue, more generally than for this particular article, in Respect each other (started before I even noticed this). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's where you and I will have to disagree, I'm afraid Gerda: I do not believe every article is improved by an IB. I'm a big fan of them, and I think of all the articles I've created most have one. Most of those I've helped take through GA have one, and a good percentage of those I've taken through FA have one (including my most recent), but certainly not all by a long stretch. Dates and places? They often mean little without the context, which an IB cannot provide. - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Graham, Ian and the others. Like I'm not anti-infobox generally, but in actor biographies they're really of limited use and part of the furniture and the main article writers should really be respected in their decision.♦  Dr. Blofeld  21:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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


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


 * I suggest we ignore the idiotic IP's comment above and treat it with the contempt it deserves.   Cassianto Talk   12:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * IP editor: It really is unfortunate that you were unable to resist the impulse to use profanity at the beginning of your comment and later ("as the above BS proves") because you have some valid points. It is too bad that you don't have confidence in the persuasiveness of your arguments. The profanity and the tone you used overshadow your arguments. I'm new to this discussion, but I've seen disagreement about infoboxes before. I would like to express agreement with the IP editor that infoboxes can be helpful to someone who only wants, or has the time for, basic details about the subject of an article, including people. If one has the time to read an entire article, or parts of it, one can ignore the infobox, which I've done many times, but it is nice to have it there in case one only wants basic details. I understand what Dr. Blofeld is saying, that for actor biographies they are of limited use, but I've seen infoboxes of various lengths, and the infobox on a person does not have to be long. It could be short, with the photo (or painting) of the person at the top. Regarding the other issue, I don't know if there was any background to this, but it seems that any hint of ownership of an article, by either one or a group of editors, clearly touched off something in the IP editor. I think, given that Wikipedia advertises itself as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, there should be no ownership of articles, not even by the original writer or a group of editors who has been working on an article. It is possible that, if it is perceived that there is an editor or small group of editors who act like an article is "theirs", an editor on the outside could feel excluded, provoking resentment in that person. I do think, though, that any significant changes to an article that has been stable for a while should be reached through discussion and consensus. I would just like editors who are opposed to infoboxes to consider the reader who does not have a lot of time to read through an article to find key information. For that reader, the infobox is very helpful. For the reader who does have the time and inclination to read the article, the infobox is not overly distracting and can be skipped. I would just like to end by asking editors to show more kindness toward other editors. On the one hand, it is both possible and more effective to express one's opinions without resorting to profanity, and on the other, it is possible to overlook the profanity, recognize feelings of exclusion and resentment, extend kindness, and respond only to the ideas. CorinneSD (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Readers were considered during the last re-write and, beyond some banal points that can largely be found in the first paragraph of the lead, there was no justification of including an IB. The reader in search of some basic factoids is best served by reading the first para, where they will get a much better picture of Olivier than any IB could paint. I'll only add that there was nothing in the discussion about ownership until the IP raised the issue. I'm sorry, but the foul-mouthed and insulting tantrum thrown by an IP who doesn't understand the concept of a consensus has little impact on me, and certainly doesn't aid any sort of discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Disinfoboxes applies. Partly plagiarizing from Binksternet, I think biographies of persons in the arts are normally represented best without the infobox (because the infobox is simplistic, a tool for pigeonholing, and overemphasizes the importance of matters peripheral to the major significance of the person), and every time I see an argument over whether or not to include one I look at the arguments, look at the article, and judge the (proposed) infobox on its merits. Usually, as here, the judgement is unwanted. -- Hoary (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Only a clarification of what has been said above and before: we should not argue in general, but for this particular article. It had an infobox from at least 2006 until the rewrite in December 2014 when the new main editors ignored what previous editors had established and readers were used to see. The question is IF this attitude is in the spirit of Wikipedia. I thank Tim riley, one of the nominators, for not taking part in this discussion but instead writing articles such as Onegin and The Taming of the Shrew. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Since my archiving of this section was reverted, let me state very clearly that the uncivil personal attacks in this section make it unusable for any further discussions, much less to gauge consensus; whether or not the uncivil personal attacks are 'ancient' or not. In no way does this section provide consensus on the infobox or hidden text issues.  Dreadstar  ☥   14:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not at all. Just because you don't like the fact that the thread is heading more one way than another, the uncivil comments by an IP do not in any way make this unusable. Your perspective and lack of neutrality on this issue is deeply concerning. - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the uncivil comments directed at the IP by some of the regular editors of this article and talk page; this is besides the fact that this section is in no way a true consensus-finding discussion. Your continued comments about my purported motivations violate CIV, NPA and TP - I'd recommend you stop or risk being sanctioned.  Dreadstar  ☥   15:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No: having concerns at your your use of the mop is not a PA: it's a characterisation of your edits; you might feel it a mischaracterisation, but that doesn't make it an attack (and I give you the fact you'll ignore insults from one side, but will take umbrage when they go the other way as just one example of that). - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you're not getting it, this is my last attempt to discuss this on the article talk page, but your comments about me on this article talk page are obviously not comments on content: Comment on content, not on the contributor.  Can't be any clearer than that.  Follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE instead.  Dreadstar  ☥   15:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * (yet again) I get it fine. You have made what I consider to be poor decisions and I've pointed those out to you. I have commented on your edits and think that you have not acted in a neutral manner, nor in the best interest of this article: youhave not brought calm or peace to the talk page - you have made the situation more volatile, not less. I can't be clearer than that. I suggest we draw this sub thread to a close before you decide to close this entire thread again - which was another poor administrative step to take. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, since there's an ArbCom talking about this article and its infobox, and it is a very recent FA, could someone post the article version with its last infobox presence before its removal, so folks can see it? I have no preconceived opinion on the matter, and find that a simple comparison both ways is useful. UPDATE: I note that in the ArbCom comments Gerda noted that the article had an undisputed infobox from until. Noting that, here is the last undisputed version before the infobox was removed:



I have to say that I personally much prefer the infobox. It gives a ton of information consisely and in an easy-to-read and orderly fashion, and in fact much of that information is not in the lede, so the infobox adds to and completes the lede. It also gives the article a more structured appearance.

Sincerely, Softlavender (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think an infobox is required. Any facts that might be put into one would also be in the lede meaning the information is duplicated. I don't put them in the articles I start. Jack1956 (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, so if I understand you correctly, you believe that the mere presence of an infobox would erode the perceived worth of the article, because the information in it would be of a trivial nature. A critique of Wikidata—and big data at large—seems rather out of place, but—surely—the presence of the infobox in this article could only have a positive impact in this regard, as any corrections we make here would (potentially) be transferred to Wikidata. Alakzi (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am pro infobox in most cases (though there are stronger cases than others that exist). I don't find the argument about duplicating information relevant, and "clean" appearance of the article to be convincing - I consider the infobox to be an extension of the lede, helping to summarise the information below. Koncorde (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * may not find it "relevant", but do you at least accept that the info box information is a duplication of the lead? Also, in what way is it "an extension of the lede"?  Cassianto Talk   11:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It may or may not be duplication of the lead, I haven't seen the proposed content of the infobox, but I doubt everything that is contained within an infobox would necessarily be in the lead itself (place of birth, death, spouses, awards, honorary titles, official titles etc). I also see it as an extension in terms of it is capable of summarising some of the content of an article as we endeavour to do with the lead itself. Koncorde (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well to settle your indecisive mind, let me confirm to you that it is a duplication of the lede.  We get to read the birth and death dates twice; get to read his name thrice; get told that he is an actor twice; get to hear about his wives twice, plus a whole host of other things.  An infobox, in this case, is pointless.   Cassianto Talk   18:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I rather clearly stated "I don't find the argument about duplicating information relevant" and that isn't changing, so your attempt to point out duplication is irrelevant to my opinion. I am still pro-infobox. Koncorde (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I struggle to see what you do find relevent?  Cassianto Talk   21:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for your comment on my opinion relating to whether this article should or should not have an infobox. I'm not sure you will find the answer you seek beyond what I have already expressed. Enjoy my differing opinion, it's what makes the world go round. Koncorde (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * on an opinion is how a discussion works. Perhaps you need me to spell that out to you?  Cassianto Talk   07:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, an infobox is not pointless; I can scan the infobox in a fraction of the time it takes me to read the lede. In addition, the infobox would include information not found in the lede, such as: his age at death; and his place of birth and place of death. Finally, infoboxes emit metadata, which is scraped to populate Wikidata, among other things. Alakzi (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should stop writing prose articles and just all write info boxes then? Why would finding out where he was born or died encyclopaedic? Also, your metadata arguement is also flawed; I don't know the technical reasons, but I think might.    Cassianto Talk   19:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Why would finding out where he was born or died encyclopaedic?" That's the very definition of encyclopedic. People use wikipedia to find out information, sometimes quickly. Not to admire some random person's ability to write about some dead actor. When I clicked on this article in particular, it was to find out when/where he had been born and died. Found out when but not where in the lede, thus making an infobox useful, but of course one isn't there because Wikipedia people always need something done THEIR way or the highway. Richjenkins (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your incoherent comment which, if you don't mind, I will not spend the rest of the evening deducing.  Cassianto Talk   21:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There wasn't anything incoherent about my comment, at least not to anyone who has the ability to behave like a normal human being and not some Wikipedia bot. Actually, that's unfair, Wikipedia bots at least make useful corrections, not arrogant and pointless ones. Judging by your other comments on this thread though, I shouldn't expect so much. Richjenkins (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's clear you're only here to start a fight so I'll just thank you for your comment and ask you to move on.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   04:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "It's clear you're only here to start a fight" LOL. Let me remind you of the FIRST thing you said to me: "Thanks for your incoherent comment" and I'M the one looking to start a fight? You're a clown. People like you are why some people HATE the Wikipedia community. Get. Over. Yourself. Richjenkins (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am, but it appears you are not.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   21:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should stop ... Well, that's a non sequitur. Why would finding out where he was born or died encyclopaedic? These are the kind of raw facts infoboxes are best suited for; nobody expects to gain an in-depth understanding of Olivier's life and feats from reading the infobox. Also, your metadata arguement ... I don't have a fervent opinion on the matter; if my understanding is flawed, I'd be very happy to be elucidated. Alakzi (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I always find it funny that in every IB discussion I've seen that people only ever visit these articles to find out the utter trivial nonsense of age and place of death, which seems to appear in all discussions. If that's all you're after, just go straight to the shimmering turd that is Wikidata. Apart from the fact we are under no compunction to generate metadata in any way shape or form, so it's something of a straw man to try and say that we must have an IB to generate it. The deep, deep flaws of Wikidata are an embarrassment. Sadly, ripping the "facts" from an IB to make them available to dissemination to other sources, mean they appear (flawed) in things like the boxes on the right hand of a google search. Sadly some people looking for knowledge stop at the Google search page and don't bother to visit us, and thus they don't ever actually learn anything. Wikidata is a huge problem: it mistakes data for knowledge and facts for understanding, without ever understanding the difference. On the few occasions I have ever visited the alien pages of Wikidata, I've found the pages there to carry serious errors, but that's the problem of trying to get computers to rip "facts" from anything: they always get the wrong end of the stick. – SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't try to re-word my thoughts: they are fine as they are, without being reduced to the point of being misleading (rather like many IB "facts" really). As for Wikidata, corrections can be made by editing the rubbish directly in that project, rather than providing something on this page that could be "mistranslated" when it's copied over. And as I've already pointed out, this is the information that ends up with people not visiting Wikipedia, which is hardly an argument for including an IB - SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I find I'm getting to the time of life where one of the first questions that crosses my mind when I see a date of death is 'How old was he then?', which a standard infobox answers nicely. OTOH, perhaps working it out for myself helps keep the brain active. Needless to say, I'm little inclined to spend much time on this debate. William Avery (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't understand you, SchroCat. Rewording or summarizing what one has just heard or read is a often-used way of making sure one understands what the other person has said. It's part of a genuine conversation. I thought Alakzi did a pretty good job of summarizing your points, and in a nice way, too. If there is really something wrong in his summary, you ought to point it out and make it clear what was wrongly understood. Your main argument against infoboxes seems to be either that people will first visit Wikidata, get information that may be incorrect due to difficulties in the transfer of data, and not bother to read the Wikipedia article where they will be sure to get correct information when they read the article, or that they will simply read an infobox, and not bother to read the article, so not learn anything much. I think neither argument is substantial. If someone reads only Wikidata and just happens to get a wrong detail, it is his or her own fault for not checking further to be certain it is correct (or, if there really are a lot of instances of incorrect information, then perhaps Wikidata should be gotten rid of). (I do not often hear people say, when they need information about something, "Oh, let's look it up on Wikidata." They say, "Let's look it up on Wikipedia.") If there is an infobox in an article (presumably with correct information), it would be each reader's choice whether he or she wants to read only the infobox or read all or some of the article. Maybe someone wants only to know the person's date of birth, or the name of a person's spouse. Why would you have him or her search for that in the article? How would reading only those facts mislead a reader in any way? A reader who really wants to know more will read the article, or parts of it. It seems as if you want to deprive readers of an infobox in order to make sure that they will read the article. I'm not saying there has to be an infobox in every article. I'm just saying that the arguments I've seen against having an infobox in a long article are not very persuasive. – CorinneSD (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Your main argument against infoboxes seems to be either that people will first visit Wikidata, get information that may be incorrect": a salutory lesson in why I advise not to summarise other people's words. I have not said anything of the sort, not even close to that. I advise you to read what I hve written again. - SchroCat (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a lesson in exactly the opposite: Corinne now knows that she misunderstood that point, whereas she would've otherwise maintained a misconception. Alakzi (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * O.K. So you said people go to a Google search page and stop there, not first to Wikidata. but that's their choice. Anyone with a mite of intelligence and curiosity will look further. I think throwing in the problems of Wikidata is somewhat irrelevant. CorinneSD (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In most IB discussions someone will raise the spectre of Wikidata and microformats (in this case it was Alakzi who said "Finally, infoboxes emit metadata, which is scraped to populate Wikidata".) As the question is raised, it's quite relevant to deal with the drawbacks of metadata and Wikidata. Given what you have written above, you seem to have misunderstood what I have written again: I have suggested that those who wish to ensure that information in Wikidata is correct do not rely on the blunt and crass IB, but to visit that site in order to edit it directly. - SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The lead is comprehensive here. An infobox would just be disruptive. Rothorpe (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not going to be part of the augmentation here, just want to remind everybody that infoboxes are optional, not obligatory at all. There was an Arb-com decision on this. Some editors like them a lot, some dislike it. I am not for or against it. I use them sometimes, sometimes not. Sometimes I think overly long and complicated ones just take too much place. In small articles they are an asset, and there I tend to use them. But the point is - anyone who doesn't wants to use them .. is free not to. Hafspajen (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought I saw something in all of this discussion to the effect that if the original author or authors of an article don't want an infobox, then the article should forever not have an infobox. To me, that suggests that the original author or authors own the article, which I thought was against both Wikipedia policy and the spirit of Wikipedia. I also think that those opposed to infoboxes really want to control how readers get their information. They are insisting that readers read the article. They don't care that readers want to get their information in different ways and not always the same way. Sometimes, readers are just looking for a specific piece of information and don't have the time to read the article to find it. I don't find infoboxes distracting at all. I sometimes don't even look at the infobox and go right into the article, but I like the infobox to be there so that I can look for basic facts when I want to. I don't think an infobox is needed in a short article, though. CorinneSD (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * CorinneSD, Could you please provide a diff that shows somone has said that the original authors get to decide on an infobox in perpetuity? I've just skimmed through the thread and not seen anything like it, but perhaps I missed it. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Going against decisions from Arbcom is also against both Wikipedia policy and the spirit of Wikipedia. You might want to start a new Arb-com decision .. dunno. But until the decision is made I am not going to fight it. The Arbcom has the power to ban editors all together from Wikipedia. If they say infobox is not necessary, if decided is not wanted it should be accepted - then I wait until a new decision comes that is different. --Hafspajen (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom "decision" is a reaffirmation of the status quo: no policy or guideline mandates the use of infoboxes; and Wikipedia continues to function by means of WP:CONSENSUS. When they say infoboxes are not required, it means that it is up to our discretion whether to include one. Alakzi (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And exactly that has happened, it's just people like you can't accept it Alakzi.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   16:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not how I read that. I rather think it was something like : Articles do not need infoboxes. If after discussion at a talk page it is decided that an infobox is not needed, that should be accepted. But feel free and start a new Arbcom on the topic, if you think your interpretation differs. Also, -I think that so much misery came out of this, it would be better to drop the case. Hafspajen (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No, here's what they said, verbatim: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."

That is quite a long ways from "articles do not need infoboxes". As for "if after discussion at a talk page it is decided that an infobox is not needed, that should be accepted": that's how consensus works. Alakzi (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Biz onlara ihtiyacım yok!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I didn't know about the ArbCom decision. I just saw a discussion in which different points of view were being expressed on the topic. I won't say another word. CorinneSD (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I noticed the prior discussion above, but I didn't really feel I got the reason why there isn't an infobox. Is there a specific reason why? Not to use WP:PTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but every actor/actress on Wikipedia has an infobox, so why is Olivier different? <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 15:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The reasons have already been outlined in this thread. Just to correct one point, not every other actor has an IB: a great many, including a number of FAs don't have them. - SchroCat (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

, does there need to be a reason? What are the reasons for adding one in the first place?  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   18:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't arguing for or against it. I was just curious in regards to the situation. You've seem to have grown unnecessarily hostile during this debate. unsigned comment by Rusted AutoParts, added on April 10, 2014, at 23:41
 * RE Rusted AutoParts. The article was promoted to WP:Featured article. During the FA review, the reviewing group of editors chose not to use an infobox, as is usual with FA articles on actors, see for example Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud. The stated reason is that in featured articles the WP:LEDE (where the infobox is located on the right, if there is one) is sufficiently expanded to contain all info that usually appears in an infobox. This makes the infobox redundant and obstructive. The above discussion, as all discussions on infoboxes, has evolved to become another fundamental debate about infoboxes in general. About half the people here, on Wikipedia, believe in infoboxes; the other half does not believe in infoboxes. The first half says that all articles need an infobox, without exception, if not, Wikipedia and the world will end, and we all will be doomed. The latter half says that infoboxes are unnecessary, unencyclopedic, ugly and evil, and must be removed from all articles to make Wikipedia a better place. No technical discussion of the merits of an infobox at a particular article can usually be had. This discussion is required under the guidelines, see WP:Infobox, but usually leads nowhere, there is always no consensus, so the status quo should be preserved, under the no-WP:Consensus rule. The status quo here is "no infobox", this status quo was established by a group of editors, not any single pro- or contra-infobox warrior, and was part of an FA review. Therefore, it must be respected as the status quo. The general situation is that neither pro-infoboxers nor contra-infoboxers will ever win over the other side, never. It's like Catholics and Protestants, or Jews and Muslims, they will forever say their side is right no matter what. We will have to live with that, and hope for two things: that at one or the other article a technical argument for or against an infobox is had, and that there be the smallest number of articles possible where an argument about infoboxes is started. Maybe you have wondered why some articles have infoboxes and others don't. Well, the original creator decides first whether to add one or not. Later on, some infobox-warrior comes along and chnages that, either adding or removing it. That should not be done without a discussion first. That discussion will usually end in "no consensus", and the status quo should be preserved, as mentioned above. During the discussion the losing party always accuses the creator, and/or those who side with him of WP:OWNership, as done here above. That is wrong. The ownership guideline refers to content. Infoboxes are not content proper, it is a duplication of content already included in the article. The actual info of the article will be the same, with or without infobox. Thus the infobox is a question of "format". Format is chosen by the original creator. Those who write up Wikipedia are volunteers, they don't get any money for it, and since the articles are not signed (like in academic papers), they also don't get any recognition. For that reason, out of deference to the voluntary work contributed by any original creator, we should respect their editorial format decision whether to add or not to add an infobox. And just let it go at that. (This article was originally created without an infobox, but at that time in 2004, the infobox may not have been invented yet.) I hope this little essay is helpful. I won't say another word about it, for the abovementioned reasons. Kraxler (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Your "essay" seems spot on to me Kraxler; in fact, it may make a good humoured WP:ESSAY for us all to refer to when things become a bit heated.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   18:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm generally in support of the "no infobox" here, as the local consensus seems to support it. But "no infobox" isn't the norm in this project, nor is it on an even footing with the "yes infobox" side; it is a minority point-of-view that for now has more traction in narrowly-focused topic areas; composers, architects, old actors such as this one, etc... Expanding beyond that into pop culture or current eventsd, as some editors are trying over at Trayvon Martin right now, is going to result in a lot of pushback.  Secondly, you really aren't going to carry much water with the "infoboxes are not content proper, so WP:OWN does not apply" argument.  Deflect WP:OWN accusations with WP:CONSENSUS, you'll be on far more solid footing. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's not fool ourselves - there's no WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here. Local consensus doesn't mean the editors who've worked on this article can overturn a global consensus just because; there actually needs to be some justification that this article's somehow distinct from the thousands of other biographies which do bear an infobox. Alakzi (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Each article is based on its own merits, not on thousands of others. Your arguement is becoming very boring now.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   19:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "global consensus" that somehow means this article needs to have an infobox. Many biographies have them, many do not. - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in participating in this debate. But if I were to throw my two cents in, I'd say Wikipedia needs to get its shit together in terms of content formats. If we're going to do a certain format, then every page should be similar. If actor biographies include infoboxes, then have each article be like that. If you choose not to have info boxes, then have each article be like that.

I can see the benefit of an Infobox. It provides an area to feature a picture of the person and the absolute bare essentials (IE birth year, death year, occupation). But I can also understand why people don't want them.

So good luck. I recommend taking a vote, but in an area where a large group of people can discuss it. And whatever the outcome, it should be what every article should be modelled after. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 23:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I made a suggestion at Village pump (technical)/Archive 136. CorinneSD (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's not forget that infoboxes also are helping provide simple formatted data for Knowledge Graph and Wikidata in the future. They are important for organizing machine readable data for easy combining and are supposed to be the replacement to the outdated persondata. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as a user of Wikipedia, I would like to go on record as stating that I find an infobox on a person, ANY person, extremely useful. I also find an article about a person extremely useful. Infoboxes are for quick reference to basic facts common to all persons, such as significant dates, spouse(s) and children, age at death, etc. I find it irritating to have to wade through a detailed article to find something I just dropped by to quickly find out. And, I'd be willing to bet, age at death is often omitted in the body of an article. I can see no earthly reason WHATSOEVER to deprive the users of Wikipedia the valuable resource for quick data provided by the infobox. None. olef641 09:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olef641 (talk • contribs)
 * If it's quick facts you're after, then maybe an encyclodedia isn't for you.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   17:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Whether you like it or not, this is exactly how many people use Wikipedia. You are deluding yourself if you think most people who come here read the whole article. Most Wikipedia biographies have infoboxes. This is what most users expect to see. You are only annoying a lot of readers by trying to force them to go through the whole article searching for the information they want instead of just providing "quick facts." When infoboxes are done correctly, I find them to be one of the most useful aspects of Wikipedia, helping me to rapidly skim through hundreds of articles and build up a larger base of knowledge efficiently. It seems to be the case that only selected figures in "high culture" or sometimes the sciences do not as a rule have infoboxes. I find it difficult to see how this is anything less than a simple form of elitism. It would be too plebian to treat Olivier as a typical actor; the same is true apparently for opera singers, classical musicians, etc. If a certain field or other info is wrong, then that should be modified or removed, not the entire infobox. Naturally, editors who first come here and are not well versed in why Olivier and other elite artists are "special" will keep trying to adding infoboxes. I see absolutely no benefit in exerting a lot of time and effort removing these infoboxes only to make the article less user-friendly and helpful. Rmm413 (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Readers are not forced to go through the whole article to find "quick facts" though - all the pertinent points are succinctly summarised in the concise lead. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 08:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You bring up a reasonable argument. The real question, I suppose then, is what are considered "pertinent points." It's true that the lead in this article is pretty extensive, but even it lacks some of the information that many readers would expect to find based on previous usage of Wikipedia—the "infobox person" template alone is used on 186,000+ articles after all. I personally believe where a person was born and died to be pertinent, and I think the age/age at death function is very convenient. (Many times I have gone on Wikipedia solely to find out a famous person’s age quickly—and will continue to do so, regardless of what any arrogant and controlling types think of it.) These are, of course, rarely included in the lead on English Wikipedia and are not in this particular lead. I also find the spouse(s) and children fields to be useful, because that information is often buried deep in an article. The situation is somewhat different with Olivier. Since his wives are famous, they are all mentioned in the lead, although discovering if he had children or how many he had is quite a bit trickier with this article layout. I also find "years active" to be a particularly helpful piece of information. It is also one that is sometimes a challenge to find in the text and is almost never included with any exactitude in the lead. Beyond the issue of user expectations, the information in an infobox is simply laid out in a clearer, more succinct manner that is easier to locate and remember than the text in the lead. Rmm413 (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , and whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. If you don't like it, don't read it.  Bugger off to IMDb if it's cheap facts you're after.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   08:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   08:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for confirming the impression that I had already formed reading your earlier, numerous remarks on this topic on this talk page. I hadn't even intended to weight in on this page until I saw how you treated those who expressed opinions different from yours. The average professional encyclopedia typically lacks contents boxes, any sort of navbox, categories, wikilinks, and, of course, links to articles in other languages. Will getting these removed be your next crusade? After all, why stop at only one aspect of what makes Wikipedia more user-friendly and helpful than a print encyclopedia? And by the way, I have never seen an article in a print encyclopedia about any actor, including Lord Olivier, that was nearly this long. If you were really concerned about making this just like the professional encyclopedias, you could start by deleting large swaths of this and many other featured articles. You don't care to do that? Neither do I, but I hope you give some thought about the consistency (or lack thereof) of your arguments in the future. Some people can easily see the holes in your opinions, even if you are stating them as facts. In the meanwhile, you can continue to pretend that you are the final arbiter of who should and should not use Wikipedia, while others actually discuss issues. Rmm413 (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   07:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Luck isn't necessary here. A free discussion of differing points of view is the whole point of Wikipedia's talk pages. The goal is not necessarily to win but to allow for various viewpoints to be expressed on important issues (and isn't that what the article's hidden text is telling people to do?). I don't see how it benefits anyone's argument or fits within the spirit of Wikipedia to try to bully anyone into silence or to try to force them to leave (i.e. telling different users to "disappear" or "bugger off" and calling them "idiotic" and even attacking one editor with profanity). I understand the desire to close down the discussion when one's argument is dependent upon a shaky "consensus," but I sincerely hope that no one on this or any other talk page is intimidated from expressing their opinions on infoboxes because of such tactics. That being said, I see no point in people continuing to try to add an infobox to this article when there is still so much contention about it on the talk page. Rmm413 (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have attempted to wade through the extensive discussion on this subject and can find neither a consensus to amputate something the article possessed for most of its existence nor any reason why an infobox is HARMFUL to this article as a resource. olef641 07:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olef641 (talk • contribs)


 * Oh goody, another idiot box discussion. Also, perhaps you could sign your posts?   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   08:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, now you're calling me an idiot? I thought talk was supposed to remain civil.  As for deleting your comment-- all I was trying to was replace something I posted elsewhere that somehow ended up here. olef641 04:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Er...no. I said "idiot box".   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   07:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that by referring to infoboxes as idiot boxes, Cassantio is clearly inferring that they are useful only to idiots (another intimidation tactic of his). Both Olef and I have recently said that we find infoboxes very useful, ergo we are in Cassantio's eyes "idiots." All that Cassantio is doing is proving over and over again that his guiding principle is a condescending elitism without any hint of a concern over usefulness or meeting reader expectations (or consistency in his argument, as I've already mentioned)—in fact, he seems really to look down on the actual readers of the article and evidently doesn't want to hear their opinions unless they coincide with his. The hidden text on the article explicitly states: "Please discuss on the talk page before adding an infobox." You can't have text like this and then respond like Cassantio does whenever anyone discusses it on the talk page (he seems deliberately and repeatedly to avoid mature argumentation in favor of simplistic one-liners designed to cause fights). The anti-info box users, of course, could replace the hidden text with a statement permanently banning an infobox without any more discussion—but then they would rather obviously be violating Wikipedia's rules against article ownership. Look, I typically agree that the opinions of the main editors for an article should be given at least somewhat more weight, but you can’t just declare your side the winner and try to shut down further discussion. Rmm413 (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm bored with this discussion.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   08:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's some rather dubious logic at the start of the wall of text. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What then is your definition of an "idiot box" in this context, if not a box for idiots? An idiot is not a thing, but a type of person. Rmm413 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As for Rmm413's input just above: The point is -- to make the article as useful to as many people as possible, not to make a particular clique of editors happy because their pet project isn't blemished by the "demon" infobox. P.S. sorry for forgetting to sign my post above. olef641 04:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to read more carefully: no-one has called you an idiot. As to civility, labelling "a clique", "pet project", etc just because their opinion differs to yours, is hardly a model of civility. – SchroCat (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In re: "cliques": There are 1.28 million articles on Wikipedia that have the Biography Project tag (WP:BIOGRAPHY). Around .73 million of these biography articles are stubs, and stubs are usually too short to justify an infobox that would be longer than the article itself. That leaves slightly over half a million biographies above the stub level. As can be seen at List of infoboxes, there are over 700,000 different infoboxes in use on Wikipedia that deal solely with a "Person" (the total number of infoboxes is in the millions). The percentage of non-stub biography articles that have infoboxes are then very high—and a certain number of stubs must have infoboxes too, since there are more biographical infoboxes in use on Wikipedia than there are non-stub biographical articles. This is why there is a legitimate user expectation of finding an infobox on biography articles; they are extremely widespread. Look at a true variety of biographical articles—most of the ones that do not have infoboxes are scanty stubs that will likely get infoboxes in the future. The anti-"idiot box" crowd is a decided minority. Rmm413 (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to be in the minority: high quality normally is. Take FAs, for example: they represent a tiny percentage of all articles, yet those without IBs are not uncommon, because the article and (particularly) the lead are of sufficiently high quality to provide all the relevant information in appropriate context with explanation. In those cases the bald fluff of factoids in an IB are not needed. Yes, other articles may or may not have an IB, but WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS is not a good basis for degrading this one. – SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a response that is substantive and not belligerent. I personally believe that violating expectations is only a way of annoying readers. That's why I think what the norm is on Wikipedia is relevant. Of course, I also don't agree that well-done infoboxes in any way "degrade" the millions of articles on which they are used. However, I respect that some people very passionately dislike infoboxes (so long as they respect that I legitimately and reasonably think they are useful and positive). I hope this is reconsidered in the future, but I don't at all believe it is worth edit warring in what is overall a fine article. Cheers. Rmm413 (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Marlon Brando Preening
The Marlon Brando vs. Olivier juxtaposition is a gross (and dated) oversimplification, yet an unflattering comparison to Brando is present. THEY ARE NOTHING ALIKE. Olivier was an esteemed stage actor capable of portraying every role there is. Brando was an esteemed film actor who became more of an icon than an actor and was consistently typecast. Olivier was classical and Brando was method. Dogma permeates this comparison- and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. We should talk about Olivier, not others. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  23:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Both are respected actors of stage and screen. The comparison between the two (and the others in the sentance) is a justifiable one. – SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether they are alike or not, the proposition that Olivier was in some way some way a superlative actor is difficult to discuss in an NPOV way without comparisons to others who have been similarly labelled. William Avery (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Both an unflattering comparison? Many think Olivier better than Brando. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  15:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean, such a comparison is ridiculous. It's like saying, whose better, Katharine Cornell or Marilyn Monroe? What rubbish. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  15:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Infobox fetish
Some people, like me, read slower and we really like the summary information at a glance provided by the Infobox. It offers superior functionality under certain circumstances that are quite common. The arguments against the Infobox, here and elsewhere, are made by editors who simply have their own style preference (it's a fetish, really) against the Infobox, and those editors have successfully gamed the Wikipedia governance system to get their way. This is too bad, because as a reader, I find the Infobox to be very helpful. 73.73.162.232 (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

A question for Schro and Cass (below): have you ever recommended in favor of including an Infobox in any Wiki article? 73.73.162.232 (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I might've treated your comment with an element of good faith had you of not resorted to mud slinging by claiming that we (SchroCat and I) have a "fetish" and that we "successfully game the system". Because of that, I will treat you as a troll and take no further part in this discussion.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   07:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please do whatever you like. Your reply is completely unsurprising and as expected because that is how you have always addressed opposing viewpoints on this question.  My question was rhetorical because obviously you systematically oppose Infoboxes, and you have mastered the art of suppressing dissent on this topic.  Your successful gamesmanship has rendered the entire discussion process pointless and laughable, and has left the written product less useful than it could be.  That is too bad.  73.73.162.232 (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Your repeated removal of this part of the infobox discussion further supports the points made immediately above. Certain editors acting in concert have gamed the Wiki governance system to impose their own stylistic preferences.  You sir are a bully.  73.73.162.232 (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You can label me a troll, and keep deleting this entire section of the discussion. It is merely another online bullying tactic. 73.73.162.232 (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * To build an encyclopedia: The sole purpose of my comments is to improve this and other articles.  Reinstating the infobox would do so for many readers. You do not like the infobox as a matter of style, not utility, and you are more clever than most contributors in the art of controlling the editorial product.  These observations are legitimate aspects of the editorial discussion, and the editorial governance discussion. 73.73.162.232 (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * My point exactly. You sirs are bullies and trolls.  Worse, you are just like the web censors in Iran, Russia and China.  73.73.162.232 (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Btw, obviously this Infobox is not coming back. You have already seen to that.  I am simply pointing out the drawbacks of this outcome, and the unrepresentative character of this decision.  You just want the discussion to go away, since you have long ago gotten your way. 73.73.162.232 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How observant of you to notice. Trolls are best starved, so no more from me.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   21:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

No, troll. The consensus of the community was not to have one. To answer your earlier pointy question, yes, I have argued in favour of an IB (obviously). I've also added IBs to several articles, created articles with IBs. and taken articles with IBs to both GA and FA. Troll away elsewhere with your misguided questions, your insults and your inability to consider that other people may have a valid opinion that may differ from yours. – SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I say this as a person that prefers to have an infobox: IP 73, you are WAY out of line here. Discussion of content is fine (although it's better that you log in first) per WP:FOC - personal attacks on individual editors is NOT allowed (see: WP:NPA. — Ched :  ?  00:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

How old?
Missing age — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.80.8 (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Children? Personal life in general?
There is relatively nothing about his personal life/views, although he lived in a rather turbulent century and the article is quite long. And one-sided, indeed, I am not sure his children are even mentioned for instance, pretty weird IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.43.15 (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

==I don't know if you realize what a can of worms you are opening if you are getting into this subject! You can read all about it on the internet as long as you avoid Wikipedia.

Perhaps the Wikipedians forget what century we are living in!Ed (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)==

"Sir Prefix"
Olivier was knighted in 1947, and, as is customary with people that have received Knighthoods, his name should be prefixed with a "Sir". That this has only just been added to his Wikipedia page is something of an oversight.

Examples of other knighted English actors' Wikis with first line including "Sir":

- Ian McKellen

- Daniel Day-Lewis

- Michael Caine

And of course his two contemporaries that this Wiki specifically puts focus on:

- John Gielgud

- Ralph Richardson

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 0521Steven (talk • contribs) 07:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You miss the point that while Olivier was "Sir Lawrence" for some of his life, he was also "Lord Olivier", which is why the Sir is omitted here. (Just a note for the future, could you add talk new page threads to the bottom of the page? Thank you) - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0521Steven (talk • contribs) 07:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The title 'Lord' outranks the title 'Sir' so they should never be both used. It's like calling someone in the Army General-Captain-Lieutenant -- SteveCrook (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

He was a life peer and therefore not actually allowed to use the title lord, His correct title would be Baron Olivier or variations thereof. His being called Lord Olivier was a populist misconception of the peerage system. 77.99.143.208 (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Anon
 * Well, all peers are addressed as "Lord", including life peers.--2001:A61:2089:D01:CB0:94B1:3164:32CC (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Quote
A quote "Yes, I am a Psod, and what is more so are you...Your sweet little kitten, Henrietta." has been added by one person and reverted four times by three different editors. The IP has been asked to discuss on the talk page but to no avail. Rather than leave a message on the IP's talk page (as IPs can change so quickly) I will bring it here. I don't think the quote adds anything so is not required. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laurence Olivier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140726021551/http://www.hamletscenen.dk/uk/welcome/hamletscenen-2016/ to http://www.hamletscenen.dk/uk/welcome/hamletscenen-2016/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Image formatting
Any special reason to keep most of the upright images formatted to display bigger? --John (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * By "upright", do you actually mean in portrait format? Any special reason to force them to display smaller? - SchroCat (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. Upright means portrait format, as you say. Any special reason to keep most of them formatted to display bigger? Emphasising everything means emphasising nothing. --John (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a nothing answer. Any special reason to force them to display smaller? - SchroCat (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, very good SchroCat. Anybody else got an opinion? In the absence of a good reason to display images larger, we format upright images using the "upright" parameter. Making one a bit bigger to emphasise it is often done and is fine. Making them all look larger just looks silly. --John (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You make it sound like an unassailable fact ("we format images...") Not true. We can format images using the uptight parameter, but where there is no need to, we can show them as default "thumb" size. If you think otherwise, please provide a guideline or policy that suggests we should use "upright", or that it is mandated to use it, except in certain circumstances. - SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Mandated"! What twaddle. You know that Wikipedia doesn't work like that, and thank goodness. There is a lot left to common sense, common practice, and what guides that is the benefit of our readers. --John (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I take it you can't point to a guideline or policy that even suggests we should use "upright", except in certain circumstances? You can spout as much nonsense as you want, but we have an MoS to give guidelines, and you need to show me something that backs up your position. If not, I guess we're done here. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: the pictures are, I think, formatted as they were when they passed the specific image review at FAC, unless I have missed a subsequent change.  Tim riley  talk    15:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would have opposed over this at FAC. --John (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * PMSL... Then it would have been treated in exactly the same way as your oppose on the Tottenham outrage article. It's in no way on earth an justifiable oppose - absolutely no grounds at all, and the co-ordinators would have rightly treated it with contempt in deserves. - SchroCat (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad to have cheered your day then. Hey, why doesn't this article refer to the subject as "Laurence" throughout? I thought that was your preference. Or is that only for girls? --John (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, good grief! My last vestige of respect for this once very constructive editor has vanished.  Tim riley  talk    20:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Bye bye: if there was ever anything constructive in this thread (and that's a moot point), there certainly isn't now. - SchroCat (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed not. See you later. --John (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I do hope not, unless you are planning to follow me around, in which case, thanks for the diff. - SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the images are extremely well-spaced and attractively formatted. There is no reason to reduce their sizes, as far as I can see.  There is no pinching of text or other issue that would make smaller image sizes helpful here, and the larger images are easier for most readers to view. -- 65.78.11.228 (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, IP. I had a "thank" notification from another neutral editor earlier in response to my note about the successful FA image review.  Tim riley  talk    20:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think an image review normally covers formatting (perhaps it should?) This one got through with a couple of punctuation errors in image captions, both of which are still there now. SC reverted one back in. --John (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've fixed one caption, not seeing another error? Anyways, I can't speak for all image reviewers, but I do quite a few of them at FAC - I do remark on formatting when problems exist (eg. fixed image size issues, sandwiching), or recommend scaling up images with detail missed at smaller sizes. In this particular case, comparing this version and this one, I likely wouldn't have commented in favour of or against either - there is a visible difference, but not IMO a sufficient one to fuss about, and on my screen at least there is no issue of either layout problems with the larger versions or missing detail with the smaller. YMMV. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A Little Romance
In 1979 Olivier starred in A Little Romance with a 13 year old Diane Lane. I think this is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:8400:A8B0:2998:8E79:EDBA:3E6 (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * He was in far too many things to mention them all so there is a more complete list at Laurence Olivier on stage and screen.- SchroCat (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Four Oscars?
The Academy Award website (oscar.com), under its 1947 list of nominees and winners, says that Henry V got a "special award", but does not specify that Olivier received an Oscar for it.Decembermonday (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

He did indeed receive an Oscar statuette for "Henry V". It was presented to him by fellow Briton Ray Milland on the set of "Hamlet" in 1947. Visit the website "Vivien Leigh & Laurence Olivier". There are two photos of him with the Oscar. O Murr (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Need displayed chart of films and TV-shows
There should be a displayed chart of Olivier's films and TV shows. Having a long wordy article is all fine and good, but I assume that many people (like me) just came to the website looking for that list. I don't want to have to read through all the verbiage to try to extract it.

2601:184:497F:8D29:A1A7:FBDA:E76F:E2DA (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Such a chart exists at Laurence Olivier on stage and screen. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"The Royal Family" retitled "Theatre Royal" in UK
The retitling of The Royal Family (play) as "Theatre Royal" is mentioned in "Letters of Noel Coward", p. 299, This link may work for a while: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4qJOBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA299&lpg=PA299&dq=%22Laurence+Olivier%22+%22Royal+Family%22+1934&source=bl&ots=XaH0dZSplo&sig=4bFd5RRX68ePMPUC9nzlRQK1q38&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjXm-TkrZrfAhUGxxoKHY3eAqwQ6AEwFnoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Laurence%20Olivier%22%20%22Royal%20Family%22%201934&f=false
 * William Avery (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)