Talk:Vivien Leigh

Languages Spoken
It might be interesting to note that she fluently spoke French, Italian and German by age 18. This info is always given in every documentary I see about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.122.237.11 (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

First English Actress To Win An Oscar
i had noted this point in her article as it is an interesting and relavant acheivement but it was removed and keeps getting removed... i don't know why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogioh (talk • contribs) 10:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

name
why isit that Vivien Leigh changed the way she spelt her name from Vivian to Vivien? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melaniegreyton (talk • contribs) 10:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Filmography
Does anyone else agree it's kind of unusual that her filmography is listed in the middle of the article? Usually, the filmography is listed after the informational (textual) sections.Moviefan (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. As a matter of fact, the filmography is linked to twice ("see also").  I would suggest removing the first instance, and changing the header from "see also" to "List of works" (or something).   "Filmography" is not the correct term in Leigh's case as there is more stage work than film work.  Rossrs (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence, "Indian-born"
Over the last couple of days someone has consistently added "Indian-born" in front of "British" in the opening sentence. On the occasions it has been removed the edit summaries have linked to MOS:BIO and MOS:BIO to explain the reason for the removal. It's not good form to keep pushing a point without at least providing an explanation. It seems to be too easy to just hit the "undo" button and ignore that two editors are pointing to an established guideline in good faith to support their opinions.

My take on this is that the opening sentence should be a brief comment that clearly explains the person's notability or more simply what they did to merit a Wikipedia article. "Who was Vivien Leigh?" The simple answer is "Vivien Leigh was an English actress". This opinion is supported by MOS:BIO. She was English at the time she became known, and was closely identified as English and part of English culture during her lifetime, but there is nothing notable about her being born in India. It's a matter of geography, factual but not a defining feature. Her place of birth is given in the article, but she left as a very young child, was raised in England, educated in Europe, lived and worked in England and the U.S., travelled the world as an actress, but never returned to India from the time she left at the age of seven, until her death 40+ years later. I think it belongs in the article and the infobox for sure, but not in the first sentence where it implies more importance than it merits. I'd much prefer to hear an opposing argument than just see this reverted time after time without a single word to explain. Rossrs (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Audrey Hepburn is an example of someone who is known as British although she was born in Belgium. Perhaps this article could follow that example.   That would still allow for her birth in India to be dealt with early, but not in the first sentence.  Rossrs (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and reverted to your version again as the IPs clearly has no interest in discussing it. I don't think it is necessary mentioning it in the lead at all. It is probably mentioned in the lead for Audrey Hepburn as it had an impact on her choice of residence during WW2 and the fact that she became a humanitarian as a result of this. Nymf hideliho! 10:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I think 8 days was long enough for the IP to comment.  I don't think the fact that she was born in India is particularly significant.  I suggested including it later in the lead as a compromise, but if the IP doesn't want to discuss it, I'm happier to leave it out of the lead.  Also, now that I think about it, Audrey Hepburn was probably not the best example to give, as there has been a lot of discussion to and fro on the same point at the Hepburn talk page.   Rossrs (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And again. If the anon was interested in improving the article, or willing to discuss it, I'd be happy to hear from him/her, but this is getting tendentious.  It seems the only thing he/she is interested in adding to this article is about Leigh being born in India.  Well, that's covered in the article.  Have reverted again.

Vivien Leigh was the first ever actress to win two Best Actress at the Academy Awards,
This statement is false. Luise Rainer was the first actress to win two Best Actress Academy Awards which she did in 1936 (The Great Zigfeld) and 1937 (The Good Earth). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.113.34 (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * yes it's wrong and I've removed it, thanks Rossrs (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if it were true, she wouldn't have been the "first ever" actress to do this, just the "first". --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  02:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead image
Note that a new image has been added to the commons. For a bio lead, it seems more appropriate, with the existing film character image better in the section about the film. Thoughts? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The image is awful. Leigh's most famous work was in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Something from that period should be selected, which I'm sure she would have wanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.50.111.63 (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this one better, assuming the contrast and sharpness can be modified closer to the existing one? --Light show (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

FAR needed
There is quite a bit of uncited text in this Featured article; if citations can be added, a Featured article review can be avoided. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the work! I didn't want to add CN tags, so please let me know if you want them (the uncited portions seem obvious, and since the main editor is long gone, pretty much everything needs to be checked). These (in the article before you edited) do not appear to be reliable sources:
 * http://celticroyalgenealogy.co.uk/
 * http://www.geni.com/people/Suzanne-Farrington/6000000008681454413
 * http://www.vivien-leigh.com/interview.html
 * http://www.findmypast.com
 * http://www.hartleyfamily.org.uk/Fame1.htm
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Although presently under construction, the Celtic Royal Genealogy website appears to have connections to heraldry and historical associations, and includes academic and scholarly contributors. I would consider their information as being reliable and not a "fan site". All of the other sources are problematic, with dead links and fancruft evident, and should be replaced by more useful references sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I couldn't access enough of anything there to convince me of reliability, and I wonder how long it has been under construction? Considering all of the books written about her, it "smells" fishy for text to be relying on geneology websites.  Particularly when they weren't in the version of the article that passed FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If required, I can find another source to replace the website. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox
Bzuk, I'm not sure why you put back in the resting place and occupation: they seem, amongst the dubious other pieces of info, more useless than normal. Birth and death locations are arguably relevant, but the resting place? The occupation tag is one that constantly annoys me: it's even more pointless than normal and really shouldn't be used unless it's something that most people really won't know. - SchroCat (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not dubious at all as it was also her residence. When you have active dates, you need to have an occupation that flanks this information, See Elizabeth Taylor, Katherine Hepburn and others of the same stature. The dates of her active activity are important to this article as they are often not related to her first, albeit, very early performance in 1917. As this article was being challenged as to all references by an administrator/editor, it is contiingent to provide a fulsome set of details. As to dates, when there are birth–death parentheticals: Petrarch (1304–1374) is used  not (1304–74) for an infobox, the style then can be used throughout the infobox in order to maintain consistency in styles. FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. You are adding needless crap to the IB. Less is more when it comes to the boxes, or the reader becomes swamped by the sheer weight of useless drivel you are adding.The resting place? Trivial balls, nothing more, and even more ridiculous when you consider its not her resting place, it's where her ashes were scattered. Education field is pointless for most people, actors especially.


 * 2. I see you have again reverted the date format (please see WP:BRD). I'm not sure why as I've already pointed out WP:DATERANGE which advises the format of 1920–40, not 1920–1940. Consistency has nothing to do with it.


 * Sources, citations and references in the rest of the article have nothing to do with an IB overly bloated with trivial nonsense: the two are entirely separate. – SchroCat (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no point to this line of argument if you have already decided that the infobox is "bloated", full of "crap" and "nonsense". I have already noted your objections, but find them less than convincing. I have no time for wikilawyering about what goes into the infobox, as I am engaged in developing the article further. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I had said I would help at TFAR, but if you are not going to bother discussing the valid opinions of others (and to mislabel an attempt at discussion as "wikilawyering" in order to get your own way), then there is no point in me continuing here. Good luck in your overhaul. - SchroCat (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't want to intrude here, but Bzuk, honestly, I think you should just let Schro edit it. I have no doubt he'll have it back up to FA status within a few weeks should it be demoted. I don't want to see him put off of editing it from a minor infobox dispute. Generally I admittedly don't see much point in infoboxes in biographies, although if they have a lot of spouses of related people then sometimes they're useful for actors. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Blofeld, your comment to Bzuk is rude, dismissive and arrogant. On the "demotion" possibility, this article is already in "Keep" territory, and it is always a joy to see FAR working as it should; kudos to both Schro and Bzuk for the save. These are examples of the reasons I used to love working at FAR. On the infobox, I hate them in every instance, but don't want to get involved in that discussion.  In other words, folks, don't sweat the little stuff ... and thanks for improving the article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good one, Sandy Georgia of all people calling me arrogant :-) How is it rude or dismissive? stated that he was put off from editing the article over a mere infobox dispute and I simply said I'd really hate to see him pushed away from editing it over something minor. Bzuk is a good editor and I like him very much, but I do believe Schro has a book on its way which could really help it. Ideally I'd like them to both work together.♦  Dr. Blofeld  15:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I'm afraid I have to disagree here: a call from Blofeld for two editors to work together isn't rude or dismissive. If you wish to point your disapprobation in any direction, try pointing it at this utterly dismissive and rather obnoxious comment. This disheartened me so much I withdrew from editing this article. It's not often that I find someone so uncollegiate in their approach that they dismiss a valid opinion as "wikilawyering", but unfortunately the box now contains more trivial nonsense than it did when I raised the issue. That's rude, dismissive and arrogant, if you want some form of measure of the term. – SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I welcome any and all editors to contribute to this article. I hope I have explained why some additions to the infobox were made as other major articles such as Elizabeth Taylor include a fairly fulsome infobox. The additions were namely in giving her resting place which also identified her last residence and connects with other content in the body of the article, noting her religion was very important, and that schooling was a mess for her. Dates, aargh, not such a biggie. I hope that other contributions have been able to more fully describe a fascinating and complex individual who made her mark in the dramatic arts. 19:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roman Catholic? Without the background on being twice divorced, it's out of context and misleading. Twice divorced shows just how unimportant it is. "Resting place" is the place the ashes were scattered (and having "residence" bracketed raises more needless questions than it answers). Glad to see someone has put the dates into the correct format: there was no need for you to revert it back, especially as I provided the link to WP:DATERANGE which explains it. That's me done here: I don't see much point in me prolonging my stay here. - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, having just looked at this infobox, I am amazed at how long it is and how filled will useless material that will, at best, distract readers and continue to attract cruft. I would delete the infobox, but at a minimum, I would slim it down greatly to get rid of, at least, "resting place", "education" and "religion". -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * While I disagree with many of you on the importance of infoboxes, I do agree that "resting place", "education" and "religion" are not needed for actors/actresses. Also, in this case, the child's name should not be given, since the person isn't notable enough to have a WP page (only the number of children). --Musdan77 (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Prose
Tortured sentence: Repetitive prose (three suffers in two sentences): Query (in the campus, or on the campus)? Confusing-- this sentence seems to be about Vivien's mother, but that is not clear enough: Links needed ... we may know San Remo and Paris, but Dianard and Biarritz ... Samples ... a prose review would be good! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On 12 October 1933 in London, she gave birth to a daughter, Suzanne, later Mrs. Robin Farrington, who, decades later, would make Vivien Leigh a grandmother three times over with the birth of three sons.
 * For much of her adult life, she suffered from bipolar disorder.[1] She earned a reputation for being difficult to work with, and her career suffered periods of inactivity. She suffered recurrent bouts of chronic tuberculosis,
 * In "Early life", at the age of three ... at the age of six ... should be varied.
 * Leigh was born Vivian Mary Hartley in the campus
 * A devout Roman Catholic, her origins may have been of Irish and Parsi Indian ancestry.
 * notably in Dianard, Biarritz, San Remo and Paris.
 * Totally agree- a bit of the "too many cooks" syndrome. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sandy's comments. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * These points appear to have been dealt with now. DrKiernan (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vivien Leigh. 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://archive.is/20141222145540/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1419209271057 to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1419209271057
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20131215045835/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1387029311094 to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1387029311094

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) 01:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

TFA rerun
Any objections to throwing this article into the pile of potential TFA reruns for this year and next? Any cleanup needed? If it helps, here's a list of 3 dead links. - Dank (push to talk) 23:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vivien Leigh. 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/20160315150007/https://movies.yahoo.com/person/vivien-leigh/biography.html to https://movies.yahoo.com/person/vivien-leigh/biography.html

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) 13:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Vivien Leigh 1958.jpg