Talk:Laurence Olivier

Template:V0.5

Infobox

I am very surprised to learn that the infobox was removed from this article. I quite baffled about this because I find infoboxes extremely useful in articles about persons and I see no clear consensus in support of the removal on the discussion page.

Please explain to me in simple words why this article should not have an infobox. --Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 19:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has to explain anything to you. Everything can be found within the archives. Now, please go and find something more constructive to do. Cassianto^Talk 19:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Archives? What archives? Can somebody please supply me a link, like I'm a fifth grader? - 74.95.112.141 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.112.141 (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier does not deserve this dumb debate over the ugliness or redundancy of infoboxes. I don't like infoboxes, I really don't for the same reasons other people don't. But I recognize that every article for every major actor has one. For the sake of consistency, unless some petty guy wants to literally delete the infobox for actors like Katherine Hepburn, Ian McKellen, Richard Burton, Sean Connery, Michael Caine, and even Olivier's own wife, Joan Plowright, I believe firmly that this article needs an infobox despite my dislike for them. I also recognize that for others, infoboxes effectively summarize important information, and decrease the need to 'search' an article for basic information, despite being redundant and offering up no new information. To some extent, I believe the entire purpose of an infobox is to summarize key details in a article, as they do in so many page. So I think this argument should end, and those against infoboxes should just claim defeat, or else we should follow through with our beliefs and delete every other infobox on wikipedia. 138.16.119.220 (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has ruled otherwise, that use of an infobox is to be decided article by article. - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Use_of_infoboxes William Avery (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud are quite famous actors who also have no infoboxes. William Avery (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I will point out that there needs to be consensus among users, yes. But this argument can be used both in favor of keeping and of removing the infobox. Not all users agree to remove the infobox, so why should the few who do get their way? Also, pointing out the small number of actors who have no infoboxes is an ineffective argument considering the much much larger number of those who do. 138.16.119.220 (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Zitat

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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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)