Talk:Laurence Olivier

Template:Vital article

Pronunciation

Olivier pronounced his name /ˈɵˈlɪviɵ/, as did other members of his family. At some point in his career, journalists etc began to pronounce it /ˈɵˈlɪvi.ei/ as though he were French. I think the pronunciation guide in the introduction should reflect this somehow.Ordinary Person (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The sources are clear that LO's father, Gerard, was insistent on the French pronunciation of the surname. Tim riley talk 23:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Nationality

While I have no objection as such, should he not be called an English actor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.89.220 (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Olivier would have possessed a British passport, not an English one. Philip Cross (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Applause. There is no official nationality as English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish. We are all (for now) British. -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is helpful to readers to say that, e.g., Dylan Thomas was Welsh, Alex Salmond is Scottish, Oscar Wilde was Irish, and Olivier was English. They were/are all British, but there are four countries (as opposed to nation states) in the UK. "The British poet Dylan Thomas" or "the British politician Alex Salmond" would be unhelpful and would make Wikipedia look silly. – Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Why would that be silly? It's accurate. I thought that Wikipedia strove to be accurate. They all carry (or carried) passports giving their nationality as British. You can say that they were born in and live(d) in Wales or Scotland but there has been no nationality of Welsh or Scottish, or even of English since the various acts of union -- SteveCrook (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, their passports were/are British, but they were respectively Welsh, Scottish, Irish and English. Alex Salmond is not the leader of the British National Party. Nationalities and nation states are not the same thing, and WP has a policy of describing people as they would wish to be described: "Nationality should refer to national identity, in other words the national group with which the person identified, not the state of which the person was a citizen or subject." Tim riley (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde was born a British citizen/subject. Dublin was a part of the UK when he was born. Dylan Thomas wasn't very Welsh, he didn't speak the language. Alex Salmond is a politician looking for individual power and thinks he can get it by playing the nationalist card. None of them are very good examples to use in this argument. If that's how WP wishes to define nationality it wouldn't be the first case where it's just wrong. Although I see that that extract you refer to is just a guideline, not a rule. Nationality is a legal construct, people can't pick and choose their nationality and we shouldn't pick and choose a nationality for them. Maybe you're really wanting to describe these people's ethnicity -- SteveCrook (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You are, natch, entitled to your view, but just try to think what our readers require of WP. Robbie Burns the well-known British poet. W B Yeats, the well-known British playwright. It would make us look silly. Tim riley (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You are also entitled to your view. You think it looks silly, but it's accurate  :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

But calling an Englishman English and a Scotsman Scottish is as correct as calling them British, and has the benefit of avoiding the inanity of "the British poet Robert Burns". The best of both worlds: it's accurate and it won't have our readers thinking we've gone mad. Tim riley (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Do what you want. I gave up expecting Wikipedia or Wikipedians to do anything accurate years ago -- SteveCrook (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That's terribly sad, and I'm genuinely sorry to hear it. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It is sad, but nobody does anything about it - now that's sad -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Steve, if you've been around for years, you will know these debates have raged since the beginning, on pretty much every biog of a famous N. Irish, Welsh and Scottish subject. There are two views - yes and no. There it is. Span (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there's the accurate way of doing things and then there's the Wikipedia way. Never the two shall meet  :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Steve, out of conscience I looked to see what other encyclopaedias do about this. Burns, having been mentioned above, seemed a good reference point, as he was born after the Act of Union.

• Britannica is straightforward ("Robert Burns – Scottish poet Jan. 25, 1759 Alloway, Ayrshire, Scot. July 21, 1796")
• The ODNB – by policy, I suspect from a quick look at one or two other prominent Scots – avoids the matter altogether, so: "Burns, Robert (1759–1796), poet, was born on 25 January 1759 in a two-room clay cottage … at Alloway, Ayrshire", carefully (I guess) avoiding the controversy above by not mentioning "Scottish" or "British" at all.
• The Chambers Biographical Dictionary, a much-used standby, has him as "Burns, Robert, Scottish poet".
• Of Oxford University Press publications I can lay hands on:
  • A Dictionary of Writers and their Works ("Burns, Robert ( 1759–1796) Scottish poet"
  • Oxford World Encyclopedia ("Burns, Robert ( 1759–96 ) Scottish poet")
  • The Oxford Companion to English Literature ("Burns, Robert ( 1759–96 ) Scottish poet")
  • Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language ("Burns, Robert [ 1759–96], Scottish national poet.")
  • The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations ("Robert Burns 1759 – 96 Scottish poet")

I must in fairness add that at least as many Oxford reference books follow the ODNB line and don't call Burns Scottish in the opening line. But, crucially, no reference book I can find calls him "British". So it isn't "the accurate way of doing things and then there's the Wikipedia way", I'm afraid, but the SteveCrook way and everyone else's.

Hope this clarifies matters. Tim riley (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

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

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

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

Neither do I. What I would find to be helpful IP is that you disappear rather quickly. 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 most of these years? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think people who make substantial edits to an article and shepherd it through FAC would certainly figure highly in the "main editor" stakes... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You think that their personal preference is more important than the article history and the expections of the readers? Trying to imagine that someone would "improve" an article I wrote and by that would win the right to remove the infobox is not a pleasant thought. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That's shades of ownership there Gerda! (And in many cases the removal of an IBS is an improvement to the article!) As always, if there re two min editors who disagree over the inclusion of an IB, then the stable extant version remains (after a quick WP:BRD dance) until there is a new local consensus to decide. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ownership? If I add an infobox to inform readers, and someone removes it because he claims he added more to the article: that "shades of (new) ownership" (thank you for a new phrase) to me. - I don't agree with your statement about the "many cases". I don't know a single case in which data about time and place of the subject would not help some readers, and it doesn't take away for the others, - 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 Ian Rose I'm not anti-infobox generally, but in actor biographies they're really of limited use and part of the furniture and the main article writers should really be respected in their decision.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia: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)

Filmography

The link to the full list of his stage and screen roles is in a rather odd place; I'd suggest it'd be better as a "See also", as that makes it far easier to find. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree AC. The way it is labeled and its position in the article give the reader no clue that it is a list of performances and roles. It look much more like a link to another article about his acting. OTOH putting it in a "See also" section is problematic. In an article of this length readers who aren't Wikipedia editors would look for a link to a filmography in the TOC and, not seeing one, think that one might not exist. They could also be forgiven for not thinking to look in a "see also' section. I have been WP:BOLD and moved it so that it looks the way it does in many other actor articles. Now I know that WP:OTHERSTUFF can be used if other editors disagree with my actions so feel free to revert or alter. But I do think that the way it was is not helpful to readers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Transcription

I've removed the transcription, which claimed his surname to be pronounced UH-LIV-ee-uh or OH-LIV-ee-oh. There are several pronunciations of "Olivier", none of which ends in oh. In Britain, the most common way to pronounce it probably is /ɒlˈɪvieɪ/. Alakzi (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've fully protected the article due to the edit warring over the hidden text, please read Help:Hidden text for guidance on this. Dreadstar ☥ 13:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

An admin edit warring and using their admin tools in a content dispute? brilliant, especially as there is absolutely nothing at WP:HIDDEN that stops this type of message from appearing. In fact, it does exactly the reverse: "When it is a mere consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would violate an existing consensus." Dreadstar, you appear to have overstepped the mark here and are acting inappropriately, based on nothing more than your personal preference. You have accused others of "disruptive editing", completely missing the point that you are the guilty party here. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You, Dreadstar, are the sort (Personal attack removed) that gives admins a bad name. Cassianto^Talk 13:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The wording of the text as you two added is very strongly worded and clearly prohibits editing of the article in that specific manner; the wording you prescribe is inappropriate, there's nothing 'soft' about it at all. Find consensus for the wording, if any wording is necessary at all. Dreadstar ☥ 13:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Then tweak the fucking wording: don't lock the article! Waaaaaay too big a stick to use on such a small issue, and it prohibits nothing: it asks people to respect a consensus. Bad, bad bad admin action. I strongly suggest you unlock the article and put the message back, partly tweaked, rather than lock it to your personal preference. - 13:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The only thing that's inapproprite here is you. Cassianto^Talk 13:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have removed what is clearly inappropriate hidden text; your tag team edit warring to keep it in place is the actual problem here. When it was removed by another editor the first time, you and the other editor reverting it back should have followed WP:BRD, found Consensus and then acted according to that consensus; yet you both just continued to edit war with multiple editors over the issue. You are in the wrong here. I expect the regular editors of this article to determine by consensus if hidden text is necessary and if so what the wording should be that fits Help:Hidden text. Dreadstar ☥ 13:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you are the problem here. If you had engaged brain and opened a thread to say "the comment is inappropriate: change it or remove it", then there would have been a discussion and an appropriate note put in place. Sadly your knee-jerk edit warring and locking of the article does no-one any good, except to show you up. YOU are in the wrong here, despite your attempts to cast the blame on others. - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC) UTC)

Also, they are Bold, we Reverted, they should Discuss. It's not fucking rocket science. That didn't happen; they were Bold we Reverted, they Reverted and then they warred. Clearly you don't even understand the most simplest of guidelines. Cassianto^Talk 14:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

To clarify what I'm seeing, you were bold in adding the hidden text, it was reverted; now discuss. And beyond the sheer inappropriateness of the hidden direction, with the number of editors objecting, there's clearly no consensus for the hidden text as it exists. Once you calm down, I'd suggest working with those editors to find consensus. Dreadstar ☥ 14:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm entirely calm, and happy to work with anyone who is open minded enough not to use admin tools just because they the churlishly disagree with something and don't have the ability to do anything but edit war and lock articles down. That's the last constructive of all pathways and helps absolutely no-one. - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Then your eyesight is as bad as you admin abilities. Cassianto^Talk 14:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dreadstar: You know what happened with User:Coffee. Would you like me to report you for misconduct at ANI? When you're the one involved in an edit dispute you should never use your tools to lock it in your desired version. You should discuss it with editors, try to get some wider input and then ask another admin to lock it if necessary. Agreed with Tarc that hidden text is fine, and in this case over a very well known dispute, so it needs to firmly tell editors. Not constructive Dreadstar, there is no consensus for you to do so.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued protection

I do not believe that the full protection on this page is warranted. Please unprotect. In addition, I think the hidden text is appropriate. It actually prevents edit-warring and brings to the Talk page anyone who wants to seriously discuss the issue. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Big coincidence that a close friend of Andy's turns up to endorse locking without the message. The admin system on wikipedia is about as trustworthy and corruption free as Admiral General Aladeen's regime. Sorry HJ but after what you said at arb I don't think you're exactly a neutral admin to intervene here, even if you scolded Dreadstar for acting after a edit war. You're known to be sympathetic to Andy's infobox cause as a friend of his. Is this the first stage of trying to force an infobox here, remove the barricade and then let the army in?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hidden text

Hidden text is used all the time in music-related articles to call attention to a consensus version/decision, as anons and IPs love to fiddle endlessly with genres, instruments, etc... See Kurt Cobain (death_date and instrument fields), Alice in Chains (genre and members), and so on. Perhaps the issue with the hidden text here is that it was a bit too shouty and confrontational? Tarc (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and hidden text in this article would be fine if worded correctly. The current proposed wording is too harsh, yelling in caps and looks to be a message prohibiting editing along those lines. I suggest we find better wording per WP:HIDDEN if we indeed find consensus that a hidden note about existing consensus regarding adding an infobox. I would suggest adding something like "Before adding an infobox to this article, please check previous discussions" and provide a handy link. And remember, consensus can change, so maybe we need a new RFC to further explore adding an infobox to this article. Dreadstar ☥ 17:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

How's this?
<!-- At present, there is no consensus to include an infobox in this article. Please discuss the issue on the talk page, under the "Infobox" heading. --> Alakzi (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tarc, I agree. Perhaps you may consider the following appropriate. (The caps before were not at all "shouty", but to make the message stand out):

"There is a consensus not to include an infobox on this page. Should you wish to change the consensus to include an infobox, please discuss on the talk page." - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat's version, with a slight tweak:

"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." -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

There is obvious disagreement over the inclusion of an infobox. Why would we claim that there's a consensus? Alakzi (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

A consensus is not an absence of disagreement. At present there is a consensus not to have an IB, which is why we say so. - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

What is a consensus? Alakzi (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS - SchroCat (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ssilvers's version. Although I fear this will just be ignored as much as the "shouty" one would be. Cassianto^Talk 19:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

So where have the "legitimate concerns" of editors who'd like to see an infobox on this page been addressed "through a process of compromise"? In the section above I see: several editors telling the IP to bugger off; appeal to authority; several editors who've come to express their glee; and a thoughtful comment made by Corinne that nobody's really addressed. Alakzi (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This article has been through two community processes without anyone asking for an IB or commenting adversely; that is a consensus in itself. In the thread above, no-one has provided any arguments based on policies that mean we need to include an IB. There is a consensus not to include an IB, which is why the proposed text of the hidden note reflets that. - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi, why are you now trying to turn this into an infobox discussion? Cassianto^Talk 20:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't agree to "Should you wish to change the consensus to include an infobox, please discuss on the talk page". I think it should simply read "There is consensus to not include an infobox on this page. Please refrain from adding one". Any editor who disputes it is going to bring it to the talk page anyway if reverted. I can't support anything which encourages people to try to change consensus.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Can someone provide a link to the discussion showing consensus that this particular article not have an infobox? I think that's integral to the hidden statement. Dreadstar ☥ 01:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• And I think this proves that you had an ulterior motive all the time. Cassianto^Talk 05:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• As I've pointed out above, the article has passed through two community review processes without the box which gives a consensus; there is also the thread above. - SchroCat (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[[Talk:Laurence_Olivier#Infobo

• ShroCat, can you provide a link to the community discussions where consensus was found about an infobox in this article please. The section above is certainly no consensus discussion and would be totally inappropriate to direct editors to. 14:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• The links to the two community reviews of this page - the PR and FAC - can be found at the top of the page. As these two community processes did not demand or request an IB, the consensus is that one is needed. This is entirely within normal practice and is taken as an important factor in future decisions: if it was thought by any participant that the article could be improved by the inclusion, alteration or removal of any aspect of the page, they are appropriate venues in which to discuss the topic. No-one did, and the community consensus is that this article is of a professionally high standard without the inclusion of an IB. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Can anyone (Redacted) provide any links to the discussion showing consensus that this particular article should have an infobox? Why do you all assume that an infobox is a default addition to an article? Cassianto^Talk 19:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Whoever claimed that there is such a consensus? No propping up straw men, please. I hope that you do appreciate that the cause of this whole "situation" is that somebody tried to claim a consensus in the absence of one. To my knowledge, the two editors who attempted to insert an infobox haven't got a clue about the controversy. The article's been infobox-less since January, and nobody tried to add one till yesterday. To all appearances, it was an isolated incident; a good-faith editor saw value in having an infobox, and the second probably could not comprehend the revert. Notice how they're both absent from this discussion? You and SchroCat have made a mountain out of a molehill. It's time to let go; we don't need a note in the article—and we don't need any of this bickering, either. Alakzi (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • The purpose of the note was to alert those unaware that they should discuss the mattger; it serves a purpose and was meant to avoid conflict, not be the focus of a ridiculously elongated set of threads. Yes, a mountain has been made out of a molehill, but to try and blame one "side" seems disingenuous: it takes two to tango, after all. - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, there's the side that instigated the edit war by not observing WP:BRD and insists on an unsubstantiated claim; and there's the side seeking proof for said claim, only to be met with more hostility. Alakzi (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • [removed personal attack]

• Well, I'm not sure it really works that way, since having an infobox is the norm for articles whereas this and a handful of others are the exception. Upon perusing the article history, I find that the infoxbox was present until SchroCat moved a draftspace version in over the existing one on Jan 14 2015. There has been one discussion about it above, Talk:Laurence_Olivier#Infobox, which seems to be enough of a consensus of actual editors (IPs do not count) to support keeping a box out. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC opinions

Do not discuss other editors on the article talk page per WP:TPNO, WP:CIV and WP:NPA; instead follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. If this type of behavior continues on this article talk page, those editors pursuing such commentary risk sanctions. Dreadstar ☥ 14:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
" 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. CassiantoTalk 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 DreadstarCassiantoTalk 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—or even an infobox—is undesirable, and particularly in the case of an FA. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, 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)

Newyorkbrad, (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)

Wikipedia: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. Dreadstar ☥ 15:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)