Talk:Laurence Olivier

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Laurence Olivier article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 3 months

Laurence Olivier is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 12, 2018.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 17, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
March 23, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
July 13, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
July 30, 2006	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
August 1, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
August 20, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
May 22, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 2, 2015	Peer review	Reviewed
February 14, 2015	Featured article candidate	Promoted
October 25, 2015	Featured topic candidate	Not promoted
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 22, 2019.
Current status: Featured article

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Peerage and Baronetage

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Shakespeare High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Theatre High‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Mid‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Surrey Low‑importance

	Surrey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Infobox image

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

What makes you think the current image is disturbing? Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 09:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yourlocallordandsavior and Ollieinsanerd, what do you think about this image? 88.29.165.207 (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s probably the smile, although I myself think it’s okay. Dantus21 (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the old lead image too. It's in colour, is higher resolution than the current lead image, and was taken by a famous photographer. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence is too old in that photography, as the infobox photo should feature the individual (Olivier) in its prime. 88.28.10.208 (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current image works in that he's at his most recognisable. Ultimately that's the aim for an infobox image. We already have an image of him as a much older man (photographed by Allan Warren) in the appropriate section. Duffy BT (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've put back in the 1972 picture: it's a higher resolution and there isn't a consensus for change. Given his career was a long and rich one, to try and claim the b&w one is "in his prime" is a bit questionable, given the Warren one was in '72, the same year he was in Sleuth (1972) and before he appeared in Marathon Man (1976) and The Boys from Brazil (1978): he was nominated for Oscars for those three films, which suggests he was still pretty much in his prime. Feel free to open an RfC to discuss the options if you wish. - SchroCat (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before I even saw this discussion, I was laughing at that horrible photo. It looks like a bad high school yearbook photo! I would have voted for a black and white from the '30s or '40s. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation conversions

Someone used various websites to calculate the equivalency costs from Olivier's early career into amounts for years that were current to their entry and entered them as notes. Not only do those calculations not update with the passing years, but they are wildly different from Wikipedia's own inflation calculator (and likely contained a typo.) I replaced three of these calculation entries within the text with Wikipedia's calculations and removed the notes, but I'm preserving them here.

Under 1930-1935: "The £60 salary in 1930 was approximately £11,000 in 2019." Reference source was https://measuringworth.com/datasets/ukearncpi/ Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20131219050808/http://measuringworth.com/ukearncpi/) from the original 19 December 2013; retrieved 3 January 2014. (If it was retrieve in 2014, how did they get the calculation for 2019?? This was likely a typo.)

Under 1930-1935: "$1,000 in 1931 was approximately $15,500 in 2015." Reference source (https://www.minneapolisfed.org/community/teaching-aids/cpi-calculator-information/consumer-price-index-and-inflation-rates-1913) returns 404 error. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20150604030208/https://www.minneapolisfed.org/community/teaching-aids/cpi-calculator-information/consumer-price-index-and-inflation-rates-1913) 4 June 2015; retrieved 5 January 2015.

Under 1938-1944: "$50,000 in 1939 is approximately $850,000 in 2015." Same references as bullet above.

Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Knighthood

@HJ Mitchell, does the peerage preclude us from including ‘Sir’ in bold type? Please direct me to the relevant guideline. Keeper of Albion (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. I'm not an expert on the honours system but I believe a knight ceases to use the "sir" if he gains a higher honour like a peerage. An example that comes to mind is Richard Dannatt who was a GCB before he was a peer. You'd have to consult something like Debretts for a more conclusive answer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you’re right. Keeper of Albion (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Years active parameter

A few days ago, I added the "years active" parameter here, but it was removed soon after. Since this article is an FA, I'm opening a discussion for others to give their say.

That said, I have a general question: should we re-add it or simply leave it out? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be left out; it was specifically noted as problematic in the RfC that resulted in the introduction of an infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto to what @Nikkimaria stated. On the Dame Maggie Smith article, there was seriously a brouhaha (I love utilizing this word, and it is most accurate) over the final film she was shooting scenes for, and whether the very last of those scenes occurred in 2023 or 2024, thus dictating her official final year of activity.

So yeah…why even bother? In her instance: She was active right up until the end, prior to the illness that preceded her death. (Mentioned in prose.) That's sufficient enough, and circumvents the semantics. Seems fairly applicable to most! --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 22:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]