Talk:Laurence Olivier
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Laurence Olivier Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Article history". Script error: No such module "Banner shell". User:MiszaBot/config Template:Annual readership
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)
- 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)
- It seems like you’re right. Keeper of Albion (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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! --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 22:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)