# Talk:Peter Ostrum

2600:1000:b02d:5ea5:85fa:5a7a:24c7:519 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), with regard to these edits: (a) "former child actor" is not an occupation; (b) per this discussion, Rivertorch (talk · contribs) and I agreed that the format of Actor<br />[[veterinary physician|Veterinarian]] for occupation, and 1971<br />1984&ndash;present for years_active was the clearest and most accurate way to present the information; (c) Mr. Ostrum was an actor first, and a veterinarian second; and (d) he's known for acting, not for Charlie Bucket.I can concede a possible use for including the occupations in years_active, or vice-versa, but I'd like to discuss whether it's necessary here first.
107.185.145.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), with regard to this edit: the citation ([1]) and the film's credits spell the character's surname as "Teevee".
Philip Cross (talk · contribs), with regard to this edit: I can't find any policy, guideline, or MOS that depreciates linking "XXXX in film".  Can you point me to such?
I've reverted these edits for the reasons above.  Please feel welcome to participate in a discussion of these edits as part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle.  Thanks!  —  fourthords | =Λ= |  17:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:YEARLINK would seen to apply for the article on Peter Ostrum. The closest example for a work here, on the Sydney Opera House, is the precedent for not using a year in film link. The two uses for a legitimate year link are not applicable here in my view. Philip Cross (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
While I don't agree that that guideline is exactly relevant here, I can see your interpretation of its intention.  —  fourthords | =Λ= |  22:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's confusing and trivia to include a filmography of appearances. Is there some general consensus that applies to one-time actors? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, especially since they aren't performances.  Furthermore, though, I'm continuing to remove it because it's in violation of the verifiability policy.  Is there a codified SOP for such things?  Not that I'm aware of.  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
That's where I see the confusion: They are not performances. We're not here to document every interview and appearance.
I'll request page protection, since there's a dynamic ip involved. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

This is one of the most popular pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicine's scope.  Very few editors watch WT:VET's pages, which means that questions may not be answered in a timely manner.  If you are an active editor and interested in animals or veterinary medicine, please put WT:VET on your watchlist.  Thank you,  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

On 14 October 2022, Ladyoftrees (talk · contribs) began editing the article (without a single edit summary) in contravention of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, and the logic of the prose itself.  Then, when I replaced the previous version IAW the the BRD cycle, they instead continued making their unexplained edits.

We don't have a reliable source for the specific year of Ostrum's marriage, only which of two years it has to be; this is in accordance with the verifiability policy.
The sourced prose of the article specifically says that Wonka was his only professional acting role, which makes that section wholly inappropriate to fall under a second-level header of "Career".
Wikipedia:Red link says, Only remove red links if you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject.  I haven't seen any evidence, and Ladyoftrees provided none, that South Lewis Central School shouldn't ever have an article, should somebody be so inclined to make one.
Double-spaces after terminal punctuation shouldn't be removed, as the English Wikipedia Manual of Style says, Some editors place two spaces after a period/full stop (see Sentence spacing); these are condensed to one space when the page is rendered, so it does not affect what readers see.  Since it doesn't affect readers, and makes the monospaced editing interface easier to manage, there's no reason to remove them.
What is the bright-line delineation of the subject's "Early life" as opposed to their "Personal life".  Furthermore, how is his "Early life" not a component of his "Personal life"?  In addition to the logical inconsistencies, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout says, Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading.  We know very little about his non-professional life to sustain two separate, short, stubby paragraphs.
I have reverted these edits explained above, and left a note to discuss such edits here.  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

On 30 September 2024 at 20:41 UTC, 103.231.73.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edited the page's infobox to disassociate the years from Ostrum's occupations, saying only, It’s better like this.  Among other changes 151 minutes later, I replaced the previous formatting, saying, Undid revision 1248673287 by 103.231.73.87 (talk) as unclearly separating the dates from what they represent.  On 1 October 2024 at 16:05 UTC, they changed the formatting again, saying, It looks dumb like that, don’t change it.
While I appreciate aesthetic concerns, I neither see what the anonymous contributor is 'explaining', nor should aesthetic concerns triumph over clarity and unambiguity.  Separating the data with different list formatting, or at all, when there're multiple variables, adds ambiguity as to the specific and clear connection, especially when compared to OCCUPATION (YEAR/S) that was previously implemented.  I've begun this discussion that the anonymous editor should've begun before reverting  (IAW WP:BRD).  I've replaced the previous formatting and encouraged discussion here.  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion and your work maintaining this article.
The stable version is clearer. The ip's version seems misleading. --Hipal (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
My edits are quite on quote, NOT misleading. There is nothing wrong with having a years active info in the infobox. It was kept there before in the past, disagree with it now is completely dumb. Besides, there isn’t anything wrong with it. 103.231.73.87 (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Disassociating the years from the occupations (in a different format, no less) introduces ambiguity, whereas the established formatting does not.  No information is being lost, and there is clear connection between the year and occupational data.  If you disagree, then first secure a consensus for your edits here; don't edit war.  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I don’t mean to be nitpicking, but I still disagree. Having years active is fine as it is, because having the year next to the occupation looks really dumb and it should be separate. Plus, your reasoning makes absolutely no sense about it, therefore that is not an excuse for it not to be kept in the article. 103.231.73.87 (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)