Talk:Laurence Olivier

message: That's 7 words versus 10. Any other suggestions? I would ref this to the sources which best summarize the incident, Cottrell and Beckett.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to answer my question? - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained my answer above in short , and in detail over at WP:NPOV/N: . To repeat, I think this detail adds an understanding of how much Olivier's stage presence evolved over the course of his career, from extremely humble beginnings to being perhaps one of the greatest such actors in our time, with an incredible presence. I provided sources to back up this interpretation, and I also described how I would elaborate on it if necessary. My best guess is that you don't consider those answers satisfactory. And as I said, if that's true, then I'm not sure anything I could say would be. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you're likely to get a consensus one way or the other, Shibbolethink. But if it is to be included, I'd suggest reframing the sentence so the fall isn't the subject, like . I don't think "on his face" adds anything, though now I see it without that I'm leaning more towards excluding the whole thing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's true, then the article should revert to the WP:STATUSQUO which, most recently, was inclusion (for 3 months). — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: STATUSQUO is an essay and this is a featured article so, barring major developments in the subject matter or major new sources, we should take the version that passed FAC as the consensus version. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

text: You think those seven words expresses exactly what? That this was in the same city where Olivier and his wife “spent their golden years”, to quote you. How exactly does it do that, and what exactly does it add? - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you think about Shibbolethink's judgement you have to acknowledge his persistence. Nonetheless, I think we can now conclude that there is no consensus to alter the agreed FAC text in the matter under consideration. Tim riley talk 23:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: to meet above compromises 

message: 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)
replies: text: What makes you think the current image is disturbing? Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 09:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yourlocallordandsavior and Ollieinsanerd, what do you think about this image? 88.29.165.207 (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox image