Talk:Maggie Smith

Is she English or British?

Born in Essex, raised in Oxford. father English, mother a Scot. I'd say 'British' is appropriate but we go by 'due weight' of 'reliable sources'. If someone would like to demonstrate that such sources refer to her, overwhelmingly, as English, not British I'd certainly like to see the list. (Google is your friend here). AnonNep (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Given your recent article edit, @TonyIsTheWoman: with description '(As sourced)' could you supply RS 'due weight' where Maggie Smith is 'sourced' as 'English'? Thank you. AnonNep (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  There is no nationality de jure called English 85.94.248.27 (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Both of the (perfectly reliable) sources immediately after her name clearly say "British". In any case, being English makes one British by default? It usually matters more how someone describes themselves (if she's really that bothered, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that Alasdair Ferguson in The National here,just 3 hours ago, describes Smith as an "English actress". But then he would, wouldn't he. I think it's probably more important to find any sources that report how Smith described herself? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Change her damn photo

You guys are doing her dirty with that photo. Surely there exists a more flattering photo of the Dame! Jesus h christ people. 158.140.195.209 (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The only other one at Commons is this one: File:Dame-maggie-smith-1963.jpg. Perhaps you know of another copyright-free example? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I absolutely agree! What a horrible horrible photo! I really hope you can organize one! 82.220.89.87 (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's hoping no one raises hell on Commons. I reached out for help for someone with a long history of successful uploads in fair use rationale with old publicity photos in the free domain. And if it fails, I will try, try again! --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 03:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I hope I am doing the Dame proud. I was flabbergasted that she was stuck with such a fuzzy wreck of a photo for so long! At least a free domain trailer screencap would've been more sufficient than that! --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 03:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Admitted to being slapped?

"On The Graham Norton Show in 2015 Smith admitted that Olivier had slapped Smith across the face during a production of Othello in 1964." English is not my first language so there is a decent chance I'm missing something, but it does strike me as a bit odd to say she admitted it. I feel that implies some sort of wrong-doing on her part and I can't see any context that would clarify that. If she had insisted that they had a perfectly fine relationship, for example. 2A02:8071:B84:3BC0:F128:4240:923D:AE6D (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, dear old Larry, always a bit of a Prodigy fan, wasn't he. (Maybe Desdemona deserved it, in 1964 ... probably wearing one of those low-cut Contributory negligees) But here's a source (that might useful be added) which has this:

During a different show—in a scene in which Othello scuffles with Desdemona—Olivier actually struck Smith across the face. “He did knock me out,” Smith says. “I was left with some black marks [from his makeup] on my face.” But once the curtain closed that evening, Smith got the last laugh: “I did say it was the only time I saw stars at the National Theatre.”

Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not relevant to the point being made. 2600:8802:5913:1700:201E:CD27:DF4C:C706 (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I've changed "admitted", which slightly suggests that she was apologising for Olivier's behaviour (which was probably wholly unintentional and not just "diva antics"?) It was also obviously more than a "slap". So I've changed the wording and added the source. Could be improved further. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely an improvement, and probably good enough. 2600:8802:5913:1700:201E:CD27:DF4C:C706 (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

If you could suggest any further improvements, I'd be happy to make them. The Graham Norton Show bit is still unsourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Awards in lead

@The One I Left, I just wanted to discuss where Smith's awards should be mentioned in the lead. To me it makes sense to leave them out of the lead paragraph, instead mentioning her Academy Awards in juxtaposition with her film work, her Emmy Awards in relation to her television work, and the remainder in the fourth paragraph. It might be worth noting that the article on Laurence Olivier, which is featured, doesn't mention his awards in the lead paragraph either, although I don't think there's any particular policy about where they should go. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Hi @A.D.Hope, I think her page should look similar to Judi Dench's page with the most important awards mentioned in the leads. To me it's a quick glance of what she's accomplished and then in the rest of the lead it can get into specifics of what she won for etc.The One I Left (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm wary of using lists of awards in place of a more rounded assessment of an actor's achivements; the full lead does a reasonable job of conveying the fact that Smith has performed in many highly-regarded roles, and I'm not sure we need to hammer the point home in the lead paragraph by just listing her high-profile awards. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  Also, I'm not trying to be awakward about the National Theatre, but as the UK has three English-language national theatres and the name is a common one I'd argue the disambiguation is necessary. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  • I fixed the disambiguation so it's linked to the Royal National Theatre The One I Left (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

    You changed the wording back to just 'National Theatre'. The link needs to read 'National Theatre of Great Britain', or at the very least 'Royal National Theatre' (but I don't favour it) to be unambiguous. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

    • Correct link is the Royal National Theatre, but it is more commonly referred to as The National Theatre, no one refers to it as National Theatre of Great Britian.The One I Left (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

      National Theatre of Great Britain is a redirect to Royal National Theatre; the article states that the former term is used internationally, and given this article is international in scope due to Smith's work in the USA we should use it. If the term really can't be used then we should default to the article title, 'Royal National Theatre'. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

      • I think given that Maggie Smith started her career in London and won accolades for her theatre work in the UK it's rather obvious the National Theatre is in the UK. It is talked about in great lengths in the body of the article as well. National Theatre works just fine with the link. Anything more is rather silly and unnecessary.The One I Left (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

        Smith has worked in the theatre in the UK and USA and won awards in each, so being particularly clear about which is being referred to in a given passage is beneficial to the reader. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

        • The wording is pretty concise for the reader "Smith established herself alongside Judi Dench as one of the most significant British theatre performers, working for the National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company." the next sentence is for her work on Broadway. Not sure how one would be confused with how it is written.The One I Left (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

          The sentence before the passage you quote is also about Smith's work on Broadway, as that's where she made her professional debut. This means that 'British' in the quote could reasonably be interpreted to mean 'theatre performer of British nationality', not 'theatre performer working in Britain'. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

          • I guess well have to agree to disagree. I see it as it talking specifically about her work in the UK with mentions to organisations in the UK which you could easily click on, followed by her work on Broadway.The One I Left (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

            The passage mentions Smith's work at the Oxford Playhouse, then her Broadway debut, then more British work, then more Broadway work. Given we jump across the Atlantic three times I still think it's helpful to clarify that it's the UK's national theatre we're refer to. It's also part of the manual of style (MOS:FORCELINK) that readers shouldn't have to click a link to understand a sentence, and while I don't think this is the worst example we could use one of the other names to make things clearer. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

            • From my point of the phrasing of the sentence it makes it perfectly clear its work in the UK, and the next sentence mentions her work on Broadway. Not sure what the difference is between Royal National Theatre vs the more commonly named National Theatre. The One I Left (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

              'Royal National Theatre' is the article title, so there's a consensus that it's disambiguated enough for the average reader to understand. Personally I think '...of Great Britain' is clearer still, and the NT article does mention that the full name is used in international contexts. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

              • I guess we'll have to see a consensus but National Theatre, which is its branded name, and its most common name which works best imo. I think adding "Royal" or "Great Britain" is fluff.The One I Left (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

                Yes, I agree that we'll have to wait for consensus. You can't always reach a solution when it's just the two of you, ha! A.D.Hope (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2024

in "2000–2009: Harry Potter and other roles" line 4, change "The series was known for hiring notable British actors" to "The series was known for hiring notable British and Irish actors" as 2 of the listed actors, Richard Harris and Michael Gambon, are Irish. DarraghMarnell (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Although Gambon is "Irish-English". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2024 (2)

Maggie Smith starred in Murder by Death released in 1976. An American comedy mystery film directed by Robert Moore and written by Neil Simon. The film stars Eileen Brennan, Truman Capote, James Coco, Peter Falk, Alec Guinness, Elsa Lanchester, David Niven, Peter Sellers, Maggie Smith, Nancy Walker, and Estelle Winwood.[2][3] Dragonrdr22 (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Years active

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.

---

It is patently absurd this field has been removed from the infobox as being unsupported when it's objectively untrue. This field is common for actor infoboxs and I fail to see why this bio merits exclusion. Rusted AutoParts 07:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing "absurd" or "untrue", and I'm sorry you seem to have misunderstood about how to cite fields properly. The field in question says she was active between 1952 and 2023. The last role referred to in the article may well be 2023, but that doesn't mean she wasn't active into 2024: you need to provide a citation that says her professional life (including interviews, personal appearances, working on a future project, etc) all finished in 2023, as is claimed in the field. There is nothing in the article that says that, so it either needs the body to be updated categorically stating that (with a source that categorically states that), or a citation that categorically states that is included in the IB. Happy to help. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

????

Pulled from the 2016-2024: Final years subsection in her Career section in article body: “In 2023, Smith starred as Lily Fox in an Irish drama film, The Miracle Club, with Kathy Bates and Laura Linney. The film's plot is being described as a "joyful and hilarious" journey of a group of riotous working-class women from Dublin, whose pilgrimage to Lourdes in France leads them to discover each other's friendship and their own personal miracles." Smith was announced as starring in the film version of Christopher Hampton's A German Life, reprising the role she originated onstage in 2019 in London.

In October 2023, Smith was revealed as one of the faces for the Loewe's SS24 pre-collection.”

As I articulated, we cannot make assumptions that she might’ve been working on something or not, at the present time we have sourced in her article she worked in 2023, and as it stands it’s when she last worked. I “badgered” you on your talk page as I was taking specific aim at your rationale and deemed it more something I was addressing towards you as opposed to the page itself. It’s why I opened this thread on the potential for other input from other parties. Rusted AutoParts 07:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

????

So you can't find any sources that say she wasn't working into 2024? No interviews, personal appearances, writing, working on something else? So you're just guessing that she stopped all work in 2023. There is zero need (or reason) to link to CRYSTALBALL: I'm not the one making assumptions: I am the one asking for a citation that says something in plain English - you are the one who is making the assumption that because her last film was in 2023, that's when she stopped working, which is nothing less than WP:OR. Can you actually find a source that says what you are claiming? - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Where’s your source that she has something coming up? I apparently do need to link CRYSTALBALL and hand hold you through the concept that “last credited work” isn’t the same as “stopping work” since you’re demanding I conjure up some source to prove she might’ve had something in the works even though at present no sources are making that assertion. I never claimed she “stopped in 2023”, I am asserting that her last credits were in 2023.

• Last credited film/TV show released June 2023
• Last promotional campaign October 2023
• Last public appearance - Wimbledon 2023 (she’s an actress so not sure why her showing up at a tennis event is needed to support when her last credits were)

The first two, as stated, were already sourced in her article. I can’t believe how needlessly frustrating you’ve made this. Rusted AutoParts 08:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear.

I don't know if she had something coming up or not, but neither do you, so how come you think she stopped working in 2023? Being active isn't limited to acting credits - there's a lot more to it than that, but you're completely ignoring that. You want to give this fact big prominence by dropping it in the IB on the basis of your rather poor WP:original research? I'm not sure that's how WP is ever supposed to work. You are also making this needlessly frustrating by relying on OR to try and force a date which may not be true. Go find a proper source that doesn't doesn't rely on OR from unreliable sources. Frustrating? All I am asking for is one citation that supports a piece of information in a prominent position -that shouldn't be too hard. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

It’s weird to see this adoption of condescension on your end when you’re patently in the wrong here. What the hell is original research about noting her last credits happened in a given year? Better yet how is it original research when it’s IN the damn article already? I even went ahead and did the (needless) task of verifying when her last film released, when her last public appearances occurred, and yet this isn’t satisfactory? Do I have to go to her agent now and ask if she was writing a book or doing new roles? Whether she was planning to still work should her health have permitted, it doesn’t change she wound up never working in a professional capacity beyond 2023. Whether she intended to stop then or not, that’s just how it panned out. This is sourced in the article, this is not me making any assumptions it’s objective fact her last film was 2023, her last promotional campaign was in 2023. Whether there’s some secret surprise film/show/book/podcast/interview to be released it remains to be seen, please see WP:CRYSTALBALL again. I do not know what else to tell you here. You don’t seem to have taken issue with this over on Michael Gambon which you edited earlier. He died in 2023. Never retired but his last credits were in 2019, and so that’s what was highlighted in the infobox. Rusted AutoParts 08:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you focus on the edits, not the editor? At the risk of repeating myself: there is no question that her last credits were in 2023. That much is obvious. What isn't obvious is that she ceased being professionally active in that year, which is what you are trying to claim with the "years active" field. Can I suggest that look for a source that says when she was active? Again, CRYSTALBALL is a straw man: all I am looking for is a source that backs up a factoid you wish to include in the article, which is what our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy states is supposed to happen. And maybe, take on board the idea that if you can't find a citation for a factoid, then maybe that factoid isn't worth including. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

It again feels as if you're taking "years active" as if to mean something in the vein of "and this is when she ended her professional career". It's not. Years active is simply an indicator of when she first started, and when her last credits occurred. It's easier to ascertain that when the person retired (Sean Connery for example) but when it's someone who doesn't formally retire, they either happened to not have any credits between when they last worked and when they ultimately passed away or didn't make any fuss about leaving acting behind. It feels as well you're looking to trivialize it down to a "factoid" when it's been a facet of infoboxs for at the least as long as I've been on this site, and in that time I've never witnessed such umbrage be taken over this. To provide a cite as to whether she ceased being professionally active is just not really an achievable ask. Google search finetuned to track from the beginning of the year to the day before yesterday brings up reddit posts, articles about people discussing Maggie, the poet of the same name, aggregation websites reposting older articles mentioning her, etc. This demonstrates though, even if there's no specific citation, she was (at present time) not professionally active in 2024. Rusted AutoParts 08:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

"Years active is simply an indicator of when she first started, and when her last credits occurred"

I'm not trivialising anything (although of all the information in the article, it is one of the more trivial ones to focus on in such a prominent position). I'm asking for something to be supported by a citation, which is one of the basics of the site. It may well be that it is something that comes out of one of the obituaries or reviews of her career that come out over the next week or so, in which case that's great - when such an article comes out, then the factoid can be added with the citation. - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

*sigh* But it's already in the article, it's already there. In October 2023, Smith was revealed as one of the faces for the Loewe's SS24 pre-collection. Might not be worded as "Smith's final work was" but it being the last noted thing to me seemed like the tipoff that this was her last work. This is something news sites are reporting as her ""last pic". Here also is the BBC stating The Miracle Club as "Her last screen role". If I link this in the infobox, is there any issues? Rusted AutoParts 09:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes it was the last, because she died. Not because she retired? I'm not sure I can see any "tip off" there. I can see your point. It might be better if the advice at the Template:Infobox person was clearer? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

*sigh* What is there does not say that she was not active into 2024. Ditto the BBC role, which may be her last screen role, but the reference does not say that she ceased being active. I suggest we wait for a source to appear, rather than trying to force an erroneous conclusion where it is not supported. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

TIL we can just pick and choose when policies and guidelines get enforced or not. At no point did she herself appear in any films this year, be announced for any this year, make any public appearances this year (given I linked above she made her last public appearance last year), at no point made indications she was gonna publish a book, make any statements, give any interviews in 2024, but sure, let's forgo policy and err on this assumption we might get a source that says "she's got something coming out still". Rusted AutoParts 09:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a gander at Template:Infobox person#Parameters will help too, to better articulate what the field is intended for. Because for some reason, people are making the assumption "retirement" was inferred at some point. Rusted AutoParts 09:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Because for some reason, people are making the assumption "retirement" was inferred at some point.

Retirement or death are the ways people's activity ends. She died in 2024 and AFAWK she never retired.

Suppose someone is a working actor for 50 years but did none of the things you mentioned during year 42 of their career. That doesn't mean that their active years ended after 42 years. 2600:8802:5913:1700:201E:CD27:DF4C:C706 (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you think the advice for that field in the template adequately reflects what the policy actually is? If not, where is the policy clearly stated? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

" Date range in years during which the subject was active in their principal occupation(s) and/or other activity for which they are notable" personally I do feel it's pretty straightforward. I'll state again that I've never encountered such issues with the field before so I can't speak on prior instances of discussing it. But there's no inferences of "this means when they retired" or "when they stopped acting". It demonstrates the period in which they worked, and had stuff release. As we can see on Maggie Smith's filmography, her first credit was in 1952. Her last credit was in 2023. I don't see why saying she was active from 1952 to 2023 is incorrect, OR, wrong in any way. Especially now with the given context of her passing. Had she still been alive, and an end point was put in, then absolutely there's need to source whether she indeed had finished acting, and that indeed there's no new films on the horizon. But she died. And with sources highlighting her last film released last year, this bolsters the fact 2023 was the end point of her career. The parameter states "active in their principal occupation(s)", which was acting. So if there's no other credits beyond The Miracle Club, how is saying 1952-2023 at all wrong? Rusted AutoParts 09:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Um, "sources highlighting her last film released last year"... only because she died. Not because she said "that was my last film"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm still trying to understand when at any point retirement came into play. Years active does not automatically mean when they call it quits, it applies in an overall sense. Because other factors might've been in play resulting in why they ceased being in productions after a given point. In Maggie's case, she died. In Michael Gambon's case, his last active role was in 2019 because he didn't work on anything prior to his death in 2023. This is why I keep saying, this was never an issue because it seemed as though the inference was clear. We're not saying Maggie Smith retired in 2023, or quit in 2023. It's that her last, verifiably provable credit was in 2023. Rusted AutoParts 09:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, your interpretation seems a fair one. If only it was clearly written down like that in the template advice. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

But there's no inferences of "this means when they retired" or "when they stopped acting".

Of course there are such inferences.

It demonstrates the period in which they worked, and had stuff release.

There's no mention or inference relating to having "stuff" released. 2600:8802:5913:1700:201E:CD27:DF4C:C706 (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

No-one is picking and choosing anything, as far as I can see. WP:VERIFIABILITY is one of our core policies, so if we are to add a factoid in a prominent position at the top of an article, we need to be 100 per cent sure that it is correct. We may yet get a statement from someone saying they were looking forward to working with her this year, or one of her sons saying she either worked until last week, or had been enjoying not working at all this year - we just don't know. Again you press the point of CRYSTAL: it's still a straw man. You (and I) have no idea what she was doing professionally this year - if anything at all, so we wait for the sources to clarify the point for us. - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I press it because you're very clearly speculating about potentially there being some statement about possible future work that may have been getting done. I wouldn't say I rule the potential out myself but it's not guiding how I edit because of CRYSTAL. We can't employ an assumption, presumption, guess, etc. We gotta go with what's presently had. Per the infobox parameters, the dates reflect activity in their principal field. At present it's sourceable last credit was last year. This is what we have. Rusted AutoParts 09:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

How very odd. CRYSTAL is about including information on scheduled or expected future events in article space. Waiting to see if a source is published that contains information that can support something that you want added isn't anything to do CRYSTAL - you're completely twisting the guideline to try and and do something it was not ever meant to do. You are, however, right in saying "We gotta go with what's presently had", and at the moment, 'what's presently had' does not support the years active field without the use of WP:SYNTH. So we leave it out and update the field if something is published. If it isn't published, we don't include it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred" where exactly am I twisting this here? You're saying "We may yet get a statement from someone saying they were looking forward to working with her this year, or one of her sons saying she either worked until last week, or had been enjoying not working at all this year - we just don't know", an employment of speculation. I'm not twisting anything. Rusted AutoParts 09:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is so confusing here. Lots of things may come out in the next week from various sources (agent, family, colleagues, etc, all being reported either directly or through news sources), and that information can be added to the article. That's just normal editing isn't it? That's got sweet Fanny Adams to do with CRYSTAL, it's just what happens when something is in the news - why is this a problem? - SchroCat (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Does that not sound like operating off presumptions though? I don’t imagine we’d arrive at a point of agreement at this moment in time so it’s best to just let it lie, see what comes out/others have to say.

This dialogue was occurring when it was like 330 in the morning for me and it’s now gone 7 in the morning, I know it’s added to this very crabby, hardheaded approach from me so I’d like to leave with an apology for that. Rusted AutoParts 10:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

No need for the apology at all, but I very much appreciate you offering it. As I said, hopefully something will come out in the next week or so that clarifies the point so everyone can be happy with it. The template wording does not help (partly because it is a general IB, rather than an actor-specific one, but there'snot much that can be done on this page about it now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at it another way. The "active" bit for the actors finishes when the filming of their scene(s) does? Although I guess they may make an appearance at the premier, or at a letter awards ceremony. If Smith had acted in a film that wasn't released until next year, would we extend "years active" to 2025? That seems a bit bizarre. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say no (and so, I think, would many actors). Premiers, interviews, press events, chat shows, etc are all part and parcel of their trade - and that's before other parts of their professional output, such as writing memoirs, public appearances (it used to be opening supermarkets, but I think Smith may have been a bit too big for that!) etc are all part and parcel of their professional trade. And they don't start their job when the cameras start rolling either: project selection, script readings, table readings, rehearsals etc can take months before a camera is introduced. - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Do they stop their job, before the film comes out, because they're dead? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You're saying "We may yet get a statement from someone saying they were looking forward to working with her this year, or one of her sons saying she either worked until last week, or had been enjoying not working at all this year - we just don't know", an employment of speculation.

That's not a speculation, it's a statement of lack of knowledge.

I'm not twisting anything.

Not intentionally, but in effect through lack of understanding of semantics and logic. 2600:8802:5913:1700:201E:CD27:DF4C:C706 (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I press it because you're very clearly speculating about potentially there being some statement about possible future work that may have been getting done.

It's very clear that they did no such thing. You have the burden turned around ... AFAWK she was still active, and to claim that her activity ended in 2023 you need a RS. 2600:8802:5913:1700:201E:CD27:DF4C:C706 (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Years active is simply an indicator of when she first started, and when her last credits occurred.

As you have been told repeatedly, this simply isn't true.

it being the last noted thing to me seemed like the tipoff that this was her last work.

Wikipedia isn't based on "tipoffs".

Unless there is an RS saying that she retired in 2023, there is no basis for claiming that her activity ended in 2023. 2600:8802:5913:1700:201E:CD27:DF4C:C706 (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I noticed this Metro source which reveals that Smith told Dominic West she was planning to retire after Downton Abbey: A New Era. But she changed her mind. I guess that's not unusual for actors. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I suppose all actors remain "professionally active" while they are "waiting for the call". Even if that call never comes? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

That's my point - we can't rely solely on acting credits to determine when they were 'active'. Interviews, public appearances (professional ones), writing memoirs, etc, are all part of their professional lives, as is working on future projects. That is, unless they retire and do nothing after that - such as (so far) Michael Caine. - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess her agent might know if Smith was 'still on the books'. That might come to light in the next few days, although unlikely. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 This discussion is pointless. The years active field shows the period during which the person was active in their main occupation which in Maggie Smith's case is acting, therefore the years active field of her infobox should show 1952–2023. Spectritus (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The entire discussion, or just my bits? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 The whole thing. Spectritus (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, what a relief. So I'd better refuse to comment further. The Miracle Club says this: "In December 2021, the film was in pre-production, having just received additional funding from the U.K. Global Screen Fund. The film was later shot in Dublin in 2022. This was Maggie Smith's final role before her death." So she acted in 2022, not 2023? What about A German Life (TBA) that's listed in her Filmography? When did she act in that? Won't that be her final role? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

A German Life was a project announced in 2020 that didn't wind up materializing. Rusted AutoParts 23:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I see it's now been removed from her Filmography. Do you agree she had no acting role in 2023? Was she "active" only because of the Loewe's SS24 pre-collection? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The Miracle Club was her last film role, released in 2023. The Loewe's photograph was her last active participation in the public eye. Rusted AutoParts 07:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

OK. So if she had died in 2022, she would have been active until 2023, because that's what the template advice requires? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

So giving interviews, rehearsing, appearing on chat shows, writing their memoirs, selecting their next project, learning lines, etc, isn't, in your opinion, part of their occupation? I'm not sure many actors would agree with you. If its so obvious and clear, then maybe you can find a source to back it up? - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat She hasn't done any of that in 2024. Spectritus (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Really? As you’re saying that with such certainty, you’ll have a source you can use to support it then. - SchroCat (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

In regards to interviews, her doing those in general has been described as being rare according to the BBC, I feel that would square away the part about giving interviews/chat shows. After shifting through several backlogs of interviews with the poet Maggie Smith, I believe her last interview was back in 2019 promoting the first Downton Abbey film. Her last appearance on a chat show was an appearance on The View in 2017. I did also link at some point above that she made her last public appearance at last year's Wimbledon. Things like rehearsing/line-reading would entail there being a project announced, which from what I've been seeing when searching was not the case for her. Per my google search I also linked above there's just nothing to suggest she did anything this year, with the biggest news surrounding her unfortunately being in regards to her death. When seeking out anything about her writing a memoir, all that turns up is about the poet Maggie Smith writing one. There's no sources to suggest she was producing one prior to her passing, nor are they any mentions of one having been in the works being announced when news was spreading about her death.

All of this overall though, regarding interviews and chat show appearances, while part of an actor's obligations to promote the project, doesn't necessarily put it as being an actual facet of the core occupation of actor. To act is to be portraying a character, whereas the actor is just themselves when in an interview. Rusted AutoParts 05:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That’s just WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. And no, all the activities I’ve listed above are part of the job of being an actor. As I’ve said above, let’s just wait to see if anything comes out in the sources in the next week or so, rather than put some OR guesswork in such a prominent position on an article. - SchroCat (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Could I ask then for a source that says an actor is someone who does all these specific things you've attributed to the profession? Per the Actor article, "An actor or actress is a person who portrays a character in a production".

And I don't see how any of my arguments are OR/SYNTH. I have demonstrated with a source when her last interview was, when her last chat show appearance was. I don't find it fair to use OR in regards to a memoir that has no sources to support being in existence, nor to have ever been planned to be in existence. And it's just objectively not guesswork to show that her last roles/appearances were in 2023. We know what her last film was, when it released. How is that guessing? Rusted AutoParts 05:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You haven't demonstrated that. You did a search that shows an interview that you "believe" to be her last. Unless you find source says it's her last, then you just don't know. Finding something from the BBC that says interviews were rare, and stretching to a conclusion "I feel that would square away the part about giving interviews/chat shows" is SYNTH. This isn't hard: come up with a source. As I've said numerous times, you have no idea what she did in her professional life in 2024, so you can't say it finished in 2023. Either find a source or wait for something to come up, which is possible, given the amount being published about her at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The sheer fact, that no Maggie Smith (the actress) interviews came up when I refined my searches through the different years demonstrates her last interview was in 2019. You can look for yourself here's the google searches (2024, 2022-2023, 2020-2021). At no point is there an interview with the actress in that time. So I'm changing my "I believe" to "it is conclusive". I'm not synthesizing anything when I bolster the BBC's assertion of her doing interviews being "rare', because a reliable source is stating that, and as demonstrated it's true, given there's a 5 year gap from when she last conducted an interview. "As I've said numerous times, you have no idea what she did in her professional life in 2024, so you can't say it finished in 2023"....but I CAN though, I have been doing so relentlessly, while apparently you DON'T have to source your assertions of "she may have done something this year". No one can know that, there's no sources to support that. You are therefore making speculation, and as per policy we don't operate on speculation. It's an unreasonable ask to prove what she got up to in 2024. As I'm sure I demonstrated before, a finetuned google search of Maggie Smith from year start to the day before her death shows nothing. The producer of a film she did in 2022 discussing things she did during then, a co-star praising her kindness back in May. There is nothing that comes up to say Maggie Smith was going to star in something new, had conducted a new interview, was making plans to do press on something, that she was in the process of writing a book, nothing. Maggie Smith was not active as an actress, or a public figure, in the year 2024. This is provable. What is not, is whether she intended to do any of that. The past 24 hours has only produced people paying tribute to her, nothing about "projects she may've left behind" or anything in that vein. So to continue utilizing assumptions/speculation to assert something you cannot back up with any sources, is deeply wrong. As an actress, within the confines of the description we here on Wikipedia utilize, she was last active in her profession in 2023. As you didn't supply a source to bolster this claim about all these additional facets being what an actor does, I assess then that your claim "all the activities I’ve listed above are part of the job of being an actor" is unsupported. Even then, they still don't fall under the description on here, nor in dictionary definitions. Rusted AutoParts 06:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Find. A. Source. It's how we're supposed to work. - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is LITTERED with sources, please find a source to bolster your points. The onus is on you now. The sheer speed of your reply as well suggests to me you didn't review any of my links in my above comment. Rusted AutoParts 06:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

"Littered" as in "rubbish" like OR, SYNTH and guesswork? You still have not shown anything that says she was not professionally active in 2024. You've got guesswork, SYNTH and OR galore here, but nothing that either says she ceased working in 2023 or continued into 2024. If you can't understand the job of an actor does not begin or end with being on stage or a set, then I suggest you look at Callow's Being an Actor, rather than any tritely linked narrow definitions.

Find. A. Source. And a proper one - not OR and guesswork. And if you can't find a source then a. the information shouldn't go into the article; and b. consider whether the useless factoid isn't worth misleading readers with. WP:PROVEIT is policy. - SchroCat (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Explain how it's OR to state The Miracle Club released in 2023? Deadline Hollywood citation to prove it made a 2023 debut. Here is the Los Angeles Times calling the film her "final film". A final film in 2023. This is proven. Your point on actors sounds like you hold contempt for it's accepted definition. The personal viewpoint of one actor does not negate it. It's the primary function of what an actor is hired for. Merriam Webster, Oxford, Cambridge, Longman do not employ the facets you assert are what an actor does. Your point is unsupported, I've asked you countless times to find a source, you refuse to. Simon Callow's book is not sufficient.

And I, countless times now, demonstrated Maggie Smith was not active in 2024. I have shown to you, via these Google searches linked above, there are no sources to support your point. Your position is that "we cannot assume she didn't work in 2024", and with my searches I have shown that yes, she did not. Do we just sit around hoping you at some point get proven correct? Just continue pushing speculation as a reason to not include information that is able to be supported, and is a staple field for the infoboxes of actors and actresses? You are correct PROVEIT, like CRYSTALBALL, is policy. So please do so. Rusted AutoParts 07:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

A Google search is not sufficient - this is really basic stuff that I'm surprised to have to explain. You cannot prove that the end of her professional activity was in 2023 - because you can't find a source for it. Fine, then just leave out something that you can't prove until you find something that can prove it.

As to Callow's book not being sufficient, that's nonsense. McKellen described it as "the most honest book ever written about us all", but yeah, let's dismiss what they think about their own profession because it doesn't fit your very, very narrow definition. It's just a lie to say that my point is unsupported: Callow's book is the support, but I'm sure I would find numerous others.

Again, there is still no CRYSTALBALL, and your pushing of that straw man is increasingly laughable. - SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Equally as laughable as your obtuseness to weaponizing speculation to bolster your stance. The google searches showing how there is nothing regarding Maggie Smith doing a damn thing throughout 2024 clearly demonstrates how you have no means to support your claim “how do we know she didn’t?” And yeah, I’m gonna go ahead and discard to the subjective opinion of one actor, whose view might not be shared given he’s supplying his subjective opinion. I’ll continue to use the specific definition used by all outlets of dictionary/thesaurus. Rusted AutoParts 07:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, please comment on the edits, not the editor. As you can't find a source to support something, it can't go in. It's only my suggestion that something may come out that helps, but that's not speculation - that's the way good editors develop articles. Everything else is guesswork and speculation. As to your refusal to accept a book by a well-known actor about his career, one that was praised by an even more notable and well-known actor, beggars belief. - SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Good editors use what exists, not what might potentially possibly exist. And once again you take a stance on a point I can easily just throw back at you. “Beggars belief”? Like how no matter how many sources and corroborating searches I’ve supplied you have refused them all? Rusted AutoParts 08:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Good editors don't use SYNTH or guesswork, which is all you've provided to date. If you can't find a source, try patience, or accepting that a minor factoid can't go in such a prominent position. Your call. - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The editor guessing there could maybe possibly be a source in the future to maybe possibly suggest she did in fact work in 2024 is making accusations of guesswork. When I have supplied multiples sources stating her 2023 film was her final film, her 2023 appearances were her last appearances. Rusted AutoParts 08:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

This is tiresome: there is zero guesswork on my account. I have said that there is 'a possibility that something may come out, and I've also said on multiple occasions that there is a possibility that nothing could come out. You keep repeating about her film in 2023, but that's not to say that was the point where she was professionally inactive. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. Either way, the years active date is unsourced without something that clarifies the point, and I suggest waiting to see if there is anything that comes out that gives a measure of clarity. - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is LITTERED with sources

You have not provided a single source stating that she ceased activity in 2023, you have only inferred it. That's not how this site works.

please find a source to bolster your points. The onus is on you now.

No, the burden is entirely on you to support the claim that she ceased activity in 2023.

And I, countless times now, demonstrated Maggie Smith was not active in 2024.

It's an inference--which violates WP policy. Provide a RS that states it.

Equally as laughable as your obtuseness to weaponizing speculation to bolster your stance.

More violation of WP policy. 2600:8802:5913:1700:201E:CD27:DF4C:C706 (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The sheer fact, that no Maggie Smith (the actress) interviews came up when I refined my searches through the different years demonstrates her last interview was in 2019.

So what? An actor might never give an interview in their entire life and yet be active throughout it.

You are making numerous repeated errors in logic and have yet to offer a RS stating that Dame Smith ceased being active in the acting field in 2023. 2600:8802:5913:1700:201E:CD27:DF4C:C706 (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The years active field shows the period during which the person was active in their main occupation which in Maggie Smith's case is acting, therefore the years active field of her infobox should show 1952–2023.

Not unless there's a RS stating that she ceased activity in 2023. 2600:8802:5913:1700:201E:CD27:DF4C:C706 (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Errrm, if she did do any acting in 2024 (or even in 2023) no one has yet heard about it? Perhaps it was a private show? Or maybe she was learning some lines for some unannounced production. Tricky to find sources, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

She does not have to have done any acting in 2024 in order to still be active in the craft.

In any case, it requires a reliable source, not inferences by editors. 2600:8802:5913:1700:201E:CD27:DF4C:C706 (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sure. She could have been "active in the craft", in her own kitchen, for the past two years. But RS sources for that might be difficult to find. She had thought of retiring a while ago. No one has reported her saying "I'll never retire". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jakob Pulley: I see you also tried to include the years active field. Please see this discussion thread to see why the info is being refused and you were reverted. Rusted AutoParts 07:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I hope they will be able to find a reliable source (per WP:PROVEIT) that says she stopped all her professional activity in either 2023 or 2024. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Her having died this year, having not been in the news in any way at all until then, and her last professional projects releasing in 2023 should’ve been sufficient but alas here we are. Rusted AutoParts 07:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Because it's not enough. We're at the end of September, so you have no idea what she's been up to, professionally speaking, over that period. Find a source. - SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I have found a source. Multiple at this point. You rejecting all the evidence I’ve supplied doesn’t negate that. I have demonstrated that at no point in 2024 was she in the news for something she was doing outside of her passing. The onus is on you to dispute that with proof but yet somehow I’m doing all the running around. Rusted AutoParts 08:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You haven't found a source. You've found lots that say what she did in 2023, but the absence of sources for 2024 does not mean she was was professionally inactive. I'm not sure how many times I have to explain this - if you can't find something that categorically states the issue on way or the other, then patience is the other option, rather than guesswork or SYNTH. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

She didn’t need to intentionally seek out being inactive to have BEEN inactive. How is that so difficult to grasp? Eva Mendes has not retired as an actress, but she’s not been active as one since 2014. “But the absence of sources for 2024 does not mean she was was professionally inactive” do you know how absurd that sounds? Rusted AutoParts 08:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Which is why you need to wait to see what new sources come up, if any. I know that proving a negative is sometimes more problematic than proving a positive, but let's try and retain some standards with sourcing rather than take the lazy pathway and guess to put possibly incorrect information in a prominent position. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Do we need a WP:RfC on this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I think patience in seeing what comes out of the sources in the next week or so would be best (and what I've been counselling for this entire thread). - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat And who gave you the authority to make this decision ? Shouldn't a consensus be needed ? Spectritus (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a polite suggestion, not a decision. We should expect differing views? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

↑↑↑

At the moment, with regard to the overall topic, I am asking that the article sticks within policy by having something supported by a citation. To ask for such a thing doesn't need consensus. Making a suggestion that we wait to see if further information that clarifies the situation comes out in the press over the next week or so, is just that: a suggestion. Given an RfC is supposed to run for thirty days, I think waiting a week is probably the better of the two pathways but, obviously, others may have different opinions. - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat Okay. May I suggest that we leave the years active as 1952–2023 until we find a source that says otherwise ? Spectritus (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

So you'd like to have unsupported, potentially incorrect information posted in a prominent position in the most visited article of the week? No, I don't think so (which is what this thread has said numerous times, if you'd care to read over it). The WP:BURDEN (which is a policy) is on anyone who wants to add it finding a source for it. - SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat No source says otherwise so I don't see how it would be incorrect. Spectritus (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2024 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2024

Last few lines, where it says: 'Her Gosford Park co-star Dame Helen Mirren compared Smith to Queen Elizabeth II saying, "Like the Queen she has been apart of my life since I was a student and she was an icon even then" adding that'

please correct 'apart' into 'a part' Lexxingt0n (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment on Years active field in infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Should the infobox's use of the field "Years active" pertain to when her last professional credits occurred, or the year in which she passed (as a sentiment is that the field may imply they ended their career themselves, as opposed to passing away ending it for them)? Rusted AutoParts 18:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't we first decide if we actually need an RfC? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Well as it stands, the discussion is at the two day mark with no clear breakthrough or backdown from either end. It seems more than appropriate now to open the field up more broadly, cause I'm deeply disinterested in a third day of just talking in circles. We all of us know the positions had in the above thread, it's important now for more input. Rusted AutoParts 19:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you want me to strike out my question above? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That's alright, you were just asking a question. Rusted AutoParts 19:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I was hoping for an answer, from all parties. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at this from an involved administrator, I think this RFC is not justified and that User:Rusted AutoParts continued flogging a dead horse is becoming disruptive. This discussion is almost as long as the article! And for what? An unsourced addition to an article – that's receiving a lot of attention from our readers– of no more than a few numbers. I suggest this RFC is withdrawn. Graham Beards (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not justified to expand the discussion out for more input? In what universe? Rusted AutoParts 20:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

No it's not. There should have been a consensus. You are being disruptive. Graham Beards (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue is there is no consensus coming from the discussion, what are you talking about? Rusted AutoParts 20:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a consensus that you are ignoring. Please stop and desist. Graham Beards (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Literally what consensus? There's two primary discussors, myself and Schro. Martinevans has also contributed but from what I can see hasn't hard landed on a specific end (could be wrong). Spectritus came in reflective a similar POV as myself, and IP came in to reflect a similar POV as Schro. How is that a consensus and when was that forged? The thread largely deteriorated into myself and Schro ordering one another to PROVEIT, so I ascertained addition input was needed. Are you saying RFC is the wrong venue? If so please tell me where and I'll close the RFC. Rusted AutoParts 20:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You are being disruptive. Take a break. Graham Beards (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I am honestly just asking you a question, not furthering my arguments over the topic. Is RFC the wrong venue? Rusted AutoParts 20:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

In my view, yes. I am tempted to file a report at WP:ANI. Your behaviour is becoming a concern to me. Graham Beards (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

For what though? I was simply trying to understand (in THIS specific conversation) what you were articulating. RFC's not the right spot, alright then fair enough. I can close this thread. Rusted AutoParts 20:39, 29 September 2024 (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.

Spectritus and edit warring

Spectritus, Could you please stop edit warring. The sources you have added do not state what you are trying to claim. Feel free to discuss the matter without edit warring. You added four sources (lazily just using bare links, rather than formatting them properly): can you quote the exact words from them that say she stopped working in 2023? - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any of those four sources should appear only in the infobox. If they do support the contention that her career ended in 2023, that should be clearly stated in the main body text, with those sources in support. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You're right. The main problem, however, is that none of them say anything of the sort. One of the reasons I've pulled people up on this is that Smith was due to film A German Life (a film based upon the play she appeared in), and I read earlier this year that she was going ahead with it and working on it. I can't find the reference, however, which is annoying. It would mean that the 2023 date is wrong, which make me wonder why people are so keen on putting incorrect information in there without a source. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I see that this entry at IMDb has it still "In production"? There was a 2016 German-language one with Brunhilde Pomsel herself. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

IMDB’s generally flunky about accurately reporting when something is in the works and when it really isn’t. Methuselah is marked as In Production but it’s been long dormant for years without having progressed past the development stage. Rusted AutoParts 13:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we're not allowed to use IMDb anyway. Not even the Professional bit? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Was it this Spoiler US article? Rusted AutoParts 13:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

No. I'm fairly sure that it was earlier in the year and in the UK press. I've been looking for it to try and resolve the date problem, as it would probably mean we could have years date running to 2024 and be able to support it in the article with the news. - SchroCat (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I see that article just says: "While the actress continued to work until 2023, and it’s quite possible she was involved in the film adaptation, the lack of news may suggest that it was never completed or perhaps never even began filming." So no confirmation of 2024. It's something you might get in an interview, with a question like "so what are you working on now, Dame Maggie?" Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Doesn’t seem that’s the article in question. Though at present it is the only article about the film version coming up from within the last year. Rusted AutoParts 13:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This one says she worked "until the very end", which suggests 2024, but without being specific about it. - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m personally not putting much stock into Spoiler personally anyway, as today was the first time I’ve ever heard of it. Rusted AutoParts 13:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, am guessing "the very end" is quite a flexible phrase in luvvie land. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It might be the sort of thing that becomes clearer with distance. I agree, though, that it shouldn't be in the infobox until we can be definitive (infoboxes don't handle nuance well, it's not what they were designed for) and we can't be definitive until the sources are. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell It should have been left as it was. This debate is pointless. ShroCat just wants to remove it because it's his opinion. But he's just one person not several people who agreed to do it. Spectritus (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Spectritus it's my opinion as well, and, by the looks of it, several other editors'. There's no source that says she stopped acting in 2023. There's also no conclusive source that she was acting into 2024, so it's better left out for the time being. We can describe the situation in prose but infoboxes don't allow for that kind of nuance. Presumably in the coming months and years we'll learn what (if anything) she was working on and how long before her death and then we can add it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell It's confirmed that The Miracle Club was her final role. Spectritus (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

As has been explained multiple times, it was the final film she completed; that doesn't mean she finished her career at that point. She was still signed up to do A German Life, so her professional career certainly went past The Miracle Club. You're making assumptions about that her professional life did after the film which are not backed up by sources. - SchroCat (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. If an author dies halfway through writing a book, their writing career was still ongoing when they died, even if their previous book was published the year before. If Maggie Smith was still acting this year in a yet-to-be-released project then it would be inaccurate to say that she was only active until 2023. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat It says right after this that The Miracle Club was her final role. Spectritus (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, she died. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 I know. What I meant is that as it's confirmed that the Miracle Club was her final role, we know she wasn't active in 2024. Spectritus (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't "know" anything of the sort. You assume she didn't do anything after that, but as she was signed up to another film, there is a good chance she continued past that. There is a weak source above that says she worked "until the very end", which suggests she worked into 2024, but there's no further details. - SchroCat (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was the final film she completed, that doesn't mean she finished her career at that point. - SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm considering myself no longer involved in this matter, I'm just felt since I saw this coming back up to give some final words on my end:

• Point of view on the field: I'm just going to articulate that for the most part, my inclusion of the field was based on historical precedent, seeing it implemented and the general goal of it being in relation to date of first credit to date of last credit of their primary occupation. James Earl Jones died this year, but had not been active since 2021. He had retired doing the voice of Darth Vader, but there wasn't a retirement from acting in general. I used Michael Gambon as an earlier example, passing in 2023 with last projects in 2019. James Garner passing in 2014, last working in 2010m etc. None of them had specific declarations of ceasing working, it just wound up being the case. Obviously as made clear historical precedent is not being considered in the matter in this instance, and alot of my frustration in the dialogue stemmed from an in general buildup of frustration across the website of a sense of inconsistency. I apologize again for the attitude, it to me at the time appeared as though my points were being construed in the wrong ways. If the sentiment is that we need to know for absolute certain nothing else acting wise is coming out for Maggie Smith, then clearly best action is to wait and see.

• Whether to consider A German Life: In regards to the A German Life film, it had been announced back in 2020. Unless that specific article mentioned by SchroCat comes up, I'm not sure how valid it would be to use in future dialogue. Alot of films have that where they're announced but wind up largely going dormant and nothing ever comes from it. I create alot of film drafts for projects that are announced, and I cannot imagine counting the amount of ones that wound up back as redlinks I've deleted from my watchlist over the years due to said dormancy. Had definitive work commenced on it, that Maggie was bracing to film or was still in active negotiations before passing, it would be more clear cut she was still active. Burt Reynolds was due to film Once Upon a Time in Hollywood prior to dying in 2018, so it was apt to say he was active in 2018 despite last credit before death being in 2017 (he had a posthumous release as well, but that had filmed in 2017 too).

As it presently stands, as I said in an edit summary and above, field should not be implemented at this time given the objections and uncertainty. I consider my involvement now ended, though I would like to put forth whether the field's exclusion is solely based on the differing thoughts on year last active, or the field as a whole. If the former, would including it in a way such as "1952-2020s" or "1952-c.2024" be of potential? Rusted AutoParts 20:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Missing Links

It would be nice if several of the references to Judi Dench were appropriately hyperlinked... Nickbunyan (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb is to only link people once in the lead and once in the body of the article, which is what the article does. - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)