Talk:Olivia de Havilland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Academy Tribute

I was wondering if it was worth mentioning in the article Olivia's upcoming Academy tribute? [1]. Or maybe we should put it in after the event has occurred? Crisso 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Link

The link to "The Light in the Piazza" takes you to the current Broadway musical of that name, not the 1962 film that Ms. DeHavilland appeared in. 4.232.186.240 04:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow! She must be 90 about now! I loved her in "Hush… Hush, Sweet Charlotte". --66.218.12.60 02:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

cleanup required

It looks like in the past this page may have suffered sneaky vandalism with a bunch of things being simply wrong in the current text. For example the the law refered to as the De Haviland Law, is usually called the "Olivia de Havilland clause" which limits artists contracts to a maximum of seven years. Other things like Gloria Stuart had a return to fame in the 1990s, not 1980s. Someone who has time and the knowledge please clean up this article. Dowew 20:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it called the "De Havilland decision" and the "De Havilland law" but I've never heard it referred to as the "De Havilland clause". By the way, the article says Gloria Stuart returned to fame in her 80s, not the 80s. Crisso 09:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the "description" of Gloria Stuart in this paragraph does her a disservice, like she never did anything worthwhile before that. Wouldn't it better to write something along the lines of "star of minor movies in the 30s" etc? Dollvalley 14:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Last surviving star of GWTW

Wouldn't it be even better to add that she has survived the 3 other stars of Gone with the Wind by several decades? The last other star, Vivien Leigh, died more than 30 years ago, with Gable in 1961 and Howard in 1943. It would add an extra something.

Just my two cents: is this the very best picture available for this article? Certainly Google-imaging should produce something better than a vidcap. Olivia deserves better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackofOz (talk • contribs) dated: 4 June 2007

Film debut

Although the article says she began her career with Alibi Ike, this is not strictly true. The first film she made was A Midsummer Night's Dream, but this was released after the next two films she made, Alibi Ike and The Irish In Us. Crisso (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming movie conjecture

I can't verify that de Havilland is involved with the upcoming I-59 South AKA The Portal film and at age 92 I'd say this is not going to happen. I think this is the same kind of wishful thinking that was the basis of last year's untrue rumors that she and Meryl Streep were to star in a biopic of Brooke Astor. Anyone else feel that this section should be deleted?

Devin M (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I removed some hyperbole added to the lead of the article. We just don't refer to someone as an "Academy Award-winning actress" in the lead, much less refer to her sister as such. All the content about the remaining classic era actresses is also hyperbole. I reverted the change of the lead image that was made based on a talk page comment about the lead photo, because the comment was made on June 4, 2007, at which time File:Olivia De Havilland in In This Our Life trailer.jpg was the lead photo. That did need changed. I see little to no difference between the current lead photo, in her most recognizable role from Gone With the Wind, and the one that added. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The Gone With the Wind image is a better choice, in my opinion, because it's a better picture of her, but also a more notable, recognisable role. The other one is quite obscure. Rossrs (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

John Huston affair

While the Relationshiops section of this arcile is currently made up entirely of the affair she never had with Errol Flynn, there is no mention whatsoever of the affair she DID have with John Huston. I'm not sure if either she of Huston ever publically acknowledged it but I think it's safe to say it did occur. Crisso (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Gone... in lede

Sad, in my opinion, that the introduction to our bio on this great actress goes way overboard with trivia about who's who among Gone with the Wind cast members. As if that were the only important thing she ever did and those other actresses were an integral part of Ms. De Havilland's life story. Couldn't that stuff be moved to where the bio treats that movie? Please!? SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved that stuff as per above. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Religion

Olivia de Havilland is an Episcopalian not a Christian Scientist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.11.131 (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

She isn't a Catholic.

Olivia de Havilland has never been a Roman or Eastern Catholic. She is a baptized Anglican/Episcopalian and attends the American Cathedral in Paris. However, she did attend a Roman Catholic convent school as a young girl, perhaps this is the reason for the confusion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.10.54 (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

OR I heard Ms de Havilland read Scripture at the American Cathedral on Dec. 24th, 2012. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

French spelling

Why are we spelling her surname in French - de Havilland - not in English - De Havilland - ? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Her father's surname was de Havilland, and her surname is de Havilland. It is what it is, and we have no authority to be respelling it.
• It presents us with no difficulties whatever; we simply file her under "de Havilland, Olivia", whereas, had she been French, they'd list her as "Havilland, Olivia de". But she ain't French, so that's irrelevant.
• It's a misconception to regard "de" names as French and "De" names as English. Numerous notable French people spell their names with a capital De. But even if they didn't, names are not "translated", otherwise we'd be talking about Joseph Green rather than Giuseppe Verdi, or Arnold Black Nigger rather than Arnold Schwarzenegger. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. Having dealt with her in person several times years ago, and having seen her signature, credit cards etc, I thought I remembered "De ...". Foreign surnames that start with a small letter are usually not accepted (at least in the the U.S.A.) as legal spellings. That much I do know. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, Schwarzenegger has nothing to do with German Neger (which corresponds to Negro, not nigger: both Neger and Negro were still accepted terms in the 1960s, while nigger was last used neutrally in the 1890s or so), but comes from Schwarzenegg, a place name which literally means "at the black edge", referring to a precipice, (mountain) cliff or ridge ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Why small type, Florian, when making such a good point? Who ya 'fraid of? You are so right. And, a bit ballsier than I was 2 years ago, I now feel like using bold type and all capitals to object very emphatically to that highly contentious and insulting "translation" of Schwartzenegger. A sincere apology would look great here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Only because it was really veering away from the topic of the discussion, but yes, the "translation" is certainly in poor taste (even if in good faith). Good thing that Wikipedia talk pages are not as widely read as articles, but you're right, misconceptions shouldn't be allowed to take hold – especially of this kind. I was mildly shocked to see this claim made with a (seemingly) straight face. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation needs to be repaired; I don't know how.

6. "French, Philip. "Screen Legends No.73". The Observer, Review Section, 2009. Cite error: Invalid < ref > tag; name "french" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page)."

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I took care of it. Thank you. Bede735 (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Award by The Oldie

I know Ms De Havilland personally since the 1970s-1980s, and I think it's delightful that her Oldie award has been included. Her reaction is typical of the wonderful sense of humor which has made her so extraordinarly beloved, both in public and private. Please leave it in! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Bede735 (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Better alt text for images is needed

Hi, Bede735. One area that will need improvement when you are ready to go for Featured Article is the alt text for images. Right now, most of the images lack proper alt text. I am not an expert about writing alt text, but I added edit notes next to the ones that have issues that I could spot. Let me know if I can assist.

Also, the upright parameter for images is only to be used sparingly, and not as the norm. I have corrected that issue. I did the same for quote boxes, which are reserved for pull quotes per template {{quote box}} documentation and this article has no pull quotes. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Bede735 {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Checkingfax. The quotes you moved to block quotes were not intended to be block quotes. They are not introduced in the text and right now appear out of context—in fact, in between paragraphs. I intended them to be in quote boxes to provide her words to help clarify the subject of the adjacent paragraph. In reading the quote box guidance, I see this use is not consistent with the guidance: "This template is meant for pull quotes, the visually distinctive repetition of text that is already present on the same page." These quotes are not "already present on the same page". This does not appear to be the practice for FA articles. For example, see Ernest Hemingway, Laurence Olivier, Marilyn Monroe, John Gielgud, etc. All of these articles use quote boxes in the way I am using them. Even the examples given in the guidance appear to contradict the guidance. Please clarify?

Regarding the upright parameter, please point to the specific guidance you are using for their removal. I am using upright consistently throughout the article for portrait (vertically-oriented) images. Does this go against MOS:IMGSIZE guidance? Please clarify. Bede735 (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Bede735. Thank you for the reply.

1. I know block quotes are cute, but they go against MoS which you have now deduced. You see it in other articles because they did not know the MoS. WP:OTHER reminds us not to emulate other articles.

I did not intend them to be "cute". I provided my reasoning above. Bede735 (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Bede735. No intention to offend. Substitute any word that pleases you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

1. The upright parameter would be used for something like a close-up of the Space Needle, not for every portrait that is in portrait oriented images. I know it is confusing. The problem is twofold: 1- The images are reduced in width to 75% and 2- there is no longer a standard width for images in the article. You will see that without the upright parameter that all images have the same width and that looks better. You might consider the upright parameter to be the proper tool to use if you need to proportion an image but without setting a "hard" pixel count. If you use the upright parameter to actually scale an image then the reader's preferences will take it from there. For instance, use upright=.4 to reduce the size of a postage stamp instead of using 90px; use upright=5 instead of 1100px. Upright is a scaling tool and the default is to scale the image down. It is not needed for portrait images, unless they are taking up too much vertical real estate, which is rare. Yes, it goes against guidance to use upright on all the portrait images in an article, or even any of them if it is not warranted.

Here is one warning at MOS:IMGSIZE:

*Warning: upright alone, with no =scaling factor (e.g. [[File:Dog.jpg|thumb|upright|A big dog]]) is equivalent to upright=0.75.

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, this is not a warning against using upright alone. It is intended to draw attention to the meaning of upright alone (0.75). There are two basic sized images in the article: portrait and landscape. Having all images the same width does NOT make them all "look better". It looks odd. If you have two 8.5 x 11 inch glossy photos, one portrait and one landscape, you would not expect them all to have the same width, right? The landscape would have a larger width (11 inches) and the portrait the shorter width (8.5 inches). Just look at the article. I think you are interpreting the guidance incorrectly. Do you have an objection to me adding upright=1.2 to the landscape images? That will at least retain the basic proportions of the images. Also, you failed to close one of your hidden text messages, thereby removing several paragraphs from view. Please be careful in the future. Bede735 (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Bede735. Sorry about the -->. I was careful and cognizant, but apparently failed. Thank you for fixing it.

Leaving images at default is the best practice. If anybody wants to enlarge them they can do it in their preferences, or they can click on the thumbnail for a larger view.

If you increase landscape by 1.2 it is about the same as reducing portrait to .7, so it is really just messing with things best left alone. Chill on this, and it will look better to you over time. I used to micromanage image size until I found about out the accessibility and other issues. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, I disagree with your opinion. This has nothing to do with micromanaging image sizes. I will restore the intended image proportionality which is clearly allowed under the existing MOS:IMAGE guidance. I will let the GA reviewers comment appropriately. If you feel strongly about this, please seek consensus on this talk page first, per WP:BRD. Respectfully, Bede735 (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Bede735. Scaling portrait images of people down to 75% is a mistake. Scaling down is only for line drawing, stamps, coins, and other things that do not need fine detail. Please do not scale down the fine detail images of Miss Olivia. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1