This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Olivia Newton-John article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Olivia Newton-John is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.
Request for comment (should "British" or place of birth be in the lead sentence?)[edit]
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 conclusions reached follows.
There is a clear consensus to describe the article subject as some sort of British-Australian. There is a bit less of a consensus as to which specific terminology to use, but British-Australian has the broadest support among those not supporting Australian. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor insists that ONJ is a "British-born Australian".[1] However, this overlooks the fact that she is a dual British Australian citizen, as evidenced by her British award of Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) in the 2020 New Year Honours. I believe that she should be described as "British-Australian". Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She was Australian. The fact that she was born in the UK and presumably retained dual citizenship is irrelevant. She identified as Australian and I'm guessing would never have described herself as Australian. References would be needed to establish otherwise. Timb66 (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "irrelevant" that she had dual citizenship. Articles reflect facts, not just what a person identified as. But I'm not sure that "British-Australian" is appropriate either as that is no more a nationality than the term "Irish-American" usually is. It might be a bit complicated but something along the lines of "was a British-born Australian singer" and then mentioning her dual citizenship in some way seems the most appropriate solution to me. Otherwise I don't see how this issue will ever be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Afterwriting (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire is significant, she was also British, it can't be excluded. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. Are you Australian? I am, eith similar background to ONJ. I have never bothered to relinquish my UK citizenship but that doesn't mean anything. Timb66 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, she was born in the UK. This fact is mentioned in the appropriate place. It would give undue weighting to include this in the lead sentence. Why not also mention she was blond and right-handed? Timb66 (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant. Don Bradman was made a knight. And both Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard were born in the UK, but are still Australian. You need to provide evidence that being named a dame makes one British. And then justification that this is so important that it belongs in the opening sentence Timb66 (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss here rather than reverting my edit. Thanks Timb66 (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that eligibility for the honour you mentioned simply requires being a citizen of a Commonwealth country. There are dozens of recipients who are Australian by birth, such as Greg Chappell. So this honour does not imply Britishness Timb66 (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lilach, please discuss here rather than continuing to revert the article, thanks. Tim Timb66 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ETHNICITY only mention birth location in lead if relevant to notability - it isn't in this case. She did nothing notable in the UK - she left when 6 - started her career in Australia. Identifies as Australian. Known as Australian. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, WP:ETHNICITY is very clear. Why are people still editing the lead to insert her place of birth, rather than discussing here? Timb66 (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's completely irrelevant. It's not just her place of birth, she retained British citizenship throughout her life. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 09:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being an official representative of the UK in Eurovision is a significant for being British. Did she ever represent Australia in an international competition? If not, that would be cause for removing Australian. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If she was born in the UK? then use "British-Australian". PS - We're using "US" as her DOD, but not "UK" as her DOB? Why the inconsistency? GoodDay (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC) GoodDay (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a single Eurovision entry for the UK at a time when Australia was excluded is notable enough to justify mentioning in the lead sentence. It gives undue weight. Timb66 (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She was born in the UK and retained British nationality throughout her life. There's nothing undue about it. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 11:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, born in the UK, represented UK in Eurovision, British citizen, Dame commander by appointment of the Queen, she is more British than Aussie. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now you're getting ridiculous Lilach. I hope that comment was a joke. If not, I'm afraid you've lost objectivity :-) Timb66 (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Timb66, did Newton-John ever represent Australia in an official capacity? In anything? ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 21:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Representation is not relevant here. She was not a sportsperson, she was a pop star. The primary activity of a pop star is entertainment, making records, making films, etc. Timb66 (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To say she was more British than Australian is simply ludicrous. Timb66 (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dual citizenship can be covered in the infobox - no need to add XYZ born in most cases as it doesn’t really add anything of value I feel, as birthplace is not mentioned in the first sentence of the lead. Now, I don’t know how ONJ felt about her own identity, but referring to her as Australian seems appropriate as she lived there from the age of six. Unless a source can be found where she self identified as British in any way then leave as is. Also, English would be inappropriate considering her heritage. Regards, SinoDevonian (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To editors, please do not insert place of birth, it violates WP:ETHNICITY, as discussed above. British heritage is not sufficiently notable to br included in the lead. Timb66 (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not. Please do not remove it until a consensus develops to do so. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 20:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a consensus. Timb66 (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo is not a reason to keep text that is incorrect Timb66 (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not incorrect. She held British nationality throughout her life, that is a fact, no matter how much individual editors may dislike it. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 21:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her own statements should hold the greatest weight. When asked about her citizenship in 2017, being asked specifically whether she was British, Australian or American, she stated without qualification: I am still Australian. Cullen328 (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody denies she was Australian. "Still Australian" does not imply "only Australian". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 21:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She had the option to say that she was Australian AND British or even American too, since the US was her primary residence for decades. But the only one she mentioned was Australian. Cullen328 (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please read WP:ETHNICITY and explain why her place of birth is notable enough to be included in the lead. And see previous comments above. Thanks, Tim Timb66 (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She did not hold Australian nationality until 1981, so for the first 18 years of her career she was British. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 21:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Prior to about 1984, British subjects who emigrated to Australia were granted full voting rights. Therefore, they did not need to take out Australian citizenship and most didn't bother. Most still considered themselves Australian. Is there any that ONJ considered didn't? Timb66 (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the 2017 interview cited above, the relevant text is this:
JF: Do you still live in California?
ONJ: We live between California and Florida and Australia. We are always moving it seems.
JF: Are you technically a British, American or Australian citizen at this point?
ONJ: I am still Australian.
It seems clear her use of "still" was regarding the fact that she lived in the US for much of her life. I haven't seen any evidence that she ever considered herself British. Timb66 (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact she never relinquished her British citizenship makes highly appropriate to include British as her nationality.British-Australian is therefore appropriate. Not to do so and simply put Australian as her citizenship is factually wrong. Btonuk (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Include either "Australian-British" or "British-Australian". Her citizenship was in both countries. Golden Matrix (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are many videos of Olivia saying she's English and/or British. There's actually a YouTube video trending right this moment where she corrects the host by telling him she's English, was raised for 10 years in Australia, then went back to England, at the 3:49 mark. The host thought she was actually Australian. The following 2019 quote can be found in tons of news sites of Olivia saying, "As a girl born in Cambridge, I am very proud of my British ancestry and so appreciative to be recognised in this way by the United Kingdom." [2] Most people hope to come to Wikipedia to find information about someone or something that is based on facts, not feelings /emotions. Mindfullyact (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The biography should say she is British-Australian. She held dual citizenship as an adult, and most of her childhood was spent in Australia. Her first musical project was a singing group in Australia when she was 14, and she won a contest with first prize a trip to London. Her musical "origin" is Australia. Certainly she was British, and just as certainly she was Australian. The formulation "British-born" puts her British heritage at too far of a remove, since she returned to the UK at the age of 18, and her first commercial success was in the UK. Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She appeared on TV in Melbourne before she went to the UK. HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, British-Australian encompasses the facts and her pride in her British ancestry. After all she did live part of her childhood, teens and 20's in the UK, plus it's her place of birth. On a 2000's UK show, she and her sister shared things about their Welsh background, their paternal family, how the Newton and John name came about, and so on. Olivia said her singing comes from that background and how she used to hate UK's cloudy climate (in comparison to a sunny climate) but now appreciates many aspects. They shared that their very proper paternal grandmother would often take her sister Rona to church when they were growing up in the UK. A bunch of stuff. Noticed that the one tolerated picture of Olivia in UK was removed from the Wiki page. She has passed now, yet they still disrespect and disregard her pride for her British background. Despite her low-key talk about it, and her affirmations of her love for Australia. Mindfullyact (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about we avoid labelling completely? It rarely helps. Briefly say "Born in Britain. Grew up in Australia, then lived in the USA". HiLo48 (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did she have dual-citizenship? GoodDay (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone who comes to Australia has dual citizenship unless they specifically revoke it, which is very rare. Politicians have to do it before standing for parliament (and some forget) but most people never bother. It's just not a thing. Many Australians of that generation were born in the UK and grew up in Australia. Most consider themselves Australian. Timb66 (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alot of the comments above all sound a lot like original research. We need to follow what the sources describe her nationality as. Polyamorph (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her official website: [3] describes her first as being born in Cambridge and then moving to Australia. Doesn't say anything specifically about nationality
I wasn't selective at all in choosing these sources. I just looked at the top google news stories. Others are welcome to add more sources and prove me wrong, but at least my take is the majority of sources appear to simply describe her as Australian. Polyamorph (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should the lead describe Olivia Newton-John as "Austalian", "British-Australian", or "British-born Australian". Polyamorph (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, these are the primary versions in dispute. Users are free to suggest alternatives in their comment.Polyamorph (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Australian" as per Polyamorph's review of RS above. We should follow the sources, not be applying arbitrary categories like "which country did she participate in Eurovision on behalf of." BeReasonabl (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Australian per my review of the sources above. Polyamorph (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
British-Australian or British-born Australian - as we can't deny her place of birth, or ancestry. GoodDay (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one is suggesting anything of the sort. Her place of birth is provided in the article, her British nationality is provided in the Article. This is purely about the lead and how she should be described, and for this we must do as the sources. Polyamorph (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna stick with my support of "British-Australian" or "British-born Australian", concerning the lead. Whatever the result of this RFC is? I'll of course accept it. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her name is prefixed with "Dame" in the lead, an honour that can only be conferred on British citizens since 2015, while ONJ would not be accorded the honour until 2019. So if we are to describe her simply as Australian, it would be incongruent to still prepend her name with "Dame". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 19:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Australian per above, but I further note in her website bio, she calls herself Australian (by using the diminutive "Aussie" for herself) at least twice, calls Melbourne, Austialia, her "hometown", and discusses overwhelming ties to Australia some 34 times. She mentions England once, and British Empire twice in relation to the Queen of Australia, but never calls herself English or British. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
English-born Australian per WP:UKNATIONALS, alternatively "British-Australian" or "British-born Australian". It would give the wrong impression to prepend her name with "Dame" while only describing her as "Australian" since she did not receive her damehood until after Australian knights and dames were abolished in 2015. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 19:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Australian, as per above quotes Timb66 (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current version, "British-born Australian singer ...", is an accurate and acceptable compromise in my view and also reflects similar descriptions in many other biographical articles. She primarily identified herself as Australian but her dual citizenship is also significant and notable (especially due to her having a British damehood). Afterwriting (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
English-Australian, alternatively British-Australian, per MOS:ETHNICITY (i.e. she was a British citizen at the time when she became notable). Briefly mentioning that she was born in England and raised in Australia further down the lead could be helpful to avoid confusion. Coconutyou3 (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support British-Australian, she didn't have Australian citizenship until 1981 as per body of article, so she was only British for some period when she was noteable. Also, I'd prefer British to English since she is of Welsh (and not English) descent.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support British-Australian, she only got Australian citizenship after she left Australia, in 1981, and was living in the United States. She was born in the UK, represented the UK in the Eurovision, and was made dame commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) in 2020. She was more British than Australian, one could even drop off the Australian, but she did see herself also as Australian despite not representing Australia in an official capacity, so it should eb British-Australian. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support British-Australian, to reflect the items said in article - born British citizenship, and added Australian citizenship in 1981. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
British-born Australian It's accurate. In Australia nobody is EVER described as British-Australian. We simply don't use those double barrelled labels. When she acquired Australian citizenship is irrelevant. Because they had full voting and other rights in Australia, British immigrants from Olivia's generation rarely rushed to formalise Australian citizenship. It indicates nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
A new RFC has been opened below Polyamorph (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I think she should be known as a British born Australian. It's the best compromise. I don't agree with the very nature of this format. Most Australians assume that Olivia Newton John is Australian, so they are unlikely to comment here. A lot of British people are commenting, because they know she was born in England. and they're upset she didn't stay there, so they are trying to claim her as their own. The very nature of this format, sways opinion to ONJ being British. What should matter is the facts. She has stated in an interview in 2017 that she considers herself Australian, that's what matters, her wishes should be respected. I think there should be another RFC.101.176.97.4 (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC states There is a clear consensus to describe the article subject as some sort of British-Australian. There is a bit less of a consensus as to which specific terminology to use. We could have an RFC on whether she should be described as British born Australian or British-Australian. The accusations of bias should be retracted (please strike them) as they are unsupported by any evidence (not all users declare their nationality, of those that have several are Australian, there is no evidence of your claim that British users are trying to claim her as one of their own - note your IP is geolocated to Victoria, Australia - one could use the same argument that your opinion is biased). Polyamorph (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there should be a RFC on whether to describe her as a British born Australian, instead of a British-Australian. I think that's the best compromise. What do you mean there is no evidence that British people aren't trying to claim her as their own. They are saying she is British, when she has stated in an interview she is Australian and grew up in Australia. That proves the point. There is a phenomenon of people having biases from their geological area. That's why I say it should be taken out of the equation. It should be a matter of facts. She has stated in a interview in 2017, that she considers herself an Australian. That's what matters and her wishes should be respected. Based on facts, it should stated she is a British born Australian, that's the best compromise. 101.176.97.4 (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a phenomenon of people having biases from their geological area - so anyone that is not Australian cannot give their opinion on the matter? You're welcome to start an RFC. Polyamorph (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Anyone can have an opinion, and there is phenomenon of people having biases from their geological area. I'm saying we should take biases out of the equation and just deal with facts. And it is a fact, that ONJ is an Australian, as I've pointed out. 101.176.97.4 (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is also a fact that she has UK citizenship. That has nothing to do with geological bias. I'm not going to go over the entire previous RFC with you, if you want to start a new one then go ahead, but make sure your question is unbiased. Polyamorph (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but she has stated she considers herself Australian, and lots of people who have dual citizenship after moving countries have the same opinion. That's what matters. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and unsure how to go about starting a RFC. I think someone else should take that to fruition. I think the question should be is RFC on the Nationality of Olivia Newton John. Should the lead describe her as British born Australian or British-Australian. 101.176.97.4 (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done it is at the bottom of this talk page. Polyamorph (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 10 August 2022[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The caption date under Olivia's main photo is definitely not correct. This photo does not depict her in 1978. It's from the 2000s, possibly 2008? 2600:1700:BBC0:A150:A868:269A:6502:4298 (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't her death on the main page of the site?[edit]
Is there any reason she isn't mentioned on the front page? She's not even listed under "recent deaths" ? MisterZed (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is clear consensus to restore the long-term colour image used prior to her death.Polyamorph (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
the info box picture has been changed over and over again. normally when a old school celebrity dies, they get changed to a black-and-white picture depicting the height of their popularity/career. so far this year, multiple celebrities have gotten this, regardless of the way they die. examples this year include Meat Loaf, Richard Leakey, Michel Bouquet, and Ronnie Spector. in my opinion the black-and-white photo should stay in her infobox. 4me689 (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current colour image looks a lot nicer Polyamorph (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a photo from her prime years is better. There is one from 1980 in Colour. Olivia Newton-John at Royal Charity Concert at the Sydney Opera House [in 1980]. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 07:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice one, thanks! Polyamorph (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about one? I don't think that a photo in which she is almost in profile is the best, really. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in full support of the original black and white picture that was included. None of these colored images are high quality. The one currently in the infobox makes her face barely visible, I do not see how this is a good choice or why it should remain in the infobox. { [ ( jjj1238 ) ] } 15:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The black and white picture that 4me689 was edit warring over is a terrible image. If you really want a black and white image, this one would be better [17].Polyamorph (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like the 2012 pic of her at the A Few Best Men movie premiere; the black-and-white photos used previously are awful in my opinion, and actually look antiquated. I can't find any guideline that says black-and-white photos should be used for persons recently deceased. Our article for Anne Heche, who just died, uses a color photo, as do those for Paul Sorvino, Lamont Dozier, Darryl Hunt, and even the one for Vin Scully, who was 94 years old. Carlstak (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I agree @Carlstak:, that was the best out of all other options so far Polyamorph (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC) [18][reply]
I think we should consider her career peak when talking about images. Most researchers would agree that the peak of her career would be in the mid 70s, therefore an image from around or closer to that time would be most appropriate. I still side with 1978. It would be like using an image of Bette Davis in 1989 as opposed to her career peak in the 30s-40s. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The one from 1978 could be nice. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that a picture from the peak of her career would be preferable, but I don't think options 1 through 4 are great for this. The black-and-white Schiphol photographs are beautiful, but look ridiculously antiquated for a '70s/'80s pop figure. Option 2 feels more in-line with my imagination of her, but the lighting is too harsh. It's an odd taste situation, but I have to go with the more modern picture for now. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have compiled a gallery of all the candidate images that have been discussed. Would a !vote solve this impasse? Just sign under your choice(s).Polyamorph (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Polyamorph why did some have their background blurred just now? It looks absurd, and a vote doesn't make sense if the candidates change halfway through. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, someone did it. I think it can be reverted, I'll look. Polyamorph (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what's going on. I tried to revert but the images are protected. Needs an admin on commons to fix I think. Anyone know someone? I agree it looks terrible Polyamorph (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The background for both are terrible, blurring might not be the ideal solution but something has to be done with the unseemly faces in the background. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 17:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ive reverted both back to the originals. edits like that should never be done to the file, they should be made as a derivative work and uploaded as a separate image. The one edit affected over 20 different language versions of Wikipedia all around the world. - X201 (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the background. The faces in the background are an absurd look for both images. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 17:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not the only problem, but yes, the other's faces in the background should be one of the things that rules those out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
collapsed blurgate discussion moved from !voting section (option 4)
But honestly without the weird blurring in the background. It looks horrendous. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above, I've made a request at the commons help desk. I've no idea why anyone would think that is an improvement, it's awful. Polyamorph (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The background is awful anyway because of the surrounding faces. I asked for a blur as I assumed that was all it needed, but it looks like the image needs to have the background faces photoshopped out as I don't see any other way to correct the image. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 18:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The background is just horrendous and weird anyway because of the surrounding faces, which is a shame as it's otherwise a decent shot. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 17:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the editor who carried out your request messed up and replaced the current version entirely, instead of uploading a derivative work. The background in image 4 is not so bad cf. Image 3. Polyamorph (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It still isn't that good, there should only be one face in the photo. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 20:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see there is much discussion on the image. The last thing that is needed is unilateral action by a single user. If you have an alternative image then suggest it below - not here in the !voting section. Polyamorph (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Please do not respond to months-old, closed conversations. If you have new information to discuss, start a new section. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
What the... Option 2 is clearly the superior option by leaps and bounds. ~ HAL333 05:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that is your subjective opinion. Option 5 is the preferred choice of users who were around in August. Polyamorph (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 has a big shadow across much of her face. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 conclusions reached follows.
(non-admin closure) There is a consensus to describe Olivia Newton-John as both British and Australian. There is not a strong consensus as to whether the hyphenated form should be used or "British and Australian" written out, but there is rough consensus that the latter conforms with the project-wide policy, or no particular policy-based rebuttal to this form. While a number of participants who originally suggested British-Australian was the best term, changed their mind to British and Australian given the MOS:NATIONALITY text that was quoted, there was still a rough split between those that supported British and Australian and those that supported British-Australian; however, there is a consensus that both nationalities should appear in the description of Olivia Newton-John and no compelling reason why the MOS should be deviated from in this instance. This upholds the previous RFC consensus, clear consensus to describe the article subject as some sort of British-Australian. This also offers a rough consensus for the specific phrasing "British and Australian" given the policy-based argument that this is consistent with its guideline. Andre🚐 01:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead of Olivia Newton-John, should we describe her as British born Australian or British-Australian?
This follows from a previous RFC which
closed with the statement "There is a clear consensus to describe the article subject as some sort of British-Australian. There is a bit less of a consensus as to which specific terminology to use..."
The aim of this RFC is to find consensus for which terminology to use.
British-Australian seems most accurate. ~ HAL333 18:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
British-AustralianBritish and Australian in the original RFC I was behind simply describing her as Australian in the lead. But given the result of that RFC I would back British-Australian as she was a UK citizen. Polyamorph (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
British-Australian is accurate and concise. Upon further inspection of MOS:NATIONALITY the correct description should be British and Australian. Nemov (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
British-AustralianBritish and Australian. The connection to the UK seems stronger than merely being born there. Regarding the sources predominantly describing her as simply Australian, I don’t think this ties our hands. It’s a relatively uncontroversial factual statement, and encyclopaedic. Compare with Madonna, whose full name rarely appears in sources, but which is nevertheless an uncontroversial basic biographical fact that belongs in the lead. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
British born Australian is the only common language answer. In normal speech, no Australian EVER describes another person as a British-Australian. We just don't label people that way. I ask the British contributors here if they have ever heard of a person being described as Australian-British? With examples please. Wikipedia should not use a clumsy, extremely rare expression (just invented?) in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha. I was really seeking examples from outside the obscure and arcane world of Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
British born Australian It should come down to a matter of facts, not an opinion, that can be swayed by geological bias. It is a fact that Olivia Newton--John stated in an interview, that she considers her self Australian and didn't mention Britain. That's what matters and her wishes should be respected. The fact her being born in Britain is covered in the [British] born Australian part. It's the best compromise. I also think that if a person wishes to be known from a particular country and someone goes against those wishes and labels them from somewhere else, that is extremely disrespectful and rude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.176.97.4 (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 101.176.97.4 (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
British born Australian As with other Australians of a similar generation who found fame as Australians (Jon English, Jimmy Barnes, John Farnham for three other examples). I would also posit that of those mentioned above Sam Worthington and Tim Minchin should also be listed as British born Australians, especially given Minchin's self identification as Australian on his biography page. Storm machine (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the further discussion surrounding MOS:NATIONALITY, I'm almost swayed to eliminate British altogether; but British and Australian would still be preferable to the hyphenated version. Storm machine (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
British-Australian This option seems the most adequate and elegant. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To this Australian it seems quite inelegant. In my over 70 years, I cannot recall anyone ever being described that way. It seems clumsily unnatural. Have YOU ever heard anyone described that way? Or as Australian-British? Serious question. (And I don't mean in Wikipedia.) HiLo48 (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's specifically talking about citizenship, not what we're discussing here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? You are suggesting the term is made up by wikipedian's. It is term that is used to describe nationality which is precisely what we are discussing Polyamorph (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's nationality you want to describe, you say "She has joint Australian and British citizenship." HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is drifting into the realms of the previous RFC, which was already decided. Polyamorph (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're a bit arrogant aren't you. What describing her nationality as British means it's elegant. But describing her nationality as purely Australian isn't. 101.176.97.4 (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please retract your personal attack. See WP:NPA.Polyamorph (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ad hominem attack if there is substance, that's a fallacy. They were being arrogant. So what I said is accurate. 101.176.97.4 (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the definition of an ad hominem attack nor the policy at WP:NPA have anything to do with whether you think the attack is valid. General IzationTalk 03:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
British-Australian seems most apt. Ortizesp (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to me. See my comments immediately above. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
British-Australian. I'm not particularly concerned whether this combination is widely heard in Australia. It is concise and accurate. Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does it "accurately" mean? HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think Australians don’t sometimes hyphenate dual nationalities? That seems implausible. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I haven't even given an opinion don't you think that you reading more into my statement than seems plausible? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you a question, and then also gave my opinion about the answer to the question. Perhaps you could answer the question instead of getting defensive about it and making personal comments, per WP:AGF, etc.? (Or, if you think my question doesn't have anything to do with your comment, you could consider the possibility that your comment may not have been completely clear.) 128.164.177.55 (talk) [<- different IP address, same human being] 15:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I asked if this was an ENGVAR issue, if you can't understand that then that might be your issue. You asked me a deliberately pointy question in relation to my original question, and it got the reply it deserved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, I did not ask you a deliberately pointy question: "deliberately pointy" is you reading into my state of mind about the point of my question. In fact, I asked you a very straightforward question, specifically because I did not want to assume something that was not clear from your comment. So I will ask again (and please try this time to apply WP:AGF and imagine that when I say this is a straightforward direct question, that it is a straightforward direct question): do you think that Australians don't ever hyphenate dual nationalities? Here are some possible answers: "No, I believe that Australians routinely hyphenate dual nationalities" "No, I think that Australians sometimes hyphenate dual nationalities" "Yes, I don't think Australians ever hyphenate any dual nationalities, that was the reason I made my comment" "I don't have any idea if Australians hyphenate dual nationalities, that was the reason I made my comment". BTW the original source of confusion is that you say "I asked if this was an ENGVAR issue", but your original construction "Isn't this an ENGVAR issue?" is a formulation that (at least in my dialect of English) tends to presuppose an affirmative answer. If only you had considered the possibility of unclarity in your own comment before directing a bunch of defensive hostility at me (i.e., if you had engaged in basic WP:AGF), this conversation would have been much more pleasant and constructive all around. Anyhow, towards that end, I've now spent exactly 2 minutes doing research and I conclude that Australians seem to sometimes hyphenate dual nationalities: [19], [20]. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
is there something in the water? I'd never have started this RFC, on the request of a currently blocked IP, if I knew it would breed such hostility. And im talking to you 177.55, there was absolutely nothing wrong with ActivelyDisinterested's question. Please be kind. Polyamorph (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
???? I didn't say there was anything wrong with their question. They, on the other hand, have been quite aggressive in response to my question (with which there was also nothing wrong). 128.164.177.55 (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was a roller coaster ride of a response to innocuous ENGVAR question. Nemov (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your arms and legs inside the car at all times. General IzationTalk 16:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But, setting aside the weird hostility towards my request for clarification, I think we can conclude that the answer to the original question is "no, it's not an ENGVAR issue" since I was able in a couple minutes of searching to pull up some examples of professional Aus-dialect writing that use hyphenated nationalities (as in my post of 15:57, 16 December 2022 UTC). 128.164.177.55 (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think both of you could have been a little better at assuming good faith, but regardless, the ride has finished, please make sure you gather all your personal belongings before exiting the ride. Polyamorph (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
British-Australian: Quite simply makes the most sense and describes the subject the best (FWIW, I'm Australian). Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 07:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
British-born Australian: As the best fit to MOS:NATIONALITY, besides British and Australian, which seems a bit awkward and clunky. British-born Australian also has the advantage of British-Australian in that it is implied that the Australian part of the subjects identity has more importance than the British part here. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 06:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
British-born Australian or British-Australian dual citizen if must. The trouble with Nationality-Nationality formats is that it is never clear whether the term refers to dual citizensip, or Ethnicity-Nationality(African-American, like Obama, Italian-American like De Niro) or - more old-fashioned but still used - mixed heritage ie Paternal Nationality-Maternal Nationality. Unless one is familiar with 'local' national use, there is too much room for ambiguity and being clear adds one extra word here. Pincrete (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
British–Australian: It's concise and will let the reader know she had both nationalities. Songwaters (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
British and Australian if we're talking about citizenship—MOS:NATIONALITY. If ethnicity is the concern, British-Australian would perhaps be appropriate. However, Olivia herself said that she was Australian and "proud to be recognized" by the UK. From those statements, it would seem that she didn't consider "British" equal with "Australian." So again, my vote is for British and Australian with British-born Australian being the next best option (note the hyphen in "British-born"). Scapulus (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC-7)
Comment: I reviewed this discussion intending to close it. I don't feel it would be helpful to close this discussion without hearing more response to the MOS:NATIONALITY argument. I'm pinging all the participants who commented before it was raised and that haven't already responded to it. The most relevant snippet of the guideline is "In cases of public or relevant dual citizenship, or a career than spans a subject's emigration, the use of the word 'and' reduces ambiguity." It would be helpful to the closer to know whether the guideline changes your mind, why you think it doesn't apply, or why you think an exception should be made. While I'm here, I'd also encourage users who posted vote-style responses to expand on their rationale, even if they don't have a response to NATIONALITY. I can't say every closer would do so, but I'd be likely to discount rationales like "it seems sensible" or "it seems best". @HAL333, Barnards.tar.gz, HiLo48, Storm machine, Iraniangal777, General Ization, Ortizesp, Binksternet, ActivelyDisinterested, Mako001, Pincrete, PHShanghai, and Songwaters. I'll leave a message at the IP talk pages.Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have pretty much given up. The Brits here seem desperate to claim her as one of their own, despite how little of her life she spent there, and the fact that she declared herself to be primarily Australian. Putting "British" in her descriptor at all seems to be some sort of desperation on their part, and putting it first gives completely the wrong impression. Despite several, simply wrong claims to the contrary, Australians simply do not give their citizens double barrelled labels. Olivia was born in Britain, but she was Australian. She was NOT British-Australian. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the opening statement, there was a previous RFC which was closed with clear consensus to describe the article subject as some sort of British-Australian. This RFC was to decide the precise terminology to use. Polyamorph (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked for my opinion. The existence of a previous RFC doesn't change it, and cannot justify a bad decision being made here. I have given reasons. I don't like being told my opinion doesn't count because of a bad decision made elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said your opinion does not count, although you have already stated it several times in this discussion (I am not sure why Firefangledfeathers pinged you to be honest). I was merely pointing out the existing consensus. It is for the closer to weigh where the consensus lies. Polyamorph (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I will keep stating it, until someone presents a rational argument to convince me I'm wrong. Far too many of the above comments contain no effective argument at all. Some have false claims. Some just aren't really logical at all to me. I wish we coud guarantee that a closer of thread like this would actually judge the quality of arguments, but I suspect that, sadly, weight of !votes is all that will count. HiLo48 (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers explicitly stated the opposite. I trust any closer will base their decision on the quality, not quantity, of arguments. Polyamorph (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Polyamorph. I pinged HiLo48 because they were an RfC participant that hadn't responded to the late-posted guideline argument. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for clarifying. Polyamorph (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't changed my opinion, which is that clarity is most important. On a side-note, I have UK origins and barely remember who O N-J was, despite being around her age, so I have no reason to want to 'claim' her. But when we refer to someone's nationality (citizenship) in the lead, we are referring to a basic factual matter about them. Not ordinarily to their identification, nor how British/Australian/Illyrian they were, or were seen to be. We either render the basic facts as accurately as we can, or we shouldn't bother IMO. Later sections will 'flesh out' how and when Hitchcock or T.S.Eliot (for example) were or became US or UK. Pincrete (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with HiLo. The Brits here seem to want to claim her as one of their own, despite the fact she has stated herself to be Australian. Like I said early, I think it is very rude and disrespectful when someone has stated where she considers herself from, to go against those wishes and state somewhere else. Especially when that person has died. I think British born Australian is the best compromise and is the most relevant. Because those people who want her to be known as a British citizen get that. If it states she was born in the UK, the impression is she would have to be a British citizen, and it also takes note that she considers herself Australian, because she is listed as coming from there. So it's the most relevant, as well as the best compromise.101.176.97.4 (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, there is absolutely no evidence that anyone is trying to "claim" ONJ on the basis of their own nationality. Polyamorph (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well you don't have to be a genius, to read between the lines. 101.176.97.4 (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On wikipedia, we assume good faith. Accusations of bias and WP:NPOV policy violations are serious and should be avoided unless you have evidence. Polyamorph (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's reasonable based the reasons British users have been giving, and the arguments against it, to be able make such assessments. 101.176.97.4 (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said about the Australian's who don't like it. But we don't go around casting aspersions here. If you continue to do so you are walking a fine line that could get you blocked, again. BTW, my !vote in the original RFC by the way was against inclusion of the term "British". In this RFC I accept the previous consensus because that is how we do things here. Polyamorph (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look I'm not really interested in casting any aspersions. But I do think the arguments from both sides speak for themselves. 101.176.97.4 (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an American who doesn't care about this article. Reviewing the MOS:NATIONALITY guidelines in order to make this decision British and Australian conforms with past practices. Please make your own arguments. Speculation about other editor's opinions isn't useful or productive. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi there, is someone able to add a first cousin twice removed, Albert Robson whose grandmother is Aerona Lansdown 2A02:C7E:493:A000:54FD:237A:E3FA:CF71 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right panel indicates that she died at 73 years old but also says her birth year was 1963 and she died in 2022.
Do the math, something doesn't add up! 2601:282:8700:5990:618F:FC1C:9A9:913C (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't say her birth year was 1963. It says "Years active" = 1963-2022. She wasn't active in the music industry on the day she was born. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 22:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a pretty impressive man. I knew of his record, but wasn't familiar with his name. If you are suggesting he should have an article of his own, I agree. Do you want to write it? HiLo48 (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Annotated link added to See also section to Perry v. Louisiana because ONJ was indirectly involved. If somebody would like to substitute this minor but interesting bit of information as prose, please do so. Thx. --136.54.106.120 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interview after her last diagnosis the breast cancer has metastasied
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Done it is at the bottom of this talk page. Polyamorph (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
Option 6_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(cropped_to_look_large).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg%7Cthis){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aankomst_zangeres_Olivia_Newton_John_op_Schiphol_Olivia_Newton_John_in_de_persk,_Bestanddeelnr_930-0132_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olivia_Newton_John_(6707495311)_(cropped_to_look_large).jpg){kind=link}