Talk:Ursula Andress

Infobox Photo

The Wikipedia article itself states that Ursula Andress is recognised as being "a major sex symbol of the 1960s". She should be remembered as such.

I propose that the Infobox photo, showing her to be a haggard old woman beaten by age, be deleted.

We should remember her as she was not as she is now.--87.243.196.167 10:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Does nobody actually ever read the Ursula Andress article and talk page ?

I made my proposal a month ago and not one person has come to this talk page since then ?

If nobody disagrees with me then I feel I have the right to remove the Infobox photo.

I can't believe that I am the only person who ever bothers to look at the Ursula Andress article.

--87.243.196.167 11:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have received permission from Wikipedia Help Desk to remove the Infobox photo, see Ursula Andress Talk Page

I am therefore removing the photo. 87.243.196.167 12:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please point to where on the Help Desk anyone "gave you permission" to emove the image? Wikipedia is not censored. There seem to be few, if any, free images of Ms. Andress, and the image that was there is one that's available. Your view of the image eing of someone who is "a haggard old woman beaten by age" is merely your own point of view, and somewhat ageist, at that. I will be restoring the image until you come up with a reasonable argument as to why the image should not be there. Corvus cornix 17:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you are having a go at me. I did everything right.

• 1) I did not act peremptorily
• 2) I put my proposal on the Talk Page
• 3) Not one person bothered to reply - not even you
• 4) I gave the link showing where I got permission, above, did you not click on it ?
• 5) You do not have the right to say you will keep on reverting. You have to abide, as I do, by the Consensus of the Wikipedia majority.

I, therefore, put my proposal again on the table again for another month - and this time, I hope people will actually bother to vote.

My own vote is - Remove.

87.243.196.167 10:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove - the fact that there are "few free images" of Ursula Andress should not be a factor in considering this photo. It has to be considered on its own merits. It is better to have no photo in the Infobox than this one. I want Ursula Andress remembered as the beautiful woman she was. Caprisa 10:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove - Remember the legend of Ursula Andress. There is a photo of a beautiful Ursula Andress with Peter Sellers in the article, that is sufficent. Tovojolo 11:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. I therefore added a recent photo of Ursula Andress where she looks beautiful. I hope you like it. I also added some facts to her personal life.--John Jason Junior (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 06:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

the article states that Ursula Andres is Swedish, but she was born in Switzerland and had a Swiss mother and a German father. I believe they mixed up Switzerland with Sweden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.44.207 (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Ok. There is one huge problem here. The Filmography. It is verbatim to the filmography on the IMDB [1] or at least the first 8 listings, but have a feeling the rest follows suit. Beamer 20:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Beamer

Filmography

Neither of them included Five Against Capricorn, but Wikipedia does now!

Chris 03:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Then & Now =

You seen her now? She look like a zombie!

Can we include that?

Please?--Crestville 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Photo

I have a photo, just unsure how to post it. It is of Ursula about 3-4 years ago and yes, she looks exquistite. Suissenut (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)suissenut

I do not see a single bit of logic in this conversation. This is an article of an actor, who received her only international award for her performance in the movie "Dr No" in 1962. We don't own an image from the film, so we cannot include one in the info box. Can we at least include a screenshot as a fair use image in the latter sections of the article? It does state, that the scene in "Dr No" of her emerging from the sea has been voted as the sexiest movie scene ever. The article needs a picture from the scene. Any other opinion? User:Erikupoeg

Then write up the fair use rationale for either this one or this one. Gimmetrow 23:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no logic in your response to my original post concerning a picture of Ms. Andress. She is known for movies other than Dr. No. Please have your facts in order before accusing another of lack of logic.~~Suissenut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.212.126 (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you took the image yourself and want to contribute it, that's great! You would use the "upload file" link from the toolbox (probably on the left of the page). You have to upload from an account (not an IP). Gimmetrow 05:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Another Marriage?

I thought I'd read at one time that the (younger) drummer from some rock group was married to her, like Bon Jovi or something. 66.68.159.105 (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The drummer from Bon Jovi was married to a Czech model. Ms. Andress has only been married once and that was to John Derek. Maybe you are thinking of Faye Dunaway, she was once married to the lead singer of the J. Geils Band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.57.136 (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like she was a hooker beeing with so many gays 2600:1700:D828:E080:1CDB:5A1A:EBF9:8E34 (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

trivia

I'm cutting this paragraph, because it strikes me as a very minor bit of trivia, and as written it took me several re-reads just to figure out what it was saying:

Andress has the singular distinction among Bond girl actresses of having actually appeared in the narrative of a Fleming novel, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, written after Fleming was present during filming of Dr. No. She is pointed out to Bond by Irma Bunt while they are dining at Piz Gloria.

If it seems like it belongs somewhere, I would suggest putting it in one of the hated "Trivia" sections, and definitely re-writing it for neutrality, something like:

Ursual Andress in mentioned by name in the text of the Ian Fleming novel On Her Majesty's Secret Service (Fleming had been present during filming of Dr. No): She is pointed out to Bond by Irma Bunt while they are dining at Piz Gloria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doom (talk • contribs) 01:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

an extra then?

Wasn't UA the female lead in the cowboy movie "Red Sun" with Charles Bronson or just an extra? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It is listed as Soleil rouge, Englisht title Red Sun. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

BRD

You've now twice reverted improvements to the citations of this article: 1st && 2nd. You've also reverted any other tidying-up I did. I view this as disruptive and regressive, and the recent ANI thread rather went against your position. Twice. Your resistance to improving the referencing is at odds with the improving Wikipedia aspect of IAR, and the notion of avoiding proper endashes and adding useless null-{{sort}} templates to support an obsolete browser used by a minuscule and only declining number of people is simply inappropriate. This is, of course, pretty much the same issue as with Halle Berry, Uma Thurman and Miranda Kerr. I know that some folks here know and respect you, but you're new to me and all I'm really seeing from you in this area is you raising these issue regarding my editing, and not any of the myriads of other users running WP:Reflinks. Merridew 01:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is the same issue, citation templates. Now, can you please cut the rhetoric? I'm not "resisting" your "improvements"; I disagree that cite templates are always and in all ways improvements. Enough other editors similarly disagree that this issue is even written into a guideline (WP:CITE), and I think you know that. I've tried to retain other tidying-up you do, but when you make an omnibus edit, it's possible I've missed something you consider important. If so, what is it? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me you're the strident one. This has been to ANI, what?, four times? A few editors support what you're after, but most are raining on your approach and on your singling me out for your reverts. Your mantra of maintain the status quo is at odds with the nature of a wiki, which is that things change. Time for you to drop the stick, methinks. Merridew 03:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to talk about substance and attempt to achieve resolution, or do you want to continue with the rhetoric? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I expect you to stop dogging my edits and making inappropriate reverts, as many have advised you. Merridew 03:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There's the rhetoric again, claiming I'm "dogging" your edits and the reverts are "inappropriate". At some point, that sort of repetition has to be dealt with. Objectively, your edit (which installed citation templates in this article) was not in accord with WP:CITE. Do you want to talk about that? Or would you like to discuss the table issue? (You might find we have some agreement there.) Gimmetoo (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It [templates] has been talked to death, and it's getting old. I've improved these articles; you've managed to regress some of them. People see this. There is not a significant table issue; just an obsolete browser issue. We should use the endash, and sort templates on the names, as needed. Safari v4 is down to 0.7% from 0.8%, as of a month ago. Merridew 04:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Then what would you like to discuss? Ideas to avoid future conflicts? (If you identify that an article already has developed with cite templates [ie, has a lot of refs with nearly all using templates], then you're probably not going to get into any conflicts by adding a cite template for some urls a new editor just added.) We could also discuss the relative importance of various errors the scripts generate? Gimmetoo (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Accessibility and dates

The article at present has some obvious problems:

• The filmography table lacks a caption and row headers, which would make the table more accessible to screen readers;
• The images lack alt text, which also would benefit those using screen readers;
• The references use a mixture of dmy and ymd date styles.

I'd be happy to fix those problems, but thought I'd ask here first in case there were any serious objections that I was unaware of. --RexxS (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add alt texts if you want. The images here are pretty stable so it's probably worth the effort. I don't understand your point about the filmography table, though: it's in a section captioned "Filmography", and all the columns have headers (year, film, role, notes). The references look to me to have consistent date styles: all the publication dates are dmy, and all the accessdates are ISO. Am I missing something? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added alt text to the two images. Hopefully it reads well in conjunction with the relevant captions, but please feel free to improve it.

For a visually-impaired reader to make full use of their screen reader, it is necessary to have row headers as well. This allows them to navigate a table in a non-linear way if desired, with the screen reader announcing the column and row header for each data cell. The guidance is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Data tables and a tutorial is available at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial. Not all tables can be made accessible in this way, but in this article the name of the film is the identifier for each row, and should be the row header. A proper caption would give a blind user a much better idea of what they were about to hear, and help them make sense of the following stream of information.

Consensus was reached at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Format consistency that "Dates in article references should all have the same format".

I know these are relatively recent developments, so not everyone is aware of them. I hope that answers your questions. --RexxS (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The dates in the references do all have the same format: all the publication dates are dmy, and all the accessdates are iso. Right? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not really what "all" means is it? --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

All the references use the dates in a consistent way. Are you really saying there's a "style issue" about distinguishing publication and accessdates that needs fixing? Gimmetoo (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)# Dates has this sub-section:

Format consistency

• Dates in article body text should all have the same format.
• Dates in article references should all have the same format.

These requirements apply to dates in general prose and reference citations, but not to dates in quotations or titles.

It was arrived at as a compromise from requiring all dates in an article to have the same format. I don't know how you can read the section in the way you seem to be doing. --RexxS (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSDATE also says "If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason". So again I ask, is there a problem that needs fixing? Gimmetoo (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The previous line of MOSDATE says "Consistent standards make articles easier to read, write, and edit. Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise." You'll also note that the line you quoted uses "a given style" (singular), not "styles" (plural). I'll ask then, is there a good reason why you want to retain a mixture of two different styles in the references? --RexxS (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It is one style, a style that happens to use different formats to distinguish two symantically-different classes of dates. Is this a problem that needs fixing? Gimmetoo (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Since each so-called "format" is a "style" as defined in MOSDATE, the article breaches our guideline without good reason. There's no exception for "symantically-different classes of dates". So yes, there's the problem – will you fix it it shall I? --RexxS (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither. Even if it were conceded to breach one part of the MOS, changing it would breach another part of the guideline, and would also be removing contextual information. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So, you are absolutely adamant that the use of two different styles in the references does not breach the Format consistency guideline, and that you oppose my suggestion that they should be made consistent. --RexxS (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said, and given our past history, I don't perceive your rhetoric as particularly helpful or civl. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Then I'm at a loss to see what your objection is to making the references compliant with the Format consistency guideline, which is quite unambivalent, in my opinion. Your perception of my attempts to understand why you want to keep two different styles of dates in the references is irrelevant. Perhaps it's time to get other opinions as we've reached the point where you are preferring to comment on me, rather than the edits I am proposing. Thanks for asking at WT:MOSDATE; I'll chip in with my perspective in a while. --RexxS (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:MOSDATE#Reference_style. About the table. Although I don't like the film title first, since nearly every filmography table on Wiki has/had year first, imdb does it that way now, so it's probably worth discussing. Nevertheless, bolding the film titles does not look right. Is there a way to do what you want without the titles appearing in bold? Also, the duplicate caption is odd-looking. Is there a reason a screen reader won't understand the section heading "Filmography"? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's possible the table with the title in the first column might grow on you. The visual presentation is, of course, merely an editor's preference. I would certainly agree with you that any change simply for that reason should not be made. However, when you consider how the table may be read to a visually impaired user, there's a big difference. Many screen readers allow the user to navigate around the cells of the table in a non-linear fashion, and can be set to announce the row and column headers before the cell data. So if they arrived at the cell containing 'Honey Ryder', the table as it stands might be read as "Dr. No, Role, Honey Ryder" – wouldn't you agree that's much more useful than "1962, Role, Honey Ryder", especially for those filmographies where an actor has made several films in one year? The key point is that the film title identifies what the rest of the row is about, so it is a much better choice for a row header. IMDB, like all major websites, is having to take the issues of accessibility seriously, and I'd hazard a guess that that may be a factor in their change of format. I expect that wikiprojects will gradually come to accept that there is a good reason to alter their preferred style (as an example, WP:WikiProject Discographies is in the process of bringing their tables into line with accessibility guidelines). Like you, I prefer not to see different formats across similar articles, so I hope the transition goes quickly, particularly as it will widen the benefit for the visually-impaired.

I fully accept that the bold first column doesn't look right to you, and it could be corrected with inline syles (style="font-weight:normal;"). However, there probably isn't anything intrinsically wrong with bold film titles, so I'd suggest that making that determination could be postponed until the relevant WikiProjects discuss what guidance they want to give in order to improve table accessibility (are there more projects than just James Bond that are in scope here?).

As for the caption, the screen reader would announce "Filmography", and it's a bit of a judgement call whether a blind user would already be familiar enough with fimographies that they would expect a table containing the given information. I'd prefer to err on the safe side and give them some idea about what the data stream is going to contain before they actually hear it. Possibly "Sortable table of films, years and roles" would be more helpful, I don't know. We could always ask User:Graham87 for advice, as he uses JAWS, and feedback would be useful. --RexxS (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If "Filmography" is not sufficiently descriptive, then we should be using something else for the section caption. Bolding the film titles doesn't look right, especially for redlinks and non-links, and it's arguably contrary to MOSBOLD. Also, isn't "scope=col" automatic with a column header? If it's not, it should be, rather than done with inline code, no? Gimmetoo (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The function of the section title is to create semantic markup giving structure to the document, as well as creating an anchor for navigation via the TOC. Simpler is usually better for that. A second level section could contain more than a table/list of works and ought to be descriptive of potentially the whole section, so it is not a synonym for the table caption. The purpose of a table caption is to provide an identifier for the table, as described in http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/H39.html, and in the absence of a summary element can provide a screen reader with meaningful information.

If you don't like the bold row headers, there are several choices:

1. apply an inline style;
2. make a case at MediaWiki talk:Common.css to make them normal weight by default (as we did in order to get them left-aligned);
3. make the corresponding change in your own css page for the skin you use;
4. change to a different browser which does not make table headers bold by default.

MOS:BOLD specifically states that boldface is used for table headers, but I suppose you could argue that it only meant column headers.

The purpose of 'scope="col"' is to clarify the scope of the TH element, and becomes more useful as the complexity of tables increases (although very complex tables really require ids and the 'headers' element). It is indeed optional in simple tables, if we assume that all screen reader agents are conformant with WCAG. Our current guideline for editors is to always include scope with a header. I believe that is because it is an easier standard to adhere to. The guidance is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial#Overview of basics and you could suggest improvements at the talk page there. I agree it would be preferable to have the scope of each header automatically determined, but it appears that is not always possible, otherwise 'scope="col"' would not exist. --RexxS (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the MOSDATE discussion resulted in "meh". Now, what can be done about the table? The table caption still appears redundant, and what would it sound like without "scope=row"? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I got the impression that the MOSDATE discussion indicated that ISO dates were discouraged other than where space was a premium, but that changing them to "plain English" wasn't much of a priority. I disagree that the table caption is redundant for the reasons I gave above. What it would sound like without scope attributes would depend on the screen reader used. Perhaps you should ask for other opinions on captions and scope attributes at WT:Manual of Style (accessibility) or WT:WikiProject Accessibility – or ask user:Graham87, a well-respected editor who is blind and uses JAWS? --RexxS (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the second table caption adding anything yet, except redundancy, and the bolding still looks bad. I also notice that the table no longer sorts correctly. Are you going to do anything about any of this? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What did you mean by the "second table caption"? I only see one table and one caption in my browser. I quite like the bolding, but apart from the evils of inline styles, there's little reason why you shouldn't add normal font weight style to each cell – after all, the display is merely a matter of personal preference. You'll recognise that when the hyphen in the date range was changed today to an endash (per MOS:DASH), it broke the sorting for Safari 4 users. It still sorts correctly for the other 99% of viewers, but if you feel strongly that we want to cover everybody, I'd be happy to add a sort key for each date in the column. --RexxS (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There are two captions - one is "Filmography". Now, given two options for the sorting issue, adding a ton of sort keys, or using a hyphen in one date range, what makes more sense to you? I think a hyphen has enough advantages to warrant IARing MOS:DASH in this instance. I can see some justification for the scope tags, but adding them shouldn't create such a substantial visual change; that begs adding more inline tags to reverse some of its effects. And that sets up another "revolution" in table format a few months down the road. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Filmography is the level two section header (<h2>), not a caption – as I explained earlier. The most sense for me would be accept that the sorting isn't going to work for a vanishingly small number of readers, but I can see that IARing the MOS is a valid argument. Unfortunately that leads to the problem that multiple users, scripts and bots are not going to be aware of the IAR, and will simply put the endash back, leaving you with the unenviable task of making the same case to every one of them. I'd rather spare you the anguish and use sort keys if you insist that the sort has to work for every browser. The scope attributes have no intrinsic effect on the visual presentation (apart from the CSS3 selector rule we incorporated into Common.css). It's the '!' wiki-markup, which generates a semantically correct <th> tag for the cell, that your browser displays as bold by default. I'd also prefer not to add inline styles to over-ride that browser behaviour simply to satisfy a personal preference for visual presentation. Nevertheless I'd accept that others may be so used to normal font weight for those cells that they would wish to add those styles. As I said earlier, it might be worth waiting to see if the WikProjects that use filmography and similar tables reach a consensus on how they want to implement compliance with WP:Accessibility. --RexxS (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The section header identifies what is in the section. For this section, that's a table. Surely you can see how adding another caption to the table could be viewed as redundant? There are other solutions for the sorting; I've tried another idea which I will have to check later. Finally, I had not noticed the ! symbol was added. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The section heading and captions are two distinct elements, as Ralph has been saying. Explicit caption on tables is proper form and most should sport one. Jack Merridew 10:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You are now edit-warring, Merridew. Can you suggest anything contructive, ie that doesn't involve doing everything exactly as you want? Gimmetoo (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You could stop harassing my edits; *that* would be constructive. Jack Merridew 11:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Please demonstrate what you just said, or refactor. You have not been involved in this discussion. Why did you suddenly get involved? Gimmetoo (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

See the various comments people have made about your approach to me. I've been reading the above and have this page watched. I watch everything. I fix bad edits. Simple. FWIW, I believe the scope attributes should somehow generated, not hard-coded; didn't you advocate that, somewhere? Jack Merridew 11:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am again asking you to refactor your statement, a statement I perceive as a personal attack. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

it's what's going on here. Jack Merridew 11:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

RexxS, it appears that the table will need inline font-normal weighting and sort keys, as you suggest. I regretfully agree to go with that, since other attempts at solution are getting rejected out of hand. Likewise, I suggest you (RexxS) handle the implementation of the inline code and sort keys. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

teh bold is standard on headings and inline-styling to defeat it is inappropriate; and the sort keys are unwarranted for dead browsers. Jack Merridew 11:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've returned the table to a version that has marked-up row headers, which usefully identify the topic of the row (the film title) for screen readers. I hope that won't be controversial, as it is mandated at WP:ACCESS#Data tables. I've also restored the "1987 to 1988" format for the date range, as I can't see that producing any problems for any browser. When Safari 4 becomes completely obsolete, I'm sure there will be no problem in using the MOS-compliant "1987–1988". In the meantime, I'd suggest that we've already fell out too much over that detail, and our time would really be better spent working together where we can make improvements, now that we have the "plainrowheaders" class. Peace. --RexxS (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You have not replied here for over a week. You have reverted to a disputed "sandbox" version. The "plainrowheaders" doesn't seem to do anything, and the revert restored the duplicate header, and also leaves the film in the first column, which you have expliclty said is not required for accessibility. These are much the same concerns currently being discussed among the editors involved with featured lists. You do not need to use this article to sandbox disputed edits. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were reasonably content with the version you committed on 30 October. The only differences I see with the current version are: (1) the 30 Oct version has centred film titles, while the latest version has them left-aligned; (2) the 30 Oct version has combined the caption into the section header, while the current has them separate.

With the best will in the world, I don't see those as worthy of trying out in a sandbox. I don't think anybody would want centred titles, and the heading/caption is a topic worthy of discussion. My preference is to keep them separate, as they can have different uses. --RexxS (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The titles were not centered at that point. Something got changed in the CSS, no? With the guidelines (and CSS?) in a state of flux, do you think should be in live articles? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Despite what I understood as consensus above,"I've also restored the "1987 to 1988" format for the date range, as I can't see that producing any problems for any browser", an IP with apparent prior history on this point has chosen to edit-war contrary to this consensus [2] and has not discussed the issue here. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Rolf

I strongly suspect that Rolf was a Nazi. Has any one any details about his expulsion from Switzerland and alleged disappearance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The source mentioned does not mention the vanishing directly, only the expulsion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Movie - Casino Royale

'Sure it was with David Niven in the 1967 James Bond Casino Royale spoof - not Peter Sellers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.130.124.66 (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ursula Andress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131216074258/http://www.srf.ch/player/tv/10vor10/video/happy-birthday-ursula-andress?id=6b52dc71-9c72-4489-80f7-21a0861f55de to http://www.srf.ch/player/tv/10vor10/video/happy-birthday-ursula-andress?id=6b52dc71-9c72-4489-80f7-21a0861f55de

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ursula Andress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100713145625/http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/member/30387 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/member/30387

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Photograph

Is that photo of her disrobing really necessary? It seems inappropriate,to say the very least. 86.158.122.137 (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)