Talk:Stanley Holloway/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Old comment

Needs expansion ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 07:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Now expanded. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

French Film titles.

Weird that someone's put the films in French! - presumably lifted from the French versin of this article.I'll change them. Jooler 00:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Reassessment needed?

I think this article should be reassessed as C- rather than start-class (although it can use considerable tightening-up). Wi2g 03:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Currently it is rather messy and listy, with some WP:WEIGHT issues. After some more clean-up, I am sure it will be at least C-class. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Family background

[Continuing the discussion from User talk:JackofOz/Archive 16#Stanley Holloway article rather than posting there.]

I entirely agree with Jack that the information on SH's grandparents is excessive. Although this kind of information is not specifically one of those listed in WP:INDISCRIMINATE, in my view that policy is relevant. --ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

To have a discussion you need more than one person. It appears you are "Discussing" with yourself as no body is answering your statement because they are not interested in your opinions. Goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.113.45 (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact you have answered is an indication that a discussion is now going on. You, being the second person entering the Discussion , contradicts exactly what you have said. If no body chooses to discuss the topic with ColinFine then so be it, don't just delete it. Also sign your posts. Thanks Cassianto (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Colin Fine that the ancestral information is excessive for an encyclopaedia article. In a full-length biography it would be admirable, but offhand I cannot think of any featured articles on performers that go into such exhaustive detail. I suggest it could be removed to a footnote for those, if any, who wish to follow the family history. (En passant, it's curious to see "nobody" rendered as "no body" by two different editors in succession, but perhaps this doesn't signify.) Tim riley (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I now reluctantly agree with the above that the ancestral information would be better used in a footnote. To say "If any" about those who wished to follow celebrity family history is absurd. Ancestory is a multi million pound business illustrated by programmes such as Who Do You Think You Are? (British TV series).[1] Five million people are obviously classed as "If any" in the ill informed and rather stupid world of Tim riley I would rather this is moved to a footnote rather than simply deleted altogether by some idiot who thinks that they speak for the majority. I appreciate that not everyone will find it interesting, and for those who are, then hopefully they will make the effort to enter the footnote and leave all the numpties on here arguing whether a particular sentence should have a full stop or not, like has been the case recently. Cassianto (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't help noticing the good grace that accompanies your comment is ... non-existent, actually. Tim riley can speak for himself, but I read his comment as meaning that readers of encyclopedia articles (as distinct from readers of full-on biographies) would never expect to find such a level of genealogical detail. I'm sure we know Winston Churchill's ancestors going back a lot further than Stan Holloway's, but is his WP article the place to find such detail? Even in a footnote? Definitely not. Now, in Churchill's case, many of his forebears were notable in their own right, and so there is some mention of them in his article and they have their own articles. But only for that reason. Holloway's ancestors were not notable. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Too listy

This article contains numerous long lists. At a minimum, I would think there should be a separate article called Stanley Holloway Discography, where you could move the long discography, and just leave in this article a selected discography of only Holloway's most important disks. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This is now done. See Stanley Holloway on stage, screen and record. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

A Brilliant article

I think you should all just get a life and leave this article as it is. I agree with CASSIANTO. It is a supurb article. Thanks to CASSIANTO for all the research that has been done. 213.81.125.181 (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, dear 213.81.125.181 (have we also had the pleasure of your contributions on this page under another name?), I don't know about "supurb" but there actually is some superb stuff in this article, and with a good deal of editing it could be brought up to Wikipedia class B or even GA standard; but you and Cassianto, if you are different people, will first need to join in the Wikipedia consensual approach rather than posting snipers to fire at anyone intruding into "your" article. We are reasonable and helpful colleagues as you will see if you will call a ceasefire. Tim riley (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

feel free to ruin

The whole point of this article is to allow people a reference guide about all aspects of somebodies life and work. Maybe this article should read

Stanley Holloway

He was born,

worked in a few famous films,

then died.

That way it's all facts something which none of you can complain about. My intentions were honourable in getting down on paper little or unknown information, complete with references, citations and evidence to back up my research about a famous person, so at least there was a record of it, but I have been humiliated and treated with utter contempt. I really cant be bothered any more. Bastardize the article as much as you like. You all think your'e academically brilliant but in reality you have no more intelligence than a loaf of bread. (Cassianto (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

I'm sorry you feel that way. The problem here is that this is just an encyclopedia entry, not a book-length autobiography. The idea is to make it easy for the general reader to learn about Holloway and his career. If someone wants an exhaustive genealogical treatment, Wikipedia is not the right place for it. WP:NOT, the content policy on what should not be included, says: "Wikipedia is not ... a complete exposition of all possible details. ... Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight." The guideline suggests that some of the genealogical detail might be more appropriate at our sister project, Wikipeople. Tim Riley is very experienced at writing high-quality biographies here, and I think his advice in this matter will be very helpful. Also, please do check out Wikipeople. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipeople seems to be an idea for a project, rather than a live site; but even as an idea, it looks like it's dormant. The talk page has had no action for over 2 years. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 Revision

As discussed above, I have now given this article a thorough overhaul to bring it more into line with Wikipedia standards and norms. There was a wealth of material already there, much of it researched and contributed by User:Cassianto. I have kept most of what was there except for a few incorrect statements (e.g. that Holloway played Gravedigger to Gielgud's Hamlet) and links to sites to which we are not permitted to link from Wikipedia for copyright reasons (e.g. You Tube clips of copyrighted material). To maintain the narrative flow, unusually excursive material, such as distant ancestry, and analysis of chapters of Holloway's memoirs, are now in footnotes for those who wish to read more. For the same reason, I have integrated the separate sections about monologues, films, U.S. career etc into the main narrative. The discography is so large that it needs, and now has, its own article. I have added a good deal of material from press archives and elsewhere, reducing the reliance on a single primary source. I think the earlier material as now edited and supplemented may possibly make this article suitable for peer review with a view to submission for GA in due course, and any contributions or suggestions from other editors (most particularly Cassianto) would be greatly welcome. Tim riley (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I streamlined the genealogy info and put the key info about the grandparents and parents back into the text. I also proofread the whole article and made some relatively minor copy edits. The ref formatting still needs to be proofread again, and some refs are incomplete. Kudos to Tim riley for excellent work on this article, which is now much improved! I have increased the assessment to B-class. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Kudos to Tim from me too; but I also thank Cassianto for his monumental research which (after a little massaging) has contributed greatly to the article's quality. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I have just read the new and improved article and feel indebted to Tim riley for putting this article together in such a superb order. I am sincerely humbled that most of what I have added over the last two years has been kept and re arranged in this way. So much so that in retrospect, I can now see the old article for what it was and in no way a comparison to this excellent work. Cassianto (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stanley Holloway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 22:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've now done a very quick read through of the article, but I've not checked any of the citations. On this basis, the article appears to be at or about GA-standard: it appears to be well referenced. I'm now going to work my way through the article in more detail.

I'll be going through the article, at this section, section by section but leaving the WP:Lead until last. This should take a day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I was wrong about the "Day or so" bit. I'll try and do this weekend. Pyrotec (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

At this stage of the review, I'm only highlighting "problems", so if I don't have much to say on a particular section/subsection then that means that I regard it as being OK.

Overall, at this stage of the review, this appears to be a well referenced article, but I think that the ancestry citations are a bit too vague & possibly the results have been misunderstood. Pyrotec (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Life and career -
- Family background and early life -

Pyrotec (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC) -

(If you need help on the following please ask. If you don't ask, I'll just assume that you know what you (collectively) are doing.) Pyrotec (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A number of comments below refer to the ancestry.co.uk: firstly its a subscription only site (for the detail), there are two other uses of subscription only sites and they are marked as such i.e. (subscription only) so for consistency the Refs using ancestry.co.uk should also be marked (subscription only); secondly, its not clear what you are using that site for, but if its BMDs the information is available without a subscription/registration at FreeBMD, so why not use it instead?
The link in citation 5 takes me to a subscription only site (www.ancestry.co.uk) with 7,288 "hits", so as given it hardly verifies anything at all. I don't have a subscription so I can't use that pay site to check the details; however, there could be a possible "match" on The England & Wales National Probate Calender, and if so that would provide the date of death and the place of death (exact place in many cases)(the article only gives a year of death). Alternatively, the GRO Indices (see comment below) give the Registration District, year and quarter in which he died - probably this one: Deaths Dec 1884 HOLLOWAY, Augustus, 55, Poplar 1c, 392.
The link in citation 7 takes me to a subscription only site (www.ancestry.co.uk) with 17,767 "hits", so as given it hardly verifies anything at all. I don't have a subscription so I can't use that pay site to check. However that is likely to take me to the GRO Indices and I can check his birth, marriage, death and birth of all his children for free at FreeBMD (at [2]) (provided that the records have been transcribed): I think the marriage is to Amelia Catherine Knight, in Poole Registration District, between 1st July & 30th September 1856 (see [3])
I also checked the claim supported by ref 9, which gives "61,622" hits, but using FreeBMD - I assume that its this one for Millie (actually Amelia Florence Holloway) W.Ham, 4a, 93 ([4]). If it is, the the record is not saying that she was born in December 1887: what is is actually saying is that the birth was registered in Quarter 4 of 1887, which finished on 31 December 1887. The birth should have been registered within 42 days and registration took place sometime between 1st October and 31 December 1887.
I've also found Stanley Augustus Holloway - birth registered West Ham 4a, 172 (between 1 Oct & 31 Dec 1890) (here [5])

... stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Note: The above comments have been updated. Pyrotec (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

- Early career and First World War

This subsection looks OK.

- Inter-war years -

YY Pyrotec (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC) - Ref 44 & 45 used in nb_7 link to citations based on the use of IMDB. There is much discussion as to whether IMDB is a reliable source, or not. As this is a Note: I'm not going to pursue this line.

Would it help to add this ref?: http://www.britishpictures.com/stars/Holloway.htm or this one?: http://live2.radiotimes.com/servlet_film/com.icl.beeb.rtfilms.client.simpleSearchServlet?frn=5009&searchTypeSelect=5 -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've dug out some replacement refs from The Guardian archives, and will add. Tim riley (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Now done. Tim riley (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

- World War II and post-war -

This subsection looks OK.

- 1950s and 1960s stage and screen -

YY Pyrotec (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC) - Ref 67, 68 & 69 link to citations based on the use of IMDB. There is much discussion as to whether IMDB is a reliable source, or not: I think that it is now not regarded as being a WP:RS.

Again, would it help to add this ref?: http://www.britishpictures.com/stars/Holloway.htm -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have found Guardian refs for 67 and 68, but can't find anything about the Poppins offer. Will add the other two. Tim riley (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Now done. Tim riley (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

... stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Last years -

Y Pyrotec (talk) - ref 75 is our "old friend" IMDB.

Does this help?: http://www.britishpictures.com/stars/Holloway.htm -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal life -

Pyrotec (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC) - OK, well there is an IMDB ref.

Same. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a Guardian ref for the film, and a separate one for Ms Dahl's lineage. Will add pronto. Tim riley (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Now done. Tim riley (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Honours, memorials and books -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC) - ref 75 is our "old friend" IMDB

Same. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've got a printed ref for this and will add. Tim riley (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Now done. Tim riley (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Stage shows , Film and television appearances & Recordings -

At GA, these three sections are OK, but if this article were to go to WP:FAC (see below), they are completely unreferenced.

Can we at least add a couple of refs to the Recordings section? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

At the end when I award GA I'm going to state that I believe that this article has the potential to progress to WP:FAC, but the week point is likely to be referencing and WP:RS. I'm not reviewing against WP:FAC. Pyrotec (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:Lead -

This is intended to both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points. As such, it appears to do both of these: I'd probably suggest a slightly longer lead, but I'm not going to insist.

Pyrotec (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I can concerns over the verifiability of some of the claims, mostly those using www.ancestory.co.uk - 7,000 or 17,000 "hits" on a subscription only site that prevents the indexes from being viewed without a subscription is hardly verification (I'm willing to help here provided it does not comprise the review) and IMDB seems to be a problem. These should be fixable in a day or so (possibly much less), so I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to common questions above. I tend to avoid reviewing films, etc, GANs but this one caught my eye, so I'm not too sure about what are regarded as reliable sources for films other than IMDB is regarded as being questionable. I guess that if you are claiming that Stanley was in a film called "Rain in Brighton" made in 1952, you need to show that a film of that name was made and/or shown in 1952 and Stanley was in it, it might also be claimed that he played that part of Joe Brown. I regard BFI as a reliable source, as is the National Biography; but I don't know about www.britishpictures.com. A contemporary review from a newspaper or specialist magazine would be reliable: I don't know whether The Radio Times has been digitised, The Times has, my public library membership gives me free access. I believe The Telegraph is on-line but it is subscription only. The British Library has digitised some national and local 19th century newspapers, a subscription-only site, but I've not raised any non-compliances for that time period. Pyrotec (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- The Radio Times", alas, is not digitised. The Guardian and Observer archives are, and I find them invaluable. I haven't run across the Telegraph archive. I don't think the British Library subscribes, at any rate. Tim riley (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. I've not tried the Guardian and Observer archives yet: only Times & London Gazette (free). The British Library and (Bright-"something") the owners of "FindMyPast" are starting a big 10 year digitisation programme for newspapers and specialist journals, but I think that will be also limited to 19th century (i.e. pre-1900) publications. Pyrotec (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected all ancestry refs on SH as per GA review, swapping from Ancestry.co.uk to FreeBMD. All points raised by Pyrotec, I think, have now been fixed for that section. A point was raised by Pyrotec regarding Augustus' wife being called "Knight" prior to marriage. I have rechecked the ancestry info via my subscription at Ancestory.co.uk and it appears that this is correct. This, I have found, is a typo on my part for which I apologise. Amelia Hicks was the maiden name of Augustus mother who died of TB when Augustus was very young. His father was already deceased. I have not added this to the article as this really is not relevant and is deviating somewhat from the subject. Cassianto (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A generally well reference, well illustrated and comprehensive article on Stanley Holloway

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

In the light of the corrective actions completed, I'm pleased to be able to award this article GA-status. I think that this article, in due course, could make WP:FAC, but not without citations for the Stage shows and Film and television appearance sections. It would also suggest that a second opinion, or WP:PR to obtained in respect of my views on Reliable Sources for films and television appearances before moving towards a WP:FAC nomination.

Congratulations on producing an informative article and on gaining GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments, Pyrotec! Congratulations, Cassianto! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Date delinking

I agree with delinking the dates. The links did not add anything helpful to the lists, I think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

O'Leary image

I took out this image. There are too many images in this article. This will possibly become a problem at FAC. Hold this image in case others are deleted, but it is unnecessary: There is probably too much about O'Leary in the article already. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

yep no worries there. I thought I was pushing my luck! -- Cassianto (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Aged 10/13

You probably need to bring that image over from Commons and write a fair use rationale for it; although it was undoubtedly taken before 1923 (presumably one of 1900/1 or 1903/4), it's doubtful that it was published before then unless it is credited to a pre-1923 publication in the book, in which case you'd have to show either that the photographer died 70 years ago or that you'd made reasonable efforts to determine who the photographer was. Easier to bring it over I think. Also it would give you a chance to decide if he's 10 or 13 in that shot. Yomangani ^talk 23:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Filmography - table or no table?

As per a recent request , I have reverted an edit where I have created a wiki table here to replace the bulleted list format in the current article. As far as I can tell, the article has always had a filmography section and should therefor retain one. However, I have never liked the bulleted list format and would much prefer to have a wiki table instead. IMO, the article should offer a broad overview of Holloway's life and career and his films are an integral part of that. Any idea's? -- Cassianto (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The filmography and list of stage appearances could be considered redundant in this article, because the important ones are discussed in the narrative paragraphs. I would vote to move the filmography and list of stage appearances out of the main article, and instead to put them, in your tabular format, into a separate article. Someone had made the suggestion that this could be combined with the Stanley Holloway discography to create one article with the discography, filmography and list of stage appearances. The main article would retain crosslinks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Stanley Holloway on stage, screen and record

I have added a "Further information" tag and a "Career" heading into the main article, and removed the bulleted lists, which are now superseded by Stanley Holloway on stage screen and record. Looks good? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This looks great SS. Thanks! -- Cassianto (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Cassianto for moving all the listy information to Stanley Holloway on stage, screen and record and for improving it there. This, I think, is a significant improvement to the readability of the main article and also presents excellent information to people who want more details in tabular format! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Missing information -- resubmission?

Is it me or is there some information missing? I can't quite remember if we decided not to put it in or if it was deleted by mistake and never rewritten. The information relates to SH's enrolment and service in the Black and Tans in 1920. Although his short career in the Tans was not a distinguished one, I believe its inclusion here to be important as SH was a founding member and it was the last armed service he served in before he left to pursue a stage career; a decision made based on the horror's he had witnessed serving in Ireland, such as the numerous attacks on the Irish civilian population (another major reason why he left). I can reference it twice using reliable sources if it's agreed that it's inclusion goes ahead. -- Cassianto^Talk 05:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember anything about it. Tim may not be monitoring WP. Why don't you e-mail the question to him to see if there was any reason that he remembers for omitting it? I have no objection to something going in that is brief and balanced. I note that we state that Holloway had already returned to the West End in 1919 in Kissing Time and The Disorderly Room, followed by more shows in 1920, so you need to be very clear about the chronology. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

How strange! SH only served for a few months in 1920/21 so it will literally only be a line, and of course, bearing in mind the chronological order. I will check the autobiography and report back. -- Cassianto^Talk 21:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I also thought it 'interesting' that post-war service in Ireland was not mentioned in the article (though I note the inclusion of Category:Royal Irish Constabulary officers. I can not find a reliable source in a quick internet search but there is this for example "After World War I he served in Ireland for a few months as one of the hastily-recruited British trench veterans as Royal Irish Constabulary "Temporary Constables", better known as the "Black and Tans"."IMDB "Temporary Constables" would suggest Royal Irish Constabulary Reserve Force (Black and Tans) but as an ex-officer I would expect him to serve in Auxiliary Division (ADRIC) whose members were known as "Temporary Cadets". Nedrutland (talk)

Thanks. I will look at his biography and get back to this as I do remember reading it somewhere. By the way, I have checked the military records and. Seen his medal role index card. Holloway was part of the Connaught Rangers 4th Battalion. -- Cassianto ^Talk 11:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Early military experience

You say he started training as an infantry soldier in the London Rifle Brigade in 1907. Was this a territorial unit, or was he a regular soldier? Valetude (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The source says: "The reason I was immediately commissioned [as a second lieutenant] was that I had had some training as a private a few years earlier in the London Rifle Brigade." I cannot elaborate any further I'm afraid. -- Cassianto ^Talk 12:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

IP edit warring once again

IP, please see the section directly above this one. It constitutes the consensus on this page, which is not to have an IB on this article. I note that you have left in your edit summary "All articles should have infoboxes". This is just not true, I am happy to say. It would probably help if you read the Manual of Style, which is the guide on how articles are written, developed and styled. On the question of IB's, which is covered at WP:INFOBOXUSE, it states: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". It goes on to say that "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." The discussion above (#Infobox) was the recent discussion about the box, and the consensus is clearly against it. If you wish to make a reasoned argument for inclusion, please do so here, but please do not edit war to force your opinion on the page against such a consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, it isn't helpful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, what with the ownership you two? 195.89.48.249 (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Just because someone has a different opinion to you, it doesn't constitute ownership, or anything even remotely close, so please don't be so uncivil as to throw around unhelpful names. - SchroCat (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, not again! There is no point in an info-box here, and there is a consensus to that effect. Let us have no more name-calling and edit warring, please, anonymous editor. Tim riley talk 15:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

I was about to add an infobox to this article, as the facts of birth date, birth location and age he died at were what I was looking for from this article - things that would take me seconds to locate in an infobox. However, there is a comment telling me not to add one without consensus and to see the talk page, so here I came expecting to find an explanation for why there isn't an infobox or at least previous discussion of the pros and cons of one. Yet, as far as I can tell it hasn't been brought up at all.

So, why is there no infobox on this article? Would anybody object to my adding one? If so, why? Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I suspect there isn't one because one isn't needed. All the pertinent facts are in the lead, including the relevant dates in the first line. - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Just because the facts written in prose doesn't mean that an infobox is not needed - most of the point of an infobox on a biographical article is that it presents the facts in the prose in a standardised format that is consistent between articles. This means that people looking for simple factual information can quickly find it. If it were "unnecessary" then no article would have an infobox. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There is still no need for such an IB on this page, despite what you've written. There are few truly good reasons to add boxes to articles, and repeating information that is a few inches to the left certainly isn't one of then. - SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No, presenting information in a different format is exactly the reason for an infobox. Why is providing people with the information they are looking for in prose when they are looking for prose a good thing, but providing it in structured format when they are looking for it in structured format a bad thing?

In this specific case, the information in the infobox would be from the 1st paragraph (name, dates), 5th paragraph (place of birth, parents names), 30th paragraph (death age, place of death), 1st paragraph (occupation, nationality), [not in prose] (years active), known for (scattered through prose), 31st and 33rdd paragraphs (spouses), etc. That's not at all useful for someone looking for key facts. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Good grief, that's an awful lot of unnecessary fluff in there! Wives, nationality, parents' names, etc? Why not inside leg measurement, hat size and date of loss of virginity for good measure! This is one of the major problems with an IB, as soon as someone puts one of the things in there, others come along and bloat out every last, tiny and pointless field with the trivial sort of balls that helps no-one. Parents' names? Good grief! - SchroCat (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum just makes you look like a fool. There is a difference between the encyclopaedic information I listed an the trivialities you are using to try and discredit the idea of an infobox. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping into incivility: there was no need for it, and it reflects poorly on you. In future stick to the key points and don't start slinging needless insults on others. As to the "encyclopaedic information" you have mentioned: parents' names? Trivia. Wife's name? Pointless. That is not "encyclopaedic information": that's dross! As to the rest, the important stuff is in the lead (where all the most important information can be found in quality articles), and not as dotted around as you claim it to be. - SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the only one making a fool of themselves is you. Infoboxes are not obligatory and so I don't really see your point. Everything can be found in the lead section and anything not mentioned in the lede is not important enough to be included. Secondly, infoboxes don't need us to discredit them, most of them do that by themselves. Why on earth do we need to know who he was married too, where he died, how he died, who his parents were or any of the other crackpot ideas you give above? You say: "In this specific case, the information in the infobox would be from the 1st paragraph." That is repetitive. It is dumbing down on the worst possible scale. Cassianto ^talk 18:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you're doing the encyclopaedia a massive disservice with these bizarre ideas about infoboxes dumbing things down. Infoboxes are indeed not mandatory, as they are not appropriate for a wide range of articles, but biographies are one of the areas where they excel. The information I listed is exactly the sort of information that people like me want to quickly look up about people without having to scan through the prose. Sometimes I want to read the prose, in which case I can ignore the infobox. Other times I just want quick facts, when I can ignore the prose. However, I see that you aren't going to listen to any arguments. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and you think your the saviour of common sense do you? I completely disagree that they "excel" in biographies. Sure, political and military articles they do some good, but not everywhere else. You may call my opinions of them "bizarre", but personally your views for wanting one are even more weird. Ugly, uninformative, repetitive, redundant, misleading are just a few of the reasons as to why this featured article doesn't have an infobox. Cassianto ^talk 20:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"biographies are one of the areas where they excel": it's also an area in which they are over-used, often ill-thought out, contain "facts" that are more misleading than useful and are packed with meaningless fluff, such as parents' names (why, for heaven's sake?!) it's not a disservice: it's a difference of opinion, so stop blackening other people's opinions as being worthless. Two people here have said that IBs are excellent when used in the right place at the right time, so it's not "bizarre" to question when they are not always useful. Thankfully the MoS is flexible enough to accommodate a range of positions, and not to insist on a "one-size-fits-all" approach from people who can't accept that others may having a point of view. - SchroCat (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This article should not have an infobox. The important information that would be in the box is given in the WP:LEAD, and I don't think it would serve the balance achieved by the article to selectively highlight the other information suggested, such as place of birth and death, parents names, spouses, etc. These are not the most important things about Holloway: anyone really interested in Holloway wants to know what roles he played. The factoids that would go in an infobox would not be helpful, and indeed would draw people's attention away from the well-organized prose in the Lead. See WP:DISINFOBOX -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Add one more opinion that an infobox would be valuable here. They are visually appealing, and give concise summaries of biographical material. I am surprised that one is not here. Certainly, adding an infobox does not detract from the article. I don't see the consensus claiming that it is unnecessary. If anything, it appears about even. When in doubt, it should be included for the sake of the non-editing readers. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Haha, "visually appealing", that humoured me. They are about as "visually appealing" as a cold sore. The first few lines of the lede does everything an idiot box does, but in a better and more educational way. Info boxes on articles such as these do nothing to aid the reader, but instead dumb down and repeat existing text which can be easily found by flicking the eyes to the left. I also take to task your comment that "when in doubt [an infobox] should be included for the sake of non-editing readers". You seem to be making your own rules up as you go along. Show me where in the MoS an idiot box "should be included" when in doubt? You also seem to be having trouble counting; I make it 5 against, 1 for, how on earth did you arrive at your figure of "about even"? Cassianto ^Talk 18:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

My use of "should" is my opinion, not a rule. There is no need to be sardonic here; different people find different things appealing. I think it is why there is more than one painting in the art world. There is no need to belittle others' opinions over it. As for counting, multiple IP editors, the OP, and myself constitutes more than three - not just one. And you wouldn't be enjoying your regular little edit wars over this issue if it was just one opinion. Note I was not playing in the edit war, nor being snitty - I was just adding an opinion. Please don't bite the newbies for expressing themselves. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

...always helpful to add "in my view" or "in my opinion" then as saying "should" leaves an air of ambiguity. This can easily be taken to mean that in terms of Wikipedia, the article "should" have an idiot box. Secondly, I still fail to see where you're counting three! The current IP hasn't voted a word of support as far as I can see; and on your final point, I dislike edit warring and to assume otherwise is verging on incivility, so I would request that you stop. Cassianto ^Talk 19:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"When in doubt, it should be included for the sake of the non-editing readers": have you asked them all...? - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say just the opposite: Infoboxes are often misleading to non-editing readers, because they emphasize the wrong information and may discourage them from actually reading the article, or at least the whole Lead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Birth place and edit warring

Could the IP and ScrapIronIV please stop edit warring on the place of birth and engage in a civil discussion? ScrapIronIV, throwing around rather silly claims of ownership is unlikely to meet with an open and consensus-building attitude, so perhaps you could leave the insults behind if you decide to join in the conversation? - SchroCat (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You are rich... There is a fine line between truth and insults. If you feel insulted, that's not my fault. Deal with it yourself. As far as the content of this article goes, you - and every other human on the planet - know that one's place of birth is the place it was at the time of birth; whether it becomes something later is another thing. Now, if you want to be civil about it, saying something like "He was born in Essex (now London)" would make some sense. Do with that what you will. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have not said I feel insulted. I have pointed out that it's not going to be a constructive conversation if you keep on insulting others. The fact that you are unable to discuss civilly is your loss. - SchroCat (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The clarification is given in the first paragraph. How much more clarification would you like? Cassianto ^Talk 13:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you can't see that you are contradicting yourselves in that "clarification" astounds me. In the lede, you make a statement of fact - that Holloway was "born in London." That statement is a factual error, which you do choose to correct later. A correction is not a clarification. One is not born in a place which does not yet exist; they are born where they are born, when they are born. And, while you see a charge of ownership as uncivil, at least I did not resort to name calling. Correcting factual errors is not disruptive; and if you choose to call me stupid, well, that says more about you than it does about me. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It's stupid to edit war, such as you did. One can't be critiqued for drawing ones own conclusions on that. Now, If we simply said Essex in the lede, that would be wrong as it is now London. It is not a "factual error" as Manor Park is now within Greater London. To say Essex would be an even greater factual error to make as It is no longer classed as Essex. It is a separate discussion if you wish us to add a clarification within the lede. Cassianto ^Talk 14:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Cassianto and SchroCat. Please stop edit-warring, ScrapIron. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so while engaging in constructive conversation on my talk page, some positive progress was made. I will not edit war over this; yes, I reverted twice, but had no intention of continuing. I think we all get frustrated at times - and it does come back to bite us, whether at work or in our hobbies. So, please feel free to look at the comments on my talk page before we continue on. I got too defensive, and I admit it freely. Nothing on the internet (here on Wikipedia, or anywhere else) seems to promote good will; we all get a bit wrapped up in our own worldviews. It would be nice if people could actually communicate while working; so much is lost in dry words or perceived actions. Lost visual and auditory cues lead to a lot of misunderstandings.

Trying to put this openly, civilly, and without bias - I do believe that it is factually incorrect to simply state "He was born in London" because, at the time he was born, it was not London. Would we say that someone born in 1900 in the great Turkish city was born in Constantinople, or in Istanbul? As it was renamed Istanbul in 1923, I would opt for Constantinople. I believe that is where the primary reference to his birth would be, as it would be on all pertinent legal documents. I also realize, that for the sake of readability, having too many disambiguation points in the lede would be distracting. If we must put both, the "Born in Essex (now London)" is the least obtrusive. But, if we must use only one, his place of birth is more appropriately the actual place he was born, not what it became later.

Thank you for listening! ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

As an American reader, I can tell you that saying that he was born in London, in the Lead, makes it clear to me what part of the world he was born in. Then, later on, we are more specific. If we started the Lead by saying that he was born in Essex, I would be more likely to click away from the article to read about Essex. I don't think it helps to nitpick in the Lead. London gives the right impression to 99% of readers, and if someone is particularly interested in the details, they are very clearly given all the information immediately below the fold. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It is appropriate to say "He was born in London" in the lead, then maybe include a footnote later in the article about how Essex wasn't part of London at the time. However, I don't know if mentioning Essex is that important because we're talking about Holloway, not the great city of London. Epic Genius (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Filmography section

There isn't one and there should be. I wanted to see a list of films he made so I could click on a particular one and read about it. Akld guy (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

See Stanley Holloway on stage and screen, which is linked from this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the link is obscurely-placed, which is why I missed it. I'm about to make a change that will make the link more obvious. Akld guy (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're sorry, but I think the link should stay where it is. Cassianto ^Talk 20:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Cassianto that placing the link under the "Career" heading seems to be the best and most prominent placement. It is not good practice to have a heading with nothing under it but the cross-reference, and it certainly is not acceptable in a Featured Article, so I disagree with that Akid guy. Other ideas are welcome, of course. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto and Ssilvers: Cassianto has disregarded at least two opportunities to explain what I'm thinking (but am not sure) is the issue. Are you two really claiming that a "Filmography" section that consists solely of a link to a separate article consisting of the performer's filmography isn't how things ought to be done? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I reverted you as you were tag-teaming with Akld who, like you, was failing to discuss, as per WP:BRD. For the record, I agree with Ssilvers. That is all you need to know. Cassianto ^Talk 21:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto: To be clear: I did explain my revert. My initial contribution to the discussion was my edit summary. And I sure as hell haven't tag-teamed with anybody (I've never interacted with Akld and claiming I showed up to "tag-team" with them is utterly bonkers) and I have no motivation to do anything here but fix what I considered to be a mistake.

I'm here to discuss, not do battle. Your edit stands even though I still haven't gotten a straight answer. Do you agree that "[i]t is not good practice to have a heading with nothing under it but the cross-reference, and it certainly is not acceptable in a Featured Article"? I've asked this at least three different times in as many different ways and I still can't get a plain answer. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm very pleased to hear it; however, you do not participate in a discussion by leaving your comments in an edit summary. Discussions take place on a talk page, not as a by-product of an edit war. As I've said above, I share Ssilvers' opinion that the edit is ill-placed, not appropriate to languish in a heading of its own, and that this type of edit is not indicative of the type you'd find in a featured article. I don't know how much more clearer you want me to be. Cassianto ^Talk 21:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto: This is, uh, something. You saw my edit summary and thus knew that I had a substantial reason for doing what I did. And even still, you decided to react by ignoring my reasoning and coming up with one where I was tag-teaming with somebody. And you did that because I hadn't met your standard of where to have a discussion. That's, um, yeah. That's really something, you know? (And there. You got your dig in, I got mine, let's keep doing the thing where we lowkey insult each other in the first parts of our replies and actually do content stuff in the second parts. Ready?)

The idea that a featured article's filmography section needs more than a link to the article that is just the performer's filmography isn't always true. To take a few major examples:

Jake Gyllenhaal#Filmography

Satyajit Ray#Filmography

Angelina Jolie#Filmography

While you're good to go to any of those articles and try to add something of substance to the requisite sections, I would advise against it because I think there's a really good reason those sections are blank. Each relevant filmography article is a mile long and picking stuff for a "selected filmography" section would be nearly impossible to do fairly. (For example, see Jo Stafford. The breadth of work left off of that article's filmography almost constitutes an insult to her body of work. Her article would be improved if that section were completely blanked except for the link.) Or you can do what you did here and wipe the filmography sections entirely; the fallout from an edit like that to an article like Jolie's would be really something, wouldn't it? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 22:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

RunnyAmiga, articles around here - and especially FA's - do not have to conform to any certain pattern. There are no set ways in which an article should be formatted when it comes to things like this. So your argument that three other articles use it, and so should this, is moot. Articles are built on discussion and consensus and not on what you perceive to be a good idea. Cassianto ^Talk 22:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto: "...your argument that three other articles use it, and so should this, is moot." Good thing I didn't include those articles to make any such argument or you'd really have rolled me here. The article's status as an FA doesn't automatically mean the filmography section has to either be fleshed out or removed. Even though it's an FA, the section can be just a link. That's my point. I listed those articles to disprove a belief ("the edit is ill-placed, not appropriate to languish in a heading of its own, and that this type of edit is not indicative of the type you'd find in a featured article") that's verifiably false. Am I wrong? Is your claim regarding that section true? Maybe! To prove me wrong, all you have to do is remove the filmography section from Angelina Jolie and we'll see what happens.

Your mention of "discussion and consensus" is classic because despite this whole mess, it looks like neither of us has convinced the other of a damn thing. Let's do that, though. Let's compromise:

Let's keep the "Filmography" section where you want it, which is nowhere at all. I'd like it retained but I'll give ground on that.
In turn, I'd like that link to be prominently accessible by appearing in the article's prose, preferably in the lede somewhere. That's even if it needs to be piped with, to take an example, the text "70-year career."

Because to be honest, I both agree and disagree. While I think there should be an easily-accessible link to Holloway's filmography, I can do without those low-content sections. I've scrolled through articles looking for filmographies and been annoyed that so many filmography sections just consist of links.

(And for what it's worth, I started to skim the back-and-forth below here between you and Akld and I haven't really read any of it. I'm working on avoiding contentious, unproductive fights and that seems to be one.) RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Me tag-teaming?? What the hell are you talking about?? I came to this article after watching a Holloway film on youtube, expecting to find a filmography. There is a link, but it's obscurely placed and easy to miss. Many readers would like to scroll to the bottom of the article where filmographies are often found, to click on a particular film. If there's a history of edit-warring on this article, I was totally unaware of it. Apologize please, for implying that I tag-teamed with another editor. How can I be tag-teaming when I made one edit and one edit only, with no reverts (yet). Akld guy (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you actually read my comments? I accused RunnyAmiga of tag teaming. Do try to keep up. Cassianto ^Talk 22:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

And Cassianto, what do you mean by saying I was failing to discuss?? I was not aware that I had to, and that you are the owner of the article whose permission must be sought. Akld guy (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop with your incivility, otherwise I'll ignore you completely. You was "not aware you had to"? Right, so nearly 11 years of editing experience has told you nothing about how to discuss? Pull the other one, it has bells on it. Cassianto ^Talk 22:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Look, I have apparently stumbled into a dispute about the article. I have no idea of its history and what issues are involved. I resent being accused of teaming up with another editor, which I categorically deny having done. I have never, to my knowledge, had any dealings with RunnyAmiga. I would still like an apology from you for the accusation. Akld guy (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No, you have not "stumbled into a dispute"; you are instrumental in it, although your intentions, compared to RunnyAmiga, were in good faith (almost). You came to discuss, which was the right thing to do for a featured article, rather than simply shouting "chocks away" and then adding regardless. I respect you for that. However, this was where you went wrong: The discussion was not going your way so you were Bold by adding this; you were Reverted with this; and then RunnyAmiga, who has had no prior association with this article, failed to Discuss by reverting me, almost immediately. It was then that I accused them of tag-teaming in an effort to restore your version, which was being discussed on the talk page. So no apology from me, I'm afraid. Cassianto ^Talk 23:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The only discussion prior to my edit was the statement by Nikkimaria that there was an existing link, which I considered to be obscurely placed. Readers expect to find a filmography somewhere near the bottom of an article. They may not even read the early parts of an article, being intent on finding and clicking a link to a particular film. That is what I did. I was not interested in reading about his life, so I scrolled to the bottom. Uh oh, no filmography. I thought it was an oversight. When pages load, there is no indication that they are featured articles. If I had known that this one was, I might have thought that surely there would be a filmography, and would have looked for it. Even then, it would have taken me some time to find the link - it's obscurely placed. There really does need to be a Filmography section. And just in case anyone thinks otherwise, I did not remove the current link, which Cassianto implied I did with his "sorry, but I think the link should stay where it is." Akld guy (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, everyone, let's dial it down. Thanks, everyone, for engaging on the Talk page. I think that WP:BRD means that once Akld was reverted, the discussion should have come here immediately, without anyone else doing the same thing. But, as to the substance of our disagreement, Cassianto and I don't think that a heading containing only a link is acceptable, notwithstanding that one can find some examples of it. You two seem to think it's OK. Let's wait for other editors to comment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Headings and sections advises that "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." I also see that for the three featured articles mentioned above with a one-line filmography section, none were in this state when they were accepted as featured articles.[6][7][8] Thincat (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggested compromise

@Ssilvers, Cassianto, Akld guy, and Thincat: A look through this discussion indicates nobody is much closer to a compromise than before anybody said anything. Believe it or not, I suggested a compromise that I honestly think could work or, failing that, could be massaged into something everyone can agree on. I'm thinking it got lost in the mix so I'm going to just copy and paste what I said here:

Let's compromise:

*Let's keep the "Filmography" section where you (referring to Cassianto) want it, which is nowhere at all. I'd like it retained but I'll give ground on that.

*In turn, I'd like that link to be prominently accessible by appearing in the article's prose, preferably in the lede somewhere. That's even if it needs to be piped with, to take an example, the text "70-year career."

Because to be honest, I both agree and disagree. (This is was directed at Cassianto.) While I think there should be an easily-accessible link to Holloway's filmography, I can do without those low-content sections. I've scrolled through articles looking for filmographies and been annoyed that so many filmography sections just consist of links.

Keep in mind that if you 100% agree or 100% disagree with this, it won't work because compromises are supposed to somehow piss off everybody. Thoughts? Questions? Compliments? Complaints? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 17:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You are aware that there are two lists to Holloway's career? What happens to the other one? As with the filmography, I think it is appropriately placed. Cassianto ^Talk 18:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have added a link in the first paragraph of the Lead to the first list, where it says: "He was famous for his comic and character roles *on stage and screen*...". I also added a link to the second list where it first mentions the songs and monologues. Does it look ok, Cassianto? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so it turns out that Ssilvers has decided this is appropriate and has gone and added it. It would, of course, be proper for me to revert this as it would be contradictory to tell one side off for doing something mid-discussion, only to then allow the other side to do the same. But frankly, I can't be bothered and if the visiting parties are ok with this, then it's ok with me. Cassianto ^Talk 18:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All I know is that there appears to be no filmography section and the link to it is not only obscurely placed but inappropriately named (as "Stanley Holloway on stage and screen"). That name suggests to the reader that the linked article consists of a more-detailed analysis of Holloway's career, rather than a list of the works in which he appeared. As a compromise, what about a Filmography section with link, (placed where I tried to place it), consisting of a paragraph or two summarizing that SH appeared in more than X stage roles and 60 films during an X-year career? Akld guy (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

No. We've already been there and have told you that it's not appropriate. Cassianto ^Talk 18:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I am flat out telling you that the link is inappropriately named and badly sited. Your familiarity with the article is clouding your judgement of that. Try to put yourself in the position of a person visiting the article for the first time. Akld guy (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It is appropriately named. In fact, it's a Featured List. Akld guy, I disagree with you. There is no reason to introduce repetitive information that is already clearly discussed in the article and also clearly summarized in the Lead section. If you are not satisfied with the compromise that RunnyAmiga suggests, then it appears you are the only one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stanley Holloway. 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/20150403061313/http://www.fantasticksonbroadway.com/news/events/2012/johndavidson/ to http://www.fantasticksonbroadway.com/news/events/2012/johndavidson/

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 19:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Military period in Hartlepool

I have checked SAH's military record. It appears that at no time did he leave the Connaught Rangers from 1915 to his relinquishment of his commission on the 7th May 1919. [[9]]. In order to have this a tag free article I have reworded the Hartlepool section slightly. It can only be that SH was on some kind of temporary detachment, which must have been informal and most likely to do with the politics and/or administration of military concert parties of the time. I have been combing the net, regimental histories, etc, for hours and I cannot I.D. this unit. I know that the source has SH saying that "when I came back from France I was attached to a Yorkshire regiment, up in Hartlepools..", so may be it is better to drop Yorkshire regiment from mainspace wording and just add on attachment. I have done this. I hope this is ok. Regards Simon. Irondome (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. I've deleted "on attachment", as the time period is clear from the rest of the paragraph, and I don't think the phrase adds anything. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that was my original edit. But I just went on adding. On reflection I agree with your edit. Just 'stationed' is fine. Irondome (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I've checked the book and SH doesn't elaborate, unfortunately. Thanks for bringing this up, Irondome. Cassianto ^Talk 14:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Humourist and a small added detail to leaving the army

This may be tricky to put over adequately! I would not categorize SH as a 'comedian'. I believe many sources may well, but that is intellectual laziness. He never told jokes, he had no stand-up comedic routine as far as I am aware. SH transcended this. His whole career, with his great variety of skills taken as a whole, are shot through with a subtle, or more overt thread of humour. His roles as Nick Bottom and as the first gravedigger to both Oliver's and Guinness's Hamlet would reinforce this. I would say Humourist is a better and actually more nuanced description of this component of his artistic toolbox. Therefore I have replaced comedian with humourist in the lead. More mundanely, but also for precise accuracy I have given the recorded date of SH's departure from the army. He was not demobilised but basically relinquished (not resigned) his commission. I believe there is a subtle distinction there. I do hope these changes meet with colleagues approval. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stanley Holloway. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 01:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stanley Holloway. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 05:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Stanley Holloway. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 23:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

New acting credit

Noticed an acting credit from his later years was missing, which is super rare in a star class article. Found a solid citation. It got notable makers, and cast. He played a supporting role not a minor role. Also the television film had a notable Broadcaster NBC. The Emmys nominated project for some department. So to toss on the side as a project with no weight...

One can watch the full film here and evaluate how substantial is his role. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydlOYVGoXdk&list=PLSJXfom7rdgd4pP1UsVe-hScq5BkGdxR1

In most articles I've seen here, to the least they mention who the director, and who the other stars are.

The article is from printed press and if one checked the citation it leads to article in question.Filmman3000 (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It’s largely trivia. We have a filmography listing that gives info on all his roles, and these smaller roles are not needed: if we listed everything he did, this article would be book-sized. As an encyclopaedia article it is a ‘’’summary’’’ of Holloway’s life - SchroCat (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not true, most the star articles list minor roles when well cited. In the case of Ben Affleck they even mention his Burger King commercial.Filmman3000 (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm with SchroCat. This is needless bloat. Just because something is well sourced, doesn't mean to say it gets a free pass into an article. Cassianto^Talk 22:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok you guys go delete the Burger King commercial from Ben Affeck' page and I will re-consider my position. All credits go in the career page.Filmman3000 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS on sub-standard articles. “All credits go in the career page” is not anywhere near correct. If you think it is, could you post a link to a policy, guideline or consensus that suggests it is? - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

What makes you think Ben Affeck [sic] is the stand out article here? Why don't you delete the Burger King information and reference the removal of it to this article? Cassianto^Talk 22:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The analogy was if a trivial piece of work is considered not worthy of a bio section, then why it is mentioned in others' articles. I will add that Holloway' is the only star biography I've seen, where a section a doesn't have his works in chronological order, I did try to fix some of that, so I could insert the credit properly. Many star article simply mention them in passing others will take the time to explain each role. From 1967 to 1974, he's got a little over 12 roles in media they could all be mentioned in passing.Filmman3000 (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

These biographies are just that, they are not an exhaustive account of someone's life through the lens of a microscope. We have to draw a line between understanding the subject matter satisfactorily, and rattling on for all of time about the minutest of details. As interesting and as talented as Holloway was, I think even I would concede defeat if I was made to read his entire filmography word by word. Of course, if you felt that strongly about it, you could add it here into the relevant section. Cassianto^Talk 06:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat and Cassianto. A good encyclopedia bio article must focus on the most important roles; less important roles can be listed in the person's filmography article. In this case, the role is not even a named role, and you do not offer any reviews in major media describing Holloway's role as important. See also WP:BALASP. A word to the wise: your refs have a number of typos in them and include unnecessary information like the language parameter, which should not be included for an English-language work in English Wikipedia. These sorts of sloppy mistakes, and the poor formatting of your first Talk page message above help Talk page contributors to judge whether the suggestions made by an editor should be taken seriously or not. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Well both points I made aren't really refuted but you both have pointed out your subjective differences. Since I wont win you guys can do what you want. Now Ssilvers if you want to show me how to improve my citations please come to talk page and show me how its done, because my citation wasn't the YouTube link but printed press from "Newspapers.com". The reason I gave the YouTube link is because the person who deleted my edit said it was a minor role not a supporting role, so I invited the user to watch the full film.Filmman3000 (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

.User:Filmman3000, I'd prefer not to have to watch your Talk page, so I'll keep my comments here. All citations should give (to the extent known) the name of the author (last name first), article title (and work title, if part of a larger work), name of publisher, date of publication, and page number or url. Depending on the kind of work, additional information may be needed, such as volume and issue number or editor name. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Look Actually it is an unsigned article unfortunately but yeah I just added the number 54 "Musical Version of 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' Stars Kirk Douglas". The Mexia Daily New. 74 (54): 16. 1973-04-03., sorry I should have been more civilized instead of shoving a YouTube video and show the I had left in the article originally. If it can be of any help elsewhere use it.Filmman3000 (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Always write out the full date, 4 March 1973. Do not write 1973-04-03 -- that could be 3 April. If there is no name, why do you have "|last=|first="? This is just code that clutters up your citation. Always italicize the name of full-length works, like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde -- when you do your refs, convert the title to our MOS style. You don't need the / at the end of the url. It would be more efficient to remove it. You should have "page", not "pages". "via=": you are missing the attribution to newspapers.com. You have a typo in "Mexia Daily New"! That's at least for serious errors in one little citation! Please proofread your work. As I indicated above, such sloppy work indicates to other editors that you are either very sloppy or do not know what you are doing, and so your arguments on Talk pages may not be taken seriously. You should also proofread your Talk page comments, because it is extremely hard to understand much of what you wrote above.-- Ssilvers (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Well my talk page comment is quite forward, if you need me to be more direct: if you think I am doing something not right come to my talk page and explain it to me. I have totally goofed on my presentation here, there is no doubt about here. I may be sloppy, and amateurish in many ways. Have you had framed saying "looks sloppy and there is room for improvement" instead of direct name calling that takes away from your good faith. Yes I do learn on the spot. When I add my Journal citations I do it with visual editing so how it comes across after is Wiki' programmers doing I don't use word 'Via', 'Pages', or 'Page' they do. That you brings to these guys not me. Since we are not talking about Holloway but direct feedback you have for me please come to my talk page.

I have more less conceited defeat here, but there is substantial of press regarding this project, it is not an underground thing. If you guy are interested in his later career.Filmman3000 (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we should move on. Cassianto^Talk 20:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)