This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Apart from the link at the end, this club gets no mention. It is in fact a remarkably popular association, whose meetings up and down the country are well-attended and treated like big occasions with formal dress. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
As the society was created after his death, is quite active in its own right, I believe the article should remain separate.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
And the bulk of this article has now been appended onto the Formby Article, seems like jumping the gun when it is still being discussed and there have been two comments for keeping it separate.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
With most famous people there is a section titled "Death" - in this article his death is lumped into the Films sections - can we tidy this up please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
In order to give it a more chronological feel I've restructured it so that the information about his wife is incorporated in the biography as a whole, rather than having a separate section to itself. This has allowed a more natural break to include the death section as requested. It could probably use a little more of a cleanup though... --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the IB and enlarged the image there: this is a trial to see if this is an improvement over the box, or whether it is preferable. If people could please leave the image in place without the box for a week or so, and comment here first, we can discuss and then revert as and when a consensus develops. – SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
You need to come up with a good rationale as to why the article would be improved without an "IB" (which, to the uninformed, means infobox, I believe). Otherwise, we should revert to the status quo ante. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
As per the above, it's a trial to see. If you're looking for reasons: pointless, ugly, repetative and meaningless are all good starters. It squeezes the image, contains nothing that isn't a little to the left in the lead section, and generally lives up to its secondary name, the idiotbox. - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
That seems a little uninformed, and certainly doesn't provide a valid rationale for your actions. I'll reinstate it - and, if you can make a more reasoned proposal for its removal, we can consider it further. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
That's the least constructive and most mindless edit I've seen in a while. Thanks very much for the uncivil "uninformed" insult: there was no need for it, and it's only going to piss peeople off saying something that pointless. Thanks very much for knee-jerk wiki-lawyering, rather than trying to think slightly flexibly at the possibility, rather than what is best for the article. Congratulations on such a pointless, inflexible and needless stance. You couldn't even be bothered to come up with a possible advantage to the idiotbox, just went with least constructive approach on this. Why? - SchroCat (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's an idea; maybe you can justify its inclusion and provide good, decent ideas as to what can be included in the idiot box which will help improve the article. Cassiantotalk 03:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments like those by User:SchroCat and User:Cassianto seem to suggest that, somewhere, there is an intensive debate going on on the value of infoboxes (apparently called "IB" or "idiot boxes" to those on one side of the argument). I have had absolutely no involvement in that discussion, and don't know where to find it. Those two editors need to recognise that, I guess, most readers and most editors of this article are in the same position as me. If there are good arguments for removing infoboxes, it would be useful to know what they are. Ill-tempered rants don't count. And the principle is that it is those seeking to change articles who need to justify their proposals to other editors, if they might be contentious. I have seen no arguments here so far that justify removing the infobox that has been in this article since 2007. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no such discussion that I know of; the initials IB are fairly common, so no, they don't "belong" on any side of the arguemnt. There is absolutely no such overall consensus that you suggest, and the MOS describes what the side-wide consensus actually is: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". So no, not all editors are in the same position as you. There is no "ill-tempered rant", that you describe, and I would appreciate it if you would not personalise this discussion, which you have done in all three of your postings so far. I have looked at the inclusion in 2007, and I find the most interesting part is that I fail to find any talk page discussion about including it, was there one at all? - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
So, you are paying no regard to the fact that, since 2007, other editors here seem to have had no objection to its inclusion. What is your justification, supported by policy or guidance, for removing the infobox that has rested uncontentiously in the article for over seven years? Why change what isn't broken, and why seek to do so in the uncollegiate way you have? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Should we leave all articles untouched just because no-one has grasped the nettle and done something? Turgid longevity is no excuse to stifle article development. We are in the middle of a major overhaul of this second-rate article at the moment: are you going to complain about that, just because no-one has developed it properly for so long? You say other editors have had no objection? At least two have, and we've taken the opportunity to grasp the nettle while the article is being overhauled. I'm not sure your accusation of being "uncollegiate" (another personalisation of the argument) is warranted: I put a polite request for a trial without, and you didn't bother discussing it, just went ahead with WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and wiki-lawyered it, without any meaningful discussion. We have both asked you if there is a positive reason to have an IB here, and left us guessing as you your thoughts: and you call us uncollegiate? - SchroCat (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that "a major overhaul" of this article was taking place - what seems to have happened so far is a bit of tweaking. Obviously, I'm all in favour of improving the article, by adding sourced information, etc. etc.. That's not the issue. The issue is whether and why the infobox should be removed, and you seem to be coming from the position that infoboxes are inherently unhelpful and unnecessary. I'm trying to find your justification for that opinion, and whether it has been supported through any centralised discussion. Apparently not. So, we need to have a discussion here about it - but that should start from the established wording of the article, including the infobox - with those seeking to remove the infobox explaining why they want to to do so, before, not after, it is removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I have not said—indeed will never say—that IBs are unhelpful or unnecessary, so please don't try to put words in my mouth: it's unhelpful. What I will say is that I am a huge fan of IBs, in certain circumstances. I am not sure that such a circumstance exists here, and I look forward to hearing from you why you think such a box improves this article? As I have said, this is a trial to see if the article holds up without one: what advantages or disadvantages do you see between the inclusion and exclusion of the box. The overhaul is taking place elsewhere: in userspace, before being transferred over, and consists of a complete overhaul and re-write, rather than just a bit of tweaking and polishing. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
It might have helped if you'd made clear at the outset of this discussion the fact that this overhaul was in userspace and pending - there was no way I could have known that (other than checking your contributions, which I've now done... :-). I'm prepared to wait and see what it all looks like. But I still see no reason not to have an infobox at this stage. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ What reason do you see for including it at this stage then? Everything currently in the IB is on the left hand side if the screen. Cassiantotalk 15:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
After over two weeks of comments (and none since 4 September) I think we have a consensus on this not to include an infobox on this page. The article has now passed through PR, FAC and this thread with no dissenting voices on the matter. – SchroCat (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
As this article is due to go to the front page in a couple of weeks, I'd like to ask for comments about the trial of having no infobox. Whereas previously the box provided information missing from the lead, this is no longer the case, with all pertinent information available in it's correct context a little to left of the image. Does anyone have any thoughts as to why a future addition would enhance or improve the article? Many thanks for all your comments. The only thing I would note is that this version, without the IB, has gone through both peer review and FAC without any questions as to why there is no box, or any suggestions that one is needed. – SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd say that's the right approach. Some articles (cricketers, politicians et al) benefit from infoboxes, but the lead of the present article contains all that an infobox would merely duplicate. As readers now use such a wide variety of screens to access Wikipedia it is incumbent on us to avoid unnecessary clutter anywhere in a WP page, and particularly at the bit people first see when they open the article. With innovations like WikiWand coming in, infoboxes are more obtrusive, cramping the main text of the lead: worth putting up with when a box adds value, but best avoided when, as here, it doesn't. – Tim rileytalk 15:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. An infobox would offer this article nothing and would be a step in the wrong direction by adding one. They contain repetetive, redundent information and limit the image in terms of quality by squeezing the life out of it. No infobox please. Cassiantotalk 04:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not believe that an infobox would be helpful in this article. It would only add repetition, emphasize some less important facts, limit the size of the opening image and take up important space at the top of the article. The text of the Lead, I believe, presents the key information in a balanced and attractive way, and I recommend that the article remain infobox-free. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
No infobox, agreed, for the reasons that Cass and Ssilvers state.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.