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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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 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.
A small project is on to expand this article into something more suitable for the subject. We plan to add new material and expand or replace some existing material. This may take place over a few weeks or even months and we'd be delighted to hear from anyone who has any useful information of sources that may be of use. As part of the overhaul, we would ideally like to remove the infobox entirely as part of that re-write process and just have an image in place. The summary boxes are inadequate at summing up the life of an individual and contain mere repetitions of a few minor and trite facts that are best left in the lead and article. Before it is removed, does anyone object? We'd rather have a chat here first before starting out on an edit/revert cycle. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Concur with the above. I will be working with SchroCat on this and it would be great if we could have any input from like-minded T-T fans. -- CassiantoTalk 09:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh I say! (twirls moustache). A lovely treat to find this on the front page. Thanks to all concerned. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for taking the time to read and the time to comment: its very much appreciated (and I say this on behalf of the several hundred people who have brought the article to this standard!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Wow, that is very kind of you IP. We found it a pleasure to write and comments like this make the effort all the more worth it. -- CassiantoTalk 09:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it made my day to see it as today's FA too. 'Top hole' to all involved (no moustache to twirl unfortunately). David WC2—Preceding undated comment added 10:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Why is there an editors note requesting not to add an infobox? Was there a discussion on this somewhere?
The question was posed two threads above in #Article expansion. There were no dissenters to the thought of removing it and, as such, a consensus to remove it was attained by those involved in the development at the time. - SchroCat (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The PD status of the commons film grabs seems rather dubious to me. I can't really accept that films and trailers were released without copright notices so the PD tags are not credible. Slightly astonished that this got past a FAR without the images being properly checked. I removed one thinking it was an isolated example but am loath to gut the article of images on the day its on the main page SpartazHumbug! 20:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
All the images were checked by GermanJoe during the FAC, including the one you removed. Crisco 1492 also checked several of them at my request and undertook work on some of them too. - SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmmmm, well I couldn't claim to be an expert on licenses but I'm frankly astonished that so many images here can have free licenses. Probably as well I don't work at FFD.... SpartazHumbug! 20:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
You can check out the images on Commons, which shows the images along with the reverses of the photographs from which they were scanned. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I looked at one and saw that. I'm afraid that with all the flickr washing and general inept license patrolling on commons I'm not one to accept an image being on commons as evidence its a genuine free license but yes I can see you have checked this out. I'm still slightly astonished mind but I think its just as well I don't do FFD don't you? Nice article by the way. SpartazHumbug! 21:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I can guarantee there's no Flickr stuff going on here: I own copies of most of the images that were used, so it was me who scanned the originals to upload. Thanks very much for your words on the article - much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Not suggesting any naughtiness at all on your part. Just that I don't trust commons. You are welcome. I enjoyed it and TT was one of my fave actors. SpartazHumbug! 21:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Glad everyone ironed this out before I woke up. Yes, US copyright law from the early 70s (72, if I'm not mistaken) and earlier required a copyright notice for something to be copyrighted. If there was no notice, there was no copyright, so long as the work was first published in the US. Schro and I went through the images together, cleaning them up, and making sure that there was a) no copyright notice and b) clear evidence that the images were first published in the US. I'm pretty sure we've done it correctly, and the image reviewer at FAC agreed.
You'd be surprised at what can be PD because of that requirement for a copyright notice. Check out the poster for 1932's The Mummy... that's a featured picture, and 100% PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
As with others, a pleasure to see this article today. Congratulations. Just a question: the Eric von Stroheim image is captioned "on whom Terry-Thomas based his early look", whereas the article instances EvS as a subject of impersonation. Earlier it is said that T-T adopted his "look" (in the sense of fashion) after Douglas Fairbanks. Have I missed something? Davidships (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)