Talk:Stanley Holloway

Template:Vital article

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018221632/http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/3298263/Britain-Home-Front-At-War-Words-For-Battle/Product.html?searchstring=stanley+holloway&searchtype=allproducts&searchsource=0&searchfilters=s%7Bstanley+holloway%7D+&cpage=3&urlrefer=search to http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/3298263/Britain-Home-Front-At-War-Words-For-Battle/Product.html?searchstring=stanley+holloway&searchtype=allproducts&searchsource=0&searchfilters=s%7Bstanley+holloway%7D%2B&cpage=3&urlrefer=search
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830232208/http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=84073 to http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=84073
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830232208/http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=84073 to http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=84073
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=84163
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111104205427/http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=84573 to http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=84573

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 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)

Source citations?

What's with all the primary sources cited in the "Family background" section? A lot of it seems to be original research, which is cracked down on mighty hard elsewhere on Wikipedia.78.144.75.151 (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I see this has previously been queried... frankly, the first section of the article is a mess of primary sources and disturbing lack of reliable secondary/ published sources, and for no discernible reason. The main thing is, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources , citation of primary sources- lacking corroboration, as the guidelines state, from reliable published secondary treatments of said primary sources- is deprecated. This level of detail on family is virtually never accepted here, so I'm quite bewildered to see it in this article, particularly, as I say, so very poorly sourced. I've added not-dissimilar paragraphs on family origins/ recent history here and there in the past, directly citing an autobiography or memoir, and had the information immediately removed for being "irrelevant". One of the very great problems with Wikipedia is the differing standards upheld by different fiefdoms that have built up over the years- no real consistency, so no solid precedent to follow!

The "Family background and early life" section has far too much original research and synthesis of primary sources going on. For the first paragraph, the published sources cited are sufficient- the only thing that cites a primary source is Holloway's birth at Manor Park, London, which is covered in his ODNB entry, already cited.

The section on his grandfather, however, entirely relies upon original research, and is at any rate superfluous; the only relevant facts, covered by the ODNB entry and by Holloway & Richards, are that the grandfather was a fairly successful brush-maker thanks to whom Holloway's own family was comfortably off. His wife's name and other children are irrelevant and again represent original research/ synthesis.

The next section begins by mentioning the grandparents' relocation to Poplar, London, citing a probate record. This is totally original research, predicated upon the user who added it having identified the correct individual. A reliable published source would be required. At any rate, this is surplus to requirements in an article on Stanley Holloway, the only possible relevance to whom deriving from the statement that on the grandfather's death, Holloway's father relocated to Manor Park (one rarely encounters such a detailed account of exactly why an individual was born in the place that he was born, so here too it seems superfluous- and at any rate is original research). The details of George Holloway's occupation, marriage to his employer's daughter, and children are all in Holloway & Richards; the Ancestry.com 1901 census return is unnecessary (and specifically deprecated per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). That George Holloway left his family is, as shown, covered by Holloway & Richards; the probate record citation is, again, original research and the information scarcely relevant.

You neglected to sign your comment. You misunderstand what "original research" means. There is nothing wrong with using official, accessible sources for factoids like names and dates. The sources discussion that you cite merely says of census, probate and similar materials: "Some of these sources may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred." I agree with that, and I am happy to delete such sources to the extent that they are redundant with Holloway and Richards or ODNB, if that is the case. I reduced the info about Holloway's grandfather, but it was all accepted at FAC, so I don't think it is warranted to cut it as much as you did. I will defer to User:Tim riley, when he has a moment to consider this, as he has done a lot of work on this article and has all the book sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

You know, I had typed up a far-too-long dissection of exactly why I made the initial edit, but in the event I think I shall spare you having to either read it or roll your eyes at its length and contrariness and NOT read it, and spare myself the bother of being disdained for it and having my reasoning dismissed out of hand. I hope you can make this article better than it currently is, in any case- "Meliora sperans", and such. Best regards 88.109.215.181 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I was unaware of deleting anything other than an added citation to the GRO that didn't in fact support the statement attributed to it, viz. that Woodford is now in London rather than Essex. If I deleted anything else it was in error, for which apols. My edit summary explains what I was seeking to do. Tim riley talk 08:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

"We do not falsify quotations"

Hi.

In the edition I checked before making the edit, the phrases "Shakespearian roles" and "Shakespearian connections" do not occur. I've since traced the origin of the chapter descriptions in the footnote to a series of IP edits made in 2010, starting here.

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• User:Jean-de-Nivelle, That's not an IP. It's a renamed user, as the account name makes clear. - SchroCat (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, you're right. What of it? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say there was anything of it, just correcting an error on the identity of the editor, that's all. - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

By the time you edited those descriptions into a footnote in 2011 perhaps it was no longer clear that the chapter descriptions did not originate in Holloway's text, but were added by a Wikipedia editor.Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Well if one of the acceptable spellings has been in place since 2011, does it really need changing? I think the status quo is okay to remain. - SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

O, reason not the need! I've no strong objection to the use of the less common spelling, although I do object quite strongly to the inappropriate use of the word "falsify" in the edit summary. On the other hand, what purpose do these chapter summaries serve? Do they need to be there at all?Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

For those who don’t have access to the book, I suspect the summaries are quite useful, particularly as the work isn’t available on Google Books, in Kindle form or currently in print. - SchroCat (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

As to deleting chunks of the agreed text of a featured article, agreement would need to be sought on the article talk page. That apart, there are three points here that need to be addressed. First, if a quotation uses one spelling we do not tamper with it to suit our own tastes. Secondly, if something is shown in a WP article as a quotation but is not a quotation it should be amended accordingly. Thirdly, there is the spelling of the relevant adjective. On the last point, this is what Fowler said in the original Modern English Usage:

Shakspere, Shakespear(e), -erian, -earian, -ean, &c. The forms preferred by the OED are Shakspere, Shaksperian. It is a matter on which unanimity is desirable, & on which, in view of the concerting arguments, it will never be reached unless an authoritative decision is accepted as such. Shakspere, Shaksperian, are therefore recommended.

That may have been a tenable position in 1926, but even the OED has given up on "Shakspere" and spells it as everyone else does. In the latest edition of Fowler, Butterfield says:

Shakespeare. Now universally spelt as shown, but in the early decades of the 20c. Shakspere was the more usual form, and was recommended by the OED (1913) and by Fowler (1926). The corresponding adjective (and noun) may be written as Shakespearian, the older but less frequent form, or Shakespearean.

Chambers gives both forms, but puts Shakespearian first. The Guardian Style Guide prescribes "Shakespearean, not Shakespearian". The Times Style Guide specifies Shakespearean but a quick comb through the paper's online archive finds that 181 Shakespearians have slipped through since 2000. The Cambridge University Press can't make up its mind: in The New Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare (2010) it's "Shakespearian" throughout the text, but a spin-off volume from three years later is The Cambridge Companion to Shakespearean Tragedy. The Internet Archive has any number of books called Shakespearian This or Shakespearean That – so many of each, in fact, that I think one must conclude that both are equally correct, and that Fowler was right to say there will never be unanimity on the matter. Tim riley talk 07:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

We seem to have drifted rather far from the point. I don't object to Tim riley's revertion of my edit, although I think his arguments for doing so are not convincing. I object quite strongly to Tim riley's suggestion in his edit summary that I falsified a quotation. That's why I moved this discussion to Tim riley's talk page. Tim?

Also: "That apart, there are three points here that need to be addressed. First, if a quotation uses one spelling we do not tamper with it to suit our own tastes. Secondly, if something is shown in a WP article as a quotation but is not a quotation it should be amended accordingly. Thirdly, there is the spelling of the relevant adjective."

The first two points are humbug. No quotation was tampered with. Neither was any part of what I edited passed off as a quotation. Tim riley may have wrongly assumed that the material I edited formed part of a quotation, but that's not my mistake. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• As you yourself said "Ah yes, you're right. What of it?" Does it matter? Aren't there better things to do? - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It matters to me. I've no idea why it would matter to you, or why you chose to become involved. If you have better things to do, please go about your business. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but please don't tell me which threads I can or cannot comment upon. I became involved to correct an error you made: no-one is perfect and if Tim riley made a mistake, so have you, so I'm not sure why the extended humbug on something so trivial. WP:DROPTHESTICK maybe? Just a suggestion which you are free to consider or ignore. - SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Please note that I haven't told you which threads you can or cannot comment upon, nor would I ever presume to. You corrected a trivial error, which I acknowledged. I'm only pointing out that if you feel this discussion has become a waste of your time, nothing compels you to prolong your involvement in it. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

J-de-N, please try to be civil. Describing others' contributions as humbug, or telling them to go about their business is not helpful. Glad to know you were not tampering with a quotation. Your quotation marks in your edit summary gave the contrary impression, but you were merely altering the agreed FA text. In what sense were you "standardising" the spelling, by the way? For your future guidance, discussions of this kind should be on the article talk page, where all interested editors can see them, rather than on one editor's talk page where they will be seen by few.Tim riley talk 08:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Humbug is humbug! I began this discussion here because I thought it possible that some other edition of Holloway's autobiography might contain the chapter summaries I'd edited. Once it was clear that those summaries were the work of a Wikipedia editor I moved the discussion to your Talk page, since my objection was not to your reversion of my edit, but to your mistaken suggestion that I'd falsified a quotation. A simple apology for that error would conclude this matter to my satisfaction. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No summary box?

I was surprised this article does not have a summary box like most biographies on Wikipedia do. Please can someone who knows how to do so please add one so the article is more complete. I was just looking to see whether he had children and that is harder without the box. Thank you. 82.132.184.235 (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

No infobox is desired for this article, as the WP:LEAD section covers all the key information about Holloway and is more nuanced than a box would be. It does say how many children he had. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand your comment because it does not seem relevant? Why do you say that a summary box is not desired when I have just expressed a desire for one?

Boxes are standard on most Wikipedia biographies, I presume because I am not the only person to find that they make finding information easier. What nuance is needed for things like when he was born and died and how many children he had? This information is in the article but it is hard to find, because there is no summary box.

I just ask someone to make the article better in this simple way but you seem to say that this is not desired? Do you get to speak for all Wikipedia people? 82.132.184.235 (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length: see earlier exchanges. Some articles benefit from an info-box and some don't. The consensus is that this is one of the latter. Tim riley talk 22:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Seeing if Holloway had children would be faster to find in an infobox than having navigate through the lead. Quicker access to information is a perfectly good reason for there to be an infobox; it'd be much easier to see how old he was when he died in an infobox than for the reader to have to do the mental math in their head. And indeed, the presence of the infobox on the overwhelming majority of biographical articles makes the absence of one here feel jarring for many readers. History has shown that consensus can change, and that is not a bad thing. Songwaters (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I see you didn’t quite read Ssilvers’s post either (or even look at the article): it’s in the lead. - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I apologize. Songwaters (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)