Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards

Cross references to John Gielgud biographical article

We need to decide how to link between the two articles. For Gielgud's colleague Ralph Richardson I put a link to the list of roles etc at the top of each section of the biography, linking to the relevant bit of the table of roles. But how and where to link from Gielgud's biog to this mighty list of his roles needs thinking about. Any thoughts?

Would the Gielgud article also work well with the same form of linking to sections? - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if we can contrive some means of pointing to five different tables from the head of each section without assaulting the reader's eye with a sea of long blue-links. You are much more clued-up than I am about such things. I have in my mind's eye something that looks a bit like this:

Details of Gielgud's work, 1950–59: Stage, Director, Film, Television, Radio

Does that seem suitable, and if so how would we make it work? Tim riley (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've tweaked slightly, but let me have a look at the anchoring style on RR's tables and see what we can work out. - SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Sorry Tim, I've been hugely slow on this: I promise to look into it this evening! - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we can use pretty much the same hatnote and anchor system you used on RR (and as you've outlined above):

{{Hatnote|Details of Gielgud's work, 1950–59: [[John Gielgud, roles and awards#jgS59|Stage]], [[John Gielgud, roles and awards#jgD21|Director]], [[John Gielgud, roles and awards#jgF21|Film]], [[John Gielgud, roles and awards#jgTV21|Television]], [[John Gielgud, roles and awards#jgR21|Radio]]}}

We can use the same anchors as RR:

• {{anchor|jgS59}}
• {{anchor|jgD59}}
• {{anchor|jgF59}}
• {{anchor|jgTV59}}
• {{anchor|jgR59}}

Any thoughts on where you want to add them into the main article? - SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That's just the job. If you trust me not to muck up your tables I'll add the anchors and link to the sections of the biography. We progress! Tim riley (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course I trust you! I'll check the sorting after you've done it, but I really don't see how the anchors would affect it. I'll be round to the main article soon for the PR. - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Good. Well I've done my bit, and nothing seems to have fallen apart. Pray check, though. One small point: I've changed "Covent Garden Theatre" to "Royal Opera House"; I hope that won't bugger up the indexing codes, but please have a look. My admiration for your definitive tables has been increased still further as I prodded and poked about in them scattering anchors. If I have done anything you don't like, please revert instanter. Tim riley (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This afternoon I watched wave after wave of anchors being dropped throughout and was mightily impressed with them all. Nothing broken anywhere, and all links 'tween the two pages seem to be working admirably! We must do this again sometime, but perhaps with a less active individual? - SchroCat (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wehwalt has one over on us with his Ezra Meeker, who clocked up one year more than Sir John, but on balance people with a 75-year career though astonishing are unconscionably hard work for the hapless biographer or cataloguer, wouldn't you agree? On another tack, I tell you here and now, I have no intention of overhauling Laurence Olivier's article. A superb actor, but I just can't get a handle on the human being. I think my next FAC will be another composer and thoroughly nice man, Ralph Vaughan Williams. Et toi? – Tim riley (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

RVW is a fine choice and I think he'll make a very good article. I'm going to work on Tranby Croft, which I've always found fascinating episode, but may also do a list in the background in between times. I also want to work on the RR list as well, to get that up to an FL, but may get one of the others sorted before I dip back into another long roles and awards set of tables! - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Title

This article was recently moved to "John Gielgud roles and awards" on the basis "redundant comma, more natural". Unfortunately the result was grammatically awful (the comma wasn't quite so redundant, after all). I've moved it back to the previous version, which was in entirely correct English. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Good grief! Absolutely right. A most peculiar thing to do, and it's good that you've corrected it. Tim riley (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

John Gielgud, roles and awards → John Gielgud roles and awards – Per WP:NC. Comma here may imply that we are speaking about John Gielgud, some roles and some awards, whereas John Gielgud roles and awards (without comma) clearly indicates that those roles and awards are John Gielgud's. This is also a standard convention in Category:Filmographies, for example, where this article is categorized - i.e. person's name + filmography, without comma. Brandmeister^talk 19:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• STRONGLY oppose, as per WP:NC and all the laws of basic English. As per the thread directly above this, "John Gielgud roles and awards" is sub-standard English and not something we should aspire to as an encyclopaedia. - SchroCat (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • So the forms like the John Wayne Filmography, the Monroe Doctrine and the Reagan presidency are also sub-standard English? :) C'mon. Brandmeister^talk 19:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• They may be partially acceptable in some circumstances in American English, but "John Gielgud roles and awards" is painful, lazy and awful in British English. I'll also point out that you've selectively quoted there: missing off the definite article is a horrible thing to do, but Americans seem to enjoy it – it's certainly not grammatically correct in BrEng. - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• May be, but still I don't think this is the best way to handle the possessive form. How about John Gielgud's roles and awards or roles and awards of John Gielgud? Brandmeister^talk 19:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• How about "John Gielgud, roles and awards": neat, elegant, correct English. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• A neat rhyme of MOS:POSS is more sexy. Brandmeister^talk 19:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose also. The article is about the career of a British actor who appeared on the stage, on film and who, inevitably, won awards for doing so. The current title reflects this perfectly, provides no confusion and is formatted correctly in BrEng. Oh, and it might have been better to have discussed such a controversial move on the talk page first, rather than go ahead regardless. Just a helpful bit of advice for the future. :) Cassianto^talk 19:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I wholly concur with Cassianto. This page has been through a thorough FL review where the matter of the title was considered. I hope we shall not be wasting very much more time on one editor's personal crusade. Tim riley (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• This is a terrible title, and I'm incredulous that this made FL with such a title. I'm also dumbfounded by the arguments that the proposed title is bad English. "John Gielgud, roles and awards" isn't?? What's really confusing here is that this is a mix of a typical filmography article and a typical "List of awards and nominations" article, so I'm not exactly sure what it should be named. Not the current title, but probably not the proposed name either. The simplest solution would simply be to split the article into John Gielgud filmography and List of awards and nominations received by John Gielgud. It's never been clear what happens to a FL when it's split (this has come up before), though. --BDD (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• n.b. Browse Category:Filmographies and you'll find plenty that include non-film roles. Given Gielgud's prominence in other fields, though, another option would be John Gielgud on stage and screen, following what we've done for Timothy Dalton, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and some others. Still not the most elegant wording, and maybe even a bit colloquial, but it would be an improvement. --BDD (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oh dear: from the sublime to the ridiculous. Split? No, no, no! Why on earth would we do something as crassly awful as that? Thankfully the consensus is strongly against such a pointless suggestion: a number of our featured lists (and, indeed, non-featured ones) deal with the full career history that covers both an artist's work, and the awards they received for that work. (You suggest Philip Seymour Hoffman on stage and screen as an alternative? An article with only one unreliable source? Perhaps you could best spend time in bringing that one up to the barely passable standard of having just one reliable source, rather than making such truly awful suggestions that go counter to what we already have?) To answer your question on the title: "John Gielgud, roles and awards" isn't?? No, it's not. Perhaps you'd be best advised to read up on possible uses of the comma. - SchroCat (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My focus is on titles, and consistency in them, which is part of our core naming WP:CRITERIA. I don't care how many references Philip Seymour Hoffman on stage and screen has, because I was suggesting the title as a model for this one, not the article itself. Look, it's clear you're invested in this article, and you've done some good work on it. But what exactly would make a split "crassly awful"? Hell, we can call them both FLs. I don't really care about that. And yes, maybe it would be good for me "to read up on possible uses of the comma." Could you point me in the direction of something that supports the current title? --BDD (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So hang on a second; what your saying is "forget the references and the quality of an article. In fact, the references are that unimportant that the article can be littered with bad, unreliable ones so long as it has a great title!" Good grief! This thread has turned into a complete farce and should be speedily closed. Cassianto^talk 17:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a discussion about the title of the article, not its referencing or quality. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Then don't bring it up. Simples! Cassianto^talk 17:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's kinda funny (or would be if it wasn't some form of kafka-esque situation here), but I was the one who came up with the format of "XXXX on screen, stage, etc", and I've been criticised for it a fair amount, which is why there is a move towards something less clunky. "xxx, roles and awards" is less clunky, and also has the benefits of being elegant, obvious and basic, correct English. A split would be crassly awful and awfully crass: why on earth should we split away the awards of a career from the record of that career? That's just counter-intuative and pointless. As to the comma: try Fowler or Gower for the basics. As to Hoffman, perhaps it would be more constructive if you moved your focus away from featured work to building up the much-needed references on articles (that's one of the five pillars, rather than anyone's personal windmill crusade): reliable sourcing is so much more important if we're trying to build an encyclopaedia. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

By a happy coincidence I am at present working on the Gowers Plain Words article (contributions cordially invited) and surrounded by the works of Gowers, Fowler, Vallins and Herbert on my desk as I am, I don't think the use of commas in headings is specifically covered in any of them, but I do know, with the works of these authorities buzzing round my brain, that I'm confident the form adopted on our page would raise no eyebrows among experts. – Tim riley (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the one who brought it up. See the new subsection for more discussion about whether this is proper English. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Good grief, just because you don't grasp it doesn't mean that it's not correct. - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, I'm not a genius, but I'm fairly smart. If I don't grasp this, it's probably safe to say many readers won't either. --BDD (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So when did ignorance become a basis for policy? I really don't get what is so difficult to understand here: this is fairly simple English, or maybe it's just something that's done so differently in AmEng. - SchroCat (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• John Gielgud's roles and awards? ^walk victor falk ^talk 15:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think we should stick to the existing title, which is, me judice, preferable to anything else suggested to date. Succinct, literate, admirable. Tim riley (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Concur with Tim. It's a shame certain people can't just get on with improving other articles rather than spoil those which have passed the scrutiny of FLC and FAC. Leave the article alone, as it is correct in its current form. Cassianto^talk 17:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support move to anything but this. Maybe follow the Hattie Jacques on stage, radio, screen and record, David Niven on screen, stage, radio, record and in print model. Or Roles and awards of John Gielgud. But the present title sounds like a discussion about John Gielgud, roles and awards. That comma is misleading. Peace, love and harmony. Luck, Trust and Ketchup. etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I really feel like I'm in some sort of bizarro world here where "John Gielgud, roles and awards" is good English. Is this a British convention I'm not familiar with? It sounds to me like something that would be said by a foreigner who is struggling with English. The main ideas are communicated, but in a disjointed way: I get that we're talking about John Gielgud, and about roles and awards, presumably his. There's no need for titles to be complete sentences or anything, but it should generally be possible to use them in a sentence in a coherent way (I mean, I could say something like "Like John Gielgud, roles and awards are something I've held and won," but the meaning is different). I'm really not trying to be difficult here—could someone explain how this is proper English? Reference to another source using such a construction would be helpful. I'm open to changing my mind if someone can demonstrate this, but as is, I have a lot of experience with the English language and have never encountered anything like this. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm really trying here. I could imagine a book, perhaps, called John Gielgud: Roles and Awards, or a page like John Gielgud/Roles and awards if we still used subpages. But as a Wikipedia title, which, again, should be usable in prose, I'm coming up blank. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A stop is necessary. A colon would do. A dash, as here, would do. And a comma, as in the present article, will do. All equally well. Tim riley (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • None of them will work naturally in a sentence, necessitating the obligatory use of a WP:PIPELINK, with all the increase in issues that this entails. ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Edith Evans on stage and screen would definitely fit that article. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've already explained to you that there is a degree of opposition to that format. - SchroCat (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course it wouldn't. That title suggests a critical study, not a list. Didn't I see on your user page that you're a librarian? As one librarian to another, I should say that clarity is imperative. Tim riley (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• One of the prime considerations for an article title is its usability as hypertext and thus would fit naturally within a sentence, that's why punctuation and non-letter characters are frowned upon. ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think a citation needed tag is needed on that. Non letter characters are frowned upon? Then why suggest "John Gielgud's roles and awards" as an alternative? - SchroCat (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Roles and awards of John Gielgud? ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • We must consider our readers. Not one in a thousand is going to search for "Roles and awards of...". It is basic indexing technique to begin with the key words and narrow down to the sub-category. Tim riley (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• It's because of indexing I suggested John Gielgud's roles and awards, but that was summarily dismissed without any justification beyond "the current one is just better". ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Apart the current version being better, your suggested title is inconsistent with any other titles we have (I think). - SchroCat (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Do those other titles all use a comma? ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• There are some that do. - SchroCat (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Would you be so kind as to provide some examples? ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• If you can't look for yourself, you can try Ralph Richardson and Ian McKellen. Are there any other articles that use the format "XXXX XXXX's roles and awards"? - SchroCat (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

How many angels can dance on the point of a needle? The present title is concise, clear, literate and doesn't need tampering with. Tim riley (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)