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 ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› 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)

• As I've had to repeat three times, that format has also been criticised, so it's not really appropriate. There is nothing "misleading" about the comma, the use of which here is entirely correct English. - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Even if it was correct English, it really doesn't scan well for an article title. We should explore other options. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• There's no "even if" about it: it is correct. Other options were explored, mulled over, considered and rejected. The current version, which scans well, and is clean, elegant and (bloody) obvious was settled on. There is still no good reason to change this title from the curent form to something else. - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Surely using correct English overrides anything? Cassianto^talk 10:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• John Gielgud on stage, radio and screen or Roles and awards of John Gielgud are both correct English. The current structure is not. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• FFS - FOR THE FIFTH TIME: THE FORMAT OF "XXXX ON STAGE AND SCREEN" HAS BEEN CRITICISED ELSEWHERE AND IS NOT ON THE AGENDA. Try reading the bloody thread before commenting on things already answered. - SchroCat (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• And this format is being criticised here. This format is MUCH worse. How about we move List of awards and nominations received by Amy Adams to Amy Adams, awards and nominations? It's a ridiculous title! --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Not worse at all. Your comment isn't based on policy, but on your personal opinion on what you may—or more obviously not—know about a comma. - SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• And you're an expert on commas? Again, a real-world example may help to convince me. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Not an expert, but I know how to use a comma, which seems to be beyond one or two others. - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think you'll find that WP:TITLEFORMAT covers it, in the section "Do not create subsidiary articles": "Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another: even if an article is considered subsidiary to another (as where summary style is used), it should be named independently. For example, an article on transport in Azerbaijan should not be given a name like "Azerbaijan/Transport" or "Azerbaijan (transport)" – use Transport in Azerbaijan." --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Give me an example, somewhere in the real world, where the current title structure has been applied. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Not an ideal title, but better than the current one. —sroc 💬 13:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support as an improvement. "John Gielgud, roles and awards" doesn't work. "John Gielgud, super-genius" is grammatical. But John Gielgud is not "roles and awards". John Gielgud roles and awards is grammatical and an improvement. John Gielgud's roles and awards would work too, or Roles and awards of John Gielgud, or John Gielgud filmography (standard form of Category:Filmographies or List of roles and awards of John Gieldgud. See also List of compositions by John Williams (not John Williams, compositions). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "John Gielgud roles and awards is grammatical"? In which language? It's certainly not correct in English, where some form of stop is needed after Gielgud but before the description. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

    • How many John Gielgud roles and awards can you name? (grammatical)
    • How many John Gielgud, roles and awards can you name? (ungrammatical)

    —sroc 💬 13:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

    • Something doesn't have to be in a sentence to be in correct English – SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

    In English. I have at least five Michael Jackson albums. There were at least five John Gielgud roles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

    • That's a partial quote and nonsenseif you do it honestly: "There were at least five John Gielgud roles and awards" is not good... I have yet to see anyone point to anything that categorically states that a title has to be usable in a sentence. - SchroCat (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
      • WP:TITLEFORMAT. The bit about noun phrases. The bit about subsidiary articles is pertinent too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
        • There is certainly nothing there that says a title must be able to be usable in a sentence. - SchroCat (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
          • That's the implication of a noun phrase. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Not really, and, again, there's nothing that categorically states that titles have to be usable in a sentence. - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
              • But it does say it should be a noun phrase. "John Gielgud, roles and awards" is not a noun phrase. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
                • And it also says "normally preferred", not being imperative. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

      Kindly refrain from implying dishonesty. Yes, John Gielgud roles and awards is still clumsy, but "There were at least five John Gielgud roles and awards" is sensical and superior to "There were at least five John Gielgud, roles and awards". Yes, John Gielgud filmography or List of roles and awards of John Gielgud are better options. But I support the incremental improvement. - JHunterJ (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

      • No, that's a terrible sentence! And just trying to shoehorn this title into something else isn't helpful: "For John Gielgud, roles and awards were offered easily to him": it's not worse than the examples provided above. Thank you, however, for coming up with some suggestions: "John Gielgud filmography" just won't work: this article covers his stage and radio roles, as well as the associated awards, so doesn't reflect the content. "List of roles and awards of John Gielgud" may work, in that it is at least grammatical and covers the subject. It's certainly less objectionable than everything else that's been offered up to now. Does anyone else have a view on this potential title? - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

For John Gielgud, roles and awards were offered easily to him is fine as a sentence but unhelpful to illustrate suitability for a Wikipedia title. You have acknowledged that WP:TITLEFORMAT says: "Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech". John Gielgud, roles and awards is not a noun phrase. John Gielgud roles and awards is a noun phrase, so should be preferred. I am yet to see any evidence that the comma is even acceptable, let alone required.

List of roles and awards of John Gielgud would be even better, and would also fit with the guidance on subsidiary titles. —sroc 💬 23:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support – maybe I've left my grammar book at home. But as far as I can tell, the current title is at best awkward and at worst a comma splice. Exactly what purpose does the comma serve? A comma is not ordinarily used to denote possession. And exactly what is so wrong about saying "John Gielgud roles and awards"? It's true that there are possibly better choices, like John Gielgud: roles and awards or Roles and awards of John Gielgud or List of roles and awards of John Gielgud, or even John Gielgud's roles and awards, any of which I would support more strongly than the current proposal (although IDK about possessives in titles). But the current title is not a shining example of perfect title selection. What is so wrong with changing it? The objections people come up with to alternative titles with reek of article ownership and are also totally unconvincing, like arguing that "Roles and awards of John Gielgud" is bad because readers wouldn't type that in the search box (there are redirects, and honestly who is going to type in "John Gielgud, roles and awards" into the box?). IMHO pretty much any title would beat the current one with the comma. AgnosticAphid talk 17:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Agnosticaphid:, if you think "that there are possibly better choices", why on earth are you supporting something poor? Right above you JHunterJ has made a much better suggestion. If you don't like that, suggest something you consider to be more preferable: to insert a third or fourth placed choice in seems to be way off the ideal. I will also strongly refute the bollocks of an accusation of ownership: I have put forward arguments against poor suggestions, but I have also supported a third party's suggestion of a title - it's one I would not choose as better than the current one, but it's certainly better than any of the other nonsense I've seen suggested. - SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Hm. Did you read my comment before you responded to it? The "much better suggestion" of List of roles and awards of John Gielgud that you seemed to like above is one of the suggestions that I did make. Perhaps more contemplation and less knee-jerk opposition is in order. AgnosticAphid talk 17:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• So talk me through your support of a weaker title...? - SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I'll start off by observing that you never responded to anything I actually said in my comment. I'll reiterate that I suggested four alternate titles (one of which you apparently don't dislike) and said I would support any of them more strongly than the current proposal. I'll also point out that I invited editors who opposed the move to explain exactly why the current title is using a comma and exactly why the comma-less version is incorrect, which as far as I can tell nobody has done. And I'll conclude by standing by my (perhaps disagreeable) claim of editors asserting ownership of this article. AgnosticAphid talk 18:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Your accusation of ownership is uncivil and obnoxious. I claim no rights over this page at all, and have happily supported a workable alternative. I sincerely doubt you'll withdraw the accusation, which says more about you than me, sadly. - SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I am sorry you feel I attacked you improperly. But in my opinion knee-jerk opposition and failure to meaningfully engage with opposing viewpoints is the hallmark of ownership. And by attacked me before you even read (or else, maybe after you read but before you comprehended) my comment you sort of confirmed that opinion. But it's only just that, my opinion. AgnosticAphid talk 18:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• "failure to meaningfully engage with opposing viewpoints"? How sad that you didn't take into account that I have taken others viewpoints into consideration and that I am supporting a suggestion made by a third party. Disagreeing with flawed suggestions (and providing good reasons for such an opinion) isn't ownership. Perhaps you forgot to take that into account - I'll AGF on that point, even if it does seem to be a commodity in short supply here. - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Let's just agree that the title "list of roles and awards of..." is a superior alternative to the current title. AgnosticAphid talk 19:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you: a good place upon which to settle. Are there any other opinions on this particular suggestion? - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 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)

• Both recently created articles by yourself and Tim. There is no precedent for this title format. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, because some of us create content, not piss about criticising the work of others and wasting time and effort in the process. There are other articles that use the format, but I don't supposed you've bothered to search for them either? As to precedent, so fucking what? There doesn't need to be a precendent for an article structure that is fairly unique. - SchroCat (talk) 10:53, 10 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)

Haha I'm seeing some amusing comments on here aimed at editors who are better than most, Tim and Schro not capable of "good English"? LOL. Absolutely nothing wrong with it as it is. Why not focus on something which actually needs work and attention?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with BDD, Robsinden and Victor falk that the current title (John Gielgud, roles and awards) at best scans poorly and at worst is confusing, if not sub-optimal use of English. Wikipedia article titles are not constructed like an index with sub-ordinate topics divided from their parent topics by a comma. I would support a move to:
  • Roles and awards of John Gielgud
  • Performances of John Gielgud
  • John Gielgud on stage, radio and screen
  • John Gielgud's roles and awards (my preference is against this because the "…of…" format is more usual in Wikipedia articles than "…'s…" and it perhaps suggests Gielgud produced the awards)

or any similar format. —sroc 💬 13:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

For the sixth, but I doubt final, time, the format "XXX XXX on stage, radio and screen" has been criticised elsewhere as being inappropriate and will not be adopted. (Please try and read the thread fully before commenting next time). "Performances of" misses out the awards, so is a non-runner, and "Roles and awards of John Gielgud" makes it sound like they were the awards presented by Gielgud, or issued in his name. - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

There is clearly some conjecture as to whether John Gielgud, roles and awards is proper form in English. I am a well-educated adult native English speaker and this form is foreign to me. Please assume good faith in accepting that if several editors say that the form is wrong to them, then they may be on to something about the way ordinary speakers use English, even if some text books or style guides disagree. Doesn't it make sense to prefer a form that is more natural and widely agreed as proper English over a form that has mixed acceptance? After all, just because it may be technically grammatical does not make it a natural title.

It would be helpful if you could be more productive in working towards solutions instead of stonewalling; comments such as "will not be adopted" smack of attempts to own the article. There are plenty of other examples such as Steven Spielberg filmography and List of awards and nominations received by Steven Spielberg we can use as a guide for good, clear titles (I'm not suggesting this article be split). I'm sure we can build consensus on a good title if we work together with open minds. —sroc 💬 13:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sroc, I'm not stonewalling over anything, but when I've had to repeat six times that one of the suggested forms has been strongly criticised elsewhere, it seems utterly ridiculous to consider contemplating its use: it's not ownership at all, it's because I know what I'm talking about with that form, and it seems that the people who have suggested it do not. I strongly suggest you AGF and drop the ownership smears straight away. So far I have not seen a good example of something worth discussing which cannot be easily dismissed on one ground or another. Come up with some workable ideas and we can discuss them: the ones already suggested are flawed. - SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, SchroCat. I was holding out for a better title that might get wider consensus, but you've convinced me to support John Gielgud roles and awards in the meantime as it preferable to the current title. I'm sure there's a better alternative out there somewhere, but I have other fish to fry. —sroc 💬 13:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, instead of reiterating that something "has been strongly criticised elsewhere", it would be helpful if you actually linked to previous discussions. Otherwise it comes across as: Trust me, I know better than you! In any case, consensus can change, so the fact that something was discussed in the past does not mean we're bound to follow it now. Let's focus on the merits. —sroc 💬 13:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Try using the search facility. I know that's not terribly helpful, but I've had my fill of spoon-feeding people answers on basic stuff today. Do you have any other suggestions? if not, then the existing title can stay in place until something decent comes along. "John Gielgud roles and awards" is a ridiculously AWFUL stand-alone title, and so far no-one has come up with anything better, and running off to fry fish is not advancing the issue at hand here. - SchroCat (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat, please stop saying that. Just because a certain format has been "criticised elsewhere" doesn't mean it has to be ruled out. Can you think of anything on the encyclopedia that hasn't been criticized at some point? --BDD (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I will keep saying it because while you may be a seagull visitor to this issue, others of us actually have to deal with it on a regular basis, and I'm not prepared to move this to something that is equally contentious. Now, do you have anything constructive to add to the sensible suggestion by JHunterJ above? - SchroCat (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, then, it's your position that an editor needs to contribute to an article in order to have a valid opinion about it? --BDD (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't try to put words into my mouth, that would be tiresome. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

But you do think the fact that I haven't worked on this article is relevant, don't you? I'm not sure why you'd bring it up otherwise. --BDD (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, stop putting words in my mouth: in future ask what someone means, rather than twist their words into something inappropriate and misleading. What I have tried to explain to you, although you seem not to be in "receive" mode, is that I have some experience in these forms of articles that cover a career history, for want of a better term. You do not seem to have such experience, and I have tried to explain to you that the previous formats have come up against some opposition, which is something that I am trying to avoid in the future. - SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for making assumptions. But surely you know that consensus can change, and if there's consensus to move to a title that's previously been rejected, those who have objected in the past can speak up here or just deal with it. It's helpful to be aware of previous discussions, but they need not drive this one. --BDD (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• By the way, I think we could play bingo with the amount of statements here that closely mirror the examples of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Statements. --BDD (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've already refuted such silliness (which is also horribly untrue): please do not dip into the cesspit of such incivility, and try - just try - to AGF, however hard you may find it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think everybody is assuming good faith in believing in the best intentions of all regarding the encyclopedia, but it might be that some editors have a von oben and condescending attitude, or at least that comes across as such, that may stand in the way of a constructive consensus. Perhaps it is an opportune moment to remind all of wp:civility ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• ? As BDD has apologised for making assumptions, I hardly think this is constructive. What could be constructive is if you could address the suggested title in the previous section, which is! after all! the main point here. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I wondered how long it would before someone brought up the "if all else fails, let's blame OWN" yarn. This isn't OWN, it is a case of people who appear to have a good level of English pointing out good English to those who appear not to know the lingo. Cassianto^talk 23:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, if people insist on belaboring this point, it seems to me that comments like "while you may be a seagull visitor to this issue, others of us actually have to deal with it on a regular basis" is pretty much a quintessential claim of ownership as BDD already noted. Whether SchroCat is a font of list-title-formatting wisdom or a font of John Gielgud wisdom is entirely beside the point and has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever. It's functionally identical to the example statements of "Are you qualified to edit this article?" and "You obviously have no hands-on experience with this topic" that the page you reference condemns. The other earlier comment of "some of us create content, not piss about criticising the work of others and wasting time and effort in the process" is equally troublesome. To briefly comment on the substance of those accusations, I believe that many of the people who don't like this title are quite heavily involved with monitoring the WP:MOS, which is hardly a playground for grammatical novices. And finally, to dredge up a point I didn't think was worth emphasizing, nowhere in this entire move discussion is there any actual explanation of why it is incorrect to remove the comma or what exactly the comma is doing there in the first place. The only statements are basically "OMG I KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT ENGLISH GRAMMAR AND LISTS, AND YOU PROBABLY CAME OUT OF A HOLE, SO YOU'RE WRONG!!!!!" AgnosticAphid talk 00:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't shout, there's a good chap. Cassianto^talk 00:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

List of roles and awards of John Gielgud

Alternative proposal: John Gielgud, roles and awards → List of roles and awards of John Gielgud – This seems to be gathering more support than any of the other alternatives, so perhaps we should run this up the flagpole and have a !vote. —sroc 💬 23:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as a better alternative than John Gielgud roles and awards and certainly better than the current title. —sroc 💬 23:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose stupid title and an even more stupid idea. Cassianto^talk 23:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you perhaps be more constructive in your comment to explain your reasoning? —sroc 💬 00:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

...and could you perhaps refer your eyes to my comments above where you will see my reasoning. Cassianto^talk 00:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see where you have addressed this proposed title above. —sroc 💬 00:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Then your skills at looking are equal to your ideas on how to correctly name an article. Cassianto^talk 00:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support -- as SchroCat and I agreed above (even though we don't seem to be in agreement about much else!), it's a superior alternative to the current title. AgnosticAphid talk 00:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support as an improvement over the current and proposed titles. It would be good to apply this to similarly named articles as well. --BDD (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Isn't the fact that it is a list implied by "roles and awards of"? As far I know nothing says it is obligatory for a list to have "List of" in the title. It sounds less of mouthful and more concise. ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• support standard formulation. the comma version is atrocious. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)