Jump to content

Talk:Kenneth Williams

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 79.64.38.7 (talk) at 19:38, 20 November 2019 (→Writing about mental health: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

!

Is there a particular reason for the exclamation mark in "Inspector Truscott (!)."? Mintguy

English

Okay, *I* always thought KW was English, and he was apparently born in England according to this article, but in the last twenty seconds or so of this clip here he specifically says he's not English and claims to be Welsh. What's with that? Marnanel 04:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I assume he has welsh ancestry - Williams is very much a Welsh name Gavin Bl 10:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that his father was a Williams and his mother born a Morgan, he was of Welsh ancestry on both sides. I recall him mentioning in one book that an early (stage?) review had described him as, 'Young Welsh actor Kenneth Williams', and saying that technically, it was correct. 62.172.185.126 (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't view the YouTube at the moment (this PC won't allow me to), but I will later. However, I would guess the article says English as he was born, grew up and lived in England his entire life. I also don't really recall him having an English accent.--UpDown (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen that clip to and he clearly says he's Welsh. I'm not sure he was speaking very good Welsh though. Maybe someone could comment.

He's joking because Williams is such a Welsh name. He used to joke and exaggerate a lot about himself. Dean B (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both Williams' mother and father were Welsh. See the Mavis Nicholson interview on YouTube where he talks about this at length.98.108.92.234 (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

The article claims a citation is needed for "He once proposed a cellibate marriage to Joan Sims...". I haven't read the diaries, but a scene in which he proposes a celibate marriage to Joan Sims is in Kenneth Williams: Fantabulosa - which is on BBC Four as I write. 87.114.143.205 21:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Eponymous"

Regarding a recent edit, AskOxford defines "eponymous" as "(of a person) giving their name to something" and "(of a thing) named after a particular person". Parkinson is therefore correctly described. Chris 42 (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. If Michael Parkinson had an 'eponymous' TV show it would be called 'Michael Parkinson', not 'Parkinson'. Parkinson is therefore not correctly described. Pfistermeister (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the show is named after its host, so how else would you describe it? Chris 42 (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't 'describe it' as anything, old bean: the context doesn't require attention to be drawn to an inexact relationship like that! And yes, the show is named after its host, and Parkinson would be 'the show's eponymous presenter' in situations where you refer to him by his surname alone. But 'Michael Parkinson' is not what the show is called, so the word eponymous doesn't apply in the para we're discussing! Can't you see this? In the case of the film 'Nixon', it would be okay to say that 'Antony Hopkins is the eponymous President', but only because of the exactitude of the reference... Pfistermeister (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't share your reasoning, Pfistermeister. Are not Washington (DC) and Washington (state) two of George Washington's many eponyms? These places don't have to be called "George Washington" in order to be eponyms of George Washington. The vast, vast majority of eponymous namings are of the surname alone - Mt McKinley, the Murray River, the Hume Highway, the Monroe Doctrine, the Kennedy Center, "Oprah", etc etc. "Parkinson" is clearly named after its host, Michael Parkinson, and is thus eponymous. That's the issue here - the fact that it's named after somebody, not that the title chosen necessarily exactly matches the person's full name. This would still be true even if it were called "Parky". -- JackofOz (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree as well. I can't find any dictionary definition that states that the full name must be used. Many define it as "derived from" or "related to". Also, if the reader had never heard of Michael Parkinson (and therefore his chat show) the expression "Michael Parkinson's chat show, Parkinson" contains needless repetition. "Michael Parkinson's eponymous chat show" communicates the show's name just as concisely without the iteration. Chris 42 (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revues

"One Leg Too Few" was in One Over The Eight, not Pieces Of Eight (it even says so in the One Leg Too Few article). However I'm sick of correcting things only for some ignoramus to restore the original untruth, so I'm just going to mention it here and hope that if anyone is looking up the info and needs to know this sort of thing, they'll read the talk page as well. (And if that's you, hello! Aren't talk pages great? Much better than the articles themselves, in my opinion. And page histories are great too, even if it is - and it is - a bit annoying to have to trawl through to find out the info you actually want to know.) -88.111.15.35 (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in toto with all these remarks. 121.44.224.110 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose we merge The Kenneth Williams Diaries with this page. The content of the diaries seems to be mostly replicated within this article.

Perhaps a small section within this page about the diaries would be sufficient as opposed to their own page.

Your thoughts..... Lukeyboyuk (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the current article on the Diaries is almost entirely a biography of Williams anyway so I agree. I'll have a go at writing a small section on the Diaries for this page unless anyone else tries first. Dean B (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree - there's very little material in the diaries article that's not covered in the main biographical article. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also agreeing on the merger- the diary article contains nothing that could not be said, or is not already noted, in the main article. --Elton Lear (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. The diaries article doesn't actually include much about the diaries. Earldelawarr (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. So why wait? Rothorpe (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the contents of The Kenneth Williams Diaries article in where marked - it lasts until what is now the second 'Sources' section. It needs a large amount of pruning, which I'll start on later... Rothorpe (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that didn't last very long! You have been warned! So, I'm putting in a link to the diaries article. Rothorpe (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of an old discussion, but I just found the diary article while Googling the book and wondered why it had an article of its own. Most of the content in that article was a very basic biography of Williams and had little to do with the book itself. As such, I think the original consensus should be upheld and I've redirected the article back here. If there's a problem with that, it should be discussed on the talk page instead of just reverting back with no explanation. Pinkadelica♣ 13:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental death

"On October 14, 1962 Williams' father, Charles, was taken to hospital after drinking carbon tetrachloride that had been stored in a cough mixture bottle. ... The coroner's court recorded a verdict of accidental death..." If ever I want to murder someone, England is the place to do it. PiCo (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Health problems

At the time of his death it was also reported that Kenneth Williams was a very heavy smoker and the nicotine had irritated his stomach ulcers,........ Is it possible that this may have weakened his resistance to barbiturates?AT Kunene (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality

'It has been suggested that he was a repressed homosexual': possibly the (unintentionally) funniest line I've read in a Wikipedia article. You might as well say 'It has been suggested that Adolf Hitler may have been less than tolerant of Jews'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.64.11 (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His uber-campiness and overall demeanour would lead many people to instantly assume he was homosexual. Problem is, we have next to no actual ... what do you call that stuff ... evidence, that's it. Being camp is not, in itself, evidence of homosexuality. Keeping one's private sexual activities extremely private is also not evidence that they must have been homosexual in nature. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no 'evidence' (I have heard of the word) that Williams was homosexual? A cursory trawl through his published diaries, not to mention the reminiscences of everyone who knew him, plus numerous print and televised biographies, should provide, I think, what you are looking for... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.206.157 (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that he and Charlie Hawtrey were chasing Barbara Windsor around the Carry On sets like a couple of rutting stags. And Joe Orton had a bit of an eye for the ladies. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how all the sex is Orton and Williams' diaries is with men...but apparently that's not 'evidence'. The line about 'it has been suggested he (Williams) was a repressed homosexual' is ludicrous. The man's own diaries are full of graphic references to a far from repressed sexual career with men. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually knew Keneth Williams for a while in the early 1970's (and foolishly played Scrabble with him on a couple of occasions - no one that I know ever beat him) and I can state that he was not as repressed as a homosexual as is made out. But this would be original research. 109.153.242.10 (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the phrase 'It has been suggested that he was a repressed homosexual' would suggest to an uninformed reader that there might be some doubt as to whether he was homosexual at all, rather than whether his homosexuality was repressed or overt. Since he clearly was homosexual - and since his homosexuality affected his entire life - the line remains ludicrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.203.66 (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the antiquated-sounding sentence. Rothorpe (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the line "A psychoanalytical examination of Williams's diaries suggests that the underlying cause of his repressed sexuality could be his life-long struggle with depression and feelings of worthlessness." Surely that should be the other way around, his repressed (at least publicly) sexuality is likely to be the cause of his depression... As it stands it's quite a claim that he repressed his sexuality because he was unhappy, surely he repressed it because it was an illegal taboo that could have ended his career in those less enlightened times. 144.32.128.51 (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so, and as it added nothing, I've removed that too. Rothorpe (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diaries and biographies

Is is necessary to identify the actual physical size of each of his diaries? It sounds as if it were written by someone suffering from OCD.154.5.40.122 (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albums

I've added an external link for "On Pleasure Bent". This seems to be about the only online information available on this album, and hopefully meets WP's criteria for linking - as far as I can tell the site is owned by Barry Booth himself and operates within copyright. Threefoursixninefour (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Representations of Williams

Hi was portrayed in the 1987 film Prick Up Your Ears, about Joe Orton, which was directed by Stephen Frears. He appears in the North African holiday episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.212.137.117 (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were Kenneth Williams' parents born in Wales?

The article states that Kenneth Williams was English, of "Welsh parentage". I know he was born in England, so the first part is fine, but were his parents born in Wales? That is the only thing that could truly constitute "Welsh parentage". I have read that the family had "Welsh roots" but that is entirely different. Reliable citation needed for this assertion.

(86.133.124.148 (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Kenneth Williams's Parents - Born In London

Mother: Louisa Morgan, born St Pancras, London

Father: Charles Williams, born Somers Town, London

Source: 'Born Brilliant' - authorised biography of Kenneth Williams, by Christopher Stevens, published 2010.

There are suggestions of Welsh lineage further back in the family, but exactly how much and how far back has not so far been researched. But Kenneth Williams cannot truthfully be said to have been of "Welsh parentage" as this article previously claimed.

(81.153.29.79 (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

This sentence...

The flat in Osnaburgh Street in which Williams had lived from 1972 until his death was bought by Rob Brydon and Julia Davis for the writing of their comedy series Human Remains.

... puzzles me. They bought a flat JUST to write a comedy series in? What panache! What cash!

Or did they rather FILM the series there? Bought and used it as a location? 121.44.224.110 (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kenneth Williams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comedian

The article currently has categories Category:English male comedians and Category:LGBT comedians, But these are only two places in the entire article where the word "comedian" appears. This doesn't seem quite right. Any comments (or even constructive suggestions)? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC) p.s. "... this is a stick up... you are supposed to be terrified of my threats..."[reply]

Well, either we reliably source "comedian" in the text, or we kill the cats. p.s...sticks, the Carry On way. CassiantoTalk 20:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenneth Williams. 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:

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) 20:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

So what is going on concerning the infobox? Infoboxes generally aid a reader in understanding the subject of the article; there is no point in removing it. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 19:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At last. Per WP:BRD, it appears the "D" part is lost on poor old Uncle Mitty. Anyway, you seem so confident that you speak for "the reader", but like everyone else here, you fail to provide a diff. Can you show me proof that this particular box aids the reader? Or is this another whimsical fancy picked out of the sky of nothingness? CassiantoTalk|
My dear @Cassianto:, I will copy my previous reply to you here, as you seemed to have missed it before: Simply look at the edit history of that article. Up until you removed the infobox two days ago the article has had an infobox since July of 2007. Over 10 years of editors not only allowing it to remain but also improving it by adding more information. WP:EDITCONSENSUS is the link you'll want to refer to regarding this type of consensus. If you'll take the time to read WP:INFOBOXUSE you'll see that whether or not an article has an infobox is wholly up to consensus, and you had zero consensus to remove it two days ago. Since then, you've been blatantly editwarring to keep it the way you want it. Now you can stop. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can copy and paste your nonsense here if you wish, my dear Uncle Milty, but my questions remain the same. I worry that you're talking gibberish and are unable to provide evidence of your rather bold claim that a mythical, infobox fan base existed prior to its removal. Rather than waste your time trying to justify this to me, why don't you start an RfC and link to the box that was there without a consensus? Or does the outcome of the RfC already exist in your own head, like the "consensus" that, apparantly, existed before it? Oh, and anything you need to say can be said here. You are not welcome at my talk page. CassiantoTalk 19:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the discussion and subsequent consensus that led you to remove the infobox twelve times within a 24 hour period? I can't seem to find that anywhere. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a chicken and the egg scenario. The adding of the box came first, in 2007, without a discussion taking place. That was a bold edit that could've been challenged. The fact that it wasn't, doesn't mean a consensus is in place. This is the fourth time I've asked you to provide a link to evidence that a consensus - by the Cambridge Dictionary definition - was in place. I can tell you; a discussion was not had and you and your friends appear to think it OK to stick two fingers up to WP:BRD to disruptively enforce this cancer onto this article, where it does little good. Everything that can be found in the box can be found in the lead section. The lead section is a summary of the lead. We would not be having this discussion where the box actually does some good, like a geographical article; a political article; a film article; a sports article... This is a minor biographical article and this kind of dumbing down makes us come across as throughly unprofessional. CassiantoTalk 23:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes tend to be really useful - a handy summary of the individual. Not sure why it should be removed? If it's been there for 10 years, consensus has been established, so removing it should be discussed. IMO. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, you're talking bollocks. Perhaps adding it should be discussed? Or maybe you think participating in an edit war, without leaving an edit summary, is becoming of an administrator? CassiantoTalk 23:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone provide a diff that shows it's been there for the last ten years, or is it simply a diff to show that ten years ago, someone thought it might be a good idea to add an infobox, and subsequently it's been removed/added/removed etc? People need to be careful before claiming things like "it's been there for 10 years" if that's simply not true. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A simple diff won't show that, but I've did a rough search to find the origin (checking every tenth edit or so) and some form of the infobox has existed since July of 2007: diff. At worst, it may have been removed at some point but was quickly returned. At no point has there been the type of edit war we've seen the past few days. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you can't provide a diff to a consensus-forming discussion? Thought not. So why do you insist on moaning that it is up to me to find a consensus when one doesn't exist in the first place? CassiantoTalk 23:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided the information you seek a number of times. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but provide personal attacks. We are here. We are discussing consensus. Please help if you are interested. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"We are Here". We are indeed. What's your point? So you now agree to seek a consensus to add the box? Great. If one forms, I'll not protest. But until then, the box stays off as no consensus exited in the first place. CassiantoTalk 23:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Well my "quick" search showed that it hasn't had an infobox for about six months preceding the 21 December edits, during which time a lot of quality edits were made to improve the article. So I'd say we're looking for a good reason to add it, rather than a good reason to remove it right now. Given that it simply repeats the text of the lead, it seems a bit odd that people are so hell-bent on adding an infobox. I see the Women in Red project people adding an infobox which just has the name of the individual, for the very same reasons I see given here for its inclusion. That, I'm afraid, is clueless crowd-following. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has all come about from an 82... iP stalking my contributions, engaging in edit wars, and reverting my many edits across the website in order to create drama like this. Funny, they don't appear to be around much now... NeilN, this was the IP's goal, to create trouble and then slink off to the shadows to stuff their face full of popcorn. CassiantoTalk 23:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed here on June 28 of this year: diff. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, so going on your logic, six months of no one reverting means a consensus not to reinstate is in existence. Or do you intend to move that goal post too? CassiantoTalk 23:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ten years of having an infobox means nothing though, right? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like I've pointed out on your talk page, WP:SILENCE is redundant as I've challenged the "presumed" consensus. It is now up to that consensus to become established through discussion. A presumption, as pointed out elsewhere, is no substitute for an actual consensus. As the article started off with no infobox, the article is restored to this version pending a reachable consensus. CassiantoTalk 00:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassianto: Right- so correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that if an article started if with an infobox, and then was removed, the article should be restored to the version with an infobox, pending a reachable consensus? Or is this double standards? jcc (tea and biscuits) 00:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just seen your talk page, Jcc. In that case, I'll say nothing to you here either. Do not ping me or talk to me. I will not respond. And that includes thanking me, as you just did. If I have anymore of that I'll report you for harassment. CassiantoTalk 08:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are spectacularly missing the point. Thanks = acknowledgement of your wishes. Though report me if you want, you are after all the person who's been banned from my talk page, so we'll see how that goes. Maybe it'll go like your last ANI thread where you tried to report me? jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
12:08, 27 December 2017 Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) thanked Jcc (talk | contribs) But it's fine to urge someone on with the thank button. CassiantoTalk 13:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I use the thank button, I am aware that it is open for everyone to see, and it means thanks and support, no "urge". I am quite generous with thank-you-clicks, as you probably know. On the third day of Christmas, for which Bach composed "Höre der Herzen frohlockendes Preisen" (Hear the hearts' rejoicing praise). Sorry, no praise for making an edit you knew would be controversial (such as reverting a stable infobox) on Christmas Day. I don't know what to think, but better unwatch now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "Thanks" feature is open to a lot of manipulation. Would you mind if I don't AGF with your use of it? Would you not consider the adding of an infobox "controversial"? Looking at the crass, bullshit boxes you've added in the past, evidently not. CassiantoTalk 15:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't really care either way if the article has an infobox, but this is not useful. Its information value is virtually non-existent. I believe "status quo/retain" argument are the only way to resolve infobox disputes, but you undermine the argument by invoking it in cases such as this. If the discussion cannot come to some kind of consensus about what would go in a "substantial" infobox then it should be simply dropped from the article. Betty Logan (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the December 12, 2016 version of the infobox was not very informative, however this is what was there when the infobox was removed without any discussion just a few days ago and just over a year later than the example you shared. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 05:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, and for the umpteenth time in asking; where was the discussion when the box was added? You seem to think that the discussion only works one way? It's not and now that it's been removed, the article is at its last stable version. CassiantoTalk 07:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Where was the discussion when the box was removed? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 07:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In the same place as your discussion to add one in 2007. CassiantoTalk 22:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uncle Milty: The addition of the infobox in 2007 may have been bold at first, but through ten years of silent consensus, it became the default stable version. Now removal of the infobox is the bold move, which was reverted, so we should be discussing that. jcc (tea and biscuits) 00:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What a load of old shit you talk. Silent = non-existent, unless of course you can provide names of those who remained silent so I can now approach them to ask if they can now put something down in writing, supporting it. There is no such thing as a "silent consensus", see any dictionary and it'll give you the definition. Whether Wikipedia likes it or not, you cannot rewrite definitions. CassiantoTalk 07:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I went back a year to see what the actual long-standing stable version was, since that is the version that has enjoyed the "silent consensus" all these years. Everyone seems to be on the same page insofar that the version that has been in the article all these years isn't much cop. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An IB is redundant on *this* article as the relevant information is given in the lead; an IB is unable to provide sufficient nuance for detail so it is better in a textual format. Unfortunately, we have the same scenario as usually rages around almost every IB 'discussion': IB proponents insist it's perfectly acceptable to do drive-by additions of IBs, some at a rate of knots with IPs managing to do so too, all with no discussion whatsoever, yet as soon as the occasional removal of an unsuitable IB occurs, a flash mob appears twisting reasoning to fit their own preference. For instance, IB proponents insist that if an article was created with an IB respect must be given to the creator but apparently this does not apply if it was created without; if an IB is added without consensus IB proponents feel that's OK and requires no discussion yet scream any removals must have consensus. Same old, same old ... ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose infobox inclusion at this time. With what was there before removal, the infobox contained no info. The point of the infobox is to provide quick-glance information that gives a relatively inclusive look at the article subject's life. As it was, the infobox was the antithesis of its intended purpose. Without more in it, it's just window-dressing and useless. I generally come down on the side of being pro-infobox, but not in this case. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One again, we have the Gordian Knot of "should there be any infobox" and "what would be a useful infobox" inextricably tangled up together. If someone suggests a method of untying this particular seasonal puzzle, they certainly deserve a prize. But I strongly suspect we'll end up with yet another cut. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I am neither for nor against infoboxes, in general. In fact, I consider them to be a great tool on complicated articles such as royalty, music, film, political, sports, military, and geographical articles; however, I consider them to be useless everywhere else. Here are some of my reasons for not including an infobox here:
    1. Undisciplined expansiveness: A maximum-inclusion approach to fields that leads editors to place repetitive, sometimes downright silly information in the box. (There needs to be clear, prominent advice about not using every single field in every circumstance, and rather the need to ration the information, shaping it to the context.)
    2. Visual degradation: The way this infobox squashes the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.
    3. Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel this infobox gives to this article: "here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the box" says it all.
    4. Disconnected particles: Its domination of the very opening of this article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.)
    5. Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes like this to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)
    6. Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see WP:Featured lists for what I mean.)
    7. Fictitious technical benefits: There has never been a centralised RfC or similar that means we need to provide dross for the deeply flawed nonsense of Wikidata. The information on the subject is already at Wikidata, so it doesn't need to be provided again by having an infobox. An infobox does not need to be here again in order for Google and others to use: they strip info from Wikidata, not here, so it's absence here does not affect either Wikidata or third party users. CassiantoTalk 22:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose IBs aren't WP requirements and shouldn't be there "for the sake of having a box". If they don't fulfill a specific purpose on a case by case basis, there shouldn't be all the Sturm und Drang that seems to accompany a removal. More emphasis should be placed on improving/expanding a given article than on the IB.
    There are 2 million + stubs here at present. Many consist of perhaps a sentence or two with no references; quite a few of them have IBs and often the box is larger than the article itself. Here's one-New and Lingwood-3 sentences and 2 references; the box has had more attention than the article. It's been brought to AfD and what would save it from deletion wouldn't be the nice box it has. I concur with SagaciousPhil, Winkelvi, Betty Logan and Cassianto that no box is no big deal; it would be much better to try working together to improve the article than to spend the time arguing about a box. We hope (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the infobox per WP:INFOBOX, WP:BRD, and our general principle to revert to the status quo ante when consensus cannot be reached about inclusion or removal of something. This article had an infobox for years without any issue. I agree with the comments at the abortive ANI thread that this needs to go back to ArbCom. This "infobox warring" bullshit is really, really tedious (in both the pro and con directions) and needs to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Talk:Cary Grant#RFC on Inclusion of Infobox, essentially the same discussion with mostly the same people just at a different page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose infobox per Cassianto and We hope. At risk of repeating what I've said several times in the past; an infobox simply offers no value to many bios in the liberal arts field, especially this one. JAGUAR 14:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore infobox per SMcCandlish. Agree in all respects, including that infobox warring is tiresome. Agree also that this needs to be dealt with by Arbcom. Coretheapple (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore infobox - it's been there for ages (10 years). The article is soo much more than a stub that having the IB info at the top is actually useful. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another wild claim. Evidence of this claim please? CassiantoTalk 06:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, Cassianto. Here's some evidence for you.
        • A) The infobox was added on July 25, 2007. I mis-stated slightly, as that means the edit was 9.5 years ago.
        • B) Per WP:STUB, "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." This article, at over 3,000 words, is definitely not a stub.
        • C) Some of the information in the removed infobox isn't anywhere else in the article - for instance, place of birth and death.
        • D) More of the information in the removed infobox is at least half-way down the page - for instance, the cause of death. These two items mean that having the infobox at the top, with the associated information, is useful.
      • This article was stable for a very long time. So your change (to remove the infobox) should have a good reason. From what I can tell, your main argument is that the infobox isn't useful. Can you provide evidence of that? Because from where I sit, you seem to be exhibiting tendentious editing.
      • Furthermore, you seem to be arguing that nearly 10 years of stability is not consensus. In fact, you're asking for a diff or link for consensus "by the Cambridge Dictionary definition". Please consider that WP:CONSENSUS is probably different from the Cambridge definition, and that's by design. So we really only have three pieces of information to go on:
        • The infobox was added nearly 10 years ago. No discussion (and therefore no request for removal) happened, but no one objected.
        • You removed the infobox on December 23. Since that removal, an edit war has taken place.
        • In the ensuing discussion here, we seem to be relatively split. It seems to me that if we don't have a strong consensus to remove the box, then perhaps we should leave it the way it was for 9.5 years. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • A) What's your point? So what if it was 10 years ago? I don't fall for silent consensus'. I think they are bullshit. And anyway, consensus can change, apparantly, according to those on your side of the argument; or is that just exclusive to you and people who share your opinion?
          • B) What's your point? Michael Hordern, Stanley Holloway, George Robey, Joseph Grimaldi, and many, many others don't have idiotboxes, and they are featured content. They passed at WP:FAC without boxes in place. How do you explain that?
          • C) If it's not in the article then it shouldn't be in the infobox
          • D) Then adjust the lead? Or is it beneath you to add to the prose?
          • E) I had a good reason - the "R" in WP:BRD.
          • F) The evidence is in "the rest of the article". Try reading it, you'll see it's repeated, most of it in the lead
          • G) They have now. There is no time limit. Particularly when it comes to WP:CCC
          • F) It's not me who's warring; it's the idiots who believe they speak for every reader in the world.
          • H) Or perhaps not. Perhaps we should go back to the last stable version, which is without the bold edit in 2007.
            Please feel free to counter any of my points, as and when you have the time. CassiantoTalk 21:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • So you're an avid "get rid of idiotboxes" user - I get that. Some responses to your points:
            • You've used the BRD argument several times. If I read the history page right, you Reverted a user's contribution to the infobox back on the 23rd of December, and in fact deleted the whole infobox - with the edit summary "No consensus for this". You then reverted edits replacing the infobox Thirteen times over the next two days, all without Discussing the issue at all. That sounds like edit warring to me. Maybe follow your own advice and do all three?
            • I get that consensus can change. Usually that is done through discussion. Which is what is going on here. As I read all these comments, there isn't strong consensus to remove the infobox, though to be fair, there isn't a strong consensus to include one, either. My opinion? Spend more time making the article better and less time worrying about a stupid infobox. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wrong. This, this, this, and this should prove that I'm not an "avid 'get rid of idiotboxes' user" at all. I like infoboxes that assist in navigation around complicated articles, as per my comment in my !vote, above; I just dislike infoboxes like this that offer no purpose whatsoever, and are there purely because people like you think it's part of the Wikipedia uniform. It is not and it never has been. The MoS is clear about this and states that infoboxes are neither required not prohibited and whether to have an infobox and anything they should contain should be discussed on the talk page first. That didn't happen in 2007; someone simply added it without a discussion and it remained there for 10 years. Simply because it was left to wallow in all its stupidness does not render the MoS null and void, and the box untouchable. Nowhere in that rule does it say that an infobox, if sat there for several years, cannot and must not be deleted.
              • The onus is not on me to discuss. If you read that essay it is a 1-2-1 cycle: person 1 is Bold, person 2 Reverts, and person 1 initiates a Discussion. Just because person 1 is actually other people who watch the Williams page, socks or people who have no doubt been canvassed on private email, does not negate the cycle. I think you'll find that most of the reverts were done in equal measures. It takes more than one person to create an edit war, and if people are too thick to understand how BRD works, then that's not my problem.
              • 100% agree with you. Wow, I didn't think that would happen. Yes, people should stop worrying about the infobox and worry about actually improving the article. But the people who you've seen here have shown little interest in article improvement and think it is more important to worry about a box with a load of bulleted, uninteresting, and repetitive factoids in it, rather than to actually improve the stuff that matters - the prose. It's patronising of them to assume that our readership are too dense to be able to read a short and uncomplicated lead section to gain the information. Instead, they create an ugly, repetitive, and redundant infobox for these thick, uneducated readers to gain their information from. With regards to the lack of consensus for either? Well, the article should effectively be "reset" and be restored back to its most stable state, and that was before the edit in 2007. Discussion, should then be had about the merits of whether to include an infobox and what it should contain, if anything. CassiantoTalk 06:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            Re: Cassianto's "I don't fall for silent consensus'. [sic] I think they are bullshit." – That preference is immaterial, since WP works this way as a matter of policy. WP:CONSENSUS:
            1. "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way, the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time." A decade of no dispute fits the first criterion; removal of the ibox fails the second.
            2. And: "In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept."
            3. And: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."
             — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, infoboxes are best used for politicians & sports figures. GoodDay (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would that be true, and on what basis do you assert it? The vast majority of pool player bios have no infobox and seem just fine. Creating an infobox for, say, Lynette Horsburgh would be unlikely to improve the article, unless a special infobox were developed for pool players for organizing stats (as has been done with snooker players, e.g. Ronnie O'Sullivan). The majority of the holders of the political office of Vice-Admiral of Devon (and many others) have no infobox, yet do not seem to be suffering as a result. By contrast, Roger Moore, Lemmy, Stephen Hawking and insert several thousand more examples here have infoboxes that seem about as useful as infoboxes are (i.e., subjectively useful to some and a distraction to others, but overall supported by consensus or we'd just WP:TFD all the infoboxes and be done with it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore infobox. It provides summary information in an at-a-glance form different from the lead and puts to good use some of the whitespace otherwise left to the right of the contents menu. In fact it expands on the lead on some points, as noted above. Since there was no infobox from July 2017 (that user's only edit to the article or talk page) to December, after which everything got hectic, I don't object to leaving it out until the discussion is closed. Pre-2007 is irrelevant. Since the arguments on both sides, except about what the status quo ante is, apply to a whole class of other articles, a broader RfC or, as SMcCandlish said, Arbcom case seems like a good idea, to avoid this whole debate, which makes unpleasant reading, being repeated endlessly. Mortee (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about mental health

The construction of "Though Williams was fondly regarded in the entertainment industry, he suffered from depression and found it hard to come to terms with his homosexuality.", although a conventional way of talking about depression, has the implication that depression has a very low prevalence in those who are held in affection by their peers, which I don't think is true. 79.64.38.7 (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenneth_Williams&oldid=927164688"