Jump to content

Talk:Stanley Holloway

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.144.75.151 (talk) at 01:27, 25 September 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleStanley Holloway is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 18, 2012.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 18, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
September 15, 2011Good article nomineeListed
January 13, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:Vital article

Military period in Hartlepool

I have checked SAH's military record. It appears that at no time did he leave the Connaught Rangers from 1915 to his relinquishment of his commission on the 7th May 1919. [[1]]. In order to have this a tag free article I have reworded the Hartlepool section slightly. It can only be that SH was on some kind of temporary detachment, which must have been informal and most likely to do with the politics and/or administration of military concert parties of the time. I have been combing the net, regimental histories, etc, for hours and I cannot I.D. this unit. I know that the source has SH saying that "when I came back from France I was attached to a Yorkshire regiment, up in Hartlepools..", so may be it is better to drop Yorkshire regiment from mainspace wording and just add on attachment. I have done this. I hope this is ok. Regards Simon. Irondome (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've deleted "on attachment", as the time period is clear from the rest of the paragraph, and I don't think the phrase adds anything. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that was my original edit. But I just went on adding. On reflection I agree with your edit. Just 'stationed' is fine. Irondome (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humourist and a small added detail to leaving the army

This may be tricky to put over adequately! I would not categorize SH as a 'comedian'. I believe many sources may well, but that is intellectual laziness. He never told jokes, he had no stand-up comedic routine as far as I am aware. SH transcended this. His whole career, with his great variety of skills taken as a whole, are shot through with a subtle, or more overt thread of humour. His roles as Nick Bottom and as the first gravedigger to both Oliver's and Guinness's Hamlet would reinforce this. I would say Humourist is a better and actually more nuanced description of this component of his artistic toolbox. Therefore I have replaced comedian with humourist in the lead. More mundanely, but also for precise accuracy I have given the recorded date of SH's departure from the army. He was not demobilised but basically relinquished (not resigned) his commission. I believe there is a subtle distinction there. I do hope these changes meet with colleagues approval. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stanley Holloway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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) 01:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stanley Holloway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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) 05:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Stanley Holloway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New acting credit

Noticed an acting credit from his later years was missing, which is super rare in a star class article. Found a solid citation. It got notable makers, and cast. He played a supporting role not a minor role. Also the television film had a notable Broadcaster NBC. The Emmys nominated project for some department. So to toss on the side as a project with no weight...

One can watch the full film here and evaluate how substantial is his role. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydlOYVGoXdk&list=PLSJXfom7rdgd4pP1UsVe-hScq5BkGdxR1

In most articles I've seen here, to the least they mention who the director, and who the other stars are.

The article is from printed press and if one checked the citation it leads to article in question.Filmman3000 (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s largely trivia. We have a filmography listing that gives info on all his roles, and these smaller roles are not needed: if we listed everything he did, this article would be book-sized. As an encyclopaedia article it is a ‘’’summary’’’ of Holloway’s life - SchroCat (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true, most the star articles list minor roles when well cited. In the case of Ben Affleck they even mention his Burger King commercial.Filmman3000 (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with SchroCat. This is needless bloat. Just because something is well sourced, doesn't mean to say it gets a free pass into an article. CassiantoTalk 22:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok you guys go delete the Burger King commercial from Ben Affeck' page and I will re-consider my position. All credits go in the career page.Filmman3000 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS on sub-standard articles. “All credits go in the career page” is not anywhere near correct. If you think it is, could you post a link to a policy, guideline or consensus that suggests it is? - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think Ben Affeck [sic] is the stand out article here? Why don't you delete the Burger King information and reference the removal of it to this article? CassiantoTalk 22:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The analogy was if a trivial piece of work is considered not worthy of a bio section, then why it is mentioned in others' articles. I will add that Holloway' is the only star biography I've seen, where a section a doesn't have his works in chronological order, I did try to fix some of that, so I could insert the credit properly. Many star article simply mention them in passing others will take the time to explain each role. From 1967 to 1974, he's got a little over 12 roles in media they could all be mentioned in passing.Filmman3000 (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These biographies are just that, they are not an exhaustive account of someone's life through the lens of a microscope. We have to draw a line between understanding the subject matter satisfactorily, and rattling on for all of time about the minutest of details. As interesting and as talented as Holloway was, I think even I would concede defeat if I was made to read his entire filmography word by word. Of course, if you felt that strongly about it, you could add it here into the relevant section. CassiantoTalk 06:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SchroCat and Cassianto. A good encyclopedia bio article must focus on the most important roles; less important roles can be listed in the person's filmography article. In this case, the role is not even a named role, and you do not offer any reviews in major media describing Holloway's role as important. See also WP:BALASP. A word to the wise: your refs have a number of typos in them and include unnecessary information like the language parameter, which should not be included for an English-language work in English Wikipedia. These sorts of sloppy mistakes, and the poor formatting of your first Talk page message above help Talk page contributors to judge whether the suggestions made by an editor should be taken seriously or not. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well both points I made aren't really refuted but you both have pointed out your subjective differences. Since I wont win you guys can do what you want. Now Ssilvers if you want to show me how to improve my citations please come to talk page and show me how its done, because my citation wasn't the YouTube link but printed press from "Newspapers.com". The reason I gave the YouTube link is because the person who deleted my edit said it was a minor role not a supporting role, so I invited the user to watch the full film.Filmman3000 (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.User:Filmman3000, I'd prefer not to have to watch your Talk page, so I'll keep my comments here. All citations should give (to the extent known) the name of the author (last name first), article title (and work title, if part of a larger work), name of publisher, date of publication, and page number or url. Depending on the kind of work, additional information may be needed, such as volume and issue number or editor name. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look Actually it is an unsigned article unfortunately but yeah I just added the number 54 "Musical Version of 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' Stars Kirk Douglas". The Mexia Daily New. 74 (54): 16. 1973-04-03., sorry I should have been more civilized instead of shoving a YouTube video and show the I had left in the article originally. If it can be of any help elsewhere use it.Filmman3000 (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Always write out the full date, 4 March 1973. Do not write 1973-04-03 -- that could be 3 April. If there is no name, why do you have "|last=|first="? This is just code that clutters up your citation. Always italicize the name of full-length works, like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde -- when you do your refs, convert the title to our MOS style. You don't need the / at the end of the url. It would be more efficient to remove it. You should have "page", not "pages". "via=": you are missing the attribution to newspapers.com. You have a typo in "Mexia Daily New"! That's at least for serious errors in one little citation! Please proofread your work. As I indicated above, such sloppy work indicates to other editors that you are either very sloppy or do not know what you are doing, and so your arguments on Talk pages may not be taken seriously. You should also proofread your Talk page comments, because it is extremely hard to understand much of what you wrote above.-- Ssilvers (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well my talk page comment is quite forward, if you need me to be more direct: if you think I am doing something not right come to my talk page and explain it to me. I have totally goofed on my presentation here, there is no doubt about here. I may be sloppy, and amateurish in many ways. Have you had framed saying "looks sloppy and there is room for improvement" instead of direct name calling that takes away from your good faith. Yes I do learn on the spot. When I add my Journal citations I do it with visual editing so how it comes across after is Wiki' programmers doing I don't use word 'Via', 'Pages', or 'Page' they do. That you brings to these guys not me. Since we are not talking about Holloway but direct feedback you have for me please come to my talk page.

I have more less conceited defeat here, but there is substantial of press regarding this project, it is not an underground thing. If you guy are interested in his later career.Filmman3000 (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should move on. CassiantoTalk 20:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source citations?

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanley_Holloway&oldid=980174052"