Talk:John Le Mesurier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleJohn Le Mesurier 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 April 12, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 7, 2012Good article nomineeListed
November 15, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
January 27, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article


Infobox[edit]

Is there any reason why we cannot introduce an infobox? GiantSnowman 12:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Why bother? There's no pressing need, and it's not overly helpful, given the fullness of the lead. There is no requirement to have one, and the consensus was not to include one here. SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I just find them extremely useful. GiantSnowman 12:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea why, at best they're only likely to summarise "extremely" basic facts or trivia. You can't beat reading an actual lede or article, have you ever tried doing that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Useful in repeating what can be found by shifting your eyes a little to the left? I've heard others say they find them hugely distracting, so it's really not possible to please all the people all the time. - SchroCat (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason why we need to introduce an infobox? -- CassiantoTalk 12:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah so I just restored the infobox without reading this... Silly me. But in reality we can argue all day long without accomplishing anything, so lets not. I personally think it adds to the article and helps keep a uniform style with Wikipedia. I also object to you using vandalism rollback to remove the infobox, without an edit summary. Read WP:ROLLBACK for guidelines on using rollback please. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Well then It's a shame you didn't self revert once you had read this EoRdE6. Is there a reason why you didn't? Oh, and when I want your advice about how and when to use my tools, I'll ask for it. CassiantoTalk 00:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I think we should include an info-box here, I don't see any harm done by doing so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Rollback Abuse by Cassianto sparked by this thread. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Well that's big a brave of you EoRdE6. CassiantoTalk 08:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I saw it as I am following my own thread there. Sorry but I would rather not get involved, I just wanted to comment on the infobox here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh good lord, this old chestnut again? Knowledgekid, this is another example of why you should be banned from commenting on talk pages, you're particularly irritating and hold a bunch of grudges against people who disagree with you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Here he is again, right on cue. Haven't you been warned numerous times about this before KK? CassiantoTalk 08:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The infobox is article content, I have no interest in the case against you over at ANI. Anyways, I find info-boxes helpful here as they provide a good summary of the article just my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you really, that's nice to know. CassiantoTalk 13:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I had never seen a FA class article without an infobox. The problem here is that there are no rules that say you have to include them or rules that say you need to exclude them. It pretty much is a I like/don't like it argument. That said, do you think there should be some kind of an RfC to put this issue to rest? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You should place a FAQ at the top of the page then for editors not in the loop, btw consensus can always change as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Knowledgekid87, you can't have looked very hard then. Of the first 10 articles at WP:FA, three don't have infoboxes, and I'm confident that wherever in the list you take your dip-sample you'll find the 30-40% without boxes rate is fairly constant. Do you actually do anything other than wander around Wikipedia trying to pick fights on topics you haven't bothered to research first? – iridescent 18:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Incorrectly supported information about a BLP[edit]

I have removed information three times from an IP that concerns Joan Le Mesurier. As she is still alive, she falls under the WP:BLP policy, which means that citations have to be complete to support the information they claim. So far the IP has added details of three books, but not provided the page numbers on which the information is contained. I have asked the IP twice on their talk for details of the page numbers, but my requests have been deleted as "abuse".

I had explained to the IP that they should hold off for a couple of hours while I searched for the page numbers, but this seemingly reasonable request does not seem sufficient for them. I have also intended to re-write the somewhat clumsy prose (retaining the relevant information), and to ensure that the citations used were in a format consistent with the rest of the article. Again, this seemingly reasonable request has been rejected by the IP, who has accused me of "vandalism" in trying to sort out their edit.

IP, I will ask you for the THIRD time: do you have the page numbers for the sources you claim? - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

"perhaps best remembered"[edit]

I removed the vague and unsourced guess about what Le Mesurier is "perhaps best remembered for". This was reverted on the grounds it was "supported by article text". Could someone indicate where this guess is in the article, and whose guess it is? I can't find it. Were they so unsure that they had to qualify their guess with "perhaps", or can the article be bolder and remove this? Can it also be clarified who is doing the remembering?

Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It's fine as it is. You should read the article to get the information, the opening line of para 2 in the 1968–77 section should suffice. - SchroCat (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you elaborate more on "It's fine as it is"? The line you reference is ;
"Nicholas de Jongh, in a tribute written after Le Mesurier's death, suggested that it was in the role of Wilson that Le Mesurier became a star."
If the lead was to reflect this is would be better saying;
"He became a star through his comedic role as Sergeant Arthur Wilson in the BBC television situation comedy Dad's Army (1968–77)".
Or did Nicholas de Jongh also suggest how Le Mesurier might be best remembered, but was a bit unsure about it? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Pretty much every source describes the importance of Dad's Army in making JLM something of a household name, rather than a good bit-part player (including his autobiography). I see you have gone through many articles in removing the term from articles, regardless of what the text may or may not say (your removals are so quick, it's just not possible to have read the article to make sure you're doing the right thing, rather than just having a bee in your bonnet about a particular phrase). - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
And just to ensure there is no more silliness of the point, I have added a reference, even though it is supported by the article. - SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't doubt the significance of Dad's Army, which is why I suggested the wording of "He became a star ..." above. I don't follow why you prefer the wishy-washy, uncertain, beating about the bush of "perhaps best remembered".
I think "he became a star" is a terribly cliched phrase, and it is also not strictly true, since this actor had already had starring roles on stage, radio and elsewhere. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
If you wish to understand my aversion to this ridiculous and pointless phrasing, you can read it here. If you have any examples of where I've removed it unjustifiably, I'm happy to hear them. I rarely encounter any article where its use is called for and cited.
It's a pity that Le Mesurier's article must start so weakly. It doesn't do him any justice. I wonder if it would be acceptable on other articles?
  • The Battle of Hastings was fought on 14 October 1066 and perhaps best remembered as beginning the Norman conquest of England.
  • Adolf Hitler was a German politician who is perhaps best remembered as the leader of the Nazi Party
  • The 1901 FA Cup Final was played at Crystal Palace and is perhaps best remembered as being between Tottenham Hotspur and Sheffield United
--Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah well, you have a 'thing' for a phrase; it's one used by the Encyclopaedia Britannica quite happily (and 250 years of their experience isn't something to ignore with trite like "ridiculous" and "pointless", despite your 'learned' opinion). Ironically they use the phrase for John Laurie, which you deleted recently; any chance you could self-revert? I'll do it shortly, if you don't feel up to it. Either way, this article passed FAC – attended by some of the best editors we have, and the term is now cited, as it was always supportable, despite your opinion. Time to move on, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I feel your support for this phrase lacks anything beyond that's what others do. The cites you've added demonstrate that what he was most famous for and I've asked you a number of times now to explain why you feel the need to cast doubt on this, or find the need to explain how he might be best remember. Perhaps you could explain the problem with the change I'm proposing? Is it not accurate? Does it not state facts? Is it not in line with the sources?
You are displaying ownership, refusing to allow or even contemplate changes on the basis they're not yours, preferring to instead employ an unhelpfully snide tone in discussions. What are you accomplishing by putting sarcastic quotes around your responses that address me rather than the content?
If you revert the change elsewhere, then I fear we'll just be repeating this conversation there. So perhaps you could spend some time finding a better justification? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I've cited it to a reliable source, and just because I disagree with your campaign to remove this supported phrase means I have ownership issues? FFS... I'll revert Laurie shortly, because you are taking an unreasonable POV which ignores reliable sources. As to your pointless reference to WP:OSE, that relates to "similarities across the project" – absolutely nothing to do with anything we are talking about here, in other words. – SchroCat (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

He played Sergeant Arthur Wilson in the series in around 80 episodes, so I am sure that he is best remembered for the role. I would trust SchroCat, who has read all the references, to reflect the sense of those references, rather than someone who just stopped by the article to blitz his favorite hated phrase. It is a terrible shame that people who give countless hours of their time to writing excellent, well-researched, comprehensive articles for Wikipedia can be subjected to this kind of harassment by people who have not read a single source but who can fill up an entire talk page with argumentative wikilawyering. Shameful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Ssilvers. Writing FAs is hard enough work without this kind of unhelpful sniping. I shouldn’t have quibbled if the phrase here omitted "probably". Of course Sgt Wilson is what Le Mesurier is best remembered for. If you were to ask a random hundred British people who he was, those who knew the name would nearly all say he was the actor who played the sergeant in Dad's Army. To object to this phrase here because one has a bee in one's bonnet about it is inappropriate to the verge of fatuity. To my mind, it borders on trolling to labour the point at such inordinate length as above. Tim riley talk 10:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
And I have repeatedly explained, the source you are citing explained that it made him a star. It does not say it is "perhaps" how he is "best remembered". If you wish the content to be supported by sources that say that Dad's Army is what made him famous, then say that and stop faffing around with "perhaps" and "best remembered".
Regarding "your campaign"; WP:IDONTLIKEIT relates to arguments that are "purely personal point-of-view.". I've explained a number of times exactly the problems with this content, and none of them are purely based on my personal opinion. And yet that is how you choose to dismiss them, refusing to discuss further.
As for the length of time this has wasted, well indeed. One wonders what motivates someone to spend such time on something with a consistent refusal to respond to direct questions. Would a simple bullet list make it easier?
  • What purpose does the word "perhaps" serve in the lead? Is the content that follows in any doubt?
  • Why is "best remembered for" a better turn of phrase than "was made a star by"?
As for the other comments above; all I can say is I've been perfectly cordial, and accusations of harassment and trolling are both discourteous and not in the spirit or policies of Wikipedia. Indeed, given that my attempts at discussion has been dismissed as 'silliness', with suggestions that I should "move on" (a text book response from someone who believes they own the article) and my thoughts are sarcastically mocked as 'learned', it is I who should be upset. SchroCat's responses from the off have been dismissive and combative, while attempts to focus on the article content are rebuffed with responses focused on me and my 'thing'. Editing Wikipedia shouldn't have to involve such unpleasantness.
Lastly, regarding my suggested replacement; "became a star" is a bit of a cliche and not my preference by any means. But I was trying to reach a compromise and consensus in the face of SchroCat's insistence that we should note what his source said in the article. But now I see Ssilvers actually wishes to discount that source as "not strictly true", in preference to what the lead says unsupported.
--Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Again, the source against the statement does not say it made him a "star" - which is a dubious term at the best of times, outside the cinema of the golden age. And yet again you throw an OWN accusation (and this time added with harassment and trolling? - how is responding to your comments "harassment"?) ... it's all a rather a tedious response to refuting your campaign against something that stands up against the source used. The fact you don't like the phrase is neither here nor there - there seems to be a consensus that its use is acceptable here, despite your pushing for its removal.
A couple of sources back up the wording (and the consensus we have here)

These use the phrase "best remembered" or similar, including "most remembered", probably, possibly, etc.

News reports

A fairly quick search, not at all comprehensive, and not all entries would pass a WP:RS check:

  • ON THIS DAY - APRIL 5, 2018 DAILY MAIL (London), April 5, 2018 Thursday, (491 words), BY NO BYLINE AVAILABLE
  • April 5, 2018 ON THIS DAY Scottish Daily Mail, April 5, 2018 Thursday, NEWS; Pg. 32, (501 words), ETAN SMALLMAN; ADAM JACOT DE BOINOD
  • On the trail of town's blue plaques Isle of Thanet Gazette, March 4, 2016 Friday, NEWS:PEOPLE; Pg. 22-23, (976 words)
  • A FOUR-BEDROOM seaside house in Margate[...]; HICKEY The Express, September 29, 2015 Tuesday, NEWS; Pg. 19, (152 words)
  • A FOUR-BEDROOMED seaside house in Margate, [...]; HICKEY Scottish Express, September 29, 2015 Tuesday, NEWS; Pg. 19, (153 words)
  • Dad's Army star Bill Pertwee who played warden Hodges dies in his sleep, age 86 MailOnline, May 27, 2013 Monday 6:20 PM GMT, NEWS, (1350 words), EMILY ALLEN
  • C4's Very Important People debuts with 1m Broadcast, April 30, 2012 Monday, (446 words) *52 Things You Never Knew About Bedford - Comedians Bedfordshire Times & Citizen, August 26, 2010 Thursday, (330 words)
  • HATTIE'S HEART BREAK; A new drama explores the torrid secret life of one of our greatest comediennes - the married man, toyboy lover and a betrayal that caused her binge eating The Express, May 18, 2010 Tuesday, FEATURES; Pg. 22,23, (1293 words), Simon Edge
  • Forget Me Not (but remember me warts and all) The Times Higher Education Supplement, August 20, 2009, FEATURE; Pg. 36, (1769 words), Matthew Reisz
  • My horrifying secret, by new Fleur in the Forsyte Saga; Picture exclusive on Susan Hampshire's successor MAIL ON SUNDAY, April 13, 2003, Pg. 35, (319 words), Fidelma Cook
Books
  • McCann, Graham (2001). Dad's Army pp. ix–x.
  • Pritchard, Maria (2014) I Told You I Was Ill: Famous Last Words and Astonishing Epitaphs
  • Wilson, Scott (2016) Resting Places: The Burial Sites of More Than 14,000 Famous Persons
  • Berra, Paul (2016) Grave Tidings: An Anthology of Famous Last Words
websites
Other

I await further pointy time wasting comments and more spurious accusations. - SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

  • FWIW, I too am for the original wording. I suspect a touch of I don't like it from Escape Orbit. CassiantoTalk 08:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
    • What a pathetic waste of valuable editors' time by Escape Orbit! SchroCat has very sensibly quoted sources to back up the phrase, and I hope they will persuade Escape Orbit to abandon this irresponsible crusade with its puerile reductiones ad absurdum and subliterate essay ("its" does not = "it is"). If not, I think we ought collectively to consider what measures can be taken to stop attempts to peddle a personal obsession in the teeth of an established consensus. Tim riley talk 07:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
You know, life's too short for this. You appear willing to throw up a flurry of spurious sources that don't answer my question and blatantly misrepresent what I've said to defend your article from any suggestion that it could be improved. I'll leave it as is, leading with a vague opinion rather than a fact. Here is another Latin phrase for you; Ad hominem. But thanks for spotting that typo, it evidently made someone very happy. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing "spurious" about the weight of sources, and they misrepresent nothing - and the article reflects just that. I am sorry that you dislike a perfectly acceptable and useful phrase (albeit one that should be used with care), and there is nothing that you have suggested that could improve the article, and this whole roundabout thread could and should have stopped some time ago, when it was apparent that your crusade against a phrase is not applicable to all instances - as the sources provided show. Have fun editing, but please don't keep pushing when it's not needed, de gustibus and all that. - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Escape_Orbit. Firstly, it certainly is. Secondly, we are not willing to do any such thing. Thirdly, it is not "our" article, but we know what you meant. And finally, ad hominem? After all that? Ironically pointed out. CassiantoTalk 20:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Gosh, what a lot of energy over one phrase! Escape_Orbit was right though. --John (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Quote template[edit]

The Quote box template is no longer recommended, and on mobile platforms creates an awkward presentation, so I have replaced them with the Quote template. Matuko 07:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Dropping the quotes directly into text without context is not ideal, so I've put them back. I will look for another solution, but on my mobile there seems to be no awkwardness (although mileage may differ on other phones) - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Newspapers.com clippings[edit]

@SchroCat: A minor detail, but what is the issue with including "via=Newspapers.com" and the free access logo (Free to read) in the citation details for the clippings I added? --Muzilon (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Because they're pointless. We presume all access is free unless it has the (subscription required) tag after it. - SchroCat (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)