Jump to content

Talk:Dan Leno/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Legacy section

There is still some info to go in the above section in this article. I will add in due course. Cassianto (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit

I left you some hidden comments. In general, the article needs to go in chronological order, and more dates need to be stated, so we can figure out what happened in what sequence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

refs and confusion

Thanks for that Ssilvers, I have reworked it slightly see what you think. I have added a pantomime section to stop the confusion and have found his autobiog for which I am using quality refs for. I dont know if the panto's should be listed here or if I should create a list section for them bearing in mind how many there are? Also do I ref every panto bearing in mind how hard they are to find? I have kept them in the article for now as I'm calling it a night now but I will continue tomorrow. All the Best Cassianto (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This looks much better to me. Good work! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Latest editions

That's all the points addressed as far as I can see. I have added a few bits here and there and addressed all hidden comments including flags which were put on the other day. I will not add the Dickens info again as advised but I'm curious to know why some of the info about the birth of his first daughter Georgina had been removed. Having a child out of wedlock in those days was a very scandalous thing to do and I felt, in the interests of balance, it should be included. The article paints Leno out to be a very successful performer and a staunch family man, but knowing that there was a bit of scandal makes it a bit more intriguing. Granted, its not a big scandal today but it was a big taboo subject back then and would have had the vicar coughing into his hymn book...Any thoughts? - Cassianto (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The information about Georgina has not been removed. It is clearly stated that they married after her birth. The material that was removed was merely repetitive. You have done a very good job, but all these street addresses are not of encyclopedic interest, unless he lived there for decades. I would only keep the address where the blue plaque is displayed. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. As far as I can see, there are only three address's in the article; birth place, first marital home and death place, with he plaque being on the latter. Birth and death address's are obviously important, first marital home, not so important, but if known, can we not say as it's still relevant to him? He lived at Cavendish for ten years (83-93) which was half his marital life, the other half being spent at Akerman. From what I still know about him I could fill another two articles, but I don't want to make the same mistakes as I initially did with Holloway. I will gladly remove the first marital address if you think the article will suffer from it, no problems as I respect your advice greatly. - Cassianto (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that birth and death addresses are important. If you look at the WP:Featured Articles on Wikipedia for biographies, I think you will not see many street addresses, except where the street address is a famous address, like 10 Downing Street. In my opinion, they decrease its value and clutter it up. As I said, I find the address where the blue plaque is to be the least trivial. I would rather see more information about his actual routines and things that he was famous for, or newspaper reviews of his act. If you are saying above that you have more information about his career and famous things about him, by all means add them. I wish that the article contained more reviews of his work by contemporary critics from The Times, The Era or other news sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at the Elgar article which I have used a lot for comparing, which Tim and yourself worked on and his goes one step further and has his birth place pictured. No worries, I respect what you say and I will remove. I will look at The Music Hall Guild of GB and the like to try and research them further - Cassianto (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Noël Coward might be a better guide for Leno and Holloway than Elgar. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I also use the Coward article for guidance. Many thanks - Cassianto (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Refs

S, I have added some more info, but made a right royal mess of the combined refs. I have had to put in singular form as I tried every which way but lose to combine and failed. Can you combine and I'll use it as a template to combine all the others. Many thanks -- Cassianto (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

2 questions: Am I correct in understanding that note refers only to the Brandreth cites? Secondly, you seem to have deleted all references to the billgreenwell.com site. Why did you do that? Can you explain further, before I start reviewing your changes? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I had such a nightmare with the refs that I decided to start from scratch. I am now in possession of all literature relating to Dan Leno and I am in the process of digesting the information and translating it, in parts, into the article. I will of course re add the Bill Greenwell stuff if needed. Incidently, I haven't heard of him is he of some note? If he is, not a problem, but I'm thinking that it could be asked at future GA (if it gets that far) of his site being considered as a RS. Being in possession of the books, with identical information to that of the billgreenwell site, it maybe worth having them come from these instead. (By the way, I have since worked out the refs so no need to combine these as you'll see). All the best -- Cassianto (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know anything about Greenwell, and his site is not attractive. But I am always reluctant to lose references and leave text unreferenced (or to reduce the number of references in the article - see below). I try not to take out references until I have better ones to put in. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I just took a quick look, but if you are still working, I will wait for you to finish before I go through it carefully. Please take a look at how I simplified the repeated refs. I know that people often do it the way it was, but I can't understand why people want to type in quotation marks and multiple words in the ref tags. I suggest using the fewest keystrokes - just to make it simpler to work with the refs. As for ODNB, as I mentioned to you once before, I would not rely so heavily on the ODNB. It is a good encyclopedia, but still it is a tertiary source. It is better to reference facts directly from secondary sources like books about the subject, newspaper and magazine articles. So ODNB can certainly be relied upon in most cases, but I would not make it the most frequently cited source in an article. Indeed, I try not to rely too heavily on any one source, even if it has very complete information. By referencing facts to multiple reliable sources, you show that the literature is in agreement on those facts, which makes the article stronger. Plus, if you rely so heavily on one source, people are more likely to fear plagiarism. Hope this is helpful. BTW, Tim has limited computer access for a few more days, I think, but he should be back at full steam soon. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

2 more quick thoughts. First, close up the space before ref tags. The tag should go right after the thing cited, like this<ref.... This looks much neater and is required by MOS. Second, if you are going towards GA, you should convert your book cites at the bottom to the cite book template. You can copy and paste this format:
{{cite book | last= Lerner| first=Alan Jay | authorlink= Alan Jay Lerner | year=1980 | title=The Street Where I Live | location=London | publisher=Coronet Books | isbn=034025453X}}, which looks like this:
Lerner, Alan Jay (1980). The Street Where I Live. London: Coronet Books. ISBN 034025453X.
Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
All changed and finished for now. See email I have just sent to you. All the best -- Cassianto (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
That's good for Brandredth, but you need to do the same for all the books. Maybe just do a couple a day. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

New comments

I only got through the first section, and I've got to run soon, but I'll come back to do more tomorrow. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I got through the next big section. Please take a look at my changes; I left a hidden question for you. I don't think we should spend so much time discussing his stage names. We can just say that in x year he started using the name "X" and move on. Sometimes in the article you use Mr or Mrs without any punctuation, but later you say "Mrs. Kelley". How were these names printed? I prefer the punctuation, but many British articles leave it out. What ought we to do in this article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Good work, but too much repetition. If you want to quantify his increasing success, you can talk about what fees he now commanded, cite reviews of his shows, etc. I think it is well understood that he was working constantly by this time. Also, if you're going to name venues, please be clear - I left some hidden questions about that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not repeat the same refs after consecutive sentences. Sending you an e-mail. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Bluebeard

See Bluebeard (disambiguation). Was the production depicted in the new image a pantomime version? I don't see it listed in the text. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Just looked and it's not listed. It was a 1901 pantomime that Leno was in which I shall mention soon. I picked it because he is in costume, and could be easily sourced. However, the lede image may change as this shows him wearing his royal tie pin from the King which he got from the palace. I suspect this was an image released to the press at that time. I may swap the Bluebeard image to the lede and move the lede image to the later years section as the royal connection was a notable time in his life which would illustrate the pin which I spoke about in the text. -- Cassianto (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Theatre Royal, Drury Lane - worth it's own subsection?

Seeing as Leno spent a great deal of time there, and that his association with the theatre is a notable one, do you think this is worthy of having it's own sub section? -- Cassianto (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not if all he did there was pantomime. You could name the section "Drury Lane and other pantomime" if you prefer. I don't think it's good to create lots of stubby sections, which also makes it harder to keep the article generally in chronological order. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
No that's fine I shall leave it then in that case. -- Cassianto (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Decline and Death

The section is far too long - this is not the most notable aspect of Leno's life - his peak career is. I think we need to cut it down by probably 75%. The Collier quote is interesting for a book, but to the encyclopedia reader, the gist of it is that he stalked her for two days and was devastated when she declined to act with him. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wiki table for recordings?

I have managed to source a number of recordings which Leno performed from 1901 - 1904. I am keen to put them in a table format rather than just list as I think it looks a lot better. There is approx 30 recordings in all and all have catalogue numbers, so it will be easy to reference. I will ask GuillaumeTell to oversee proceedings as he is a wiz on wikitables. Any thoughts? -- Cassianto (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a table for recordings in this article, but if there are enough of them, it might justify a separate recordings article. If there are only a few, I suggest just describing them briefly and chronologically in the section where his other 1901-1904 work is described. See what Tim thinks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that instead. Tim is aware of the article's progression and I have bombarded him with various questions, so I'll wait to hear back from him :) I omitted to say re the above section, the demise and death section is only that long because I added information to that section first. I assure you this is only a short term measure and I am now working on his performing and recording output, which I envisage at being some length. I should really work downwards, but on this occasion I didn't. I have done a couple of ce's on decline and death and plan to do more. I don't really know what to do with the legacy section at this stage but plan to (somehow) incorporate it into the other sections. I feel, this won't be staying so no need to worry about the two cquote's at this stage. -- Cassianto (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

New articles

See body for newly created discography and stage performances articles. This is not a replacement for content just a hidey hole for lists etc. -- Cassianto (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Images

Bearing in mind the trouble I had in relation to the above in the Holloway article, I took the liberty to ask User:Yomangani to have a look[1] early on, at what images we have got so far. Obviously the Mother Goose picture was taken in the late nineteenth century and more than likely published during this time as well, making it out of copyright. However, the ones we are using come from a 1946 publication and may not be suitable. Shall we look for others or are these going to be easy to fix? -- Cassianto (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

From Cassianto's talk page- image review by Yomangani

The images you've uploaded seem fine, but... the images that were uploaded beforehand probably need a bit of work:

  • File:Danleno.jpg has a claim of publication of before 1923 but is sourced to a 1946 publication. It probably was published before 1923 but it needs to show evidence of that on the description page
  • File:1896 DanLeno-WidowTwankey.jpg has a template claiming it was created by the United Kingdom Government which seems unlikely.
The People Play site was shut down, but this was uploaded by the late KBThompson, who was very reliable. I think Tim can hunt this down for you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You will need to prove that the Mother Goose picture was first published before 1923. It doesn't matter what it is scanned from, as long as you can prove that it was published somewhere before 1923. Maybe the 1946 magazine *says* that it is a reproduction of a postcard or something? Otherwise, you have three options: 1. do the research to find out where/when it was first published; 2. find another image that you like just as much; or 3. convert it into a "fair use" description: if you discuss the subject of the image in your text adequately, using the image to exemplify what is being talked about in the text, it should pass the overbroad NFCC#8. Let me know if you have questions about that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to Tim, this has now been done. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Later career

I copyedited this section and left hidden questions. Please review when you have a chance, Cassianto. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Why bury the first sentence of Note 3 in the footnotes? It looks ready for prime time to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Now restored. -- Cassianto (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Image from early career

Can we use this image? See if your image person says it's OK. If not, maybe we can get permission from the museum: http://www.vam.ac.uk/images/image/68248-popup.html -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I sent an email yesterday to V&A and await their reply -- Cassianto (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

New Hidden Comment

Cassianto, please see my new hidden comment in the Comic Journal section. I still have a problem with it. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Good changes. I streamlined a little, eliminating some repetition, and left one more hidden comment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I have now fixed this. -- Cassianto (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Delusions of grandeur

Cassianto, someone had changed this to "obsessions". Can you clarify? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Residences

When did he move from Clapham Park to Ackerman Road? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This may be in the census. I will look through them later. -- Cassianto (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
We should give an idea, if we can, of approximately when he moved to each place, and for approximately how long he resided there, or we could say something like "late 1990s".... -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting quote

I'm currently doing some reading on Charlie Chaplin, and came across an interesting quote on Leno. You may have seen it before, and I don't know if you want to include it in this article or not, but I thought I'd show it to you (the main editors) to see what you think. It was said by Marie Lloyd:

Ever seen his eyes? The saddest eyes in the whole world. That's why we all laughed at Danny. Because if we hadn't laughed we should have cried ourselves sick.

If you want to use it I'll give you full citation details. Excellent article by the way! --Lobo (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that and for the kind comment! Constance Collier said something similar in her book. It seems Leno's later condition played on a lot of people's heart strings. It's sad that mental health issues were not taken very seriously in the Victorian and Edwardian era's and it is evident that those closest to Leno were very concerned indeed. I know Lloyd and Leno were close - and this quote highlights the fact that everyone knew of his ailing mental state apart from maybe Leno himself. In terms of encyclopaedic value I don't think it would offer much, but it would be nice to maybe include it in at least a footnote so as to show what the big stars of the day thought about him and his condition. Ss what do you think? -- Cassianto (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The "sad clown" is such a commonality that it is cliche. We could use a quote to show that Leno's friends (or his public) recognized his personal struggles, but I don't think that this Marie Lloyd quote is clear enough - it's rather ambiguous as to who she means by "we" (just his friends, or other actors, or his audiences?). Collier wrote: "He was the greatest star in London at that time, certainly the most brilliant comedian I have ever seen, and he had an amazing quality of pathos. His eyes were beautiful, like the eyes of a wounded animal or a great tragedian. They were deep-sunken and looked as if they would fill with tears at any moment." That's a more descriptive quote, I think. Do you have anything that would more specifically show that people recognized, prior to his breakdown, that he had emotional problems beyond "sadness"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
By the way, Lobo, would you be so kind as to comment at the FAC for this article here? That would be very helpful! Happy editing, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the term "sad clown" being a cliche. I would like to see a line or two which showed his personal struggles from his friends perspective. I like the Collier quote as it explains a bit more of how Leno's decline was seen. I will re-check the sources later today and report back. -- Cassianto (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I suppose the sad clown is a cliche, but it's so often true and I find it really interesting. I like the simplicity of Lloyd's statement, I find it rather poetic and thus powerful, but that's fine if you aren't keen on it. I'll leave the rest up to you two! I commented at the FAC. --Lobo (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Mother Goose problem

We say that Mother Goose ended in March 1902. Later, we say that it ended in 1903. One of these is apparently a mistake. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It ran until 28 March 1903. Since corrected. -- Cassianto (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, good. By Jove, I think we've got it! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

An addition? Date issues.

Ss, Is the below of some interest to the article?

The show was a disappointment for audiences, and critics panned his performance. So harsh was the critics reviews that it prompted Leno to write a statement which was broadcast in The Era:

"Mr Dan Leno. Pavillion, where I am singing Two New Songs of my own, copied from no one. The 'Boy' song, which an unkind critic compared to another, I beg to say I wrote and Sang in Glasgow Thirty-one years ago. Who is copying now? All my Thirty-four Minutes' Gags are copied from no one."Dan Leno", The Era, 22 October 1904, p. 7

Leno made his last public appearance on 20 October 1903 when after an evening's performance at the London Pavillion, he stopped at the Belgrave Hospital for Children in Kennington and left a donation of £625. Anthony, p. 197 -- Cassianto (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Good, but you mean 1904, not 1903, right? Streamlined version added. Please check: he died only 11 days after his last performance? or were several dates wrong? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes this is all correct. As per Anthony. -- Cassianto (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, check Lydia's birth date - if she was really born in 1866, she was only 14 when they met (he was 20) and 16 at most when she got pregnant. Or, maybe she fibbed about her age and was really born in 1864? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have checked both the birth certificate and Anthony and both state Lydia was born on 7 November 1866 in Birmingham. She made her stage début at 15. They certainly did marry young - not uncommon in those days though. -- Cassianto (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. If they met in 1880, then she was either 13 or 14 when they met, and either 16 or 17 when they married, and already they were parents. There is still something wrong with your dates, because if she was already performing in 1880, then she made her stage début by age 13 or 14. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I can only go with the source. Anthony states she was 15 when she first performed on stage. I will change to 1881. I obviously forgot to add a year on. I'll change. Yes this was very young but not un-common. The pregnancy would certainly have caused scandal hence the hush wedding. You can almost see this kind of thing on Oprah or Jeremy Kyle. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe he did meet her in 1880, because her father was the stage carpenter at the theatre, and then she joined the show the next year? Maybe another source can clarify.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I have had to change the children's hospital sentence slightly as before it read like he gave the performance at the hospital. Does this look OK? -- Cassianto (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
It's OK now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Further to that, Brandreth states Lydia was a big name at the Prince of Wales Theatre, Wolverhampton which was where her father John worked as a carpenter. Brandreth and Anthony both say Leno met Lydia in 1883 NOT 1881 as previously thought. He was 23 - she 16. They conceived and married the following year. I'll clarify -- Cassianto (talk)
Good, thanks. I had to make a change to clarify that they took over the theatre in Sheffield in 1883, right? If so, I think it's OK now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Another twist. The Leno's became the managers on 10 March 1884 (according to Anthony). I have put the date and updated the ref -- Cassianto (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Drury Lane

Can you find a RS that says that Drury Lane's pantomimes were the most popular, prestigious and/or spectacular ones in London? I am sure it is true, and I'd like to say so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Done! -- Cassianto (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of "Pantomime"

The article should have some kind of brief reference, beyond the existing hyperlink, to explain what a "pantomime" is, since there are so many references to them. Pantomimes are well-known in the United Kingdom and some other Commonwealth countries, but they are entirely unknown elsewhere, even to most theatre professionals. Instead, people in other countries understand "pantomime" to be an entirely wordless performance. John M Baker (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested to hear what others think of this; but I would point out that there are hundreds or thousands of articles on Wikipedia where pantomime is used in this sense, and none (or very few) of them contains such an explanation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I can construct a few lines in a sandbox if so wished? -- CassiantoTalk 07:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Cassianto, the question is not whether we can do it, but whether we should. We need to gather opinions about this from readers in countries that are not familiar with the British use of the term "pantomime" as a theatrical genre. As an American, I have always found the link sufficient. But we need more opinions; I do not feel strongly. Clearly, we should not make the change in these hundreds of articles unless it is really needed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Understood. As it happens I also do not feel strongly about adding any elaboration to it's meaning. What I meant was that if the consensus was to elaborate then I don't mind writing a couple of lines explaining it. -- CassiantoTalk 14:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of the word "Leading"

I have to disagree with an edit which has been performed today. The use of the word "leading" is relevent here as he was considered leading by many of the sources used in this article as well as this and this. A lot of music hall comics struggled to have the kind of success which Leno had, for instance at Drury Lane. "Leading" is not being used when it doesn't apply and I accept the meaning could be misused and simply given to anyone. However, read until the end and one would realise that "leading" is a fitting description for the man who entertained so many during that era. -- CassiantoTalk 10:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but I suggest that you don't worry about changes today and revisit all changes tomorrow, after it has been off the main page for a few hours. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Tim has already advised me on this. I will wait until tomorrow. :) -- CassiantoTalk 14:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem is not whether he was leading or not, the problem is that it is a peacock word in the lead sentence. It is "neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information". The reader is being given an opinion, with no clue to how it was formed, who thinks it, and why they may think it. It is a totally empty word, lacking any clue to its factual basis. Far better to convey something factual that demonstrates why some consider him "leading". The considerations of authoritative sources can then be introduced at the appropriate point later in the lead. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
See the start of this thread as to why "leading" is verified in it's use. A quick google search offers up two independent reliable sources which state Leno was a popular comedian of the day; more so than a lot of others from that era. "Leading" in no way misleads the reader or forces ones opinion on the subject. It is mereley there to separate Leno from other performers in term's of popularity. To *not* have it there would, if anything, mis lead the reader as upon first glance, it would appear Leno was no more different than any lesser known performers of the day. It would, I feel, only breach WP:PEA if the sole reason it was there was to puff up someone's notoriety, with no evidence, when in actual fact they were a run of the mill performer. -- CassiantoTalk 12:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the sources linked above give ample support to the characterization of Leno as a "leading" music hall and panto performer. One of them says "he was Britain's most popular comedian billed as 'The Funniest Man on Earth". So, far from being a peacock term, leading is a conservative characterization here. I believe that it does, indeed, impart a useful measure of Leno's status in the industry, and since multiple sources say so, it is obviously verifiable. The sources should be (and are) mentioned in the body of the article, not the lead. For example, Anthony, Barry (2010). The King's Jester, p. 97 is referenced in the "Music Hall" section to support this proposition, as is the Gowr reference. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
You are not following what I am saying. The issue is not whether he was "leading". The issue is with the word "leading". It is a peacock word that doesn't actually tell the reader anything factual of any value. This is particularly important in the lead where you really want to be hitting the reader with key, indisputable facts. "Leading" (no matter how much agreed upon by everyone) is not a fact, it is an vague estimation that tells the reader nothing. What is meant by it? In what way? Who thinks this? How was it measured? The fact noted later in the lead that he was the one of the highest paid, for instance, is more suitable. That is a hard fact that the reader can understand. The fact he was known as "the king's jester" is also more suitable, again it gives the reader a factual handle to gauge his success and fame. But "leading" tells me nothing of any use. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(left)WP:LEAD says to give an overview of the article. It says that the Lead "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points - it doesn't say that the Lead should contain "hard" facts, whatever they are. But, I fundamentally disagree with you. It was a fact that he was leading, and this fact is supported by multiple sources. Indeed, one of the most important facts about Leon, and also the fact that most clearly establishes the notability of the article, is that Leno was one of the (if not the) leading comedian and music hall performer of this day. If you don't want to understand the plain meaning of the word, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I understand that "leading" "MAY" be a peacock word, but here it is not, as it is verified by and used in the sources and describes Leno's relative rank among other similar performers of his day. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If we were to say in the lead that he was "the highest paid comedian", as you suggest as being more suitable, then all this tells us is that he was highly paid in his field. A politician or a premiership footballer are "highly paid". It doesn't mean they are any good or particularly leading among others in their field. "Leading" does IMO. -- CassiantoTalk 17:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
'Leading' in this case seems like a suitable fact for the lead. Rothorpe (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm bound to say that it positively hits one in the eye that Leno was a leading performer of his day. The ODNB goes much further than that, referring to him as "the most famous man on earth" and (in an American view) "the Funniest Man on Earth". It doesn't come much more leading than that. Tim riley (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Afterthought, rereading Escape Orbit's comments: I think I see what s/he is saying by "'leading' tells me nothing of any use", but I really don't think it is necessary to quantify every adjective. If I were to describe someone as "tall" or "short" in a lead it would be supererogatory to say that he or she was x feet tall or y centimetres high. I'd probably add the measurements in the main text, but "tall" or "short" – or "leading" – will do very well in the lead. Tim riley (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to add my support for the use of the word. It is very necessary to indicate early on that Leno was not just any old music hall performer. "Leading" isn't a peacock term, it is nicely subdued. --Lobo (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Unless there is a consensus to the contrary, I shall leave the word in it's current position. Many thanks! -- CassiantoTalk 14:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The day after the night before

Sweeping up time and general fixing's. The salient points are these:

  • I would like to address the inclusion of two quotes which were added to the Music hall section yesterday. I would be eager to learn the general consensus around them. Should the stay or should they go?
    • I don't object to the additional quotes (and in fact enjoyed them), though the editor who added them has had the discourtesy to ignore the established citation format, despite WP:CITEVAR, so that if you keep them you'll have the trouble of converting them. I think the key point is whether the additions upset the balance of the article. I don't think they do, but if you think otherwise I will certainly support you. They add a bit, but not all that much. Tim riley (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Now referenced correctly with 2 added sources until we decide. SS what's your thoughts on this? -- CassiantoTalk 22:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
        • I reduced the size of the first quote but left in the 2nd one. I think they are helpful in giving concrete examples of Leno's comedy style. But, as Tim said, we'll support what you decide. Feel free to revert or tweak what I did. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
          • No I am growing to like them actually. I have referenced them now and included them in the sources. It also gives us room for another image (which an IP added) which is great! -- CassiantoTalk 07:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

*The adding of an Info box. I am not in favour of this at all and want to see the back of it. Anyone else?

  • Great it's gone. If there are no objections, I shall leave this deleted.
  • Deletion of "perhaps" from the lede. I am in favour of this but want "leading" reinstated for the reasons listed above.
  • Grammatical changes of "however" etc.
    • The removal of "however" is nothing to do with being grammatical (I had to correct an ungrammatical change by the same editor elsewhere in the article). This is one editor's personal crusade against accepted usage. Remarkable that all of us ignoramuses didn't rise up against your "however" at FAC. But, nevertheless and notwithstanding, albeitmoresoever and very possibly furthermore, I don't think the removal of "however" adds or detracts in the context here and I'd let it go. I had a right old clobbering on this point from the same editor, where the retention of "however" made a difference to the sense, and the pain is perhaps best avoided if, as here, I think, the prose is not damaged by the removal. Tim riley (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be grateful for any views, comments, or suggestions. -- CassiantoTalk 07:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with deletion of the redundant infobox. I agree with the deletion of "perhaps" in this case. I'll review all the changes from yesterday and your clean-ups (it may take me a few hours to get to it) and comment further if necessary. As the person most familiar with the sources, you should go ahead and make any changes/reversions you think necessary or helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry all, I have come into the cleaning up session rather late in the day when all the work has been done. Good idea to delete the info box - totally unnecessary, imo. Jack1956 (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Danvers image

I like the image, and I think it's fine in the "Early career" section. But the caption could say something like "Leno (top) and Davers, c. 1898, with Drury Lane co-star..." -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I only took it off because it would have been the second image of Campbell. Danvers fits in well with the text though. I'll add it. -- CassiantoTalk 23:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Jay Leno

Are they related? Either way, this might be worth mentioning.Originalname37 (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

... is probably a stage name and so, of no consequence. Kbthompson (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia entry on Jay Leno, "Jay" is a nickname (born "James Douglas Muir 'Jay' Leno"), but his dad's name really is "Angelo Leno". Of course, the entry also says that the Angelo's parents came from Italy, not England. Also, I finally noticed that *this* entry states that "Dan Leno" *is* a stage name. So, probably not.Originalname37 (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of stage names, of course, become real family names so it is remotely possible that a Dan Leno descendant wound up in Italy. And of course, either way, it should be mentioned if anyone definitely knows since that's all you can think about when you see this article. Kultoa (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should mention this on the off chance that it *could* be true. Where exactly would you draw the line if that was the case.

Dan Leno (20 December 1860 – 31 October 1904), born George Wild Galvin, was a leading English music hall comedian and musical theatre actor during the late Victorian era. He was best known, aside from his music hall act, for his dame roles in the annual pantomimes that were popular at London's Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, from 1888 to 1904. He may or may not have been related to Jay Leno.

Can I just say, I have extensively researched Dan's family history and I can find no mention of any connections to Italy. This website is very accurate when discussing Dans family line, but I think to assume his relationship with Jay Leno based on the fact that they both share a surname (with one being a stage name btw) is incorrect. If this was to occur, I dread to think what the Bette Davis article would look like. -- CassiantoTalk 03:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't put information into Wikipedia articles based on wild speculation. All information must be based on WP:Reliable sources. See also WP:V. We know who Dan Leno's children were: Georgina (b. 1884), John (b. 1888), Ernest (b. 1889), Sidney (b. 1891) and May (b. 1896). All of them became stage performers in Britain. We also know that Jay Leno was born in 1950 in New York State. His father was Angelo (1910–1994), who was born in New York to immigrants from Italy. So, it is vanishingly unlikely that any of Dan Leno's children was Angelo Leno's father. So, unless you have a reliable source that proves that Jay Leno is related to Dan Leno, that assertion does not belong in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who, The Lodger, oval portrait

It seems an oval painting portrait of Dan Leno is on the wall, in a Doctor Who episode. (Doctor Who 5-11-The Lodger 2010), near 25m14s.

It says so here: http://slimejam.net/tag/doctor-who You can see the painting here: http://whona.realtvboard.com/t3350p25-s5ep11-the-lodger

Thanks. it appears the picture might be Dan Leno and it's one that I certainly haven't seen before. All clowns of Dan's era looked odd, but I can't say for certain that it's him. In terms of the article? I don't think this information is notable enough for it to be included in the article unfortunately. CassiantoTalk 15:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Cassianto. This is merely a "passing reference". If the Doctor looked at the painting and launched into a long discourse on the life of Dan Leno, in an episode called "Portrait of Leno", that would be worth noting in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits by Mike Hayes

You might see your edits as an "improvement", but frankly they are an abomination, especially to a featured article. As per WP:BRD, I would ask you to start a thread on the talk page rather than just mindlessly revert. --CassiantoTalk 04:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

If anyone is mindless, it is you. "Abomination" is not a valid objection to my edits. I asked for a valid explanation for your reverting my edits and you have given none. As for getting others to support you, numbers alone will not persuade me that you have any valid objections. The fact that the article has a star, is not grounds for forbidding others to edit the article. You do not OWN it. It states clearly on ALL articles that if you don't want your writing to be edited, you are not a suitable contributor to Wikipedia. I have not reverted ANY of your reverts with the "undo" function; I have simply continued editing the article without any reference to your interference except for the one message I left on your talk page previously. If anyone is "mindless reverting", it is you. You have used the "revert" function over two dozen times. I have not used it once. Mike Hayes (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
For your information it was Ssilvers and I who have made this article what it is today. On the flip side, however, I note that you have done fuck all to improve it. CassiantoTalk 07:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I also disagree with your [Edit: I was referring to Mike Hayes's] changes at Dan Leno. Per WP:BRD, if you want to suggest changes to this Featured Article, that has been reviewed by numerous experienced Wikipedia editors, please make your suggestions on the Talk page so that we can discuss them. Please see WP:CONSENSUS as well as WP:BRD. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't wish to suggest changes to this article on the talk page and there is no such requirement, per Wikipedia policy, that I do so. It is recommended but it is not LAW. I will edit articles as I choose unless you can provide a valid reason why I should not. You have not done so. The reasons you have given for reverting my edits, in the "reasons for reverting" box, are nonsense in my opinion and you have said nothing to persuade me otherwise. Mike Hayes (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: I have not yet reverted any of your edits. I think you have me confused with User:SchroCat. But I agree with Schrocat's and Cassianto's edits. BTW, also note WP:CITEVAR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Read the policy and abide by It. Failure to do so will result in you being reported for your disruptive behaviour. CassiantoTalk 06:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Stage name listed first

Just so we remember why we list the names in this order, WP:MOSBIO says: "In some cases, subjects have legally changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well: (example Bill Clinton): William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III). This does not specifically address stage names, but other FA articles apply this principle and list the stage name first and birth name second. See David Bowie, Bob Dylan and Madonna (entertainer). -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dan Leno/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I have agreed to review this in response to a talk page request. It seems a tad bit outside of my expertise, but the article looked like it is probably pretty close to what WP:WIAGA is asking for so it should not be much of a problem for a general reader to review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for assisting and I really appreciate you taking something on which is a shade out of your expertise. Here we go...-- Cassianto (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Excellent comments, Tony, thanks. Some responses and questions below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:LEAD
  • I have re-worded this and have managed to keep the specific roles in which Leno was famous for. I have deleted the second "and" cut the sentence where advised. -- Cassianto (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • There was some repetition here, because we talk about burlesque and pantomime later, which are both genres of musical theatre, so I streamlined this sentence further. Also, I clarified, in the Lead, that he was a leading comedian of the day. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see why we need to name all three music halls in the Lead. I eliminated two of the names from the Lead (they are named later in the article). The important point is, I think, that Leno performed in music halls both inside and outside of London early in his career. Cassianto, for purposes of this GA, you don't have to kill yourself to write articles about obscure music halls, although that's a great idea for ones that were prominent or particularly prestigious performing halls or had long and interesting lives as performing spaces. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have swapped musical comedy for "musical theatre" and deleted 'comic plays". -- Cassianto (talk)
Biography
  • I have mentioned this in a footnote. Is this ok or would you prefer it to be built into the text? -- Cassianto (talk),
  • I see that Cassianto has now added material in the text noting when Leno first used that stage name. I added part of each of footnotes 2 and 7 into the main text, but I would recommend against moving footnote 8 into the text. We already have plenty (too much?) in the text about Leno's death, IMO, and I find Roberts's theory to be silly at best. Leno's performance before Edward VII was in 1901, well before Leno's breakdown, and I never heard of anyone being pushed into madness by getting a tie pin after a Command Performance. Roberts was just a fellow actor - I have no reason to believe that he had special access to Leno's state of mind at the end of 1901, throughout 1902 and into 1903, when Leno had his breakdown. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • While we're on the subject, Tony, what do you think of footnote 6? Is there already enough about this journal in the main text, or is your sense that some of this stuff in footnote 6 should go in the text? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, Brandreth doesn't elaborate. I have specified "audience numbers" as that's what determines "Box-office records" I suppose. Is this Ok? -- Cassianto (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I changed it to record "attendance", but if Brandreth actually says "box-office numbers", I would use those words, since I think WP readers are very familiar with that term. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm having difficulty in interpreting this question. Where are they mentioned? As far as I can see, they are mentioned within a quote and there are MOS issues around this here -- Cassianto (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That looks OK, but I don't think she was known as Queen Alexandra. I went for Alexandra, the Queen Consort (which didn't sound right). Yours sounds better. -- Cassianto (talk) 09:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Personal life
  • Tony, Harris died in 1896 in England, and he was a "public figure". Moreover, it does not apply to people who have given their consent to being photographed. See this. I am fairly sure that we don't need a personality rights tag for him. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Ordinarily I would suggest adding {{personality rights}} to all of the other images of people.
  • All these people died in England in the early 20th century, and they were all "public figures". Moreover, it does not apply to people who have given their consent to being photographed. See this. I am fairly sure that we don't need a personality rights tag for any of these images. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
However, I [Tony] don't understand what is going on with the licensing of the following:
  • File:Leno4.jpg - this is from a book published in 1899. Can be transferred to Commons. How do you do that?
  • Moved to commons.
  • Moved
  • Moved
  • Moved
  • Moved
  • Moved
  • Moved
Are these going to be transferred to commons? Maybe an image person should review these and get their status clarified. It seems that the first should have the same tags as the rest, but it does not.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • These all look good to me, copyright-wise (see above). If Yomangani agrees, see if he can transfer them to Commons. The first one showed the wrong publication date, but I fixed it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I have left a message on his talkpage. -- Cassianto (talk) 09:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
All images have been moved to commons by Jujutacular. Are there any more issues with the images? -- Cassianto (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Can an image expert speak to the propriety of my concern about the need for {{personality rights}} on these images at commons.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes absolutely. I have left a note on Jujutacular's talkpage. -- Cassianto (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
In all jurisdictions that I am aware of (including the UK and the US), personality rights only extend to the person's death or a limited number of years beyond. For a person that has been dead for over a hundred years, it would be misleading to apply that tag. On a side note, I couldn't find that tag being used on any of our FAs for living people (although it probably should be). Jujutacular (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
That's great Jujutacular thank-you for confirming that. Tony, does this address the issue? -- Cassianto (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Is Ssilvers satisfied with your changes?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see this until just now. Yes, I'm all set. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

O.K. Now, I am going to PASS this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That's great news! Thank you Tony for such a good and thorough review! -- Cassianto (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Tony. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Changes now made per [Pseudonyms, stage names and common names]. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Dan Leno in fiction

An editor has recently added a brief section mentioning Leno's appearance as a character in a 1990s novel. This has nothing to do with the real Dan Leno. Encyclopaedia articles should not be magnets for trivia, and I'm inclined to remove this addition as inappropriate, but will see whether others feel differently before I do so. Brianboulton (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

As you and Cassianto agree on this, I'd say that if no one comments within 48 hours, you should just go ahead and delete it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't like this addition as I don't particularly agree with "In popular culture" sections or similarly titled sections/subsections. Although I don't doubt Ackroyd's abilities as a writer, or his notable status within literary circles, I don't see this book to be in anyway linked to Leno himself. Furthermore, I don't see this section expanding past what is already there as this appears to be the only fictional work in which Leno, the character, appears. CassiantoTalk 08:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Osbert Sitwell's Left Hand, Right Hand!

I'm reading Left Hand, Right Hand!, the first volume of Osbert Sitwell's autobiography, and there are several pages about Dan Leno. Some are simply reminiscences, both Sitwell's and quotes from others, but there are a couple of bits of information, and one source, that might be of interest. The source is A.E. Wilson's Christmas Pantomime (1934). I can email images of the relevant pages to any of the editors of this page who are interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Dan Leno Jr

If "Dan Leno Jr" (Sidney Leno) is notable, there's a link to him at Manx cat, presently pointing to Dan Leno#Personal life where Dan Leno Jr. is discussed. There might be others (I would check for spellings like "Dan Leno Jr.", "Dan Leno, Jr", "Dan Leno, Jr.", "Dan Leno Jnr", "Dan Leno Junior", etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan Leno. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 03:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Dan Leno. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 20:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for an infobox.

Hello there. I request that an infobox be implemented on this article. It means that search engine bots can grab the details easier. And normal readers can get details more quickly, and don't have to read the entire article for small details they want. Thus, a infobox would be beneficial, since bots can grab details easier, and normal readers that want small details just look at the infobox, not having to read the entire article. Thank you. The Duke 19:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

There seems no impairment with the way the article is now.
Bots have the details readers can get WITHOUT EVEN COMING TO WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasha biddle (talk • contribs) 20:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "search engine bots can grab the details easier". Nope. The "search engine bots" go to Wikidata for the factoids.
"normal readers can get details more quickly, and don't have to read the entire article for small details they want". "Normal readers"[citation needed] can read the first sentence of the article to get broadly the same factoids as an IB. If they wish, they can carry on and read a whole paragraph for more information, and then—if they are hooked into finding out more—they can read the whole lead, and that's without having to go into the article for the context and additional detail. - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Concur with SchroCat. Info-boxes are helpful to readers for some articles (sportspeople, politicians, bishops etc) but for the creative and performing arts they are apt to be oversimplistic and misleading. Tim riley talk 23:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Jewellery

It's ok, I'll start the talk page discussion seeing as you, User:John Locke, can't be bothered to uphold your obligation to do so. User:John Locke, you cannot simply delete information, without evidence, just because you think you're right. I no longer have the books, unfortunately, so I cannot check this. But if you think you're right, provide some evidence and I'll be happy to see it changed. But it is a rather minuscule piece of detail so to play devil's advocate for a moment, the compromise would be to simply refer to it as "jewellery. On another note, it is quite interesting to see all this interest from IPs and single issue accounts surface since The Duke of Nonsense started the infobox stuff a week or so ago. CassiantoTalk 14:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

You're wrong in very many places, I'm afraid. Grab the e-book for Anthony:

If it's slow to load, click the DOWNLOAD PDF link, and then click the "I'm not a robot" checkbox. The PDF file is 4.46 MB.

Errors exist elsewhere, too. I'll correct them in due course. John Locke is cool (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

On page 193, it says "a diamond broach", and Anthony is the source cited there, so that seems OK. However, John Locke..., instead of edit warring to force your changes in, if you propose a change and another editor disagrees with you, then per the WP:BRD process, you should suggest the change on the Talk page so that a WP:CONSENSUS can be reached to make the change. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
John Locke, you say I'm "wrong in very many places"? Where, exactly? I've said change it, with evidence, and you have. Thank you. CassiantoTalk 16:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Error #13

I'm numbering these errors to make it easier to keep track of things.

From Anthony P.172:

The various editions of the book, available as a one-shilling paperback or a one-and-sixpenny hardback, contained different selections of illustrations, some of which were by Dan himself. A claim that Dan was not the author, and that the book was the work of a young ghost writer,T.C. Elder, is inconsequential. It is possible that Elder had a hand in organising the rambling narrative, but much of the book was based on already published stage material that Dan was known to have influenced. Other passages have a style that is hardly separable from Dan’sinterviews, letters and notebooks.

After Dan’s death Hys Booke remained a bestseller, selling 152,000 copies by 1908. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Locke is cool (talk • contribs) 05:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm numbering these errors to make it easier to keep track of things": most of these are not "errors" (not having a source linked, for example), and some of your changes have been poor, both in terms of content and MoS. You need to be using more than just one source to cover things - and consider that the source may also either have errors, or be contradicted by others. - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment #16

Can anyone add the page numbers from Leno's book to each citation from that book? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I may be able to do this on Friday or Saturday. [Unsigned message]

Error #15

The text had this:

This was his last theatrical role until 1886. Anthony, pp. 22–71

This is wrong. Leno's family even bought a theatre in Sheffield in 1884, so of course he and his family performed theatrical roles prior to 1886.

The source for what I've removed is pp. 22-71. Sorry, no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Locke is cool (talk • contribs) 02:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

"...so of course he and his family performed theatrical roles prior to 1886." Is this your interpretation? This sounds a little presumptuous to me. CassiantoTalk 09:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I would think that is WP:OR, unless you can find a source that explicitly states he performed on stage. - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
He certainly performed on stage. The question is whether he had a dramatic role or only performed comedy acts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
In the absence of sources [which may not exist], leave it. That's what I've done. John Locke is cool (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Attention

Hi [Ssilvers]. I see you've sorted out a few things. This sentence is wrong:

When Leno was four years old, his alcoholic father died, aged 37

1. Dan Leno was born on December 20th 1860 (Hickory Wood, p.1 / Anthony, p.3).

2. Dan's father, John Galvin, was born in 1826 (Anthony, p.3).

3. We don't know the date of John Galvin's death (Anthony, p.14), though Hickory Wood tells us he was dying in 1864 (Hickory Wood, p.3).

4. We do know that Louisa and William Grant were living together near the Euston Road by February 1865, and later that year moved to Liverpool, where they got married in 1866 (Anthony, p.16).

If John Galvin died in 1864 before late December, Dan would've been 3. If he died later, Dan would've been 4 and John Galvin would probably have been at least 38. But this is speculation. We can't be sure because we know neither the date of John Galvin's death nor his date of birth.John Locke is cool (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, John. Thanks for this excellent research, but please try to use more constructive and cordial rhetoric on Talk pages and in edit summaries. For example, it would be offensive if I said: "You were wrong in your edits to the article, because you failed to correct the date of death at the first mention of John Galvin, and I had to clean up after your sloppy edit." Instead I could say, "Thanks for the edits John. Consistent with your research notes above, I added a "c" to the date of John Galvin's death". See what I mean? In every long article or book there are typos, formatting errors and mistakes in transcription, etc. It would be more constructive for you to simply note when you spot an improvement that can be made, and then we can all work together to improve this encyclopedia, without casting aspersions on the hard work of previous editors. Over time, when people collaborate cordially, the whole encyclopedia will improve. It is best to consider all articles as drafts that you have an opportunity to improve, rather than cesspools of "wrong" statements. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I've reverted this. The above false logic is a prime example of WP:OR. Hickory woods does not state "he was dying in 1864": he says "His father unfortunately dying, Dan, Having attained the mature age of four". It's a rather archaic form of writing, but he's saying that the father was already dead. That's the reason the sentence before is "Leno's childhood ended in 1864, and his life's work began". I've put this back and included the Wood reference to strengthen the statement, and, per WP:BRD, I would expect discussion, rather than reversion. - SchroCat (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, SchroCat, I saw this belatedly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately you've missed the point. We do NOT know Leno senior's date of birth or death, and consequently can't give an age at death. If Dan Leno's father died in 1865 [when Dan was 4], he might have been as old as 39. I've removed his age at death. John Locke is cool (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
And I've put it back again. Please stop with your authoritarian behaviour. All this: "Error 13, Error 14, Error 15" nonsense, shouting in caps, and assuming that it needs "an overhaul" after the amount of work that went into writing it. These are not even major inaccuracies; they're simply things that the source you have don't give the answers to. You seem to be working off one source when the article users several. Just because you can't see the source that's being used, and you have access to one source that either doesn't give you the information, or says differently doesn't make it "wrong". John Galvin's life span is given in Brandreth, p.1. It suggests, by way of mathematical workings out, that he was 37 at the age of his death. Leave it. CassiantoTalk 06:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

John Locke is not cool

John Locke, your edit summaries continue to be uncool. As a word of advice to a new Wikipedian from an old one, I can guarantee that if you continue to be a monumental jerk, you will have a difficult time contributing to Wikipedia. You really should re-think your tone, or most Wikipedians will resist working with you. Wikipedia is about collaborative editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I like my edit summaries. I thought they were cool. And you're welcome to be a "monumental jerk" by thinking otherwise. But please don't blame me for highlighting flaw after flaw in this comically flawed article. John Locke is cool (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
    • They're not. It makes you look like a troll. Mind you, as most things you think were "comically flawed" weren't actually flaws, then I'm not sure you're not a troll, especially as many of your own edits were "comically flawed" and had to be reverted or altered. - SchroCat (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Leno/Archive_1&oldid=1151014349"