Talk:George Alexander (actor)

Name change

When did he change his name - and was the usual 'stage name'? Jackiespeel (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The article now notes that he adopted the stage name around the time he became a professional actor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Tidying up of article structure and formatting

@Ssilvers has objected to several of my edits to this article, removing the latest one completely: "I totally disagree with these edits. Please take it to the Talk page." I'm not sure what was wrong with the last one [1]. Okay, this editor doesn't like overlinking, which is perhaps a style choice, and one I'm willing to live with. Otherwise, there is the following:

• I thought Alexander's "Death and legacy" should be in a separate section, which I added
• I replaced the capitalised "If" from this line with a lower case wording: "He did not seek re-election in 1913: If his health had permitted he would, in Wearing's view, have stood for Parliament." I thought it was correct grammar usage not to use a capital letter after a colon in a sentence.
• I added a link to the 1913 London County Council election, as I thought it was relevant when mentioning the end of Alexander's tenure.

None of these are particularly important to me, but I thought they were improvements to the article. TrottieTrue (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I object to linking to the 1913 election: Alexander's article already discusses that he did not stand for office in 1913. There is no reason to link to the article on the election, which doesn't mention George Alexander at all (because he didn't run in it). I have no objection to the lower case "if". I'm agnostic about the extra heading. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

WP articles tend to link to articles which don't mention the subject, by their very nature. If you have no objection to the lower case "if", I'm not sure why you removed it. As for the extra heading, I thought it was better for navigation in a biography article to have their death/legacy in a separate section. If you're "agnostic" about it, does that mean you don't object to the heading being added? TrottieTrue (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I also thought it was better to have a comma after "1914" when discussing the First World War. Do you object to that being re-inserted? TrottieTrue (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

In my view TrottieTrue made edits which improve the article. I question if it improves the article to revert all edits made if you disagree with just one? I would say that linking the 1913 election puts it into context. Denham331 (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, now @Tim riley seems to be joining in with objecting to my edits on this article over trivialities. He has reverted my edits with grammatical improvements twice now. I'll accept that I made a minor "cock-up" [2] here, but Tim seems to have an objection to me changing a sentence so that it does not begin with "And". It's rare to find this on WP - it generally isn't done, in my experience. So I'm not sure why it needed reverting, with more sarcastic edit summaries. TrottieTrue (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Trottie, when you refer to a change, you should link to the diff, so people can easily see what you are talking about. Here is how to link to a diff. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I perhaps should have added another diff to my preceding comment, to fully illustrate what I meant. Tim riley's unsigned comment below is rather uncalled-for, in my opinion - suggesting my English is "shaky". Quite condescending in tone, I find, especially with the use of Latin. Is there really any need to edit war over such small changes? TrottieTrue (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

And if it ain't broke, don't fix it, particularly when your English is shaky, verb sap. 21:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC) (Note: This was added by User:Tim riley)

As I recall, not having read the book for years, Brahms and Simon's Trottie True caused herself embarrassment by her ignorance of what was comme il faut. (I am a great fan of Brahms and Simon, though not of the former on G&S.) Tim riley talk 21:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I think if the Duchess of Wellwater can learn to approve of a Gaiety Girl marrying the heir apparent, Tim riley can accept a few changes to the George Alexander article. I do appreciate him educating me in Latin and French; he has me hurrying to Google. Regarding the use of "And" to start a sentence: correct, it may be. However, context is everything, and I seldom see sentences which start with "and" or "but" on WP. I suspect this is because the tone is not encyclopaedic. TrottieTrue (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Grammatically "his educating" would be preferable to "him educating". Tim riley talk 21:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your guidance in such matters. TrottieTrue (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Linking to the 1913 election would not be helpful, because he did not run for election in the 1913 election, and the article about the election has no connection to him. Jack1956 (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

But that’s the nature of Wikipedia - an article will link to other articles which don’t mention the subject. I don’t see why there has to be such a debate about whether to link to an election - which was actually what prompted Mr Alexander to end his political career, by not standing in it.—TrottieTrue (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be a debate. As three editors think one thing and one - guess who - thinks another, the debate is otiose. Tim riley talk 16:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of linking on Wikipedia is to link to useful articles that provide information that would help a reader of the subject article to understand terms used. There is nothing in that article that is in any way relevant here. The only relevant fact is that there was an election (everyone knows what an election is) that he did not participate in, and where he was not a topic of conversation. The election did not "prompt" him to end his barely noteworthy political career. He ended his political career by deciding not to run. The link would not "enhance the reader's understanding of the subject" of George Alexander. See MOS:OVERLINK and WP:DATELINK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, User:Tim riley, if you read the discussion above, you’ll see that another editor aside from myself thinks the 1913 election should be linked, so that’s two. That hardly means the end of any debate. When writing about a politician, it wouldn’t be uncommon to link to an election. If someone reading the article wanted to find out more about the 1913 election, they would have to put it in the search box rather than just click through from the article. It seems a trivial thing to object to, but if some editors are determined to resist such a change, who am I to argue?—TrottieTrue (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Readers of this article about an actor should not be diverted to an article about an election that he did not participate in. Again, hyperlinking in Wikipedia articles is to be used to "enhance the reader's understanding of the subject", not to draw the reader to tangential topics. You never edited this article before, because you are not interested in Alexander. You are interested in elections. Elections are your hammer. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a frightful Franglais joke lurking here about not having a clou, but we'll let it pass. Tim riley talk 17:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• You wrote The election did not "prompt" him to end his barely noteworthy political career. He ended his political career by deciding not to run. His political career would have evidently continued until the election, whenever that was. Therefore, I would say the election ended his career. The article links to many other articles which have little relevance to the subject. That’s quite an aspersion you’re casting on me there - “You never edited this article before, because you are not interested in Alexander. You are interested in elections.” I took an interest in Alexander because of his inclusion in the actor-politicians category. So just because I had never edited the article before, and may not have been interested in the subject, that means I shouldn’t do so now? Am I not allowed to learn about new topics and edit those? I’m sensing that some people are rather protective of articles they have an interest in - WP:OWN? - and will resist even minor changes strongly. And again, Tim can’t resist making a snide non-joke. There’s a lot of incivility from some editors, concealed as being the “voice of reason and experience”. Look, you’ve got your way. Keep the article as you want it if that’s what pleases you. Heaven forbid the article on George Alexander has a link to the election which he stood down at (surely something no other politician would have on their biography article?).—TrottieTrue (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, he did not stand down at the election. He stood down when he decided not to run again, which may have been years before his term ended. You confuse facts and aspersions. WP:OWN is the haven of drive-by editors who have little interest in a subject and a poor argument in favor of some pet agenda that they like to promote on Wikipedia. So, you are going through the category of actor-politicians (which Alexander was not, really), and making sure that all those articles link to elections that the person participated in, and even those that they did not participate in, but simply coincided with the end of their terms? The latter is, IMO, a net negative to the Wikipedia project. Too bad. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Quite so. "Own!" is the recurrent scream of drive-by editors who can't get their own way. As three different editors have the temerity to disagree with the newbie I don't that will wash. And I'm sad to think my little joke about nails was seen as "snide"; it was intended to lighten the tone a little and wasn't an attack on anyone. Verb sap: if you go around looking to be offended you probably will be, despite others' good intentions. As for future attempts to force your personal preferences, I commend you to another Brahms and Simon novel, and the advice given to Mr Disraeli. Tim riley talk 18:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

A politician not seeking re-election is effectively standing down at the subsequent election. I don’t really see the need to continue this discussion, but again, more bad faith aspersions are being cast against me which I feel the need to dispute. I am certainly not going through the actor-politicians to insert links to elections. The combative and insulting tone used by editors here is a net negative to the Wikipedia project, IMO. Again, I am belittled, this time as a “newbie” - which I certainly am not. It’s amazing how every comment made by Tim is effectively an excuse to show off his superior knowledge of French, Latin and, well, the universe. Condescending in the extreme. Heaven forbid that someone should take a passing interest in a topic and try to change it, Anyway, I’ll leave George Alexander to Ssilvers and Tim (though I won’t be at all surprised if further insulting comments are posted to bait me).—TrottieTrue (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Phew! How extraordinarily grudging, unjust and passive-aggressive! But good luck nonetheless. Tim riley talk 19:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)