Talk:George Formby Sr

Infobox

Why shouldn't this article have an infobox? I have been reverted twice now with no reason what so ever. Please, do explain!195.89.48.217 (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose infobox: You have yet to offer a reason to include one. I note you are the same IP who tried to force an idiot box onto Stanley Holloway. Do you enjoy pissing people off? Cassianto^talk 12:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox: I do not believe that an infobox would be helpful in this article. The content in the box is entirely redundant and presents an oversimplified mass of disconnected facts devoid of context and nuance. The important information within it is clearly (and better) presented in narrative form in the WP:LEAD, while the less important information in it is better presented further down in the article. It limits the size, and lessens the impact, of the excellent lead image and hampers the layout of the Lead. Better to leave it out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox: IP, You have been given a reason, so it's disingenuous to claim otherwise. The second two reverts were because you were edit warring, rather than discussing. You have previously been told about WP:BRD, so you know that what you were doing was wrong, yet you continued to revert without discussion: there was no need for that, and it is the sort of action that can lead to your editing privileges being revoked. In terms of the IB itself, I will correct you when you say that "among the wider consensus" there is a requirement: that is simply untrue. The consensus of the community is expressed in the MoS, particularly MOS:INFOBOX, and specifically WP:INFOBOXUSE, which states "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". As others have pointed out, the information contained in the box is present in the lead (and elsewhere in the article) with most of your addition in the opening line. There is no other benefit to the inclusion of the IB, and it is little more than a distraction here. - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse no infobox Redundant.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Opposing an Info-box here. They have their place (sportsmen etc with a quick check-box of stats) but it is a crass waste of space here. When valuable space is taken up with unhelpful repetition of info in the lead it is no service to our readers. I realise that there are some editors who regard it as an article of faith that an info-box should be present, but in reality it is wise to ask for each article is it helpful to the reader? Here it clearly isn't. Tim riley talk 20:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 19 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Although this request was first, title consistency among Brit-related articles must be followed. Continue at #Requested move 20 September 2015. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

---

George Formby Snr → George Formby Sr. – Guidance at WP:NCP#Junior/Senior – the Younger/the Elder – Ordinals, and current discussion at WT:MOS#Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 4, 2015: seems someone checked and " ... "George Formby Sr" gets about fifteen to twenty times as many hits on Google as "George Formby Snr" ... ". -- Francis Schonken (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Weak support. British sources using "Sr." include Ross McKibbin[1] and Steve Chibnall[2], plus others of indeterminate nationality such as Peter Davison and Iain Ellis and many North American sources: e.g. Paul Matthew St Pierre, Rob Wilson and Wimal Dissanayake, and Amnon Kabatchik. British sources using "Sr" include Jeffrey Richards[3], Jonathan Glancey[4] and ALRA[5]. Those using "Snr" include Baz Kershaw[6] and Suffolk New College[7]. Manchester School of Art uses "Snr."[8]. There is a range of styles employed and so there is no particular reason to select one that is different from the wikipedia house style, or to make a big fuss over doing so. DrKiernan (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Your !vote here also includes US punctuation, which is a step too far. There should not be a full stop included. That was part of the rationale for Snr, as it negates the question of the unwanted, otiose full stop. – SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• I am forced to admit that Fowler's Modern Usage, Hart's Rules, OUP house style and the Guardian style guide do recommend against the period. DrKiernan (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ive opened a second request below. Schonken didn't see fit to answer the question as to either why this couldn't be changed, or why he'd included it in the first place, so we've had to go down the rather silly course of having two requests... – SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support "Sr" per WP:COMMONALITY. Sources indicate that both "Sr" and "Snr" are correct British English, but "snr" is too easily mistaken for an error or for "signal-to-noise ratio." "Sr" is much easier to recognize as meaning "senior." Concur with SchroCat that the American "Sr." with a dot would be inappropriate here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• The idiocy of Google search is the basis for a change? We don't allow the sub-standard drivel from most websites in our articles, so how on earth is it a sensible basis to decide a page name? – SchroCat (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No, the basis is "follow guidance", as in WP:NCP#Junior/Senior – the Younger/the Elder – Ordinals. You're free to list additional proposals, you're not free to change mine. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Well that's bloody childish and utterly ridiculous. Why are you reverting to the use of American punctuation? – SchroCat (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:Talk Page Etiquette. Don't change my posts to this talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Answer the bloody question: Why are you reverting to the use of American punctuation? - SchroCat (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:Talk Page Etiquette. Don't change my posts to this talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

i take it that you have no sensible reason at all to use American punctuation then? If so, stop wikilawyering and just say so. – SchroCat (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Editor who ran the Google search here. I'd like to add that I specifically referred to that two-minute check as "quick and dirty." I wouldn't go so far as to call it ridiculous, but of course a move request should be based on more than a quick and casual observation. The fact that the difference was so pronounced does suggest that a careful observation of reliable sources would produce the same results, but yes someone should actually check. One correction, though. American usage is "Sr." with a period. British is or at least includes "Sr" without one. I did also check two RS: Oxford Dictionaries[9] and the Cambridge Dictionary[10]. My findings were that "Sr" and "Snr" are both allowed in British English, though I don't know which one is preferred or by how much. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's look at more sources

Let's just line up some RS look at what they have to say on this matter. Anyone who wants to may add to this list. I'd say that style guides that explicitly address "Sr vs Snr" would be the best sources for this issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oxford Dictionaries lists both as valid [11]
• Cambridge Dictionary Explicitly gives "Snr" as the British version of "Sr." (with a dot), which it says is American; no comment on Sr without a dot.
• Dictionary of Americanisms, Britishisms, Canadianisms and Australiansisms says "Snr" is British; doesn't say "Sr" is not
• Guardian Style Guide "Sr" with no punctuation.
• Oxford University Press says to use no punctuation, gives "Jr" as an example

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 20 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to George Formby Sr (space before period so as to not confuse). The discussion and evidence presented indicate, in general, that the use of Snr vs. Sr in British English is essentially a wash. Whereas Snr is British-specific, and there was no convincing evidence that it is obsolete, evidence was presented that Sr is also recognizable and common in British English. Nor was it shown that Snr is preferred. Therefore MOS:ENGVAR, and specifically MOS:TIES, appears neutral on the use of the one over the other. On the other hand, Snr is uncommon and less recognizable in other varieties of English. Therefore, using Sr over Snr presents an opportunity for commonality for our readers searching for this topic and is less likely to astonish expectations. There was also no evidence presented, as to this specific topic, that Snr is more commonly used in reliable sources. Since only a raw google web search was presented, I took it upon myself to perform some searches to make sure there wasn't strong and obvious evidence for Snr in UK-specific reliable sources for this title of relatively recent vintage (I would weigh such specific results far more heavily than I would the general matter). I did not find much (there was only one result at the British Newspaper Archive, for example, for either (for Snr) but it was from 1937). But I do note that "George Formby Snr" at The Guardian returns no results, whereas there are four results for "George Formby Sr". Obviously, the abbreviation takes no period, which is a national variety issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

---

George Formby Snr → George Formby Sr – There is no full stop after Snr or Sr in British English. This is. The least attractive option for me personally, behind GF Snr and GF senior SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support Sources indicate that both "Sr" and "Snr" are correct British English, but "Sr" is far more easily recognizable, per WP:COMMONALITY. Concur that the American "Sr." with a dot would be inappropriate here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. To the extent the indication of seniority is a disambiguator, "Snr" is confusing (it looks like a military or other post-nominal honorary title like Cmdr, or failing that a typo of Sr), and "Sr" is more widely used and recognized in both the UK and US, so "Sr" is to be preferred to the uncommon and apparently largely British-specific (per the WT:MOS thread) "Snr" per WP:COMMONALITY. And to the extent that the indication of seniority is taken as part of the name, a search of published literature on Google Books shows "Sr" to be more common than "Snr" and a bit more common than "senior", hence "Sr" is to be preferred (to "Snr" and probably to "senior") per WP:COMMONNAME. -sche (talk) 07:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep as Fromby Snr without the full stop. The title should certainly not be Americanised as suggested above. Cassianto^Talk 07:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Before I vote, one of requests must be withdrawn or procedurally closed, even with support votes. Therefore, it's less distracting. --George Ho (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Close the first one as it seems dead in the water. Cassianto^Talk 08:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I don't know why "Snr", older and less frequent abbreviation of "Senior", is still used. Regardless, 'n' should be scrapped. As for the full-stop thing, gotta follow consistency with UK-related articles ending with "Sr" and "Jr". --George Ho (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.