Talk:George Formby Sr/Archive 1

Biography assessment rating

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 05:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Does anyone know what George's attitude was during the 1907 music hall strike ? Johncmullen1960 08:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Booth's father; Francis died in 1890 in Ashton under Lyne and the 1891 census has Sarah Jane his mother and James in lodgings in Crickets Lane, Ashton under Lyne. This is in contrast to what is written and is perceived by others as he is supposed to have left home aged 13 - Should I spoil a good story?

1891 Census: Citation: Class: RG12; Piece: 3277; Folio 127; Page 13; GSU roll: 6098387. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Velpremus (talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

This article is a cut-and-paste, as described here: http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/plagiarism/0485.html -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Formby's mother, and the widow of George senior, died in August 1981 at the age of 102. The source for this information is www.gradwellphotography.co.uk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.27.68 (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discography

Should we really list all of these recordings of songs? Are they notable? I think it would be better simply to summarize his recording career in a narrative paragraph and note any particularly popular or enduring items. Compare George Baker (record singer). -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you...the list needs to be shortened as in the example you cite. Jack1956 (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done as agreed above. The Times quote lists his notable songs. Also added further info and refs from The Times, DNB article on George Jr, The Manchester Guardian etc. Anyone know how to persuade the infobox to refrain from enlarging the photo to 200px wide? The resolution isn't really up to it. [Later - now done, thanks to JeanColumbia] - Tim riley (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency

Infobox says 1 child, text says 12 children. AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation - possible move

As George Formby the father would never have used the suffix "Sr.", believe that this page is incorrectly disambiguated. Anyone got any good ideas for a more appropriate disambiguator? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps (b 1875) would be suitable? It's an unusual case, and I think we should be free to be a little creative, and that's the best I can think of right now. But see Martin Luther King, Sr. for a similar case. Andrewa (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - it is unusual, as George Formby was a stage name for both of them, which is where the case differs slightly from Martin Luther King, as Martin Luther King, Jr. really was called that (and "senior" had actually changed his name), although again we have the situation with the son being the primary topic. They both achieved fame with the name "George Formby" and as they had similar careers to some extent, the disambiguator would also be similar. I guess the birthdate may be the most appropriate. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it is correctly disambiguated. If someone searches for "George Formby", they will get the son's article and be able to click on the hatnote to get here. I would be the same however we name this article, and the way it is now is crystal clear. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't about navigation, but that the title of the article assumes that he was actually called "George Formby" and that he fathered a child called "George Formby". If that was the case, then the article title would be correct. However, he was called James Booth and he fathered a child called George Hoy Booth and they both went by the stage name of "George Formby". To my mind a suffix of "Sr." is not a suitable disambiguator in this case. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, but I suggest that you contact User:Tim riley and User:Jack1956, the editors who most recently did substantial research and writing on this article, to ask their opinions. It seems to me that the editors who did the actual work on the article should be involved in any proposed move of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems (from a very brief glance at the list of sources) that "George Formby Senior" is a way in which he is now referred to, so the present title doesn't seem to be particularly bad. It will probably be of more help to readers than a birth date (and the fact that Formby wasn't his birth name also perhaps makes the birth date a little less suitable as a disambiguator).--Kotniski (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair point that he seems to be referred to as "senior" by some sources (I've also seen "the elder" used), but is that the correct disambiguation by wikipedia guidelines? I don't think WP:QUALIFIER applies here, as it was not a birth name for either. By including the "Sr." in the article title, it implies that it was part of his name, which it wasn't. If we were to decide on sticking with "senior", then maybe that should go in brackets after the name. Not sure that that would be correct either by WP:NCP, so should we be looking for something else? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest simply George Formby Sr., as that is how he is usually referred to now, while his more famous son is simply known as 'George Formby'. Jack1956 (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, but it doesn't address the points regarding whether this is how it should correctly disambiguated by Wikipedia guidelines. Any further thoughts? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, I take the points you make, above. I suspect there is no wholly satisfactory solution and the best we can do is a working compromise between strict conformity with the usage of the last century and the needs of our modern readers.

The father was, naturally, never known as "senior", but nowadays not one person in a hundred who has heard of George Formby thinks of anyone other than the toothy ukulele player. It would, I think, be unhelpful to the majority of readers in 2011 and beyond to call the father "George Formby" and the son "George Formby Jr". I really believe for disambiguation purposes it is best – though not what he called himself – to call the father George Formby Sr. After all, I don't suppose Pitt the Elder was known as Pitt the Elder till Pitt the Younger came on the scene. But by all means bracket the (Sr.) if you are more comfortable with that.

I see the flaws in this, but it seems to me that the best, or at any rate the least bad, option is to keep the father as Sr and the son as George Formby tout court on his own page, adding "Jr" on the dab page. I hope this addresses the aspects you want covered, but if I have missed the point, please let me know and I'll have another shot. Tim riley (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim - By no means was I suggesting that we use "George Formby" for anything other than the son. It's the title of this page that bugs me, for all the reasons I mentioned above, and also that now we have moved the son's page to the primary topic, one I forgot: there is no "George Formby, Jr." page, so it also seems strange to have a "George Formby, Sr."! Maybe "(Sr.)" or "(senior)" in brackets works - it keeps it away from the name. Maybe the birthdate, or "(entertainer born 1875)". Maybe something else entirely. Maybe I'm starting to care about this a little more than is healthy! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes – one mustn't spend too long counting the angels on the point of the pin, but I think a (Senior) in brackets would do the trick without causing any disruption. Glad to know what Ssilvers and Jack1956 think of that suggestion. Tim riley (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I agree with User:Kotniski. The current name is as good as any, it is crystal clear for readers, and I would not change it. As Kotniski says, many reliable sources are referring to him as Sr., and this is how he has come to be known. I don't think it makes sense to move articles around just to make minor technical points. Let's leave well enough alone. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "crystal clear for readers" - if anything, it's slightly muddy, as it implies that his name was "George Formby, Sr.", which it wasn't. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that (Senior) in brackets is at least as good a solution as any, and a definite improvement on the current article name. Agree that it's not all that critical, but that also applies to the vast majority of RMs and I don't think it's a valid consideration, we accept an improvement however small we may think it. I don't think it's a problem having no article at George Formby, Jr. but do think it's important that it and similar redirects are in place. Andrewa (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there seems to be some support for George Formby (Senior), and I think it is as good a compromise as any - it separates the disambiguator from his name, yet keeps the "senior" which he appears to be known as. And of course the redirects will be in place. Not 100% sure it satisfies guidelines, but as Andrew mentioned earlier, we need to be a little creative. Should we go with this? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could try, but I see little hope of consensus. It's not glaringly bad to be worth making an issue of it, and even if it did seem so to me, I think we're stymied anyway. Wikipedia is not perfect, and may not even approach perfection. Andrewa (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Children?

He had quite a lot of children. Any record of where they ended up? 109.154.9.232 (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be possible to research this, but I don't think it would be notable enough to include within the article. Obviously George would be, and is. -- Cassianto ^Talk 22:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One could say how many were boys and how many were girls, and whether any of them or their spouses or offspring became famous (that is, are any of them blue linked). We already name George Formby of course. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now added. This does not say anything about them becoming famous other than George. -- Cassianto ^Talk 14:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, Cassianto. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]