Talk:Hattie Jacques

Best Known

Continuing from a brief discussion elsewehere with Cassianto, I'd like to raise the issue of this statement in the lead;

is best known as a regular of the Carry On films

Now I'd admit that this is a bête noire of mine, as I explain in greater detail here, but this is an unsupported claim. The statement amounts to a guess, a guess that is possibly correct, but a guess none-the-less. There is nothing in the article to support or cite it, no-one has done a survey to determine how she is best known by an unspecified subset of people. Besides that, it is completely unnecessary. If it wasn't a significant part of her career it wouldn't be in the lead, and we wouldn't need to be wondering if maybe she was best known for another role, or who exactly we imagine is doing the knowing.

Far better to get to the point and simply state that she was a regular of the Carry On films. If there is any order of popularity that needs to be suggested, we can do this in the order or emphasis given to her roles, without committing to guesswork. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

How would you like to do this? Anyone giving an "order of emphasis ... to her roles" is committing to guesswork. Cassianto^Talk 18:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like it would be getting into OR/SYNTH territory, perhaps. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Any more than a bold statement of fact about what makes her best known is OR? The point about just leaving it to the order of the given roles is that it means the article isn't making any claims that it can't back up. The order of the roles is not making any claims about how she is best known. They could be in order of the most accolades she received, or the most episodes she recorded, or any other number of possibilities. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I would agree. Escape_Orbit, would it help if "perhaps" was inserted before the claim that she was "...[perhaps] best known as a regular of the Carry On films"? Cassianto^Talk 20:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

No. "Perhaps" would be far worse. It would still be a guess, except it's now a guess that has no confidence in itself. If we are to include 'perhaps' claims then where is the line drawn? Anything could be claimed as long as it's 'perhaps' and not cited. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

In your opinion it would be worse, maybe, but in my experience of writing FA's, using "perhaps" when talking of someone's notability in a certain area has caused me no problems whatsoever. Perhaps you're going to be one of those people who are not happy at anything unless it goes in your favour. Cassianto^Talk 00:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I am really disappointed in the tone of your replies, Cassianto. Can we have a civilised discussion without the snide comments directed at editors, rather than at what is being discussed? The problem with "perhaps" on an unsourced statement is that it is saying "the editor who wrote this doesn't know for certain, and certainly cannot prove it, but would like to suggest it anyway". Can you not see the issues with that? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Your dissapointment is unnesersary and I find it curious how you can possibly judge my "tone" over what is a textual exchange behind a keyboard, possibly, thousands of miles away. I oppose your view and have offered a compromise, yet you don't seem to be compromising at all. Perhaps you could offer constructive alternatives rather than throwing around accusations of snide behaviour. The truth is, many featured articles give an example of what that particular person is "best known" for. If they didn't, we wouldn't have a clue who that person was or why they were so notable. Oh, and there is no need to ping me; I watchlist all of my FAs. Cassianto^Talk 10:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The is the point I am making is we do not need to guess about what a person is "best known" for. Simply state the facts about what the person did. The facts wouldn't be in the lead if they were not significant and the person would not have an article if they weren't notable for it.

My suggested edit is therefore; "She was a regular of the Carry On films". To the point. A hard fact. Doesn't involve totally unnecessary verbiage and guessing. If it wasn't a significant part of her career, it wouldn't be mentioned in the lead. If the lead didn't make her notable, she wouldn't be on Wikipedia. It's very simple.

Otherwise, I invite you to provide a source that verifies the statement regarding how she is best known. If you don't wish to source it in the lead, any other place in the article will be entirely acceptable.

Do I need to explain tone to a Wikipedia editor? I performed an edit I believed was an improvement, requested discussion on it when it was reverted, and your responses became combative and a display of ownership on "your" FAs. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I wondered how long it would be before you resorted to the rather immature and rather defeatist OWN rhetoric. I now can't be bothered to discuss this matter with you any longer. For a quiet life, I'll add the line if it means you jog on your jolly way to the next poor unsuspecting article. Don't bother to post here again for my attention, you'll be ignored. Cassianto^Talk 16:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Escape_Orbit, Is there a reason why you're discussing this matter everywhere but here? It's the height of rudeness ignoring somebody who wishes to discuss such matters while discussing it elsewhere with someone who "perhaps" doesn't. Cassianto^Talk 20:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. What has a discussion about John Le Mesurier with an editor, who is involved with edits on that article, got to do with discussion on this page about Hattie Jacques? And who am I ignoring? It's rather rude of you to jump to conclusions. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not at all confusing to link JLM to Hattie Jacques, especially seeing as they were once married. Cassianto^Talk 00:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Link them all you wish. I still fail to see what prompted your comment and what business it is of yours of how I collaborate with other editors on a different article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's another two links for you: JLM is also one of my featured articles, and I watch Gerda's talk page. So why shouldn't I chip in or comment? I had no idea that Gerda's talk page was an area exclusive to just you. Cassianto^Talk 10:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You are free to "chip in". You are not free to scold other editors for daring to communicate before your involvement. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Shoo...disappear...you're really rather irritating. Cassianto^Talk 18:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. More insults and now you appear to own this talk page too. You would find your efforts on Wikipedia more rewarding if you learnt to collaborate. I mentioned your ownership of this article because you exhibit all the signs of believing it. Your personal affront at suggested modifications, your offence when you thought that you were being excluded from a discussion, the pointed mentions of "your" featured article. Insulting others who wish to improve the article content really doesn't help create an encyclopaedia, any more than the huff you have taken. Who's being childish here?

I was happy to discuss and reach a compromise. I do not want to upset or compromise an otherwise excellent article that you can rightly take pride in. I asked you a simple question about sourcing a statement of fact in the lead. Your response suggests you can't, but wish to avoid conceding that. It's ok, I won't think any less of you. Sometimes it becomes a habit to phrase things in certain ways, when if we stopped and thought about it we'd realise it wasn't appropriate. But the ill-grace with which you have implemented the change does you no credit. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Why not have an infobox?

I am aware of the discussion about not including an infobox that took place more than 3 years ago but I fail to understand why there seems to be a consensus by some (I disagree -- and to my understanding a consensus is when everyone agrees on the same thing) that an infobox is not required for this article. If the use of infoboxes is to make "the article resemble the standard display for this subject" I think the only issue that needs to be discussed is what the infobox should contain rather than whether it should be included at all. If there's to be no infobox on this page why should there be any infobox for any other article? Apologies for opening up an old can of worms. --ToniSant (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:OSE is not a great basis for this, as articles differ in nature and content, and while boxes are great in some fields (politicians, sports people, clergy and those who posts and positions can be listed), they are much less useful for those in the liberal arts. I don't see any arguments in your post that relate to inclusion of a box on this specific article. As to "why should there be any infobox for any other article", that's a remarkably good question that should be a question of any inclusion (and the same point should be made with asking about the inclusion of images and text too): nothing should be added by default without questioning the rationale for inclusion. – SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. I appreciate it and accept it. I also see it as part of the broader deletionist vs inclusionist culture that has long prevailed around several active Wikipedia editors. Sadly, as I see it, this is one way the project keeps losing active editors. To be honest, I don't have the time or the energy to argue for something that only really exists because Wikipedia has never really had a significant update in terms of how information on its article pages is presented to readers who are not also editors or understand any of the sophisticated back-channel discussions that go on around how and why things look or behave the way they do on Wikipedia. Having said this, I am rather curious to see how and when infoboxes populated by Wikidata will eventually get introduced beyond Wikimedia Commons. --ToniSant (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Purpose of See also section

Per MOS:SEEALSO, "one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." (bolding mine) Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

See, for example, Cate Blanchett#Filmography and theatre vs Cate Blanchett#See also. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Also Humphrey Bogart, Katharine Hepburn, John Wayne, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

challenging use of the Daily Mail under WP:BURDEN as a prima facie unreliable source

Cassianto keeps edit-warring in a deprecated source, the WP:DAILYMAIL, apparently being unable to find any other source for a claimed quote.

WP:BURDEN - which is policy - says:

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

Cassianto, you're repeatedly inserting material that is cited to a source that is so remarkably unreliable that two general RFCs have deprecated it - that is, deemed it unusable on Wikipedia except in truly remarkable circumstances. Per WP:DAILYMAIL:

Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles.

Cassianto, repeatedly inserting bad sources - including re-inserting them - is against Wikipedia policy. Do you have a reliable source for the claim, or do you just have the Daily Mail?

If you don't have a RS for the quote, it should be removed until you do.

If you still feel the Daily Mail somehow passes muster here, the appropriate venue after this is discussion on WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• A bad source is not worse that no source. Do a full job or don't do it at all. By that, I mean either find a replacement source yourself or leave it alone. Cassianto^Talk 17:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • That's literally the opposite of what the policy says. How do you read that in WP:BURDEN or WP:V, which it's part of? Wikipedia doesn't have a lot of hard policies - but WP:V is one of them.

It's also literally not what the RFC says - generally prohibited says that it is indeed worse than no source, and that the claim should be removed entirely. Do you have a non-deprecated source for the quote? If not, it should be removed - David Gerard (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) x 2. FFS Gerard, LOOK before you delete again: the Daily Mail source was replaced some time ago (you've already edit warred to try and remove the new source once). If you're going to waste people's time in wittering on about this, make sure you know what you're talking about before posting. Despite all that, and as a general reminder: see WP:BRD and WP:STATUS QUO. There is no excuse for you to continue to edit war: you should have come to this page some time ago. And in future, don't be a disruptive little editor by pinging the same person three times in one post: it's POINTy, aggressive and a bit childish. - SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't deal in policy, I deal in common bloody sense. I have no problem with you deleting the source, but find a replacement! It is a FA and that too has a consensus, all of whom agreed that the DM was okay to use. Cassianto^Talk 17:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Repeating information within a couple of paragraphs

Martinevans, why does the same information need clumsily repeating within two paragraphs? I think readers are intelligent enough to remember the basic information within that two paragraph distance. It’s clear the information was added without adding a source. It doesn’t matter if the citation was also two paragraphs above, any claim needs to be supported by a citation at that point. Having did that, there’s still no need to repeat minor information twice in quick succession. 213.205.194.140 (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

IP 213 your initial edit summary said: "1. adding unsourced material". The material was sourced, two paragraphs above; it still is sourced. Yes, I have read the entire article, thanks, But I've made no comment about "readers considered so dense they need the same information repeating two paragraphs later." So kindly don't suggest that is my view. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

1. The information was unsourced at the point it was included. It doesn’t matter if it was sourced previously, but at the point it was added I would need to be supported, which it wasn’t. 2. I haven’t suggested anything: I have said that they are not dense, that’s all. 3. If you saw the information was already present so nearby, why did you think it was worthwhile repeating it so soon? 4. As there’s a thread open here, I really, really don’t see why you needed to leave a message in a null edit: that’s exactly what the talk page is for... 213.205.194.140 (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It does matter if it was sourced previously, only two paragraphs above. If you saw the information was already present so nearby, why did your edit summary ask for a source and not say "not worthwhile repeating it so soon?" I made my null edit before I saw a new thread at this page, assuming that a thread was unnecessary. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC) p.s. removing a double spaces, as you did here makes no difference to the article.

Yes, it needs a source there, and if you had already seen the source present, why did you think the rather minor information needs repeating so soon after the first mention? 213.205.194.140 (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't need a source there if you want to remove it. I was responding to your edit summary. Have I not made that clear? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You’ve made it clear that you’ve missed the point of what I was saying, but never mind. 213.205.194.140 (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The point made in your initial edit summary was "1. adding unsourced material". That's what I was responding to. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

And the conversation moved past that point, but you’ve ignored or missed the point much of what happened in the middle. As I said before, never mind. 213.205.194.140 (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want something removed from an article, I don't think the best edit summary you can use is "adding unsourced material." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

And that’s the evidence that you really, really have missed out on the point of what I have been saying. 213.205.194.140 (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. I'm totally stupid and you're totally correct. I should have guessed. Thanks for pointing that out. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

🤦‍♂️ And you’re still not actually reading what I’ve said. I’ve clearly not said that at all - you’ve just made it up. I’m out of this - WP is enough of a time sink without having to deal with nonsense like this - and I’ll leave you to have the all important last word. 213.205.194.140 (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Important last word. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC) p.s. please select your own, choice of three.