Jump to content

Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards/Archive 1

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

Cross references to John Gielgud biographical article

[edit]

We need to decide how to link between the two articles. For Gielgud's colleague Ralph Richardson I put a link to the list of roles etc at the top of each section of the biography, linking to the relevant bit of the table of roles. But how and where to link from Gielgud's biog to this mighty list of his roles needs thinking about. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim riley (talk • contribs) 22:41, 6 March 2014

Would the Gielgud article also work well with the same form of linking to sections? - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if we can contrive some means of pointing to five different tables from the head of each section without assaulting the reader's eye with a sea of long blue-links. You are much more clued-up than I am about such things. I have in my mind's eye something that looks a bit like this:
Details of Gielgud's work, 1950–59: Stage, Director, Film, Television, Radio
Does that seem suitable, and if so how would we make it work? Tim riley (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked slightly, but let me have a look at the anchoring style on RR's tables and see what we can work out. - SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: Sorry Tim, I've been hugely slow on this: I promise to look into it this evening! - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can use pretty much the same hatnote and anchor system you used on RR (and as you've outlined above):

{{Hatnote|Details of Gielgud's work, 1950–59: [[John Gielgud, roles and awards#jgS59|Stage]], [[John Gielgud, roles and awards#jgD21|Director]], [[John Gielgud, roles and awards#jgF21|Film]], [[John Gielgud, roles and awards#jgTV21|Television]], [[John Gielgud, roles and awards#jgR21|Radio]]}}

We can use the same anchors as RR:

  • {{anchor|jgS59}}
  • {{anchor|jgD59}}
  • {{anchor|jgF59}}
  • {{anchor|jgTV59}}
  • {{anchor|jgR59}}

Any thoughts on where you want to add them into the main article? - SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the job. If you trust me not to muck up your tables I'll add the anchors and link to the sections of the biography. We progress! Tim riley (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I trust you! I'll check the sorting after you've done it, but I really don't see how the anchors would affect it. I'll be round to the main article soon for the PR. - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Well I've done my bit, and nothing seems to have fallen apart. Pray check, though. One small point: I've changed "Covent Garden Theatre" to "Royal Opera House"; I hope that won't bugger up the indexing codes, but please have a look. My admiration for your definitive tables has been increased still further as I prodded and poked about in them scattering anchors. If I have done anything you don't like, please revert instanter. Tim riley (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This afternoon I watched wave after wave of anchors being dropped throughout and was mightily impressed with them all. Nothing broken anywhere, and all links 'tween the two pages seem to be working admirably! We must do this again sometime, but perhaps with a less active individual? - SchroCat (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt has one over on us with his Ezra Meeker, who clocked up one year more than Sir John, but on balance people with a 75-year career though astonishing are unconscionably hard work for the hapless biographer or cataloguer, wouldn't you agree? On another tack, I tell you here and now, I have no intention of overhauling Laurence Olivier's article. A superb actor, but I just can't get a handle on the human being. I think my next FAC will be another composer and thoroughly nice man, Ralph Vaughan Williams. Et toi? – Tim riley (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RVW is a fine choice and I think he'll make a very good article. I'm going to work on Tranby Croft, which I've always found fascinating episode, but may also do a list in the background in between times. I also want to work on the RR list as well, to get that up to an FL, but may get one of the others sorted before I dip back into another long roles and awards set of tables! - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

This article was recently moved to "John Gielgud roles and awards" on the basis "redundant comma, more natural". Unfortunately the result was grammatically awful (the comma wasn't quite so redundant, after all). I've moved it back to the previous version, which was in entirely correct English. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! Absolutely right. A most peculiar thing to do, and it's good that you've corrected it. Tim riley (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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: early bedtime for everyone. Lots of heat, not much light, and nothing remotely resembling a consensus (apart from the consensus that nearly everyone else is wrong).
We have Category:Filmographies for articles on the roles of those whose work was primarily on film. Most of its contents are of the form Foo filmography, but a minority of articles use other formats to indicate a wider scope, and there is little consistency. I suggest a centralised discussion, at an RFC. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


John Gielgud, roles and awards → John Gielgud roles and awards – Per WP:NC. Comma here may imply that we are speaking about John Gielgud, some roles and some awards, whereas John Gielgud roles and awards (without comma) clearly indicates that those roles and awards are John Gielgud's. This is also a standard convention in Category:Filmographies, for example, where this article is categorized - i.e. person's name + filmography, without comma. Brandmeistertalk 19:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • They may be partially acceptable in some circumstances in American English, but "John Gielgud roles and awards" is painful, lazy and awful in British English. I'll also point out that you've selectively quoted there: missing off the definite article is a horrible thing to do, but Americans seem to enjoy it – it's certainly not grammatically correct in BrEng. - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose also. The article is about the career of a British actor who appeared on the stage, on film and who, inevitably, won awards for doing so. The current title reflects this perfectly, provides no confusion and is formatted correctly in BrEng. Oh, and it might have been better to have discussed such a controversial move on the talk page first, rather than go ahead regardless. Just a helpful bit of advice for the future. :) Cassiantotalk 19:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose I wholly concur with Cassianto. This page has been through a thorough FL review where the matter of the title was considered. I hope we shall not be wasting very much more time on one editor's personal crusade. Tim riley (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a terrible title, and I'm incredulous that this made FL with such a title. I'm also dumbfounded by the arguments that the proposed title is bad English. "John Gielgud, roles and awards" isn't?? What's really confusing here is that this is a mix of a typical filmography article and a typical "List of awards and nominations" article, so I'm not exactly sure what it should be named. Not the current title, but probably not the proposed name either. The simplest solution would simply be to split the article into John Gielgud filmography and List of awards and nominations received by John Gielgud. It's never been clear what happens to a FL when it's split (this has come up before), though. --BDD (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • n.b. Browse Category:Filmographies and you'll find plenty that include non-film roles. Given Gielgud's prominence in other fields, though, another option would be John Gielgud on stage and screen, following what we've done for Timothy Dalton, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and some others. Still not the most elegant wording, and maybe even a bit colloquial, but it would be an improvement. --BDD (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear: from the sublime to the ridiculous. Split? No, no, no! Why on earth would we do something as crassly awful as that? Thankfully the consensus is strongly against such a pointless suggestion: a number of our featured lists (and, indeed, non-featured ones) deal with the full career history that covers both an artist's work, and the awards they received for that work. (You suggest Philip Seymour Hoffman on stage and screen as an alternative? An article with only one unreliable source? Perhaps you could best spend time in bringing that one up to the barely passable standard of having just one reliable source, rather than making such truly awful suggestions that go counter to what we already have?) To answer your question on the title: "John Gielgud, roles and awards" isn't?? No, it's not. Perhaps you'd be best advised to read up on possible uses of the comma. - SchroCat (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My focus is on titles, and consistency in them, which is part of our core naming WP:CRITERIA. I don't care how many references Philip Seymour Hoffman on stage and screen has, because I was suggesting the title as a model for this one, not the article itself. Look, it's clear you're invested in this article, and you've done some good work on it. But what exactly would make a split "crassly awful"? Hell, we can call them both FLs. I don't really care about that. And yes, maybe it would be good for me "to read up on possible uses of the comma." Could you point me in the direction of something that supports the current title? --BDD (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So hang on a second; what your saying is "forget the references and the quality of an article. In fact, the references are that unimportant that the article can be littered with bad, unreliable ones so long as it has a great title!" Good grief! This thread has turned into a complete farce and should be speedily closed. Cassiantotalk 17:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion about the title of the article, not its referencing or quality. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't bring it up. Simples! Cassiantotalk 17:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's kinda funny (or would be if it wasn't some form of kafka-esque situation here), but I was the one who came up with the format of "XXXX on screen, stage, etc", and I've been criticised for it a fair amount, which is why there is a move towards something less clunky. "xxx, roles and awards" is less clunky, and also has the benefits of being elegant, obvious and basic, correct English. A split would be crassly awful and awfully crass: why on earth should we split away the awards of a career from the record of that career? That's just counter-intuative and pointless. As to the comma: try Fowler or Gower for the basics. As to Hoffman, perhaps it would be more constructive if you moved your focus away from featured work to building up the much-needed references on articles (that's one of the five pillars, rather than anyone's personal windmill crusade): reliable sourcing is so much more important if we're trying to build an encyclopaedia. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By a happy coincidence I am at present working on the Gowers Plain Words article (contributions cordially invited) and surrounded by the works of Gowers, Fowler, Vallins and Herbert on my desk as I am, I don't think the use of commas in headings is specifically covered in any of them, but I do know, with the works of these authorities buzzing round my brain, that I'm confident the form adopted on our page would raise no eyebrows among experts. – Tim riley (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not the one who brought it up. See the new subsection for more discussion about whether this is proper English. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, just because you don't grasp it doesn't mean that it's not correct. - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not a genius, but I'm fairly smart. If I don't grasp this, it's probably safe to say many readers won't either. --BDD (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So when did ignorance become a basis for policy? I really don't get what is so difficult to understand here: this is fairly simple English, or maybe it's just something that's done so differently in AmEng. - SchroCat (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've had to repeat three times, that format has also been criticised, so it's not really appropriate. There is nothing "misleading" about the comma, the use of which here is entirely correct English. - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no "even if" about it: it is correct. Other options were explored, mulled over, considered and rejected. The current version, which scans well, and is clean, elegant and (bloody) obvious was settled on. There is still no good reason to change this title from the curent form to something else. - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FFS - FOR THE FIFTH TIME: THE FORMAT OF "XXXX ON STAGE AND SCREEN" HAS BEEN CRITICISED ELSEWHERE AND IS NOT ON THE AGENDA. Try reading the bloody thread before commenting on things already answered. - SchroCat (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you'll find that WP:TITLEFORMAT covers it, in the section "Do not create subsidiary articles": "Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another: even if an article is considered subsidiary to another (as where summary style is used), it should be named independently. For example, an article on transport in Azerbaijan should not be given a name like "Azerbaijan/Transport" or "Azerbaijan (transport)" – use Transport in Azerbaijan." --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For John Gielgud, roles and awards were offered easily to him is fine as a sentence but unhelpful to illustrate suitability for a Wikipedia title. You have acknowledged that WP:TITLEFORMAT says: "Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech". John Gielgud, roles and awards is not a noun phrase. John Gielgud roles and awards is a noun phrase, so should be preferred. I am yet to see any evidence that the comma is even acceptable, let alone required.
List of roles and awards of John Gielgud would be even better, and would also fit with the guidance on subsidiary titles. —sroc 💬 23:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – maybe I've left my grammar book at home. But as far as I can tell, the current title is at best awkward and at worst a comma splice. Exactly what purpose does the comma serve? A comma is not ordinarily used to denote possession. And exactly what is so wrong about saying "John Gielgud roles and awards"? It's true that there are possibly better choices, like John Gielgud: roles and awards or Roles and awards of John Gielgud or List of roles and awards of John Gielgud, or even John Gielgud's roles and awards, any of which I would support more strongly than the current proposal (although IDK about possessives in titles). But the current title is not a shining example of perfect title selection. What is so wrong with changing it? The objections people come up with to alternative titles with reek of article ownership and are also totally unconvincing, like arguing that "Roles and awards of John Gielgud" is bad because readers wouldn't type that in the search box (there are redirects, and honestly who is going to type in "John Gielgud, roles and awards" into the box?). IMHO pretty much any title would beat the current one with the comma. AgnosticAphid talk 17:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Agnosticaphid:, if you think "that there are possibly better choices", why on earth are you supporting something poor? Right above you JHunterJ has made a much better suggestion. If you don't like that, suggest something you consider to be more preferable: to insert a third or fourth placed choice in seems to be way off the ideal. I will also strongly refute the bollocks of an accusation of ownership: I have put forward arguments against poor suggestions, but I have also supported a third party's suggestion of a title - it's one I would not choose as better than the current one, but it's certainly better than any of the other nonsense I've seen suggested. - SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Hm. Did you read my comment before you responded to it? The "much better suggestion" of List of roles and awards of John Gielgud that you seemed to like above is one of the suggestions that I did make. Perhaps more contemplation and less knee-jerk opposition is in order. AgnosticAphid talk 17:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'll start off by observing that you never responded to anything I actually said in my comment. I'll reiterate that I suggested four alternate titles (one of which you apparently don't dislike) and said I would support any of them more strongly than the current proposal. I'll also point out that I invited editors who opposed the move to explain exactly why the current title is using a comma and exactly why the comma-less version is incorrect, which as far as I can tell nobody has done. And I'll conclude by standing by my (perhaps disagreeable) claim of editors asserting ownership of this article. AgnosticAphid talk 18:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your accusation of ownership is uncivil and obnoxious. I claim no rights over this page at all, and have happily supported a workable alternative. I sincerely doubt you'll withdraw the accusation, which says more about you than me, sadly. - SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry you feel I attacked you improperly. But in my opinion knee-jerk opposition and failure to meaningfully engage with opposing viewpoints is the hallmark of ownership. And by attacked me before you even read (or else, maybe after you read but before you comprehended) my comment you sort of confirmed that opinion. But it's only just that, my opinion. AgnosticAphid talk 18:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "failure to meaningfully engage with opposing viewpoints"? How sad that you didn't take into account that I have taken others viewpoints into consideration and that I am supporting a suggestion made by a third party. Disagreeing with flawed suggestions (and providing good reasons for such an opinion) isn't ownership. Perhaps you forgot to take that into account - I'll AGF on that point, even if it does seem to be a commodity in short supply here. - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

I really feel like I'm in some sort of bizarro world here where "John Gielgud, roles and awards" is good English. Is this a British convention I'm not familiar with? It sounds to me like something that would be said by a foreigner who is struggling with English. The main ideas are communicated, but in a disjointed way: I get that we're talking about John Gielgud, and about roles and awards, presumably his. There's no need for titles to be complete sentences or anything, but it should generally be possible to use them in a sentence in a coherent way (I mean, I could say something like "Like John Gielgud, roles and awards are something I've held and won," but the meaning is different). I'm really not trying to be difficult here—could someone explain how this is proper English? Reference to another source using such a construction would be helpful. I'm open to changing my mind if someone can demonstrate this, but as is, I have a lot of experience with the English language and have never encountered anything like this. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Evans on stage and screen would definitely fit that article. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained to you that there is a degree of opposition to that format. - SchroCat (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it wouldn't. That title suggests a critical study, not a list. Didn't I see on your user page that you're a librarian? As one librarian to another, I should say that clarity is imperative. Tim riley (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can't look for yourself, you can try Ralph Richardson and Ian McKellen. Are there any other articles that use the format "XXXX XXXX's roles and awards"? - SchroCat (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, because some of us create content, not piss about criticising the work of others and wasting time and effort in the process. There are other articles that use the format, but I don't supposed you've bothered to search for them either? As to precedent, so fucking what? There doesn't need to be a precendent for an article structure that is fairly unique. - SchroCat (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many angels can dance on the point of a needle? The present title is concise, clear, literate and doesn't need tampering with. Tim riley (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha I'm seeing some amusing comments on here aimed at editors who are better than most, Tim and Schro not capable of "good English"? LOL. Absolutely nothing wrong with it as it is. Why not focus on something which actually needs work and attention?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

or any similar format. —sroc 💬 13:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the sixth, but I doubt final, time, the format "XXX XXX on stage, radio and screen" has been criticised elsewhere as being inappropriate and will not be adopted. (Please try and read the thread fully before commenting next time). "Performances of" misses out the awards, so is a non-runner, and "Roles and awards of John Gielgud" makes it sound like they were the awards presented by Gielgud, or issued in his name. - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly some conjecture as to whether John Gielgud, roles and awards is proper form in English. I am a well-educated adult native English speaker and this form is foreign to me. Please assume good faith in accepting that if several editors say that the form is wrong to them, then they may be on to something about the way ordinary speakers use English, even if some text books or style guides disagree. Doesn't it make sense to prefer a form that is more natural and widely agreed as proper English over a form that has mixed acceptance? After all, just because it may be technically grammatical does not make it a natural title.
It would be helpful if you could be more productive in working towards solutions instead of stonewalling; comments such as "will not be adopted" smack of attempts to own the article. There are plenty of other examples such as Steven Spielberg filmography and List of awards and nominations received by Steven Spielberg we can use as a guide for good, clear titles (I'm not suggesting this article be split). I'm sure we can build consensus on a good title if we work together with open minds. —sroc 💬 13:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sroc, I'm not stonewalling over anything, but when I've had to repeat six times that one of the suggested forms has been strongly criticised elsewhere, it seems utterly ridiculous to consider contemplating its use: it's not ownership at all, it's because I know what I'm talking about with that form, and it seems that the people who have suggested it do not. I strongly suggest you AGF and drop the ownership smears straight away. So far I have not seen a good example of something worth discussing which cannot be easily dismissed on one ground or another. Come up with some workable ideas and we can discuss them: the ones already suggested are flawed. - SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SchroCat. I was holding out for a better title that might get wider consensus, but you've convinced me to support John Gielgud roles and awards in the meantime as it preferable to the current title. I'm sure there's a better alternative out there somewhere, but I have other fish to fry. —sroc 💬 13:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, instead of reiterating that something "has been strongly criticised elsewhere", it would be helpful if you actually linked to previous discussions. Otherwise it comes across as: Trust me, I know better than you! In any case, consensus can change, so the fact that something was discussed in the past does not mean we're bound to follow it now. Let's focus on the merits. —sroc 💬 13:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try using the search facility. I know that's not terribly helpful, but I've had my fill of spoon-feeding people answers on basic stuff today. Do you have any other suggestions? if not, then the existing title can stay in place until something decent comes along. "John Gielgud roles and awards" is a ridiculously AWFUL stand-alone title, and so far no-one has come up with anything better, and running off to fry fish is not advancing the issue at hand here. - SchroCat (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat, please stop saying that. Just because a certain format has been "criticised elsewhere" doesn't mean it has to be ruled out. Can you think of anything on the encyclopedia that hasn't been criticized at some point? --BDD (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will keep saying it because while you may be a seagull visitor to this issue, others of us actually have to deal with it on a regular basis, and I'm not prepared to move this to something that is equally contentious. Now, do you have anything constructive to add to the sensible suggestion by JHunterJ above? - SchroCat (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, then, it's your position that an editor needs to contribute to an article in order to have a valid opinion about it? --BDD (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't try to put words into my mouth, that would be tiresome. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But you do think the fact that I haven't worked on this article is relevant, don't you? I'm not sure why you'd bring it up otherwise. --BDD (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, stop putting words in my mouth: in future ask what someone means, rather than twist their words into something inappropriate and misleading. What I have tried to explain to you, although you seem not to be in "receive" mode, is that I have some experience in these forms of articles that cover a career history, for want of a better term. You do not seem to have such experience, and I have tried to explain to you that the previous formats have come up against some opposition, which is something that I am trying to avoid in the future. - SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I apologize for making assumptions. But surely you know that consensus can change, and if there's consensus to move to a title that's previously been rejected, those who have objected in the past can speak up here or just deal with it. It's helpful to be aware of previous discussions, but they need not drive this one. --BDD (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already refuted such silliness (which is also horribly untrue): please do not dip into the cesspit of such incivility, and try - just try - to AGF, however hard you may find it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think everybody is assuming good faith in believing in the best intentions of all regarding the encyclopedia, but it might be that some editors have a von oben and condescending attitude, or at least that comes across as such, that may stand in the way of a constructive consensus. Perhaps it is an opportune moment to remind all of wp:civility walk victor falk talk 20:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? As BDD has apologised for making assumptions, I hardly think this is constructive. What could be constructive is if you could address the suggested title in the previous section, which is! after all! the main point here. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered how long it would before someone brought up the "if all else fails, let's blame OWN" yarn. This isn't OWN, it is a case of people who appear to have a good level of English pointing out good English to those who appear not to know the lingo. Cassiantotalk 23:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Well, if people insist on belaboring this point, it seems to me that comments like "while you may be a seagull visitor to this issue, others of us actually have to deal with it on a regular basis" is pretty much a quintessential claim of ownership as BDD already noted. Whether SchroCat is a font of list-title-formatting wisdom or a font of John Gielgud wisdom is entirely beside the point and has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever. It's functionally identical to the example statements of "Are you qualified to edit this article?" and "You obviously have no hands-on experience with this topic" that the page you reference condemns. The other earlier comment of "some of us create content, not piss about criticising the work of others and wasting time and effort in the process" is equally troublesome. To briefly comment on the substance of those accusations, I believe that many of the people who don't like this title are quite heavily involved with monitoring the WP:MOS, which is hardly a playground for grammatical novices. And finally, to dredge up a point I didn't think was worth emphasizing, nowhere in this entire move discussion is there any actual explanation of why it is incorrect to remove the comma or what exactly the comma is doing there in the first place. The only statements are basically "OMG I KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT ENGLISH GRAMMAR AND LISTS, AND YOU PROBABLY CAME OUT OF A HOLE, SO YOU'RE WRONG!!!!!" AgnosticAphid talk 00:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What utter bollocks: I have already explained my position and BDD has apologised for making assumptions. Perhaps you could stop throwing uncivil and unfounded lies about others and focus on the matter on hand. You blind accusations are as stupid as saying "the people who don't like this title are quite heavily involved with monitoring the WP:MOS" is proof of ownership of article titles: no-one is suggesting that, so take it down a peg or two and try and remember what good faith actually is. @victor falk, putting your insults into Swedish doesn't stop them being uncivil and if you are going to be uncivil do it in English, or refrain from it altogether, which would be much more preferable. - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't shout, there's a good chap. Cassiantotalk 00:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of roles and awards of John Gielgud

[edit]

Alternative proposal: John Gielgud, roles and awards → List of roles and awards of John Gielgud – This seems to be gathering more support than any of the other alternatives, so perhaps we should run this up the flagpole and have a !vote. —sroc 💬 23:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the reasons for my support of this change are thus:
  • John Gielgud, roles and awards is not grammatical in English as a self-standing expression, in my view (and I have not seen any evidence to support the contrary position despite several requests), and therefore it does not suit a Wikipedia title. The Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format (WP:TITLEFORMAT) policy says: "Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech"; the current title is neither. As many others have echoed above, even if the comma were technically grammatical, it is in any case unfamiliar to many and awkward to parse, so a more universally acceptable title would be better.
  • The current title reads like an item one might expect to find in an index:
  • John Gielgud
  • John Gielgud, awards
  • John Gielgud, biography
  • John Gielgud, filmography
  • John Gielgud, portrayals of
  • John Gielgud, roles
Wikipedia article titles do not adopt this format. (There is a total of 4 articles – including this one – containing ", roles and awards" in the title, all of which were created within the last three months.)
  • List of roles and awards of John Gielgud is grammatical in English and fits the common format of many other "List of..." titles (there are 85,000+ titles beginning "List of..." including 13,000+ containing "roles" or "awards"). It meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title (WP:NC): recognisable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. The "List of..." format is also endorsed by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Titles (WP:NCLIST) guideline.
  • WP:TITLEFORMAT also says: "Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another: even if an article is considered subsidiary to another..., it should be named independently." It gives the example to use "Transport in Azerbaijan", not "Azerbaijan/Transport" or "Azerbaijan (transport)". Similarly, List of roles and awards of John Gielgud should be preferred to John Gielgud, roles and awards on this basis.
—sroc 💬 04:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps be more constructive in your comment to explain your reasoning? —sroc 💬 00:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...and could you perhaps refer your eyes to my comments above where you will see my reasoning. Cassiantotalk 00:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see where you have addressed this proposed title above. —sroc 💬 00:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then your skills at looking are equal to your ideas on how to correctly name an article. Cassiantotalk 00:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see Ian McKellen, roles and awards and Ralph Richardson, roles and awards. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These were just two I gave as examples. You'll have to search properly to find any others. - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From this search:
—sroc 💬 14:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't the fact that it is a list implied by "roles and awards of"? As far I know nothing says it is obligatory for a list to have "List of" in the title. It sounds less of mouthful and more concise. walk victor falk talk 01:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NCLIST -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • support standard formulation. the comma version is atrocious. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think I've explained why above, but this meets WP:TITLEFORMAT regarding noun phrases and subarticles, where the current title doesn't. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there a practical problem entailed in such a move? The Gielgud biographical article contains a large number of links to anchors in the Roles and Awards page. Would these still work if the page is moved to one with a new title? Would this be automatically dealt with? If not, would the editor doing a move of the page also change all the links to it from the biographical article? Tim riley (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there's no practical problem. The resulting redirect would keep the old links useful, anchors and all. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my suggestion in the earlier discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm reassured a bit by the immediately preceding comment, but in a title one should start with the particular and move to the general. At present anyone typing "John Gielgud" into the WP search box will be offered the biographical article and the roles/awards page. If the article is moved to "List of...", the searcher won't be offered the role/awards page at all. I've just tried, using the Amy Adams example mentioned above. From our readers' point of view it is key that the words "John Gielgud" come first. Replace the comma with a colon, or even a possessive if we must, but not the woolly and user-unfriendly "List of..." Tim riley (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects easily solve this problem. Try typing (for example) "How I Met Your Mother episodes". --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As JHunterJ noted above, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Titles (WP:NCLIST) states: "Standard practice is to entitle list articles as List of ___ (for example list of Xs)." If you disagree with this, you can try to gather consensus to change the guideline, but be aware that it is well entrenched (over 85,000 articles beginning "List of…"). As it stands, there is no reason to deviate from the guideline in this case. —sroc 💬 13:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Standard practice" is a slightly out-of-date description here (as well as proving enough choice for it not to be followed): there has been something of a move away from the insistence on "List of..." in recent years, certainly with our featured content, and this is borne out by an examination of the articles shown at WP:FL. - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hovering over the various links at Wikipedia:Featured lists, a significant majority it seems are prefaced with "List of…". Of course, the most appropriate title will vary in individual cases, but the point is that "List of…" is a very common and well established format for titles, supported by a guideline, so we needn't discourage it if it is regarded as the most suitable title.
Besides, I found nothing at Wikipedia:Article titles to say that "in a title one should start with the particular and move to the general"—rather, the policy sets out how to determine the best article based on what is most recognisable, natural, precise, concise and consistent with the pattern of other article titles. —sroc 💬 14:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I said it was in recent times that this move has occurred. We have an inherently flexible MOS that allows differing formats. All I am pointing out is that a consensus is not needed to change the MOS: it's already got the flexibility needed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that Tim riley's argument that titles "should start with the particular and move to the general" and therefore should not begin "List of..." is flawed because: (1) Wikipedia's policy on article titles says nothing of this; (2) "List of..." is endorsed by a guideline; (3) "List of..." is very widely used (85,000+ including 13,000+ relating to roles or awards) compared with "[Name], roles and awards" (which has only four occurrences, all created within the past three months). —sroc 💬 01:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [edited 01:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Could you elaborate? --BDD (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's with all these quick fire questions back to each oppose vote? Not just you, but your henchmen aswell. This is how disputes start, so kindly stop and get over the fact that people oppose your crackpot, bird brained idea. Cassiantotalk 03:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mind WP:AGF. Here "methinks it's wrong and that's all" is not the way it works. If someone provides no visible rationale for the vote, it's reasonable to ask him/her why. Meanwhile to date no one has cancelled the English possessive, which is formed either by "'s" or "of", not by ordinary comma. Brandmeistertalk 07:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I mind that, maybe you could mind your own business when it comes to answering comments which are meant for other people. Cassiantotalk 12:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I have henchmen now? Delightful. Having been accused of being another editor's "follower", it's wonderful to feel this sort of agency. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dr B's comment needs no elaboration. A good title will be replaced with a bad one. But heigh ho ~!Tim riley (talk)
  • Oppose Although this is better than any of the alternatives, it is certainly inferior to the present version. I suspect the misguided weight of numbers will win the day, which is a sad and sorry situation. - SchroCat (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying it is "inferior" but have yet to point to any argument or authority indicating that John Gielgud, roles and awards is acceptable (let alone preferable) despite a strong call for change from editors who believe it is an apocryphal title. —sroc 💬 01:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you and the tag team please stop WP:bludgeoning everyone you disagree with ? It's an overly aggressive approach that will only stop other editors from adding their names to the list, which I hope is not your intent. - SchroCat (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you think asking for reasoning amounts to bludgeoning. You may note that Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process says: "The more often you use the same reason in a given discussion, the weaker it becomes." You wrote above that you had made the same argument (that the current title is standard English whereas the proposed title is not) six times, yet you have not provided any references or evidence to support this. Meanwhile, other editors have disputed this: Robsinden referred to noun phrases by reference to WP:TITLEFORMAT; Agnosticaphid referred to comma splices; Brandmeister noted that a comma does not serve the function of "English possessive, which is formed either by 's or of"; BDD disputed the current title is "good English", saying it felt like being in "bizarro world"; Victor falk said the current title would not "work naturally in a sentence"; as a well-educated adult native English speaker (I also majored in linguistics, by the way), I stated that the form the current title takes is foreign to me. Brandmeister also referred to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, which states that polling is intended to achieve consensus through discussion of the arguments, not a vote. That discussion can only be facilitated by providing reasoned arguments; simply saying that something is "inferior", "misguided" or "stupid" is unlikely to be highly regarded when the discussion is closed. As an aside, I'll add that I'm always happy to be proven wrong and relish the opportunity to learn when someone shows me the error of my ways, but I don't take kindly to someone criticising my good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia without supporting their position with sound reasoning. That's all I will say on the matter; whether you choose to elaborate is up to you. —sroc 💬 11:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already stated, the discussion has given the evidence, and your further berating - when asked not to do so - is not constructive or helpful. Whether some American readers understand this use of the comma or not is the key, and it seems that is a difference which some appear not to have grasped. Ignorance over the use of punctuation based on someone else's acceptable use will, unfortunately, probably win the day here. Much of what has been written (and which you have cited) is just fluff and opinion (along the lines of "it feels wrong to me"). That's really not good enough, except where a group want to try and force their consensus on a page. Sad times, but it's becoming increasingly common for such silliness. - SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, it is not just sroc. I have looked through the discussion and I see no sort of objective evidence and repeated requests have been ignored. If you are incapable of producing such evidence or at least pointing readers to where it is, then the only reasonable assumption is that there is none. older ≠ wiser 11:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's there, read it. This aggressive tag-teaming to wear down others is going beyond sensible discourse. Which bit of "stop bludgeoning others" are you utterly incapable of understanding? - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I've looked and the non-obviousness suggests it is a fiction. If it were so easy to locate, why do so many ask where it is? older ≠ wiser 12:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When your view is counter to the consensus view, it stands to reason that there will be more voices on the other side. That is neither a tag team nor bludgeoning. You have been uncivil throughout this discussion. Please calm down, and stop hiding other editors' comments. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am entirely calm.What I have commented I is not the number of voices, but the approach of a tag-team who think it correct to bludgeon anyone whose opinion differs. There are editors above who have voted only on their opinion of 'I don't like it', without any reference to the MOS. No-one has berated or bullied them. So far all opposes have been attacked. It's no wonder that their is a concern of a co-ordinated attack. As to the capping, sadly there was a staggering lack of good faith (again). Trying to cap comments (not refactoring - they are all still there) that were moving further away from the point is acceptable if it allows constructive discussion to proceed. Unfortunately too much knee-jerk removal of the cap took place, which is unhelpful. Sadly this whole badgering, bullying and bludgeoning has driven me away: well done to you, the small group of MOS owner-warriors, you've managed to bully another editor off a page. - SchroCat (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reasonable assumption is that you also have no grasp on what is correct English. I shall say it again; if you want any of our opinions on this whole sorry debacle, then overt your eyes to the discussion above. We are not willing to duplicate information which is already there just because you can't bothered to read it. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll get back to improving the encyclopaedia while you bitch and card about a bloody comma. Cassiantotalk 12:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right. We're supposed to just trust the self-proclaimed experts, even though they are incapable of explaining their exulted reasoning to us peons. older ≠ wiser 12:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have eyes, put them to some good use and read the discussion in the previous section. There you will see our reasoning. Or maybe you only see what you want to see? Cassiantotalk 13:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of hand waving and shouting and very little that passes for cool reasoning, especially on the part of the pro-comma camp. older ≠ wiser 13:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Tim riley above. The title is fine as is, and it is very useful to begin with the name. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Tim Riley and all the others above who agree that the subject's name should be first and not 'List' or any other permutation Jack1956 (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The main problem is with the word "of". You might get away with "the roles of John Gielgud" but not "the awards of John Gielgud". They are awards made to him, not by him or "of" him. Compare: "the Garden of Eden"; "The Snows of Kilimanjaro"; "the complete works of Shakespeare", "the symphonies of Mozart"; "the awards of John Gielgud". Which is the one that doesn't make sense? I don't think the current title is necessarily the best available, but it's better than this proposal. Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support List of roles and awards of John Gielgud or List of roles and awards for John Gielgud (or simply removing the comma from the current name). Personally, I can't parse the current version with the comma – it seems like a "sub-page" title, which is against Wikipedia title convention. I've looked above for an explanation of how the current title can be construed as acceptable punctuation, but haven't found another way to reasonably interpret it. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • or to reasonably split the infinitive? In English English this is frowned on by some, wrongly, in my view, but illustrating how foreign variants of English can get it wrong when it comes to the fons et origo. Tim riley (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • its like an entry in an index:
Gielgud, John, birth, p 24
Gielgud, John, roles and awards, p 42
Gielgud, John, Wikipedia article naming dispute, p 113
not any normal English phrasing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassianto: Do NOT quote me out of context to mean the opposite of what I wrote! What I wrote was:

"For John Gielgud, roles and awards were offered easily to him is fine as a sentence but unhelpful to illustrate suitability for a Wikipedia title."

Specifically, the comma is only present in that sentence because of the structure of the overall sentence (it separates an adverbial clause, I think); this is not the case in the standalone phrase John Gielgud, roles and awards which is ungrammatical. —sroc 💬 01:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
that "normal phrasing" 1) separates the phrase containing John Gielgud from the rest of the content and 2) relies on a "for" which is not included in the current title. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is like what one would use in an index to indicate a subtopic within a topic. But that seems like the "sub-pages" concept, which is eschewed as an article title convention on Wikipedia. Please see the sroc comments above about WP:TITLEFORMAT and the example to use "Transport in Azerbaijan", not "Azerbaijan/Transport" or "Azerbaijan (transport)". Presumably, that guidance would also apply against "Azerbaijan, Transport". —BarrelProof (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than concentrating on the shortcomings of the present title, please look at the flaws in the suggested alternative, the wording of which is what we are supposed to be voting on here. In particular, consider "awards of John Gielgud", which as observed above is a highly questionable construction. If, after all this hot air and strife, we end up with a replacement title that is actually worse that the original, what a waste of time that will have been. A featured list should not have a title that will be subject to constant sniping; the most hopeful outcome is to vote this proposal down (it's 9–7 in favour as I write, hardly a ringing endorsement), take a pause for reflection, and then in a calmer atmosphere reconsider the question of alternatives that might carry a better consensus. Brianboulton (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The flaws of both should be examined to determine if the proposed title is an improvement to the encyclopedia. The proposed title is an improvement over the very bad John Gielgud, roles and awards; none of the suggested new titles are worse that the current one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring

[edit]

Hiding talk page comments is refactoring. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. Please do not revert to the controversial refactoring. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial to who? The reason they are being hidden is because of the shameless bludgeoning that is going on. Again, a case of only seeing what you want to see.Cassiantotalk 15:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason you see them as shameless bludgeoning is again a case of seeing only what you want to see. Coupled with more incivility and assumptions of bad faith in the edit summary. Please do raise an WP:RFC/U to address the shameless bludgeoning, if you feel that there is any actual bludgeoning going on. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you see that edit summary as being said in bad faith, then that is your problem. Please stick to the matter in hand. There is a disturbing amount of bludgeoning going on whenever someone votes an oppose and that should be curtailed. Cassiantotalk 15:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Assumptions of bad faith" are not "things said in bad faith". I suppose if you see bludgeoning, then you feel that is your problem? Sticking to the matter at hand: there is a useful amount of discussion going on, and it should not be curtailed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is only useful to those who relish in holding up the project. As an admin, it is for you to differentiate between the bludgeoning and the "useful amount[s] of discussion". It is the former that should be curtailed, as the latter is non existent. Cassiantotalk 16:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin or editor, I see the useful discussion above and your insistence on assuming bad faith by assuming the others relish in holding up the project. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well what would you call a seemingly illiterate tag-team who bludgeon peoples opposing views in order to bolster up their own? Far too much time has been wasted talking about a comma, which in it's its* current form is correct and proper English. Cassiantotalk 07:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC) [edited 13:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)][reply]
*Earlier iPad spellchecker typo which was insinuated below to be an ironic mistake. Cassiantotalk 18:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "its current form"? Why would you say those supporting this are "seemingly illiterate" given the reasons elucidated above? —sroc 💬 10:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you'll blame your iPad for "peoples" ("people's"), "non existent" ("non-existent"), "to who" (""to whom"), "overt your eyes to the discussion above" ("overt" is not a verb in English; you might have meant "avert' if it didn't mean the opposite); but I'm sure we should trust you on how to write English well. —sroc 💬 04:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RfC

[edit]

The closer of the above proposal suggested a centralised discussion as an RfC. I have started such a discussion at Category talk:Filmographies#Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards as this seems to be the most logical place for a centralised discussion of this topic. Comments are welcome there. —sroc 💬 14:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except this isn't just a filmography. - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So where should it be? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The actual location isn't the main factor, as long as it's advertised in the right places (ie, including theatre, film, radio and television projects)> I think Sroc may now have addressed that point. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I jumped to Category talk:Filmographies because the closer had mentioned Category:Filmographies in the closing remarks. I have also referred to the discussion at:
—sroc 💬 15:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion

[edit]
Re: "The flaws of both should be examined to determine if the proposed title is an improvement to the encyclopedia. The proposed title is an improvement over the very bad John Gielgud, roles and awards; none of the suggested new titles are worse that the current one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

I agree with the first part of your statement. The point, though, is that here we are not examining flaws, we are voting on a specific wording. Whether the proposed wording is an improvement or not is immaterial, if the new wording is itself flawed – as it is, by the misuse of "of". What I'm saying is, let's not jump to a conclusion we might regret, let's pause, think some more in a calmer atmosphere, then decide. Brianboulton (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that's not how incremental improvement works. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and there's no reason not to go from imperfect solution C to imperfect solution B while we wait for perfect solution A, as long as B is better than C. We're already at a conclusion we regret, because "John Gielgud, roles and awards" is a lousy title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As there is a related discussion open elsewhere, there is no valid reason to move this page to anything else in the interim. As per the closing rationale in the discssion, there was "nothing remotely resembling a consensus", to move the page from the "lousy" title of "John Gielgud, roles and awards" to the equally "lousy" "John Gielgud roles and awards". Let the other discussion proceed. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"John Gielgud roles and awards" is a slight improvement over the incorrect "John Gielgud, roles and awards", so not equally lousy. As there is a related discussion open elsewhere, there is no valid reason for Brianboulton to have inserted his comment inside the closed discussion (which is what happened). Since he did so, I moved it to a new section as instructed in the closed discussion; you're welcome. By all means, please, let the other discussion proceed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating your opinion over and over does not make something fact, but yes: the discussion elsewhere may end up with a consensus to please everyone. - SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happily, I didn't repeat my opinion over and over; Brianboulton brought up a new point, and I responded. But of course, since you disagree with me, you only see repetition over and over. Yes, the discussion elsewhere may end up with a consensus to please everyone. If you are so anxious to see this section end, why do you keep responding here? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BB's points above remain without answer. Not sure what JHunterJ is attempting to curtail in the immediately preceding comment. Tim riley (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I answered BB's points above directly below BB's points. I'm not trying to curtail anything, of course. What you're not sure of is what SchroCat is trying to curtail, since they objected to my moving BB's comment from the closed discussion (where he shouldn't have posted it) to this section (where the discussion could continue). But since you disagree with me, I suppose that you didn't see that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could try to remain true to the course of events here and not twist things: I did not object to you moving BB's comments at all, as this thread adequately shows. I'm slightly mystified why or how you could think that... - SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread your first response here as an objection to my moving Brianboulton's comment out of the closed discussion. I thought you were talking about "this Talk page" and not "the article page". -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been away for a couple of days. The closure notice was placed at the bottom of the subheading following the main discussion, and I didn't notice it. My apologies if anyone was confused. Brianboulton (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just discovered List of awards and nominations received by Coldplay. Very sensible. The very sensible parallel here would be List of roles of and awards received by John Gielgud. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. We have a good enough title, and no inclination to go through the circus routine for no apparent reason. Since the conversation finished last time, the world still turns at the same speed, no-one has died as a result of the extant name, and blood pressures have all recovered. No need to kick it all off again, especially for the substandard "of roles of". Ouch. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a good-enough title, and we have inclination to find an appropriate one. No need to avoid kicking it off again just because you are happy with the current substandard one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully your inability to recognise good comma use in British English was shown last time, which is why we have the perfectly correct, grammatically accurate title here. Your frankly laughable attempt above is, I presume, some form of delayed April Fools joke? - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JHunter, your attempt to drag this back up is like flogging a dead horse. The title is fine so kindly forget about it. Cassiantotalk 15:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you though. I'd rather continue to try to improve Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And resuscitating stupid fucking ideas like this is your way of "improving Wikipedia" is it! Dear god! Cassiantotalk 22:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not with "of roles of", and not by changing something just because you don't understand it. Try learning about British comma use and maybe we can have a constructive conversation, because it ain't happening until you try and open the blinkered view you have. - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good God! Not this drivel again. The title is fine, and we have better things to do than indulge this obsessional nonsense. Tim riley talk 17:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Gielgud,_roles_and_awards/Archive_1&oldid=1136849354"