Talk:Laurel and Hardy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reverted bibliography section to earlier version

New version was a mess. It listed some editions twice (The British Tours), contained erratic, inconsistent alphabetization by author (Marriott follows Mast?; and appears again between McCabe and McCabe?), buried the bibliography in the References section (when all other Wikipedia articles on Golden Age comics display it independently in its own section, under Further reading), dismissed valuable information on original editions, (Mr Laurel & Mr Hardy was published in 1990? Every other L&H bibliography acknowledges its groundbreaking appearance 1961), etc. etc... I'm not opposed to retooling the bibliography, but such sloppy research should not stand. Retained all valuable ISBN additions. --Rackinfrackin (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Check the changes now. Not even close to be retooled, the number of errors in the previous edition were being corrected. FWiW, bibliographical lists are alphabetically ordered by the first entry. If these are truly used in researching the article, they should appear as part of a bibliography. When you list the dates of reference sources, the standard is to list the most recent edition, and if necessary, a first edition. That is because other researchers would want to locate the most current listing of the works in order to verify or authenticate items. The reason for sorting the bibliography under "references" is to ensure that readers see that all the notes and bibliographical records represent reference sources. There has been a long-standing style and format for this article, making a new style that was inherently inconsistent was not following the article style. Bzuk (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC).

There is no need for first editions, as researchers do not use anything other than current editions. When bibliographical lists are created, if the source is not used in the body of the text, then putting in all the editions is not useful as only the current or most recent editions would be accessible through the latest ISBN listing. Book collectors would be interested in first editions, researchers would not. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC).

Who are you to unilaterally decide what researchers are interested in? I'm a researcher, not a collector - and I'm interested in both original and current editions, knowing full well that the contents occasionally change. Arbitrarily excluding first publication information only results in a confusing and unintentionally misleading bibliography, as well as clouding the chronology.

For instance, your bibliography listed: "McCabe, John. Mr. Laurel and Mr. Hardy: An Affectionate Biography. London: Robson Books, 1961". Well, Robson Books didn't even exist until 1973! (From their parent company Anova's website: Robson; Established in 1973, Robson has published a quirky and successful list spanning the whole range of non-fiction, as well as some fiction and poetry.)

That's just one example of why your improvements are sometimes unnecessarily confusing - and, frankly, were riddled with mistakes until I corrected them. If you continue to re-edit my original reading list, I will be forced to undo your arbitrary and unreasonable edits as I see fit. Rackinfrackin (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC).

Researchers do not use multiple editions as the published source often does change. Simply stuffing the bibliography with sources is not necessarily productive as these sources were not used in research or referencing the main body of the article. The type of paring that is typical in editing Wikipedia articles is to limit the number of references to those that were actually used in notes or citations, not simply providing all possible sources. You are perfectly correct that errors can be corrected, and if your interest in original editions is due to a belief that listing these materials has some value, then go right ahead. No one has "claim" to any aspect of Wiki work, as the caution given in many instances is that "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." FWiW, if you are looking at why there is a difference in the use of citation/bibliographical styles. The article was already established with Harvard citations and a Modern Language Association style guide in place. All style guides however use the following: bibliographical notations are alphabetically sorted by first entry, there is no use of brackets unless a series is identified, second authors are written in situ, ISBNs are provided as an option to assist researchers in finding the source. Bzuk (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC).

No, I'm not interested in a "claim" on the article. I though you were; glad to hear you're not. I am, however, interested in a rough approximation of the chronology of data on the subject. That's why I never mentioned or objected to the switch from a chronological bibliography to one listed alphabetically by author - as long as first publication data is also included. Rackinfrackin (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC).

Bibliographies are sorted by the easiest method of finding the source and that is the first entry, either author or title given. There is a difficulty in using a chronological order in that your system has multiple editions and for most researchers, only the "prime" or primary edition is quoted. As to "further reading", that is an entirely Wiki approved name that derives from one style guide but is eminently misunderstood. If it was intended to be a source of information, then it would be listed in a bibliographical notation either as a note (end/footnote) or a reference sourcing (bibliography). The connotation that the material listed is not part of the research notes or is in addition to the primary sources has led a number of Wiki editors to use this identifier to add to the bibliography list that was primary and to create a "secondary" list for "further reading". This is a confusion of terminology between many Wiki editors and some therefore choose not to use that term. As to my "interest" in the article, I contributed some insight into the Laurel and Hardy allure to popular literature as the Sendak reference stemmed from a university course when I was training to be a librarian. (Yes, I was a reference librarian for over 30 years before becoming an author and editor...) I forgot about the article since my main interests are in the field in which I work today, aviation and of the 2,500 articles that are on my watchlist, only a handful of film-related articles remain. I was a film group administrator/coordinator for a year devoting my time essentially to that area of interest. In earlier years, I was a movie critic for a university rag.) Et tu brutus? (you can answer on my home page, as the conversation is veering away from article development here. ) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC).

Maurice Sendak and Laurel and Hardy

Recently an editor questioned the use of a source in the extensive bibliography listing, and it was one of the only ones that made a direct connection to the citation notes, as evidenced in the query that questions the need for a lengthy bibliography. Here is the following reasoning copy/edited from an earlier "string." I added the inclusion of the Maurice Sendak, Caldecott-winning book, "In the Night Kitchen" as a significant use of the Laurel and Hardy visages in a childrens' work. It remains a standard in school libraries and the use of the nearly subliminal image of the pair is widely recognized as unique and one of the first uses of the comedy team's persona to reach a new audience, far removed from the children who once may have known of their films. FWiW, As a childrens' librarian, I came upon Sendak's work and found that there is a comprehensive body of literature that analyzes his style and evaluates its impact. That's the reason for including this note.

The Caldecott Medal was named in honor of nineteenth-century English illustrator Randolph Caldecott. It is awarded annually by the Association for Library Service to Children, a division of the American Library Association, to the artist of the most distinguished American picture book for children. The prize is the most prestigious one awarded to an illustrated book for children. Author/illustrator Maurice Sendak has not only won the Medal but various titles have also received the "Honor" which is awarded to the runner-ups each year. "In the Night Kitchen" was the 1971 Caldecott honor award book. This recognition of an an illustrated work is the highest tribute to a work. It surely should be considered in the same regard as a Simpsons' cartoon.

All you have to do to check the relevance of the Laurel and Hardy connection to Maurice Sendak is do a Google search. You will find numerous mentions in books, articles and electronic sources about Sendak's upbringing. He was a poor child who relished matinees at the movie theatre and countless authors have commented on his fascination with the duo. As a gifted illustrator in later life, he portrayed the pair in a lifelike homage in one of his books. It appears to be one of the few instances where the Laurel and Hardy team was depicted in childrens' literature. As a school librarian when I was taking university courses, one of the subjects was on "picture books" and Sendak was considered a master in this field. I recall one class entirely on his technique and impact of his style where the Laurel and Hardy connection was brought out. As a university lecture, this mix of popular cultural reference within a children's book was unusual and still sticks in my memory; Sendak's art was thought to be very relevant and an example of illustration that was more than decorative. The Laurel and Hardy connection was considered to be a visual representation of Sendak's childhood in that he was recapturing in a very personal way, his life story. Although no photographs exist of him as a child, the young boy in the book is thought to be Sendak himself, reliving moments of his life. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC).

Very large bibliography

The bibliography has become very long. Is it standard practise for articles to have that much further reading? It seems like an unhelpful list of L&H books. Their films are certainly more important than this reading list but the films aren't listed in the namespace. Where is the wikipedia manual giving guidance to bibliographies in articles? Szzuk (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The listing of a number of ancillary sources has ballooned the list. The standard practice is to link the listing of reference sources to the body of the article. I will make an effort to start building the notes to "connect" the sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that reading lists should not be in the namespace, unless they are used as references, or they are discussed in the article itself. That is plainly logic. That reading list should therefore either be deleted or moved to a more appropriate place, pending appropriate insertion into the article. Szzuk (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, a bibliography is useful to readers as a determinant of where researchers can find the information that frames the content. In this case, I am not sure that the provided list does have a consistent link to the article as it appears that the new listing of bibliographic material was not accompanied by entries into the "mainspace." However, in looking at the new material, it was evident that many of the new listings were useful and those at hand were gradually incorporated into the article by using quotes and citations derived from the bibliography. One of the main concerns with this article is the lack of online citations which is now appreciably better but will be the basis for development and improvement of this article and a series of "daughter" articles that have resulted. FWiW, the removal of the large bibliography simply for the sake of making a point that the list does not correspond to editors' submissions is not particularly a road I wish to travel. Bzuk (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC).

I am among those who feel the bibliography is out of control. The article has a lot of good information in it though, it just needs citations and some cleanup here and there. AaronY (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk page useful for developing the article

I looking at recent reversions, a good suggestion is to use the talk page to discus contentious or disputed issues. A recent comment regarding exact titles was made and stems from the typical "shortcutting" of article titles done by publishers, with a standard practice of leaving out a sub-title. McCabe's work has often been transcribed two or three different ways even within the same edition. The title is normally taken from the cover or inside, verso or other Cataloging in Publication (CIP) information, but sometimes through the vagaries of publishing, there can be slight variances. The cover title then predominates. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC).

Failed Radio Pilot

I couldn't find mention of the failed NBC radio pilot in the article. Here's a link to the recording: http://www.archive.org/details/Laurel_Hardy_OTR 71.226.59.203 (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not notable in my opinion, although an amusing show. They had lots of failed projects and this didn't mark any turning point in their career that I know of. I'm not saying categorically don't add it, just that if you want it added you need to do the leg work to demonstrate its notability. Szzuk (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia is not paper of course so I think it could be added. Any summary of their career should mention as much information as possible, space permitting of course, and this article is by no means long at just 27 kb of prose. AaronY (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture references

Please READ examples such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Popular culture and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Popular culture before adding any "Popular culture" items.

Please do not add the many minor appearances of the duo. This section is only for major cultural appearances where the team plays a MAJOR part in the story line, or has an "especially notable" role in what is listed. A verifiable source proving the appearance's notability may be required. Random cruft, speculation and fanboy items, WILL BE removed.

If your item has been removed, please discuss it on the talk page FIRST. Please look at the page history to see what has been removed.

A verifiable source proving the appearance's notability may be required. If a consensus is reached to include your item, a regular editor of this page will add it back.

Failure to adhere to these requests will result in a revert and a 4im warning being issued. Thank you for your cooperation, and . FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC).