Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:03, 7 February 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hattie Jacques article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	Hattie Jacques is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 7, 2014.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 16, 2013 Peer review Reviewed January 3, 2014 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Comedy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hattie Jacques article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

"Cockney used-car dealer"?

The article describes Schofield as “a cockney used-car dealer”, presumably in line with a description in Jacques’ autobiography (?) But it seems that he was also early manager of the rock band Brinsley Schwartz. In April 2011 Nick Lowe recalled, on UK national radio, that Jacques would make the band members bacon sandwiches when they called to see Schofield. Although this fact/claim does currently appear in the Brinsley Schwartz article, I’m not sure that it’s notable enough for this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Have now moved around a bit and added in. "Cockney used car-dealer" still remains separately unsourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

pronunciation?

I assume that her surname is pronounced as "Jakes". Sir David Willcocks and Reginald Jacques collabarated on some books of Christmas choral music published by Oxford University Press. And I have heard the latter's name pronounced in public as "Jakes". It would be easy for people to think that Hattie's surname would be French, and would be pronounced as "Jzah-kz"... with an Ah vowel, and an initial voiced Z --- as if it is a French name. Could someone who is good at phonetics add a pronunciation for her name? It would be a good thing. We need to verify it, of course. thanks.

-r — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.30.106 (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd support that. Although I have never heard of it pronounced in any other way than "Jakes". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Article expansion

A small project is on to expand this article into something more suitable for the subject. We plan to add new material and expand or replace some existing material. This may take place over a few weeks or even months and we'd be delighted to hear from anyone who has any useful information of sources that may be of use. As part of the overhaul, we would ideally like to remove the infobox entirely as part of that re-write process and just have an image in place. The summary boxes are inadequate at summing up the life of an individual and contain mere repetitions of a few minor and trite facts that are best left in the lead and article. Before it is removed, does anyone object? We'd rather have a chat here first before starting out on an edit/revert cycle. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) & Cassianto 19:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As it's been three weeks since the question of the infobox was raised, and no-one has raised any objections to its removal, I have taken the step of removing the box, and the article is much improved now. Readers will note that all the relevant gobbets of information held in the IB are still in the lead, and in a slightly more appropriate setting, as context is now prvided for the bare and misleading facts. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I miss Hattie's box. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No infobox is better....♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

@Cass + Schrod, I'm in two minds as to whether we should use sources like this. Generally I try to not use the Daily Mail but for a lot of things they do seem to have a lot of details on things and some often great quotes, just like they have with Sellers. I think that article alone, the full article which I have access to, the obvious ribbing tone aside, contains some useful information. I think we can glean facts from such articles and ignore the tabloid sort of content without making the article sound like a tabloid. What do you think? I think in fact using sources like The Independent etc like we could produce a section on her reception/public perception, obviously though skillfully not making it sound too crufty. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with a careful use of the Mail: it's a shitty little rag, but when they interview people I think we can use the words they use. Most of the stuff they have written about Jacques more or less tallies with what the reliable sources say, so I think we can use with care. I've got a stack of news reports for a couple of the later sections - the post-death tributes and legacy stuff, and yes, stuff like the info from Indie will be key for that. - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thrice agreed. As Gav points out, the interviews are ok to use, but the reporters are shall way say, not the most journalistically brilliant that Fleet Street has to offer! Doc, what sources are you in possession of? --Cassianto 15:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hokay I'll try to better newspapers. a lot happen to be DM, we'll have to be selective I guess.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Image review: All look well so far. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• That's great: cheers Crisco! - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Great news. Thanks for taking a look. Cassianto 19:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

OK I'm done. Newspaper journalists are so bloody lazy, I must have found several hundred sources basically saying the same thing. I tried to glean some good quotes and additional info, please review my changes, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. Your changes look great, and have proved to be valuable for the article. Having said that, I'm not convinced about the British Rail advert. Is this notable enough to be included? Did this advert set itself apart from the others which she recorded in her career? Did she win an award for it, or did her role in it lead to bigger, better or greater things in her career? Also, I think we have certainly reached our limit in terms of "fat" observations. I'm reluctant to have any more from this point on if I'm honest. Cheers! Cassianto 17:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on the "fat" thing. I could have added a zillion quotes from newspapers but I tried to keep the ones which at least had some value! IMO I think the British Rail advert is worth mentioning for interesting reading and adds depth to the article rather than just being about her acting/personal life. Given our history with adverts though I might change my mind, we might attract people claiming that the train was operated by a Jewish company :-]...♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

...Lmao, I suppose it's only a matter of time! -- Cassianto 12:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

for an interesting article about a favourite actress! Amandajm (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Our pleasure - although it's still not quite polished enough yet! - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That is very kind. Thank you for showing your appreciation! Cassianto 17:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"Actor", surely (or not)? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

What's the current thinking on WP about this? I'm old fashioned and grew up using actor and actress for male and female, which is what I've gone for here. Always looked a bit strange having "actor" for female, but if that's the preferred (if awkward and misleading) style, then so be it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very nice article. Rothorpe (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Publisher links

We should only make links where they're likely to be of use to the reader, and there's no conceivable value to the publisher wikiinks - for example, how does a link to Oxford University Press help anyone looking at the reference to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography? Colonies Chris (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think this is the third time we've gone over this tired old ground. You don't find them useful: we get it, fine. Others do. Please don't try and determine what people may or may not find useful. I have found such links useful in the past (and the recent past too). - SchroCat (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• And in the past I've asked you to explain in what way you have found them useful, and you have always evaded the question. So I'm asking again. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• See previous answers. These do not do any harm, and can be beneficial. I don't know hey you can't accept this, or why you feel the need to keep flogging this particular horse. I should also add that the links also ensure a consistent format across the sources section, rather than the scrappy some-do-some-don't approach you want to force onto the page. - SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• And you're still evading the question. It's no use referring me to previous answers, as you've never given one. Why is it so hard for you just to explain in a few words in what way you have recently (as you said) found these links useful? Perhaps you would be enlightening me - and then we might have no need keep repeating this pattern. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Apart from the partial explanation given above, I have explained to you before that they are useful. As links. To move from one page to another. This has already been covered before and I'm surprised about your intransigence on such a minor point. They are not harmful. They are USEFUL, please just accept that and move on. - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• And why do you want to move from an article about Hattie Jacques to an article about Routledge publishers, for example? What is the relevance? How is that useful? We don't just link every single thing in an article - we select the ones that readers might find useful. If you find it useful, please explain why. Then we can have a productive discussion. All you're doing right now is telling me to just accept your way of doing things without question. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've said before that I've found it useful, and it was on the revolutionary principal of moving to a page to find out more information. Shocking that, in an encyclopaedia. Why are you hellbent on removing them and being less useful? Does this point offend you so much that you need to argue it endlessly? Because it's in a sources section (ie one where the readability of prose is not an issue), there is no harm in including useful links, and there may be use to others and I'm not sure why you can't just accept that others find something useful that you don't. - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be willing to reconsider my belief that such links aren't generally useful, if you would give me an example of how they are useful. But you resolutely refuse to do that. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't appear to be going anywhere. I'm assuming there is no policy on publisher links within sources? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no policy on this, just a loosely worded suggestion on the MOS. - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The general MOS states "Make links only where they are relevant and helpful in the context". Seeing as the context here is the source(s) used to write the article—and not the topic of the article itself—I think that links to the publishers of those sources could be considered helpful and relevant here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly useful to know the publisher of a book - it helps in tracking it down, particularly when several unrelated books may share a title. But in what way are the links to publishers useful? Is it remotely likely that anyone thinking about looking at, say, Geoff Mayer's Guide to British Cinema will want to click on the link to Greenwood Press? Colonies Chris (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

One way of assessing the reliability of a source is its publisher. A link to the article of a publisher (if there is one) helps in that assessment. I have done it in the past. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with PaleCloudedWhite and SchroCat. The link to the publisher is very useful and gives the reader the chance to asses the reliability of the source given. We all know that the DNB is reliable, but there will be some people who will not know what the DNB is and will use the link to find out were the information has came from. To say people will not need or want to use the link is both assumitive and incorrect. Surely common sense must prevail over any guideline. Cassianto 14:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If anyone wants to assess the reliability of the DNB, they would go to our article about the DNB, not to the publisher's article. The guideline simply says that we make links when we think they're likely to be useful - common sense says there's not much likelihood of such links being useful. And for all SchroCat's vociferous complaints, he still hasn't given a single example of how it might be useful. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Shrocat, "they do not do any harm" is one of the lamest arguments I've heard for a while. Could you explain exactly what is useful enough about these links to include them formulaically? Tony (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for lowering the tone with one of the lamest comments I've seen for a while. Good effort! - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• You're still not providing a simple answer to a simple question. It's getting quite painful to watch you dodging the question, first claiming you've answered it before, then just ASSERTING it in CAPITALS, and now by resorting to abuse. Try just answering the question. Or perhaps even admitting that you don't have an answer after all - the world won't end. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• You're right, Tony1's comment was abusive and he should not have made it. (And I have answered your question. Above. Read it and try to accept someone's opinion if different to yours. The world won't end. - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the DNB? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Dictionary of National Biography. - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Colonies Chris "If anyone wants to assess the reliability of the DNB, they would go to our article about the DNB" -- Sorry, but our article is not a reliable source. Why use a link to our unreliable variation over the actual link? Cassianto 17:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Are you suggesting that our article about the DNB is not reliable but our article about its publisher is reliable? What do you mean by "the actual link"? The links I'm referring to are the wikilinks to the articles about the DNB and about its publisher. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I am saying that everything on Misplaced Pages is considered unreliable as the site is user generated. Cassianto 05:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Still baffled by this. If all WP articles are unreliable, then there is no benefit to wikilinking either the publication (DNB) or the publisher (OUP). Are you proposing an external link to the publisher's own website on cited material? That has never been under discussion here. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This really isn't rocket science; you are saying that in order to "asses the reliability" then one should use "our article" to assess it. My point is that you can't as WP is not a reliable source. How can you "asses" reliability on something that is unreliable? Cassianto 13:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still baffled. You spoke in favour of retaining the publisher wikilink because "The link to the publisher is very useful and gives the reader the chance to assess the reliability of the source given". But now you're saying that the article on the publisher isn't reliable and can't be used for that purpose. So you seem to be directly contradicting yourself. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

DNB is a reliable source. We have an article on it. Those questioning the DNB's reliability can read about it on our article to help them understand why it is reliable. It is then that the information given within the DNB article becomes unreliable as WP is not a reliable source. Jesus, shall I draw you a picture? Cassianto 18:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

So if a reader wants to assess whether the DNB is a reliable source, they can go to the WP article on the DNB, via the link we have provided. But why then do you want a wikilink to the article on the publisher of the DNB? What's the purpose of that? Colonies Chris (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And, increasingly, one has to ask what's the purpose of this seemingly endless thread? Perhaps we can and should all move on to more constructive matters? - SchroCat (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer to this debate, but it has always seemed to me that about eighty per cent of blue links throughout Misplaced Pages are probably a waste of time (in that nobody is ever likely to click on them) but I accept that we have our conventions and customary practices in WP, and linking a publishing house may be of interest to some reader in who knows what circumstances, and it clearly doesn't break the flow of the prose when it's in a list of sources. I'd leave the link in place. Conceivably otiose but perfectly harmless, and nothing to justify a knock-down drag-out fight, surely? Tim riley (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You're quite right that many blue links have no value. Almost always, publisher links fall into that category. However, it's not right to imply that customary practice is to link publishers - quite the contrary, such links are very much a minority. This is an attempt to get this article to conform to mainstream practice, not to break new ground. And in all of this long tedious discussion, I've seen a lot of bluster but not a single example of how a publisher link would be useful. When even seasoned editors can't think of a good reason to link, it's hardly likely that the general reader would want these links. Our job as editors is to use our intelligence and judgment to provide links that might be helpful to our readers, not just to link everything willy-nilly in case someone might fancy clicking on it one day. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• "One way of assessing the reliability of a source is its publisher. A link to the article of a publisher (if there is one) helps in that assessment. I have done it in the past. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)" I'm not sure how you can say that you've not seen any examples, despite your "bluster" to the contrary. - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If the link in question were in the main text I'd agree with you, but in the sources I think it's different. I am working just now in a sandbox in which I've just put in blue links to three authors in the sources section, and I'll take bets nobody will ever click on them, but I think they ought to be there just the same. I hate a sea of blue links in the text, but in the references and sources I think it's right to err on the side of liberality in linking. Tim riley (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The guideline on linking the publisher says "may be wikilinked if relevant". The guideline recognises that simply being the publisher is not sufficient relevance in itself. It's asking us to think about whether a publisher has special relevance, above and beyond the obvious connection. Links to specialist publishers may be valuable - links to large generalist publishers are almost certainly not relevant. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

And other guidance points to consistency, which is what we have. With the consistency of including the useful links, there is no need for someone's flawed judgement to decide what is or is not "relevant". This minor piece of formatting is hardly the be-all-and-end-all of the page and your seeming intransigence on a point that others have said they find useful is becoming something of a nuisance. It really is time to draw a line under this and move on. - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Having been intimidated by your claim that I'm "abusive", I'm back. One of the holes in your argument, Schrocat, is that our articles on publishers typically don't provide information that would allow a reader to judge how prestigious or authoritative a publisher is. Tony (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Intimidated? You'll have to ask Colonies Chris why he thinks your approach was abuse. As to your second point, actually a lot of them do, and will highlight if a publisher is a specialist in a particular area, or whether they are a vanity publishers (which then raises the question of whether the source used is reliable or not). - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi, I'm new here and was wondering why this article doesn't have an infobox. It's one of the first big articles I've seen that doesn't have one. It's a great informative article though. Thanks for putting it on the front page. Simonfreeman (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Simon, There's no need or requirement for articles to have an infobox in any article, and this question was looked at carefully when this had a recent overhaul. There are a lot of articles (and some very, very good ones too) that have not adopted the IB for various reasons, and this follows that practice. I'm glad you enjoyed the article - it was fun to write! - SchroCat (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Mid-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class Comedy articles
• Unknown-importance Comedy articles
• WikiProject Comedy articles
• FA-Class London-related articles
• Low-importance London-related articles