This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
George Formby Sr article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
George Formby Sr is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 4, 2015. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Why shouldn't this article have an infobox? I have been reverted twice now with no reason what so ever. Please, do explain! 195.89.48.217 ( talk) 12:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
"The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". As others have pointed out, the information contained in the box is present in the lead (and elsewhere in the article) with most of your addition in the opening line. There is no other benefit to the inclusion of the IB, and it is little more than a distraction here. - SchroCat ( talk) 13:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Although this request was first, title consistency among Brit-related articles must be followed. Continue at #Requested move 20 September 2015. ( non-admin closure) George Ho ( talk) 08:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
George Formby Snr → George Formby Sr. – Guidance at WP:NCP#Junior/Senior – the Younger/the Elder – Ordinals, and current discussion at WT:MOS#Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 4, 2015: seems someone checked and " ... "George Formby Sr" gets about fifteen to twenty times as many hits on Google as "George Formby Snr" ... ". -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 23:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Well that's bloody childish and utterly ridiculous. Why are you reverting to the use of American punctuation? – SchroCat ( talk) 23:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Editor who ran the Google search here. I'd like to add that I specifically referred to that two-minute check as "quick and dirty." I wouldn't go so far as to call it ridiculous, but of course a move request should be based on more than a quick and casual observation. The fact that the difference was so pronounced does suggest that a careful observation of reliable sources would produce the same results, but yes someone should actually check. One correction, though. American usage is "Sr." with a period. British is or at least includes "Sr" without one. I did also check two RS: Oxford Dictionaries [9] and the Cambridge Dictionary [10]. My findings were that "Sr" and "Snr" are both allowed in British English, though I don't know which one is preferred or by how much. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 02:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Let's just line up some RS look at what they have to say on this matter. Anyone who wants to may add to this list. I'd say that style guides that explicitly address "Sr vs Snr" would be the best sources for this issue. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 02:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move to George Formby Sr (space before period so as to not confuse). The discussion and evidence presented indicate, in general, that the use of Snr vs. Sr in British English is essentially a wash. Whereas Snr is British-specific, and there was no convincing evidence that it is obsolete, evidence was presented that Sr is also recognizable and common in British English. Nor was it shown that Snr is preferred. Therefore MOS:ENGVAR, and specifically MOS:TIES, appears neutral on the use of the one over the other. On the other hand, Snr is uncommon and less recognizable in other varieties of English. Therefore, using Sr over Snr presents an opportunity for commonality for our readers searching for this topic and is less likely to astonish expectations. There was also no evidence presented, as to this specific topic, that Snr is more commonly used in reliable sources. Since only a raw google web search was presented, I took it upon myself to perform some searches to make sure there wasn't strong and obvious evidence for Snr in UK-specific reliable sources for this title of relatively recent vintage (I would weigh such specific results far more heavily than I would the general matter). I did not find much (there was only one result at the British Newspaper Archive, for example, for either (for Snr) but it was from 1937). But I do note that "George Formby Snr" at The Guardian returns no results, whereas there are four results for "George Formby Sr". Obviously, the abbreviation takes no period, which is a national variety issue.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 15:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
George Formby Snr → George Formby Sr – There is no full stop after Snr or Sr in British English. This is. The least attractive option for me personally, behind GF Snr and GF senior SchroCat ( talk) 10:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep as Fromby Snr without the full stop. The title should certainly not be Americanised as suggested above. Cassianto Talk 07:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
George Formby Sr article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
George Formby Sr is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 4, 2015. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Why shouldn't this article have an infobox? I have been reverted twice now with no reason what so ever. Please, do explain! 195.89.48.217 ( talk) 12:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
"The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". As others have pointed out, the information contained in the box is present in the lead (and elsewhere in the article) with most of your addition in the opening line. There is no other benefit to the inclusion of the IB, and it is little more than a distraction here. - SchroCat ( talk) 13:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Although this request was first, title consistency among Brit-related articles must be followed. Continue at #Requested move 20 September 2015. ( non-admin closure) George Ho ( talk) 08:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
George Formby Snr → George Formby Sr. – Guidance at WP:NCP#Junior/Senior – the Younger/the Elder – Ordinals, and current discussion at WT:MOS#Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 4, 2015: seems someone checked and " ... "George Formby Sr" gets about fifteen to twenty times as many hits on Google as "George Formby Snr" ... ". -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 23:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Well that's bloody childish and utterly ridiculous. Why are you reverting to the use of American punctuation? – SchroCat ( talk) 23:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Editor who ran the Google search here. I'd like to add that I specifically referred to that two-minute check as "quick and dirty." I wouldn't go so far as to call it ridiculous, but of course a move request should be based on more than a quick and casual observation. The fact that the difference was so pronounced does suggest that a careful observation of reliable sources would produce the same results, but yes someone should actually check. One correction, though. American usage is "Sr." with a period. British is or at least includes "Sr" without one. I did also check two RS: Oxford Dictionaries [9] and the Cambridge Dictionary [10]. My findings were that "Sr" and "Snr" are both allowed in British English, though I don't know which one is preferred or by how much. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 02:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Let's just line up some RS look at what they have to say on this matter. Anyone who wants to may add to this list. I'd say that style guides that explicitly address "Sr vs Snr" would be the best sources for this issue. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 02:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move to George Formby Sr (space before period so as to not confuse). The discussion and evidence presented indicate, in general, that the use of Snr vs. Sr in British English is essentially a wash. Whereas Snr is British-specific, and there was no convincing evidence that it is obsolete, evidence was presented that Sr is also recognizable and common in British English. Nor was it shown that Snr is preferred. Therefore MOS:ENGVAR, and specifically MOS:TIES, appears neutral on the use of the one over the other. On the other hand, Snr is uncommon and less recognizable in other varieties of English. Therefore, using Sr over Snr presents an opportunity for commonality for our readers searching for this topic and is less likely to astonish expectations. There was also no evidence presented, as to this specific topic, that Snr is more commonly used in reliable sources. Since only a raw google web search was presented, I took it upon myself to perform some searches to make sure there wasn't strong and obvious evidence for Snr in UK-specific reliable sources for this title of relatively recent vintage (I would weigh such specific results far more heavily than I would the general matter). I did not find much (there was only one result at the British Newspaper Archive, for example, for either (for Snr) but it was from 1937). But I do note that "George Formby Snr" at The Guardian returns no results, whereas there are four results for "George Formby Sr". Obviously, the abbreviation takes no period, which is a national variety issue.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 15:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
George Formby Snr → George Formby Sr – There is no full stop after Snr or Sr in British English. This is. The least attractive option for me personally, behind GF Snr and GF senior SchroCat ( talk) 10:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep as Fromby Snr without the full stop. The title should certainly not be Americanised as suggested above. Cassianto Talk 07:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)