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. |
Article policies
|
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 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 February 7, 2014. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 6, 2017, October 6, 2020, and October 6, 2022. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Continuing from a brief discussion elsewehere with Cassianto, I'd like to raise the issue of this statement in the lead;
is best known as a regular of the Carry On films
Now I'd admit that this is a bête noire of mine, as I explain in greater detail here, but this is an unsupported claim. The statement amounts to a guess, a guess that is possibly correct, but a guess none-the-less. There is nothing in the article to support or cite it, no-one has done a survey to determine how she is best known by an unspecified subset of people. Besides that, it is completely unnecessary. If it wasn't a significant part of her career it wouldn't be in the lead, and we wouldn't need to be wondering if maybe she was best known for another role, or who exactly we imagine is doing the knowing.
Far better to get to the point and simply state that she was a regular of the Carry On films. If there is any order of popularity that needs to be suggested, we can do this in the order or emphasis given to her roles, without committing to guesswork. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I am aware of the discussion about not including an infobox that took place more than 3 years ago but I fail to understand why there seems to be a consensus by some (I disagree -- and to my understanding a consensus is when everyone agrees on the same thing) that an infobox is not required for this article. If the use of infoboxes is to make "the article resemble the standard display for this subject" I think the only issue that needs to be discussed is what the infobox should contain rather than whether it should be included at all. If there's to be no infobox on this page why should there be any infobox for any other article? Apologies for opening up an old can of worms. -- ToniSant ( talk) 12:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Per MOS:SEEALSO, "one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." (bolding mine) Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
See, for example, Cate Blanchett#Filmography and theatre vs Cate Blanchett#See also. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Also Humphrey Bogart, Katharine Hepburn, John Wayne, etc. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Cassianto keeps edit-warring in a deprecated source, the WP:DAILYMAIL, apparently being unable to find any other source for a claimed quote.
WP:BURDEN - which is policy - says:
All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
Cassianto, you're repeatedly inserting material that is cited to a source that is so remarkably unreliable that two general RFCs have deprecated it - that is, deemed it unusable on Wikipedia except in truly remarkable circumstances. Per WP:DAILYMAIL:
Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles.
Cassianto, repeatedly inserting bad sources - including re-inserting them - is against Wikipedia policy. Do you have a reliable source for the claim, or do you just have the Daily Mail?
If you don't have a RS for the quote, it should be removed until you do.
If you still feel the Daily Mail somehow passes muster here, the appropriate venue after this is discussion on WP:RSN - David Gerard ( talk) 17:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
generally prohibitedsays that it is indeed worse than no source, and that the claim should be removed entirely. Do you have a non-deprecated source for the quote? If not, it should be removed - David Gerard ( talk) 17:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Martinevans, why does the same information need clumsily repeating within two paragraphs? I think readers are intelligent enough to remember the basic information within that two paragraph distance. It’s clear the information was added without adding a source. It doesn’t matter if the citation was also two paragraphs above, any claim needs to be supported by a citation at that point. Having did that, there’s still no need to repeat minor information twice in quick succession. 213.205.194.140 ( talk) 10:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
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. |
Article policies
|
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 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 February 7, 2014. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 6, 2017, October 6, 2020, and October 6, 2022. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Continuing from a brief discussion elsewehere with Cassianto, I'd like to raise the issue of this statement in the lead;
is best known as a regular of the Carry On films
Now I'd admit that this is a bête noire of mine, as I explain in greater detail here, but this is an unsupported claim. The statement amounts to a guess, a guess that is possibly correct, but a guess none-the-less. There is nothing in the article to support or cite it, no-one has done a survey to determine how she is best known by an unspecified subset of people. Besides that, it is completely unnecessary. If it wasn't a significant part of her career it wouldn't be in the lead, and we wouldn't need to be wondering if maybe she was best known for another role, or who exactly we imagine is doing the knowing.
Far better to get to the point and simply state that she was a regular of the Carry On films. If there is any order of popularity that needs to be suggested, we can do this in the order or emphasis given to her roles, without committing to guesswork. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I am aware of the discussion about not including an infobox that took place more than 3 years ago but I fail to understand why there seems to be a consensus by some (I disagree -- and to my understanding a consensus is when everyone agrees on the same thing) that an infobox is not required for this article. If the use of infoboxes is to make "the article resemble the standard display for this subject" I think the only issue that needs to be discussed is what the infobox should contain rather than whether it should be included at all. If there's to be no infobox on this page why should there be any infobox for any other article? Apologies for opening up an old can of worms. -- ToniSant ( talk) 12:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Per MOS:SEEALSO, "one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." (bolding mine) Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
See, for example, Cate Blanchett#Filmography and theatre vs Cate Blanchett#See also. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Also Humphrey Bogart, Katharine Hepburn, John Wayne, etc. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Cassianto keeps edit-warring in a deprecated source, the WP:DAILYMAIL, apparently being unable to find any other source for a claimed quote.
WP:BURDEN - which is policy - says:
All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
Cassianto, you're repeatedly inserting material that is cited to a source that is so remarkably unreliable that two general RFCs have deprecated it - that is, deemed it unusable on Wikipedia except in truly remarkable circumstances. Per WP:DAILYMAIL:
Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles.
Cassianto, repeatedly inserting bad sources - including re-inserting them - is against Wikipedia policy. Do you have a reliable source for the claim, or do you just have the Daily Mail?
If you don't have a RS for the quote, it should be removed until you do.
If you still feel the Daily Mail somehow passes muster here, the appropriate venue after this is discussion on WP:RSN - David Gerard ( talk) 17:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
generally prohibitedsays that it is indeed worse than no source, and that the claim should be removed entirely. Do you have a non-deprecated source for the quote? If not, it should be removed - David Gerard ( talk) 17:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Martinevans, why does the same information need clumsily repeating within two paragraphs? I think readers are intelligent enough to remember the basic information within that two paragraph distance. It’s clear the information was added without adding a source. It doesn’t matter if the citation was also two paragraphs above, any claim needs to be supported by a citation at that point. Having did that, there’s still no need to repeat minor information twice in quick succession. 213.205.194.140 ( talk) 10:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)