Talk:Gerry Anderson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The article Sylvia and Gerry Anderson was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on March 17 2007 with a consensus to merge the content into Gerry Anderson. If the merger is not completed promptly, Sylvia and Gerry Anderson might be re-nominated for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

[edit] Creation of this page

This page has been created from information at the page Sylvia and Gerry Anderson at the request of a discussion on that article's talk page. It aims to be a biography of Gerry Anderson, less about his productions. Bob 01:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at it, the more I realise that the same information is being regurgitated on multiple pages. Speaking from my IT background, one of the central tenets of maintainability is that there should only be one reference source, otherwise conflicting versions fall out of step all too easily. I don't think you can talk about Anderson's career in isolation without reference to the collaborations with Sylvia any more than you could with any of the others, and equally discussing Sylvia without reference to Gerry doesn't make sense, either. The more I see this progress, the less convinced I am that the splitting of articles was a good idea. IMO there needs to be just one central GA and SA article, redirects from GA alone, and SA alone, and covering sections of their split, and GA's subsequent "solo" career (i.e. reversion to the former situation, but with the current quality of content). Cain Mosni 18:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, although the reason this page regurgitates the same information is that is what it was intended to do - ideally, the Gerry and Sylvia page would have become obsolete as the two articles were separated. The problem I see with that combined page was that it the productions also heavily involved other people, such as John Read, etc, not just Sylvia - particularly after their divorce, so it was difficult to focus - Gerry Anderson should certainly be the main focus, as he is the only consistent figure. It's a pity there isn't an over-riding term to describe any production by Gerry Anderson. Perhaps we should coin one! "Superandersoniation" Bob 23:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is, the simple (if harsh) reality is, that although Sylvia contributed significantly (most specifically to Captain Scarlet, because Gerry was wrapped up in film production for the second film) she wouldn't be notable had it not been for Gerry. She's certainly not been of note since - q.v. her career as a rep for HBO, and frankly doesn't merit an article to herself. The one common thread running through the whole history is Gerry and the productions sttributed to him. The only figure of truly independent note besides is Derek Meddings for his futher career in film. None of the others have really been notable in and of themselves. And Gerry's bio and history of AP Films/Century 21 are so inextricably linked that you can't write one without parroting the other. Which means that unless someone really knows what they're doing, corrections to one could be missed on the other and you end up with conflict. I think perhaps it should be rolled back now, while the effort is at a minimum. The further things go (and potentially diverge) the greater the chance that corrections get wrongly reverted through reliance on the wrong article as definitive.

I would slightly differ in my opinion, although I think we're both after the same thing - I think this page should be kept and expanded and the other one reduced, renamed or even redirected here. After all, it has an odd title and doesn't seem to have much focus - at least this page focuses on the man and his works, as per every other biographical article. Some information in this article could just be removed, such as the bit about the rolling road, because it duplicates what is said in Thunderbirds and Derek Meddings. As for Sylvia Anderson, I also think that's worth keeping - perhaps some more of the information in her biographies could be included - she's certainly notable, particularly because she voiced Lady Penelope and thus counts as a voice artiste as well. The rest of the stuff on the combined page could perhaps be called something like "Popularity of Anderson Productions" (badly named, yes, but gives an idea). Bob 18:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't really see that the fact that Sylvia voiced characters in the series doesn't make her a notable voice artiste in her own right. After all, these productions - again GA being the principal thread - are the only time that she has. Whichever way you look at it, from Jimmy in Supercar, through her most influential period woking on Captain Scarlet, to costume design on Space:1999, the only reason she's famous is her attachment to these projects. If you remove everything about Sylvia from her article which is necessarily included here or in AP Films, you're left with - well, nothing, really. Look her up on IMDB - she's done nothing outside of these productions, except one cameo (voice) role, and then as Lady P. You see Lady P as making her independently notable, I see it as demonstrative of the exact opposite. Any duplication needs to be kept to an absolute minimum, and I'm utterly convinced that she doesn't merit separate recognition (in spite of the fact that she is very largely responsible for my own favourite programme).

I just say do away with her article altogether. Trim AP down to a bare bones historical outline (which it pretty much is already), and put all the personal and technical history back into this article (including SA's). After all, there's already a section in this article about the marriage break-up and cutting ties. Beyond that point, the only other notable bio fact about SA is the publication of her autobiography in 1991, and a passing reference to her being an HBO rep before her retirement (which actually has no citation reference, so isn't verified). It's hardly overloading the article with peripheral information, and fits in far better with the historical context provided by this article than in isolation. Perhaps if I could get hold of a copy of her bio I'd think differently.

Whatever the conclusion, we need to exercise care. If anyone besides us two starts to take an interest in the subject matter (as we should expect they will, this being Wiki) compound edits are going to get messy. As long as it's just us 2 we need to come to a consensus, and act on it fairly quickly to nail the problem. Cain Mosni 20:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

OK - my proposal is:

1. This page - Gerry Anderson - should be the page title, as he is the one constant.
2. Information on the Sylvia and Gerry Anderson page should be either integrated here, moved to another relevant article or simply removed if it repeats another article. Then, it should be proposed on its talk page that it be redirected here or elsewhere.
3. The Sylvia Anderson page should be kept, as it's not doing any harm and may be expanded by somebody who has more information on her, but it should be made clear that more information about her involvement is available on the Gerry Anderson page.
4. This page should then be the focus of an effort to make it a good/featured article. Bob 20:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

My response:

1. Check! That's a definite on this article being the spine (indeed the entire torso) of the collection.
2. Check, on the integration. I don't see the need or desirability of yet another separate article. Don't want to start suffering from proliferitis.
3. Ok. I'm still pretty weak on the idea of keeping the article, but I actually did some editing of it this afternoon, including kind of addressing the link reference. My only concern is about it growing back into a repetitious parallel article. How can the reference be worded to discourage someone re-introducing duplication, without sounding pompous or jack-boot?
4. Check - although I've already pretty much reached the limit of my available resources on any expansion. I'll see if I can lay my hands on SA's bio (and her supposed new book when/if it appears) and on GA's revised bio (2002).

"I love it when a plan comes together" Cain Mosni 21:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pentagon Films

Still puzzled over this one. First I've heard of it was in the discussion of Anderson et al on here. No reference in his authorised bio, or any other written references I have to hand. Suggest removal. Essentially just copy initial paragraph verbatim from AP Films article. Comments? Cain Mosni 18:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of it before, but it does appear to have existed: Fanderson,[1], [2]. Bob 18:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)