Talk:Percy Thrower
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||
[edit] Tags
I've tagged the Percy Thrower article - very few references at present, unencyclopedic style in my view, and if some of the information is based on personal contact it shouldn't really be in there - not verifiable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- All the information is verifiable from the reference section so I have removed that tag. The style perhaps Ghmyrtle would like to rewrite some of the article instead of just putting a tag in. A lot of effort has been put into creating this article with the best intentions to share the information with the world. I may not be a Shakespeare but I do try with considerable help from Mark126. Deben Dave (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Apologies if the tags came over as personal criticism - not meant that way at all. But, WP articles should comply with guidelines which have been agreed through consensus, such as WP:MOSBIO, and the tags reflected the fact that, in my view, the article fell short of those guidelines in some key areas. Although it was perfectly well written, and interesting, it wasn't referenced in line with WP:REF (as, I freely admit, many of my own early articles weren't), and read more like journalism than an objective encyclopedia article. Although it's usually better if the author of the article, who has access to the reference material, makes the changes themselves, I'm happy to have a go at some changes to make the style more appropriate. But I have very little knowledge of Percy Thrower, and I expect there will still be a need for proper references so I'll reinstate a tag on that until those are done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Just to make it clear, just tag anything and everything that needs refrences, and Ill find the relevelt sources. Although this article to me comes off as something of an extrodinary article, a good read, as well as a good source of information, it paints an extrodinary picture of the man. ( Why wasnt a refrence made to Peter Seller's movie 'Being there?' ) I *love* the article as is, and would like to see it pass 'refrences' muster. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the writing. 71.193.2.115 (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Comments
I hardly call the death of Percy Thrower Trivia!!!
- Of course not - but the size of his financial legacy is, unless you can show its relevance, and the comments on BBC fees infringe WP guidance - WP:NPOV. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I am just trying to show that his income did not come from the BBC but the BBC made him famous which in turn allowed him to command fees from commerial deals.Deben Dave (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Source
All the information in this article comes from the two books given in the reference section.
- Please reference it correctly then - WP:CITE#HOW. The mere fact that the information exists does not make it suitable for inclusion in a WP article, if it is trivial or irrelevant to the subject. As a general point, please try to have regard to advice and guidance, rather than simply ignoring it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Your are not a teacher by any chance are you? I thought that by putting it at the bottom of the page was OK. It is coming to the point where I dont think I will bother anymore but perhaps that is what you want. Deben Dave (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, I have never been a teacher (but it's "You're..." by the way). The point I'm trying to get across is that this is not "your" article to do whatever you like with (nor is it mine of course), and there are agreed Wikipedia guidelines as to the content, style and referencing of articles which you seem either to have not looked at, or to have ignored. Until the article meets the usual standards for articles, your changes will continue to be reverted and/or tags will continue to be added to it. It's a shame, because I'm sure we'd agree on the need for this to be a good article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I understand there have to be rules but seems funny you are the only person to attack me and surely the content is more important than the rules else we would have no content. Most people me included start off by adding and creating content without ever looking at the rules. I have never thought that this was my own article after all that is the beauty of Wiki in that anyone even an IP can edit it, mind you personally I am not sure about letting people edit it without joining but that is just my opinion. However I am not going to make or change this article now even if I find out more information and thank you for your input. Deben Dave (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
