Talk:Ronnie Hazlehurst

message: *I have reformated the page to make it easier to follow the SClub7 debate, please do not revert. Please try and keep all debate together! SouthernElectric 10:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The list of themes Ronnie has written speaks for itself. These tunes are embedded in the psyche of every British person over the age of 30. The mans an unsung genius! If he was some obscure itailian movie theme writer everyone would falling over themselves to praise him. There should be more info on this page! Supermatch Game Supermatch Game....Supermatch Game02:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: I've actually removed the Obituaries from the External links section. I normally do this, as I believe that there is no reason to have them there. All notable people have obituaries and I feel its superfluous to have them as External links. All are linked as they are references. Is this alright with everyone?--UpDown 19:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are already cited then there really isn't any point in listing them again IMO, that would go for any subject or article. (SouthernElectric 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obituaries within External links 

message: I think the Reach debacle should be mentioned in the article. Yes, it's something of a self-reference, but given that it was mentioned in The Register and - as mentioned above - on BBC Newswatch, surely that makes it notable in itself, not just to us Wikipedians. Newswatch, at least, is a solid and reliable source. Why shouldn't the error be mentioned, other than to avoid making Wikipedia look a bit silly, which is not a good reason? 86.132.138.205 14:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's tangentially related to the life of Ronnie Hazlehurst, yes. However, given the relatively little material on that for which the subject is notable (ie. decades of being a composer of well-known television themes etc), a whole paragraph on the cock-ups of Wikipedia editors and newspaper researchers would give undue weight to what is a minor blip in the chap's life (and death). --Scathlock 14:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If every hoax was mentioned, Wikipedia would be full of nothing else, if this 'debacle' is a notable it's more to do with the gullibility of the media than anything to do with Ronnie Hazlehurst. If it's to be recorded it should be elsewhere, perhaps within the history of the BBC, recording the facts relating to 'Their year of fakes and hoaxes' which could then be wiki linked back here! Sorry, I know it happened and I know it centered around this article but it doesn't belong here, in this article, it belongs in an article about 'infamous' Wikipedia hoaxes or media history. (SouthernElectric 14:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It probably should be mentioned, actually; 

message: :It's tangentially related to the life of Ronnie Hazlehurst, yes. However, given the relatively little material on that for which the subject is notable (ie. decades of being a composer of well-known television themes etc), a whole paragraph on the cock-ups of Wikipedia editors and newspaper researchers would give undue weight to what is a minor blip in the chap's life (and death). --Scathlock 14:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If every hoax was mentioned, Wikipedia would be full of nothing else, if this 'debacle' is a notable it's more to do with the gullibility of the media than anything to do with Ronnie Hazlehurst. If it's to be recorded it should be elsewhere, perhaps within the history of the BBC, recording the facts relating to 'Their year of fakes and hoaxes' which could then be wiki linked back here! Sorry, I know it happened and I know it centered around this article but it doesn't belong here, in this article, it belongs in an article about 'infamous' Wikipedia hoaxes or media history. (SouthernElectric 14:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No it should not be mentioned, and why; 

message: Please leave the on-article warning up, the editors warning is still being ignored. It's not doing any harm to 95% of the article, it would be different it it was at the top of the article. (SouthernElectric 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I didn't discuss here first before removing for second time, I didn't see the comment. However, as I said in the edit history, since we agreed on this page on 3rd Oct. that the S Club bit was needed and the pasted comment was put on, only 1 person has added it. This was reverted and has no been re-added. There is no dispute, there was but its been discussion and settled. --UpDown 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per below, I've put the commented out warning back in, as there's been atleast one IP editor in. And it made [Have I Got News For You] as well... --RedHillian 20:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re On-article warning 

message: The latest issue of Private Eye (issue date 12 October) has laugh at the expense the newspapers which reported the SClub7 "fact". I suppose this might lead to an upsurge in people trying to reinsert it - suggest a quick WP:RFPP if it comes back. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 22:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes thats a good idea. Hopefully it won't come to that though (fingers crossed).--UpDown 07:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or just reinstate the on-article template that was removed... 99% of these edits are being made in good faith, they are not vandalism, protecting a page that is not subject to vandalism will look like censorship. The on article warning template gave a heads up to those who wish to make good faith edits but are unaware of the issues. (SouthernElectric 10:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't doubt that most of edits so far were in good faith; however press articles about Wikipedia vandalism have a tendency to encourage copycat vandalism (see also Stephen Colbert), so if there's a sudden upsurge now there's a good chance it will be from Private Eye readers having a laugh (the report clearly stated that the story wasn't true). However, it's not really an issue unless it actually happens - hopefully Private Eye readers are more mature than that. I just saw the article last night and thought I'd drop a note here quickly. Best Iain99Balderdash and piffle 10:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This nonsense has also just been mentioned on Have I Got News For You - by Ian Hislop. However, he was having a go at lazy journalists rather than WP itself, so that's no bad thing. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And we've had one, from [Talk:212.137.53.1]. I've reverted, and put a note on their talkpage. I've also put the note back in. --RedHillian 20:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've just deleted the above edit by User:Tristan and the Troubadours. It was quite NPOV, and badly written. I wasn't aware of the discussion on this talk page when I erased it. I think that the hoax should not be included, it's bollocks, let's not be intimidated by references in popular culture. Gareth E Kegg 22:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads up 

message: [ added] the s-club information on 20 September (so the incorrect information was on the page for under a month). --h2g2bob (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, should I remove the  tag SouthernElectric put in, or is that still under discussion? --h2g2bob (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave it for the moment, this issue's just had a fresh burst of publicity in the past day or so. When things quieten down and everyone oves onto the next source of lulz, it can come out again. --RedHillian 02:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes leave it in, it shows that we are attempting to control the situation locally should we end up needing to ask for a full or semi locking of the article (which is a serious thing to ask for if you think about it, admin should not just place them lightly), as I said before where it's placed is not affecting 95% of the article. (SouthernElectric 09:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For posterity 

message: I've added a two-sentence mention of the hoax here , which I think is a more logical place for the material to sit - I agree with other editors that it is not relevant material for this article. It could be included as a See Also wikilink, though, maybe, partially as a deterrent to editors wanting to add the material here. What do others think? SP-KP 08:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all sure about even mentioning it as a 'see also', that might actually give more credence to having a full textual reference, this hoax is not a notable fact of Ronnie Hazlehurst's career or life, this hoax belongs in the article you cite above with a link back here - not an out going link from here. Taking that on board I'm renaming this sub-section. (SouthernElectric 10:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it should be mentioned in the article as a 'see also'. I think it is relevant - if not to the article, then to Wikipedia itself. It amazes me that journalists at esteemed organisations like the Gruaniad, Times and Beeb do not check what they find here further. So I think its kudos to us for how highly they obviously rate us. No? --Kylemew 21:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's relevant to some things like WP in general, but not to this article. Therefore for the purposes of this article, it's not relevant, and should not be added/linked. --RedHillian 00:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair point. ok then. Leave as is?
Where's a good place for stuff about WP in the news etc? There's loads of stuff out there. Private Eye never goes an issue without mentioning us.  --Kylemew 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it looks good there, as it is with its pesky bedfellows, in context, rather than confusing the reader on the main article. Gareth E Kegg 21:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to mention the Hoax 

message: Is there anything wrong with mentioning the hoax [ very briefly]? The reason I think it's worth including is because the S Club 7 reference was made in many of what are otherwise considered reliable and respected media sources. For future historical/archiving purposes, when this is long forgotten, shouldn't Wikipedia's article aim to be a good and inclusive source of information and disspeller of disinformation?
I'm not sure there's any consensus that it's completely non-notable, though I agree it shouldn't be given undue weight. Comments/thoughts plz.. • Anakin (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with the discussion that was had at the time - in which I took part - that this is not notable in Hazlehurst's life. It is mentioned - or should be - on a relevant article about Wikipedia, but don't think its relevant here. But if it does have to be mentioned, then as brief as possible.--UpDown (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

text: My God! It really didn't get that much press attention...it is not notable in Hazlehurst's life. It mentioned on the relevant pages, but not here.--UpDown (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Again...

message: Is there any further information on his life that can be obtained?  Primarily, I thought that I read elsewhere as to the reason why when working on 'Last of the Summer Wine' that he created the music by why another person (Phil ?: mentioned in the credits) did the recording in the studio of his works?
Also, there is no mention of his Laurel and Hardy work?  http://www.laurelandhardy.org/RonnieTribute.html  I remember seeing his name on the credits of a documentary to the two comedians and I was wonderfully surprised by it.  That explained to me seeing the time line why the reference to Stan Laurel's daughter appearing in an episode and the usage of the L&H signature tune when she showed up with the same hat as Nora Batty at Ivy's cafe.
Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.58.82 (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm curious as about more of his life. 

message: This article currently says that Ronnie Hazlehurst composed the theme music to Only Fools and Horses. If one goes to the history of this page, one can find that according to a revision by User: KevM, the theme music to Only Fools and Horses was composed by John Sullivan, not Ronnie Hazlehurst. Vorbee (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit debatable really - he did compose the theme tune that was used on the first series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaCg93od-qY - it was then changed to the John Sullivan theme (which in any case Ronnie Hazlehurst still arranged). The original theme is usually replaced with the familar one on repeat broadcasts. Bob talk 18:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Did he really compose theme music to Only Fools and Horses?