Talk:James Hyman

message: Kate: you added "Father's 1st cousin was Beatles' manager Brian Epstein." This isn't notable. Just about everyone is a few degrees of consanguinity/acquaintance away from a famous person. Also, please don't put links in bold: see WP:STYLE for guidance.  -- The Anome 19:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about this. While I will eventually get around to making a Wikipedia entry on my uncle I'd only say he was notable and not famous. I'm also trying to think if anyone I know is related to anyone famous and I'm drawing a bit of a blank. I think it'd be worth a mention at least in the trivia section as it also shows a general family connection with the music business. I know over on the Alan Moore entry there was debate about including a mention of him being related to Patrick Moore and the main objection was more that it was unclear if it was just a joke on Alan Moore's behalf. (Emperor 13:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK as no one has raised an objection to my above arguement I'll add it back in. (Emperor 22:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: (whilst also achieving B.A./1st Class Hons. from London Guildhall University as alumni)
What, there's more than one of him? -- The Anome 22:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: OK it survived deletion and the history has been deleted up to Art's rewrite as it counts as a diffrent version. I outlined my ideas on the deletion page: We add in headers for the most notable aspects of his work and then add elements in and build it back up, checking the facts as we go. I'd suggest that given the history of this page that if the subject or their wife edit the main entry then its probably worth reverting it otherwise things are going to get messy and go around in circles. If they want to add information then they can drop it into the talk page and a passing editor can work it into the entry at their discretion. Its not ideal but there is a worthwhile entry to be made and it will be slower doing it this way but it should result in an entry that satisfies the various criteria required for a good entry. (Emperor 20:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I made a start - basically splitting it up with headers, sorting the lists of films and the like into lists and fixing the links to the various other entries. There is more relevant information on his bio  that could be extracted but I grabbed what I thought was most notable (like the TV work). I also dropped in a few videos he has directed - there are more   but these are the ones from the biggest names with their own entry and I'm unsure if some of the others are original or not. Its still pretty barebones but it is looking better. (Emperor 21:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Righto I have removed the notability banner - I've done what I said I done and dug out more information and it looks pretty solid. If there any more suggestions for improving this article then they can be dropped in here and we'll see what can be done. Ultimately one of the big problems was self-promotion/copyright violation and Art's rewrite addressed most of that. What I've done since is expand the information focusing on the most notable aspects. There is a lot of other information on the various sites linked to but from what I can tell what is in is the important core information but there is room for fleshing things out and the like. (Emperor 02:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding entry

message: Can we get a picture that actually shows James Hyman - not a cartoon. Although I would prefer it to be free. Omghgomg 07:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I've been in contact with him about the entry (he added the drawing) and should be able to get him to upload a photograph to Wiki Commons or something similar. (Emperor 12:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: This article is very poor. It is not encyclopaedic. It is clearly promotional and the history shows numerous IPs and SPAs making significant additions. It needs significant work to bring it back to an acceptable standard. Rayman60 (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of article