Talk:George Robey

message: There must be 100s of photos of Robey, nearly all in the public domain after this length of time.  So why has someone put a pic of him in drag as the main picture?  LOL. (Goldmanuk (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: , maybe there are a few too many images here.  Which shall I delete?  I'm kinda going with the stamps.  Cassiantotalk  20:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The photos of Robey are all good, but photos of people that he knew should only be included if they were particularly influential in his life. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So Reinhardt and Grenfell for the chop then? Cassiantotalk  20:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think so.  See what else you've got to illustrate that part of his career.  Sorry!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Marching orders have been given to Joyce and Max.  Unfortunately, owing to George's relatively recent death, most photos of him are copyrighted, so we are lacking in images towards the end of his career. Cassiantotalk  22:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is always a problem on Wikipedia. I remember how, at FA, to my great unhappiness, they pulled out nearly all the images in Harold Pinter.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A thought:  Maybe Tim can make you one of his boxes of 4 faces showing people with whom Robey worked, but who were not each important enough to get their own big image? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Just clocked this. Happy to do the honours with Photoshop for a square of four mugshots if wanted. Just tell me which you want. Tim riley (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Great Idea!  I shall go and ponder. Cassiantotalk  21:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Cassianto, the two short articles about Robey listed in the EL section (this and this) describe Robey's style of humour in his acts in a more concrete way than the article does now, and I think adding a couple of sentences or short quotes about this would be very helpful to readers.  Would you kindly look at them and see if you agree?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Would this information be best suited to the lede? Cassiantotalk 20:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

text: I think the body, but maybe also a briefer preview in the LEAD.  Let's see what you can come up with for the body, and maybe I can help craft something to add to the Lead to reflect the new info. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Robey's style

message: In Reference (footnote) #1, we say that Robey's DNB biographer was James Harding.  Is this the same person as James Harding (music writer)?  If so, we should link the name. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Now linked.  Yes this was the same person. Cassiantotalk 20:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, looks good. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: James Harding

message: In the LEAD, we say that Robey's film career was only modestly successful, but we don't really say that anywhere in the body of the article, unless I'm missing it.  Can we make it clearer in the body?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this? Cassiantotalk 18:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Films

message: I changed the first sentence in the section which mentions the war, because it suggested music hall had declined by 1914, which is not the case, though it was facing a powerful competitor in revue, which probably had taken over a quarter of the theatres by 1914.Johncmullen1960 (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, according to Robey's sources, music hall had all but died out from the 1920's.  Do you have a reliable source to back this claim up? Cassiantotalk 10:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Johncmullen, please let us know what sources you are looking at that can clarify the situation.  In addition, many theatres were playing Edwardian musical comedy and variety shows, and also operetta, so we could use a good source that explains the relative popularity of these forms from 1914 to WWII, when the modern musical just about swept older forms from the stage.  See WP:V for more information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: First world war

message: I'm in the process of reading the entire article, but I came across something that does not sound quite right. It is this passage in the second paragraph of the section George Robey#Early life:
:*When he was 14, his father allowed him to move in with a clergyman's family in the German countryside, which he used as a base while studying science at Leipzig University. To earn money, he taught English to his landlord's children and minded them while their parents were at work. Having successfully enrolled at the university, he studied art and music...
The first sentence says he studied science at Leipzig University. The third sentence says that he studied art and music". There is no indication of the connection between these subjects. Did he enroll in order to study science but then switched to art and music? Did he study science, art and music? Did he study mainly science but discovered art and music on the side?
Also, since you've already said "which he used as a base while studying science at Leipzig University", unless there is some other event that took place, there is no need to say later, "having successfully enrolled at the university". CorinneSD (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early life 

message: In the last paragraph in the section George Robey#Shakespearean roles is the following passage:
*The poet John Betjeman responded to the critics' early scepticism: "Variety artistes are a separate world from the legitimate stage. They are separate too, from ballet, opera, and musical comedy. It is possible for variety artists to appear in all of these....
I noticed "Variety artistes" and then "variety artists". Since "artistes" is a word, and since both are in a quote, I hesitated to change "artistes" to "artists". Perhaps someone could check the original text. CorinneSD (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shakespearean roles 

message: Substituted at 16:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on George Robey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207025208/http://www.scoutingmilestones.co.uk/events to http://www.scoutingmilestones.co.uk/events
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908171830/http://www.yeoldetreeandcrown.34sp.com/wigan_town.htm to http://www.yeoldetreeandcrown.34sp.com/wigan_town.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It is as amusing as always to be told to "use the flaming talk page" by people who do not do so themselves; and to be referred to WP:BRD by someone who fails to notice, or ignores, that that essay says, for example,  and . I would also point out:
# that  public house was named after Robey is not "trivia"
# that the pub was demolished around half a century later does not diminish the act of naming it after him
# blogs published by people who are also the authors of books on the same topic from reputable publishers are acceptable sources for non-remarkable statements, per WP:UGC: .
# that we do not require citations for coordinates, which can be verified by consulting any suitable map 
# "a knighthood" is ambiguous; Robey was made a "knight bachelor" and we should say so (a "mystery meat" link does not suffice)
# that referring to something that is part of the British Honours System, awarded in either the New Year Honours or the Birthday Honours, as "an honour" is not a "peacock" term
-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether the naming of the pub is of encyclopedic importance depends on the prominence of the pub.  Do you have any sources that support the pub's being a famous institution; perhaps it was a really important venue?  The fact that the pub no longer exists certainly *does* diminish the likelihood of its being of encyclopedic importance. I have no problem with linking to "Knight Bachelor", if that is correct (Schrocat, please check my change), but the display word should be knighthood, which is what the bulk of readers will understand.  I'm not sure what you are referring to in your other points; you should elaborate enough on the changes you seek so that people can understand and comment. Obviously, if you want changes in an article, and the regular editors at the article disagree with your change(s), then you should begin a Talk page discussion *before* you Edit war, not afterwards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Were we discussing the notability of the pub, for its own article (and yes, it would easily pass) your opening point may be valid. Even so, it was a high-profile venue in a prominent location. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So high-profile that it was demolished. It wasn't even a listed building from what I can see. CassiantoTalk 21:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right to imply that high profile buildings are never demolished, and are always listed. Of course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we see the sources stating that it was a prominent, important venue? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pub 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion