Talk:Hattie Jacques/Archive 1

Birth year

Has anyone any sorces that can confirm 1922 as her birth year? I've just had to change it back from 1924 to 1922 as this is now the year usually given, but it would be nice to have a definite source. Crisso 17:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm going to try and tidy-up this article over the weekend, they're aren't any sources at all! And I'll try and find a definate source for birth year.--UpDown 18:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I was able to confirm 1922 from a primary source - her birth register index entry at the GRO. Ian Cairns 08:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Surname

With regards to her surname all sources bar the GRO Index say Jacques. The GRO Index is not always right (from my own research I know that!), and the missing "c" could simply be a spelling error from certificate to index. I think we need more sources for this name change before we say for certain she was born Jaques, because at the moment we are saying one source appears to be above all others. Thus, I have removed the Jaques reference. Please only put it back in again we you have more refs than just the not-always reliable Jaques. Can anyone get hold of her birth certificate, and if she was Jaques did she legally change it or just adopt another name? I find it hard to believe you'd bother changing your name from "Jaques" to "Jacques". --UpDown 07:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please quote your primary sources rather than just "All sources ... say..". I have given a primary source and not a secondary source, e.g. a biography. Are 'all' your sources primary or secondary?? I have reverted the name change for the moment. If you have an alternative primary source then I'm happy to change the article back. Thanks, Ian Cairns 08:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

My point was there is only one source that gives Jaques as her birthname, all other sources don't. And as I said GRO Index is not the birth certificate, mistakes can occur on the GRO Index that would be correct on certificate. If her birth certificate says Jaques, fair enough, but I'm not convinced by the GRO Index. Mistakes do occur on it, and I cannot believe that if it was true her birthname was Jaques it would not be more widely known or searchable. I will do a Yahoo! search now. --UpDown 08:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

My point is that my primary source was verifiable. You then changed it because of some unstated sources "All sources .. say.." - whether primary or secondary is unknown. The onus is on you to provide an alternative verifiable PRIMARY source. Yes, the GRO can make mistakes. Most often, these are corrected by a later entry, with the original index entry manually annotated with a reference to the later entry. There was no such annotation in this case. There were both JAQUES and JACQUES births in the quarter concerned. Ian Cairns 08:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe your primary source is a good one frankly. Mistakes do occur, and I feel her certificate is needed. All other sources, yes not primary I admit, appear to say she was born Jacques. She appears to be occasionally credited as Jaques, but I would like to know whether she ever changed her name legally, and I think her authorised biography may be of some help here. Do you have a copy by any chance?--UpDown 09:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Before it becomes an issue, Yahoo is not a primary source. I reverted your reversion because you have not stated any primary sources for your changes. Ian Cairns 09:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:VERIFY? I think this would be useful. You have provided / identified no verifiable source(s). If you do, then we can discuss whether my primary source is better than your source(s). At the moment, it is one verifiable primary source against unstated sources. In my opinion, the GRO is a definitive source for many things in life - try obtaining a passport. Not always correct, as you say, but errors are thankfully extremely rare and usually corrected.

No, I don't have a copy of her autobiography. Ian Cairns 09:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Parents

Jacques is an uncommon surname; Jaques is a still less common spelling of Jacques. Josephine Edwina Jaques' 1922 birth register entry states categorically that her mother's maiden name was Thorn. There has only been one definite and one other possible Jaques = Thorn marriages recorded in England and Wales between 1837 and 1922 (according to FreeBMD):

• Jun 1871 9c 153 BARNSLEY - Elizabeth Jaques = either William Myers or Edward Thorn (if Jaques did marry Thorn rather than Myers, then they may have celebrated their Golden Wedding in 1921 if they survived that long)
• Dec 1919 1a 1102 CHELSEA - Robin Jaques = Mary A. Thorn

Of these, only one marriage has a wife's maiden name as Thorn.

Of course, there's always the theoretical possibility of a different Jaques = Thorn marriage in another country of the world, where the couple just happened to emigrate and arrive in Sandgate by 1922?? Presumably, this couple is being identified as I write. I look forward to further developments. Ian Cairns 18:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just in case the Jacques (NB: spelling) = Thorn theory is about to resurface, there was only one possibility of these according to FreeBMD:

• Dec 1844 XV 122 HINCKLEY - Ann Jacques married one of Thomas Needle, William Osborne, Thomas Thorn, Joseph Tinson

but again, the mmn would be Jacques, not Thorn. I think this supports the view that the original Jaques spelling was no aberration. Ian Cairns 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Another reference for the fact that her father was called Robin Jaques - this time, a FWW RFC pilot who died 1922 (but not confirmed in the GRO Death Register): http://www.pprune.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-284642.html

Her brother was also called Robin Jaques - he was born in Fulham - close to Chelsea, the place their parents married - Robin Jacques, artist and illustrator: born 27 March 1920; married 1943 Patricia Bamford (deceased), 1958 Azetta van der Merwe (deceased; one son), thirdly Alexandra Mann (marriage dissolved); died 18 March 1995. His birth: GRO Register of Births JUN 1920 1a 724 FULHAM Robin JAQUES, mmn = Thorn - same mmn as Josephine Edwina JAQUES...

[1] [2]

Her son was called Robin Le Mesurier

It is clear that both Jaques siblings renamed as Jacques at some stage - it wasn't just Hattie Ian Cairns 23:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course its most likely to be her parents, but I'm deeply unhappy about assuming so, even if it is very likely. We are not here to assume, but to report facts. This is at best an educated guess, and thats unacceptable. Her parents names aren't that important to the article, and regardless I'm sure we can find a source where it says her parents names. I'm uneasy about your reliance on the GRO Indexes, and details such as her mother was "Mary A Thorn", no need to say the "A", it suggests that A is her middle name. May I also remind you that according to Template: Infobox Person (and other templates} that the parents and child fields should only be filled in if the parents/child are "notable". Her parents & children aren't notable, and should only appear in the text not Infobox. --UpDown 07:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Curiously her father is listed in the England & Wales, Death Index: 1916-2005 as Robin Jacques, aged 26; but aside from marriage records the monthly RAF Air Force Lists recorded him at death as Fg Off Robin Jaques; and most interestingly the England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1861-1941 lists: "Jaques Robin of 11 Stanley-mansions Park Walk Chelsea Middlesex died 8 August 1923 at Spitalgate Aerodrome Grantham Lincolnshire Administration London 4 October to Mary Adelaide Jaques widow. Effects £180." Kmitch87 (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Hattie"

I've read that her stage name Hattie derived from the similarity of her figure to Hattie McDaniel's (Oscar winning support actress in Gone With The Wind) but I can't find a reference. TheOneOnTheLeft (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Early Life

I've made a correction in the early life section. Hattie was a nurse is the VAD during the war, not the Red Cross. However, I'd be grateful if someone who was more Wiki savvy could correct the link to go directly the right article, instead of the disambiguation for 'VAD'. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.5.78 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Marriage to John Le Mesurier

Current date states that the couple were married in 1949, but in Hattie's This Is Your Life appearance, Eammonn Andrews reads their marriage date as 10th November 1950, to which she nods and smiles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.94.245.15 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"Cockney used-car dealer"?

The article describes Schofield as “a cockney used-car dealer”, presumably in line with a description in Jacques’ autobiography (?) But it seems that he was also early manager of the rock band Brinsley Schwartz. In April 2011 Nick Lowe recalled, on UK national radio, that Jacques would make the band members bacon sandwiches when they called to see Schofield. Although this fact/claim does currently appear in the Brinsley Schwartz article, I’m not sure that it’s notable enough for this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Have now moved around a bit and added in. "Cockney used car-dealer" still remains separately unsourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

pronunciation?

I assume that her surname is pronounced as "Jakes". Sir David Willcocks and Reginald Jacques collabarated on some books of Christmas choral music published by Oxford University Press. And I have heard the latter's name pronounced in public as "Jakes". It would be easy for people to think that Hattie's surname would be French, and would be pronounced as "Jzah-kz"... with an Ah vowel, and an initial voiced Z --- as if it is a French name. Could someone who is good at phonetics add a pronunciation for her name? It would be a good thing. We need to verify it, of course. thanks.

-r — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.30.106 (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd support that. Although I have never heard of it pronounced in any other way than "Jakes". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Article expansion

A small project is on to expand this article into something more suitable for the subject. We plan to add new material and expand or replace some existing material. This may take place over a few weeks or even months and we'd be delighted to hear from anyone who has any useful information of sources that may be of use. As part of the overhaul, we would ideally like to remove the infobox entirely as part of that re-write process and just have an image in place. The summary boxes are inadequate at summing up the life of an individual and contain mere repetitions of a few minor and trite facts that are best left in the lead and article. Before it is removed, does anyone object? We'd rather have a chat here first before starting out on an edit/revert cycle. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) & Cassianto^Talk 19:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As it's been three weeks since the question of the infobox was raised, and no-one has raised any objections to its removal, I have taken the step of removing the box, and the article is much improved now. Readers will note that all the relevant gobbets of information held in the IB are still in the lead, and in a slightly more appropriate setting, as context is now prvided for the bare and misleading facts. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I miss Hattie's box. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No infobox is better....♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

@Cass + Schrod, I'm in two minds as to whether we should use sources like this. Generally I try to not use the Daily Mail but for a lot of things they do seem to have a lot of details on things and some often great quotes, just like they have with Sellers. I think that article alone, the full article which I have access to, the obvious ribbing tone aside, contains some useful information. I think we can glean facts from such articles and ignore the tabloid sort of content without making the article sound like a tabloid. What do you think? I think in fact using sources like The Independent etc like [3] we could produce a section on her reception/public perception, obviously though skillfully not making it sound too crufty. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with a careful use of the Mail: it's a shitty little rag, but when they interview people I think we can use the words they use. Most of the stuff they have written about Jacques more or less tallies with what the reliable sources say, so I think we can use with care. I've got a stack of news reports for a couple of the later sections - the post-death tributes and legacy stuff, and yes, stuff like the info from Indie will be key for that. - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thrice agreed. As Gav points out, the interviews are ok to use, but the reporters are shall way say, not the most journalistically brilliant that Fleet Street has to offer! Doc, what sources are you in possession of? --Cassianto^Talk 15:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hokay I'll try to better newspapers. [4] a lot happen to be DM, we'll have to be selective I guess.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Image review: All look well so far. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• That's great: cheers Crisco! - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Great news. Thanks for taking a look. Cassianto^Talk 19:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

OK I'm done. Newspaper journalists are so bloody lazy, I must have found several hundred sources basically saying the same thing. I tried to glean some good quotes and additional info, please review my changes, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. Your changes look great, and have proved to be valuable for the article. Having said that, I'm not convinced about the British Rail advert. Is this notable enough to be included? Did this advert set itself apart from the others which she recorded in her career? Did she win an award for it, or did her role in it lead to bigger, better or greater things in her career? Also, I think we have certainly reached our limit in terms of "fat" observations. I'm reluctant to have any more from this point on if I'm honest. Cheers! Cassianto^Talk 17:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on the "fat" thing. I could have added a zillion quotes from newspapers but I tried to keep the ones which at least had some value! IMO I think the British Rail advert is worth mentioning for interesting reading and adds depth to the article rather than just being about her acting/personal life. Given our history with adverts though I might change my mind, we might attract people claiming that the train was operated by a Jewish company :-]...♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

...Lmao, I suppose it's only a matter of time! -- Cassianto^Talk 12:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

for an interesting article about a favourite actress! Amandajm (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Our pleasure - although it's still not quite polished enough yet! - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That is very kind. Thank you for showing your appreciation! Cassianto^Talk 17:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"Actor", surely (or not)? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

What's the current thinking on WP about this? I'm old fashioned and grew up using actor and actress for male and female, which is what I've gone for here. Always looked a bit strange having "actor" for female, but if that's the preferred (if awkward and misleading) style, then so be it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very nice article. Rothorpe (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Publisher links

We should only make links where they're likely to be of use to the reader, and there's no conceivable value to the publisher wikiinks - for example, how does a link to Oxford University Press help anyone looking at the reference to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography? Colonies Chris (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think this is the third time we've gone over this tired old ground. You don't find them useful: we get it, fine. Others do. Please don't try and determine what people may or may not find useful. I have found such links useful in the past (and the recent past too). - SchroCat (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• And in the past I've asked you to explain in what way you have found them useful, and you have always evaded the question. So I'm asking again. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• See previous answers. These do not do any harm, and can be beneficial. I don't know hey you can't accept this, or why you feel the need to keep flogging this particular horse. I should also add that the links also ensure a consistent format across the sources section, rather than the scrappy some-do-some-don't approach you want to force onto the page. - SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• And you're still evading the question. It's no use referring me to previous answers, as you've never given one. Why is it so hard for you just to explain in a few words in what way you have recently (as you said) found these links useful? Perhaps you would be enlightening me - and then we might have no need keep repeating this pattern. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Apart from the partial explanation given above, I have explained to you before that they are useful. As links. To move from one page to another. This has already been covered before and I'm surprised about your intransigence on such a minor point. They are not harmful. They are USEFUL, please just accept that and move on. - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• And why do you want to move from an article about Hattie Jacques to an article about Routledge publishers, for example? What is the relevance? How is that useful? We don't just link every single thing in an article - we select the ones that readers might find useful. If you find it useful, please explain why. Then we can have a productive discussion. All you're doing right now is telling me to just accept your way of doing things without question. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've said before that I've found it useful, and it was on the revolutionary principal of moving to a page to find out more information. Shocking that, in an encyclopaedia. Why are you hellbent on removing them and being less useful? Does this point offend you so much that you need to argue it endlessly? Because it's in a sources section (ie one where the readability of prose is not an issue), there is no harm in including useful links, and there may be use to others and I'm not sure why you can't just accept that others find something useful that you don't. - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be willing to reconsider my belief that such links aren't generally useful, if you would give me an example of how they are useful. But you resolutely refuse to do that. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't appear to be going anywhere. I'm assuming there is no policy on publisher links within sources? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no policy on this, just a loosely worded suggestion on the MOS. - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The general MOS states "Make links only where they are relevant and helpful in the context". Seeing as the context here is the source(s) used to write the article—and not the topic of the article itself—I think that links to the publishers of those sources could be considered helpful and relevant here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly useful to know the publisher of a book - it helps in tracking it down, particularly when several unrelated books may share a title. But in what way are the links to publishers useful? Is it remotely likely that anyone thinking about looking at, say, Geoff Mayer's Guide to British Cinema will want to click on the link to Greenwood Press? Colonies Chris (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

One way of assessing the reliability of a source is its publisher. A link to the article of a publisher (if there is one) helps in that assessment. I have done it in the past. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with PaleCloudedWhite and SchroCat. The link to the publisher is very useful and gives the reader the chance to asses the reliability of the source given. We all know that the DNB is reliable, but there will be some people who will not know what the DNB is and will use the link to find out were the information has came from. To say people will not need or want to use the link is both assumitive and incorrect. Surely common sense must prevail over any guideline. Cassianto^Talk 14:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If anyone wants to assess the reliability of the DNB, they would go to our article about the DNB, not to the publisher's article. The guideline simply says that we make links when we think they're likely to be useful - common sense says there's not much likelihood of such links being useful. And for all SchroCat's vociferous complaints, he still hasn't given a single example of how it might be useful. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Shrocat, "they do not do any harm" is one of the lamest arguments I've heard for a while. Could you explain exactly what is useful enough about these links to include them formulaically? Tony (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for lowering the tone with one of the lamest comments I've seen for a while. Good effort! - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• You're still not providing a simple answer to a simple question. It's getting quite painful to watch you dodging the question, first claiming you've answered it before, then just ASSERTING it in CAPITALS, and now by resorting to abuse. Try just answering the question. Or perhaps even admitting that you don't have an answer after all - the world won't end. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• You're right, Tony1's comment was abusive and he should not have made it. (And I have answered your question. Above. Read it and try to accept someone's opinion if different to yours. The world won't end. - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the DNB? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Dictionary of National Biography. - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Colonies Chris "If anyone wants to assess the reliability of the DNB, they would go to our article about the DNB" -- Sorry, but our article is not a reliable source. Why use a link to our unreliable variation over the actual link? Cassianto^Talk 17:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Are you suggesting that our article about the DNB is not reliable but our article about its publisher is reliable? What do you mean by "the actual link"? The links I'm referring to are the wikilinks to the articles about the DNB and about its publisher. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I am saying that everything on Wikipedia is considered unreliable as the site is user generated. Cassianto^Talk 05:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Still baffled by this. If all WP articles are unreliable, then there is no benefit to wikilinking either the publication (DNB) or the publisher (OUP). Are you proposing an external link to the publisher's own website on cited material? That has never been under discussion here. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This really isn't rocket science; you are saying that in order to "asses the reliability" then one should use "our article" to assess it. My point is that you can't as WP is not a reliable source. How can you "asses" reliability on something that is unreliable? Cassianto^Talk 13:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still baffled. You spoke in favour of retaining the publisher wikilink because "The link to the publisher is very useful and gives the reader the chance to assess the reliability of the source given". But now you're saying that the article on the publisher isn't reliable and can't be used for that purpose. So you seem to be directly contradicting yourself. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

DNB is a reliable source. We have an article on it. Those questioning the DNB's reliability can read about it on our article to help them understand why it is reliable. It is then that the information given within the DNB article becomes unreliable as WP is not a reliable source. Jesus, shall I draw you a picture? Cassianto^Talk 18:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

So if a reader wants to assess whether the DNB is a reliable source, they can go to the WP article on the DNB, via the link we have provided. But why then do you want a wikilink to the article on the publisher of the DNB? What's the purpose of that? Colonies Chris (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And, increasingly, one has to ask what's the purpose of this seemingly endless thread? Perhaps we can and should all move on to more constructive matters? - SchroCat (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer to this debate, but it has always seemed to me that about eighty per cent of blue links throughout Wikipedia are probably a waste of time (in that nobody is ever likely to click on them) but I accept that we have our conventions and customary practices in WP, and linking a publishing house may be of interest to some reader in who knows what circumstances, and it clearly doesn't break the flow of the prose when it's in a list of sources. I'd leave the link in place. Conceivably otiose but perfectly harmless, and nothing to justify a knock-down drag-out fight, surely? Tim riley (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You're quite right that many blue links have no value. Almost always, publisher links fall into that category. However, it's not right to imply that customary practice is to link publishers - quite the contrary, such links are very much a minority. This is an attempt to get this article to conform to mainstream practice, not to break new ground. And in all of this long tedious discussion, I've seen a lot of bluster but not a single example of how a publisher link would be useful. When even seasoned editors can't think of a good reason to link, it's hardly likely that the general reader would want these links. Our job as editors is to use our intelligence and judgment to provide links that might be helpful to our readers, not just to link everything willy-nilly in case someone might fancy clicking on it one day. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• "One way of assessing the reliability of a source is its publisher. A link to the article of a publisher (if there is one) helps in that assessment. I have done it in the past. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)" I'm not sure how you can say that you've not seen any examples, despite your "bluster" to the contrary. - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If the link in question were in the main text I'd agree with you, but in the sources I think it's different. I am working just now in a sandbox in which I've just put in blue links to three authors in the sources section, and I'll take bets nobody will ever click on them, but I think they ought to be there just the same. I hate a sea of blue links in the text, but in the references and sources I think it's right to err on the side of liberality in linking. Tim riley (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The guideline on linking the publisher says "may be wikilinked if relevant". The guideline recognises that simply being the publisher is not sufficient relevance in itself. It's asking us to think about whether a publisher has special relevance, above and beyond the obvious connection. Links to specialist publishers may be valuable - links to large generalist publishers are almost certainly not relevant. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

And other guidance points to consistency, which is what we have. With the consistency of including the useful links, there is no need for someone's flawed judgement to decide what is or is not "relevant". This minor piece of formatting is hardly the be-all-and-end-all of the page and your seeming intransigence on a point that others have said they find useful is becoming something of a nuisance. It really is time to draw a line under this and move on. - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Having been intimidated by your claim that I'm "abusive", I'm back. One of the holes in your argument, Schrocat, is that our articles on publishers typically don't provide information that would allow a reader to judge how prestigious or authoritative a publisher is. Tony (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Intimidated? You'll have to ask Colonies Chris why he thinks your approach was abuse. As to your second point, actually a lot of them do, and will highlight if a publisher is a specialist in a particular area, or whether they are a vanity publishers (which then raises the question of whether the source used is reliable or not). - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hattie's weight

For the non-British, one stone = 14 pounds (almost 6.4 kg).

So 5 stone is actually 32kg and 20 stone is 127 kg

Markcymru (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It says 'nearly 20 stone' (130 kg), so this is an approximation. Surely anything more than two digits precision is unnecessary. Edgepedia (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi, I'm new here and was wondering why this article doesn't have an infobox. It's one of the first big articles I've seen that doesn't have one. It's a great informative article though. Thanks for putting it on the front page. Simonfreeman (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Simon, There's no need or requirement for articles to have an infobox in any article, and this question was looked at carefully when this had a recent overhaul. There are a lot of articles (and some very, very good ones too) that have not adopted the IB for various reasons, and this follows that practice. I'm glad you enjoyed the article - it was fun to write! - SchroCat (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Is there any reason why we cannot introduce an infobox? GiantSnowman 12:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Why bother? There's no pressing need, and it's not overly helpful, given the fullness of the lead. There is certainly no requirement to have one, and the consensus was not to include one here. SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• I just find them extremely useful. GiantSnowman 12:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Useful in repeating what can be found by shifting your eyes a little to the left? I've heard others say they find them hugely distracting, so it's really not possible to please all the people all the time. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Snowman, they're useful in footballer articles, but the information provided in an infobox in this article would be next to nothing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I like infoboxes when there is stuff to say. But for the most part, actor biographies just dont have anything that a infobox will be needed. For instance, a baseball player will have stuff that wont be sayed in the lead. Actor/actresses probably stuff will usually just be found in the lead. So its redundant. (Plus it squishes up images) Beerest 2 talk 14:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hattie Jacques
Born	Josephine Edwina Jaques (1922-02-07)7 February 1922 Sandgate, Kent
Died	6 October 1980(1980-10-06) (aged 58) Kensington, London
Known for	Carry on films

Well, of course the stuff in the lead can all be found just by reading the article, so the lead is redundant as well. There's nothing wrong with redundancy of information and it's certainly no reason on its own to exclude an infobox. We have to remember that some people sometimes want to just pick up a fact or two on a personality and find infoboxes very helpful for that. The problem comes when an infobox get filled with so much irrelevant trivia that it overwhelms a small article. Of course it's not compulsory to place the lead image inside an infobox, and there's much to be said for having a decent-sized (330px+) image for the lead - in which case a sensible-sized infobox could go beneath the lead image without disturbing much. That's all just my humble opinion, naturally, and I'm not going to push for an infobox here as so many of the regular editors seem set against it. Nevertheless, I'll show - merely for your consideration - the briefest of infoboxes that I personally think might not be out of place for Hattie Jacques. --RexxS (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it really worth the candle Rex? It's fairly meaningless as it stands and doesn't explain much beyond the dumbed down basics. Who on earth does that really help? If people want "a fact or two", then it's all nicely covered in the very readable prose a couple of inches away, and in a way that doesn't mislead by exclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I disagree, what's the point of having any infobox if they're not to be used? The infobox is the most simple and effective way of getting a précis of an entire article. It quickly tell the reader things like age, place of birth, partners, kids, even where they're buried etc. It's all very dismissive of everyone here to say they're not needed. Well think about people who read these articles on a mobile device. An infobox is the first thing to be displayed. It is very useful and often saves a lot of effort scrolling down reading an article just to find out did they have kids, where they were born. As far as I am concerned every article should have an infobox because it's the most pertinent, readable and concise way to present information. However looking at the way this article has been padded out by copying reams from Jaques autobiogrpahy by almost one editor, I feel the infobox layout and a lot of other things on this topic probably has a lot of attached ownership issues.81.129.203.221 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I don't know if it's worth a candle, but it's certainly not worth falling out over :D Actually the lead doesn't tell us where Hattie was born or died. My demo-box certainly is basic information (dumbed-down or otherwise) and I know Blofeld prefers infoboxes to be much fuller to be worthwhile; I personally like keeping them concise. There really aren't too many key facts applicable to an actor - maybe a visitor could want 'years active' - and although that fits my concept of an infobox (remember I want the metadata available as well), I understand if others think that small infoboxes aren't worth the effort. Diff'rent strokes and all that. --RexxS (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Rex, as I've said elsewhere a few times, I'm a big fan of IBs, but only where they are properly used, rather than on the one-size-fits-all basis (of which I know you also disapprove—it being where the line is drawn that is the issue here). In this instance—as with many other biographies—the metadata can be harvested from the {{persondata}} template hidden within the article, and does not need to be present and visible at the top of the page. Even that may be problematic, however, if we act as shills for Google, and ensure that this metadata ensures people don't even bother with Wikipedia to get the basic (misleading) disassembled "facts" when they are available elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

As I've said before in response to the same point, {{persondata}} does not provide microformats and, being hidden, is much less likely to be maintained than something visible. If someone corrected Hattie's year of birth from 1924 to 1922 in the text, there's much less chance they would know to make the same correction in {{persondata}} than if it were available via a visible infobox. If Google gets its facts wrong, it's because we're supplying it with wrong facts and we ought not to be preferring methods with a higher chance of perpetuating that. I have to disagree especially with your last sentence. I don't want us to be providing misleading facts whether they are available elsewhere or not. But surely there's nothing misleading, for example, about Hattie's place of death - which incidentally would have to be available elsewhere in the article if an infobox were to contain it (it isn't). --RexxS (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what needs to be "corrected" here Rex? We have the correct date of birth in the article text (twice) and in persondata. I'm not sure why we need to amend that at all. Microformats are not necessary or required, and ensuring people don't bother to visit Wikipedia at all seems a particularly self-defeating purpose, I feel. As to your final point, I had to read it a couple of times to see if you were thinking that we have unsourced information in there: in the end it turned out that you were wrong in your assertion: we do actually refer to her dying at home, which we refer to earlier - even having a photograph of her residence earlier in the article. So, my last sentence isn't misleading at all: we do run a very strong risk of misleading by omission, especially in such a dumbed down, inflexible and simplistic place as an infobox. That, I am afraid, is the problem with an over-reliance on "facts" over information. - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I said I knew of anything that needed to be corrected here. I gave the example of her date of birth as something that is often inaccurate in different sources - in fact the original blue plaque had 1924, not 1922. When an error is eventually corrected, it is obvious when the text and infobox are inconsistent and it triggers a check. It is the opposite of obvious if persondata doesn't get updated to match a correction to text. You do indeed refer to her dying at home - but fail to state specifically where "home" was when she died. The photograph in the earlier 1963–67 section is clearly captioned as "67 Eardley Crescent" and the photograph immediately above refers to "Jacques's former house: 67 Eardley Crescent, Earls Court". So is that her former house in the sense that she moved to another address sometime after her breakup with LeMesurier? or was it her home until her death? I can see that 67 Eardley Crescent is close enough to possibly qualify as Kensington - which seems to be generally given as her place of death. I'm afraid that the place of her death is a fact, but it doesn't seem to me that our article articulates that at all clearly. --RexxS (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

My mistake: you were talking about the need to edit the persondata template if the DoB was changed, which is what confused me. All now clear. - SchroCat (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to add my support for an infobox, it's one of those wikipedia standards that people expect on any page about a person, and all the arguments made above claiming that one wouldn't be appropriate here could just as easily be used to suggest that we don't need them at all, when actually a lot of people use them regularly, I know I do. To be honest it makes the page look misleadingly incomplete to not have one there, giving people the initial impression that the whole article may not be that complete. MrDannyDoodah (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I also think infoboxes are useful, but in discussions such as this would people please refrain from making accusations and criticisms about other editors. The editors who brought this article up to FA standard did raise the question of infoboxes before they began most of their recent work. That does not mean the question can't be raised again, but please don't descend into making it personal. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that was meant as a direct reply to me or not, but I apologise if I was sounding like I was accusing or criticising any editor on a personal level, I just wanted to voice my opinions on the subject being discussed. MrDannyDoodah (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

My comment wasn't aimed at you MrDannyDoodah, it was more the unregistered editor before you who looked like they might be heading down an unproductive direction. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"To be honest it makes the page look misleadingly incomplete to not have one there". That's one of the funniest statements I've read for quite some time on here. Just like the living room without the TV... Sure Born, died, known for is really essential and the article shouldn't have been promoted without an infobox.. This sort of thing every time an article hits TFA really has to stop. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

So your argument when boiled down is along the lines of "he's wrong and I'm right"?. At least I tried to justify why I felt this article ought to have an infobox. MrDannyDoodah (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. I just think you treat infoboxes as an essential part of the furniture when they're at best a placid looking jug on the side of the mantelpiece. You form the majority in that opinion on here, which is probably why so little thought goes into writing most articles and more effort goes into discussing trivial things like infoboxes..♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Equally your entitled to your opinion too, and I accept that there will be some people out there who don't refer to the infoboxes, or even find them distracting, but in a world of brevity and immediacy, fuelled by text messaging, on demand tv and internet services and so on, it's a mistake to think that every user wants to read, or even skim, the full article, however much we would like them to. I agree a balance is needed to be found, perhaps with more scholarly subjects not using infoboxes, as presumably their target audience wouldn't need them, whilst mainstream subjects, such as biographies of entertainers, use them to meet the needs of a wider audience. MrDannyDoodah (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point: let's dumb down to the lowest common denominator before everyone else gets there. To hell with standards: misleading factoids rule OK! - SchroCat (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Firstly there is nothing misleading about the absolute facts shown in the proposed infobox, unless you really feel misled by the date of birth and death of Hattie when taken together with the fact that she is known for Carry On movies. Secondly I'm definitely not suggesting we should dumb down to the point of putting style above substance, when clearly substance is the whole point of the entire site, I'm just pointing out that different people access that substance in different ways.MrDannyDoodah (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually there is nearly always something misleading about bald "facts": it's to do with the exclusion of information, nuance and circumstance around them. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with any inclusion of an infobox. They are ugly, uninformative, repetetive, redundent and trivial. Who the hell wants to know about children's names and former wives? This should not be the first thing a reader sees. Cassianto^Talk 09:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

At some point I really hope that infoboxes will be controlled by wiki data and you can suppress and show them according to your preferences. It's just everytime we have an article on the main page this "why doesn't it have an infobox" argument breaks out, when all 10 arbitrators have decided it's up to the article writers to decide and they're not compulsory.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm just somebody called "Mr. Gonna", making a comment about this infobox debate. The point of infoboxes is they give you selected bits of information about something in a template. I don't care about them because they're just unimportant ants compared to Wikipedia articles. If infoboxes exist, you get users who complain because they're in articles (since articles always have information, while infoboxes are just tiny bits of "info" in a "box"). If they don't exist, nobody complains. IX|(C"<) 23:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever (talk • contribs)

Your last assertion is patently untrue, as witnessed by the discussion here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, good thing the inclusion doesn't involve anyone endlessly complain when there not in an article. - SchroCat (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You've lost me there, Schrocat; what do you mean? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I should have thanked you for your comment addressed to the IP above: it was appreciated that you pulled them up on that point. As to what I meant, it's fairly clear that both "sides" to this debate can complain about the issue, which always seem to generate more heat than light. I'm bored of having to go through the same arguments over and over lot people who expect a "one-size-fits-all" regime for IBs ( not that I'm saying you are guilty of this), but there is enough flexibility of the damned things for inclusion on some articles, and not others. I've come across too many people who just unthinkingly say things like "all articles have them, so this one should", etc. Again, in this thread, I've not seen many people come up with much outside that narrow argument. - SchroCat (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with your comments. I also agree that my "last assertion" is untrue. IX|(C"<) 02:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Blue plaques

Noting that the Sandgate blue plaque has Hattie born in 1922 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgFbjizF6uY), but the one used in the article has 1924, perhaps a footnote would work well to indicate why so many sources differ on her year of birth? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Crisco, I had a quick look when we did the recent overhaul, but couldn't find out where the original mistake had come from, or why it had gained so much traction. Most of the major sources (main biographies, DNB, etc,) and now us, all show the date on the birth certificate as being the correct one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks for the clarification. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A connected query is: why is there a picture of a blue plaque on the main page, rather than a picture of Hattie herself? I'm assuming it's a very deliberate choice? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes: there is no free use image that we came across of the lady herself, so both images of her are non-free. The plaque is free, so we're able to drop it onto the front page. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello PaleCloudedWhite, yes it's not ideal, but as SchroCat says above this would be infringement. Copyright laws are the most annoying thing on WP (together with infobox discussions) -- Cassianto^Talk 12:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The blue plaque was better than nothing. Why was it removed?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: That comment by User:Crisco 1492 in the edit summary of removal says that since the date of birth on the plaque is wrong we dont want it. Beerest 2 talk 14:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not that we don't want it, but that it was causing undue confusion on the MP. Never touched it in this article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Somebody should contact the local government and inform them of the silly error!♦ Dr. Blofeld

A couple of days late for the MP, I took a photo of the Sandgate plaque this morning. Edgepedia (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you! Schro, I think this might work well in place of the old blue plaque image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Loving it! Huge thanks @Edgepedia:! I've dropped two of your images at the top (removing a slightly pointless image of her school), and taken out the wrongly dated plaque lower down, leaving just the picture of her house. Cheers to you both! - SchroCat (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• Much, much better! Thanks guys!  :) Cassianto^Talk 10:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the article! The house is only ten minutes away from where I live and I'll see if I can get a better photo in a month or two, without the sun. Edgepedia (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Smoking

Jacques told an interviewer she smoked more than 60 cigarettes a day. This needs to be mentioned in the article as it was the main cause of her early death, much more than her obesity. (86.133.84.12 (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC))

No it doesn't. She may have also liked the odd pie, shall we mention that as a factor in her obesity? Cassianto^Talk 12:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The biography I read stated her doctor's opinion that smoking that heavily was by far the main cause of her death, not overeating. (86.133.84.12 (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC))

Personally I'd go with the odd pie. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

IP, Per WP:BRD the extant version remains until the consensus firms up. As such, stop edit warring before a report is filed, for which you could face sanctions. – SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned as her death was obviously the combination of obesity and heavy smoking. (86.133.84.12 (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC))

You have been reported for edit warring on this article. – SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It is very likely her breathing problems were actually caused by emphysema resulting from more than forty years of smoking. (86.133.84.12 (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC))