Talk:Preston (singer)

The Ordinary Boys

have added some info on them. didnt know much, so its kind of a reworded version of the original ordinary boys article. LiAm McShAnE 16:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Pink oboe

Preston does play the trumpet and the oboe in the album brassbound, it's in the sleevenotes. I'm not sure how to reference sleeve notes. The oboe is probably not pink, that was a typo on my part.

Well I'll trust you on that, but you do know what "pink oboe" means don't you? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of pink oboes before but there doesn't seem to be an article on wikipedia or indeed any articles on pink oboists so I can't be sure.

Well playing the pink oboe (or similar) is a slang term for fellatio so you can understand why I reverted you. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My goodness, such a talented musician as Preston would have no trouble picking it up I'm sureHermanzegerman 15:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes

I've been out of the UK for two years and have no idea who this person is. I would like to say, though, that I agree with the majority of the writings above. Sachabrunel 20:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Two years? Don't even bother trying. I've been LIVING here all this time and I haven't the foggiest who this guy is, other than he might be somehow romantically involved with Jordan (who I could also care less about). Though maybe that was someone else. Guess it doesn't help that I couldn't give a toss for Big Bro. Can't see why he warrants inclusion in an encyclopaedia - is there some WP spinoff that works sort of like Who's Who but with a bigger complement of personalities? -- tahrey 22/4/07

edit: have read the actual article. seems he's in the ordinary boys, who i best remember for being subjected to a "mash up" of one of their songs with "Baggy Trousers" by madness, and you really can't see the join... yawn. PS is the sidebar SUPPOSED to say they're a "scat pop" (!!) band, or is this just vandalism???

Earl Grey

There is no TalkPage Comment, only one from YOU Flozu. Pages often contain info about person's background (from Brad Pitt; "is of English ancestry") or famous relations (Laila Morse; "sister of actor Gary Oldman". I really don't see your problem, its referenced, interesting, and was widely reported at the time. What have you got against the fact? --UpDown 18:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually there are a lot of comments above about how the article should focus on Preston's music career and his Big Brother noteworthiness. But my main objection is that it goes against some of the core Wikipedia policies. Please see Wikipedia:Five pillars, which states: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs.... Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher". I think its pretty clear that this kind of information belongs elsewhere - a fan site perhaps. Flozu 18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No I disagree. All biographies also contain what might be classed as "trivia", as shown by the Brad Pitt and Laila Morse links. Background information is important, and this is just that. I'm really failing to see why you object so much, its not link I'm putting in a trivia section, I'm incorportating this within the background paragraph. --UpDown 08:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I care so much about this, because incorporating irrelevant trivia into articles cheapens the whole project. Its a really important principle. Have you read the Five Pillars of Wikipedia? Can you, hand on heart, really say that this kind of stuff belongs in an encyclopaedia article? Can you imagine Encyclopaedia Britannica or the Dictionary of National Biography including this kind of trivial detail? Citing other articles which ignore core Wiki policies is not really a defence. Please can you help the project by keeping the information concise and relevant, as I'm sure you have much that's useful to contribute. Thanks, :) Flozu 11:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I can say it's as relevant as what school he went to, or Brad Pitt's ancestry. Background sections often include famous family links or heritage (ie John Inman being Josephine Tewson's cousin; Clive Dunn being Gretchen Franklin's cousin), and I really can't see the problem here. One simply line stating his descent from a Prime Minsiter (like a similar line on Helena Bonham Carter's page regarding Asquith) does not harm as certainly does not "cheapen" the project. What does that is remove perfectly legitimate information because you don't like it. --UpDown 15:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's not that I don't like the connection to Earl Grey (which as far as I am concerned is completely harmless, and no doubt of interest to a few people), its that its inclusion here, along with the amazingly irrelevant fact that Preston stormed out of a tv show, seems to contradict Wikipedia policies and guidelines on trivia.

1. You need to persuade editors that these facts are not trivial... but preferrably not just by citing yet more examples of articles which have got away with dodgy content.
2. We are dealing with a relation 7 or 8 generations away - not a close relation as in most of your examples. Grey had 13 children, most of whom themselves had large families. He probably gave rise to between 50,000 and 100,000 direct descendants, dozens of whom have Wikipedia entries. Clearly it would be mad to include a mention of him in all of their articles.
3. By extension - Preston (through Grey & his wife) is presumeably descended from a large number of famous characters - William the Conqueror and the prophet Mohammed to name but two. Yet again, it would make a nonsense of the article to include all of them. Can you imagine Prince William's entry if it was considered appropriate to mention the thousands of his direct ancestors who are well-known?
4. Everyone would agree that Preston's education belongs in a biography of him. It is part of his life story and helped make him who he is. The comparison with family history trivia is specious.
5. The real problem with this article - as endorsed by most of the editors above - is that there is very little to say about Preston that is relevant to Wikipedia. Let's just accept that and move on. Flozu 17:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I still disagree. You admit yourself it is of "interest" to some people, and Enyclopedias are meant to be interesting. Anyhow, you clearly feel very strongly about this, and unless other people intervene I will leave the article as it currently is; lacking relevant and interesting information because you don't like it. --UpDown 18:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

'Too much small talk leads to a small mind'

Redirect

Shouldn't Samuel Preston goto the american civil war guy first? surely he's more notable. He was notable enough to have six navy ships named after him. whereas this Preston is mainly famous for being a bit of a burk on a gameshow once. Elmo 02:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

- Chronologically, and in terms of long-term importance, I would agree: definitely. However, the die-hard Preston fan who keeps trying to hijack this article would probably disagree!

Firstly, please sign your comments. And actually I would agree. I am not a Preston fan, I just want the article to be neutral, and not totally anti-Preston like many other wants. --UpDown 12:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, this now reads like a fanzine

This entry could have been written by Preston himself, or his PR people. He storms out of a TV studio in a huff and almost in tears, much to the amusement of the audience, in a clip that has become a comedy classic... but here on Wiki a Preston fan who admits NEVER TO HAVE SEEN THE CLIP rewrites history and manages to make Preston seem like a cross between Saint Bob Geldoff and Amir Khan.

That a young (I presume teenage? UpDown, I mean no offence, I just assume you are relatively young judging by your work on here) fan should do this is understandable, but to have a member of the Admin team then lock the article with this (well meaning) kind of POV vandalism masquerading as "nuetrality" is very disappointing indeed.

As for the accusations of "anonymous users" - well, quite frankly, UpDown or Alphachimp means no more to us that an IP number or an unsigned comment. I would rather see correct data from anonymous users than biased POV fan literature from "known" users anyday. 84.9.253.132 08:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC) CHARLES GREENE, GLASGOW

Interesting, someone's whose main work is on Upstairs, Downstairs must be young, I wonder how you come to that conclusion? I am not a Preston fan, I only watched this page after an argument with Flozu on whether a comment about Earl Grey was relevant. And if you really believe this reads like a "fanzine" then I feel sorry for you; it reads like a neutral encylopedia. If people want to make their own decisions then they can do that, but it should not be reflected here. --UpDown 10:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm... my assumption was based on your style of writing, your over-eagerness to hijack an article, your willingness to instigate a reversion war with another overkeen user, and your obvious bias in trying to spin this article so that Preston comes out of it looking like a tough gentleman despite your admission that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the Buzzcocks incident.

However, what really marks you out as dreadfully immature is your use of the phrase "I feel sorry for you..." when someone has a different point of view. This emotive, irrational type of language is what children use in teen chatrooms. Like "get a life" or "you're worse than Hitler", it's one of those silly, baseless terms of childish abuse which say more about the writer than the written about. You ought not to get so personal, r so emotionally involved. to be honest, I have no real issue with you at all UpDown; I think you are indeed a Preston fan (though ashamed to admit it) and have reworked this article in a biased way. What is deplorable, however, is that a member of the Admin team has locked the article whilst it was still under your biased editing, and I think that this reflects very poorly on Wikipedia. We live in a celebrity obsessed age, and I'm afraid that people like you, and all the trivia that comes with you, are the future on here. No disrespect to you as a person at all, but I'm very disappointed in Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia, not an online fanzine... and this kind of rubbish is what all those MySpace profiles are for. Just my opinion, but there you go.

There seems little point in insisting I am not a Preston fan, as you seem unwilling to listen. I have no feelings on him whatsoever. And I feel sorry for you because you cannot see what a neutral article is meant to be like, phrases like "in a huff" are the sort you would find on a biased chatroom. An encycopleida firstly wouldn't even mention this incident, and secondly would do so in the way we have. I am amazed that you fail to see you are trying to push you POV. --UpDown 11:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, UpDown, let us agree to agree on this one point (and end the discussion cordially!): that the Buzzcocks incident should be removed altogether when the article is unlocked. Is that fair? And I would also suggest that Samuel Preston, the Civil War character who seems to have made a bigger mark on history than someone who came in fourth on Celebrity Big Brother, gets top billing and users are redirected to this rather Ordinary Boy if they so wish.

My final comment then; The incident hasn't been removed, merely merged with an above section, as I (and Flozu) don't feel it warrants its own section. Its really very trivial. Secondly, I agree "Samuel Preston" should redirect to the general not the singer. --UpDown 12:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As we all agree (remarkably) that this incident should be removed, we can end the matter here. Happy editing all. Flozu 13:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And as the man simply known as "82.12.116.232" (though my friends call me 82), can I just add that I, too, agree with the outcome. Yes, you read that right. So Flozu, UpDown and that other fellow, no more quibbles from me. As for anyone who does ever want to see Preston making a fool of himself on Buzzcocks, you'll find it easily enough on YouTube.... Cheers.

Preston himself talked openly to media (BBC Radio 1 Newsbeat, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6251913.stm) about the incident. That, and the fact that it is probably among the top 5 things about this fellow, should in my opinion warrant it's inclusion, or at least a mention and reference. Thoughts? Mihtjel 18:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact he discussed it with the media is irrelevant. And just because the article is a stub that is no reason to mean that trivial incidents become notable and worthy of inclusion.--UpDown 10:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Lament for the integrity of Wikipedia

i've been engaged in a similar task to the people on here by trying to have the page on totally un-noteworthy 'comedian'Dave Bishop at the very least altered to reflect some sense of reality. The guy writes his own wiki page and fills it with unsubstantiated facts and yet i've been accused of vandalism for pointing this out. Poor show.

'Too much small talk leads to a small mind' Samuel Preston.

Not noteworthy

I'm sorry, but the fact that there's already an article on The Ordinary Boys, 'Too much small talk leads to a small mind' Samuel Preston. --77.249.207.50 (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Samuel Preston (singer) → Samuel Preston

There are four other Samuel Prestons, three of which have a middle name initial to distinguish them. The other one is a guy who was the mayor of Philadelphia almost 300 years ago. I doubt there are as many people are looking for him as there are looking for Preston. Or perhaps he should just be "Preston (singer)", since people only call him Preston? Unreal7 (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – One principle here is WP:RECENTISM (assuming that he is currently more popular than the other Samuel Prestons, which actually doesn't seem clear to me). Fame can be fleeting, especially in the world of popular music. Also, I believe Wikipedia generally does not try to depend very substantially on middle initials for disambiguation. Often people don't even know the middle initials of the person they are looking for. I have no objection to moving the article to "Preston (singer)", since that is already a redirect to Samuel Preston (singer), but I really don't know whether that is the name that is primarily used to refer to him. –BarrelProof (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that is what everyone usually calls him. It was made clear in Celebrity Big Brother 4. Unreal7 (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, absent evidence of primacy per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Re Preston (singer), note WP:NCP on single names: avoid using last name only. ENeville (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Preston (singer). 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/20131111171450/http://www.faber.co.uk/content/alex-preston-qanda to http://www.faber.co.uk/content/alex-preston-qanda

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)