Talk:George Formby

From Wigan?

George Formby was born in Wigan. He left Wigan at an early age and spent the rest of his life 'elsewhere'. However, he is still regarded as being 'from Wigan'. Dave Whelan was born in Bradford. He left Bradford at an early age and spent the rest of his life 'elsewhere'. However, he is regarded as being 'from Wigan'. Why not Bradford? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.94.142 (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

All the sources say Formby was from Wigan, so we show that. - SchroCat (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Your question belongs at Talk:Dave Whelan? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Memorabilia discovery

It may not be "Legacy", but just for the record.... In March 2018 a haul of unseen Formby memorabilia was discovered in an old filing cabinet during an office clearance in Preston. The case contained many photographs of Formby, as well as Beryl Ingham's passports and diaries belonging to Pat Howson. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Which songs from which films?

Could there be a filmography? I've been trying to trace 'Hi Tiddly Eye-tie Island', but I can't trace it. Valetude (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Discography

This page has an intense focus on films and an astonishing lack of talk about his vinyl records. Surely, what brought him to mind most frequently was hearing him sing on the radio; almost every day. Can we start by adding this to External links?

• George Formby Discography

or link to a better discography if anyone spots one. Kildwyke (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Additional Influences/ Legacies?

I shall leave the level of importance or need for inclusion to the page manager.

On the television program “Alexei Sayle’s Stuff” , actor Mark Williams portrays George Formby in a “lost” Ealing comedy. He - George - is cast as Albert Einstein, and with banjolele in hand, performs the equally “lost” song, “E = MC2”. ( This was in either Series 1 or 2.)

Also, following suit to their Beatles counterparts, The Rutles recorded the ukulele based, Neil Innes penned, “My Little Ukelele”.( On their “Archeology” album.)

Additionally, British comedian / musician, Frank Sidebottom, was quite possibly inspired by George Formby. 75.106.32.81 (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox addition based on 2022 discussion

An invisible comment reads "There is a consensus not to have an infobox on this page," but this does not seem to be correct:

The comment refers to 2022 discussion. However, here are the results of the discussion:

• Nikkimaria - against
• Humbledaisy - for
• 91.85.196.221 - for
• 65.93.213.29 - for
• Ghmyrtle - for
• Vesuvio14 - for
• Hlliwmai - for
• RCLeacar - for

Therefore, reading the discussion, there is quite a clear motion that an infobox is a necessary addition to the article.

Keeping the results of this in mind, I will be adding an infobox to the article. The Fonz (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Removed. Consensus is not gained by vote counting. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Was an RFC ever held on the topic-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't see any in the archive, just the discussions about it Shaws username . talk . 17:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There have only ever been discussions. One about ten years ago and then one in 2022 when no-one could answer Nikkimaria's question. The vote counting is, obviously, not a way consensus is settled (per Wikipedia:NOTDEMOCRACY) and is a red herring. - SchroCat (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus does not have to be unanimous. Was the opinion by Nikkimaria so valid that it outweighed (not best choice of word) the others? David notMD (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I would expect a long article (this one) that is a Featured article (this one) justifies an Infobox. David notMD (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Why would you expect it? This went through both PR and FAC ten years ago without a box. It has remained without one peacefully so, even when the article ran as TFA, until the recent disruption. Since it became an FA around 1.5 million people have visited the page (that’s about 15,000 readers a month); how many of them have complained about the lack of an IB? - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I would not add an infobox to this article -- the excellent Lead section covers the key facts about this person. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Disclosure: I'm here from the teahouse discussion opened by Evedawn99 (aka The Fonz); I have no previous involvement with the George Formby article.

I don't disagree that the lead section covers many key facts about the subject, but just based on Formby's Wikidata listing, there do seem to be a number of additional pieces of information that an {{Infobox person}} could quickly summarize. Including:

• Formby was male (arguably hinted at in the lead paragraph, with — emphasis added — On stage, screen and record he sang...).
• Formby's died of natural causes, a myocardial infarction
• There is an "official" website dedicated to Formby at https://www.georgeformby.co.uk/
• Formby was awarded an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (covered in the lead sentence, but not explicitly, and insanely easy to overlook if you happen to miss the "OBE" after his name — I did, three times, and since my powers of observation are not generally derided as exceptionally lacking, I have to assume others may as well)

Other information is found in the lead section (though not the lead paragraph), but requires somewhat careful reading of the prose to pick out, including:

• Formby's wife was named Beryl
• Formby died in Preston, Lancashire
• Formby was buried in Cheshire (the prose says "Warrington", which those of us outside the UK will hopefully be forgiven for not recognizing as a suburb of Cheshire)
• and so on

It's also worth pointing out that the article did have an infobox from 2007 all the way to 2014; it was only removed as an "experiment" by @SchroCat shortly before the FA nomination; after a brief two week run (and, it must be acknowledged, universally positive response on the Talk page, at the time) the experiment was declared a success. The timing and process could lead one to wonder if the infobox removal wasn't done specifically to cement the article's FA status without an infobox, so its FA-ness could then be wielded as protection against ever adding one back in. I won't claim that was the intent in removing it; I don't need to, as the result (FA status being deployed as an anti-infobox shield) has already been demonstrated here.

Ultimately, having an infobox to complement the lead provides a quick, at-a-glance rundown of key facts. In terms what SchroCat referred to earlier as "Nikkimaria's question" (which was never asked; Nikkimaria only made assertions in that discussion, and never asked a single question, but we can assume it's the standard "how would the article benefit from an infobox?" challenge): There's my answer. It's admittedly not very exciting, since it's the same reasoning generally used for any infobox on any article.

Nobody's disagreeing that the information is, for the most part, already to be found in the lead section. But I hope, in similar fashion, that nobody is claiming Wikipedia readers always do, or always must, completely read through an article's lead section to obtain any information about the subject. In terms of the 2022 discussion, Ghmyrtle's comment seems equally relevant, when they characterized the anti-infobox sentiment thusly: some editors think that readers should be compelled to read their deathless prose, rather than being given basic information in a clear way. FeRDNYC (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

"Eh, talk page has turned out nice again, ain't it." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle's mischaracterisation is as uncivil a slur on the writing as I would expect from an IB discussion. The fact you find it suitable to repeat such piffle is not great support for anything of standard. I also refute your rather inept suggestion that I removed the box to use an FA status as protection is contemptable drivel. Maybe you should have stuck to arguing the merits of the box rather than attempt to demean editors about whose thoughts and actions you obviously know less than zero. Why do people think it appropriate to attack other editors just because they hold a flexible viewpoint about a box on a website? I just don't understand why the lies and aggression.

In terms of the possible inclusion of an IB, there is no need. The "key points" on Formby are in the lead sentence. Most of your suggested additions go against the MOS and wouldn't bear repeating except as excessive bloat. "Formby was male"? Not a field in any IB; his death? Burial location? Utter trivia; website? cause of death? Not per the MOS. And his OBE is the third ‘word’ of the article! Sure, there's lots of trivial nonsense that could be used to populate the site, but no reason why. 1.5 million people have visited the page (that’s about 15,000 readers a month) how many have asked for an IB?; it seems that only people seeing the discussion from another forum (and with limited to zero knowledge of the subject) are trying to force the issue, despite no demonstration of why it is beneficial to the article. - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)