Talk:George Robey

Picture

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))

Images

Ssilvers, maybe there are a few too many images here. Which shall I delete? I'm kinda going with the stamps. Cassianto^talk 20:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

So Reinhardt and Grenfell for the chop then? Cassianto^talk 20:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

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. Cassianto^talk 22:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Great Idea! I shall go and ponder. Cassianto^talk 21:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"Shakespearean" roles

In US English, we would say "Shakespeare role" and "Shakespeare play". Can you check with one of your Queen's English experts on whether you need the ean or ian ending in UK English? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Tim could you enlighten us? Cassianto^talk 19:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The US version, "Shakespeare role" would, IMO, be neither wrong nor unidiomatic in British usage, but I think in these islands "Shakespearian role" would be quite a bit more usual. "Shakespearean" is also fine according to the OED, though I think "—ian" is more often used. But if I am correct in my view that "Shakespeare role" is good BrEng, and "Shakespearian/Shakespearean role" looks odd to American readers I might be inclined to go for the shorter version. Your call, naturally, Cassianto, and you are in the comfortable position that you won't be wrong whichever way you choose. Worth asking one or two other editors, perhaps. Tim riley (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that both are OK in BrEng, but I'd be much more inclined to use the ~ian version: the shortened version just feels wrong to my untutored mind! - SchroCat (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I made my first step in Shakespearian rep

Where an awful old ham used to train us;

I'd nothing to do in the Dream and the Shrew,

But I carried a spear in King John and King Lear,

And a hatchet in Coriolanus.

(Noël Coward). Wholly irrelevant, but it keeps coming to mind and I thought I'd share it. Tim riley (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, reminds me of school, very appropriate.

I'd go for Shakespearian role as suitably formal, and a more common ending and hence spelling, though -ean is fine (but Shakespeare play, of course). Rothorpe (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

...Incidentally, I notice that someone has changed the British 'learnt' to American 'learned'. As a long-term expat, may I ask if the -t form is becoming archaic? Rothorpe (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hear, hear!, though in parallel "earn" doesn't look well when adjectivised as "earnt" (the OED will have none of that, though all for "learnt"); let us keep a rearguard action going. Tim riley (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Spelt and spilt and spoilt... Rothorpe (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Robey's style

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)

Would this information be best suited to the lede? Cassianto^talk 20:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

James Harding

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)

Now linked. Yes this was the same person. Cassianto^talk 20:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, looks good. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Films

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)

How about this? Cassianto^talk 18:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks good! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

First world war

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)

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? Cassianto^talk 10:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

Early life

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)

Shakespearean roles

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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:George Robey/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs general expansion ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Now expanded. I revised the assessment to B-class, but it is probably GA-class now, headed for FA. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 16:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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) 14:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The Pub

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, "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes" and "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle". I would also point out:

1. that public house was named after Robey is not "trivia"
2. that the pub was demolished around half a century later does not diminish the act of naming it after him
3. 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: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.".
4. that we do not require citations for coordinates, which can be verified by consulting any suitable map
5. "a knighthood" is ambiguous; Robey was made a "knight bachelor" and we should say so (a "mystery meat" link does not suffice)
6. 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)

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)

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)

So high-profile that it was demolished. It wasn't even a listed building from what I can see. Cassianto^Talk 21:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

Can we see the sources stating that it was a prominent, important venue? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You are right that it states "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes", and if I had been guilty of that, then you would have been right to pick me up on it. Sadly I see you are again ignoring AGF by claiming I reverted only because I didn't like the changes. That's obviously horseshit, as I gave very valid reasons in my edit summary. If you try to add unsourced information into any article, you should be aware that someone may revert it. You need to read and understand WP:BURDEN before you try that sort of nonsense again. And after you were reverted for the first time, with a very valid reason shown in the edit summary, then that's the point that you should either find a source or use the talk page. The fact that you did neither but just edit warred speaks more about your approach to "collegiate" editing than anything else. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Mabbett, you really must learn not to edit war on this. Once is enough, but twice just makes you look idiotic. With regards to "For The George Roby pub, see..." it's a building, and not a very notable one at that. We'd better link "The Admiral Duncan pub in London to Adam Duncan, 1st Viscount Duncan and The Dick Turpin pub in Brentwood, Essex to Dick Turpin then. Cassianto^Talk 16:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Radio debut

I am aware that the the 1956 biography by Wilson on p.158 states that George Robey made his radio debut in 1936 but this is demonstrably incorrect and a look though the Radio Times (or a search of the BBC Genome project) or a search of the British Newspaper Archive would prove this. I'm not going to change the entry again but maybe someone with an interest in Robey could fix this. Hazel75 (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

What makes you think the Radio Times is any more reliable than an established, notable author? Cassianto^Talk 13:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Even notable authors can make mistakes. I'm not sure I understand what your issue is with the Radio Times (once called ‘The official organ of the B.B.C.) but if you prefer newspapers then I can find references to forthcoming radio appearances: Liverpool Echo (Friday 15 March 1935 'George Robey gives by radio his now famous Falstaff role...in the London theatre relay at 7.30') and the Western Morning News (Saturday 07 April 1928 ‘George Robey is going to the studio at 2LO this evening…’). Obviously, stating that somebody is going to be on the radio is not the same as them actually being on the radio but further research throws up the following: Ballymena Observer (Friday 18 December 1925 ‘Mr. George Robey’s recent broadcast confirms…’) and The Devon and Exeter Gazette (Wednesday 02 April 1930 Mr. George Robey made a rare appearance before a microphone during the weekend when he talked for three minutes at the Ideal Homes Exhibition, London…’).Hazel75 (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course authors can be wrong, and so can the RT. My opinions of the BBC aside, and I have many (nearly all of them negative), if you can find and supply two reliable sources, then two trumps one, and I think at the very least we can add a footnote saying the author claims it to be his debut. Cassianto^Talk 18:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Hazel. This was clearly not his radio debut, given the multiple news notices about earlier appearances, and I think Hazel's suggested fix is a good one. User:Cassianto, I suggest that we use Hazel's suggested heading and changes. You don't need to give additional refs/footnotes just to remove an obvious error. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

"Earlier appearances" on radio? If so, I agree, so long as a reliable source is used to back that up. I'm sorry if what I've said above is not very clear. We wouldn't be having this conversation if Hazel's edit had've come with a source or two. Cassianto^Talk 19:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Sticking my oar in: The Radio Times could conceivably have advertised in advance an appearance by Robey that didn't in fact materialise, but it is unimaginable that the seven or so broadcasts listed before 1936 all failed to occur. I really think Wilson's statement is, as Hazel75 says, demonstrably incorrect. A footnote mentioning Wilson's statement would be a good idea though: I think it important to point out incorrect or disputed statements made by an eminent source rather than just ignore them, because later editors might read that source and try to add the incorrect info to our article. I've just added such a pre-emptive footnote myself here in my current WP project.

And if a second source is wanted, examples from The Times:

• Mr. George Robey will contribute to a programme on Sunday night which will be broadcast from Birmingham to all stations. (20 November 1925, p. 20)
• At 11 p.m. Mr. George Robey will broadcast some songs from Newcastle to all stations, including London. (5 December 1925, p. 22) – Tim riley talk 13:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Afterthought: I wonder if Wilson (whom I haven't read) was muddling radio and television? Robey appeared as himself on TV in 1937 and made his first "in character" telecasts in 1938: see here. – Tim riley talk 14:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. I've made a change that I hope will be acceptable to Cassianto, citing the first appearance per The Times. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• George Robey and family, 1903.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)