Talk:The Benny Hill Show/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Cancellation

Another anon. editor has removed the fact that in 1979 at Hills peak there were only three TV stations in the UK, but by 1989 there were many others due to Channel 4 coming along in the early 1980s and then Sky Television. These are facts and can be seen in the articiles about UK Channel 4, and Sky on Wikipedia itself and countless books about TV history. I assume the editor removed the information in good faith. However, any further removal of such information can only be seen as them wanting to continue the myth that Hill was cancelled because he had no one watching his show. For the record, his show was attracting over 9.5 million in 1989, more than some of the top comedians of the day such as Jasper Carrott, who continued to appear on TV well into the 1990s. 92.1.180.141 (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again this factual information was removed and subsequently restored 03:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.235.246 (talk)

Again it has been removed. I am now going to be watching this page several times a day 13:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.236.71 (talk)

Well, actually, you know, it could just be that the editor(s) who'd like to alter it think it's a bit too long, wordy and overly detailed for the context in the article. I agree it's a fact, and it deserves a mention, but quite possibly it could be stated a lot more succinctly - for instance, something along the lines of

although it should be noted that 1989 and 1979 viewing ratings are not directly comparable due to audience shifts and new TV stations in the UK

might be quite sufficient in my opinion. There's no denying that the content is factual - the question is, do we need all of the details, and station names just to point out that the ratings are not necessarily comparable. Personally, I feel a more concise version would strike a nice balance, without a potted history of UK channel names/providers. Also, I'd point out that you really shouldn't assign motives to other editors, or state what "further removals" will be "seen as". I'm not going to alter the content, but I do think you should consider these points. I also think you might try and post in a little more collegial manner in future. Just my 2 cents...  Begoon•talk 14:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree it could be "less wordy" but the claim "do we really need all the details" is highly comical. We could say that about everything, then every article on Wikipedia could me condensed to a maximum of two paragraphs.

You telling me to "post a little more collegial" is no different than me assigning motives to other editors. This is done thousands of times every day on Wikipedia. Everytime someone is blocked for vandalism, motives are being assigned! Just my 2 cents! 92.10.114.178 (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Since you agree it could be less wordy, will you condense it, or would you like someone else to? Glad too that you found my suggestion comical - if I can bring some amusement on my way through life then it's not all been in vain. Incidentally, I revert a fair bit of vandalism, and I'd like to think I never let my view of an editor's motive influence me when I do so. I genuinely try to base my decisions on the content that has been added, not "why" it was added. Not always easy, granted, but at least if I try to approach it that way there's a chance I'll succeed. Anyway, it's really not something I want to fall out over - so I'll leave it there.  Begoon•talk 09:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we'll be falling out anytime soon. You may also like to take into account that I stated that any future edits of such a nature should be treated as such, thus given the editor a warning and reason why such edits should be reverted. Anyway, I will condense down the paragraph. Best regards 10:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.218.159 (talk)

Again the factual content has been removed, so this edit was reverted by me, as it will continue to be 16:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.155.48 (talk)

Since you now have an account, and thus will not be affected, I have requested semi-protection of the page here: link, because it is getting rather annoying, now...  Begoon•talk 14:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

I have removed the trivia section. For the record, here are the two things which were in it:

Trivia In the 2006 Family Guy episode titled Stewie B. Goode, after Stewie takes a drink, he announces that it's time to have a "sexy party", at which time a throng of scantily clad women parade across the screen, Stewie chasing them in a parody of Hill's own lascivious skirt-chasing antics. In the 2003 Clone High episode titled "A Room of One's Clone: The Pie of the Storm", a pillow fight between Cleopatra and Joan of Arc, upon being observed by Mahatma Gandhi and John F. Kennedy, devolves into a multi-minute Benny Hill-style chase scene to unify the episode's two plotlines by leading the adolescent clones into gatecrashing a classy party hosted in a pie factory.

Personally, I find neither of particularly interesting. It may be worth listing these is some form of "Hill's legacy" section at some point in the future, but there are so many references to Hill's work (for example, also in The Simpsons, or othere episodes of Family Guy) that I don't see why those two stand out--TimothyJacobson (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you've lost me a bit, here.

• If they might be worth listing in the future, why are they not worth listing now?
• Why does the fact that there are lots of references that might be as relevant or better justify removing all of them?

I'm not saying I disagree with removing them - just that I don't understand your logic. The feeling I get is that this might have been done not because the content was unjustified, but because of a wish to "remove stuff" to comply with a tag, when the thing to remove was probably the tag. Sorry if you think this is "picky" in any way, it's only my opinion. I don't think we should make mass changes to articles to comply with subjective tagging without first deciding whether the tag is actually justified. My apologies if the tagging had nothing to do with this - but in that case I still don't quite follow the logic.  -  Begoon (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

With regards to "If they might be worth listing in the future, why are they not worth listing now", that is a fair point. What I had meant was that it might be worth doing, but shouldn't be seen as a priority--TimothyJacobson (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok, that makes a bit more sense. It would probably have been my feeling though, that if it wasn't a priority, it was better to leave them in until such time as they could be edited or replaced with the superior ones which you discussed. No big thing, though - just trying to understand the reasoning behind it. Thanks for taking the time to answer, and thanks again for all your excellent work on the article  -  Begoon (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly Overdetailed and a Fansite

I don't talk here often, but here goes:

There are too many guest names in this article, almost none of them notable enough to be mentioned, and I cannot identify whom to keep referencing. The introduction may need a rewrite because I thought it looked too ridiculous, even with good information, but I don't know how ridiculous, unless it looks fine for many. Also, it needs more citations, but I cannot tag too many inline citations. Also, too many possibly unrelated references, including blue links from "Style" section, unless they are fine enough. --Gh87 (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Twelve names is not too many guest stars. They all have articles here which would indicate notability, and guest star sections are perfectly acceptable in this context. If the section had two hundred names, I could see a problem. Same goes with the musical guest section. As for the need for citations, the great big tag at the top already indicates that more citations are needed - that's already covered. I asked you what specific content sounds like a fansite and is overdetailed. The article is about the show and there's going to be somewhat detailed content that pertains to the show (ie style, what notable sketches were included, etc.). If you feel like there's too many examples of what was on the show - remove it. Unless I'm missing something, you're also capable of editing the article so you could actually be helping to fix things instead just adding tags and claiming that what was done isn't good enough. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed list of guests and left out one sentence regarding guests and one example. --Gh87 (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I feel that was a poor edit. I'm no TV expert, but I recognise almost every name in those lists - I would certainly call them notable. You've left in one name - the Springfields - why? Because it was the only one you'd personally heard of? You also left references in the following text to items you've removed - " two of these former guests — Eddington and Wilcox " - which is meaningless without the removed material. Given that this discussion was ongoing, and that one editor had already said he disagreed with the removal - I'm going to replace the material until it's agreed whether or not it should be removed, and if so, how to do so properly. I've introduced some columns to prevent the lists from appearing too long in terms of page length.  -  Begoon (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only section that still resembles a fansite is the "Show Format" section. I don't feel qualified enough (on Hill) to cut this as mercilessly as I believe necessary. I also feel that several times there are sentences saying about the techniques Hill used. I am not sure, but I would guess these were techniques used by the camera crew and diretcors, rather than Hill himself--TimothyJacobson (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that section is basically ok as it is. Perhaps the last paragraph is more relevant to Benny Hill than this particular article. If much more material is cut from this article it'll be heading towards being a stub. 1951-1991 (40 years) is a pretty long run and deserves some detail in the article. The rewrites have certainly improved the article, and possibly this section would benefit from one too - but I think the whole "need to cut" stems from some overzealous tagging in the first place. (Hill was, I believe, central to production decisions in the show - so saying "Hill used...xxx" seems fine to me.)  -  Begoon (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree fully with Begoon, and also agree with the removal of the wholly unneeded tags repeatedly placed on the article. TimothyJacobson did a fabulous job of reorganizing the article and should be commended for doing so. I took a stab at it but as a non-fan, I was wary of removing too much and like it or not, there are going to be details about the show in an article about the show. If there are perceived additional problems, they should be discussed here in lieu of slapping on several different maintenance tags and leaving others to fix the supposed problem(s). Pinkadelica^♣ 17:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree Timothy has done a great revamp - it's outstanding (I edited my advice below on the lead section, because I realised I probably hadn't stressed that enough.) With regard to tagging - I'm personally pretty fond of this one:

courtesy of User:HJ Mitchell's user page... It kind of says it all for me. If I knew more about the subject matter here I would have tried to do more - I hope I've helped in some small way - that's what I aim for. And ermm, yes - " there are going to be details about the show in an article about the show." is really the point, I think :-)  -  Begoon (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha! That tag sums up some editors tagging practices perfectly. I need to start slapping it on the talk pages of users who do that kind of drive-by tagging. I do believe you've been a help in this debacle as evidenced by my edit summary. Not as articulate as my "there are going to be details about the show in an article about the show" comment, but I digress. :) Pinkadelica^♣ 17:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - I genuinely loved the comment, by the way - it's sometimes too easy to forget what an article is about in efforts to make it compliant and correct. Drive-by tagging the drive-by taggers is tempting, I admit - I've been tempted myself - but I recommend against it really - better to demonstrate the right way of doing things - once in a while the message gets heard :-)  -  Begoon (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)