Talk:Tommy Handley

Untitled

I have a painting - oil on canvas dated 1966 by an artist Irene Higgins of St. Agnes College, Liverpool. Based on the phtograph of Tommy where he holds a tea cup (his arms are folded in the portrait). Size 76x62cm. Does anyone have info on the painting or artist. I discovered it in an unused room at my plase of work, The Royal Court Theatre, liverpool. I am interested in getting info on the painting and artist. anyone with info can contact me at kev.gannon@blueyonder.co.uk - I will be happy to forward a photo of the painting to anyne interested. Kevin, Toxteth, Liverpool

Catchphrase section

After saving this comment, I will save an update to this article, comprising the addition of a section on catchphrases arising from, and associated with, ITMA. I know a couple of these catchphrases off-by-heart, having been exposed to ITMA and a range of other radio comedy as a child. I have noticed that the origin of one or two catchphrases which linger on in the lexicon have been forgotten, or attributed to later productions. However, before I can make a constructive edit regarding those (or one in particular), it was necessary for me to update this article. And of course regardless of the reliability of my memory, such an update requires verifiable references, which I have now provided. Wotnow (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The catchphrase list doesn't belong here, but in the ITMA article, which already has an inferior and unreferenced one. Perhaps you could transfer and combine? Rothorpe (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I shoulda thunka dat, if only I'd spotted that an ITMA article existed. Guess I forgot the diver. Leave it with me please, and I'll sort it soon. Wotnow (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

After saving this, I will save my self-correction to the Tommy Handley article, having updated the ITMA article. Wotnow (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverted edit on 21 July 2022

Earlier I had an edit I made reverted for being "strange". The edit in question was adding Handley's wife to the infobox (a common instance on Wikipedia) and putting quote marks around a quote by a member of the Royal Family (also a very common instance on Wikipedia). Can someone please explain how this constitutes a "strange" edit? Samuel J Walker (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Info-boxes are supposed to summarise key points. Mrs Handley's name is not one of the reasons why people will be visiting the article.

I'd also call strange these unexplained alterations

• Handley died suddenly in 1949, and ITMA died with him -> Handley died suddenly in 1949, and ITMA was immediately cancelled. Why change the graphic phrase of the sources into a dull statement?
• The inexplicable removal of a semicolon – because, I assume, you personally prefer to have a period.
• Putting oratio obliqua into quotation marks – best avoided where possible. (Your statement that it was a member of the royal family who said it is wholly wrong, by the way.)

I hope this helps you understand why I thought your unexplained alterations unhelpful. Tim riley talk 18:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

With respect, it doesn't. The MOS does not specify anything about a person's spouse only being added if it is notable or not. The piece about "turning the graphic phrase of the sources into a dull statement" is because Wikipedia is not meant to be "graphic", it is meant to be "dull" and concise. If that comment about ITMA is sourced, then that should be in quote marks because it is quoting a source, along with who made the comment (e.g. according to X, "the show died with him"). The piece about the comment from the royal household (not family, apologies, wrote in a hurry) is from the Sydney Morning Herald who must still have heard the quote from someone or somewhere. Even if it is indirect speech, it is still a quote and should be referenced as such. Samuel J Walker (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I saw this discussion. I would agree with User:Tim riley's revert of the changes. Note that It is helpful to keep infoboxes as concise as possible. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. I personally can't see how adding a spouse to an infobox makes it any less "concise". Many peoples' spouses are added to infoboxes without any apparent problems. Samuel J Walker (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The above comment from Ssilvers illustrates the need, to which I referred on my talk page, to discuss disputed alterations openly on the relevant article's talk page. It also illustrates the common sense of adding edit summaries for any alterations – you may find WP:ES helpful for future reference. Had you added an edit summary in the first place it would have been a courtesy to your fellow editors and we might all have been spared unnecessary distraction. Tim riley talk 07:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)