Talk:W. Heath Robinson

Usage of Heath Robinson (not a Rube Goldberg machine)

Heath Robinson has always been a phrase I've always associated with repair or quickly assembled jobs to fulfil an urgent purpose. It does undoubtedly come from the culture of Britain especially in the 1930s and 1940s of needing to fix things quickly in the absence of the proper tools or parts to do so. Especially in the kind of ways that would be recognised by mechanics in the armed forces.

I would argue it has a different meaning to a Rube Goldberg machine, which is a very elaborately constructed machine for the simplest of purposes. A Heath Robinson machine maybe strangely constructed but has been done so for a real and immediate purpose out of what was to hand at the time.

I'm prepared to believe that Heath Robinson and Rube Goldberg cartoons may be very similar but I think the meaning is different on the different sides of the Atlantic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.105.112 (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

To whoever is "managing" this page, may I suggest a link to the "Heath Robinson Rube Goldberg (HRRG) Mixed Technology Computer" project at http://www.diycalculator.com/sp-hrrgcomp.shtml. The idea is to create a computer out of a mixture of implementation technologies, including relays, vacuum tubes, transistors, simple integrated circuits, pneumatic logic, magnetic logic, and so forth. I think both Heath Robinson and Rube Goldberg would really appreciate this project.

What is "Hans Anderson"? Did he illustrate Hans Christian Andersen's Tales?
S.

This article could use a better summary at the top. "Heath Robinson" is common english slang with the same meaning as "rube goldberg" in America, but the comparison doesn't appear until near the end of the article. Night Gyr 09:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

>>How come there is not even one of his cartoons shown in this article? The whole point of the article is lost.

>>>The problem is simply, that his works are not yet public domain. Since this takes the authors death plus 70 years, copyright for many works are still held by his family, respectively by Pollinger Limited (authors agents) of London on behalf of the W. Heath Robinson Estate --Calixus (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this page could also do with a link to Emett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Rowland_Emett Danensis (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Professor Branestawm

Should there be a mention in the article that he illustrated The Incredible Adventures of Professor Branestawm, first published in 1933 and the sequel, Professor Branestawm's Treasure Hunt, published 1937? WLD 12:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Heath Robinson machines

I saw some Heath Robinson machines in the UK in the early 1960s. They were large and very elaborate things. I do not know who made them, since Heath Robinson died in the 40s, it says.

You've probably seen the Rowland Emmet models, as featured in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (film) for example, the breakfast machine. Hmm, no entry for Rowland in Wiki yet. Spenny 22:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

Is it just me, or does this section seem odd? If we're going to cite examples of the use of "Heath Robinson" to mean an amusingly complicated/unwieldy/rickety contraption, then there should be more than one example. Otherwise it just seems as if some unusual importance is attached to the BBC's Planet Earth series, which whilst an excellent series, is hardly the only use of the term in popular culture. To my mind, the section isn't necessary at all, for the same reason that you wouldn't expect to find a dictionary listing pop. cultural uses of the word "rickety". Ajhoughton 14:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right, the section is a little odd. In part it is a generational thing. I think 20 years ago in the UK, the term would be well understood. I think time is moving on and though it has not died out, I suspect that as a forty something year old myself. The section needs to explain that the term was in general use and we then have a specific example. Spenny 14:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am 32, and use the term from time to time. Mind you, I grew up with Professor Branestawm books, which might have something to do with that. Most of my friends of similar age understand the term, though maybe my friends are eccentric! 81.153.111.37 (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC) A similar character , that could fall into this category, described as "Australia's own Thomas Edison", who's work (actual constucted gadgets)was showcased in South Australia recently is known as Henry Hoke. One of his (book?) titles is Guide to the Misguided: Institute of Backyard Studies.( that title maybe even an obscure nod to The Guide to the Perplexed?) SignedJohnsonL623 (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Obit The Times

The Times, Thursday, Sep 14, 1944; Issue 49957/2; pg. 7; col F

    Mr. Heath Robinson Humorous Artist

(just in case someone wants the detail) billinghurst sDrewth 17:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Illustrations?

Is it possible that more illustrations/comics are in the public domain? This seems like an article that would really be enhanced by additional examples of this artist's work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Dubious statement re use of Rube Goldberg machines

What is the source for the statement that the term " 'Rube Goldberg machines' came to be used in the U.S. from the 1930s onwards"? Rube Goldberg was drawing his wild machines early in his career, and they were so popular that he started a regular comic strip of them in 1914 that he continued until 1964. Meters (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The OED shows usage as early as 1928. Meters (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Change it to "the 1920s onwards"? Paul S (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that. I actually ended up on this page because I'm trying to tweak Rube Goldberg. There's a poorly worded, unsourced comment in the article stating either that Heath Robinson's machines predate Rube Goldberg's, or the use of the term "Heath Robinson" predates "Rube Goldberg machine." If anyone can provide a source date for the appearance of Heath Robinson's contraptions or for the use of the term I'd appreciate it. Meters (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Heath Robinson/Rube Goldberg

Maybe it's just the way I'm reading it, but it seems that the intro is almost describing Health Robinson in the common vernacular as a derivative equivalent of Rube Goldberg in spite of the respective etymologies placing HR a good decade before RG. This isn't so much a case of "who came first?", just that its wording and in particular its prominence are perhaps a little incongruous. In comparison, though the RG article references HR it does so pretty much as an incidental mention quite some way through the article, which IMHO seems a more appropriate means of doing it. I also note the RG article is a lot more comprehensive: speaking as someone who'd love to have seen a few more examples of what made HR a household name.

This is a bit of a "just sayin'" moment as I'm really not the person to contribute the more comprehensive stuff (since I don't have any) nor the editing (since I'm not very good at it), so, er, just sayin', etc. --Vometia (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point, have fiddled around with the wording, and it may be a bit Heath Robinson but hope it works better! . . dave souza, talk 17:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Railway Ribaldry

Discussion at Talk:Great Western Railway#Railway Ribaldry about whether this book was originally published in hardback as well as soft cover.--Verbarson (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Date of birth

Body text has May 31, Infobox has May 13. Which is correct? (The HeathRobinsonMuseum just says May. But their 150th anniversary note refers to May 31.) -- SGBailey (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@SGBailey: Thanks for catching this inconsistency. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, among other sources, gives May 31 and I think we can take that as authoritative. Checking the article history, it appears that the date of May 31 was originally consistent throughout the article, and someone accidentally introduced May 13 as a typo while fixing formatting in the infobox. I'll make it consistent. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I see that @Jayron32: found another source also giving the May 31 date and has added the cite to the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Disputed first dictionary appearances

1. The claim that the term "Heath Robinson contraption" first appeared in a dictionary in 1912 (or ca. 1912 in some versions) was tagged as needing the name of the dictionary. This tag has repeatedly been removed. There are multiple sources that claim this, but I have been unable to find any that actually name this supposed dictionary, so the tag is valid. I strongly suspect that the claim is incorrect. The earliest quotation the current OED lists for the appearance in print of the term "Heath Robinson contraption" is from 1934.
2. The claim that "Heath Robinson contraption" appeared in the OED in 1917 is sourced, but that reference also appears to be incorrect. Vol V (H-K) was published in 1901, not 1917, and the terms "Heath Robinson contraption" and "Heath Robinson" do not appear. The corrected reissue was published in 1933, and again the terms do not appear. Both versions are available online, and we link to them in Oxford English Dictionary#External links. See pg 173 in both. As stated above, the current OED lists the earliest appearance in print of the term "Heath Robinson contraption" as 1934, not 1917. The first usage in print the current OED lists for the term "Heath Robinson" as a noun is from 1917, but that is not the same as either term having being published in the the OED in 1917. The current OED is available online (and only online) but access requires a subscription. Meters (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Please feel free to remove the current footnote, add the OED as a source, and remove the tag. (I would, except I don't have the OED source.) Be WP:bold. ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I fully intend to. These apparently false claims have been in this article, and in various sources, for a long time so I'm giving other editors sufficient time to raise any objections to the change. Meters (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I added another reference and changed the text to make it clearer that the first citation is from 1917, not the first appearance in the dictionary. I also switched to the inline disputed template. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)

[1] is still not correct. Rewritten as [2] Meters (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)