Talk:Round the Horne

More edit warring

Drfrench, what the hell are you doing with the continued edit warring and not bothering to discuss things on the talk page? Your last edit summary of "fix formatting" fools no-one. It is a revert, so please be honest in your summaries in future, even if you are trying to avoid accusations of breaching the blue line of WP:3RR. You've been asked several times to DISCUSS rather than edit war, and I can't understand why you are not able to do so. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

DrFrench, your version does not seem to be an improvement. Please explain what you are trying to do, and why you think it is better than the previous version. If you continue to WP:EDIT WAR, you may be blocked from editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Bolding

@Tim riley: Taking this to the talk page as requested. Can you explain why MOS:BOLDREDIRECT does not apply here? The redirects in question are Dobbiroids, Binkie Huckaback, and Dame Celia Molestrangler. Tevildo (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You have misread the MoS guideline. The redirects are not from this page, but to it. Bolding here is unhelpful and pointless. Tim riley talk 21:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

There would be little point bolding an outgoing redirect link. See also MOS:B - "This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not" [emphasis added]. The bolding is consistent with the MOS. If there's a reason that the MOS doesn't apply here, please share it. Otherwise, the MOS prescribes that the terms should be bolded. Tevildo (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

One of us misunderstands the MoS guideline about what is commonly (not compulsorily) bolded. I'd be glad of advice from my co-author of the FA text, SchroCat. Tim riley talk 22:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Why bother with the redirects? They seem rather pointless to me, given the dozens (hundreds?) of character names used. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that's right. And on top of that, for every one editor who puts Dobbiroids into the search engine there will surely be many more who would open the main article and wonder why on earth Dobbiroids is in unexplained bold type. As the MoS does not make it mandatory to embolden terms to which a redirect points I think we should refrain from doing so here, as simply unhelpful to our readers. Tim riley talk 22:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, this discussion can stand as the reason for non-compliance, I won't labour the point. A similar argument could be made for restoring the capitals to Director-General, but, as they say, I don't have a dog in that fight. Perhaps adding a comment to the text to deter any future editors who want to follow the MOS might be an idea. Tevildo (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

For the second time in a few days I have had the pleasure of thanking an editor whose views were the opposite of mine for his or her magnanimity in letting my view stand. That sort of thing doesn't happen very often and I thank you, Tevildo, Tim riley talk 23:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Not at all! We followed the process and we reached a resolution without resorting to personal abuse, which, I agree, is far too common these days. I'm still right, of course. 😺 Tevildo (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracy

The article states:-

• "The fourth series began on 25 February 1968"
• "In the fourth series, Sandy tells Horne that Julian is a brilliant pianist: .... At the time, gay male sex was a criminal offence in Britain."
• However, the Sexual Offences Act 1967 received Royal assent on 27 July 1967. So, by the fourth series, gay male sex was not a criminal offence in Britain. - this needs to be re-written
  • The 1967 act repealed some of the penal laws, but by no means all. Cottaging, as here, certainly wasn't legalised. Tim riley talk 19:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
    • The statement is "At the time, gay male sex was a criminal offence in Britain." which is not true - the statement does not refer to cottaging or soliciting, just "gay male sex", so it needs modifying or deleting. Arjayay (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to the great and good Roy Jenkins the 1967 lifted some of the restrictions on gay men, but by no means all. Relations now legal were not then. Tim riley talk 20:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Furthermore, I seem to recall that when Julian and Sandy were working for "Bona Law", they said they were spending a lot of time on their "legal practice", to a huge round of applause - but I can't find a reference for this - Arjayay (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Bona Law (Feb 1967): the quote you are looking for is "We've got a criminal practice that takes up most of our time". Tim riley talk 19:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
    • I had already deleted that comment (now struck) before you answered, please do not reinstate deleted comments, as that is re-factoring. - Arjayay (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Oops, my apologies. Must have (yet again) fallen foul of an edit conflict. User:SchroCat what think you? Perhaps we should invite Arjayay to propose a tweak to the wording? S/he may have a better way of explaing the minor influence of Julian and Sandy on public opinion, perhaps. Tim riley talk 20:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s not referring to the fourth series (as the 1967 date makes clear), but it did leave that impression. I’ve tweaked it to avoid that minor issue. - SchroCat (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks SchroCat - a much simpler clarification than I could come up with - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

My pleasure. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think in this particular case "my pleasure" is more appropriately my phrase than yours, but bless you, nonetheless. Tim riley talk 19:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)