Talk:Ken "Snakehips" Johnson/Archive 1

Lead vandalism
Technopat, This is not acceptable. Do not do it again. When such a poor change is reverted, don’t try and use tags as some silly form of revenge either. The guidelines (and these are flexible guidelines, not set in stone, for an article of c. 30,000 characters, is the border between three and four paragraphs. That’s what we have. Many readers only read the lead, nothing more, and the ridiculous one-paragraph version you left does not provide them with anything more than is available in the infobox. The MOS guidelines are that the lead should summarise the article. This one does. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:4D0A:B643:4660:FCA0 (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

While not formally exceeding Manual of Style/Lead section ("As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate") the lead, as it stands, contains several details that are not of sufficient note to be included as "a summary of its most important contents". When shortening the lead in my original edit, I took great care to ensure that nothing was removed from the article that was not already included in other sections (and referenced). My edit does not, contrary to the accusation made, constitute vandalism. --Technopat (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just seen your second accusation... My tag was not placed in revenge. Please assume good faith. --Technopat (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The removal of three quarters of the lead in direct contravention of the MOS was vandalism, however you try and defend the indefensible. It was a ridiculous step to take. Many readers will only ever read the lead of an article, so why remove so much? It was an utterly ridiculous step to take. Of course it’s vandalism to reduce a well-written lead that summarises the entire article down to one paragraph that tells people nothing more than is contained in the infobox.
 * I apologise for deleting, inadvertently, your previous edit. My intention was simply to restore the section heading that you had removed. But if you want to go to ANI, go ahead. All I tried to do was get consensus on whether the lead needed shortening or not. You have accused me of vandalism, including slapping a final warning on my talk page and of putting a tag on the article in revenge. Way to go, kiddo! --Technopat (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ”Kiddo”? Talk about passive aggressive ... - SchroCat (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Final Resting Place
Having just watched Swinging into the Blitz on BBC Two, it confirms his ashes are at his old grammar school rather than contradicts the statement. Kmitch87 (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Article title
I think the given name "Ken Johnson" is better article title. I know the accolade "Snakehips" is reverential, but for cold readers the current title seems to be reductive, and diminishes him to a single talent. Ceoil (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see what you're saying, although I'm not sure about it, given WP:COMMONNAME and the large number of other people called Ken Johnson! I'll do some searches to see how he is more widely referred to and maybe open and RFC to get a wider input - I'm not 100% sure which is the best route, using the nickname, or going with a more formal dab such as Ken Johnson (dance band leader). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ken Johnson (dance band leader) is not good, so fine now with current title. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)