Talk:Round the Horne/Archive 1

Television
Why wasn't Kenneth Horne liked by TV audiences? (Adrian Hobbs)


 * His style of comedy really didn't translate to TV; it was a very verbal artform. TV audiences tend to encompass the lowest common denominator and they really didn't get the joke. user:sjc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjc (talk • contribs) 10:07, 22 July 2002 (UTC)

Fraser Hayes Four
I love the close harmony sound of this group - does anyone know if they made their own separate recordings? Adambisset 13:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Limerick contest
No one's mentioned the limerick contests. I can't decide whether the winning entries come from real people or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.5.88.166 (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Complete & Utter History
(or: All you ever wanted to know about double-entendré but were afraid to ask)

The article states that Horne-a-Plenty was released on BBC CD under this title. This isn't correct. TC&UH was originally released (on cassette only I think) in 1998 and was a reading by Barry Took of his own book (although I don't know if the book was actually published or not) along with lots of clips from the show. It was then rereleased in 2005 as part of the 40th anniversary stuff. I don't think Horne-a-Plenty has been released. 82.35.114.40 19:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Judy Coolibar
It is stated that Judy Coolibar may have been based on Germaine Greer, and whilst I can see the similarities, I got the impression that the character was introduced before Greer was really in the public eye. Does anyone have anything that would back to claim up? Queerpuppyboy 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Germaine Greer came to public prominence with the publication of The Famale Eunuch in 1970, after Judy Coolibar was created. I'm removing the reference. Phil Bridger 10:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Many comic characters are based on people who are/were not nationally known – schoolteachers, pub landlords, college friends or, in the case of The Goons' Bluebottle, an otherwise completely obscure Scoutmaster. At the time Judy Coolibar was invented, Greer had already made a name for herself as a loud-voiced denouncer of male chauvinism at Cambridge, and had been active in the London art/lit/media scene via Footlights, Oz magazine and Private Eye. So while she wasn't a 'name' with the general public in 1968, there's no reason to be quite so certain that she was unknown to the Round the Horne team, which would have moved in a similar cultural and geographical milieu. Indeed, RTH scriptwriter Marty Feldman gave evidence on behalf of the Oz editors at the infamous 1970 obscenity trial, which strongly suggests some sort of an overlap of the two circles. I would agree that the Greer reference is best kept out of the article while there is no supporting evidence. I'm just pointing out that the 'logic' by which it has been excised is not, in reality, all that logical. Grubstreet (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Rambling Syd (sic!) Rumpo songs
Surely, "Green grow your nadgers-O!" should be "Green grow my nadgers-O!"?

There were, if my memory has not failed my tsohg completely, two different versions of this. One used the line "Green grows my bogling fork" ...

Keep grundling your parts - happily! And keep your cordwangles straight ...

PS I suspect a connexion between the "Rumpo" name and that of John Mortimer's immortal "Horace Rumpole" - but I have no proof.


 * Please do NOT begin a line with a space or tab or end a sentence with an ellipsis, unless you don't care that no one can read or understand what you've written. I am astonished that you couldn't notice how ridiculous that looked after you saved it.  Please sign and datestamp your posts; Wikipedia requests such on the very page you used to create your message, and it's common courtesy.  Lastly, if you are asking a question, please try again; if you're simply spouting show dialog or somesuch, take it elsewhere.  This is not a chat room or a fan bulletin board.  The talk page is for discussion of the article and changes to it.  Canonblack 02:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Nor a place for pompous hissy fits, come to that. However peculiar his formatting, the questioner is right to dispute the song title. I have corrected it. Grubstreet (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Gratuitous Band Link
Attempts to insert a name drop to the cover band "The Hamsters" is unwarrated and an example of gratuitous over linking. It is not related to the article at all, No one has ever anywhere commented on it or even mentioned it. It is constantly inserted by User:WebHamster an editor who has greated a vast amount of "The Hamsters" related material and strives to insert this band into any article he can. The official reference provided as a citation also makes no mention of the "Hamsters" whatsoever and does not lend any weight to this band being included here. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Context dear boy, context. I'm sure Jules will be over in a minute to explain it. -- Web H amster  03:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The source is not ideal, but to suggest that The Hamsters were not influenced by Round the Horne is to ignore the facts. Regardless of how much Hamsters content WebHamster has created, the entry is referenced and it is a notable band so should stay. Nev1 (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this band is influenced by this episode is not relevant to this article at all. The reference provided does not even mention the Hamsters. Search for it. No one anywhere ever has commented on the relationship between the Hamster and this episode. It is nothing more than wiki abuse and an attempt to push a band name through as many links as possible. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The section of the article where this nugget lies is in the Cultural Effect section. You do know what this means don't you? Point 1: The band's bass player is Zsa Zsa Poltergeist (Google it if you don't believe either me or the band's article). Point 2: The minor character listed in that particular show is called Zsa Zsa Poltergeist. Point 3: The band specifically called the bass player after that specific character, ergo there has been a cultural effect caused between the show and the band ergo it's relevant to that section of the article. It's not rocket science you know. -- Web H amster  04:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed a mediation case is open, so Bluescreenofdef I suggest you take it there and refrain from editing any Hamster-related articles for a while in case you are accused of COI, as this appears to be verging on harassment of WebHamster with a thin excuse. WebHamster makes a good point, and it seems ludicrous to me to suggest that The Hamsters were not influenced by RTH. Nev1 (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying "The Hamsters" were not influenced by this episode. I am saying that fact is not notable for this article per WP:WEIGHT. No one cares about this fact. It has not been mentioned by anyone EVER around the world. It is just not comment worthy and just a blatant attempt to insert a band name where it doesn't belong for gratuitous self promotion reasons. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In your opinion that is. The fact remains, that the band are notable, ergo it is demonstrated that a notable band has been culturally affected by RTH, ergo it's relevant. Weight is a non-factor, neither is gratuitous wikilawyering. -- Web H amster  04:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Where has it been demonstrated that they took the name from Round the Horne? Quoting a RtH episode guide source obviously doesn't support "band X are fans of Round the Horne" or "band X deliberately reused this name". It's quite possible that the band just heard the name somewhere else, or that both the band and the show were drawing on an earlier joke. Can we get a source where the band actually mention this? --McGeddon (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is quite possible, but in this instance it isn't the case. Replace the text, put a tag on it and I'll see if I can source the magazine article it was included in, that is the usual method instead of outright deletion. Failing that I could always attempt to email the band so you can get the information directly from them, or for fairness how about you email the band and ask them yourself. They are very amenable to contact from the public in my experience. -- Web H amster  22:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This naming episode may be relevant in the Hamsters article, however it is not notable for this article. I ask again when has anyone Ever anywhere commented on this tenuous link? Bluescreenofdef (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I urge everyone interested in this to read this comment posted by the administrator User:EdJohnston. I think it is very poignant indeed. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you hadn't been in such a blind rush to revert my every Hamster's related edit you would have seen the article history which clearly shows that I didn't add the paragraph back in, User:McGeddon did, along with a fact tag. As such I added the requested refs, one to establish the character's name, and one to a magazine article where the band's lead guitarist clearly states where the provenance of the bassist's stage name came from. Unfortunately in your rush you deleted those requested references, which rather points to some tendacious editing on your part I'm afraid. -- Web H amster  11:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No - you added the paragraph back, I just fact tagged it. The whole "cultural effect" section could use cleaning up (and it'd be good to explore the "influence" mentioned in the lead), but it seems pretty small beer to move from the raised public consciousness of 1960s gay culture, to how some 1980s bass player was a fan of the show. --McGeddon (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You added the fact tag, I supplied the required refs which were then deleted. regardless, I've also added a long requested ref for the gay culture section. When I get a chance I'll add some more later. -- Web H amster  11:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Argus: Round the Horne
Lyn Took was divorced from Barry Took a couple of years before his death - she divorced him. That makes her an ex-wife in the same way as Dorothy Took was an ex-wife. I hope that clarifies the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemesisthrup (talk • contribs) 22:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation; it seems likely enough that a local newspaper might summarise this badly as "widow". Do you have a reliable source that mentions the divorce, such as a book or a newspaper article? --McGeddon (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Dr Chu En Ginsberg
In episode 13 of the first series, he is said to be Japanese.(84.236.152.71 (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC))

Death
The word 'massive' was removed from 'massive heart attack'. As I understand it,Ken Horne died suddenly from heart disease. I can't find a cite just now -- can anyone else?


 * It was myself who put it in. As I remember at the time (I was quite young and my memory may be playing tricks), my father said that it was a massive heart attack and quite unexpected (a close friend of Kenneth Horne was one of my father's clients). I will see if I can substantiate this. user:sjc


 * I am certainly finding references to the suddenness of it. I will push on.... user:sjc


 * Every one around him seems to have died of a massive heart attack, as well. Let's just leave it as "Heart attack" unless I find anything else out! user:sjc

That would be very unlikely to be true, sjc. Are you making the point that the people around him lead unhealthy lives, or they just happened to die this way? -Adrian.


 * When appended to 'heart attack', the word 'massive' tends to be a cliché . However, a biography of Horne written by his friend Norman Hackforth stated that the post mortem examination found that death was brought about by a "massive coronary thrombosis". In the context of a blood clot, I think 'massive' is probably a reasonable word – describing not a small clot but a major obstruction. As for the suddenness, it depends what you intend by 'sudden'. He was alive one second and dead the next, which is certainly rapid. He fell over dead while performing on stage in front of TV cameras, which was certainly dramatic. His friends and even his doctor were surprised, so it was certainly unexpected. He had, however, been receiving treatment for more than a year, so the condition was not undiagnosed or unknown to Horne himself, and in that sense was not 'sudden'. I'm not sure that 'heart disease' is a particularly good tag, come to that. His condition ("his blood was like treacle" said a friend) might have caused a stroke, DVT or a variety of other problems, but as it happens produced a heart attack. Grubstreet (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not a cliché, but a medical term specifying an exact subclass of heart attack, as opposed to a pulmonary embolism, foe example. Two months ago I nearly died from an MPE, a massive pulmonary embolism - had it gone to my heart, it would have been a massive heart attack. Go check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.27.228.169 (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Futtock
The description of 'futtock' as an item of ship's rigging is not technically correct. From the live link he/she has made, it is clear that the author has mistaken 'futtock-shroud' (which is an item of rigging) for the root word, which may sound reasonable, but is a bit like assuming that a tree-house is the same as a tree, or a horse-fly is the same as a horse. A terribly minor point, I accept, but why be incorrect when it's avoidable? I'll change it. Grubstreet (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Pronounce "foothook shroud" in a Hampshire dialect accent (Portsmouth and Beaulieu being a major naval centre) and it'll come out as "futtock". The fact that it's been phoneticised into something suspiciously close to glutineal is coincidental. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.27.228.169 (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Naff as a verb
Palomi uses it as an adjective, and I don't think RTH ever used it any other way. Princess Anne was almost certainly quoting Ronnie Barker's character Fletch in Porridge, who used it far more frequently as in "Naff off..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.27.228.169 (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Bot
, a bot has made some weird changes to the references, including adding confusing numbers in brackets for BBC Genome refs. I'm minded to revert to the FA version. What think you? (and what think anyone else, of course?)  Tim riley  talk   11:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Not a bot, but someone trying to be "useful". I've left the addition or removal of spaces as before (why do people really bother with that sort of nonsense...?) - SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

editing
Hmmm, I just tried to make a small series of edits but some of them appear not to have saved, despite appearing in the history thing. I'll leave it for a bit in case Wikipedia is having one of its regular hiccups and see if I can sort them out later. At the moment the article now shows a reference entry without the material referred to. --bodnotbod 23:02, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Number of Episodes
I came here to get an idea how many episodes there were. I don't know, however, whether it's worth putting it into the article. From britishcomedy.org.uk I then learned. There were four seasons with

16 episodes in season 1

13 episodes in season 2

20 episodes in season 3

16 episodes in season 4

+ 3 special episodes.

--- Jan, March 29, 2006

RfC
Is it appropriate for one party to a two-party disagreement to give themselves the last word and unilaterally close the discussion (re. "James Bond spoofs")? I would have thought that determining that a discussion needed to be closed would fall to an editor watching from the sidelines, someone without a stake in the disagreement. Whereas, if you're one of two people in a dispute and you don't want to continue it, all you have to do is stop commenting. Jcejhay (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As SchroCat's co-nominator in the FAC I am not disinterested, but my view is that closing the above discussion was wholly sensible. In the words of Mr Bennet, "You have delighted us long enough". –  Tim riley  talk   17:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with Tim riley. Discussion has gone on long enough. Regards to all, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I respect your views that the discussion deserved to be closed, but my question was whether it was appropriate for the non-disinterested person who closed it to do so (and in conjunction with having the last word). What are your views on that? Jcejhay (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be pretty odd to close a discussion when the complainant was clearly awaiting a response. Having obliged with one, closing the exchange, which had clearly run its course (and rather more) makes sense.  Tim riley  talk   18:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * An RfC? Seriously? What on earth do you hope to achieve with that? If you want an aswer to your final question about the reference from Archive, it was not reliable: it was added by a user of the site and has faced no verification. It is utterly unreliable as it stands. As I have said above, the burden is on you to get it correctly sourced. (See WP:BURDEN for further information). - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I wish you'd clarified your objection to archive.org the first time I queried it in good faith. Jcejhay (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As for the RfC, what I hoped to achieve was a neutral reality check about your conduct. Jcejhay (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's incredibly petty of you. Should I have closed it? No. Should you have kept pushing the same point that had nothing to do with the article (also in breach of the talk page guidelines)? No, you shouldn't. I closed it to stop the noise; you seem to be trying to raise the noise and dramah and I have little idea why, and I care even less. Opening an RfC over something like this is disruptive: it makes people take up their limited time reading through it and possibly commenting, rather than doing anything useful. I'll drop out of this now - you've wasted more than enough of my time already. - SchroCat (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

James Bond spoofs
I'm confused here,. I didn't think I was engaging in an edit war by un-reverting in tandem with supporting my revision with a source. But then I'm also not sure why the archive.org page that gives a complete episode-by-episode roster of the program, with all the "Kenneth Horne, Master Spy" sketches evident, is considered less reliable than the BBC page which (unless I missed something) gives few details at all. I mean, I get that a BBC web page is inherently more reliable than a user-driven site like archive.org; but the other thing is that my revision and the version it superseded don't exactly contradict each other—it's really more of a clarification. Sure, you can describe any one of the Bond spoof sketches as a film parody, but it is more accurate to note that they were a running routine, unlike the one-off film parodies. Jcejhay (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Re-reverting is nearly always edit warring except for WP:3RRNO exceptions.
 * What you are describing is a mix of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. They had lots of sketches (either as one-offs or regular features), but that's not the point here, we're not saying that Bond was a one-off, we're giving an example of a film spoof.
 * If you're going to add information into British English articles, please use British English spellings, so the word is "instalment" not "installment". Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I just thought the original wording was misleading—it made it sound like the two examples (Three Musketeers and Thunderball) were equivalent. And I still don't see why the information sourced from a complete list of the program contents is OR (unless you're dismissing everything at archive.org as OR). And...really? You're saying every English-language Wikipedia editor in the world is expected to keep track of every spelling variation between U.S. and UK style, and assess which to use in each and every article? Speaking for myself, that would certainly make it difficult to get much done here—and I say that as someone who is somewhat conversant in UK spelling, despite being a U.S. English user. I get that this is a featured article and consistency in spelling style may be important, but then editors with that expertise should be going through and fixing discrepancies; it shouldn't be that no one can touch the article unless they have UK spelling expertise themselves. Finally, I'm surprised to hear that it's "edit warring" when you revert my text for not showing the support of the sources, and I restore my text with a source supplied. If you don't approve of the source I use, that's a separate issue, but this is not the same as stubborn, unreflective back-and-forthing. Jcejhay (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't need "UK spelling expertise" any more than I need the US equivalent. Firstly this is an FA, so you need to be a lot more careful making changes to it than other articles. Secondly, perhaps writing your text into Word (or whatever software package you use) and set the language selector to British English. In terms of the idea of edit warring, it is best (again, particularly with an FA), to use the talk page more than you would on other articles. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're saying that you, as a UK English user, go to the effort of assessing whether any Wikipedia page you make the slightest edit to defaults to U.S. or UK style and that, if the former, you make the additional effort of running all your text through software that you've switched over to U.S. English for the purpose? Wow. Again, I can understand if U.S. vs. UK style consistency is deemed especially important for an FA, but that's why I'd expect style experts monitoring the FA to focus on truing things up, rather than essentially making it prohibitively complicated for the average competent editor to do anything. Jcejhay (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't that at all. The burden is on the editors adding material to get it correctly sourced and to use the appropriate spelling, grammar and punctuation. - SchroCat (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean: you're evidently saying that, when you yourself are adding material, you do all that extra legwork to determine, for instance, whether or not "instal(l)ment" should have the second L in a particular article—the standard you're holding me and everyone else to. Right? Again, wow. Jcejhay (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And you still haven't justified your dismissal of the info from archive.org as a refinement (not contradiction) of what was at BBC. I don't mind having my judgment calls overruled by someone else's, but I like to hear a good, specific reason and not just vague boilerplate. Jcejhay (talk)
 * It's about having and retaining standards of writing. I don't know why this is such a surprise to you, but hopefully next time you edit a Featured Article you try to remember it. - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Naval expressiond and sexual innuendo
Even the title of the show was an outrageous innuendo and I am surprised the author is not aware of this:- Naval expression "rounding the Horn" ie Cape Horn; Sexual innuendo "round the Horn(e)" ie Oral Sex  'erection = horn'

It is as naive to think otherwise than to assume that the Ken Dodd 'tickling stick' was anything other than a dildo "Have you got your tickling stick Missus?"79.71.181.161 (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry. that is WP:OR on your part, please read the appropriate Wikipedia convention. You have supplied no reliable secondary sources to back-up your proposed changes. Please stop edit warring. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

NO IT IS NOT - it is complete IGNORANCE on your part. How on Earth you can claim to any expertise in the point of this article ? Are you actually claiming different interpretations of these expressions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.181.161 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As one of the main authors of the article, I tell you what: find a WP:reliable source that directly links the innuendo to the title and then we’ll talk properly. - SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with SchroCat's comments above. You have been asked, in good faith, to supply reliable secondary sources to back-up your comments, per WP:OR and WP:reliable source. Also please do not use caps in any reply, it is considered shouting and is not appropriate to co-operation between users. Please sign any comments you might make. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Adding my agreement to the remarks made by and . (I admire the elegant and concise lesson in good practice and good manners offered by DJJ. I shall copy it and salt it away for future use.) –   Tim riley  talk   22:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)