Talk:Terry-Thomas/Archive 1

Good show
I believe the catchphrase "Ding-dong" actually belongs to Leslie Phillips. Lee M 11:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes it did. I've changed it to "Good show!" which was one of his. Jihg 11:20, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hyphen
I thought the hyphen in Terry-Thomas was a typo, but lots of sources spell it this way. I know he changed it from Thomas Terry, but anybody know the story behind the hyphen? Jihg 11:20, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Possibly migrated from his surname to acknowledge its original "double-barreled" status? Lee M 01:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The Italian website linked below sort of explains it (in bad English). — sjorford++ 11:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we definitely need some sort of explanation or at least acknowledgment of the unusual format. I actually came to the page looking for an answer... Phyte 15:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference to McCann's book is correct - he also gives a source from the BBC archives of T-T's agent announcing the change and asking for all credit lists to be changed accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.29.0 (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1st complete Terry-Thomas site (in English & Italian language)
1st Complete Site on The Great Actor Terry-Thomas is Born http://web.tiscali.it/terry_thomas.it   (Italian and English Language)

Incorrect link
The link to "The Green Man" is incorrect. It should point to the 1956 film and not the book written in 1969. 195.173.4.13 12:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. I have this film on DVD; it is about a series of murders, and not about a ghost.

Terry Thomas sign
The image of the comedian's gaped teeth is known in the medial field particularly orthopedics and emergency medicine as the Terry Thomas sign. The most frequent reference is mentioned as a abnormal gap in the bones of the wrist indicating one of the bones having slipped out of place []. It also refers to a similar appearance of the bones in the Lisfranc injury in the foot []. Joecool94 04:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease
Did he have Parkinson's disease or Motor neuron disease? Wikipedia seems confused. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * David Niven had motor neuron, didn't he? It's very widely confirmed that T-T had Parkinson's - he campaigned for the Parkinson's Society after being diagnosed.

Aristocratic cads
Those Magnificant Men in their Flying Machines; Monte Carlo or Bust; Jules Verne Journey to the Moon: In the first movie he played "Sir Percy Ware-Armitage"; in the second movie he played "Sir Cuthbert Ware-Armitage"; in the last movie he played "Sir Harry Washington-Smythe". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.61 (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth
Graham McCann's book questions the 14th. Anyone checked his certificate?

It says the 10th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.135.125 (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Comic villain"
I think the term "Comic Villain" perfectly describes many of his roles. You ought to use that term... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.60 (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cad links to Rake (character)
The term cad (not to be confused with CAD) which typifies Terry-Thomas' habitual and perhaps even favourite choice of role, signifying a worthless sort, a bounder (literally, a runt pup): is that really the same as a rake? To point out the distinction, John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester was certainly a rakehell, by his own admission and the condemnation of many; but he was far from being a cad. Whereas, while I doubt there were ever any to beat the little corporal to the title of cad, I'm sure as a clean-living vegetarian he'd have had some going to make a name for himself as a rake. Nuttyskin (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Green Lady
This may be completely spurious but I recall going to see amovie in the UK in the 60s called "The Green Lady", and it may have starred T-T. It was a light comedy, in color, and about a venerable Bentley motor car. I cannot find a trace on the internets. Was I imagining things? Thanks for attention. Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mightn't this be a mis-remembrance of The Green Man?
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No. The Green Lady was a Bentley. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * At last I figured it out. It was Leslie Phillips not TT, and the film was The Fast Lady! Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Article expansion
A small project is on to expand this article into something more suitable for the subject. We plan to add new material and expand or replace some existing material. This may take place over a few weeks or even months and we'd be delighted to hear from anyone who has any useful information of sources that may be of use. As part of the overhaul, we would ideally like to remove the infobox entirely as part of that re-write process and just have an image in place. The summary boxes are inadequate at summing up the life of an individual and contain mere repetitions of a few minor and trite facts that are best left in the lead and article. Before it is removed, does anyone object? We'd rather have a chat here first before starting out on an edit/revert cycle. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur with the above. I will be working with SchroCat on this and it would be great if we could have any input from like-minded T-T fans.  --   Cassianto Talk    09:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's another contribution from me:


 * Fantastic Crisco - many thanks for this. Pride of place at the top, I think is best for this one! - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to help! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Simply wonderful! A picture paints a thousand words, and this certainly epitomises T-T perfectly. --  Cassianto Talk   17:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Feature article
Oh I say! (twirls moustache). A lovely treat to find this on the front page. Thanks to all concerned. 82.32.200.105 (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking the time to read and the time to comment: its very much appreciated (and I say this on behalf of the several hundred people who have brought the article to this standard!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is very kind of you IP. We found it a pleasure to write and comments like this make the effort all the more worth it. --   Cassianto Talk   09:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it made my day to see it as today's FA too. 'Top hole' to all involved (no moustache to twirl unfortunately). David WC2 —Preceding undated comment added 10:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox?
Why is there an editors note requesting not to add an infobox? Was there a discussion on this somewhere?


 * The question was posed two threads above in . There were no dissenters to the thought of removing it and, as such, a consensus to remove it was attained by those involved in the development at the time. - SchroCat (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Influences
As with others, a pleasure to see this article today. Congratulations. Just a question: the Eric von Stroheim image is captioned "on whom Terry-Thomas based his early look", whereas the article instances EvS as a subject of impersonation. Earlier it is said that T-T adopted his "look" (in the sense of fashion) after Douglas Fairbanks. Have I missed something? Davidships (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Free Images
The PD status of the commons film grabs seems rather dubious to me. I can't really accept that films and trailers were released without copright notices so the PD tags are not credible. Slightly astonished that this got past a FAR without the images being properly checked. I removed one thinking it was an isolated example but am loath to gut the article of images on the day its on the main page Spartaz Humbug! 20:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * All the images were checked by GermanJoe during the FAC, including the one you removed. Crisco 1492 also checked several of them at my request and undertook work on some of them too. - SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, well I couldn't claim to be an expert on licenses but I'm frankly astonished that so many images here can have free licenses. Probably as well I don't work at FFD.... Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You can check out the images on Commons, which shows the images along with the reverses of the photographs from which they were scanned. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at one and saw that. I'm afraid that with all the flickr washing and general inept license patrolling on commons I'm not one to accept an image being on commons as evidence its a genuine free license but yes I can see you have checked this out. I'm still slightly astonished mind but I think its just as well I don't do FFD don't you? Nice article by the way. Spartaz Humbug! 21:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can guarantee there's no Flickr stuff going on here: I own copies of most of the images that were used, so it was me who scanned the originals to upload. Thanks very much for your words on the article - much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not suggesting any naughtiness at all on your part. Just that I don't trust commons. You are welcome. I enjoyed it and TT was one of my fave actors. Spartaz Humbug! 21:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Glad everyone ironed this out before I woke up. Yes, US copyright law from the early 70s (72, if I'm not mistaken) and earlier required a copyright notice for something to be copyrighted. If there was no notice, there was no copyright, so long as the work was first published in the US. Schro and I went through the images together, cleaning them up, and making sure that there was a) no copyright notice and b) clear evidence that the images were first published in the US. I'm pretty sure we've done it correctly, and the image reviewer at FAC agreed.
 * You'd be surprised at what can be PD because of that requirement for a copyright notice. Check out the poster for 1932's The Mummy... that's a featured picture, and 100% PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Image inclusion and location
Why does this article need to include images of Ardingly College and Peter Sellers? The former photograph dates from 2011. more than eighty years after Terry-Thomas left Ardingly, while the Sellers photo dates from 1973, a decade and a half after the two performers made their last film together. The validity of image of Erich von Stroheim might also be questioned; TT's impersonation of Von Stroheim does not appear to be sourced. When the Category:Terry-Thomas at Wikimedia Commons contains many images of Terry-Thomas, this seems short-sighted

Many of the images featured in the article are not aligned with text which is contemporary. I would question why the image from Mad World, an American film released in 1963, has to begin the section headed "British film years: 1956–61", while the image beginning the section "Early performances: 1933–39" actually dates from 1964, and is obviously from a much later period. There are other examples, but I think readers will now have an idea of the problem. Philip Cross (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a shame it took the article being locked before you decided not to edit war and use the talk page for it's proper purpose. First things first: "TT's impersonation of Von Stroheim does not appear to be sourced": balls, I'm afraid. You can clearly see the citation at the end of the paragraph, so how you think it's unsourced I'm not entirely sure. Ardingley college is there because it hasn't changed hugely over time, so it matters not one iota when the photo was taken – it's hardly a modern building, is it? Sellers is there because it's the only solo photo of him not in character, which would be plain misleading. While we try to broadly keep the images in line with the line with the text, that's not always either important or possible, but to drop an image below text and just above a section break? Good grief, that's so past the MoS requirements it's positively painful! - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, has Ardingly College really changed that much? I wager it looks pretty much the same now as it did do eighty years ago.   Cassianto Talk   19:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Unduly Negative
I believe the line "coarsening his already unsubtle character" in the summary is unduly negative,Also, later in the article there is a negative review referenced regarding the film Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines whereas there were many positive reviews at the time such as Variety and The New York Times and there is no mention of the major commercial success of the film with takings of $31million.Atlantic306 (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What we have in the article is a reflection of the major sources. The "unsubtle character" is hardly negative: the character was unsubtle - something TT himself knew. – SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Inflated figures
Several earnings figures are inflated to today's equivalents. Would it be possible to truncate the outcomes? For instance, today's - that is, this year's - equivalent of £100,000 is inflated to "Approximately £1,729,236 in 2015." £1.7m would be a more acceptable way of presenting this information I would think.Brenont (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The short answer is no. It's a template that automatically updates the amount annually and does so to the full figure, not in truncated form. If it was in the body of the text I would think the long figures to be a problem, but as they are in footnotes, it's not too much of an issue. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Heffer on BBC Radio 3
Simon Heffer considered Thomas in Episode 3 of his 5-part British Film Comedians on 15 April 2015, and again on 1 September 2015: "Simon Heffer argues that whether playing a cad, a rotten bounder or a charmer, Terry-Thomas came to represent the louche and degenerate side of the upper classes at a time when the class system was coming under full attack." Not sure if this is worth an external link, but it's an interesting analysis. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Two sons
Can someone find a suitable reference to Terry-Thomas' second son Cushan? At present, he is not mentioned in the article.--Brenont (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes he is. – SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Where is that? I can see Timothy (Tiger), but not Cushan. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Memories of a Cad
An editor added this paragraph at the end of the "Legacy and reputation" section
 * In 2014, BBC Radio 4 broadcast Memories of a Cad, an affectionate comedy drama by Roy Smiles about the relationship between Terry-Thomas and the British comedy actor Richard Briers, played by Martin Jarvis and Alistair McGowan respectively. In 1984 when he had suffered from Parkinson's disease for many years, Terry-Thomas is delighted by the visit to his home in Majorca of the much younger Briers, who he recognises from television. Briers cheers him up by recalling the career the film-star has long forgotten – a clever device for a radio biography. It was re-broadcast in 2016.

and the ref is here. Another editor reverted this, with an edit summary of "uninformative, trivial nonsense". It's not uninformative and it's not nonsense, and this is not a correct type of edit summary nor how we address our colleagues, so I've rolled it back on that basis and let's try again.

On the merits, it's an open question whether this is trivial. Generally speaking, books, films, plays, and so forth about a person are considered evidence of his notability in the minds of his peers (or of following generations, for deceased persons) and part of the person's legacy. There's no question the Terry-Thomas inspired this work (its about him). I guess two questions are "Is a radio play important enough to be mentioned, as (say) a film would be? Many fewer people listen to the radio than attend films" and "If yes, does the subject need to be treated at this length?"

As to the first question, it's hard to say, but I'll give a qualified "yes", and along with the editor who first wrote the material that makes two. It's a complete work of dramatic fiction, published by a very notable entity (the BBC), entirely focused on (one aspect of) the subject of the article. As to the second question, it could be shortened somewhat IMO, how about this:
 * In 2014 and 2016, BBC Radio 4 broadcast Memories of a Cad, a comedy drama by Roy Smiles about the relationship between Terry-Thomas and the British comedy actor Richard Briers, focusing on a 1984 visit to Terry-Thomas (then long ill with Parkinson's disease) in his Majorca home by the much younger Briers, who he recognises from television. Briers cheers him up by recalling the career the film-star has long forgotten.

How's that? It could be trimmed a bit more maybe. Herostratus (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO the provided ref is inadequate for inclusion of the content, as it is not independent and fails to support the "significance" of the program per this RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Terry-Thomas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130414233741/http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1963 to http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1963

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit
I've reverted this edit. It's truly awful, breaches a few points of the MoS, and I wonder why it was ever made. I'm genuinely perplexed by the addition of two "more sources" templates, neither of which seem to have any basis. Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUS QUO, I hope an explanation is forthcoming, rather than a version to such a sub-standard state. - SchroCat (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox?
Why do we need a consensus about adding an infobox to a biography article? I thought bio infoboxes were standard WP practice. — Loadmaster (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If I recall and understand correctly it's a contentious issue and not settled as a standard, no. I recall something called the "infobox wars" which devastated the T'Quall Quadrant for generations involved lots of editors and much emotion, went on too long, and spilled over into arbitration more than once. Old-timers say it still simmers below the surface. Some editors just really loathe infoboxes, and in certain subject areas they hold sway I believe. It would be logical to have a system-wide standard, but we don't. Herostratus (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2017 t(UTC)


 * No. It would be illogical to have a 'system-wide' (this is not a system, btw) standard due to the discrete nature of our articles. There is no 'One size fits all' I'm afraid. Happy editing. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  08:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I strongly encourage an infobox as such:

--CreiterAdam45z (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Account blocked for socking. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding infobox
Hi

I prepared the infobox. If it is okay, I copy it to the main page.

Shkuru Afshar (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No need for one here. It’s been without one for ten glorious years and no-one has left the page unsure of the key and important parts of the man and his life: it’s all in the lead, particularly the first paragraph. - SchroCat (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. But don't you think it is even easier by having an infobox? Shkuru Afshar (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Neither did the reviewers at the PR or FAC either. The box adds zero value to the article. - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not think the infobox would be helpful in this article. The Lede section already contains the most important information about him. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are always useful to readers. But, unfortunately, some editors who fear that their deathless prose will not be treated with appropriate reverence dislike them.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, infoboxes are always useful and I resist the "anti-box" cult. It has just become a pointy hill to die upon. Anna (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I support the addition of an infobox to this article. DuncanHill (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't really mind, but if you must add the infobox it probably needs a bit more information in it. (e.g. years active 1930–1980, and marriages). Ollieisanerd (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * oh, and change North London to Middlesex, because Finchley was in Middlesex when he was born, and North London was even officially a sub-region until 2011, a 100 years after he was born. Ollieisanerd (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No need to add one. And "years active" is always one of the rather dubious fields even when included. - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, he should have an infobox. He was an established actor of note who appeared in major films over the years. I don't know why this is even a question - there are other actors and people on Wikipedia that are less well known who have info boxes. Froglife94 (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How “well-known” someone is isn’t the trigger for whether to include an IB or not. - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Lack of biography panel
Terry-Thomas lacks the usual biography panel (birth-death, place of birth etc. ) that other pages of famous people have. Tangost1 (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Sentence unclear in : Final years and death: 1983–1990
Please can this sentence be clarified? He and his wife sold their dream house and moved into the small cottage once owned by his former wife Pat Patlanski,[226] which she left to him in her will on her death in June that year.[227]

Where exactly was this "dream house"? Where exactly was this "small cottage"?

I understand that this information may or may not be found in an earlier section, but given that Terry-Thomas moved around a lot I suggest that adding a location for each of these properties would be very helpful to average reader who lacks the time to find the earlier references. The bracketed references aren't particularly helpful in resolving these locations.

I hesitate to make any edits myself, preferring to leave it to those who are far more familiar with the subject.

Mandolamus (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)