Talk:Will Hay

Teescopes

 * Erm, if the link is wrong, then edit the damned thing! Don't worry - I'll do it for you on this occasion. Zaphod Beeblebrox 16:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

A note was added on 20th July 2006 (Brownlee) that Hay's telescopes were bequeathed to University College London (i.e. Mill Hill Observatory)and are still used for teaching astronomy. What was this note based on? The fate of Hay's largest telescope is well known and it is still in use near Oxford. The fate of his 6 inch refractor has always been a mystery. Hay's friend, Fry, donated a large 8" refractor to UCL, and the 6 inch Joynson refractor is not Hay's.....so was this line added on the basis of fact or speculation? Hay lived very close to Mill Hill Observatory in his final years, but that is the only connection I know of.

M. Mobberley Mobberley 13:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Will-Hay.jpg
Image:Will-Hay.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Add info re Blue Plaque
I suggest including a sentance that a blue plaque was erected at 45 The Chase, Norbury, London, SW16 by English Heritage as Hay resided there between 1927 and 1934Genealogy Jo (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Add info re 1901 census which impacts upon accuracy of education section
I suggest adding a reference to the 1901 census entry RG13, peice 554, folio 151, p 35 showing Hay residing at 40 Merritt Rd Brockley, London. NB The entry was incorrectly transcribed onto Ancestry.co.uk database as William G Hay. However, it means the education info is not wholly accurate.Genealogy Jo (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Add info re Civil Aviators Pilot Licence
I suggest adding info that Hay passed his Pilots license on 14th April 1926 at the London Aeroplane Club, Edgeware, London, Royal Aero Club Aviators Certificate card number 7989, Genealogy Jo (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Add info re 1911 census
I suggest adding that Hay was living at 17 Brighton Strret, Broughton, Salford, Lancashire, and gave his occupation as Music Hall artiste (comedian), in the 1911 census, ref RG14, peice 2003, reference RG78PN1382 RD465 SD2 ED27 SN279. Genealogy Jo (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Mill Hill Observatory
This section about Hay being a noted astonomer is a bit thin on the ground for references. Surely, the observatory dome that can be seen from Hendon Way in Mill Hill, north London, is the University College's Observatory which was built for them alone and not Mr Hay.

I think that unreferenced sections in the article generally are open to abuse. Where's the evidence that he was a polyglot? Francis Hannaway 10:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

reference to Cardiacs song
Hi Cassianto - I am not a wikipedia nerd, so I don't have a ton of interest in debating the issue with you at length. Feel free to add back the reference to the Cardiacs song or not. Given the dearth of Will Hay references in popular culture over the last, oh, 50 years, I'm not sure why you want to repeatedly remove one of the few references to him. But whatever. --Andyhkchan (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither am I, but I thank for the personal attack from the get go. I think we know, now, where this is heading.  I will not be adding it back, and if you don't want to discuss this, then I guess it never will. But whatever.   Cassianto Talk   20:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

not a personal attack. I'm a trivia nerd and I don't think 'nerd' is an epithet. Just, as one of a small band of Will Hay fans, would like this reference not to be removed. I'm not sure what other sources you need - you could listen to this youtube clip of the song, with the name at 0:56, blink and you'll miss it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxhuQWKwbqY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyhkchan (talk • contribs) 20:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not consider it to be a reliable source, unless you can prove otherwise? And the YouTube reference shouldn't be used either. And even if you can provide a more reliable source, what makes you think this is worthy of inclusion anyway?   Cassianto Talk   21:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? http://www.streetdirectory.com/lyricadvisor/song/wooljf/gibber_and_twitch/ 92.28.235.33 (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No. How do you know it's this Will Hay they are talking about? Why are you so insistent on this going in to the article?  Cassianto Talk   18:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It is Will Hay they're talking about. That's the lyrics, did you not look? 84.13.194.121 (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not wasting anymore of my time on this utter drivel.  Cassianto Talk   14:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox
I'm going to assume that this little spat has caused the removal of the infobox. The infobox contains quick helpful and certainly notable information - it is common practice on biography articles on Wikipedia. Whereas the mention of the song is potentially trivia - Wikipedia have guidelines on information that may be categorised as trivia and what sorts of things should be included in articles and what should not, such as Manual of Style/Trivia sections. TubularWorld (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't assume what others may think. This article did not have an info box until recently, and it was far better without the cluttered mess you added. There was no discussion about adding one, and the inclusion has now been challenged.
 * Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I would still question the removal of this infobox and the information contained within. I find your criticism (and personal attack) of the 'cluttered mess' that I apparently added quite ignorant, arrogant and troll-ish on your part... What exactly do you think I have done to the article? If you go and look at the history, I did not write the textual content that has been recently added to the article. Unless you can find some Wikipedia community guidance on not having infoboxes on biographical articles I would request that it is left in the article. Infoboxes are a quick and helpful area for novice and casual users to get information without having to read an entire essay-like structure. In the modern world, people want quick information, and as Wikipedia is part of the modern world, it should respect that requirement. TubularWorld (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh don't do the fake accusation of a personal attack. I have said nothing about you as an individual or an editor. You, however, have called me "ignorant, arrogant and troll-ish", which is a one-way ticket to ANI on the grounds of civility.
 * The info box rules state that they are not required on any article, and suggest discussion to gain consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.55 (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I, for one, am pleased the ip has removed the infobox. It was unhelpful, uninformative, repetitive nonsense. Some of the best biographical articles on WP exclude infoboxes; so,, you appear to be talking rubbish when you say:  For more information about why I oppose Infoboxes like this, please see here.   Cassianto Talk   17:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, leave it out of the article then. In nearly 12 years of editing, I've never come into contact with any editor opposed to them or remove them though... and to find two in one day on the same article strikes me as a very odd coincidence. TubularWorld (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * been hanging around the wrong street corners, clearly.   Cassianto Talk   18:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Will Hay. 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://web.archive.org/web/20040403234924/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/trevor.buckingham/willhay.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/trevor.buckingham/willhay.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050410200412/http://www.blackhama.freeserve.co.uk/willhay.htm to http://www.blackhama.freeserve.co.uk/willhay.htm

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) 20:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Will Hay. 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://web.archive.org/web/20071024092854/http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117793667.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&p=0 to http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117793667.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&p=0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070124213742/http://homepage.mac.com/elliottday/willhay/willhaysoundsindex.html to http://homepage.mac.com/elliottday/willhay/willhaysoundsindex.html/

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) 02:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Filmography
Looking at the Dr Benjamin Twist twist page, I note that it has the three films for the character in the order of Good Morning, Boys, Hey! Hey! USA!, and Convict 99. It specifically states that Convict 99, "was released shortly after Hey! Hey! USA! However, the individual pages state the release dates as:


 * Convict 99 - 26 September 1938
 * Hey! Hey! USA! - October 1938

In addition, the BBFC has Convict 99 classified on 17 May 1938, and ''Hey! Hey! USA!'' on 14 September 1938. Meanwhile, the filmography on this page dates Convict 99 as 1939. All seems a bit of a mess, really. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox
If this is what Wikipaedia is like, where new people are not welcomed and our changes reverted, I do not want to do this anymore. Yours Sincerely, Betty — Preceding unsigned comment added by BettyLou1931 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What are talking about?  You were welcomed, only today.  Just because you've had an edit undone, doesn't mean it's the end of the world.  I even left you a handy piece of advice on your talk page.  Where was my hello?   Cassianto Talk  18:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I did say "Hi Dear" on my reply on my talk page you liar, before you undid that too

Please, calm down, calling someone a liar here is a violation of the policy no personal attacks. We judge on content, not the creator of the content. MegaGoat (Talk) (Contribs) 19:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

'Dark side'?
''Off-screen, Hay was described as... a very serious and private man, and some thought he may have had a dark side due to his demeanour.''
 * 'Dark side', meaning what? Manic depressive? Homicidal maniac? Drug addict? Can you clarify? Valetude (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring
There has been some edit warring around the infobox recently. To remind those who should know better, WP:BRD strongly advises discussion of the matter, not just reverting. The infobox was removed over four years and that is the WP:STATUSQUO. If people would like to change it, they need to discuss, even if they are an administrator. - 213.205.194.173 (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not edit warring when the other editor is a sock. You were the one who removed it without discussion after it had been on the article for nearly a decade. It's clear that decision was contested, because it was re-added several times, with you re-removing it time and time again. You cannot claim "retirement" and then return to past disruption. It seems I will have to semi this article to prevent further block evasion. Any editor under good standing (not evading a block) is free to open up a discussion about the IB. Sro23 (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Four and a half years ago it was a bold edit; despite your supervote in edit warring and protecting the article (an action that screams WP:INVOLVED), that’s a standard action. Since then it has become the STATUSQUO. This is an open thread about the box, but you have decided to edit war and ignore the long-standing consensus for your own personal reasons. That’s a really, really poor way to approach something. Take away the personal grudge and try and act in a reasonable manner please - and that involves remembering INVOLVED and not supervoting on something. - 213.205.194.4 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reverting a sock does not make me involved, and I didn't supervote. I don't care whether or not this article gets an infobox, which is why I said just a little bit ago "any editor under good standing...is free to open up a discussion about the IB". If I had reverted a regular old editor then that would be a different story, but because you are a sock, I am exempt. And using your same logic, the bold edit that added the IB back in August and remained uncontested all these months despite multiple users having edited the article in between is the new status quo and someone wanting to remove that would need consensus. Sro23 (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked for “Abusing multiple accounts”? I am not abusing multiple accounts. I do not have an account (I have an old account that I do not have access to, but I do not have “multiple accounts”). This is the second time you have told a straight out lie in order to block me. It’s a shame you cannot be honest to yourself let alone other people while wielding your little bit of power. I actually feel a bit sorry for you that you cannot do even the basic things properly or honestly. 109.249.185.125 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)