Talk:Prunella Scales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spelling differences[edit]

Seeing as this is about an English actress, I have modified some of the spelling to be of the English style, as per American and British English spelling differences. Sheeldz 12:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Would it not be a good idea to indicate which character Scales is portraying from the image? I would do it myself, but I don't know enough about the person/television program to be able to do so. --Mas 18 dl 13:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singing career ?[edit]

I found a cd for sale on eBay described as: "2 CD set of Rossin's The Thieving Magpie. Melodramma in two acts. Opera in English. Libretto by Giovanni Gherardini after La Pie vouleuse. Prunella Scales as the Magpie. Geoffrey Mitchell Choir. Philharmonia Orchestra. David Parry."

Does this mean Prunella Scales is also an opera singer? Or is the gazza in La Gazza Ladra a speaking part? 213.118.63.172 17:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gazza is only a speaking part, no singing there. 85.197.135.225 20:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section includes passages that are at variance from what I expect from a reasonably objective Wikipedia article. They have been written in an emotive and subjective style, viz 'Scales’ part in the melodrama is tiny but delightful' and '..under the baton of maestro David Parry in a romp of this work..'. Is this acceptable?rigour mortician 09:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofjura (talk • contribs)

Sybil Fawlty description[edit]

The description as "long suffering" seems inapt. She is rather callous, shrewish, demanding, authoritarian, and somewhat irrational in her expectations. Basil is frequently seen to be overwhelmed (and not very suited to multitasking) while she is just chatting. Yet rather than let him chat, or even complete a task, she chastises him to perform other tasks while complaining that he never finishes things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheelhouse (talk • contribs) 13:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the in the category for Trotskyists?[edit]

I can't see anything to support this in the article. --82.204.82.216 (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Prunella Scales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fawlty[edit]

Fawlty Towers is mentioned in the lede, but not in the article. (I think someone must have deleted a section about it, judging from an earlier comment on this Talk page.) Valetude (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Band[edit]

The band info was reinstated. However, none of the problems were addressed: the sources are shit, and the details belong on the band's own page, not here. CapnZapp (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnZapp: Please explain what specific change you were referring to in your comment objecting to using Wikipedia as a source. Fabrickator (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit dated 21:21, 27 March 2022 was summarized as "add links for es:Prunella Scales (band) and es:Dressing up the Idiot from Spanish wikipedia". You added a link to what I'm guessing is an archived music CD(?) but then attributed this to Spanish Wikipedia using |author1=Prunella Scales (band) [es] |author1-link=:es:Prunella Scales. I can't understand from what original the archive copy is made (making it a poor or unacceptable source) but it sure isn't Spanish Wikipedia (which is good: don't use Wikipedia to source Wikipedia). And oh, you also added a direct inline link to Spanish Wikipedia; please use {{Ill}} or link it but not inline, such as in a See Also section. Since I could not easily untangle this, I reverted. Also keep in mind previous discussion - it is quite alright to not mention the band or their album if there simply are no good sources. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CapnZapp: Your lack of awareness of a resource is not a basis for considering that to be a bad source. For reference, here are the parameters from the citation added in my edit of 21:21 27 March 2022:
author1=Prunella Scales (band) [es]
author1-link=:es:Prunella Scales
title=Dressing up the Idiot
url=https://archive.org/details/cd_dressing-up-the-idiot_prunella-scales
access-date=March 27, 2022
date=1997
Additionally, an author link (which is implicitly a Wikipedia link) does not constitute attributing the source itself to Wikipedia. The source is in fact hosted on the Internet Archive Digital Library, run by the same organization that provides the Wayback Machine, and yet, it is distinct therefrom. Your lack of familiarity with this rather widely-used resource does not cause it to be deprecated.
Additionally, use of {{ill}} is not required when providing an interlanguage link. Using {{ill}} would have been inappropriate, since the decision had recently been made (for whatever reason) to delete the English-language article on that topicd. Obviously, enwiki editors are free to vote to delete that article for whatever reason, but it doesn't follow that links to the corresponding Spanish-language article are prohibited. Fabrickator (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fabrickator: First, a heads-up: adding a notification such as ping does not work if added "into" an existing comment, without its own separate new datestamp. That said, "doing what you suggest is not required" is a very weak argument. Please don't (solely) argue against my comments, argue for the way you chose to add the reference. I see no reason why we should link to the Internet Archive using parameters that suggests the source of the link is, not even "Spanish Wikipedia" but the specific Spanish-language page for the band. So I oppose that. You're using parameters added by a random user, which isn't reliable. Next, just because the Internet Archive has archived the audio recording does not mean I think using that as a good source is the way to go - please find a regular news article or accept this particular band/recording is too obscure for Wikipedia. Finally, just because we can add direct links to other Wikipedia projects does not mean I think this is a particularly good instance. You added the sentence "The band released only one album, Dressing Up the Idiot (es)" with the record name a link directly into Spanish Wikipedia. That is not good enough, in my opinion. An Ill link would be much more usable by our readership. The fact the English-language link would be red for the specific reason the page was removed is not a relevant argument for not red-linking it, and thus not a good argument against the use of Ill either. If you absolutely cannot use Ill for whatever reason you need to embellish the link more, making it more clear 1) it is not useful unless you understand Spanish and 2) you are linked off English Wikipedia. (All this is accomplished by Ill, by the way, the template created for specifically cases such as this one). CapnZapp (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And of course I spoke too soon :( The archive link is down, likely removed because it was a blatant copyright vio (but I'm just guessing, I never thought to actually download what the archive link led to). Anyway, let's talk more in general: yes, Skid Row and Rachel Bolan are absolutely noteworthy. But it might be that despite their noteworthiness, we could still have a case of a band and a recording that has slipped the entire world right on by. Such content simply is not for Wikipedia to cover. If neither you nor me can find a single "normal" album review, then that might just be that this is one of those cases where there just aren't any good sources, and we will have to accept this. CapnZapp (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CapnZapp: This particular archive.org link did not recently come into being, I am not sure why you would surmise it had been removed since the time that I added the link (it was certainly operational at the time I linked it). Perhaps you figure somebody is watching Wikipedia for every Internet Archive Digital Library link added to an article, but there are over 300,000 such articles on enwiki. Please advise whether the link is still blocked for you, and if so, whether you seem to be generally restricted from accessing links with "details" or "stream" as the top-level directory of archive.org. (Perhaps the links are restricted in certain locations, I am accessing from the U.S. without encountering such a restrction.) Fabrickator (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The link works again for me. Or, "is functional" I should say, since I still don't understand why you think it is a good source. To me it looks like a "something exists" source. What is really needed here is a mainstream (or music) press mention. So far my stance is that despite the famous band members, this band and their record appears completely unnotable and not worth mentioning, especially since this article's subject is only superficially connected to the subject matter. CapnZapp (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prunella_Scales&oldid=1210242336"