Talk:George Grossmith Jr.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Grossmith, Jr.. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20100413191022/http://www.nimaxtheatres.com:80/nimax/apollo-theatre to http://www.nimaxtheatres.com/nimax/apollo-theatre
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311044417/http://library.kent.ac.uk/library/special/icons/playbills/PLAYDAT3.htm to http://library.kent.ac.uk/library/special/icons/playbills/PLAYDAT3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). 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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Signature on 78" Record

I originally thought this was his dad's signature, but looking deeper it seems I was mistaken and it is of Jr. This is the best image I could get from the record. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Signature_of_George_Grossman.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripplehelix (talk • contribs) 16:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Tim riley: why is this image inconsistent with MOS:IBX? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC).

This is undoubtedly GG junior's name (I have a transfer of the record), but what possible use or interest is this image in his article? Tim riley talk 17:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Tim riley that the image was not a good one to use for showing what Grossmith's signature looked like. You have to look at it carefully to even see that there is a signature over the dark colored label. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Even if the signature were legible, what would be the point of adding it? Unless one subscribes to the pseudo-science of graphology, what does a signature tell the reader? Tim riley talk 11:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok there seem to be two objections:

1. The signature is not legible - or it's not visible - which I disagree with, it's as legible as the average signature, and I had no trouble seeing that it was there. Certainly if we had a dark ink on light paper signature that might be preferable.
2. We shouldn't have signatures in infoboxes at all. While this has been suggested several times, this is a policy (or at least guideline) level question, and would need to be decided by an RFC. The only Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_12#Proposal_to_delete_signature_parameter RFC I could find was "no consensus to remove" from Infobox officeholder in 2010. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC).
   

On the point about autographs, I don't suggest they should never be added to info-boxes: they may tell the reader something relevant in articles on painters, calligraphers, designers and even authors (see GBS's cramped and crabby signature in his article, which says quite a lot about the old boy I think) but horses (or Gee-Gees) for courses – I don't see what value GG's autograph would add for the reader of his article. Tim riley talk 14:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Space at the top of articles is precious. This one has a lot of nice images competing for space, and the signature would push everything down and make everything more crowded. The signature image you suggest is even fatter than usual. And we will have to agree to disagree, but I think that unless we have his signature on a lighter background, the thing you want to add will just make people squint at their phones and think: "now, why do the crazy Wikipedians want me to look at this record label that is obscured by glare from a light?" -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Name

It doesn't greatly affect this article, and I don't suggest we change its title, but GG dropped the "junior" after his father died in 1912: so he was known as "George Grossmith Jr" for 10 years of his professional life and as "George Grossmith" tout court for the remaining 23 years. I have added a London cast list to the article on one of his shows here and have (for now) piped the link accordingly. This is more accurate but is it helpful or, alternatively, confusing for the reader? Views cordially invited.

I've nearly completed a draft of a greatly revised text for this article and will post it shortly. Tim riley talk 07:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Now done. Comments and suggestions for further improvement most gladly received. Tim riley talk 11:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I think that including the Jr helps our readers to distinguish between the father/son actors. Even though Jr dropped the suffix from his billing after 1912 (and even though his father had stopped acting before that), it doesn't hurt to remind everyone that they are reading about the musical comedy/producer Grossmith, not the comic opera/piano sketch artist Grossmith. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I thought you'd say that and I'm inclined to agree. It still worries me that we are misrepresenting his professional name for most of his professional life, but I really can't see any way of squaring the circle. By all means remove the piping at Princess Charming if you think it best to do so. Tim riley talk 17:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

In cast lists, for clarity, we fill in the full name of people, even if they are billed as "Mr Surname", and similiarly I think it is better to use the Jr in cast lists, even where he was billed without it. In this article, of course, our text and footnotes make the situation clear. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

That's right, I think. By the bye I've omitted his signature from the info-box as it seems to me superfluous. What think you? Tim riley talk 18:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree, especially as this article is chock-full of images, and anything we can do to make space available near the top is a plus. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I can take a hint! I've blitzed three of the images. Tim riley talk 07:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Better, I think, though I do like the Sunshine Girl dancing image -- maybe put that into the row of images? -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Do, by all means. Tim riley talk 12:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tim riley: The article uses both "Jr." and "Jr". Unless "Jr." is intentional, the title should be changed to use "Jr" (the British form). J3133 (talk) 10:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. The one missing full stop is now replaced. (The unstopped Jr is, of course, the modern British form, but in GG's day the full stop was de rigueur.) Tim riley talk 14:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

AI upscaled No, No Nanette photo

Under image use policy this should be replaced with a version which has not been WP:AIUPSCALED, but I'm unable to find a copy of the original Illustrated London News image online. There's a 1925 scan of Pictorial Magazine online at https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/154183040704 (scanned photo here), but it's a closer crop and I'm not sure how the quality would compare to the Illustrated London News version. Belbury (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

If you want to substitute the ebay image, go ahead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

We have here, sad to say, an editor who zealously pursues a policy imposed by a clique without consulting the rest of us. S/he has just made a mess of Jack Buchanan on this pretext. Heigh ho! Tim riley talk 17:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I've now replaced it with the eBay image. If Tim riley wants to compare this to the original Illustrated London News photo and decide which is preferable (it may be a choice of print grain versus photo damage), they are welcome to. Belbury (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)