Talk:Elaine Paige

While I appreciate that everyone is currently caught up in the recent appearance of Susan Boyle on Britain's Got Talent, and that Boyle said she wanted to be like Paige, adding a completely unsourced paragraph on this to the article lead section is not appropriate. The lead of an article is supposed to be a summary of the article and the article itself does not mention Boyle. Therefore, it should not be covered in a summary. It also is a bit too much recentism and gives Boyle too much weight in this article. A featured article should never have this sort of non-sequitur addition to the lead, especially with no sourcing. LaVidaLoca (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Now Elaine Paige has acted; she has extended an invitation to duet with Susan Boyle. Boyle Gets Duet Invite From Her Idol Paige has thus related herself to the 66,000,000-view Boyle. Joefaust (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why is Elaine Paige credited with having won 'The Society Of West End Theatre Award' AND 'The Laurence Olivier Award' for Evita? The two awards are the same. At the time of winning the award was called 'The Society Of West End Theatre Award'. It was subsequently renamed 'The Olivier Award'. It would be more accurate to write; 'The Society Of West End Theatre (Olivier) Award'. Otherwise it is extremely misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.255.218 (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Guys, there appears to be a troll or animal rights fanatic adding an “animal rights” section to EP’s wiki page. Wearing animal furs does not constitute an animal rights abuse. I have leather shoes but I don’t get labelled animal rights abuser. They appear to be working from a few photos off Google images. This constitutes original research, which for good reason is not allowed as a source on Wikipedia. TLC.82.112.128.124 (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure if it is intentional trolling or just a lack of understanding of policy. The opinion itself is not in itself unusual or disreputable but the original research can't be allowed. If there was a notable animal rights group singling Paige out for substantial criticism then some coverage of that could be justified but I have Googled (admittedly very briefly) and not found anything. I have tried to explain it on their talk page. Lets hope that resolves it. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

"could be justified" is right. The real question is, is wearing furs a significant part of her biography? We can tell whether it is or not by coverage in reliable sources.

and from the photos of the OR, it's impossible to tell if she is wearing real fur or top-quality synthetics anyway.. But truth is not the issue. 99.104.111.76 (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, was I ever wrong in thinking that a polite explanation and a few links to our policies would put an end to it. What a pity.

As they seem to have found another IP to continue their disruptive behaviour I have had to request partial page protection. If that is accepted then it will hit all IP based editors equally, which unfortunately will include you. You might want to create an account, or log in if you already have one. I am sorry if this causes you any inconvenience. It is a bit of a blunt instrument. I hope we won't need it for too long. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Radio Times archive has Elaine Paige appearing as a regular on "Crackerjack" for one series in 1972. See for example http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/bbcone/london/1972-01-14 and http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/bbcone/london/1972-03-03. Significant enough to be included in the bio, surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.28.57 (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Seriously, that has literally never happened. Can't we remove it? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

"that has literally never happened": And how do you know that? I think this hatnote is supported by the guidance at Template:Distinguish/doc: "to inform the reader of the existence of one or more articles whose title(s) bears a strong resemblance to the current article." Note that there's a reciprocal hatnote at Ellen Page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I rather like that hatnote (I actually came to the talk page just to say this), and on policy grounds too, it's a good idea to have it there. Airbornemihir (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Honest question, Should it be Barnet, Herts, or Barnet, London, as Barnet is now part of London and no longer part of Hertfordshire? cheers. 2A02:C7F:C632:9200:E993:843B:4839:AC1F (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply