Talk:George Formby/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Reverted edit

George Formby appeared as himself in the 100th epidode of The Matthew Barnard Show along side such celebrities as George Michael and Garry Glitter. ???? George Michael and Garry Glitter? Methinks someone taketh the pith. Pattenicus

Although this was obviously a piss-take, it would not have been impossible for Formby and Gliter to have appeared on the same bill as Formby continued to appear on stage until the 1950s and Glitter's career began in the 1950s when he was a teenager (under different names). At the time, their musical styles were perhaps not so different as people might imagine. DavidFarmbrough 08:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Instrument

It is well documented that George Formby played a ukulele, however when looking at pictures he is playing a banjo... would someone like to clarify this please.

He plays the ukulele as well as the ukulele banjo.

And the banjo ukelele and the banjolele! DavidFarmbrough 08:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets clear this up once and for all, George played a type of ukulele called a Banjolele, an instrument developed in America by Alvin D. Keech. it is tuned and played like a ukulele though has the construction of a Banjo (Although much smaller)-GeorgeFormby1

Photos

It seems at some stage this article had a photo of George because its listed in google Images. It would be nice to have at least one photo of him. Maybe the one at [1] or as an older man at [2]. -- RND T C 16:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

"Thursday Next"???? Does anyone really care that he makes an appearance in this obscure fantasy series? I mean, he makes appearances in other fiction I could cite, but it doesn't seem very relevant somehow. 23:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger proposal as part of the Notability wikiproject

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge into George Formby. --Futurano 11:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I proposed to merge Beryl Ingham (his wife) into this article because I think that her life details not associated with their joint activities are not notable enough to deserve a separate article. --Futurano 15:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There are some who would consider all England step dancing champion and clogdancer notable. Sadly, I can't put myself in that camp. So, Support. Kbthompson 15:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I just thought we didn't know for sure if that championship itself is notable. For instance, it may not be the only, or even the most important, contest of its kind. Additionally, if such contests are held annually, we're going to be flooded with their results here :) --Futurano 11:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion: There are a number of music hall stars who 'got their start' in such competitions, so in a way it is of itself notable. They tended to be organised by publicans, and many were rigged (so they didn't have to pay out the prize money - see Dan Leno for example - and that was the world championship!). I think the criteria that they went onto greater things is perhaps more relevant. I would suggest that Beryl be merged here, given her own section that mentions all her achievements, and the original page changed to redirect here. That should satisfy all opinions. Kbthompson 12:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So, how long do you think we should wait for other opinions? I got no clear answer after reading talk at WP:MM. Would five days be fine? --Futurano 12:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think all it says there is Be bold. Make May 1st the deadline. Whatever date you use, you can be sure people will whine immediately after, but not make their views known before ...Kbthompson 14:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

Nearly a B. A picture and some references would be good.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 09:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

The heading 'catchphrases' seams to repeat much of what is placed in 'Career' where his catchphrases are listed and actually contradicts the circumstances he would use the catchphrase 'Never touched me'. As neither provides cites I would suggest the removal of the second section ('Catchphrases') and will do so if no-one objects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogMcDog (talk • contribs) 11:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. RogMcDog (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Stalin Prize?

One of the categories is Category:Stalin Prize winners. Is this correct? It seems most unlikely. I also note the section on this Talk page The Order of Lenin which, apparently, he was not awarded. HairyWombat (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Later. Deleted Category:Stalin Prize winners from article as it is almost certainly vandalism. HairyWombat (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged the article with {{Fact}}. When compared to the other recipients at Category:Stalin Prize winners, this still looks most unlikely. HairyWombat (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked the the George Formby Society and this turns out to be false. I will remove it from the article. HairyWombat (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Order of Lenin

it seems George was not given the order of Lenin, it's not metioned in any reliable sources and is not included in the list of George's personal possesions in Alan Randall's collection-GeorgeFormby1 —Preceding comment was added at 13:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, in the biography George Formby: A Troubled Genius, it states on page 93 that Russia Today, a Russian newspaper, reported that Formby had been awarded the Order of Lenin, but that this was "pure propagandist tosh". This was allegedly because of the popularity of his film Let George Do It (renamed Dinky Doo in Russia). HairyWombat (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Willie Waterbucket

Article states:

He also had a dog called Willie Waterbucket.

I have appended {{Fact}} to this as it looks most unlikely. Anybody know for sure? 75.154.95.151 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked the the George Formby Society and this turns out to be true. Although I do not have a reference, I will remove the {{Fact}}. HairyWombat (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Later. The biography George Formby: A Troubled Genius confirms this, and states on page 233 that Willie Waterbucket, a Lakeland terrier aged 16, was present at Formby's funeral. However, on page 19 it also points out that Formby owned many dogs the first, a brown & white mongrel called "Mickey Dripping", being purchased shortly after his marriage. My feeling is that Willie Waterbucket is no more relevant than Formby's many other dogs. I will therefore remove Willie Waterbucket from the article. HairyWombat (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dates

Does anyone have dates for the partial discography?DavidFarmbrough 08:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Got all bar one. HairyWombat (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

also dates for the films would be nice Johncmullen1960 12:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. HairyWombat (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. -- Hadal (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

George Formby, Jr. → George Formby — Clearly the primary topic. Article should be moved and a hatnote to his father included. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Support, primary topic.--Kotniski (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Further to my proposal, I'm also wondering whether "Jr" and "Sr" are correct disambiguations anyway - as far as I can make the younger George was only credited as "Jr" once in his first film when he was a boy. I don't imagine his father would have used "Sr" at any point. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter whether he used it, but whether it's used to refer to him (now). It seems to me that it is (in the case of "Senior", that is; with "Junior" people don't disambiguate because he's so well known).--Kotniski (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough - just a thought. There's a few references in the "Sr" article which don't sit quite right. For example "...George Hoy Booth, went on to achieve fame on stage and screen under the name of George Formby, Jr." which isn't quite correct. If/when this gets moved I'll have a look and tidy some of those up. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that certainly seems wrong (and can be corrected regardless of whether this gets moved).--Kotniski (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. Also agree that there should be a better way of disambiguating the father. Andrewa (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

was this guy on the back of that alice in chains album???

someone said its him with a CGI third leg on the back of the album — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Date of Beryl Formby's death debated

This was inserted at the beginning of the article by someone who apparently didn't know where to bring it up or correct it:

Beryl Formby died Christmas Day according to the Times.

I'll remove it from the article for now, and let those who know more decide whether to change the current December 24 date or not. --J. Randall Owens (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Death

With most famous people there is a section titled "Death" - in this article his death is lumped into the Films sections - can we tidy this up please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.41.147 (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

In order to give it a more chronological feel I've restructured it so that the information about his wife is incorporated in the biography as a whole, rather than having a separate section to itself. This has allowed a more natural break to include the death section as requested. It could probably use a little more of a cleanup though... --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

George Formby Society

Apart from the link at the end, this club gets no mention. It is in fact a remarkably popular association, whose meetings up and down the country are well-attended and treated like big occasions with formal dress. 86.145.156.23 (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As the society was created after his death, is quite active in its own right, I believe the article should remain separate.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

And the bulk of this article has now been appended onto the Formby Article, seems like jumping the gun when it is still being discussed and there have been two comments for keeping it separate.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

IB

I've removed the IB and enlarged the image there: this is a trial to see if this is an improvement over the box, or whether it is preferable. If people could please leave the image in place without the box for a week or so, and comment here first, we can discuss and then revert as and when a consensus develops. – SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to come up with a good rationale as to why the article would be improved without an "IB" (which, to the uninformed, means infobox, I believe). Otherwise, we should revert to the status quo ante. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

As per the above, it's a trial to see. If you're looking for reasons: pointless, ugly, repetative and meaningless are all good starters. It squeezes the image, contains nothing that isn't a little to the left in the lead section, and generally lives up to its secondary name, the idiotbox. - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That seems a little uninformed, and certainly doesn't provide a valid rationale for your actions. I'll reinstate it - and, if you can make a more reasoned proposal for its removal, we can consider it further. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That's the least constructive and most mindless edit I've seen in a while. Thanks very much for the uncivil "uninformed" insult: there was no need for it, and it's only going to piss peeople off saying something that pointless. Thanks very much for knee-jerk wiki-lawyering, rather than trying to think slightly flexibly at the possibility, rather than what is best for the article. Congratulations on such a pointless, inflexible and needless stance. You couldn't even be bothered to come up with a possible advantage to the idiotbox, just went with least constructive approach on this. Why? - SchroCat (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's an idea; maybe you can justify its inclusion and provide good, decent ideas as to what can be included in the idiot box which will help improve the article. Cassianto ^talk 03:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments like those by User:SchroCat and User:Cassianto seem to suggest that, somewhere, there is an intensive debate going on on the value of infoboxes (apparently called "IB" or "idiot boxes" to those on one side of the argument). I have had absolutely no involvement in that discussion, and don't know where to find it. Those two editors need to recognise that, I guess, most readers and most editors of this article are in the same position as me. If there are good arguments for removing infoboxes, it would be useful to know what they are. Ill-tempered rants don't count. And the principle is that it is those seeking to change articles who need to justify their proposals to other editors, if they might be contentious. I have seen no arguments here so far that justify removing the infobox that has been in this article since 2007. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no such discussion that I know of; the initials IB are fairly common, so no, they don't "belong" on any side of the arguemnt. There is absolutely no such overall consensus that you suggest, and the MOS describes what the side-wide consensus actually is: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". So no, not all editors are in the same position as you. There is no "ill-tempered rant", that you describe, and I would appreciate it if you would not personalise this discussion, which you have done in all three of your postings so far. I have looked at the inclusion in 2007, and I find the most interesting part is that I fail to find any talk page discussion about including it, was there one at all? - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

So, you are paying no regard to the fact that, since 2007, other editors here seem to have had no objection to its inclusion. What is your justification, supported by policy or guidance, for removing the infobox that has rested uncontentiously in the article for over seven years? Why change what isn't broken, and why seek to do so in the uncollegiate way you have? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Should we leave all articles untouched just because no-one has grasped the nettle and done something? Turgid longevity is no excuse to stifle article development. We are in the middle of a major overhaul of this second-rate article at the moment: are you going to complain about that, just because no-one has developed it properly for so long? You say other editors have had no objection? At least two have, and we've taken the opportunity to grasp the nettle while the article is being overhauled. I'm not sure your accusation of being "uncollegiate" (another personalisation of the argument) is warranted: I put a polite request for a trial without, and you didn't bother discussing it, just went ahead with WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and wiki-lawyered it, without any meaningful discussion. We have both asked you if there is a positive reason to have an IB here, and left us guessing as you your thoughts: and you call us uncollegiate? - SchroCat (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that "a major overhaul" of this article was taking place - what seems to have happened so far is a bit of tweaking. Obviously, I'm all in favour of improving the article, by adding sourced information, etc. etc.. That's not the issue. The issue is whether and why the infobox should be removed, and you seem to be coming from the position that infoboxes are inherently unhelpful and unnecessary. I'm trying to find your justification for that opinion, and whether it has been supported through any centralised discussion. Apparently not. So, we need to have a discussion here about it - but that should start from the established wording of the article, including the infobox - with those seeking to remove the infobox explaining why they want to to do so, before, not after, it is removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have not said—indeed will never say—that IBs are unhelpful or unnecessary, so please don't try to put words in my mouth: it's unhelpful. What I will say is that I am a huge fan of IBs, in certain circumstances. I am not sure that such a circumstance exists here, and I look forward to hearing from you why you think such a box improves this article? As I have said, this is a trial to see if the article holds up without one: what advantages or disadvantages do you see between the inclusion and exclusion of the box. The overhaul is taking place elsewhere: in userspace, before being transferred over, and consists of a complete overhaul and re-write, rather than just a bit of tweaking and polishing. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It might have helped if you'd made clear at the outset of this discussion the fact that this overhaul was in userspace and pending - there was no way I could have known that (other than checking your contributions, which I've now done... :-). I'm prepared to wait and see what it all looks like. But I still see no reason not to have an infobox at this stage. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What reason do you see for including it at this stage then? Everything currently in the IB is on the left hand side if the screen. Cassianto ^talk 15:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong pic - or wrong caption?

'Formby in the early 1920s, when still playing John Willie' I'm certain that's a pic of George Formby Senior. Valetude (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's Formby Jnr - it looks quite different to Snr. The source also has it as senior (if you hover your mouse over the source image). - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That, I'm sure, is Formby Jr. Despite the similarities in their act, father and son looked quite different from one another. Cassianto ^talk 17:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That is definitely George F Jnr - his look is unmistakable. Jack1956 (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The IB trial, continued

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After over two weeks of comments (and none since 4 September) I think we have a consensus on this not to include an infobox on this page. The article has now passed through PR, FAC and this thread with no dissenting voices on the matter. – SchroCat (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As this article is due to go to the front page in a couple of weeks, I'd like to ask for comments about the trial of having no infobox. Whereas previously the box provided information missing from the lead, this is no longer the case, with all pertinent information available in it's correct context a little to left of the image. Does anyone have any thoughts as to why a future addition would enhance or improve the article? Many thanks for all your comments. The only thing I would note is that this version, without the IB, has gone through both peer review and FAC without any questions as to why there is no box, or any suggestions that one is needed. – SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that's the right approach. Some articles (cricketers, politicians et al) benefit from infoboxes, but the lead of the present article contains all that an infobox would merely duplicate. As readers now use such a wide variety of screens to access Wikipedia it is incumbent on us to avoid unnecessary clutter anywhere in a WP page, and particularly at the bit people first see when they open the article. With innovations like WikiWand coming in, infoboxes are more obtrusive, cramping the main text of the lead: worth putting up with when a box adds value, but best avoided when, as here, it doesn't. – Tim riley talk 15:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. An infobox would offer this article nothing and would be a step in the wrong direction by adding one. They contain repetetive, redundent information and limit the image in terms of quality by squeezing the life out of it. No infobox please. Cassianto ^talk 04:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe that an infobox would be helpful in this article. It would only add repetition, emphasize some less important facts, limit the size of the opening image and take up important space at the top of the article. The text of the Lead, I believe, presents the key information in a balanced and attractive way, and I recommend that the article remain infobox-free. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

No infobox, agreed, for the reasons that Cass and Ssilvers state.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Looks amature and incomplete without one. Also inconvenient. Cheers! Shir-El too 19:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion; personally I think don't think it looks amateur at all, but that's just my opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A Couple Of Other Bits of "Legacy"

Not sure of how important these are , so , I'll note them , and if the article keeper deems them important enough … Tally Ho!

In the Walt Disney animated film "The Adventures of Mr.Toad" , the character of "Cyril Proudbottom" ( i.e. "the horse" ) is quite clearly an homage , right down to J.Pat O'Malley's vocalization.

And just as The Beatles were fans of George Formby … their parody , "The Rutles" , recorded a cheeky tribute song : "My Little Ukelele" , during the "Archeology" sessions. ( Originally appearing only on the Japanese release , but , later on the album's re-release in all countries. ) 75.104.174.93 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Trivia, I'm afraid, and certainly not worth noting in this article. Cheers. Cassianto ^Talk 00:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Formby. 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:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 06:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Formby. 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/20100918101350/http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/300213 to http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/300213

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 20:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

This is a great article, but I think an infobox would greatly benefit it. It would be great for visitors to have a summary upon landing on the page. Humbledaisy (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a summary already present (the first paragraph) that does a better job. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Humbledaisy. Formby was a significant figure in British comedy of that era, and other such comedians, actors and celebrities for whom enough is known and who are sufficiently notable have infoboxes. If you look at other similar pages with infoboxes, you'll find that they also have summaries in the opening paragraph(s), but still have an infobox, the purpose of which is to provide quick at-a-glance info. I also believe it's part of keeping consistent encyclopaedic style for such entries. 91.85.196.221 (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The relevant style guide makes clear that including such a template is not a requirement but decided at the article level. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and I am suggesting such a decision. I think an infobox would be beneficial for those who visit this page and want a quick overview, especially because the lead here is so long. It would be helpful for people to see Formby's relatively young age when he died (56) and the years he was active at a glance. Humbledaisy (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the lead is quite short and provides a better quick overview. Conversely using a template tends to lead to oversimplification - something like years active is a particularly problematic field in that respect as in this case there are several potential ranges that could be used. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. Your argument is basically "I don't like infoboxes and you can't make me."

In fact, this seemingly endless article would be very well-served by an infobox, for the reasons outlined.

Unless someone other than Nikkimaria chimes in, as there is no-one else in agreement with her viewpoint, an infobox would seem to be in order. 65.93.213.29 (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

No, my argument is that the rationales put forward in favour of inclusion are faulty and in fact demonstrate the potential problems of such a move. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Obviously it should have an infobox. Basically, the arguments against an infobox are that some editors think that readers should be compelled to read their deathless prose, rather than being given basic information in a clear way. Just old-fashioned arrogance I'm afraid. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree, I don’t really see much of an argument. The rationales put forward for an infobox are the same rationales for any infobox. There’s nothing inherently problematic in the case for Formby. Years active is contentious for a lot of entertainers; that’s okay, we can discuss it. It’s not a reason not to have an infobox. Humbledaisy (talk)

I agree too, I can’t see any problem with an infobox. Vesuvio14 (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I also agree, I think this article DOES need an infobox, I seem to recall there was a time where Luciano Pavarotti article didn’t have an infobox either and I’m pretty sure it was for the same or similar reason as this although that article does now have an infobox therefore as I said I think it’s time this one had one again. –Hlliwmai (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what makes George Formby special enough to not need an infobox given that loads of other celebrities have one? Reminds me of the Stanley Kubrick debacle a while back. –RCLeacar (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

A version of Formby

A fictionalized version of Formby is prominent in the Thursday Next series of books by Jasper Fforde. In this version of England, the Nazis manage a serious albeit temporary land invasion of England. Formby leads a resistance, using strategy and entertainment. After WW2 is won, Formby becomes the ruler of England. He is a kind and beneficial man, working against many threats, thinking only for the safety of England. Lots42 (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"Formby leads a resistance, using strategy and entertainment."

Priceless. 162.196.161.203 (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)