This 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.

Archive 10: September 2014

reversion of Passport page

why do you reversed my change? text from all the other passports except US passport are un-cited. I just read and wrote form my passport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emturan (talk • contribs) 23:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Emturan: ... the article has already been flagged for lack of citations, no further information should be added without citation. Onel5969 (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

LGBT SF

I understand the argument for undue weight, but you could have at least piped the article i had as the main one.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mercurywoodrose: You are absolutely correct. I could have, and should have, done that. My apologies. I was in a rush.Onel5969 (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. i have done that kind of action many times. glad to see you would have if you werent in a rush. now, if i can just start using edit summaries....Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Attribution

Hi! As you know, I Remember Mama (play) was flagged by CorenBot as a copyvio, which obviously is a false positive. However, I don't see that you have provided attribution for the content split out from I Remember Mama. Could I ask you to do that? ((Copied)) or ((Split from))/((Split to)) are good for the purpose. That would mean I could mark it as fixed on the list at WP:SCV, one less to worry about. Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: - Hi! It actually wasn't a false positive. When I checked, the material I had cut and paste from the original article, was copied verbatim from the source listed by CorenBot. As a result, I re-wrote the entire section. What is left in the current article now no longer contains anything (other than the subject titles and author attribution), from the material I originally cut and paste. You can see the difference here. In light of that, I'm not sure that there is anything left to provide a attribution to. If there is, just let me know and I'll try to muddle my way through it. Onel5969 (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ha, you had me worried for a moment there. But I'm confident I've read it right: that site copies our content (which it claims to be able to "read"). The bot saw the similarity and tagged your new article. All that's needed is the attribution. If you're not sure how to that, let me know and I'll handle it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: NP. Since I don't know exactly what to do, if you wouldn't mind doing it, I'd appreciate it, that way I can know what to do in the future! Onel5969 (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thank you for your diligent copy edit of Guardians of the Galaxy. I hope you will keep an eye on the page until I can bring it to GA status and help with any slight c/e for the small amount of remaining content to add to the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I just reviewed a number of your new articles and wanted to thank you for your contributions! Your work looks great, and you've inspired me to watch more 30s movies :D Keep it up! Upjav (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Upjav: Thanks for that. RKO is kind of a pet project for me. I fleshed out the List of RKO films, and now I'm going through and fleshing out each article, starting in 1929. It was the most whacky of the big 5 studios, and almost always gets overlooked. After I create all the articles as stub, I intend on going back to each one and do something along the lines of what I did with Headline Shooter or Professional Sweetheart. Again, thanks for the encouragement, and I hope you enjoy the films, although be warned, especially in the pre 1939 films, the acting can seem a bit stilted to folks who are used to today's acting style.Onel5969 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! I appreciate the heads up as well. Upjav (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Wednesday's Child (1934 film)

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Wednesday's Child (1934 film). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Wednesday's Child (film). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Wednesday's Child (film) – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@TheLongTone: No worries. You'll need to fix the Wednesday's Child DAB page as well, since I added it there. I also don't think that the DAB page has it listed correctly, since it has Wednsday's Child (film designated as the 1999 film. Onel5969 (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm intrigued about why two articles in the same film appeared within seconds of eachother...TheLongTone (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@TheLongTone: Well, I've been working on RKO films for a few months now, fleshing out the list, then going through that list and expanding stub articles and creating articles where they are needed. Another editor has begun to make stub articles, which is making it more difficult for me to keep track of what needs to be done, so I've started to go through and create the stub articles, so I know which ones need more research, like I did on Headline Shooter and Professional Sweetheart.Onel5969 (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

A Dog of Flanders (1935 film)

I think you meant to say it was Frankie Thomas's 2nd film, not Ouida's? I'm changing it - please revert if I've got it wrong. PamD 16:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@PamD: lol. Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Was rushing a bit. Thanks for the correction. Onel5969 (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Hot Tip (1935 film)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Hot Tip (1935 film), Onel5969!

Wikipedia editor TheLongTone just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

...You certainly knock these articles out at a fair rate!

To reply, leave a comment on TheLongTone's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thanks. I intend to have all the RKO films stubbed out over the next week or so. Then I'll go back over then and add detail to bring them up to start or c class.Onel5969 (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

American films

Hi, can you add new entries to the lists like this?? Dr. Blofeld 21:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Hi. I added Gigolette... is that what you were speaking about? If so, sure, I can do that.Onel5969 (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hooray for Love, Hot Tip etc... I added two you created. Thanks for your work! Another great way to tackle films is as full filmographies in director articles and then create navigation template by director, like Template:Terrence Malick etc. I'm trying to make the lists as comprehensive as possible though so I'd much appreciate you adding missing films into the lists so readers can browse and access as full a lists as possible by year!? Dr. Blofeld 22:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll take of the others that still need to be added, some I created were obviously redlinks before. Thanks for the tip about filmographies. I'm working on a rather large project right now regarding RKO. I fleshed out the list of RKO films, and think it's pretty much complete. Now I'm going through the list and creating any articles that need to be created. Then, I'm going to take them all to at least start or C class (like I did with Headline Shooter or Professional Sweetheart). That should take me a few months. In between, when I find someone who needs an article, like Rita La Roy, I create that. As well, I try to make sure that all the folks in the film articles I create have their filmographies updated. Just trying to help.Onel5969 (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Bonnie Tyler

> As much as I like Mr. Loaf, not sure why this was added.) (undo | thank)

Because she's in the Meat Loaf template. (I'm not bothered either way) Fuddle (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Don't Turn 'Em Loose) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Don't Turn 'Em Loose, Onel5969!

Wikipedia editor I dream of horses just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've added the article to Wikiproject Films.

To reply, leave a comment on I dream of horses's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

WP:TWODABS

I presume that by now you have read WP:TWODABS, and understand that a title should redirect to its primary topic if there are only two options. Please go ahead and revert to the original redirect. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The point is now moot, so I withdraw my request. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Gene Autry category

Please review WP:BRD about appropriate next steps after being reverted, and then review WP:RS. You and I may know that he owned property in Arizona and was stationed there during World War II, but whether that constitutes being "from" Phoenix is questionable. I recommend self-reverting to avoid WP:EDITWARRING, incorporate into the article a statement that he lived in Phoenix with the appropriate WP:RS, and then add the category. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bede735: Hi! Sometimes when we write these short edit summaries, it does not convey the actual intent. Not trying to get into an edit war, one of the things I really enjoy about WP is the consensus building. My point is that I look at other articles and they list "notable people" which seem to have no relation to the city. I am currently working on two major projects (RKO films and Phoenix people). I do intend to add the Phoenix connection to Audry's article in the near future, (the underlying source is: http://doney.net/aroundaz/celebrity/autry_gene.htm ). On the city project page, regarding whether or not a person should be considered as associated with the city, there has been no broad consensus. About the only thing agreed upon is that if a person's sole association with a city is that they attended a college/university in that city, they should be listed under the alumnae of that institution, and not under the notable people section. Even though Donald Trump is not included under the list of notable people for Atlantic City, does not mean that he should not be included there. In fact, that he is not is a major oversight. Rather than revert, might I suggest that you might add a simple cn tag?Onel5969 (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Onel5969: You cannot place a CN tag on a category. The article does not mention Phoenix. The article does not mention Arizona! Applying a category to an article needs to be based on reliably sourced article content. The linked article you provided (above) does not support the claim that Autry was "from" Phoenix. It supports the claim that he had business interests in Arizona, some of which were located in Phoenix. Most of his Arizona holdings were not in Phoenix, and he was stationed at Luke AFB in Glendale, which is "west of Phoenix". By comparison, Elvis lived in Bad Nauheim, Germany for a year and a half during his military service, but you will not find him categorized as a musician from Bad Nauheim or even as a musician from Germany. He's categorized as being "from" Mississippi (where he grew up) and Tennessee (his primary residence for most of his life). Elvis also owned homes in Hawaii and California, but he is not categorized as being "from" these places. Regarding Trump, the article references his business interests in Atlantic City—it does not state that he lives there. MOS WP:COP guidance on categorization of people by place seems pretty clear: "People are sometimes categorized by notable residence, in the form People from Foo (not "Natives of Foo"), regardless of ethnicity, heritage, or nationality. Residential categories should not be used to record people who have never resided in that place." Being part owner of newspapers, a radio station, and a television station in Phoenix does not make Autry "from" Phoenix. He also had business interests in Texas, Oklahoma, and elsewhere. I just checked three Autry biographies and his autobiography and found one index reference to Phoenix (G-W, p. 226, about his business interests). Please remove the category, and create a discussion on the article's talk page to seek consensus. Bede735 (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bede735: You're absolutely right about the cn tag. So you're revert action served that purpose. The rest of your argument, while I feel is valid, has been discussed on the city project page, with the result I listed above. What constitutes a person being "from" a city is nebulous. There are folks who would argue that Elvis could be categorized as "from" Bad Nauheim. Autry not only had businesses here, but he also lived here for several years. Regardless, it's no skin off my nose, revert if you want. Have a good day.Onel5969 (talk) 12:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see Arizona talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vchapman (talk • contribs) 17:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Listing of post offices

Hi! I took a look at this revert. Such a list is only trivial if there are too many post offices. I think a good number of too many is around six or eight. If there are only a few post offices, they should be listed. If there is a large number or if the city is too big then they shouldn't be listed. I don't know what the cutoff would be. Plano as of 2010 has about 260,000 people, and since it has about five post offices I don't think that's too many. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi WhisperToMe! I understand your viewpoint. Personally, I don't think there should be ANY post offices listed. Ever. Unless there is an over-riding uniqueness to that post office (e.g. it was the first post office in the state, or the first post office west of the Mississippi). Post office locations are something you look up in the phone book. But that's only my opinion. If you feel strongly enough, put it on the talk page and get other editors' opinions. But thanks for messaging me directly about it. Onel5969 (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Las Vegas Sign

Maybe your point about removing all of the text and the image is the best option. The sign was, as far as I know, never in the city and never owned by the city. It has always been owned by a private party or the county. Add to that the fact that sources use Las Vegas for the broader definition for which the city is the minority of usage and you have the ongoing problem. Las Vegas means more then the city to most everyone, including the mayor!. But that is from private statements so not a reliable source. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Vegaswikian: and @Traveling Man: - I understand your viewpoint, and as I said in my post on your talk page, Vegas, I understand the intent of keeping everything on the page focused on the city. But the picture is a visual reference to something in the article, (that's mostly directed toward Traveling Man, since I already said it to Vegas), and so would be appropriate to the article on those grounds, and those grounds alone. I oversee about 100 city pages, and really only look at them for uncited additions, vandalism, structure, etc. I leave the nitty gritty stuff to folks like the two of you on most pages. For what it's worth, since it is such an iconic piece of the history of the area, I would use it as a catalyst to explain the difference between the actual city, and what most folks think of when they think of Las Vegas. And include the pic, since it is so easily recognizable to millions of people. But I'll leave it up to you folks who have more vested interest in the page than I do. I've said my piece. Thanks for listening. Onel5969 (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is often a really messy area. I liked one of @Vegaswikian:'s earlier comments in the article's revision history: "This should actually use the welcome to Downtown Las Vegas sign which is in the city." --Larry (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Traveling Man: - You are now going into the root cause of the problem. The city, is not the primary use for Las Vegas. The area is the primary use. If you read the discussions from the moves, they clearly say the city is not unless you include Winchester and Paradise. The correct solution in my opinion would be to move Las Vegas Valley to the primary name space. Doing that would make any use of Vegas or Las Vegas point to the correct article and it would always match the sources which to not differentiate between the city and the area or the metro area or the census bureau metropolitan area. The area is very different from most of the rest of the US due to the size and population of the unincorporated areas. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

(with apologies to Onel5969 for getting a bit off the original topic) @Vegaswikian:, I agree with you. I've read a couple of the move discussions, and wonder whether that has a chance of going anywhere. If you want to pursue it on the appropriate page (whichever one that is), feel free to ping me. I have a number of the Las Vegas-type pages watched, but am probably missing a few. --Larry (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Vegaswikian: and @Traveling Man: - no apologies necessary... I opened the can of worms. I think you should open the discussion on the Las Vegas page, and post notices on the Vegas Valley, Wikiproject City, and North Las Vegas pages, as well as any others which might be incorporated into the broader definition. I'd support a broader definition being the primary.Onel5969 (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a question of when the right time for a new move request is. My big concern is that those who participate simply want to the city to be the primary topic since it is the city with the same name. It is not likely that I will make a nomination in this are before someone starts a discussion, probably on WP:BLP, about the BLP violations caused by the current situation. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wallace Ford

I saw you added back the image in the Wallace Ford article, there are a couple of issue with the image. I don't agree that it looks like Ford, but more importantly, Ford was not in The movie a Stranger in Town. The image is from that movie. Not Central Park. Let me know your thoughts. I'll remove it once I hear from you. Thanks... reddogsix (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

reddogsix - Hi! Well we can certainly disagree on whether or not it looks like him, since that is a matter of opinion. But your additional fact regarding him not being in the film seems to clinch it. Revert my revert, by all means! Happy editing! Onel5969 (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, having said all of the above, I looked it up and he is in the 1932 film, Central Park (per the AFI database, not the wikilink I just put there). In fact, Central Park is one of the few films from 1932 which actually has an article on TCM, with a small pic, and in that pic (although granted it is difficult to tell clearly), this pic looks like Ford. Here's another link to a bunch of pics of Ford: http://forgottenactors.blogspot.com/2013/02/wallace-ford.html and those pictures (particularly the shot from Central Park and The Mysterious Mr. Wong), look (imho) like the pic on his bio page. Perhaps you could put something on the talk page and let's get other editors' opinions?Onel5969 (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice, I have to say, the more I look at it, the more it looks like him. What stumps me is he was not in the movie indicated on the image. I'll look more into it and figure out what I want to do. I'll advise. 8-). reddogsix (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Very cool. I think that's a screen capture from the film, and I think the verbiage is the marketing for his character, not the name of the film.Onel5969 (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Alumni lists

So sorry. Accept my apologies. It's hard to keep up sometimes. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: No worries... that's why I sent you a message. I learn new stuff all the time. Onel5969 (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)