Talk:Sally Struthers: Difference between revisions

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2013; 2018;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 22:55, 28 December 2024

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sally Struthers. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sally Struthers at the Reference desk.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance).

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

Stage

As stated in the history summary, the Stage section was getting out of hand. It is quite evident that Struthers performs regionally. That doesn't mean every time she plays someplace it's reason for inclusion. I've removed all summer stock and regional theater; leaving only notable inclusions such as Broadway, Tours, etc. Most inclusions for Stage productions are contributed by editors that are not registered accounts. Which means either someone saw her in something and thought it should be added; or there are COIs for certain theaters and playhouses wishing to promote themselves. Unless there is a specific reason to include a particular production, it is merely a resume without merit. Maineartists (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sitcom MOM.

Was she on it 69.43.23.68 (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=No|1=
-{{WikiProject Biography|class=Start|listas=Struthers, Sally|living=Yes|filmbio-work-group=Yes|filmbio-priority=Mid}}
-{{WikiProject Oregon|class=Start|importance=Low}}
-{{WikiProject United States|class=Start|importance=Low|USTV=Yes|USTV-importance=Mid}}
-{{WikiProject Women|class=Start}}
-|blp=Yes}}
 {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Sally Struthers/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}}
+{{not a forum}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|blp=Yes|listas=Struthers, Sally|
+{{WikiProject Biography|filmbio-work-group=Yes|filmbio-priority=Mid}}
+{{WikiProject Oregon|importance=Low}}
+{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|USTV=Yes|USTV-importance=Mid}}
+{{WikiProject Women}}
+}}
-== Legal Troubles ==
+== Stage ==
-Not really sure that a simple DUI in Maine that was "sensationalized" in tabloid media (People / TMZ) and local news to that region constitutes its own section titled: "Legal Troubles". This smacks of "tabloid" and [[WP:recentism]] for its time. Struthers has had no other "Legal Troubles" enough to warrant an entire section; and certainly a DUI in Ogunquit Maine is far from a notable mention in this article. Removing due to undue in relation to the rest of the article. [[User:Maineartists|Maineartists]] ([[User talk:Maineartists|talk]]) 01:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
+As stated in the history summary, the '''Stage''' section was getting out of hand. It is quite evident that Struthers performs regionally. That doesn't mean every time she plays someplace it's reason for inclusion. I've removed all summer stock and regional theater; leaving only notable inclusions such as Broadway, Tours, etc. Most inclusions for Stage productions are contributed by editors that are not registered accounts. Which means either someone saw her in something and thought it should be added; or there are COIs for certain theaters and playhouses wishing to promote themselves. Unless there is a specific reason to include a particular production, it is merely a resume without merit. [[User:Maineartists|Maineartists]] ([[User talk:Maineartists|talk]]) 23:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
+== Sitcom MOM. ==
-I placed this topic here for discussion earlier in the year; and it seems to be picking up editorial opinion by way of major editing within the article itself. Once again, I will reiterate the above; and welcome an open discussion to its relevance to the BLP and article on the whole in hopes of consensus for removal; which I am advocating. Thanks. [[User:Maineartists|Maineartists]] ([[User talk:Maineartists|talk]]) 00:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
-:'''OPPOSE''' {{hyphen}} I am finding myself more in alignment with [[Inclusionism]] as I learn more and more about Wikipedia.  All facts that can be proven true with reliable secondary sources are inherently relevant to any subject of any article.  If I am researching entertainers with traffic arrests in the last 10 years this is very relevant.  Triviality and its degrees should not up to editors because that can make a [[WP:NPOV]] vary hard to maintain.  We need to leave the value of a facts as much up to the reader as possible and endeavor that these facts are accurate and can be relied upon.  Simply because a fact isn't flattering or its presence is undesirable does not make it any less of a fact.  If it is poorly worded into a paragraph or section and does not fit there, perhaps it needs a home in a different location of the article, but it is still a fact and worth having because if it is true and verifiable it has a place SOMEWHERE in the article.  As in this example, good or bad fact is fact and each statement in the section is absolutely a fact supported by its source.  I would encourage that it could be written a bit less... newsy.  Has she published any comments on the issue since?  Did she learn anything in her experience she was quoted as saying?  Has she advocated against such things since or backed any fundraising efforts to help support the message?  Expansion of the section is what I would support, not removal, it is still a true fact and it did occur, exactly as written according to the sources.<br>---> [[User:Darryl.P.Pike|Darryl.P.Pike]] ([[User talk:Darryl.P.Pike|talk]]) 01:24, 21 April 2018‎ (UTC)
+Was she on it [[Special:Contributions/69.43.23.68|69.43.23.68]] ([[User talk:69.43.23.68|talk]]) 03:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
-::Hi, Darryl. Thanks for your .02. However: we are not voting here. There is no need to "oppose" in bold. Second, please sign your comments with (4 ~'s) so other editors know who has made the entry (I have done this for you). That being said: you have spotlighted it perfectly by asking questions that cannot be found outside of this one specific incident. Take for instance another occurrence that happened in Maine, not once, not twice, but three times and publicized extensively: [[Nancie Atwell]], a well-known educator. Not only was it covered in the state papers, but it made national headlines: [https://nypost.com/2017/10/12/teacher-awarded-1-million-caught-shoplifting/ NYPOST], [http://beta.nydailynews.com/news/crime/teacher-won-1-million-prize-accused-shoplifting-article-1.3558726 NY DAILY NEWS]. When the topic of inclusion was brought to the BLP noticeboard, the consensus was to ''not'' include it for the exact reasons stated above. Ms. Struthers incident is far less in coverage and is the absolute definition of [[WP:recentism]] that did not further its coverage after the fact. Furthermore, Ms. Struthers has never had any other "Legal Troubles" before or after to warrant an entire section that would signify that this particular BLP has had trouble with the law. Which this article now represents and is [[WP:undue]]. We must adhere to WP guidelines; and just because something "can be proven true with reliable secondary source" does not mean it should be included. We are here to write good articles for WP, not gather and include as much information that can be found in secondary sources. A one-time DUI in Maine for the life of Sally Struthers is not "inherently relevant" to the subject of this article. It does not reflect past activity or future. If you can find any more information that does not cover the incident at the present time; and would justify keeping an entire section titled "Legal Troubles", then we can discuss keeping it. Until that time, the section should be removed until further sources that extend either the section or the incident can be found: per WP guidelines, not editorial point of view. Lastly: your interest in "traffic arrests in the last 10 years of entertainers" has nothing to dowith WP: [[WP:NOTNP]] and only supports your own opposition: "triviality and its degrees should not (sic) up to editors". Thanks. [[User:Maineartists|Maineartists]] ([[User talk:Maineartists|talk]]) 12:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
-::: {{ping|Maineartists}}I read [[WP:recentism]].  2012 is not a recent event, nor is anyone updating it frivolously as it develops.  I also read [[WP:undue]].  I do not find a sub-section under "personal life" containing fifty odd words in four sentences presenting the facts of an event placing any imbalance on neutrality or presentation.  It isn't trying to offset any other view, nor is it being promoted from any obscure minority.  For a personal note, Ms. Struthers and the plethora of work done in the major portion of her career was right smack dab in the middle of an era of my life.  When I see a photo of her or catch a clip of from a show she was in and hear her distinct and recognizable voice it triggers memories of times and places that I hadn't visited in a while.  I can not think of anything I have seen of her work that I didn't enjoy or at a minimum appreciate.  Your example in [[Nancie Atwell]] I find extremely hard to compare in both person and article.  You didn't include a link to the discussion and I don't have <s>time</s> motivation to go look for it.  With all due respect to Ms. Atwell, she is not in the entertainment business with decades of recognition in the public eye.  If you can successfully remove the same section from [[Caitlyn Jenner]] then my opposition to removing it from Ms. Struthers' article, which was a statement of opinion as bold as it may be, would be recanted entirely.<br>--->   [[User:Darryl.P.Pike|Darryl.P.Pike]] ([[User talk:Darryl.P.Pike|talk]]) 15:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)