Talk:Hollywood Walk of Fame

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hollywood Walk of Fame/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:  JoeGazz  ▲  19:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick-Fail Good Article Assessment

This article was assessed against the quick fail criteria. This is how the article, as of March 13, 2011, compares against the quick fail criteria:

1. No obvious non-reliable sources?: Pass

2. Is it neutral?: Pass

3. No outstanding cleanup tags?:

4. Article is not subject of recent/current edit war?: Pass

5. Changing in article is not rapid? Pass

Reason for Closure Decision: All pass fine. No fails. Will move into the detailed review.

These items all need to say Pass by them in order for the reviewer to move on to the next stage of reviewing. If one said fail, there will be in indication as to why. The reviewer will indicate the final status here: ✓ Pass —  JoeGazz  ▲  23:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Detailed Review

 Hasn't yet been done 21:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 Working on initial look over, review posted in 1-2 days.... 01:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

First I would like to Thank Fetch for stepping in with the suggestions, I have just placed this on hold to allow for some addressing of some issues.

• Added 21:50 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• • You use some peacock words in there, like "fantastic".

• • Prose seems slightly off. You seem to have very short paragraphs that can be merged into other sections and make them more detailed.

• • You use very in-descriptive titles for your headings, instead of "Location" you should say something more formal.

• • Article has deadlinks.

• Added 20:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Multiple Sections Lacking Sourcing (Can be failed for this, I will give hold time though)

These are just a few of the things I notice with this at the moment. I will give a more detailed review later on. I have placed this on hold for 7 days to allow fixes to these and other issues that will arise. I agree with Fetch though, a tad premature but may be able to be fixed.
This is to be closed as ✗ Fail on: 21:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC) if there is no response where these changes are significantly fixed. Current status:  Addressing Issues

Suggestions

• Well, Joe hasn't said anything for over a week, so I'm popping in to give a few comments:
  • There are quite a few unsourced areas, e.g., in the "Unique and unusual" and "Entertainers in politics" sections (and also elsewhere). This is Not Good™.
  • The prose is quite choppy; in a lot of places there are single-sentence paragraphs.
  • Not all the images have captions. In the case that a visually impaired user comes across this article, they won't know whose star is whose.
    • Alt text should also be added.
    • All the images are on the right side. Can they be distributed on both sides for a more engaging presentation?
  • Section titles are at times too informal; e.g., "On the outside looking in" and "Location, location, location".
  • Has anyone given this an in-depth copyedit? That might help resolve some prose issues.
  • Live performance is a dab page.
  • Some deadlinks that need tagging.
• Personally, I feel this nom is a tad premature, but I'll let Joe handle that part :). Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Final Chance

I personally see no efforts to address these mistakes, which are just a few of many that I see. I am getting concerned that no one cares about this nom. Therefore, I am allowing only one additional day to fix these mistakes and if you wish a time extension, please email me.  JoeGazz  ▲  23:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggest that you fail this right now, it has dragged on far too long. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

For reasons already mentioned (1+ month without work done), I'm failing this GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Amount of images

While I don't really agree with the amount in the article itself, I don't think that's as big a deal as the gallery. The first part of the gallery is examples of the five different types of stars - the same thing in the Description section. Totally unnecessary, IMO. The second part, on the other hand, need some prose to be kept. Even then, we really don't need all six pictures to show that people are sad when celebs die. If a few sentences were added, and then maybe the MJ photos (the most famous ones) were kept, I think it'd look a lot better. Thoughts? Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 00:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure why the caption to the Joanne Woodward photo was removed. Images should always have captions, and Fetch even listed this as one of the things keeping this article from GA status. Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 00:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Per WP:Manual of Style (captions), not all images need captions. That said, there are too many in this article without them. Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 18:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore DoctorJoe, in this edit you simply reverted to a previous version of the page without giving a reason for making all the changes in the edit. In the future, please don't do an all-out revert, and only edit the things you list in the edit summary - along with removing the non-free images (which I do agree with) and all of the captions (which I don't), you undid some spacing and image-removal that I don't know you meant to do. Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 18:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've also re-added the images that Pilettes inserted, as they are much clearer and better-looking. Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 18:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nolelover about the galleries. They don't add anything. The article has too many images already.  Will Beback  talk  20:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So here are my reasons again: all the stars look the same, and we already have examples of what the five categories look like, so the first gallery is totally redundant. One or two of the pictures in the second gallery could be used, if some more prose were written explaining more about it. I think a deaths section could easily go in the "The Walk Today" section, and be illustrated with maybe one of those pics. Until then, I'm removing both galleries. Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 21:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Second GA nomination collaboration

User:Nolelover and I have decided to collaborate in cleaning this article up for a second GA nomination. Help and comments from other editors are definitely welcome. Guoguo12--Talk--  14:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

To-do

Add anything not on the list already, strike out anything completed.

• Make reference and article date formats consistent (MDY format, as in "July 4, 1776")
• Use {{cite}} templates for all references
• Fix deadlinks
• Add references to unsourced statements (a lot, some are marked w/ "[citation needed]", some are not)
• Add image captions

...

• Remember that we also have all the notes from the first GAN above. Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 01:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yep. This checklist actually wasn't that great of an idea. My plan is to run through the entire article section by section, fixing all references as I go. I'm already through the lead and the first half of "Description". Guoguo12--Talk--  02:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Now I've finished the whole "Description" section. Only one quintillion sections to go. Guoguo12--Talk--  03:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Official website change

• The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce website http://hollywoodchamber.net now links to http://walkoffame.com for the Hollywood Walk Of Fame. This broke some links, which are fixed. At the moment, links to their star database are broken. This only affects the Monty Woolley star citation link (citation #68) for now. I've left it as is, pending their fixup.
• In citations, we should still credit "Hollywood Chamber of Commerce" as publisher, though the work is now "walkoffame.com". --Lexein (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. Fixed link at List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Guoguo12--Talk--  21:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Stats

I reverted the removal of the Wikilink to the List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, as it forms the basis of the routine calculations for the statistics, per WP:CALC. I can't find the discussion, but I seem to recall consensus about this. There may be a smoother way to include the link. Perhaps,

"Of all the stars on the Walk, 47% are ..."

--Lexein (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with the above. I think you should use {{cite news}} for referencing news articles. That way, the article references section is kept consistent and free of grammatical errors (like "Washington Post" instead of "Washington Post"). Guoguo12--Talk--  13:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool. {{Cite news}} does simplify the style question, esp. italics in the case of news sources which are available in print, so I'll go with that. I seem to recall it breaking something, but I can't recall what at the moment.--Lexein (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Such templates break if you use a vertical bar ("|"), but not if you use {{!}}. Guoguo12--Talk--  18:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Examiner.com trap

"examiner.com" trips up editors all the time, it even got me a while back. It's so non-RS that its URL is blacklisted in citations. See WP:RSN archives. As for the photo of Mayor Tom Bradley's star, I cited hwof.com, since its photo is correct, and removed the {{dubious}} tag from the Flickr photo: it's a better picture, and acts only to support the first cite. --Lexein (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. You're definitely right. Apparently the site is "not even close to reliable" (RSN archives). You see, I receive The Washington Examiner, which apparently is unrelated and is written by real journalists. Guoguo12--Talk--  02:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

When adding a {{dubious}} tag, it's usual to start a discussion at the same time. I read through the source and found the text supporting the claim but rewrote it for clarity. There are two origin-of-star-concept-inspiration stories (not theories), so we cite both. --Lexein (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the tip. Guoguo12--Talk--  03:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, sorry about those random {{reflist}} templates I keep forgetting to remove. I use them for testing in preview mode. Guoguo12--Talk--  03:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm famous for them. --Lexein (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Complete list of Honorees" section

I'm not sure (and I might be totally wrong), but I believe that sections that only consist of a single link are rather frowned upon. Might it be better to move that link to either the top (This article is about...for...see...) or the bottom (See also section). Just a thought, but I don't really think that a one-link section looks good. Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 00:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I've moved it to the first section on describing the stars. Guoguo12--Talk--  02:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Images (again)

There are simply too many images in the article. in my mind:

I have removed File:Walk of Fame-Los Angeles-California4348.JPG because it is unnecessary to its section, not to mention that it is practically a bad duplicate of the image in the Bending the rules section.

I have removed File:Earvin.JPG, File:Carol Burnett's star on Hollywood Walk of Fame.JPG and File:Monty Woolley star HWF.JPG because, well, all the stars look the same and there is really no reason to keep an excess of images. They don't really add to the article, and I see no reason to keep them.

I removed File:Bill Handel Hollywood Walk of Fame Star.jpg becaue again, it adds nothing to its section, and there are already two other unveiling images in the Nom process section. TBH, I think even that is too much, but I'll wait for some other comments.

Thoughts? Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 00:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. No need for unnecessary clutter. Or else we could have a gallery of all 2,500 or so stars. Guoguo12--Talk--  00:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, I removed the beginnings of that a while back. Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 00:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the deletion of Woolley's star, because it's unique: it's one of a few erroneous stars which are carefully cited (added caption so it's clearer for editors, and vision impaired readers). I recommend that resizing be done, rather than deletion, in most cases. "Too many pictures" is subjective, ignores context, and doesn't cite policy or guideline. I challenge the deletion of any uniques, and prefer discussion of them first. I agree that Magic Johnson's star is on the bubble, but the fact that he's only marginally "in" one of the five categories adds some uniqueness. My overall sense is this:

• One picture per section isn't overwhelming, especially if the picture is resized rather than deleted. Most images were carefully selected.
• Uniques should have captions explaining their presence.
• Editors new to this article should consider this article on its own merits, not on other articles which may have seemed to be cluttered with irrelevant images.
• Priorities should be considered: "too many pictures" wasn't even listed in the GA discussions above. To me, that means it's not a jump out issue. Improvement should focus on the other issues first, IMHO.
• When did the deletion of galleries become so important? Link to consensus, please.
  

--Lexein (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, first off, I intentionally went deletion heavy so I wasn't really anticipating that all of those images stayed out. Wooley's star does look unique, so I do support its remaining. Magic's star: what does the image add to the article? The star itself is not unique, so I'm not sure why that would stay. Yes, the fact that he's in is unique, I guess, but the star, and therefore the image, is not so. That's my thoughts. As to the galleries, I addressed that above. Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 14:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Cool. I agree about Magic. --Lexein (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Lexein, to quote WP:IG:

"The use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject."

Personally, I fail to see how the image gallery (link to old revision) described things that could not have been done so in the "Description" section. The gallery also served to prove that "the stars of deceased celebrities often serve as repositories for expressions of respect." But could this not be included in the text? To answer your question below, one image of a memorialized star is enough. Guoguo12--Talk--  17:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• I had forgotten about WP:G, and do see the point. If the Homage section prose grows much more (there seems to be a lot of RS material), I may advocate for one more pic there (of perhaps a female celebrity's star nearly covered in flowers - Monroe? Taylor?). The extant Jackson pic illustrates the anniversary, and has few flowers. --Lexein (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Memorialized stars

I'm of the opinion that at least one image of a "memorialized" star (almost covered with flowers and cards) such as Michael Jackson's, should be present. That one had an explanatory caption, but no body text. Anybody object to adding such an image (not necessarily Jackson's) back in an appropriate section, with body text supporting it?
--Lexein (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, and I (sort of) floated that idea earlier. However, I am strongly against any section that just consists of images and their captions. (I'm not talking about a a gallery, but rather when we are expecting to explain the images purely through their captions, and with no prose.) Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 14:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• The star photo for 2010 anniversary of Jackson's death was there to visually support the claim about anniversaries. That has been replaced with the 2009 photo. To me, it seems like either the later one, or both, belong. --Lexein (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, well I doubt such a photo is necessary as visual support when a photo for the initial memorializing is present, especially if the latter is a better, clearer image. Guoguo12 (Talk)  23:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

J. Woodward section

I was in the process of thinking what we could do with that section (it seems a little out of place), when Guoguo made this edit. Hey, works for me. Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 20:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad I made the right choice. (I wasn't sure whether or not to discuss it first. It didn't seem all that controversial.) Guoguo12--Talk--  00:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Dubious source: personal communication

I'm concerned about source #23 (see current revision), which appears to be a personal email or phone conversation. The source is used multiple times throughout the article to cite statistics. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" (WP:RS). Guoguo12--Talk--  15:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Added as a ref by DoctorJoeE here, the edit summary confirms it was a phone call. I've WP:AGF'd it this whole time, because originally it was used only once as a source for one fact, the 8-names-from-a-hat, and just forgot to delete it after finding the news source. There's a better, verifiable source for that searched & text verified here:

Daily News of Los Angeles : WALK OF WHIMSY - CRITICISM ...‎
$3.50 - Daily News of Los Angeles - Oct 26, 1986
Nowhere on the revered Hollywood Walk of Fame is the name of Jack Nicholson or ... The first eight celebrities were drawn from a hat and given a star. It was an experimental project to see whether the star-adoring public would marvel at the concept, Grant said. They did, and on Feb."

After laboriously piecing together the above, I found this, from the Ottowa Citizen, p. D17. Oct. 30, 1986, also a mirror of the LA Daily News article. I tire of losing sources, so I dumped them all in. At least these are easily verifiable. There's some other gold in them, too.

So for "eight names" we don't need the phone call at all. However, for any other <ref name="Martinez"/> they should be independently sourced before that ref is finally decommissioned. --Lexein (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Guoguo12--Talk--  17:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I found sources to replace all but one use of the Martinez phone call. We still need a source to verify this claim, which cites the phone call:

"The most common question received by Chamber personnel is, "Why doesn't _____________ have a star?"^[74]

--Lexein (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

number of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame

Article mentions MORE THAN 2,500 - as of June 3 there's only 2,442 stars. There are 15-25 ceremonies per year. It would take 2-3 years to make that statement accurate.Walk7018 (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting one. The number "2,500" was first added to the article in 2004, referring to the original construction of the walk, and no source was provided back then, or, apparently, ever. I see at http://walkoffame.com/pages/history that room was allocated for 2,518 stars (but not that there were (or are) that many). That page, or its historical counterpart at hollywoodchamber.net, might have been the unintentional source of the misunderstanding. I found the "2,442" count you mention at http://walkoffame.com/pages/upcoming-ceremonies.

In future, suggestions would be easier to implement if you could provide a published source!

Since you quoted 2,442 exactly, am I correct in guessing that you are related to the Chamber of Commerce? If so, welcome! And thanks for making suggestions here about the article. --Lexein (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Believe originally space was allocated for some 2500 stars. These days, many people ask what they would do once they fill up all the 2500 spaces. The number 2500 is no longer valid. A third raw has already been established. There's plenty of room to expand.

Yes.Walk7018 (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walk7018 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

first image of characters on the Hollywood Walk of Fame

Having an image of characters on the Hollywood Walk of Fame falsely and misleadingly associates the "characters" with the organization of the Hollywood Walk of Fame. It suggests that they are hired by the organization. The first image and caption on this page is about "characters" on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. It would be nice to have this picture on a page about "characters," but not on a page about the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Suggest changing image to reflect the tourist attraction and what it represents with no mention of characters.Walk7018 (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

There are no images of characters of any kind in the article, so there's nothing which falsely and misleadingly associates anyone or anything, real or fictional, with the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

1. If you are referring to the topmost image, with the caption including the words "street performers", just say "street performers." The original photo (click on it) has a caption which says "A band plays on the Hollywood Walk of Fame" - would that caption be preferable? It is quite common in Wikipedia to use a photograph showing public edifices in use by people. We do have a policy of 'not using photographs which show living non-public figures in an identifiable way. The band can't be identified, but the women walking toward camera could be, so that might be a sound policy-based reason not to use that particular photo. If you have another, better suggestion for a photograph, which is (or can be) licensed as public domain, or Creative Commons, please provide a link here.
2. If you are referring to the photograph of the star awarded to the fictional character "Mickey Mouse", with the emblem of the movie camera which exactly matches every other movie camera emblem on the Walk, the image is not of any character. The image shows only the name of the character, and the emblem of the category in which the star was awarded.
3. If you are referring to the section, it is not "characters on the Hollywood Walk of Fame", it is "Fictional characters (and those who create them)". The title of the linked article is "Fictional characters on the Hollywood Walk of Fame" - this is simply a statement of bald fact, and implies no connection beyond "on." No legal connection, no implication of endorsement or ownership, nothing. This is an encyclopedia, and we name things what they are, and what reliable sources name them.

Does this help? --Lexein (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference is to the first item. Will look for a recent photo or take a new one with specs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walk7018 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Walk7018 (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

How's this: http://www.walkoffame.com/pages/historyWalk7018 (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Those pictures are copyrighted, and not licensed as public domain or Creative Commons, which means we can't use them on Wikipedia. Here's the WP:Image use policy#Copyright and licensing. In rare cases, we can use an image under a "fair use" provision, but then that picture will only appear on the English Wikipedia.

If you click on the various images in the article, you'll see that the topmost one is released as public domain by the photographer, and the rest are licensed under Creative Commons. --Lexein (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I took that photo. feel free to post it. not sure how to release it as public domain/creative commons - if you know of process, please advise. the main purpose is to show the walk of fame instead of focusing on "street performers" which are not part of the walk of fame.66.59.225.49 (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I missed your response here. I took another look at the photo you suggest: it hides the stars, which are in very deep shadow. The existing top photo really makes the stars "pop", visually, in the context of people (though you clearly don't like the street performers). The current caption lists only the address. If you happen to take another picture which highlights several or many stars, please let us know. If it's possible to get a shot just like the current one, just without the street performers, that would be great. If you intend to release it as either public domain, or Creative Commons CC-BY-SA, you can post it on http://Flickr.com at full resolution, and license it by checking a box. This makes it easy for us to import and use it. Thanks for your patience. --Lexein (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

first caricature image

"In February 1956, a prototype was unveiled that featured a caricature of an example honoree (John Wayne, by some accounts)[18] and brown-blue sidewalks.[16]" The original caricature prototype is currently displayed at The Hollywood Museum.(1660 North Highland Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90028-6121, (323) 464-7776). It's for Cary Grant. Until there's reliable reference which says there were more than one prototype made - including one for John Wayne, reference needs revision. Walk7018 (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's one of those topics where sources disagree. The listed source, Thomson "The Whole Equation: A History of Hollywood" says "Wayne according to some." It's the only source we have at the moment. Was there ever a news article, magazine article, or some other book which mentions Grant? Is it listed in the Hollywood Museum printed catalog? It's not on their website. --Lexein (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Hollywood Museum says on website "See 10,000 Real Show Biz Treasures! The most extensive collection of Hollywood memorabilia in the world." Not sure about printed catalog. I have a picture of the original artwork with Cary Grant signature. Not comfortable in releasing it. I found it online at the following site: http://goldenagedames.wordpress.com/ and http://goldenagedames.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/260.jpg

If you look at the picture closely, you'll see that it's a square. The light reflection is due to the encasing window panes behind which these items are displayed.

Walk7018 (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I found the pic page http://goldenagedames.wordpress.com/2011/05/ but there's no context which establishes it as the prototype caricature. Just FYI, there's no hurry. In fact, WP:There is no deadline. --Lexein (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Joanne Woodward first to pose for a picture

The Bruce Torrence Hollywood Photograph Collection www.hollywoodphotographs.com owns the copyright to the original picture of Joanne Woodward posing on her star. She was one of the first eight stars and the first person to pose on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Bruce's father took that shot.Walk7018 (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

use of Chamber of Commerce vs Hollywood Chamber of Commerce

Under Stagnation and revitalization, in first paragraph, add Hollywood to "as the Los Angeles City Council in 1962 passed an ordinance naming the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce"... The name is not Chamber of Commerce, it's Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. If it's too long, the use of "Hollywood Chamber" vs "Chamber of Commerce" is a more accurate reference.Walk7018 (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Y --Lexein (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

reference to Johnny Grant

Under section Stagnation and revitalization, add title Honorary Mayor of Hollywood to Johnny Grant reference in the sentence starting with "Radio personality, television producer, and Chamber member Johnny Grant (1923 – 2008)" - http://www.johnnygrant.com/johnnygrantbio.html. specifically since the name is followed by the years of his lifetime.

Y --Lexein (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

In the same paragraph, the fee $25,000 is incorrect. It's $30,000 - http://www.walkoffame.com/pages/faqs Walk7018 (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Y --Lexein (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, the timeline moves from 1980 to 1978 and then back to 1978. Walk7018 (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Y --Lexein (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

need to discuss "special" star reference - change to Award of Excellence. Reference source would be an image of the "special" stars themselves which carry the title "Award of Excellence" Walk7018 (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed that further work on this topic is needed. Though some "Award of Excellence" stars such as the Dodgers or the LAPD have the extra plaques, some seem not to. Images aren't usually considered reliable sources by themselves - I usually use them along with a published prose reliable source. Here are some web sources and some news sources which refer to "Award of Excellence". I'll get to it later.
• Johnny Grant's seems not to be an "Award of Excellence." His bio says "On February 1, 2002, Johnny was honored with a special, one-of-a-kind Walk of Fame star, bearing the Hollywood seal [...]" but doesn't mention "Award of Excellence." The L.A. Times Johnny Grant star entry and this photo show no "Award of Excellence" plaque, though the Seal of Hollywood is unique. --Lexein (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

discussion about accurate opinion without seeing the final design

Under "Restoration" Section: third par. "The program has received some criticism in the media. "Why is a Scandinavian vodka being enshrined on the Hollywood Walk of Fame?", asked Alana Semuels of the Los Angeles Times, who cited the program as "proof that no attraction or event in the U.S. is impervious to the phenomenon of corporate sponsorship".[47]

The body of the reference article says that the author has not seen the plaque. The article reads: "It's unclear just how different the Absolut plaque, near the intersection of Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue, will be from nearby stars for Antonio Banderas, Matthew Broderick and Jackie Chan." Chamber officials wouldn't provide a sneak preview, but Gubler described the plaque as a 3-foot square set in terrazzo and brass featuring an Absolut bottle, text citing Absolut as a "Friend of the Walk of Fame," and icons such as a film projector and microphone that appear on other stars. Last month, Gubler said, the chamber rejected a design that looked too much like the stars for celebrities. He said the plaque cannot be confused with a star because it is on private property and is "set back a distance from the Walk of Fame."

Need to find a reference of media criticism after unveiling of the "Friends" plaque. Walk7018 (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewrote the paragraph. I'm not sure it's relevant that she didn't see the plaque before unveiling, because she was critiquing the notion of corporate sponsorship with perks-for-pay, as was her interviewee. --Lexein (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

missing basic useful information about the Walk

The articles does not mention any of the following information which people constantly ask about:

• what is the address of the Hollywood Walk of Fame so that they can map it for directions... There is no address, but if any address is to be provided, 7018 Hollywood Boulevard is the most accurate.
• Best way to enjoy the walk: wear comfortable shoes and clothes, keep hydrated, plan to spend the day in Hollywood.
• Best way to get there: take the Red Line Metro - it has three stops in Hollywood, two of which Highland and Vine climb up right onto the Hollywood Walk of Fame
• the walk is family-friendly and is a great way to create long-lasting memories
• the walk is pet-friendly
• wheelchair accessible
• the walk is free
• all walk of fame star ceremonies are free to attend in the public viewing area.
• no tickets to buy. no reserved seats.
• you can learn who's getting a star next and plan your Hollywood trip accordingly
• announcements are made 7-10 days prior to star ceremony at www.walkoffame.com/pages/upcomingceremonies
• all ceremonies start promptly at 11:30am and usually last 40-50 minutes
• anyone can nominate a star with a properly completed nomination application found at http://www.walkoffame.com/media/walkoffamenomination.pdf
• nomination deadline is by Noon of May 31 of each year to be considered for the following year selection.
• in 2010, the Hollywood Walk of Fame celebrated its 50th Anniversary with a year-long celebration. Highlights include a time capsule and attending of around 75 legendary honorees.
• There has not been a replacement for the late Honorary Mayor of Hollywood Johnny Grant. Leron Gubler, President/CEO of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce emcees the Hollywood Walk of Fame star ceremonies.
• Ana Martinez, the producer of the Hollywood Walk of Fame has been working behind the scenes producing these stars ceremonies for more than 20 years.
• The people/company making these stars are now in their third generation
• there are clubs of star-polishers
• The Hollywood Walk of Fame and the Hollywood Sign are trademarks of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. Global Icons handles licensing.

Walk7018 (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I've prepended * to your list to make the wiki line-break. It's usually bad form (see WP:TALKO) to edit someone else's comments, but I figured you wouldn't mind just this once. Now you know about wiki-indenting with : and *

The long list you've added here presents some difficulties with WP:PROMO and WP:TRIVIA. We can't regurgitate the StarGirl or FAQ sections, or chunks of the official websites. There's only so much trivia, including administrative trivia, we can integrate into the prose of an article. There is a need to present a sober, neutral, research tone, with reliable independent source support for every claim made. Not sure if you know this, but the HollywoodChamber.net and WalkOfFame.com are WP:PRIMARY sources (close to, or part of, the subject), which can be quite reliable, but still, we can't base whole articles or sections on primary sources: that's WP:PROMO. The best WP:RS reliable sources, from Wikipedia's viewpoint, are independent reliable sources, from organizations with editorial policies and fact checkers. For an eyebrow raiser, read WP:OR about original research.

• Here are my initial thoughts (it's quite late):

• As for the hour and length of ceremonies, and the other tourist information: Wikipedia is not a tour guide. Here are many more things Wikipedia is WP:NOT.
• If I recall correctly, all urban sidewalks on controlled streets (stoplights) in California are wheelchair accessible. So there's no need to point that out in this article.
• The 50th anniversary seemed to have little or no hard press. I suppose it could get a short sentence in History.
• I have two sources about Travis Paternostro, and his father and grandfather, the family business making the stars. I prefer only to use video sources as adjuncts to a print source.

• Strauss, Bob (September 25, 2010). "Walk of Fame continues to be a major attraction". Los Angeles Daily News.
• Rooney, Brian (May 3, 2010). "Follow the Star-Studded Sidewalk" (video). ABC News. (event at 2:00)

• We have mentioned one cleaning club, under Homage, citing a book.
• Didn't know about the trademarks, but I've literally never seen a mention of trademarks in Wikipedia articles about organizations.
• If you plan to remove any items in the above list, please use strikethrough using (<s> and </s>) instead of deleting. --Lexein (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

:: Feel free to use whatever from the above. There are so many inquiries regarding these specifics, that a small paragraph combining most of the above be helpful for readers. Prefer to have a sentence about trademark. The images of the emblems on this page are trademarks, and not mentioning this fact is midleading.66.59.225.49 (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please change the main picture which does not accurately represent what the Hollywood Walk of Fame stands for. The main focus of that pictures is something that is not part of the Hollywood Walk of Fame.66.59.225.49 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

My review

Alright, so here's what I think should be improved before any GAR:

1. The lead. In short, it strikes me as being too short. Per the guidelines, the lead should summarize all the major points (e.g., briefly explain, say, all the section titles) and be able to "stand on its own as a concise version of the article". I really don't think this lead does that. Too much is left untold, and the second paragraph gives undue weight to something that isn't even really discussed in the article (tourism).
2. Alot of "The Walk today" (and even "Errors and mysteries") is trivia. Nothing wrong with that, in and of itself, but a lot of it is unsourced trivia, and that is a problem. "Entertainers in politics", "Unique and unusual" and "Fictional characters (and those who create them)" seem especially problematic. Maybe just make a (smaller) "Trivia" section?
3. Could "On the outside looking in" (odd title, that) be merged into "Nomination process"?

These were mostly the "big" things. More to come, but I'd like more opinions on these changes. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything you suggested. Merging "On the outside looking in" into "Nomination process" sounds good. I've been wondering what to do with that strangely-named section. Guoguo12 (Talk)  23:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Well, I'll wait (at least) for Lexein before doing anything. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that kind of violates the spirit of being bold, doesn't it? Guoguo12 (Talk)  01:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Well, I've had problems in the past with being bold...then being almost immediately reverted because of a "lack of discussion" - even when the changes were usually good ones. Easier to just talk things out now. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge (my third point) performed. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with #3, the paragraph merge. But I strongly disagree with the #2 description "a lot of it is unsourced trivia," where there is only completely sourced content. I strongly encourage the editor to carefully read the neighboring sentences' sources before making such a bold and sort of insulting remark. DrJoe, I, and Guoguo12 have been scrupulous about sources, going back years to spelunk where claims came from. Quite frequently, an editor supports two sentences or even a paragraph with a single source, in order to reduce citation clutter - this is a perfectly acceptable style, when the claims (sentences) can all be clearly seen to be supported by the source.--Lexein (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, Guoguo has retired. :( Just you and me, I guess. Now, as to the lack of sources...

• "Entertainers in politics" is entirely unsourced.
• The latter two paragraphs of "Names in common" is unsourced.
• By my count, five of the nine paragraphs in "Unique and unusual" are unsourced.
• "Fictional characters (and those who create them)" is unsourced.

Sorry if you took it as in insult, since I did not mean it that way, but there clearly are unsourced sections. Please understand that I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with having trivia in the article. However, a lot of these could very easily be disputed by another reviewer or editor, and I seriously doubt that a GAR would pass with all this in it. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Never mind. 1st item sourced & copyedited. I wouldn't move anything to a "trivia" section, because it will just get tagged for deletion or exhorted to be moved back into the article prose, where it is somewhat comfortably ensconced. In the battle between dull, pedantic recitation of facts, and adding flavor to an otherwise boring article about pavement, I'll choose flavor. The bottom line is that in the grand history of humanity, the Walk of Fame itself is trivial. In the grand history of the Walk, many recipients are trivial. A few are nontrivial, such as the heads of state listed in "Entertainers in politics" - not so sure about senators and representatives, though.

As for "Names in common" - summarizing data seems to fall under the procedural rubric of WP:CALC and doesn't need to be separately cited. I've added a hidden comment to that effect, and ref'd the WalkOfFame.com results anyways.

As for "Unique and unusual" - a few of the statements are still summarizing an existing list, as above. Summarizing and condensing is one of the Things Encyclopedias Do. That said, I'm on the fence about statistics about names - it somehow seems too trivial, even a bit obsessive. Also, there is some POV language ("most novel") which could be excised. --Lexein (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I still think that there's a tad too much trivia, but I'll be more then happy to wait for a peer review or even GAR to see if they care. Not sure how CALC applies; it seems that clearly refers to numbers and things that don't need to be sourced because they can be computed in one's mind. This seems to me to be different. I also agree with you about the names thing. For example, if we look at the second paragraph of "Names in common", there is a clear need for examples, rather then a full list. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I invoked CALC only because it refers to that which can be observed and noted in an article without being labeled WP:Original research. Similarly, a reader could slog through the list of 2442 (or more) stars and tote up all the Joneses, Smiths, and Williamses, or we could simply summarize them. --Lexein (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"Bending the Rules"

Is it just me or does the "Bending the rules" section seem a little informal and unencyclopedic? Sentences like "the selection committee has been known to conjure some interesting rule interpretations to justify a selection" and "the committee decided boxing (unlike basketball, apparently) could be considered a form of "live performance" just don't seem to be written from a neural stance, in my opinion. I would edit it, but since I'm an anon, it would most likely be reverted by one of the Wikipedia word nazis so I thought I'd bring it up here instead. :) --92.23.248.193 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a little informal and OR-ish, but I haven't gotten to that section yet, and I'd love to hear what you would say? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems like this material would fit under "Nomination process", with maybe a subheading for "exceptions" or something like that.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've reverted a too-diverse set of changes to the article.

• There are no sources which state that the Walk of Fame "is" the sidewalk. The Walk wouldn't be the Walk without the embedded stars which were added to the existing sidewalks. This article has rather high traffic, so the introductory paragraph should simply summarize details expanded upon later. Further, there was a complaint from the Chamber about the wording of the lede, which had merit (lack of support in sources). Please discuss here before making any further changes to the lede.
• "more than 2500" is and has always has been in error.
• Much of the recent edit seemed like purely personal language preference, rather than MOS- or guideline-driven. But the edit summary made it sound like actual, substantial problems were being addressed; not the case at all. Discuss?

--Lexein (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like somebody needs to review WP:OWN and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. If memory serves, *you* were the one who suggested "series of sidewalks", back when I undertook a complete rewrite of this article when it was in woeful shape last year. (BTW, what's a "lede"?) While it's true that the Walk wouldn't be the Walk without the embedded stars, it's also true that the stars wouldn't exist without the sidewalk. So an argument over whether to call it a sidewalk with stars in it or stars in a sidewalk is, when you think about it, pretty nonsensical.

But that means the difference is trivial, and not worth an argument, so I won't argue that point. I WILL argue with your blanket revert of all my other changes, which were either unclear language or factual errors (and the facts ARE properly cited). Some of the grammatical fixes are personal language preference, that's true -- but that's allowed! You know as well as anybody that "just don't like it" is not a valid reason for reverting.

I didn't write "more than 2500", I wrote "more than 2400." (2400 is a lower number than 2442, correct?) But 2442 became 2443 just 2 weeks after that change was made. Do we really have to list the exact number of monuments, and change the number every time a new star is built? Really? What's the point of that?

Since you object to calling the Walk a "sidewalk", why do you object to my changing "brown-blue sidewalks" -- which is vague and non-descriptive anyway? I took out the "thus" sentence because it's redundant, not to mention grammatically awkward. There are not "two stories" about the origin of the star concept -- it's all speculation, since nobody knows where the concept came from or who thought it up. I rechecked the source (which I found, originally) and I was wrong to separate the Grauman's prints from the Tropics stars in the second theory -- but there is no such thing as "Grauman's Chinese" -- it's Grauman's Chinese Theater.

So I'm going to put back most of my changes outside the introduction. If you have specific objections to any of them, bring 'em -- but please, no more blanket reverts. It's not nice. DoctorJoeE (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool it. Reread WP:TIGERS, and check the diff. The re-paste of old lead text ("lede" is, as you well know, a common spelling at WP, from the newspaper business), combined with too many other changes, necessitated simple reversion for discussion. In this diff, the erroneous "more than 2500" text, there since the creation of the article, and never true re-appeared. To me, this re-paste of erroneous information cast doubt on the entirety of the edit. "2500" is unsourced, and unsourceable except from echoes of this WP article: that is clearly the factual error to which I referred.

Do not attack editors: whether I "don't like" particular phrasing doesn't matter. The article, and the reader's understanding of the subject, are what matter most.

Here are two reasons for not emphasizing "sidewalk" over "stars":

1. It's not an article about general public works, namely sidewalks: it's about a particular privately constructed ongoing monument/tourist attraction built with civic blessing, and therefore its distinguishing characteristics are justifiably placed first in the lede.
2. The Chamber of Commerce specifically objected, in writing publicly (and privately), to the referring to the Walk as "a series of sidewalks". Even though it was, long ago, my suggestion to address a different imbalance in the lede, I see their point.

FYI for you to "put back most" of "your changes" goes against WP:BRD, which intends, be bold, but don't be surprised at a revert, then discuss. It does NOT say, re-revert in anger, nor does it say "boldly revert deletion."

Mass changes all at once: I think you might agree that separately grouped edits should be performed for separate purposes (corrections per source, unsupported, grammar, fix lead: all should be separate), and I'm appreciative that your re-additions were in smaller groups.

Grammatical changes, when purely personal (not justified by MOS or other policy/guideline/essay/discussion), should always lead to clearer, more concise language within the bounds of accuracy, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH], WP:UNDUE, and so forth. Where they do not, they can be reverted uncontroversially.

• "The exact origin of the "star" concept is not certain," is one such change: it is WP:OR - a conclusion formed by a WP editor, not supported even in paraphrase by any source, and worse, it is WP:WEASEL language, making a blanket statement from a limited set of facts. Sources, sources, sources.

The construction "Two stories: story one. story two." is better, whether or not the word "story" is used. People tell stories, or histories. Two existing, not-quite-conflicting sources exist, different enough to warrant individual mention without priority imposed by us.

We can't really say "theory", because neither source does, and nobody's theorizing anyways: people involved at the time are relating their stories, not theorizing.

Finally, not stating that there are two points of view (story, tale, remembrance) at the outset needlessly emphasizes the first.

--Lexein (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

First, I criticized the editing, not the editor -- apologies if you felt otherwise, but my objection was to your blanket revert when your only stated problem was with the "lede" (more on that later). I recently had to deal with a "tiger" (more of an asshole, actually) over at D.B. Cooper, so maybe I'm a bit sensitive at the moment.

Second, we're getting into some serious nitpicking here. Yes, the article is not about sidewalks in general, but the intro never said that, or even implied it; the article is about a specific series of sidewalks on Hollywood Blvd. and Vine Street with stars embedded in them. But as I said, this sort of hair-splitting is not worth the time and trouble to argue over; I've already conceded the point. I don't think, however, that we should allow the Chamber to dictate content changes (as they tried to do directly and anonymously once upon a time, as I'm sure you recall, since you figured out who it was and helped set her straight).

"The exact origin of the star concept is not certain" is a simple statement of fact -- if you look for the origin of the "star" concept, you find different accounts, and nobody knows which is true, so the correct origin is not known with certainty. And it's not "weasel words" because it does not "deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint", since the different accounts are enumerated in the following sentences. I recently rewrote the Ted Bundy article, then helped take it to GA status -- none of the GA Police objected to a very similar phrase in that article. That said -- in the interest of harmony, would "...the origin of the star concept has never been determined with certainty..." work better for you? I will also reword the two versions so that neither can be perceived as "taking priority" -- though it's worth noting that the Chamber web site offers only the first version, and never mentions Sugarman or his possible role in developing the Walk. (I found that story myself.)

Finally, not that anybody cares, but before I went to med school I was a journalist -- and I never once saw a real journalist refer to a lead as a "lede." In fact, I never saw that non-word until I started editing here, and when I inquired about it I was told, "Oh, that's how journalists spell it." Which journalists are those? Perhaps this is one of those urban legends that needs debunking by somebody with a lot more spare time than you or I have. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• (Second) Nobody ever called it first a series of sidewalks but us, and it was a rookie mistake. Far from the Chamber dictating content, a) other sources back up their linguistic contention, b) primary sources are specifically encouraged to suggest corrections in articles about them, per WP:COIC guideline, and c) on the Talk page, see Chamber suggestions which were (and were NOT) followed, and exactly why. There are many unresolved issues which I know irk the Chamber, which we should endeavor to resolve one way or another, for example, the choice of top photo. The Walk's purpose is people, so the photo shouldn't emphasize buskers, though IMHO it may include them. I requested that the Chamber make a free-content photo suggestion or a CC photo contribution, but there's been no word yet.
• "The exact origin of the star concept is not certain" is a simple statement of fact" - yep, it certainly is. And WP:OR policy states "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists." If a source doesn't say it, then neither should we. I don't care if the GA editors dropped the ball and let it through elsewhere - see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. We, as editors, don't make assertions of anything: only sources do. To take two sources which conflict and say that there is "uncertainty" is WP:SYNTH, when in fact there are two certain sources, which should simply be quoted or paraphrased, and the matter left to rest there.
• Lede (see the article): There's no claim that it's literally a distinct word, just an alternative spelling for needed clarity's sake. Reserve your snark for others, including a couple of real journalists:

• "The Maven's Word of the Day: Lede". Random House. November 28, 2000. "spelled phonetically to avoid confusion with "lead" (rhymes with led)"
• Heat and Light: Advice for the Next Generation of Journalists. By Mike Wallace, Beth Knobel. Broadway; 2010, pg. 103 etc. ISBN 0307464652. ("Lede" used lots of places.)

--Lexein (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Reserve your snark for others?" Aren't you the one who said, "Don't attack editors?" Notwithstanding that snarky comment about a real-life observation, let's both get polite, shall we? Your Random House source explains that the word was used, once upon a time, to prevent "lead" (with a long "e") from being confused with "lead" (with a short "e") in the days when newspapers were printed with type molded from molten lead. With the advent of offset printing presses in the early 1960s the distinction became irrelevant -- which explains why, by the time I became a writer and then editor of my college newspaper in the late 1970s, and then began writing professionally, no writer or copy editor in any newsroom that I'm aware of was using the "lede" misspelling. There may have been some old-timers somewhere, like Mike Wallace (who is 93 years old), who used it out of habit and/or nostalgia, but none of the journalists I worked with, young or old, ever used it, and I never even saw that spelling until I started editing on WP. So use it if you wish -- I am merely pointing out, FWIW, that the newspaper business (or what's left of it) does not. (Of course, since the newspaper business is about to fall off a cliff, the point will be moot in the very near future.)

Now, to matters at hand -- have it your way on the "uncertainty" thing, but starting a sentence with "about Joanne Woodward" is conversational, and thus does not work in an encyclopedic article. I've offered an alternative phrasing; hope you like it.

Please explain to me why a photo of Charlie Chaplin's star has to be identified as "Charlie Chaplin's star." Is that not obvious by looking at the photo? Is it not patronizing to point that obvious fact out to readers? And if there is some obscure WP rule which requires this, why are the photos of the Joanne Woodward star and the Mickey Mouse star not similarly captioned? (And please, please, PLEASE don't caption those photos just because I pointed that out!) Ditto the Monty Woolley photo -- the TV symbol is identified earlier in the article and does not need re-identifying. It is certainly appropriate to caption the James Cameron photo (for example), since some readers might not know him by sight; but in my opinion it's insulting to inform readers that they are looking at a photo of Charlie Chaplin's star when they can see that for themselves -- and I recall that we gained consensus on this in the past.

RE: the Chamber's objection to the top photo -- can't that be resolved by simply flipping that photo with the next one, which is now in the "Origin" section? However, IMHO, the existing photo is perfectly appropriate -- it shows the Walk, and a typical activity on the Walk. What's wrong with that? A sterile photo of a stretch of sidewalk with nobody on it would be far less interesting. My two cents. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Behavioral observation: the phrase "let you have your way" here, and in the past, whenever someone mentions pillar/policy/guideline/essay to support an edit with which you disagree, is not pleasant, and makes the process about editors, in spite of an editor's effort to make the edit about improving the article, in accordance with prior consensus by other editors. Editing is not a zero-sum game - I and most others do not treat it that way. Personalizing matters so much ("please, please, PLEASE") seems unseemly.
• Lede, as much as you seem to dislike it, has a historical precedent, and has traction here with lots of editors. Your dispute is not with me.
• The Monty Woolley text is poured below the photo. We don't know, and can't closely control, the layout that readers get (wide? narrow?), nor the order in which readers look at (eyetrack) pictures and text. In that light, "Motion picture category, TV emblem", while pointing out the clear contradiction in this section, far from the introducing section, doesn't seem excessive, or patronizing, but leads to the text for more info.
• I do not think your overall claim that captions are patronizing is sufficiently supported in MOS guidelines for deletion of captions. For comparison, check out image captioning as used in other encyclopedias; I think your disagreement is not with me at all. However, I believe more interesting captions might be in order, providing some non-obvious detail (per WP:CAPTION, sentence 2) which leads back to the text for further explanation:

• "Selected 1956, installed 1972" (@Chaplin)
• "Not the first star granted" (@Woodward)
• "First fictitious character star" (@M. Mouse)

• One thing Wikipedia tries to do is be accessible without presuming too much about the reader or their viewing environment. This means to consider readers with low vision, Kindle users, and printed page users, where captions identify something which simply might not be easily discerned. For readers who turn off image display in their browser (on small screens, many people do) the caption serves to identify the blank image placeholder, as a hint as to whether the image will be of interest. Admittedly, the top-down image of yet another star might not be interesting, but one in which the category doesn't match the plaque (Woolley) might be.
• If a whole section is about a given topic, and the photo is of that subject, then I would agree that no caption is needed - in that sense, and if phrased appropriately, the whole section serves as a caption for that photo. But in the Woolley case, I think the suggested caption is merited, to tie it to the text.
• I've altered the top photo caption; I think this should address (for now) the undue weight perceived by the Chamber. As I said, it shows people on the Walk; even better would be a photo of some people interacting with the Walk, with lots of stars visible. As soon as we find a high quality shot like that, it should be top photo.

To support your repeated claim that there was prior consensus about image captions here, please provide a link. --Lexein (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well? It's more fun to edit and discuss, than just one or the other. --Lexein (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I decided to talk this over with some editors & an administrator who have worked with me on some other articles. I presented a hypothetical (no names or other identifiers) in which different sources gave different accounts of the origin of something, and asked whether stating that the origin wasn't clear, followed by enumerating the various conflicting accounts, constituted OR or weasel words or anything else, and whether the hundreds of articles that do it that way are "dropping the ball." The editors all said no, and no. The admin said, "I suppose you could make a weak case for WP:SYNTH, but who cares? The idea is to follow the spirit, and not necessarily the letter, of the rules." And he added a quote from WP:SYNTH: "SYNTH is not a rigid rule. Wikipedia doesn't have them, supposedly. But if a policy gets enforced zealously, it can be hard to tell the difference. The solution is not to enforce policies zealously. Never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article." And that, IMHO, is the problem here: You're very good at quoting rules, and enforcing them zealously, but as a result, IMHO, you sometimes fail to see the forest for the trees. The forest is improving the article; the individual trees/rules should be secondary.

When arbitrary rules conflict with comment sense, IMHO you have to go with common sense. For example, let's say you're physically standing on the Walk, looking at the Charlie Chaplin star; and some well-meaning person (perhaps a Chamber employee) taps you on the shoulder and says, "That's the Charlie Chaplin star!" My guess is you wouldn't have to seek "support in MOS guidelines" to find that annoying and patronizing. And the person might retort, "The rules say we have to do this, because you might be blind or illiterate or stupid, and if so, you wouldn't be able to figure out for yourself that this is Charlie Chaplin's star." That would just make it a whole lot worse, wouldn't it? So if you occasionally find a response "unpleasant", I would suggest that you consider the possibility, however remote, that such responses may not arise from a vacuum, but might instead be an expression of frustration. When someone insists on a specific word or phrase or expression when another would be more precise or better English, or at very least would work just as well, but the difference isn't that important in the great scheme of things (the original Monty Woolley debate comes to mind), the only civilized option is to throw up your hands and say, "Have it your way."

Another thing the admin told me was, "Wikipedia really wastes energy, that's it's dirty little secret. It's an amazingly inefficient process. And when I find myself wasting energy over unimportant details, my solution is to find other things to edit." I think that's great advice, and I'm going to take it. Spare time is depressingly finite, and since nobody is paying any of us to do this, there's no point in doing it when it's not enjoyable. Most of the contributions I made to this article last year have (amazingly) survived, so that will have to do; I'm taking it off my watchlist so I can spend my very finite spare time improving articles instead of arguing over minutiae.

I'm sure you'll want the last word, and you're welcome to it. One final suggestion for the article -- look closely at the top photo, which is now captioned, "Near Grauman's Chinese Theater". Across Hollywood Blvd you can see the unmistakable logo of the Disney Store, which is across from the Kodak Theatre, not Grauman's. And while I suppose you could argue that "near Grauman's" is technically correct, since Grauman's is a block and a half away, a more accurate caption would be "near Kodak Theater". And I'll repeat my suggestion that you flip the first and second photos, which ought to take care of the Chamber's complaint These are just suggestions, because I don't really care; it's not that important. All the best, DoctorJoeE (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not the last word. I don't treat or enforce rules zealously, because I'm well aware that they aren't rules. They're guidelines, for the most part, with some essays, and some policies.

Hey, good catch correcting that caption from last year. Corrections are always welcome. Editing is not a zero-sum game.

Wikipedia is not, I think you would agree, about only what is right here right now, there is a history of lots of other editors, many of whom have, through discussion, arrived at consensus guidelines, and policies, and gone so far as to discuss them in writing. I don't ignore them, usually, nor do I enforce them. But I choose not to be shy about pointing out the existence of those guidelines, and even to look them up, and try to understand their logic, meaning, and purpose, and to point them out to others, including you. I'm glad you "talked" (where?) to other editors. I think their discussion should have occurred here, so that not only I, but other editors could perhaps learn something from them directly. My discussions with you have been public.

Do not paint my efforts to improve the article as somehow inferior to any other efforts. Sources rule. Guidelines guide, and are negotiable. If you feel enforced against, that was not my intent. Don't take things so personally, down to the level of a word. To distance oneself by declaring something that you're passionate about "unimportant," perhaps temporarily, is an important part of conflict resolution, called WP:DISENGAGE - no problem. Do what you need to do. I consider your editing here important and welcome, and yes, worthy of discussion and occasional improvement.

Common sense does indeed play an important role in weighing editorial decisions, but it does not consist of only your sense of things. Other editors exist, and their sense of things matters, too. For example, the notion of "numeracy" - the number of things sorta matters. To declare based only on two sources that there is "uncertainty" - why is that better than simply stating the difference stances, or the differences? I feel that Wikipedia's voice is that of the sources, not the editors; I cannot apologize for that, but it was not my intention to be at all mean about it. Please note, I thought the wording you finally chose was fine, and I said so. The same thing happened in the Monty Woolley para, by the way- it's your final prose. That's how seriously I take non-zero-sum collaboration.

I wish you would regard the accumulated wisdom of editors who have already gone before, and that of the editors you're working with now, as important as that of editors with whom you have successfully gotten, to use that unfortunate phrase, "your way", but for some reason did not actually invite to this discussion. Perhaps I could have learned something from them. As I said, not the last word. --Lexein (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Errors & mysteries - Anne Bancroft

This was added, and I've moved it here for discussion:

Actress Anne Bancroft's star bears the TV emblem, although at the time of her star ceremony (1960) she was primarily an actress of stage and film, with minimal television credits.

I've researched it, and don't think it's an error. Yes, she has a TV star.(L.A. Times) At the time of her star installation in 1960 (Star listing), in the previous five years she appeared in 13 episodes in six series from 1955-1958, and eight films in the same period. (IMDb) So a TV star was not unjustified. I don't know the Chamber's process for choosing. --Lexein (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Luis Miguel was the first ever Latin Artist to be awarded a star for his music in 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.42.176 (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a reliable source for "first Latin Artist"? (His article Luis Miguel doesn't mention one.) --Lexein (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

IP removal of refs

A recent IP edit replaced a paragraph (with multiple reliable source citations) with text which reads like a personal recollection. I've reverted that without prejudice, but if the text is added back, it must be supported by reliable sources, per WP:RS and WP:V. --Lexein (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that, and support your revert. I thought I had done it myself... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(Oops, it wasn't an IP edit. Struck & linked). --Lexein (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

OR and TRIVIA tags

IMO, tagging sections as "trivia", when the claims were reported by multiple reliable sources and well organized by topic, seems inappropriate. Tagging sections as "OR", when they are reliably sourced and verifiable, or the reader can verify by multiple methods and all we do is enumerate, per WP:CALC, also seems inappropriate. There is a {{dubious}} tag^{(dubious - discuss)} and an {{OR}} tag^{(original research?)} for indicating specific sentences or paragraphs needing attention. I agree that some language could be more concise. I do, however, welcome discussion before drastic action. --Lexein (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"driveby banner"

FWIW, I brought these exact same issues up in June. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 03:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but a banner? It's just us here. June is a long time ago. How about just a short reminder bump and linkback here?

I agree the lead needs expansion, but not rewriting (those first two sentences took a damn long time to get stable and factual.) --Lexein (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Images

I agree with this revert because the image seemed self-promoting ("me_star.jpg"). --Lexein (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Plus it was sideways...yeah...sorry to the uploader, but that seemed an easy one. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced names in Homage section

Hidden comments assert "We have pic" after Montalban and Doohan. First, who's "we"? (Narf: it's me!) Second, in general, Wikipedia needs independent reliable sources which readers can consult, (said to self, it turns out) to verify claims made in an article. Pictures, by themselves, don't usually constitute a reliable source, unless accompanied by text, in published WP:RS. Of course, pictures are fine supplementary sources, if provided in addition to RS. Unpublished pictures are of no use to anyone. So I'm inclined to reluctantly delete Hepburn, Montalban and Doohan as unsourced for having flowers placed. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you don't have the pic, then yes, it's probably best to remove those names. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't edit when sleepy. Since pics exist (see Montalban's and Doohan's articles), I'll leave it to some other editor who feels more strongly to keep or delete those names. --Lexein (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It happens to all of us :P Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Image request

Could anyone please provide an image of the special "moon" stars?Nemissimo (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There is one in the article. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 20:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Too long? Nah.

An IP editor added {{longish}} without an edit summary, so I reverted it. I don't think it's too long, and I don't see a sensible way to split the article. In terms of organizing by topic, though, looking at the TOC, I have a notion to:

• Move "Special stars", "Hollywood and La Brea Gateway" and "Homage" under "The Walk today".
• Move "Theft and vandalism", "Errors and mysteries" & "Star locations" under "History".
• Rename "Nomination process" to "Administration", and add subsections "Nomination", "Fee", and "Committee" at the existing paragraphs.

Opinions? --Lexein (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it really doesn't need the longish tag (like many articles not yet at GA, it could be trimmed slightly in parts, but not that much), but I do agree that the organization could be better. Quite frankly, "The Walk today" is a very vague title that I think sh/could be changed or clarified. The other stuff you bring up really depends on that. The only new subsection I think is a tad unnecessary is "Fee", whose material would fit well enough into a new "Nomination", IMO. Also, I would suggest that "Star locations" go under "Description"--since that what it is--rather than TWT. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

2nd image slow rotation?

The star image in the ==Description== section has been slowly changed over time without discussion. It was added here in Feb 2012, without objection. In this August 2012 edit Destiny's Child was replaced by The Supremes. I think this rate (every few months) is fine. To avoid edit wars, shall we:

• Agree upon a schedule? Precedence?
• Establish it as a "Theme" position, such as "only female recording stars"?
• Establish criteria for the image as "only pristine, complete stars from directly overhead"?
• Establish requirements such as The description should always state "illustrating the brass lettering, icon, and star surround"?

Whatever we can establish as consensus will make it more of a collaborative improvement of the article. --Lexein (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

My own opinion is that it is entirely unnecessary; had I been watching the article when it was added, I would have objected to adding it in the first place. There are plenty of other closeups of stars in the article already. And why are you singling out "girl groups", or even "female recording stars?" And, if you insist on keeping this unnecessary photo, why would you "rotate" it, instead of leaving it alone? The whole idea makes no sense to me. My two cents. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 15:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I was not insisting. Yikes, man. I just noticed that both images were of stars for female recording stars, with an already-established (sample size=2) "theme." Now I notice that with that image, there's a coincidental rough balance of images related to men, and women, and white, and black (or multiracial), which I find pleasing.

The notion of rotating images allows for some variety (if done over months, not weeks or days), without adding or subtracting images from the article, and without edit warring. It only applies to this image location because it is not explicitly discussed in the article, though it very handily illustrates the Description section.

I hear the plaintive cry "how many images of stars must one endure?" But the article does not seem overloaded with images (I would not add any more). And of course, I don't mind just leaving it alone. --Lexein (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't insisting either -- just volunteering my opinion, which you solicited. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 22:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I might add that the current photo is not a "pristine, complete star", and does not properly illustrate the brass outline -- as do, for example, the Woodward and Chaplin stars later in the article. And if I were to rewrite the caption, I would eliminate "honoring the famous girl group The Supremes" (which is obvious), and replace it with your suggested "illustrating the brass lettering, icon, and star surround". And I would pick a better example, of which there are plenty in Commons. Another two cents. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, this Supremes photo is not supreme. Caption changed, however. I think I'll make a subpage under this Talk page for candidate images for ranking and scheduling, just as a proposal, later today. --Lexein (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Apollo XI (plaque) vs Apollo 11

I have three reasons for reverting:

• prior discussion and consensus (see archive)
• WP:BRD - bold edit, I reverted, now discuss. To revert after that without discussion is just warring, so I reverted on _that_ basis. The article is about the Walk, so we don't sarcastically quote it (or mock editors).
• Lots of NASA missions and assets were officially named with, and emblazoned with, Roman numerals. Saturn V, etc. The anglicised numerals were the most commonly used, but still slang, form. So, there may be a compromise here, but I !vote for use the same text throughout the article. I think parenthesizing or quoting either Apollo 11 or Apollo XI, like lots of explaining around here, seems condescending, since Roman numerals are taught in grade school. I would agree with using "XI" everywhere, but follow its first use with (11), not (Apollo 11), and not quoted - that's how jargon is introduced, if it is used throughout an article.

In wiki, I've seen Roman numerals wikilinked, as in Apollo XI. MOS may speak to this. --Lexein (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Official patch of Apollo 11

The Apollo programme did not use Roman numerals but Arabic numerals. The Walk of Fame is thus quoting it wrongly and the only reason to have Roman numerals at all on the page is because it obviously is written with Roman numerals on the Walk. Because of this, it should also be marked with quotation marks. You reverted something which is a given and said to ME to start talking instead of doing it yourself. That's not serious. BTW, there's nothing about the Apollo programme in the archive to this page, so I don't know what prior discussion you are referring to. Taylor Strand (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

File:AP12goodship.png

The Apollo program, at least in the logos, did not consistently use either Arabic or Roman numerals; the patches for the preceding and following missions are labeled Apollo X and Apollo XII, respectively. —C.Fred (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Taylor Strand's information is provably incorrect. Viz, the patches for X and XII:

Further, here's a Kennedy Space Center NASA archives page about the so-emblazoned Apollo XI mission, and here's a NASA page which calls it 11, while referring to the mission as Apollo XI.

I'd like to find out if the Apollo XI Walk of Fame star was a mistake, or selected by the donors who funded those custom stars, which might have been, oh, I don't know, astronauts or their friends, or friends of NASA.

So, what do we do about this article? --Lexein (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"Probably"? That's just an opinion. Show some clear evidence before you revert this again. It looks like NASA were using different kinds of numbers for different missions, which was news to me, but I am still convinced the Arabic numerals are the official ones for Apollo and the Roman numerals are just sometimes used because they look a bit fancier. Also, you have still to point to the archived discussion claimed to have come to some consensus before. Taylor Strand (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

So now the page is in a state which disrespects the Walk, and the stars on the walk, by parenthesizing and quoting as if they're wrong, or stupid, against long-standing consensus, and the direct evidence. Can't say I'm not disappointed in your behaviour. --Lexein (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I don't think it is disrespecting at all, it's just stating a fact that the people behind the Walk has happened to spell the name of Apollo 11 in another way than it is usually spelled. There is already many examples given on the page about misspelled names on the stars, so why would it be disrespectful to write about this one and not about the others? The Wikipedia reference desk at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Apollo_11_or_Apollo_XI.3F also seems to give me right. I ask again: Where can I read that old consensus you are going on about? Taylor Strand (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)