Jump to content

Talk:Heather O'Rourke

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Magioladitis (talk | contribs) at 11:25, 14 July 2011 (→box_width: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

crohns?

According to snopes.com, Heather was diagnosed as having Crohn's Disease the year before her death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.193.90 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 22 June 2006

It does. However, Snopes.com (much like Wikipedia) cites all of their sources used in their work. Of the sources provided, none actually referenced a diagnosis of Crohn's disease. If another reliable source can be found for it—providing Snopes itself isn't, I haven't checked—it could go in. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

articular reconstitution

As a WP:BLP, I culled the article of all unverified information, striking everything uncited and rebuilt it with 100% referencing. The prior version is here for anybody interested in going back to try and reference any of the information that had been there with reliable sources. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig T. Nelson's Soul reference

Can someone please remove the whole "Sold his sold to the devil" reference to Craig T. Nelson? That's classless and tacky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.111.249 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 15 October 2008

71.143.236.159 (talk · contribs) seems to have taken care of it. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20081130 reversion

I reverted some of the edits by Rossrs (talk · contribs); in the interest of explanation and WP:BRD, I'll explain such here.

  • I changed "United States" back to "USA" (as an acceptable abbreviation per WP:ABB) to prevent the infobox lines from unnecessarily heightening. Should anybody have qualms with "USA" v. "US", per WP:ABB I'm unconcerned, although I prefer USA for clarity's purpose.
  • I reinserted the line about Jim Peele's relationship to O'Rourke in the interest of fully explaining the actress' early life and family connections as published.
  • The article from The NYT sourced the statement about the actress' appearance, and I cannot understand it's removal. I've replaced it and the accompanying citation.

100% of the article is duly cited and sourced, leaving editorial discretion and the Manual of Style as the edits of the day. I've retained the WP:MOSDATE and WP:MOSNUM edits, and only reverted WP:OVERLINK edits where I find the wiki aid navigation and understanding (and the infobox per {{infobox actor}}). — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some of these things are a question of personal taste or opinion and I don't particularly mind that you've reverted them back. To explain why I removed the line about Jim Peele's relationship - if he's married her mother and O'Rourke lives there, it should be assumed he's taken a step father role. I don't see the necessity in spelling it out, but I don't object. I must admit I don't like phrases like "the young actress". I'd rather she be referred to as Heather O'Rourke or O'Rourke. Minor point, I really don't mind.
The presentation of the NYT comment I find more difficult. It overlooks the fact that all principal cast members (except Dominique Dunne who was dead) were used in the first sequel. O'Rourke cuteness was a bonus I guess, that could be exploited, but it wasn't the reason she was used. Oliver Robbins for example was not cute in the same way, but he was used. I was wrong in removing it completely, but I think it could be rewritten slightly so that the NYT comment remains, but that we don't suggest that O'Rourke was a special case. I think it's probably more true to say that she was singled out for inclusion in the third film, but then that presents another difficulty in that it doesn't say this in the NYT article. I'll think about it and if I can think of a way of rewording it, without changing it too much, I'll do so. I won't rush into it, and I'd appreciate any comments you may have. Rossrs (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your reply. A lot of the little wording changes I left alone, particularly wherein she's referred to by her name. As for Peele, I prefer spelling it out because (a) it clarifies that she wasn't adopted by him after the marriage and (b) I don't know if the step-relation concept is widely known or recognized as maybe you or I do. I understand your concern re: singling her out, and if you can figure out a way reword it, while keeping the significance to the actress, I welcome you!

Lastly, with the wording "Her funeral was attended by her family and friends, and included Henry Winkler,..." it sounds like her funeral "included" those named in some fashion, like they were there in some capacity other than attending as friends. Do you see what I mean? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that this is being discussed in such a friendly manner. Regarding the funeral, yes, now that you've pointed it out, I see exactly what you mean. I think "to include" isn't quite right but obviously Henry, Linda and Ricky weren't buried with her... so it needs a little tweak. The step-father bit - yes, I see your viewpoint there, and you're right. I'll give some thought to this... also I've had a couple of idea about the good article nomination, but I'll comment about that separately. Rossrs (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the sections relating to Winkler and co. attending the funeral, and about the NYT quote. I hope it's ok, but please let me know if you think it's not right. As for my comments about the good nom, on second thoughts I'll make it here as it's brief. I've noticed that there is not a lot of substance in any of the web articles I've been able to find. I think there are two things that could be expanded upon, although neither of them are essential. 1. What was Steven Spielberg looking for and what did he see in O'Rourke to make him believe in her. I figure he must see endless kids and for such a key role in such a major film, he sees a young child eating lunch at the MGM commissary? There must be more to it. He's gambling millions of dollars on the casting of that role. 2. Is there anything that can be said about O'Rourke's attitude toward her acting career? Like I said, not essential, but I think some expansion could only make the article better. (And I think it's good). Rossrs (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dig the funeral rewording, that works. I also like the wording re: the Times' article, but we need to cite the new additions. (a) The bit about Dunne's murder, (b) that most of the cast was back for the sequel, and (c) that Carol Anne was the only character back for the third film all need to be cited now. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I added a cite for Dominique Dunne's murder. I don't know that it's truly necessary, and I also don't think it's necessary to cite the other bits about the cast returning for Part II and not Part III. It's the kind of thing that's unlikely to be disputed and it only takes a quick glance at the IMDb cast list. I also can't find anything to use as a source. I've noticed elsewhere that it's appropriate to cite plot details to the actual film, so I wonder if it follows that details of the cast could be cited to the film credits. In my opinion, it's ok as it is, and for an article that is fairly brief, I think the sourcing is very clear and comprehensive, but let me know what you think. Rossrs (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

imagery

Defender Of Justice (talk · contribs) reverted w/o edit summary to the previous image of O'Rourke, which I recently replaced. I uploaded a new picture for specific reasons (as spelled out in the IDP). (a) The picture from her most recent work best depicts the actress as she appeared before her death. (b) The copyright specification and rationale are much clearer and spelled out in this image than the previous one uploaded by KlingonWarrior09 (talk · contribs). Barring elabouration and discussion here, I'll revert to the more recent image per my points above. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer the later image for the reasons stated above, but if there's a reason for using the earlier image, I'd be interested to know. Rossrs (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Time to wait for consensus or reply? I ask because I'm getting nagged about the orphaning of the newer image. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to revert simply because the later image has a much clearer fair use rationale. The other one is quite weak. At least you've given reasons for the image you prefer, and I think that "reasons" outweighs "no reasons", and I also think that such a change requires an edit summary at the very least. Rossrs (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The more recent reversion is grainy and of poor resolution, which is not a major issue for an unfree image, but the other one is clearer, and yet still of a low enough resolution to comply with image use policies. The newer image doesn't show her face as clearly, and considering this is the only image being used and is being used as identification in the infobox, it seems to me that a clear image of her face is important. The newer image has a very weak fair use rationale that does not begin to address the reason for using the image. I have to wonder if there are ownership issues considering that the object seems to be to use any image rather than the one discussed by User:pd_THOR and myself, judging by the flurry of similar reverts by editors/anons. Rossrs (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, links to the specific images would be helpful, because so many images have been tacked to this article (4 at least) that I don't know which ones you guys are talking about when you say the "newer" or "later" images. Personally, I prefer Image:Heatherorourke.JPG over Image:Heather O'Rourke as Carol Anne.png because the former is nice and bright whereas the latter is very dark and grainy. And now we've got Image:Heatherorourke2.JPG coming in from out of left field, but I feel that one is inferior because of the color shift towards red; her face looks like a pumpkin. --Captain Infinity (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry - you're right. Links would be helpful. I prefer Image:Heather O'Rourke as Carol Anne.png due to it being a more recent image, well supported by a fair use rationale. The two alternatives Image:Heatherorourke.JPG & Image:Heatherorourke2.JPG, I find less suitable. Image:Heatherorourke.JPG is a nice image, but it's fair use rationale is very weak and it doesn't look like a screenshot, so in my opinion the sourcing is also dubious. Image:Heatherorourke2.JPG is a fairly poor quality image also with a weak rationale. I should have been clearer in my earlier comments. Rossrs (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my 3¢. I want the best image to be from 1988 at best, preferably to illustrate the actress as she most recently appeared before she died. Barring that, an image from Poltergeist III would be optimal as it was her last performance before she died.

  • Image:Heatherorourke.JPG, uploaded by KlingonWarrior09 (talk · contribs) is claimed to be from "Poltergeist Screenshot" and rationaled for "Illustration in articles about Heather". I doubt the sourcing since it appears to be the same publicitish photo (albeit with more contrast) from "The Official Heather O’Rourke Fan Site" here, and doesn't resemble the other available images of the Carol Anne character from the film.
  • Image:Heatherorourke2.JPG, uploaded by Defender Of Justice (talk · contribs) is identically sourced, despite obviously being a publicitish photo, also seen here at "The Official [...] Fan Site". This image is also identically rationaled only for "Illustration in articles about Heather".
  • I uploaded Image:Heather O'Rourke as Carol Anne.png for the reasons stated above, and rationaled it thoroughly (i.e. too long to C&P here). I took this screenshot myself, and can corroborate hour:minute in the film if so desired. Also, as I mentioned, this image is from Poltergeist III, the actresses last work and most recent imagery available AFAIK, and best illustrative of her.

    Now, I'll be the first to agree that it's not the best image aesthetically speaking. Two points on that: (a) It's good enough. It gets the job done, and has ration, a rationale, and corroboratable sourcing. (b) I really could have copied any point in the film and applied the same sourcing and rationale, I chose this one specifically because it's the only one wherein I could find her smiling! It is a horror movie; she spends most of it being frightened (witlessly at times), or what I would describe as inscrutable—emotionless if you will. Now, any of those would and can be clearer and brighter pics than the one in place, but I would want consensus that we're not performing a disservice by doing so.

Lastly, any screenshot I get won't be as clear as a an unattributable, random publicity photo; but I can also attribute the proper copyright holder for the former, and give a rationale with specific reasoning for using a recent and specifically-illustrative image. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20090504 reversion

There were a number of things wrong with this edit by 12.72.149.231 (talk · contribs), but since it seems to have been made in good faith, I'd like to explain the individual points for my reversion.

  • We have no citation for O'Rourke being "best known for" any particular role; that's original research and weasel wording.
  • None of the references in the article provide any citations for O'Rourke's biological father and the circumstances therein.
  • Grammatically, you shouldn't end sentences in prepositions. Just a little thing.
  • (a) The Manual of Style says not to link inside of headers or sub-headers, (b) Poltergeist links to the entity, not the movies.
  • Ms. O'Rourke was mis-diagnosed with Crohn's, i.e. she did not actually have it.

Also, I used popups to accomplish the reversion because I'm wary of my browser accidentally screwing up template spacing (see here). — pd_THOR | =/\= | 11:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

recent formatting

I'm generally against using this new {{city-state}} template as it simply adds unnecessary complication to an already complicated construct (the infobox) without adding anything in exchange. I've removed it a second time; please discuss here before adding again, if editors would. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be against it, but it is a widely used and useful template. If it's used properly (as it was here) what's the problem? You could also argue that the {{birth date and age}} and related templates also add "unnecessary complication", but they are also widely used in bio infoboxes. – ukexpat (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually surprised at the existence of this template, as after 23136 edits over 1859 days I had never seen it. That being said, it requires more characters to use the template than the original wiki syntax, and a modicum more experience and expertise to understand its function and application than the same. As for {{death date and age}} used herein, that actually performs computational work for the article in its calculation of dates that editors once calculated themselves incorrectly. It also allows for a standardization of date/age formatting across Wikipedia; on the other hand, such standardization for places is not necessarily desirable depending on the context of the location and its pertinence to the article at hand. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well as my arguments have not convinced you and you appear to have assumed the role of unofficial guardian of this article, I won't bother to argue further. – ukexpat (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly wasn't my intention to bully you out of the discussion, if that's how I struck you. Ultimately here, the template provides the reader with the same information (legibly and aesthetically), I'm just arguing against the systematic usage of such a template in instances/articles where its supposed benefits seem to be baseless. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind another editor in on this topic, but I'm not sure I understand pdTHOR's argument. Tinton5 (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth, I certainly don't mind. I don't see any reason to implement another template; (a) it actually requires more characters to type than the wiki-formatted original, (b) an infobox is intimidating enough for new editors; nesting templates is another added level of unnecessary complexity in light of a, (c) the template not only requires more typing and more complexity, for since it produces the exact same output as the original wiki, it places that little bit more of a demand on the server than not. It just seems like unnecessary obfuscation across the board with no discernible benefits here. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when you put it that way, I can't argue with that reasoning. Just one more thing I'd like to point out, this also pertains to the infobox. I noticed another user type in United States to replace USA, how come you undid that? I think typing out the full name of the country is actually better than an abbreviation and as crazy as this may sound, people in countries outside of America may not know what USA stands for. I know that may sound a bit silly, but we should never assume that the viewer looking at this page will know what abbreviations we use. So, it's not a huge deal, but its something to think about. Tinton5 (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the characters point, it may in this ibox but it doesn't in the situation for which the template is designed, for example: {{city-state|Boise|Idaho}}, compared to [[Boise, Idaho|Boise]] [[Idaho]]. Also, there are many examples of templates used within infoboxes - are you saying that they should not be? This all smacks to me of an "I don't like it" argument. – ukexpat (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Situation[s] for which the template is designed"; exactly. There very may well be situations where the usefulness outweighs the detriments, but I don't see how this is one of them. I'm not arguing for never nesting templates, but simply to eschew obfuscation where it doesn't provide any benefit.

"I don't like it" isn't an argument, it's an opinion based on an editor's personal tastes for formatting, aesthetics, or inclusion usually without regard for arguments. IMO. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation template optional parameters

In response to this edit by Lambiam (talk · contribs), I don't understand what the problem was with the information provided. Was the publisher and location information incorrect for the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, whereas the rest of the cited news organizations were correct?

I realize that the information is "optional", but shouldn't we strive to be as informational and comprehensive as possible? I don't understand (if the information is correct for these two newspapers) why their optional information shouldn't be included in the references, but that of others' should. I could even understand--although certainly not agree with--if somebody were to remove all of the "optional" parameters on the basis that they're just not necessary. I would certainly fight such an excision of potentially pertinent information, but the cherry-picking of sources to delete doubly confuses me. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just re-read Lambiam (talk · contribs)'s edit summary and better understood to what she or he was referring. The documentation for {{cite news}} allows the omission of the location if it's a part of the publication's name, and the omission of the publisher if it's a "well known" publication. I still prefer the comprehensiveness of the previous version, especially as the excision of the information is only an allowance of the template, and not a stylature guideline. I certainly don't plan to edit war, but would appreciate if Lambiam could explain her or his impetus for removing the optional variables when they're potentially informative and pertinent to readers and researchers, and leaving them caused to harm except for conformity with other sources/references. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pron

Anyone know how this is really pronounced? My attempt at fixing was reverted to s.t. even more dubious. — kwami (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "s.t." means, but the pronunciation currently in the article is cited to a television program in which Kathleen O'Rourke-Peele was interviewed about her daughter's death. The {{citation needed}} template isn't needed when it literally abuts the citation requested. Given no other reliable sourcing for this specific pronunciation, I included this one. That being said, why did you change the sourced ɵ.ruːk to oʊˈruːk? Also, please don't move around the citations at the end of line 74; prior to being moved, they're in respective order of the preceding information which they're referencing. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Something".
Because I don't see where it's cited. It's pronounced by the narrator, not by Kathleen herself, and not terribly clearly. It might be /oʊˈruːk/ or /oʊˈrʊk/. Clearly an /oʊ/, but the 2nd vowel is harder to discern. But if you listen to a different broadcast, say here, it's /oʊˈrɔrk/, which is the normal pronunciation for the name. So, how do we know that it's idiosyncratic in this case? Any citation that Kathleen's name is "oh-ROOK" rather than "oh-ROARK" ? — kwami (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I hadn't seen any other sources that pronounced it differently, though to be honest, I hadn't thought to look. I only added the pronunciation bit because that first video pronounced it differently than I had been in my head, and I wanted to correct anybody else who might make the same mistake. However, since we have two different pronunciations from two equitably reliable sources, I'd advocate that it just be removed altogether in the absence of a definitive source. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds best. But if you find anything, please restore it! — kwami (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States/USA/U.S./US

Interesting - back in November 2008 when this was discussed (20081130 reversion) WP:ABB showed "USA" as a suitable abbreviation for "United States of America". Now it doesn't. It only shows "U.S." and "US" with some talk page discussion saying that USA is "deprecated" and that "US" is preferable over "U.S." The table shows "USA" as an abbreviation for "United States Army" which seems bizarre to me. Who sees "USA" and thinks "right, that's United States Army"? On the other hand USA redirects to United States. Just an observation. Rossrs (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I had no idea that'd been changed. The nation name is United States of America, USA seems like the least confusing and most applicable initialism. I agree with you, and have reverted Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs)'s seeming unilateral April decision to remove it. I noted in my edit summary though that I could be wrong and invite discussion at WT:MOSABBR. (By the way, nice to see you're still around, Rossrs) — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unreferenced irrelevencies

Adrian060756 (talk · contribs) keeps introducing text ([1], [2], [3]) to this article, which is problematic in three ways.

  1. The information is unverified. The Verifiability policy requires that everything on Wikipedia be cited to a reliable source. The only source in the text provided is to another Wikipedia article; (a) you cannot cite a Wikipedia article in another Wikipedia article, and (b) even if you could, there's nothing verified in the Laser Ghost article about any of this either.
  2. The information is the user's interpretation. The policy on Original Research prohibits adding information to an article that is the determination of an editor/contributor. Since Adrian060756 isn't citing any reliable sources, it's only his or her interpretation that the story and visuals of Laser Ghost are in any way tied to Poltergeist III.
  3. Even if the comparisons were valid and cited to reliable secondary sources, it doesn't have any relevancy to this article! At best, the information would be most pertinent at Laser Ghost, and a modicum less so at Poltergeist III. That the game and its characters may or may not bear any resemblance to Ms. O'Rourke might barely warrant only a passing reference here, if it could be incorporated skillfully.

I have notified Adrian060756 of this discussion taking place here. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 07:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongful Removal Of Reliable Source
If this edit gets deleted one more time then the top paragraph about Adrian060756's contribution being unreliabe will be deleted again aswell.
Adrian060756's contribution to the Heather O' Rourke page was reliable, it was not made up and there was nothing prejudice, racist, biased, or rejectful about it. The only thing that is irrelevant here is that Adrian060756's one paragraph contributed to the Heather O' Rourke page kept getting deleted which is cited as vandalism. The fact remains that SEGA have made a video game based on Poltergeist III therefore using Heather O' Rourke's likeness in the video game making it related to Heather O' Rourke, although names were changed to avoid using copyrighted content from M.G.M.
It should also be noted that the Laser Ghost Wikipedia page is screwed up, it is referencing the 8-bit Master System version's storyline with explaining the gameplay psychics of the Arcade version, the two versions are nothing alike and should be corrected, both versions should have their own Wikipedia pages.
Finally if Kathleen O' Rourke saw gameplay of the 8-bit SEGA Master System version of Laser Ghost, she would be able to identify that SEGA have used her daughter's likeness in their video game and she would most likely approve authorisation for such referencing of this game on her daughter's Wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian060756 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 14 December 2010
First of all, I've corrected the changes made further up this page, and have subducted your comments under the preexisting header since it's the same discussion. Also, per WP:TALK, I've indented your comments under the originals; please take no offense, there was no malice intended. Also, don't forget to sign your posts! Secondly, please don't threaten to vandalise Wikipedia if you don't get your way. Lastly, your previous comments were removed for violating our policies and guidelines on civility and personal attacks.

Let's focus on the problem moreso from the original research angle. Currently, the only source for similarities between Laser Ghost and Poltergeist III is you: you have seen these media, you have analysed them, and you have come to the conclusion that they are incredibly similar. However, the policy on original research prohibits using our own experiences and interpretations in articles. It's as simple as that. Now, on the other hand, if you can point at a secondary reliable source (say, a newspaper, review, interview, magazine, etc.) that makes this argument, it could be used on Wikipedia by effectively saying: "this reliable source says this". Otherwise it would be, "this person 'Adrian060756' says this", which is not reliable or verifiable.

It's unfortunate that Laser Ghost is in disarray. Be bold! Fix it using verifiable sources to build it up to a model article.

Again, it's your belief or interpretation that Ms. O'Rourke's mother would see the same correlations you do between LG and P3. It would be notable and verifiable if she were to make such a statement, but as far as I can tell, she has not.

As for any of this being pertinent to Ms. O'Rourke's article, it's my position that it's not. As it stands, none of your personal observations and conclusions can nor will be included in the article. Even if everything you say could be included with appropriate citations and sources, it would only fit here as a fleeting mention; something along the lines of, "O'Rourke's image was later used without attribution in the video game Laser Ghost, a nigh copy of her last film, Poltergeist III."

Please take all of this in the polite but firm manner which I intend to convey. This is not a singular attempt by other editors to stop you from contributing to Wikipedia. However, by simply editing Wikipedia, we have all agreed to operate by the community consensus on policies, guidelines, and pillars/intent of the project; if you cannot or will not listen and/or abide by those rules, you may find other projects online more conducive to your interests. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I don't know how to sign my name in on this incredibly difficult website, i've tried doing it but it's very hard.

Second of all is that I wouldn't dare touch the Laser Ghost Wikipedia page to correct it, you have ruined my experience here on Wikipedia and why should I fix the edits anyway? It's your mess and you can clean it up yourself, even if I did edit some new text in it and correct the editing errors between the two game versions you people who run Wikipedia would only erase my work like you've done. It's okay if my edits get removed but as soon as I remove somebody else's edits for using my username without my position I get a nasty message back. You should know that Poltergeist III is such an obscure film that it didn't get alot of recognition in it's time and over the years it has just faded more and more into the darkness, Laser Ghost is also a video game that is basically unheard of, not many gamers have ever heard of the SEGA Master System version of Laser Ghost nor played it which looks and plays completely different to the Arcade version. So it's highly unlikely that movie fans, critics and gamers would pick up on this extreme similarity especially considering it's named Laser Ghost and not Poltergeist III and even if they have, nobody has ever bothered to note it down anywhere, if they had then it would count as my second reliable source so that explains why there is no mention of Heather O' Rourke or Poltergeist III on the Laser Ghost page, keeping in mind that all information contributed to Wikipedia comes from Human beings and not machines.

Third of all is how the heck am I supposed to contact Kathleen O' Rourke even if I wanted to? I'd be flat out trying to contact her and I don't wish to spend all my time hunting her down just for her approval of a simple bit of extra Heather O' Rourke memorabilia. Honestly I don't know why i'm bothering on Wikipedia? I've got my own videos of Heather O' Rourke posted on Youtube so I couldn't care less anymore on what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable according to Wikipedia. To many rules and regulations have corrupted this site and I can understand why Wikipedia was going broke a while back.

Fourth is that nobody not even you has any proof otherwise that i'm telling the truth or not so it is all the more insightful to remove my information without full proof that i'm lying. The Laser Ghost page is wrong in it's information, someone has conceived in their text that the Two different games that share the same name are one.

Lastly: I am not taking this personal but do not tell me what to do, i'll be the judge on whats pertinent or not on my own text. Your position is highly irrelevant removing published text without proving it wrong. I am a fan of Heather O' Rourke and i'm a video gamer so I make sure that I get my facts straight without making stuff up. Wikipedia has rudely ignored my source of information without proving me wrong and this will be the first and last time that I ever edit anything on Wikipedia again.

Let's see this get removed shall we? As being unreferenced, undefined, unproven, unfair and unwanted on Wikipedia by some policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian060756 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

box_width

Yobot (talk · contribs) and Magioladitis (talk · contribs) have removed ([4] and [5] respectively) the box_width variable from this article's implementation of {{infobox person}}. Yobot's edit summary was the opaque "Updated infobox (BRFA 15) using AWB (7782)", and Magioladitis' was "use standard box_width", which I don't understand as that is the standard variable listed at template:infobox person.

I know that {{infobox person}} says the box_width parameter "should not normally need to be set", but it does go on to give detailed instructions for how to implement it. I'm using it here as my comment says to improve the aesthetics of the box and its contents given some particularly long variable entries. The width provided prevents (a) the data in resting_place and resting_place_coordinates from spilling over into a second line (particularly the former), (b) the variable name from doing the same unnecessarily in conjunction with a, and (c) the variable names of other_names, years_active, and notable_works from spilling onto a second line when their data spans only one.

I don't know if these users' objection is to the widening of the box itself or using the particular variable, both of which are IAW the template's own provision. I've reverted each user ([6] and [7] respectively), and in the latter referred either or both to this discussion as the D in the WP:BRD process. — Fourthords | =/\= | 19:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this works for all screens? In my screen it shows awful because there is large space around the image and covers a large part of the screen. Going from 200px to 320 is more than 50% expand and I don't think nowrap of 1 parameter is worth that. That's only my opinion ofcourse. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't tested it across browsers actually, I assumed as an implemented infobox template it would have already been pretested like that. I can look around at that later, but don't have the time until later this evening. Also, it's not just nowrapping the resting_place data; even if I were to use a {{nowrap}} on "Westwood Village Memorial Park Cemetery", it still causes variable names in the lefthand column to double up for data which only fills one line, effectively inserting blank spaces in between the righthand lines in the infobox. — Fourthords | =/\= | 19:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I won't touch it until we make some more tests. I stopped the bot and in fact I edited before because I haven't noticed you reverted and I a sorry for not going directly to the talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Heather O'Rourke article at 11:28:51 on 12 July 2011 with Google Chrome on Mac OS X Snow Leopard
On my MacBook Pro the page comes out looking the same in Google Chrome, Firefox, and Safari; I don't know if what I'm seeing on my end is the same you're seeing though, so I added the image you see here now. That's what I see across all three browsers, and it's intentional on my part for the reasons I listed above.

Do you see something similar or different? If different, I'm confused and frustrated by the infobox's lack of consistency. If similar, then I want to ask again whether it's the aesthetics of the matter with which you disagree or if you have a problem with me using the infobox's sizing variable. (My Wikitime is sporadic this week; my apologies for potentially untimely replies) — Fourthords | =/\= | 16:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On my screen it leaves a big gap after "in the" in the first line similar to the gap after "Before" on your screen in the first line of the first section. As you see there is a big margin inside the infobox around the photo too. Anyway we can just leave it as is. My main argument is/was that all infoboxes should have the same width and that the width should not be custom adjustable. I abandoned the specific bot run anyway. There is a small chance that there is some leftover in my code somewhere but I think I ll sort it out. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heather_O%27Rourke&oldid=439420873"