![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The name of the character played in the film by Shirley MacLaine is "Ouiser", not "Ouisa". In the film, she is addressed one time by her "proper" name, Louisa, but otherwise, it is "Ouiser". This spelling is used by IMDb [1], IBDB [2] and in the original play. Rockhopper10r ( talk) 15:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I added the fact that her home has track lighing as this was one of the humerous interaction in the beauty shop. Kielhofer 03:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kielhofer ( talk • contribs)
I've been a Wikipedian on-and-off for a couple of years, and make mostly random edits. About two weeks ago, I read this article and thought that one of the larger subheadings was blatant advertisement. The 'area in question' is almost as long as the total synopsis of the film/play!!!
It reads Once the primary filming location of Steel Magnolias, the Steel Magnolia Bed & Breakfast now operates full-time in Natchitoches, Louisiana. With a distinct Southern feel and hospitality found greatly appealing to both fans and non-fans alike, hundreds of guests have appreciated a stay in this highly-rated bed and breakfast. To this day the house has retained almost all of its charm with rooms named after the major characters from the popular film. Marketed with reasonable prices to the public, the bed and breakfast has won many awards over the years for excellent service and the overall enjoyability of the entire experience. For more information visit the Steel Magnolia House online at www.steelmagnoliahouse.com.
Seriously, is someone going to say that this is encyclopedic??? I didn't just delete it, though, because I thought it might be of some interest to those who use Wikipedia instead of Wikitravel to plan their trips to Louisiana... I synthesized the paragraph into: The primary filming location of Steel Magnolias became a full-time bed & breakfast in Natchitoches called the Steel Magnolia Bed & Breakfast.
I put that in the Trivia section and felt that that was an acceptable compromise. But, I looked back a week later and my edits had been undone. Ok, so I redid them, only for them to be undone 6 hours later and have my edits be labeled "vandalism," even though I personally don't see the vandalism in said edits. So I request comment on which version should be in this article. Not just that, but also whether or not it should be it's own subsection or a bullet within the Trivia section. I would inform the other party of this RfC....but it's a different (random) IP address each time! Thank you. User:jg325 Jg325 ( talk) 01:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear user 72.86.14.75: I wonder if you could provide the reason for reintroducing the material about the Steel Magnolia Bed & Breakfast. Use the Discussion Page at Talk:Steel_Magnolias. Do you have a source for the statement, which seems to me and to one other editor to fall into the "advertising" category? I suggest you turn to the WP:NOT#ADVERTISING section, where you will read: "Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable," There's also a section at WP:Notability which states "Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy. Advertising should be removed by following these steps, in order: Clean up per Wikipedia:neutral point of view WP:POV. Delete remaining advertising content from the article." The editors working on this article would appreciate hearing from you, I am sure. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 07:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I am asking other Wikipedians to weigh in as well. Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~). It would help your case if you were registered. I am copying this correspondence to the Discussion Page at Steel Magnolias and hope you will continue it there. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 19:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an especially experienced Wikipedia editor, and I'm terrified of getting sucked into what has so far been a fairly weird debate, but I expect I threw in for a penny when I posted on the initial RFC.
I guess there are two issues here--the establishment's notability and, assuming that it's notable, what language should be used to describe it.
On the first issue . . . well, that's where I'd really like to hear from a more experienced editor. I think the Christmas Story House point has to be considered; for the C.S.H., is there a good bit of external evidence of notability? Is there similar evidence for the S.M.H.? The dumbest, simplest test I can think of is a Google search for "Christmas Story House" and another for "Steel Magnolia House"; such a search gets you about 65,700 hits for the former phrase and about 855 hits for the latter phrase. So--to me that suggests that the S.M.H. is vastly less notable than the C.S.H. (I've heard of neither of them myself); it may be worth mentioning the S.M.H. in this article's trivia section, or otherwise in a sentence, in passing, as a slightly interesting tidbit, but it's not worth not giving it its own article. If someone were to argue that it shouldn't be mentioned at all anywhere, I wouldn't strongly disagree.
But the second issue's mainly what we're being obliged to talk about, isn't it? Because the section on the S.M.H. keeps getting inserted into the article . . . and looking at it, I can't see any way not to define it as blatant advertising. It's four sentences long. The first sentence only has one thing in it that seems advertising-y to me ("full-time"), but I'd be hard pressed to find any phrase in the next three that aren't ad copy.
And I genuinely feel that that fact would be obvious to most people who, like me, don't have a dog in this fight. I think the section's gotta go, man. And if I'm wrong about that--if this business establishment is more notable than I realize--I am absolutely positive that the section must be totally rewritten. Iralith ( talk) 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
An editor has noted that "Trivia sections are discouraged" and invited us to combine the trivia with the relevant sections of the article. I would be glad to do this; however, I note that none of the trivia are sourced. I am inclined to delete the whole section unless those who added the trivia (or anybody else) also tell us from where they got the information. The Trivia section is so trivial as to be really un-encyclopedic. I propose eliminating it as violative of this guide: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." See WP:Not Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 16:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
There is an interesting and mildly amusing page at WP:NAM, and particularly at WP:NAM#Disagree_respectfully that might be of interest to people editing the Steel Magnolias page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 23:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this has been up long enough without a citation that it should be removed. Is there a standard for how long something like this is allowed to stay? Dosbears ( talk) 23:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Should this page be split into one for the film (here) and a new one for the play, perhaps at Steel Magnolias (play) - AKeen ( talk) 23:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it should! -- DefyingGravityForGood ( talk) 03:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It has been split -- DefyingGravityForGood ( talk) 03:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
So, the two big paragraphs on diabetes and pregnancy don't really belong in this section (or even really in the article at all). A sentence or two and a link to the wiki page on diabetes that should contain this info is more appropriate. 72.89.142.185 ( talk) 17:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The name of the character played in the film by Shirley MacLaine is "Ouiser", not "Ouisa". In the film, she is addressed one time by her "proper" name, Louisa, but otherwise, it is "Ouiser". This spelling is used by IMDb [1], IBDB [2] and in the original play. Rockhopper10r ( talk) 15:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I added the fact that her home has track lighing as this was one of the humerous interaction in the beauty shop. Kielhofer 03:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kielhofer ( talk • contribs)
I've been a Wikipedian on-and-off for a couple of years, and make mostly random edits. About two weeks ago, I read this article and thought that one of the larger subheadings was blatant advertisement. The 'area in question' is almost as long as the total synopsis of the film/play!!!
It reads Once the primary filming location of Steel Magnolias, the Steel Magnolia Bed & Breakfast now operates full-time in Natchitoches, Louisiana. With a distinct Southern feel and hospitality found greatly appealing to both fans and non-fans alike, hundreds of guests have appreciated a stay in this highly-rated bed and breakfast. To this day the house has retained almost all of its charm with rooms named after the major characters from the popular film. Marketed with reasonable prices to the public, the bed and breakfast has won many awards over the years for excellent service and the overall enjoyability of the entire experience. For more information visit the Steel Magnolia House online at www.steelmagnoliahouse.com.
Seriously, is someone going to say that this is encyclopedic??? I didn't just delete it, though, because I thought it might be of some interest to those who use Wikipedia instead of Wikitravel to plan their trips to Louisiana... I synthesized the paragraph into: The primary filming location of Steel Magnolias became a full-time bed & breakfast in Natchitoches called the Steel Magnolia Bed & Breakfast.
I put that in the Trivia section and felt that that was an acceptable compromise. But, I looked back a week later and my edits had been undone. Ok, so I redid them, only for them to be undone 6 hours later and have my edits be labeled "vandalism," even though I personally don't see the vandalism in said edits. So I request comment on which version should be in this article. Not just that, but also whether or not it should be it's own subsection or a bullet within the Trivia section. I would inform the other party of this RfC....but it's a different (random) IP address each time! Thank you. User:jg325 Jg325 ( talk) 01:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear user 72.86.14.75: I wonder if you could provide the reason for reintroducing the material about the Steel Magnolia Bed & Breakfast. Use the Discussion Page at Talk:Steel_Magnolias. Do you have a source for the statement, which seems to me and to one other editor to fall into the "advertising" category? I suggest you turn to the WP:NOT#ADVERTISING section, where you will read: "Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable," There's also a section at WP:Notability which states "Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy. Advertising should be removed by following these steps, in order: Clean up per Wikipedia:neutral point of view WP:POV. Delete remaining advertising content from the article." The editors working on this article would appreciate hearing from you, I am sure. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 07:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I am asking other Wikipedians to weigh in as well. Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~). It would help your case if you were registered. I am copying this correspondence to the Discussion Page at Steel Magnolias and hope you will continue it there. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 19:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an especially experienced Wikipedia editor, and I'm terrified of getting sucked into what has so far been a fairly weird debate, but I expect I threw in for a penny when I posted on the initial RFC.
I guess there are two issues here--the establishment's notability and, assuming that it's notable, what language should be used to describe it.
On the first issue . . . well, that's where I'd really like to hear from a more experienced editor. I think the Christmas Story House point has to be considered; for the C.S.H., is there a good bit of external evidence of notability? Is there similar evidence for the S.M.H.? The dumbest, simplest test I can think of is a Google search for "Christmas Story House" and another for "Steel Magnolia House"; such a search gets you about 65,700 hits for the former phrase and about 855 hits for the latter phrase. So--to me that suggests that the S.M.H. is vastly less notable than the C.S.H. (I've heard of neither of them myself); it may be worth mentioning the S.M.H. in this article's trivia section, or otherwise in a sentence, in passing, as a slightly interesting tidbit, but it's not worth not giving it its own article. If someone were to argue that it shouldn't be mentioned at all anywhere, I wouldn't strongly disagree.
But the second issue's mainly what we're being obliged to talk about, isn't it? Because the section on the S.M.H. keeps getting inserted into the article . . . and looking at it, I can't see any way not to define it as blatant advertising. It's four sentences long. The first sentence only has one thing in it that seems advertising-y to me ("full-time"), but I'd be hard pressed to find any phrase in the next three that aren't ad copy.
And I genuinely feel that that fact would be obvious to most people who, like me, don't have a dog in this fight. I think the section's gotta go, man. And if I'm wrong about that--if this business establishment is more notable than I realize--I am absolutely positive that the section must be totally rewritten. Iralith ( talk) 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
An editor has noted that "Trivia sections are discouraged" and invited us to combine the trivia with the relevant sections of the article. I would be glad to do this; however, I note that none of the trivia are sourced. I am inclined to delete the whole section unless those who added the trivia (or anybody else) also tell us from where they got the information. The Trivia section is so trivial as to be really un-encyclopedic. I propose eliminating it as violative of this guide: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." See WP:Not Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 16:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
There is an interesting and mildly amusing page at WP:NAM, and particularly at WP:NAM#Disagree_respectfully that might be of interest to people editing the Steel Magnolias page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 23:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this has been up long enough without a citation that it should be removed. Is there a standard for how long something like this is allowed to stay? Dosbears ( talk) 23:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Should this page be split into one for the film (here) and a new one for the play, perhaps at Steel Magnolias (play) - AKeen ( talk) 23:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it should! -- DefyingGravityForGood ( talk) 03:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It has been split -- DefyingGravityForGood ( talk) 03:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
So, the two big paragraphs on diabetes and pregnancy don't really belong in this section (or even really in the article at all). A sentence or two and a link to the wiki page on diabetes that should contain this info is more appropriate. 72.89.142.185 ( talk) 17:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)