This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wild Side Story article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please take a moment and read our content policies of verfiability and no original research. If you have any questions, drop me a line on my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Are the extensive references given for my articles Wild Side Story and Jacob Truedson Demitz no good? Please explain to my talk! Thanx! EmilEikS ( talk) 22:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I have now done my best to rewrite this article for tone and verifiability. I feel enough has been done, though it is obvious that every little detail of such a lengthy and entertaining encyclopedic article cannot can be verified through sources published in major media. Fiandonca ( talk) 03:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The template tags on this article were removed because someone thought it was overtagged. That does not mean the issues have been addressed. The article is largely unsourced, and the references that actually have a link are almost entirely to other Wikipedia pages on the English or Swedish WPs which aren't permissible as references. The article needs solid copyediting for tone and neutrality (it has numerous peacock terms like "Show-goers were jolted", "A sensitive reinterpretation", "This is done, in questionable taste", "evening job behind the front desk of luxurious Doral Hotel", "had done themselves up so convincingly and attractively that the staid general-reader publication had no idea (or didn't care?)", "it turned out sadly", "A strikingly handsome “Tony” (called Magnus the Beautiful even by his high school teachers)" and a closing of "With everything properly kept and put away, a hustle here and a hustle there and you never know… somehow… someday… somewhere… a walk on that side might be taken again." This goes on and on). It reads as if it someone's personal anecdote or a fansite for what is essentially a low notability cabaret show with few to no Google hits, the lead is one sentence long for a 58 kb article (much too short), two references are noted to be "certified in Lars Jacob Prod. publicity files", it contains an unverified quote from Max von Sydow that is completely out of context for the article. Mae West was seen to pull up and then leave - Lehman Engel and Boz Scaggs were seen enjoying it - is there confirmation of this? Some BLP issues concern comments about participants, one said a participant "was handsome enough but could not sing". These things can't just be stated, they must be referenced. As it is, this article has major issues and I have returned some more prominent maintenance tags that need to be addressed. LaVidaLoca ( talk) 01:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
These is no fancruft (as defined under Wikipedia:fancruft which the template links to) in this article. The very fact of the large amount of people involved in the production, a few of them subsequently highly notable, and how many venues it has played for over 30 years in three countries rules out fancruft as defined by Wikipedia. Also, I am asking that we cut down on anything potentially contentious such as (quote Wikipedia on fancruft) "it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's [my] judgment of importance of the topic is inhibited by fanaticism. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith." Lastly, Wikipedia regulations require that articles found containing fancruft be recommended for deletion within 5 days. As admin. Garion96 has suggested I may feel free to remove tags I feel are overtly incorrect even if I am the contributor. Thus I am removing the fan site part of the tag on this article. I hope my good intentions in that can be identified. EmilEikS ( talk) 17:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I have addressed those terms of this kind of which I have been advised. If anything else needs to be addressed in that regard please specify here or tag the word in the text! I also question whether or not an unidentified (i.e. unnamed) person in a text can be considered to be a victim of BLP issues, but I have also adjusted that spot anyway, in the interest of the opposite of negativity (positivity?). EmilEikS ( talk) 18:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I have moved my previous comment here from a section above: This article is well written, entertaining and educational. It has now been expanded and improved and appears to be finished. Wikipedia should encourage contributors to write articles of this kind, which, though somewhat unusual in style, are not unthinkable in an enclyclopedia which would like people to read what they publish. The photographic material contributed makes the article valuable. I have adjusted the layout for wide screen viewing. It has an unusual amout of source references now. If any editors may continue to have verifiablity or tone issues, might I respectfully suggest they put tags into the text at specific places where they would like to see improvement? Wikipedia has too many templates at the beginning of articles questioning the quality of what has been submitted, many of those articles are about very well know people and things. Many have been there for month after month. The amount of templates all over tends to make a generally bad impression of Wikipedia. I suggest editors should either mark such texts with specifics as per the above, or remove anything they feel consensus definitely would find unnacceptable. It is easy to smack trial templates all over, much more commendable to actually work on the articles. When someone goes to this much trouble to give us a good article of this kind, we should be as supportive as we can. I am removing some of the trial template again in this case. / Thurgood Rosewood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.225.53 ( talk) 12:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
momoricks (make my day) 12:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Steve Vigil AlexCab 1975.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC) |
I have now done lots of work in an attempt to bring this article into line according to multiple issues templates that were at the top of it for years. The old very lengthy (and entertaining) article has been stored in my sandbox. Anyone who might miss it can see it: here. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 00:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to find good faith in edits where several good sources are trashed, especially when it looks like there's a personal reason behind the edit (see Talk:Indian Love Call#Image of a duo singing the song replaced by movie poster). Reverting. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 18:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Jacob Truedson Demitz#New tags over article -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 20:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks like we ended up with a double linking here. The station's name was already linked to an article section on public access stations. In any case the "P" should not be capitalized, and I don't think the words should be red linked, even if the double linking is to be kept there. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 18:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Wild Side Story received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request failed to garner input from the community over the course of two weeks. |
Ladies and Gentlemen! As clarified elsewhere I am in touch with the creator of this show as well as the CEO of the organization which currently owns the rights to it (2 different persons). They are asking, respectfully, that previously uninvolved users edit the article as soon as possible for reliable sourcing and encyclopedic relevance so that the tag boxes at the top of it can be removed in an appropriate manner, or else that the article be deleted. The "What links here" section, and the articles in other languages, may be of help. Guidelines in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources may also be of use in evaluating older references, of which I can e-mail scanned copies to anyone who might want to see original printed material. Being bilingual, I am also available to provide any translations from Swedish if such may be needed. On July 6th 2015 (see talk above) I replaced a previous, very long article with this one, which is still nearly intact. Thank you for any valuable attention by previously uninvolved users! Sincerely, -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 21:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Spintendo 09:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Someone removed it from the article page, so I moved it here. If you want to add "former", go ahead; just hand-roll the banner with a tmbox, or from scratch. Mathglot ( talk) 11:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wild Side Story article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please take a moment and read our content policies of verfiability and no original research. If you have any questions, drop me a line on my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Are the extensive references given for my articles Wild Side Story and Jacob Truedson Demitz no good? Please explain to my talk! Thanx! EmilEikS ( talk) 22:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I have now done my best to rewrite this article for tone and verifiability. I feel enough has been done, though it is obvious that every little detail of such a lengthy and entertaining encyclopedic article cannot can be verified through sources published in major media. Fiandonca ( talk) 03:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The template tags on this article were removed because someone thought it was overtagged. That does not mean the issues have been addressed. The article is largely unsourced, and the references that actually have a link are almost entirely to other Wikipedia pages on the English or Swedish WPs which aren't permissible as references. The article needs solid copyediting for tone and neutrality (it has numerous peacock terms like "Show-goers were jolted", "A sensitive reinterpretation", "This is done, in questionable taste", "evening job behind the front desk of luxurious Doral Hotel", "had done themselves up so convincingly and attractively that the staid general-reader publication had no idea (or didn't care?)", "it turned out sadly", "A strikingly handsome “Tony” (called Magnus the Beautiful even by his high school teachers)" and a closing of "With everything properly kept and put away, a hustle here and a hustle there and you never know… somehow… someday… somewhere… a walk on that side might be taken again." This goes on and on). It reads as if it someone's personal anecdote or a fansite for what is essentially a low notability cabaret show with few to no Google hits, the lead is one sentence long for a 58 kb article (much too short), two references are noted to be "certified in Lars Jacob Prod. publicity files", it contains an unverified quote from Max von Sydow that is completely out of context for the article. Mae West was seen to pull up and then leave - Lehman Engel and Boz Scaggs were seen enjoying it - is there confirmation of this? Some BLP issues concern comments about participants, one said a participant "was handsome enough but could not sing". These things can't just be stated, they must be referenced. As it is, this article has major issues and I have returned some more prominent maintenance tags that need to be addressed. LaVidaLoca ( talk) 01:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
These is no fancruft (as defined under Wikipedia:fancruft which the template links to) in this article. The very fact of the large amount of people involved in the production, a few of them subsequently highly notable, and how many venues it has played for over 30 years in three countries rules out fancruft as defined by Wikipedia. Also, I am asking that we cut down on anything potentially contentious such as (quote Wikipedia on fancruft) "it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's [my] judgment of importance of the topic is inhibited by fanaticism. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith." Lastly, Wikipedia regulations require that articles found containing fancruft be recommended for deletion within 5 days. As admin. Garion96 has suggested I may feel free to remove tags I feel are overtly incorrect even if I am the contributor. Thus I am removing the fan site part of the tag on this article. I hope my good intentions in that can be identified. EmilEikS ( talk) 17:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I have addressed those terms of this kind of which I have been advised. If anything else needs to be addressed in that regard please specify here or tag the word in the text! I also question whether or not an unidentified (i.e. unnamed) person in a text can be considered to be a victim of BLP issues, but I have also adjusted that spot anyway, in the interest of the opposite of negativity (positivity?). EmilEikS ( talk) 18:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I have moved my previous comment here from a section above: This article is well written, entertaining and educational. It has now been expanded and improved and appears to be finished. Wikipedia should encourage contributors to write articles of this kind, which, though somewhat unusual in style, are not unthinkable in an enclyclopedia which would like people to read what they publish. The photographic material contributed makes the article valuable. I have adjusted the layout for wide screen viewing. It has an unusual amout of source references now. If any editors may continue to have verifiablity or tone issues, might I respectfully suggest they put tags into the text at specific places where they would like to see improvement? Wikipedia has too many templates at the beginning of articles questioning the quality of what has been submitted, many of those articles are about very well know people and things. Many have been there for month after month. The amount of templates all over tends to make a generally bad impression of Wikipedia. I suggest editors should either mark such texts with specifics as per the above, or remove anything they feel consensus definitely would find unnacceptable. It is easy to smack trial templates all over, much more commendable to actually work on the articles. When someone goes to this much trouble to give us a good article of this kind, we should be as supportive as we can. I am removing some of the trial template again in this case. / Thurgood Rosewood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.225.53 ( talk) 12:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
momoricks (make my day) 12:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Steve Vigil AlexCab 1975.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC) |
I have now done lots of work in an attempt to bring this article into line according to multiple issues templates that were at the top of it for years. The old very lengthy (and entertaining) article has been stored in my sandbox. Anyone who might miss it can see it: here. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 00:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to find good faith in edits where several good sources are trashed, especially when it looks like there's a personal reason behind the edit (see Talk:Indian Love Call#Image of a duo singing the song replaced by movie poster). Reverting. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 18:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Jacob Truedson Demitz#New tags over article -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 20:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks like we ended up with a double linking here. The station's name was already linked to an article section on public access stations. In any case the "P" should not be capitalized, and I don't think the words should be red linked, even if the double linking is to be kept there. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 18:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Wild Side Story received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request failed to garner input from the community over the course of two weeks. |
Ladies and Gentlemen! As clarified elsewhere I am in touch with the creator of this show as well as the CEO of the organization which currently owns the rights to it (2 different persons). They are asking, respectfully, that previously uninvolved users edit the article as soon as possible for reliable sourcing and encyclopedic relevance so that the tag boxes at the top of it can be removed in an appropriate manner, or else that the article be deleted. The "What links here" section, and the articles in other languages, may be of help. Guidelines in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources may also be of use in evaluating older references, of which I can e-mail scanned copies to anyone who might want to see original printed material. Being bilingual, I am also available to provide any translations from Swedish if such may be needed. On July 6th 2015 (see talk above) I replaced a previous, very long article with this one, which is still nearly intact. Thank you for any valuable attention by previously uninvolved users! Sincerely, -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 21:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Spintendo 09:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Someone removed it from the article page, so I moved it here. If you want to add "former", go ahead; just hand-roll the banner with a tmbox, or from scratch. Mathglot ( talk) 11:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)