Jump to content

Talk:Eddie Foy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Eddie Foy Sr.)
[edit]
Moot because the article in question is no longer a redlink. Andrew D. (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chickens peck at red spots because it is hard wired into their brains, humans can resist the urge to obsess over a red link. It catches the eye, but we do not have to peck at it. I already wrote that I am creating the article, and no Wikipedia rule demands that a redlink be removed if the article can be written. I am sorry that it feels like a blemish on the article to you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:REDLINK, write the article first. BMK (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question for the RFC is: Does the one redlink in this article have to be removed. It is a link to an article I am currently writing as pointed out above. User:Beyond My Ken cites WP:REDLINK, but that policy guide actually states the opposite: "Create red links everywhere they are relevant to the context for terms that should exist in the encyclopedia". I think he is referring to to the essay Wikipedia:Write the article first but it is an essay not an official editing guideline. Essays should not trump official editing guidelines. As a compromise I have removed the phrase from the article and removed Foy from the list of eccentric dancers I am working on. To see it you will have to view the article history. What do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Beyond My Ken is referring to the end of the second paragraph of WP:REDLINK:

      Although red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles, do not overlink in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider WP:Write the article first, or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles.

      Since you are writing the article now, there's is no difference in difficulty or time spent on your part if you link after the article has been moved into mainspace rather than before. There's no benefit to the reader to have a redlink there, and there's no need to prompt an editor to write the article, since you're doing that. Therefore, the redlink serves no purpose, and simply distracts the reader. BMK (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is under an indefinite community and ArbCom sanction not to create any new articles until his copyright violations have all been cleaned up. (See WP:Editing restrictions and search on "Norton".) Given this, and given that he doesn't seem to be spending much time working on those copyvios, it could potentially be quite a long time before the "Eccentric dance" article he's writing in his user space sees the light of Articlespace. (His userspace is chock full of what I assume are articles he's written and waiting to move.) If the article doesn't get moved, then the "eccentric dance" redlink he wants to put into this article would stay there for a long time as well. This is all the more reason not to have it redlinked.

I also object to RAN removing from the article the phrase "eccentic dance" -- which has been in the article since August 4, 2013 -- simply because he's not getting his way in a dispute about a redlink. In point of fact, his "compromise" is no compromise at all, since if Foy indeed do an eccentric dance in that instance, it should be in any article about "eccentric dance", regardless of who is writing it. I'm not going to touch RAN's userspace draft, but I am going to restore "eccentric dance" to the article where it's been for almost 18 months, and if RAN has a problem with that, I'll be happy to bring this situation to AN/I, along with the similar dispute on Ottendorfer Public Library and Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital, where RAN redlinked an

obscure actor who died there, and who bioarticle he's also working on in his userspace. BMK (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it again, the reference does not support it. I only added him to Eccentric dance because the term appeared in the Foy article. But it is not supported by the reference used in the article or any of the references in the article on the dance style. If you can find a reference add it back, and add him to the list too. And add the reference to the dance style article as well. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I sourced it. I'm not touching your user space. BMK (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Keep it unlnked until an article is in mainspace

[edit]
  • Keep it unlinked on site management grounds (rather than the merits of the red link itself). The editor in question (Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )) is (I understand) supposed to not be working in article space unless or until he cleans up his past copyvios. @Richard Arthur Norton, I'm not up on the details of your situation, but my understanding is that you contributed a lot of copyvio material. This may have been inadvertent and done with the best of intentions (again, don't know one way or the other, but let's assume this in kindness) but even so, a massive copyvio cevent is a severe headache to clean up. Would you see your way to clear to helping with this tedious and important task before moving into other areas? This would be a kindness. Whether even adding the [[ ]] brackets constitutes "editing in article space" is debatable I guess.
I'm not trying to be punitive here, but: teamwork. Let's work together to put the unfortunate copyvio event behind us and then move forward. Herostratus (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to read the sanctions which have been imposed on RAN, go to WP:Editing restrictions and search for "Norton" -- however, I can tell you that he is not forbidden to edit in mainspace, but he cannot create new articles there. BMK (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is about whether WP:Redlink or WP:Write the article first takes precedence, no matter who creates the redlink. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was invited by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) to comment. Other than $0.02 I added to the recent ANI - I can't recall ever having dealt with him but I could have either way, but check our histories to satisfy yourselves. That disclaimer said, I think the apparent conflict between WP:REDLINK and WP:Write the article first is easily resolved: the former is an editing guideline, which is to say it has achieved consensus sometime in the past to be more than an essay; the latter is an essay, which is to say the original draft was the opinion of the original author and presumably the current draft is the opinion of the last author but nowhere has consensus been sought or achieved on whether any version of the essay ought to be a guideline. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you disagree with my comment or only using an opportunity to continue your attacks on the guy? If you stick to the thread of what we're discussing and not digress into things like the back-and-forth that played out at WP:ANI, we may find a resolution. Comment on the comment, not on extraneous stuff. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, here's how the site-management issues intersect with the merits of the case. The two can't easily be separated and here's why:
  1. It's an extremely obscure topic. In fact, my first assumption was that "eccentric dance" is simply a phrase to be parsed literally ("eccentric" + "dance") rather than an actual thing. But it is an actual thing (I gather). But a very obscure actual thing.
  2. So obscure that anyone other than Richard Arthur Norton writing an article on it, in the next ten years let's say, or ever, would be highly unlikely normally. So a redlink is not helpful and is just an eyesore. (Sure, most any topic could become an article eventually, in theory, and so we could sprinkle redlinks thru all our articles; I'm talking about topics that have a reasonable chance of being written in a reasonable time.)
  3. But... a userspace draft exists, at User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Eccentric dance.

It's not at all clear to me if Norton's "community-placed topic ban on article creations [which] was a valid and apparently successful attempt to curb his text-based copyright violations, and [which] has been violated a number of times" prevents or should prevent other editors from moving pages like that into mainspace (after vetting). I don't see why not, although I'm not inclined to do it. The question is is it allowed anyone inclined to do it. If someone is, then Bob's your uncle: bluelink. If no one is, then it's probably a forever redlink which is an eyesore.

I'm not inclined to do it nor recommend that anyone else do, because what I think needs to happen is for User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) to re-attain full privileges (which will render all these discussions moot), which to which end he'll be "required to submit evidence of substantial work on his part towards resolving the Contributor Copyright Investigations filed against him". Moving Richard Arthur Norton's articles into mainspace is just going to encourage him to write more and distract him from this task. Herostratus (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just one correction, RAN's sanction was a community-imposed one, but ArbCom has since endorsed it and made it an ArbCom sanction. That decision can be found here. BMK (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I believe the answer to your question is that other editors are completely free to move RAN's userspace articles into mainspace if they wish to, but by doing so they take on total responsibility for them. This is the exact equivalent of an editor restoring the reverted edits of a banned user. BMK (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And there's the rub. One reason people will be reticent to moving this guy's drafts to article space is precisely that such actions will be under heightened scrutiny by people with pre-conceived ideas. Aren't all editors are responsible for their edits; it's a given, right? But when someone points that out, it has a chilling effect; which maybe intended especially by using wording such as "total responsibility". I think by arguing that an article is not likely to be created when you chill anyone who may attempt to do that doesn't advance the ball. No one should be allowed to create copyright violations, and this would have perhaps been better solved by banning the perpetrator, but for whatever reason it wasn't done (and if it had, we have nice rules that nothing he contributes stays). So... whether or not anyone were inclined to move drafts into article space doesn't mean that the articles will never be created. We have articles on lots of crap, that just hits the minimum notability threshold (or at least no consensus that it falls short). We don't have articles on lots of important historical figures, like Roman consuls, as I mentioned at ANI. A redlink appears at the list I cited at ANI for Marcus Fabius Vibulanus (consul 483 and 480 BC). In fact, redlinks for him appear in other places as well. While whoever inserted the redlink may have acted contrary to the essay, it was perfectly fine for our editing guideline - whoever writes the article, and as an eventualist, I will assume someone will write it eventually, won't have to search far and wide for all the articles that mention the consul (this one with a rather common name) and where to integrate the links. Thinking ahead avoids dead ends. So, I stand by WP:REDYES as guideline trumps any essay - and you haven't responded that you disagree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, all editor are responsible for their personal edits, but the purpose in pointing out that anyone moving one of RAN's articles to mainspace is responsible for it is not to discourage them from doing so, it's to head off any complaints on the order of "I didn't make this article, RAN did, so any problems are his, not mine."

I've only looked at a couple of RAN's articles in his userspace, but I saw nothing in them that caused me to believe that those articles are pre se problematic. But RAN does have a history of copyright violations, so if it turns out that I move one of his articles to mainspace, and it turns out to have copyvios, that's my responsibility. That simply means that if you think a subject really ought to have an article, and RAN has written an article, it's best to make sure that there are no problems in it before moving it. That's no more onerous than making sure a source is actually relaible before citing it. BMK (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as to whether MOS trumps essay, sure, why not -- but then policy trumps MOS, and IAR is policy.

I'm not a MOS-absolutist, I'm a reader-oriented editor who believes that whatever is best for the reader is best for the encyclopedia. In this case, redlinks sitting around for an indeterminate period, waiting for RAN's sanctions to be lifted, do not benefit the reader. BMK (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC tag on the discussion above

[edit]

I do not think there should be an RfC tag on the discussion above, because none of the very clear steps or guidelines in WP:RFC have been followed. No attempt was made to discuss the matter beforehand on this Talk page. No brief, neutral statement of the issue was posted underneath the RfC tag. Nor was any brief neutrally stated question asked. This seems to be a personal quarrel directed at a single editor, following an edit war less than three hours old, without any attempt to discuss the matter on Talk. Softlavender (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, the RfC was started by Richard Arthur Norton, nto by me. I think it's a pretty silly idea. BMK (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From above: "The question for the RFC is: Does the one redlink in this article have to be removed. ..." asking if the guideline or the essay are the rule of law. The text above this concerned the argument so was included. But true it has become a pissing match over a trivial issue. But it is an important issue and apparently a divisive one with a surprising number of people siding with the essay over the guideline. Because the guideline was not enforced, the redlink removal has already moved to a second article, then ANI against me to try and ban me from adding redlinks. As the number of active editors shrinks, it gets harder to enforce guidelines without bringing it to the attention of people with an RFC. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no redlink in the article. And even if there were one, the specific word or phrase would need to be pointed out. There is no brief neutral statement or neutrally stated question. Right now, the statement is only a self-righteous personal attack on another editor, and makes no sense as an RfC. And as I mentioned, the appropriate steps to take before filing an RfC were never observed -- there was no attempt to discuss on this talk page. This appears to be a knee-jerk malformed reaction to an edit war. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is no redlink in the article". That is the point of the RFC, you are looking at the version with it removed. I think you are just responding to the pissing match aspect and missing the underlying issue. Read "The question for the RFC is:" The question is an important one, and you are only responding to the drama, not the underlying MoS issues. Others overlooked the drama, and saw the underlying importance. This RFC led to the rewriting of WP:Redlinks. Sometimes a little passion gets good things done. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Eddie Foy, Sr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Eddie Foy Sr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 January 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Silikonz💬 20:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– This article was created in June 2004 as "Eddie Foy" and was unilaterally moved to "Eddie Foy, Sr." in May 2007 to enable creation of the Eddie Foy disambiguation page. The legendary vaudevillian was never billed as "Sr.", while his son and grandson were known as "Eddie Foy Jr." and "Eddie Foy III", respectively, and not as simply "Eddie Foy". The name on his gravestone is "Eddie Foy", there is "Eddie Foy Park" and the plaque gives the name as "Eddie Foy". His star on Hollywood Walk of Fame is likewise "Eddie Foy". Comparable to Lon Chaney, not Lon Chaney Sr. or Douglas Fairbanks, not Douglas Fairbanks Sr. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chips Off The Old Block

[edit]

Correction: Richard Foy played the ukulele, not Bryan Foy. 2600:1003:B122:4022:8D23:F313:C59B:6836 (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eddie_Foy&oldid=1207493570"