Jump to content

Talk:Hollywood Walk of Fame/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Criteria for entry and Payment

I'm pretty sure that by now criteria for entry on the Walk of Fame can be found (in fact, I've found them). Why isn't it included in the page? Is it because people are skirting the fact that you actually have to pay to be on it (and you won't if you don't), in order to avoid speculation that "nobodies" MIGHT be able to just pay to be on it, or maybe this is more than just honoring real stars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.25.229 (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The criteria are listed in the article in detail. As for your implication, in speaking with Chamber spokespeople as I rewrote this article, I was told that the second most common myth associated with the Walk (after the one that Joanne Woodward received the first star) was that anybody can buy a star. The Chamber gets approximately 200 nominations per year, and picks about 20 to receive stars. The sponsors of those 20 are assessed the $25,000 fee, AFTER the selection process, which pays to create and maintain the star and maintain the Walk as a whole, so that taxpayers don't have to pay for it. The Chamber regularly receives unsolicited checks (which they return) from studios and other corporate entities, apparently in the mistaken impression that you pay your money, you get your star -- actually, the exact opposite is true.DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Note application fee now $30,000.66.59.225.49 (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Jim Davis

According to The Official Hollywood Walk of Fame Website, the star for Jim Davis is for television. Now, I just changed the link for Jim Davis to the actor, not the guy who created Garfield. Can someone verify this? --Ricky81682 06:48, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • according to IMDB Jim Davis, actor of the Dallas series, was awarded a star. Jim Davis creator of Garfield, does not have a star, so what you've done is correct. Rossrs 04:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Videogames

There's a Videogame equivelent somehwere in the States (possibly New York). I don't remember where it is or precisely what it's called so I can't add it as a Reference (or See Also) but is there anyone who does know what it is, where it is, and who can add it? I know it's fairly recent, having been launched within the past 8 months. --Squirminator2k 09:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think you might be talking about the Walk of Game in Sam Francisco, if there's another one in New York...it probably isn't as notable Jarwulf 00:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Walk of Science

Maybe it's just me, but that should be done! And they should be just as famous... (There's nae justice...) 08:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Security cameras

Speaking of "justice," where's the justice in spending hundreds of thousands (probably?) of dollars for security cameras to guard pieces of stone, when they won't do that for areas with high crime rates... or spend on their police departments? Dan 19:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hollywood Boulevard has been considered an area with a high crime rate in the last 35 years or so, due to the severity of the neighborhood's problems with homelessness, drug sales and prostitution, although that appears to be changing somewhat with the latest gentrification attempt actually showing signs of success. -- unsigned comment
Please note that the Walk of Fame is a project of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, and not the City of Los Angeles. Protecting their own investment does not present many moral quandaries. And in fact LAPD is using crime-prevention cameras nowadays. --Dhartung | Talk 09:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional trivia

For many years there was a nonexistent person named Maurice Diller who had a star on the Walk of Fame. I don't know of any sources offhand but this was reported in the Los Angeles Times in the 1980s, after which the Chamber of Commerce removed the star.

Note: I removed this trivia reference as I believe this was a spelling error on Swedish director Mauritz Stiller's star that was corrected. - Ted Wilkes 13:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of trivia

I removed the following entry as being irrelevent to this article:

  • Tommy "Butch" Bond, whose career that spanned 65 years and 72 movies, portrayed "Butch" in the Little Rascals and cub reporter Jimmy Olsen in the original "Superman" movies in the 1940s, but died September 24, 2005, without a star.

What is the relevence of Mr. Bond not having a star? Even if he has been in show biz for a long time. A lot of people do not have stars that have been in show biz for a long time.

--Jvsett 01:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the information about Tommy Bond's again. I am still trying to figure out why this should be on the page. Another actor Olin Howland was in movies for over 50 years. From 1918 until 1958, he appeared in over 200 roles in movies and television; but he is not on the Walk of Fame. 1. Should this be included? What about the fact Academy Award winner Tim Robbins (for Mystic River) does not have a star? Or Oscar winner Ruth Gordon for Rosemary's Baby; she was in films for 40 + years but doesn't have a star. I am sure there are other examples; but what does it add to say Mr. Bond doesn't have a star?

--Jvsett 18:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Bond is still there under trivia. It is hard to see how it can be anything more than POV. Even a well argued, inclusive, POV is still POV. There needs to be some objective fact, not simply a personal belief, even a justified one, to list. - Matthew238 08:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It features one non-notable person. PRRfan 18:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. The purpose seems to have been to get people to use their purchasing service in order to appear, briefly, on their "wall". The link was also spammed to a number of unrelated articles. -Will Beback 22:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Images

The stars are very similar in appearance, with only an icon to designate the field the subject is recognized for. Therefore, I don't see the purpose of having multiple images of the stars. Any thoughts? -Will Beback 21:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Direction of the stars

Is there a documented reason somewhere as to why the stars do not face a uniform direction? I think that would be pertinent information for this article.

According to the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce Web site, the stars face in opposite directions simply because pedestrians walk the sidewalk in opposite directions. DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A new star for a seasoned actor

18:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)MozzelleLawrence Fishburne is one of my favorite actors. He has been in the business for many years. Cornbread, Earl and me is one of my favorite films and it showcased his talent in so many ways. Does he have a star on the walk of fame? If so, where can it be found?Mozzelle 18:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

"The stars of Jimmy Stewart and Kirk Douglas, which had been removed during a construction project, were stolen from the site on Vine Street." As it stands the removal due to construction has nothing to do with the incident. Can someone clarify that? Xiner 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Capacity

Presumably the walk has a capacity beyond which no more stars will fit. What is it? Avalon 07:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, the theoretical maximum capacity is dictated by the length of Hollywood Boulevard and Vine Street, and the density of stars placed on the sidewalk. Having been there, and looking at the street lengths in Google Maps, it's safe to say that the walk is not even close to full at the moment - it could be many years before this would even need to be considered as an issue. 68.126.4.209 (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Stars

Have they ever removed someones star, when in hindsight, they realised that they don't deserve it? Or, once you get a star, is it permanent?

Have any of the people awarded stars been subsequently convicted of serious crimes; if so, were their stars removed? F W Nietzsche (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Chuck Berry,James Brown, Spade Cooley, and Wesley Snipes are the only people awarded stars who have been convicted of felonies since the Walk of Fame was initiated, and they still have stars.If the Walk of Fame would not remove Cooley's star due to a murder conviction, I would presume that stars are not removed if the people awarded them are convicted of felonies. This might not be true in the case of convictions for genocide, terrorism, or war crimes, but that would not apply to anyone awarded a star. Stars aren't awarded to dictators or terrorists. 76.173.245.211 (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense

In the Walk of Fame section it says:

In 2002, the Walk of Fame broke tradition with Muhammad Ali's star. His star is displayed on a wall of the Fuji Theater, due to alexandra's request that she did not want to be walked on.[1]

Can someone clean this up because I can't find anything concerning an Alexandra on Ali's page. Coradon 20:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's at the entrance of the Kodak Theatre. Ali did not want to be walked on.HollywoodChamber (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The Vandalised one..

Classic I fucking love it. If i was gonna rob any it would be that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.219.98 (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

History

A total of 1,558 stars were awarded during its first sixteen months. WOW, within about one and a half year they planted 1,558 stars! 16 months are about 480 days, that means they made about 3,241 stars a day. Fast people, aren't they? Well... or has there simply been meant "16 years" instead of "16 month"? Greetings --Wittkowsky (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Probable hoax

I removed a reference to Californian artist Oliver Weismuller, who was hired to give Hollywood a "face-lift". I can find no reference to this person anywhere in the historical record. The information was added in 2005 by an IP address with a random quality of contributions. The credit surely goes to Chamber of Commerce president Harry Sugarman, who is mentioned several places as having the idea. In any case, should Weismuller turn out to exist, we would need a reliable source that he was involved in, say, creating the first star. --Dhartung | Talk 09:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Qualifying

Is there a measurable criteria for being awarded a star? Does the person receiving one have to have done a minimum amount of work in their entertainment field, or have been in the industry for a minimum amount of time? Some people have been awarded them with a relatively small body of work, yet others have had long successful careers, yet have never been awarded a star. Do the same number of people receive stars each year? Are stars only awarded to people who have already won awards for their work? F W Nietzsche (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

To get a star, the first step is submitting an application. The Hollywood Chamber and the Hollywood Walk of Fame Committee do not randomly award stars to talents. Someone needs to submit a nomination application on behalf of the talent. No nomination application, no selection. Accomplishments do matter as in any given year the Walk of Fame Committee selects only 15-20 from a list of some 200 applications.HollywoodChamber (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy in the information

You put that the Olsen twins became the youngest people to own a star in the Hollywood Hall of Fame at age 18, but in the list on the article about the Grauman's Chinese Theatre, say Shirley Temple on March 14 1935 had her star ceremony, she would've been 7 years old, is it wrong or that doesn't count, maybe I don't understand. Then you put that in 1996 Luis Miguel became the first latin artist to own a star, while in the Grauman's Chinese Theatre article's list it says that Cantinflas had his star on December 1960, which is considered the first? Unless you mean singer by saying 'artist' in Luis Miguel's case, again it's a little misleading or I don't know the standards for becoming "the first" something or "the youngest" something, or if you have it wrong and need to compare info between articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.103.49.175 (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That article refers to the foot-/handprints in cement outside that cinema. Different from (but often confused with) the Hollywood Walk of Fame, which is the stars.—Dah31 (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

George Lucas

How come Mr. Lucas doesn't have a star? He should - after all, his contributions to the entertainment industry are pretty well known. — Rickyrab | Talk 07:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaced 3 sections

I found that IP address 69.104.217.211[1] removed 3 sections titled:

  1. ==See also==
  2. ==Nomination process==
  3. == Characteristics ==

I saw no discussion about them, so I replaced them. Quebec99 (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Good. Clear vandalism. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Repairing citations

I've begun fleshing out and repairing broken raw URLs to full citations. WP:CITE policy on citations is that links are helpful, but not sufficient. URLs are no help if a link dies (web.archive.org doesn't have everything).

Please note Hollywood Chamber of Commerce and the Hollywood Walk of Fame are not affiliated with hwof. All references to that source is misleading.HollywoodChamber (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That's an old discussion, which I've updated. Please don't spam - try to keep one discussion going per topic only. About HWOF.com, it seems that prior to June, editors became accustomed to using that website because it was easy, short, seemed official, and seemed to have more related details than the Chamber site(bio, GPS, links to WP & IMDB, walking directions), which increased its search-engine relevance. It's easy to confuse search-engine relevance with notability/reliability. HWoF.com began being de-cited in June, first for source diversity due to single sourcing and possible WP:COPYVIO, then for server reliability, non-official nature, errors, and photo-composited images of stars. --Lexein (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

New Selections?

I have moved the following addition from the article proper to here, so it can be discussed. Do we really want to add a list of each year's new selections? There is already a separate, complete list of stars on the Walk, with a well-marked link to it at the end of this article, and that list is updated regularly, so I don't really see why it's appropriate or necessary in this article. If others think I'm completely wrong about this, I'll be happy to move it back.

It has been reported that celebrities getting stars in 2010 are:

Fair enough. As the one who added it I can see your point. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem sensibly organizable by date, since the Committee has been staunchly random in its scheduling of the granting of stars, viz the 8 year gap when no stars were granted. --Lexein (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just announced 2011 stars (31): Tina Fey, The Muppets, Gwyneth Paltrow, Sir Ridley Scott, Oprah Winfrey, Donald Sutherland, Reese Witherspoon, Melissa Etheridge, Danny DeVito, Donald Sutherland, Los Tigres Del Norte, Rascal Flatts, Penelope Cruz, will.i.am, Kenny Ortega, Sissy Spacek, Buddy Holly (deceased), Louis Prima (deceased), Slash, BeBe and Cece Winans, The Go-Gos, Joe Mantegna, Neil Patrick Harris, Bruce Dern, Diane Ladd, Laura Dern, Ed Harris, Simon Fuller, John Langley, Ed O'Neill, and TV producer John Wells. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Moratorium

I agree with User:DoctorJoeE that no more names of starless celebs should or need to be added. We have more than a representative sample already. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No unstarred celebs, unless cited

Upon reflection, I agree with User:Branddobbe's deletion of the list of unstarred celebs here. The one cited example is enough, to answer the question "Why doesn't ___ have a star?" WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Discuss. --Lexein (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Expand. Please offer policy or an example WP:GOOD article which contains a list of people not in an article's denoted set without supporting citations. Read WP:INDISCRIMINATE? See also WP:VERIFY and WP:TRUTH. --Lexein (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Since discussion stopped after my request for policy or examples, and since the list has been deleted and reverted without satisfying WP:BURDEN, and since there's no cited source, in about a week I'll be deleting "A sampling (by no means complete) of other well-known individuals and acts who have not (thus far) received stars [list of names]", per WP:Original research, WP:Crystal Ball, and WP:Verifiability. There is no policy which supports "a sampling" of information without citation.

Seriously, WP:Verifiability - click it. I'm not a deletionist, but among all the other things Wikipedia is WP:NOT, it is also not a wishlist or a sour grapes list. --Lexein (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I've come around to your paradigm. (Hey, when I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong.) While the whole idea of finding supporting citations for something that doesn't exist is illogical on its face, two or three LA Times articles (already cited in the article) do indeed have lists of examples of unstarred celebs, which you might or might not accept as valid references -- BUT -- from a purely practical standpoint, that section is a complete pain in the ass; anonymous jerks add or subtract names from it on a regular basis, and I'm tired of it. So, you win -- I added it in the first place, I'll delete it now. DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey, it's the WP paradigm, really, I just need to write mellower comments. If the goal is to reach WP:Good article and maybe someday WP:Featured article status, either we reach consensus on stuff now, or GA/FA reviewers will red flag it later. --Lexein (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
What, there's no "pretty good" article status? :-) Anyway, as I said, you're right, I was wrong, it's fixed. DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


If it makes this discussion easier, there are many different reasons why a celeb is not on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Some editorialized references may hint that the Hollywood Walk of Fame Nominating Committee "omitted" these worthy celebrities. To mention each celebrity name, you have to accompany that name with a reason as to why they are not on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. The simplest reason is: No one has nominated that celebrity. There are many other reasons. But the Hollywood Walk of Fame is a series of stars on the sidewalks of the Hollywood Boulevard and Vine Street (it's not a set of sidewalks as the wiki article notes). If it's not on the sidewalks of Hollywood Boulevard or Vine Street, then the celebrity is not part of the Hollywood Walk of Fame honor - regardless of their celebrity status.HollywoodChamber (talk) 02:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Monty Woolley source conflict

Re this edit and this reversion. This is an actual source conflict, unless HWOF HWOF.com faked their photo. Although both JPG images are too compressed to be certain, when zoomed in, the LA Times photo seems older, and the HWOF photo seems newer (less patina and less buildup in the corners). The "tv" plaque may have been replaced with "film". It's worth doublechecking if/when and putting that in the article. It might also be worth posting a very recent photo straight from the camera, with all the EXIF info intact. But I'm not flying to L.A. for that ;-) --Lexein (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the deal with HWOF.com - they didn't photograph any of the actual 2400+ stars, they photographed a blank star and photoshopped in names and emblems. Their site (which is "official" only because they say so) is riddled with errors. The LA Times actually went out to the Walk and photographed every single star for their ongoing Starwalk Project (http://projects.latimes.com/hollywood/star-walk/). Their information is accurate, even more so than the data at the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce site (which likewise does not have actual photos of the actual stars). I have also physically looked at the Monty Woolley star, and it has a TV emblem on it - or it did a couple of years ago when I saw it - admittedly there is the chance they have fixed it - we do have an editor in LA who has been photographing stars for his own amusement, and I will contact him to ask if he is willing to photograph the Woolley star and post it, just to remove all doubt. If not, I'll do myself next time I'm in LA, but unfortunately I have no trips planned to the other coast for awhile...DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Good info to have documented. As for the image compositing (hooray for Hollywood), what tipped you off? Ultimately, HWoF and HCoC are primary sourcesHWoF.com is a secondary, but unofficial and sorta unreliable source, and walkoffame.com and hollywoodchamber.net are primary sources - they are trumped by 3rd party sources at WP, like the LA Times cite. Glad you checked. --Lexein (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Followup: on July 9, 2010, User:JGKlein uploaded a fine camera-fresh photo of Woolley's star at Monty Woolley, with EXIF data intact. This answers my query from above: the "TV" category plaque has almost certainly not been replaced since the LA Times photo. --Lexein (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviations and sourcing

Neither the HWOF (a term the Hollywood Chamber will never use to reference the Hollywood Walk of Fame) nor the LA Times' (Hollywood Star Walk) should be used as reference. The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce is the only official resource for the Hollywood Walk of Fame. When in doubt, email info@hollywoodchamber.net or call 323-469-8311.HollywoodChamber (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, it's important that you read Wikipedia:Citing sources -- in particular, please note the difference between primary sources and third-party sources. In the land of Wikipedia, the Hollywood Chamber is a primary source, and is trumped by third-party sources. I know that sounds bass-ackwards when you first start editing, but it's a fundamental principle here. DoctorJoeE (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
HollywoodChamber:
  1. Sources: http://hwof.com is, per the disclaimer at the bottom of the page, "not affiliated with Hollywood Chamber of Commerce", and therefore not official. This makes it a 3rd party source, but it is not deemed strictly universally reliable because it's not a publishing organization with an editorial policy and fact-checking staff - and it has been determined over time to have errors. We use it exactly twice in the article, due to its coverage of some verifiable detail (the Chamber is cited 14 times). I have clarified my use of hwof.com, walkoffame.com and hollywoodchamber.net above. I have also noted in the article citations that hwof.com is "unofficial."
  2. Errors. Though hwof.com has errors, there are also some in the official http://hollywoodchamber.net (and identical http://walkoffame.com) database. One example is Monty Woolley. His HollywoodChamber.net pages [1][2] list "Motion Picture" category and show an image of a star with a movie camera icon, but without Woolley's name - clearly not a photo of his actual star (hwof.com makes it worse by photo-compositing his name). Photographs of the actual star by the L.A. Times and by an independent photographer, show both the name and the television icon, illustrating our dilemma.
    Where there is a factual disagreement between sources, (such Times vs Chamber) we weigh notability and use the more notable, reliable source, and document that in the article, or in footnotes, and discuss it the Talk page above. In the Hollywood Walk of Fame article, it is listed as an "error or mystery", and I've added a note expanding on the discrepancy. WP isn't about what should be, it's about what verifiably is.
  3. A newspaper, magazine, or book showing Woolley's induction date and category in 1960, perhaps with a photo of the ceremony (unless there wasn't one), would nail down his intended, published, and executed category once and or all, from Wikipedia's point of view.
  4. Be aware that we are acting in good faith to write the best, most verifiably accurate article possible, given, in some cases, difficult circumstances. We take this task seriously, as this article got over 780,000 visitors in 2009, and over 477,000 as of September 2010.

--Lexein (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me check our physical files re Woolley.66.59.225.49 (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Errors and Mysteries

Moved this part of the section to Talk. Per "unable to locate the stars honoring Akim Tamiroff" - The Times seems to have found it:

Akim Tamiroff at Los Angeles Times Star Walk.

and Rms125a@hotmail.com found this (which I edited, and which matches the LAT(1600 block) and HWOF(1674) address approximately):

<ref>According to Hakopjanian, Raphael "[http://www.yerevanmagazine.com/akim-tamiroff ''“Short, dark and a bit sleazy looking…” Hollywood Star'' — Akim Tamiroff]". Yerevan Magazine, Spring 2010.{{registration required}} : ''"The 'star' of Akim Tamiroff shines among the more than 2,000 stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame at 1634 Vine Street."''</ref>

--Lexein (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

.net, Jet, JLD

Per feeding the tigers a yummy factsnack so they don't eat the article,

IP editor 66.59.225.49 - Wikipedia policy about conflict of interest

Like twelve-stepping thirsty vampires, we must remind ourselves WP:Do not bite the newcomers. The IP editor 66.59.225.49, in this edit summary declared themselves to be affiliated with the HCOC & HWOF. The problems were a) it didn't mention a job title (director/admin/HR/PR) or a person's name, b) it was from an anonymous IP address, not a registered user, and c) declarations of interest are usually made on user pages, or article Talk pages. A traceroute matches the IP address to "mail.hollywoodchamber.net", so to that editor, WP:Welcome to Wikipedia, and read on, I'm talking to you.

Wikipedia Conflict of Interest guidelines, WP:COI for short, address the issues surrounding individuals/organizations editing articles about themselves. Please read that entire policy: there will be a quiz. Anyone associated with either the Walk or the Chamber must abide by WP:COI in this article. This means:

  1. Don't make changes yourself, except these non-controversial edits.
  2. For all other changes, request them here in Talk for review and (likely) incorporation.
  3. Please post a formal Declaration of interest here, if you plan to contribute. See this example. If there is only one person at that IP address doing edits, job done. If there are multiple editors, each individual should register a unique username, which does not make reference to HWOF or HCOC. Whether the usernames include real names is up to the individual, but I personally don't recommend it. See Usernames policy.

That's it. Please take the time to read WP:Welcome to Wikipedia and WP:Five pillars, and help improve the article with reliable third-party verifiable sources. --Lexein (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I suppose I need to be more patient and mellow and understanding, and I sincerely hope I didn't dissuade anyone from contributing. However, I did criticize the edits, not the editor -- and when there is an obvious COI, and a clear misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about, IMHO a bit of gentle pushback is preferable to an edit war. (I also attempted a more detailed explanation on the user's talk page, though the above is much better.) I hope editor 66.59.225.49 did not take offense, and will open a Wikipedia account and work with us toward our common goal of improving the article. All the best, DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I am trying to read as much as I can and catch up. My name is Marlene Panoyan, Director of Communications at Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. info@hollywoodchamber.net / 323-469-8311. I am the only one who will be editing or monitoring the brand names and trademarks of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce (Hollywood Walk of Fame and the Hollywood Sign). I did create an account - HollywoodChamber - and I am looking forward to working with all of you to clear confusing information and sources as much as my time permits. If you decide to email, please put "wiki" in your subject line. And for the record, hwof is not affiliated with the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce and the Hollywood Walk of Fame in any official or unofficial way. HollywoodChamber (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

trivia

this edit was about the removal of information that is nothing but trivia. dont see how it furthers the article when info is already thre and the reader can see for himself. WP:TRIVIA also means in effect not to add to it for the sake of it. That said maybe an EL would be better?(Lihaas (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)).

First, what part of the content that you removed is "already there, and the reader can see for himself?" I don't see any of that content anywhere else in the article. Second, I disagree that the content in question is "nothing but trivia", particularly the first paragraph: Few living people have ever heard of the once-famous silent film actor named Harrison Ford; a tourist who sees a star on the Walk labeled "Harrison Ford" will automatically assume it honors the modern-day actor, unless he or she is a very serious student of entertainment history. Ditto the two Michael Jackson stars. So making those distinctions in the article is not trivial. To a slightly lesser extent, that is also true of the Barrymore family information, which has not been assembled in one place anywhere else that I'm aware of, and would be valuable to anyone interested in that family. The middle paragraph could go either way, I suppose; but it has been there for a long time without any objection from anyone else, so I don't think you are justified in removing it unilaterally, without building a consensus in favor of doing so. All the best, DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

FA Nomination?

Can I get some opinions on nominating this article for Featured Article status? I know I have a certain bias here, but I think it's pretty good, and it gets an impressive number of hits. What does everyone/anyone think? DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks great, and I'm sure it'd be a good prospect for FA. I suggest starting with GA. Even when an article looks ready, it will inevitably require more work.   Will Beback  talk  01:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. With over 300 pending nominations, it may take awhile, but nothing ventured, nothing gained. DoctorJoeE (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I am reviewing, will transclude review to TP.  JoeGazz  ▲  19:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
  1. ^ [3]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood_Walk_of_Fame/Archive_1&oldid=1069861538"