Talk:Hollywood Walk of Fame/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Dubious source: personal communication

I'm concerned about source #23 (see current revision), which appears to be a personal email or phone conversation. The source is used multiple times throughout the article to cite statistics. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" (WP:RS). Guoguo12--Talk--  15:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Added as a ref by DoctorJoeE here, the edit summary confirms it was a phone call. I've WP:AGF'd it this whole time, because originally it was used only once as a source for one fact, the 8-names-from-a-hat, and just forgot to delete it after finding the news source. There's a better, verifiable source for that searched & text verified here:

Daily News of Los Angeles : WALK OF WHIMSY - CRITICISM ...‎
$3.50 - Daily News of Los Angeles - Oct 26, 1986
Nowhere on the revered Hollywood Walk of Fame is the name of Jack Nicholson or ... The first eight celebrities were drawn from a hat and given a star. It was an experimental project to see whether the star-adoring public would marvel at the concept, Grant said. They did, and on Feb."

After laboriously piecing together the above, I found this, from the Ottawa Citizen, p. D17. Oct. 30, 1986, also a mirror of the LA Daily News article. I tire of losing sources, so I dumped them all in. At least these are easily verifiable. There's some other gold in them, too.

So for "eight names" we don't need the phone call at all. However, for any other <ref name="Martinez"/> they should be independently sourced before that ref is finally decommissioned. --Lexein (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Guoguo12--Talk--  17:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I found sources to replace all but one use of the Martinez phone call. We still need a source to verify this claim, which cites the phone call:

"The most common question received by Chamber personnel is, "Why doesn't _____________ have a star?"^[74]

--Lexein (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

reference to Johnny Grant

Under section Stagnation and revitalization, add title Honorary Mayor of Hollywood to Johnny Grant reference in the sentence starting with "Radio personality, television producer, and Chamber member Johnny Grant (1923 – 2008)" - http://www.johnnygrant.com/johnnygrantbio.html. specifically since the name is followed by the years of his lifetime.

Y --Lexein (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

In the same paragraph, the fee $25,000 is incorrect. It's $30,000 - http://www.walkoffame.com/pages/faqs Walk7018 (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Y --Lexein (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, the timeline moves from 1980 to 1978 and then back to 1978. Walk7018 (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Y --Lexein (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

need to discuss "special" star reference - change to Award of Excellence. Reference source would be an image of the "special" stars themselves which carry the title "Award of Excellence" Walk7018 (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed that further work on this topic is needed. Though some "Award of Excellence" stars such as the Dodgers or the LAPD have the extra plaques, some seem not to. Images aren't usually considered reliable sources by themselves - I usually use them along with a published prose reliable source. Here are some web sources and some news sources which refer to "Award of Excellence". I'll get to it later.
• Johnny Grant's seems not to be an "Award of Excellence." His bio says "On February 1, 2002, Johnny was honored with a special, one-of-a-kind Walk of Fame star, bearing the Hollywood seal [...]" but doesn't mention "Award of Excellence." The L.A. Times Johnny Grant star entry and this photo show no "Award of Excellence" plaque, though the Seal of Hollywood is unique. --Lexein (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"Bending the Rules"

Is it just me or does the "Bending the rules" section seem a little informal and unencyclopedic? Sentences like "the selection committee has been known to conjure some interesting rule interpretations to justify a selection" and "the committee decided boxing (unlike basketball, apparently) could be considered a form of "live performance" just don't seem to be written from a neural stance, in my opinion. I would edit it, but since I'm an anon, it would most likely be reverted by one of the Wikipedia word nazis so I thought I'd bring it up here instead. :) --92.23.248.193 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a little informal and OR-ish, but I haven't gotten to that section yet, and I'd love to hear what you would say? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems like this material would fit under "Nomination process", with maybe a subheading for "exceptions" or something like that.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

My review

Alright, so here's what I think should be improved before any GAR:

1. The lead. In short, it strikes me as being too short. Per the guidelines, the lead should summarize all the major points (e.g., briefly explain, say, all the section titles) and be able to "stand on its own as a concise version of the article". I really don't think this lead does that. Too much is left untold, and the second paragraph gives undue weight to something that isn't even really discussed in the article (tourism).
2. Alot of "The Walk today" (and even "Errors and mysteries") is trivia. Nothing wrong with that, in and of itself, but a lot of it is unsourced trivia, and that is a problem. "Entertainers in politics", "Unique and unusual" and "Fictional characters (and those who create them)" seem especially problematic. Maybe just make a (smaller) "Trivia" section?
3. Could "On the outside looking in" (odd title, that) be merged into "Nomination process"?

These were mostly the "big" things. More to come, but I'd like more opinions on these changes. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything you suggested. Merging "On the outside looking in" into "Nomination process" sounds good. I've been wondering what to do with that strangely-named section. Guoguo12 (Talk)  23:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Well, I'll wait (at least) for Lexein before doing anything. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that kind of violates the spirit of being bold, doesn't it? Guoguo12 (Talk)  01:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Well, I've had problems in the past with being bold...then being almost immediately reverted because of a "lack of discussion" - even when the changes were usually good ones. Easier to just talk things out now. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge (my third point) performed. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with #3, the paragraph merge. But I strongly disagree with the #2 description "a lot of it is unsourced trivia," where there is only completely sourced content. I strongly encourage the editor to carefully read the neighboring sentences' sources before making such a bold and sort of insulting remark. DrJoe, I, and Guoguo12 have been scrupulous about sources, going back years to spelunk where claims came from. Quite frequently, an editor supports two sentences or even a paragraph with a single source, in order to reduce citation clutter - this is a perfectly acceptable style, when the claims (sentences) can all be clearly seen to be supported by the source.--Lexein (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, Guoguo has retired. :( Just you and me, I guess. Now, as to the lack of sources...

• "Entertainers in politics" is entirely unsourced.
• The latter two paragraphs of "Names in common" is unsourced.
• By my count, five of the nine paragraphs in "Unique and unusual" are unsourced.
• "Fictional characters (and those who create them)" is unsourced.

Sorry if you took it as in insult, since I did not mean it that way, but there clearly are unsourced sections. Please understand that I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with having trivia in the article. However, a lot of these could very easily be disputed by another reviewer or editor, and I seriously doubt that a GAR would pass with all this in it. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Never mind. 1st item sourced & copyedited. I wouldn't move anything to a "trivia" section, because it will just get tagged for deletion or exhorted to be moved back into the article prose, where it is somewhat comfortably ensconced. In the battle between dull, pedantic recitation of facts, and adding flavor to an otherwise boring article about pavement, I'll choose flavor. The bottom line is that in the grand history of humanity, the Walk of Fame itself is trivial. In the grand history of the Walk, many recipients are trivial. A few are nontrivial, such as the heads of state listed in "Entertainers in politics" - not so sure about senators and representatives, though.

As for "Names in common" - summarizing data seems to fall under the procedural rubric of WP:CALC and doesn't need to be separately cited. I've added a hidden comment to that effect, and ref'd the WalkOfFame.com results anyways.

As for "Unique and unusual" - a few of the statements are still summarizing an existing list, as above. Summarizing and condensing is one of the Things Encyclopedias Do. That said, I'm on the fence about statistics about names - it somehow seems too trivial, even a bit obsessive. Also, there is some POV language ("most novel") which could be excised. --Lexein (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I still think that there's a tad too much trivia, but I'll be more then happy to wait for a peer review or even GAR to see if they care. Not sure how CALC applies; it seems that clearly refers to numbers and things that don't need to be sourced because they can be computed in one's mind. This seems to me to be different. I also agree with you about the names thing. For example, if we look at the second paragraph of "Names in common", there is a clear need for examples, rather then a full list. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I invoked CALC only because it refers to that which can be observed and noted in an article without being labeled WP:Original research. Similarly, a reader could slog through the list of 2442 (or more) stars and tote up all the Joneses, Smiths, and Williamses, or we could simply summarize them. --Lexein (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

missing basic useful information about the Walk

The articles does not mention any of the following information which people constantly ask about:

• what is the address of the Hollywood Walk of Fame so that they can map it for directions... There is no address, but if any address is to be provided, 7018 Hollywood Boulevard is the most accurate.
• Best way to enjoy the walk: wear comfortable shoes and clothes, keep hydrated, plan to spend the day in Hollywood.
• Best way to get there: take the Red Line Metro - it has three stops in Hollywood, two of which Highland and Vine climb up right onto the Hollywood Walk of Fame
• the walk is family-friendly and is a great way to create long-lasting memories
• the walk is pet-friendly
• wheelchair accessible
• the walk is free
• all walk of fame star ceremonies are free to attend in the public viewing area.
• no tickets to buy. no reserved seats.
• you can learn who's getting a star next and plan your Hollywood trip accordingly
• announcements are made 7-10 days prior to star ceremony at www.walkoffame.com/pages/upcomingceremonies
• all ceremonies start promptly at 11:30am and usually last 40-50 minutes
• anyone can nominate a star with a properly completed nomination application found at http://www.walkoffame.com/media/walkoffamenomination.pdf
• nomination deadline is by Noon of May 31 of each year to be considered for the following year selection.
• in 2010, the Hollywood Walk of Fame celebrated its 50th Anniversary with a year-long celebration. Highlights include a time capsule and attending of around 75 legendary honorees.
• There has not been a replacement for the late Honorary Mayor of Hollywood Johnny Grant. Leron Gubler, President/CEO of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce emcees the Hollywood Walk of Fame star ceremonies.
• Ana Martinez, the producer of the Hollywood Walk of Fame has been working behind the scenes producing these stars ceremonies for more than 20 years.
• The people/company making these stars are now in their third generation
• there are clubs of star-polishers
• The Hollywood Walk of Fame and the Hollywood Sign are trademarks of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. Global Icons handles licensing.

Walk7018 (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I've prepended * to your list to make the wiki line-break. It's usually bad form (see WP:TALKO) to edit someone else's comments, but I figured you wouldn't mind just this once. Now you know about wiki-indenting with : and *

The long list you've added here presents some difficulties with WP:PROMO and WP:TRIVIA. We can't regurgitate the StarGirl or FAQ sections, or chunks of the official websites. There's only so much trivia, including administrative trivia, we can integrate into the prose of an article. There is a need to present a sober, neutral, research tone, with reliable independent source support for every claim made. Not sure if you know this, but the HollywoodChamber.net and WalkOfFame.com are WP:PRIMARY sources (close to, or part of, the subject), which can be quite reliable, but still, we can't base whole articles or sections on primary sources: that's WP:PROMO. The best WP:RS reliable sources, from Wikipedia's viewpoint, are independent reliable sources, from organizations with editorial policies and fact checkers. For an eyebrow raiser, read WP:OR about original research.

• Here are my initial thoughts (it's quite late):

• As for the hour and length of ceremonies, and the other tourist information: Wikipedia is not a tour guide. Here are many more things Wikipedia is WP:NOT.
• If I recall correctly, all urban sidewalks on controlled streets (stoplights) in California are wheelchair accessible. So there's no need to point that out in this article.
• The 50th anniversary seemed to have little or no hard press. I suppose it could get a short sentence in History.
• I have two sources about Travis Paternostro, and his father and grandfather, the family business making the stars. I prefer only to use video sources as adjuncts to a print source.

• Strauss, Bob (September 25, 2010). "Walk of Fame continues to be a major attraction". Los Angeles Daily News.
• Rooney, Brian (May 3, 2010). "Follow the Star-Studded Sidewalk" (video). ABC News. (event at 2:00)

• We have mentioned one cleaning club, under Homage, citing a book.
• Didn't know about the trademarks, but I've literally never seen a mention of trademarks in Wikipedia articles about organizations.
• If you plan to remove any items in the above list, please use strikethrough using (<s> and </s>) instead of deleting. --Lexein (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

:: Feel free to use whatever from the above. There are so many inquiries regarding these specifics, that a small paragraph combining most of the above be helpful for readers. Prefer to have a sentence about trademark. The images of the emblems on this page are trademarks, and not mentioning this fact is midleading.66.59.225.49 (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please change the main picture which does not accurately represent what the Hollywood Walk of Fame stands for. The main focus of that pictures is something that is not part of the Hollywood Walk of Fame.66.59.225.49 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Recent changes

I've reverted a too-diverse set of changes to the article.

• There are no sources which state that the Walk of Fame "is" the sidewalk. The Walk wouldn't be the Walk without the embedded stars which were added to the existing sidewalks. This article has rather high traffic, so the introductory paragraph should simply summarize details expanded upon later. Further, there was a complaint from the Chamber about the wording of the lede, which had merit (lack of support in sources). Please discuss here before making any further changes to the lede.
• "more than 2500" is and has always has been in error.
• Much of the recent edit seemed like purely personal language preference, rather than MOS- or guideline-driven. But the edit summary made it sound like actual, substantial problems were being addressed; not the case at all. Discuss?

--Lexein (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like somebody needs to review WP:OWN and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. If memory serves, *you* were the one who suggested "series of sidewalks", back when I undertook a complete rewrite of this article when it was in woeful shape last year. (BTW, what's a "lede"?) While it's true that the Walk wouldn't be the Walk without the embedded stars, it's also true that the stars wouldn't exist without the sidewalk. So an argument over whether to call it a sidewalk with stars in it or stars in a sidewalk is, when you think about it, pretty nonsensical.

But that means the difference is trivial, and not worth an argument, so I won't argue that point. I WILL argue with your blanket revert of all my other changes, which were either unclear language or factual errors (and the facts ARE properly cited). Some of the grammatical fixes are personal language preference, that's true -- but that's allowed! You know as well as anybody that "just don't like it" is not a valid reason for reverting.

I didn't write "more than 2500", I wrote "more than 2400." (2400 is a lower number than 2442, correct?) But 2442 became 2443 just 2 weeks after that change was made. Do we really have to list the exact number of monuments, and change the number every time a new star is built? Really? What's the point of that?

Since you object to calling the Walk a "sidewalk", why do you object to my changing "brown-blue sidewalks" -- which is vague and non-descriptive anyway? I took out the "thus" sentence because it's redundant, not to mention grammatically awkward. There are not "two stories" about the origin of the star concept -- it's all speculation, since nobody knows where the concept came from or who thought it up. I rechecked the source (which I found, originally) and I was wrong to separate the Grauman's prints from the Tropics stars in the second theory -- but there is no such thing as "Grauman's Chinese" -- it's Grauman's Chinese Theater.

So I'm going to put back most of my changes outside the introduction. If you have specific objections to any of them, bring 'em -- but please, no more blanket reverts. It's not nice. DoctorJoeE (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool it. Reread WP:TIGERS, and check the diff. The re-paste of old lead text ("lede" is, as you well know, a common spelling at WP, from the newspaper business), combined with too many other changes, necessitated simple reversion for discussion. In this diff, the erroneous "more than 2500" text, there since the creation of the article, and never true re-appeared. To me, this re-paste of erroneous information cast doubt on the entirety of the edit. "2500" is unsourced, and unsourceable except from echoes of this WP article: that is clearly the factual error to which I referred.

Do not attack editors: whether I "don't like" particular phrasing doesn't matter. The article, and the reader's understanding of the subject, are what matter most.

Here are two reasons for not emphasizing "sidewalk" over "stars":

1. It's not an article about general public works, namely sidewalks: it's about a particular privately constructed ongoing monument/tourist attraction built with civic blessing, and therefore its distinguishing characteristics are justifiably placed first in the lede.
2. The Chamber of Commerce specifically objected, in writing publicly (and privately), to the referring to the Walk as "a series of sidewalks". Even though it was, long ago, my suggestion to address a different imbalance in the lede, I see their point.

FYI for you to "put back most" of "your changes" goes against WP:BRD, which intends, be bold, but don't be surprised at a revert, then discuss. It does NOT say, re-revert in anger, nor does it say "boldly revert deletion."

Mass changes all at once: I think you might agree that separately grouped edits should be performed for separate purposes (corrections per source, unsupported, grammar, fix lead: all should be separate), and I'm appreciative that your re-additions were in smaller groups.

Grammatical changes, when purely personal (not justified by MOS or other policy/guideline/essay/discussion), should always lead to clearer, more concise language within the bounds of accuracy, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH], WP:UNDUE, and so forth. Where they do not, they can be reverted uncontroversially.

• "The exact origin of the "star" concept is not certain," is one such change: it is WP:OR - a conclusion formed by a WP editor, not supported even in paraphrase by any source, and worse, it is WP:WEASEL language, making a blanket statement from a limited set of facts. Sources, sources, sources.

The construction "Two stories: story one. story two." is better, whether or not the word "story" is used. People tell stories, or histories. Two existing, not-quite-conflicting sources exist, different enough to warrant individual mention without priority imposed by us.

We can't really say "theory", because neither source does, and nobody's theorizing anyways: people involved at the time are relating their stories, not theorizing.

Finally, not stating that there are two points of view (story, tale, remembrance) at the outset needlessly emphasizes the first.

--Lexein (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

First, I criticized the editing, not the editor -- apologies if you felt otherwise, but my objection was to your blanket revert when your only stated problem was with the "lede" (more on that later). I recently had to deal with a "tiger" (more of an asshole, actually) over at D.B. Cooper, so maybe I'm a bit sensitive at the moment.

Second, we're getting into some serious nitpicking here. Yes, the article is not about sidewalks in general, but the intro never said that, or even implied it; the article is about a specific series of sidewalks on Hollywood Blvd. and Vine Street with stars embedded in them. But as I said, this sort of hair-splitting is not worth the time and trouble to argue over; I've already conceded the point. I don't think, however, that we should allow the Chamber to dictate content changes (as they tried to do directly and anonymously once upon a time, as I'm sure you recall, since you figured out who it was and helped set her straight).

"The exact origin of the star concept is not certain" is a simple statement of fact -- if you look for the origin of the "star" concept, you find different accounts, and nobody knows which is true, so the correct origin is not known with certainty. And it's not "weasel words" because it does not "deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint", since the different accounts are enumerated in the following sentences. I recently rewrote the Ted Bundy article, then helped take it to GA status -- none of the GA Police objected to a very similar phrase in that article. That said -- in the interest of harmony, would "...the origin of the star concept has never been determined with certainty..." work better for you? I will also reword the two versions so that neither can be perceived as "taking priority" -- though it's worth noting that the Chamber web site offers only the first version, and never mentions Sugarman or his possible role in developing the Walk. (I found that story myself.)

Finally, not that anybody cares, but before I went to med school I was a journalist -- and I never once saw a real journalist refer to a lead as a "lede." In fact, I never saw that non-word until I started editing here, and when I inquired about it I was told, "Oh, that's how journalists spell it." Which journalists are those? Perhaps this is one of those urban legends that needs debunking by somebody with a lot more spare time than you or I have. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• (Second) Nobody ever called it first a series of sidewalks but us, and it was a rookie mistake. Far from the Chamber dictating content, a) other sources back up their linguistic contention, b) primary sources are specifically encouraged to suggest corrections in articles about them, per WP:COIC guideline, and c) on the Talk page, see Chamber suggestions which were (and were NOT) followed, and exactly why. There are many unresolved issues which I know irk the Chamber, which we should endeavor to resolve one way or another, for example, the choice of top photo. The Walk's purpose is people, so the photo shouldn't emphasize buskers, though IMHO it may include them. I requested that the Chamber make a free-content photo suggestion or a CC photo contribution, but there's been no word yet.
• "The exact origin of the star concept is not certain" is a simple statement of fact" - yep, it certainly is. And WP:OR policy states "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists." If a source doesn't say it, then neither should we. I don't care if the GA editors dropped the ball and let it through elsewhere - see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. We, as editors, don't make assertions of anything: only sources do. To take two sources which conflict and say that there is "uncertainty" is WP:SYNTH, when in fact there are two certain sources, which should simply be quoted or paraphrased, and the matter left to rest there.
• Lede (see the article): There's no claim that it's literally a distinct word, just an alternative spelling for needed clarity's sake. Reserve your snark for others, including a couple of real journalists:

• "The Maven's Word of the Day: Lede". Random House. November 28, 2000. "spelled phonetically to avoid confusion with "lead" (rhymes with led)"
• Heat and Light: Advice for the Next Generation of Journalists. By Mike Wallace, Beth Knobel. Broadway; 2010, pg. 103 etc. ISBN 0307464652. ("Lede" used lots of places.)

--Lexein (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Reserve your snark for others?" Aren't you the one who said, "Don't attack editors?" Notwithstanding that snarky comment about a real-life observation, let's both get polite, shall we? Your Random House source explains that the word was used, once upon a time, to prevent "lead" (with a long "e") from being confused with "lead" (with a short "e") in the days when newspapers were printed with type molded from molten lead. With the advent of offset printing presses in the early 1960s the distinction became irrelevant -- which explains why, by the time I became a writer and then editor of my college newspaper in the late 1970s, and then began writing professionally, no writer or copy editor in any newsroom that I'm aware of was using the "lede" misspelling. There may have been some old-timers somewhere, like Mike Wallace (who is 93 years old), who used it out of habit and/or nostalgia, but none of the journalists I worked with, young or old, ever used it, and I never even saw that spelling until I started editing on WP. So use it if you wish -- I am merely pointing out, FWIW, that the newspaper business (or what's left of it) does not. (Of course, since the newspaper business is about to fall off a cliff, the point will be moot in the very near future.)

Now, to matters at hand -- have it your way on the "uncertainty" thing, but starting a sentence with "about Joanne Woodward" is conversational, and thus does not work in an encyclopedic article. I've offered an alternative phrasing; hope you like it.

Please explain to me why a photo of Charlie Chaplin's star has to be identified as "Charlie Chaplin's star." Is that not obvious by looking at the photo? Is it not patronizing to point that obvious fact out to readers? And if there is some obscure WP rule which requires this, why are the photos of the Joanne Woodward star and the Mickey Mouse star not similarly captioned? (And please, please, PLEASE don't caption those photos just because I pointed that out!) Ditto the Monty Woolley photo -- the TV symbol is identified earlier in the article and does not need re-identifying. It is certainly appropriate to caption the James Cameron photo (for example), since some readers might not know him by sight; but in my opinion it's insulting to inform readers that they are looking at a photo of Charlie Chaplin's star when they can see that for themselves -- and I recall that we gained consensus on this in the past.

RE: the Chamber's objection to the top photo -- can't that be resolved by simply flipping that photo with the next one, which is now in the "Origin" section? However, IMHO, the existing photo is perfectly appropriate -- it shows the Walk, and a typical activity on the Walk. What's wrong with that? A sterile photo of a stretch of sidewalk with nobody on it would be far less interesting. My two cents. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Behavioral observation: the phrase "let you have your way" here, and in the past, whenever someone mentions pillar/policy/guideline/essay to support an edit with which you disagree, is not pleasant, and makes the process about editors, in spite of an editor's effort to make the edit about improving the article, in accordance with prior consensus by other editors. Editing is not a zero-sum game - I and most others do not treat it that way. Personalizing matters so much ("please, please, PLEASE") seems unseemly.
• Lede, as much as you seem to dislike it, has a historical precedent, and has traction here with lots of editors. Your dispute is not with me.
• The Monty Woolley text is poured below the photo. We don't know, and can't closely control, the layout that readers get (wide? narrow?), nor the order in which readers look at (eyetrack) pictures and text. In that light, "Motion picture category, TV emblem", while pointing out the clear contradiction in this section, far from the introducing section, doesn't seem excessive, or patronizing, but leads to the text for more info.
• I do not think your overall claim that captions are patronizing is sufficiently supported in MOS guidelines for deletion of captions. For comparison, check out image captioning as used in other encyclopedias; I think your disagreement is not with me at all. However, I believe more interesting captions might be in order, providing some non-obvious detail (per WP:CAPTION, sentence 2) which leads back to the text for further explanation:

• "Selected 1956, installed 1972" (@Chaplin)
• "Not the first star granted" (@Woodward)
• "First fictitious character star" (@M. Mouse)

• One thing Wikipedia tries to do is be accessible without presuming too much about the reader or their viewing environment. This means to consider readers with low vision, Kindle users, and printed page users, where captions identify something which simply might not be easily discerned. For readers who turn off image display in their browser (on small screens, many people do) the caption serves to identify the blank image placeholder, as a hint as to whether the image will be of interest. Admittedly, the top-down image of yet another star might not be interesting, but one in which the category doesn't match the plaque (Woolley) might be.
• If a whole section is about a given topic, and the photo is of that subject, then I would agree that no caption is needed - in that sense, and if phrased appropriately, the whole section serves as a caption for that photo. But in the Woolley case, I think the suggested caption is merited, to tie it to the text.
• I've altered the top photo caption; I think this should address (for now) the undue weight perceived by the Chamber. As I said, it shows people on the Walk; even better would be a photo of some people interacting with the Walk, with lots of stars visible. As soon as we find a high quality shot like that, it should be top photo.

To support your repeated claim that there was prior consensus about image captions here, please provide a link. --Lexein (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well? It's more fun to edit and discuss, than just one or the other. --Lexein (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I decided to talk this over with some editors & an administrator who have worked with me on some other articles. I presented a hypothetical (no names or other identifiers) in which different sources gave different accounts of the origin of something, and asked whether stating that the origin wasn't clear, followed by enumerating the various conflicting accounts, constituted OR or weasel words or anything else, and whether the hundreds of articles that do it that way are "dropping the ball." The editors all said no, and no. The admin said, "I suppose you could make a weak case for WP:SYNTH, but who cares? The idea is to follow the spirit, and not necessarily the letter, of the rules." And he added a quote from WP:SYNTH: "SYNTH is not a rigid rule. Wikipedia doesn't have them, supposedly. But if a policy gets enforced zealously, it can be hard to tell the difference. The solution is not to enforce policies zealously. Never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article." And that, IMHO, is the problem here: You're very good at quoting rules, and enforcing them zealously, but as a result, IMHO, you sometimes fail to see the forest for the trees. The forest is improving the article; the individual trees/rules should be secondary.

When arbitrary rules conflict with comment sense, IMHO you have to go with common sense. For example, let's say you're physically standing on the Walk, looking at the Charlie Chaplin star; and some well-meaning person (perhaps a Chamber employee) taps you on the shoulder and says, "That's the Charlie Chaplin star!" My guess is you wouldn't have to seek "support in MOS guidelines" to find that annoying and patronizing. And the person might retort, "The rules say we have to do this, because you might be blind or illiterate or stupid, and if so, you wouldn't be able to figure out for yourself that this is Charlie Chaplin's star." That would just make it a whole lot worse, wouldn't it? So if you occasionally find a response "unpleasant", I would suggest that you consider the possibility, however remote, that such responses may not arise from a vacuum, but might instead be an expression of frustration. When someone insists on a specific word or phrase or expression when another would be more precise or better English, or at very least would work just as well, but the difference isn't that important in the great scheme of things (the original Monty Woolley debate comes to mind), the only civilized option is to throw up your hands and say, "Have it your way."

Another thing the admin told me was, "Wikipedia really wastes energy, that's it's dirty little secret. It's an amazingly inefficient process. And when I find myself wasting energy over unimportant details, my solution is to find other things to edit." I think that's great advice, and I'm going to take it. Spare time is depressingly finite, and since nobody is paying any of us to do this, there's no point in doing it when it's not enjoyable. Most of the contributions I made to this article last year have (amazingly) survived, so that will have to do; I'm taking it off my watchlist so I can spend my very finite spare time improving articles instead of arguing over minutiae.

I'm sure you'll want the last word, and you're welcome to it. One final suggestion for the article -- look closely at the top photo, which is now captioned, "Near Grauman's Chinese Theater". Across Hollywood Blvd you can see the unmistakable logo of the Disney Store, which is across from the Kodak Theatre, not Grauman's. And while I suppose you could argue that "near Grauman's" is technically correct, since Grauman's is a block and a half away, a more accurate caption would be "near Kodak Theater". And I'll repeat my suggestion that you flip the first and second photos, which ought to take care of the Chamber's complaint These are just suggestions, because I don't really care; it's not that important. All the best, DoctorJoeE (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not the last word. I don't treat or enforce rules zealously, because I'm well aware that they aren't rules. They're guidelines, for the most part, with some essays, and some policies.

Hey, good catch correcting that caption from last year. Corrections are always welcome. Editing is not a zero-sum game.

Wikipedia is not, I think you would agree, about only what is right here right now, there is a history of lots of other editors, many of whom have, through discussion, arrived at consensus guidelines, and policies, and gone so far as to discuss them in writing. I don't ignore them, usually, nor do I enforce them. But I choose not to be shy about pointing out the existence of those guidelines, and even to look them up, and try to understand their logic, meaning, and purpose, and to point them out to others, including you. I'm glad you "talked" (where?) to other editors. I think their discussion should have occurred here, so that not only I, but other editors could perhaps learn something from them directly. My discussions with you have been public.

Do not paint my efforts to improve the article as somehow inferior to any other efforts. Sources rule. Guidelines guide, and are negotiable. If you feel enforced against, that was not my intent. Don't take things so personally, down to the level of a word. To distance oneself by declaring something that you're passionate about "unimportant," perhaps temporarily, is an important part of conflict resolution, called WP:DISENGAGE - no problem. Do what you need to do. I consider your editing here important and welcome, and yes, worthy of discussion and occasional improvement.

Common sense does indeed play an important role in weighing editorial decisions, but it does not consist of only your sense of things. Other editors exist, and their sense of things matters, too. For example, the notion of "numeracy" - the number of things sorta matters. To declare based only on two sources that there is "uncertainty" - why is that better than simply stating the difference stances, or the differences? I feel that Wikipedia's voice is that of the sources, not the editors; I cannot apologize for that, but it was not my intention to be at all mean about it. Please note, I thought the wording you finally chose was fine, and I said so. The same thing happened in the Monty Woolley para, by the way- it's your final prose. That's how seriously I take non-zero-sum collaboration.

I wish you would regard the accumulated wisdom of editors who have already gone before, and that of the editors you're working with now, as important as that of editors with whom you have successfully gotten, to use that unfortunate phrase, "your way", but for some reason did not actually invite to this discussion. Perhaps I could have learned something from them. As I said, not the last word. --Lexein (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Errors & mysteries - Anne Bancroft

This was added, and I've moved it here for discussion:

Actress Anne Bancroft's star bears the TV emblem, although at the time of her star ceremony (1960) she was primarily an actress of stage and film, with minimal television credits.

I've researched it, and don't think it's an error. Yes, she has a TV star.(L.A. Times) At the time of her star installation in 1960 (Star listing), in the previous five years she appeared in 13 episodes in six series from 1955-1958, and eight films in the same period. (IMDb) So a TV star was not unjustified. I don't know the Chamber's process for choosing. --Lexein (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Luis Miguel was the first ever Latin Artist to be awarded a star for his music in 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.42.176 (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a reliable source for "first Latin Artist"? (His article Luis Miguel doesn't mention one.) --Lexein (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

OR and TRIVIA tags

IMO, tagging sections as "trivia", when the claims were reported by multiple reliable sources and well organized by topic, seems inappropriate. Tagging sections as "OR", when they are reliably sourced and verifiable, or the reader can verify by multiple methods and all we do is enumerate, per WP:CALC, also seems inappropriate. There is a {{dubious}} tag^{(dubious - discuss)} and an {{OR}} tag^{(original research?)} for indicating specific sentences or paragraphs needing attention. I agree that some language could be more concise. I do, however, welcome discussion before drastic action. --Lexein (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

IP removal of refs

A recent IP edit replaced a paragraph (with multiple reliable source citations) with text which reads like a personal recollection. I've reverted that without prejudice, but if the text is added back, it must be supported by reliable sources, per WP:RS and WP:V. --Lexein (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that, and support your revert. I thought I had done it myself... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(Oops, it wasn't an IP edit. Struck & linked). --Lexein (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Shakira

Shakira was to be given a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 2009, but turned the offer down citing that she did not want to be considered a star of Hollywood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.66.64.173 (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Here interesting insightful article.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.229.144 (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicgenius (talk • contribs)

first image of characters on the Hollywood Walk of Fame

Having an image of characters on the Hollywood Walk of Fame falsely and misleadingly associates the "characters" with the organization of the Hollywood Walk of Fame. It suggests that they are hired by the organization. The first image and caption on this page is about "characters" on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. It would be nice to have this picture on a page about "characters," but not on a page about the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Suggest changing image to reflect the tourist attraction and what it represents with no mention of characters.Walk7018 (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

There are no images of characters of any kind in the article, so there's nothing which falsely and misleadingly associates anyone or anything, real or fictional, with the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

1. If you are referring to the topmost image, with the caption including the words "street performers", just say "street performers." The original photo (click on it) has a caption which says "A band plays on the Hollywood Walk of Fame" - would that caption be preferable? It is quite common in Wikipedia to use a photograph showing public edifices in use by people. We do have a policy of 'not using photographs which show living non-public figures in an identifiable way. The band can't be identified, but the women walking toward camera could be, so that might be a sound policy-based reason not to use that particular photo. If you have another, better suggestion for a photograph, which is (or can be) licensed as public domain, or Creative Commons, please provide a link here.
2. If you are referring to the photograph of the star awarded to the fictional character "Mickey Mouse", with the emblem of the movie camera which exactly matches every other movie camera emblem on the Walk, the image is not of any character. The image shows only the name of the character, and the emblem of the category in which the star was awarded.
3. If you are referring to the section, it is not "characters on the Hollywood Walk of Fame", it is "Fictional characters (and those who create them)". The title of the linked article is "Fictional characters on the Hollywood Walk of Fame" - this is simply a statement of bald fact, and implies no connection beyond "on." No legal connection, no implication of endorsement or ownership, nothing. This is an encyclopedia, and we name things what they are, and what reliable sources name them.

Does this help? --Lexein (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference is to the first item. Will look for a recent photo or take a new one with specs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walk7018 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Walk7018 (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

How's this: http://www.walkoffame.com/pages/historyWalk7018 (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Those pictures are copyrighted, and not licensed as public domain or Creative Commons, which means we can't use them on Wikipedia. Here's the WP:Image use policy#Copyright and licensing. In rare cases, we can use an image under a "fair use" provision, but then that picture will only appear on the English Wikipedia.

If you click on the various images in the article, you'll see that the topmost one is released as public domain by the photographer, and the rest are licensed under Creative Commons. --Lexein (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I took that photo. feel free to post it. not sure how to release it as public domain/creative commons - if you know of process, please advise. the main purpose is to show the walk of fame instead of focusing on "street performers" which are not part of the walk of fame.66.59.225.49 (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I missed your response here. I took another look at the photo you suggest: it hides the stars, which are in very deep shadow. The existing top photo really makes the stars "pop", visually, in the context of people (though you clearly don't like the street performers). The current caption lists only the address. If you happen to take another picture which highlights several or many stars, please let us know. If it's possible to get a shot just like the current one, just without the street performers, that would be great. If you intend to release it as either public domain, or Creative Commons CC-BY-SA, you can post it on http://Flickr.com at full resolution, and license it by checking a box. This makes it easy for us to import and use it. Thanks for your patience. --Lexein (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"driveby banner"

FWIW, I brought these exact same issues up in June. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 03:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but a banner? It's just us here. June is a long time ago. How about just a short reminder bump and linkback here?

I agree the lead needs expansion, but not rewriting (those first two sentences took a damn long time to get stable and factual.) --Lexein (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Images

I agree with this revert because the image seemed self-promoting ("me_star.jpg"). --Lexein (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Plus it was sideways...yeah...sorry to the uploader, but that seemed an easy one. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced names in Homage section

Hidden comments assert "We have pic" after Montalban and Doohan. First, who's "we"? (Narf: it's me!) Second, in general, Wikipedia needs independent reliable sources which readers can consult, (said to self, it turns out) to verify claims made in an article. Pictures, by themselves, don't usually constitute a reliable source, unless accompanied by text, in published WP:RS. Of course, pictures are fine supplementary sources, if provided in addition to RS. Unpublished pictures are of no use to anyone. So I'm inclined to reluctantly delete Hepburn, Montalban and Doohan as unsourced for having flowers placed. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you don't have the pic, then yes, it's probably best to remove those names. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't edit when sleepy. Since pics exist (see Montalban's and Doohan's articles), I'll leave it to some other editor who feels more strongly to keep or delete those names. --Lexein (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It happens to all of us :P Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)