Topics from 2007

Stub with sources

19-February-2007: I have thrown this article together in a few hours, as some sort of documented information about Mardi Gras, with reliable source footnotes. I apologize for the haphazard appearance, but I had only a few hours to document the extensive research and combine the information. A book could be written.... -Wikid77 16:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article, double in size, to include "Legal restrictions" such as on noise, masks/gloves or fireworks, and began a long section about "Mystic societies" to broaden the scope, adding reliable source footnotes. Again, it has been a rush job, but at least there are many citations on facts. -Wikid77 21:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

19-February-2007: There are few pictures of Mobile in the article, yet. I hope to add more soon. -Wikid77 16:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added an image similar to the Mobile Mardi Gras flag. However, photographs from Mobile parades would be good to have, as well, being sure to keep faces private. -Wikid77 21:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24-March-2007: Near the new parade photos, I have re-added the Mardi-Gras flag-style image, removed as "redundant" in this article which did not exist 5 weeks ago after 305 years of Mobile history. Several images have been moved to Wikimedia Commons to avoid auto-deletion by Wiki-psycho bots trying to save 4 or 50 kilobytes (when many 5-megabyte blurred photos exist: "too mank kooks spoil the broth"). In fact, 4 small images in the "Mardi Gras in Mobile" article had been axed twice (the world is chock-full of, even registered users); those images were re-added, as placeholders with other linked images. It has been a battle to keep/expand the article illustrations (more at: WP:vandal/psychosis). -Wikid77 07:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

28 April 2012: There are still few wide-angle pictures of Mobile in the article (only one), despite the potential to show balcony views of parades moving along Mobile streets. Perhaps Flickr has some photos available, until others could be added. I will try to add more photos. -Wikid77 19:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced slang

24-February-2007: As a popular topic, information about Mardi Gras in Mobile (or festivals in general) might slide into unsourced, folksy, slang writing. This article began as a formal, sourced, encyclopedic document and should be checked for adherence to Wikipedia rules for writing articles. There are other festival articles full of anecdotal notions, so it is understandable that some would also treat this article in a similar manner, or as a trendy insider's tips to Mardi Gras. While it is fine to add some unsourced information, any folksy/slang phrases should be reworded immediately, and references should be added within a few days of adding text. Questionable, unsourced phrases should be tagged with "{{fact}}" and then, if they are not defended with source notes after a few days, those phrases should be deleted, only re-adding at a later time with reliable sources. Also see: Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout. -Wikid77 15:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues

(Post untitled issues is this section. -Wikid77 20:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Doubloon.jpg

Image:Doubloon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DONE - This was fixed years ago. -Wikid77 20:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more clean-up

I did a little clean-up per WP:MOS and removed the repetitive photos as per WP:MOS as they detract from the text rather than enhance it in my opinion. I would suggest a gallery instead of so many images imbedded in the text. There were two references (formerly ref name=wNOLA/ & ref name=F2007mon/) which only included the ref name=EXAMPLE code only and no reference text, making me wonder if they were possibly cut and pasted from another article without the original references? Maybe New Orleans Mardi Gras? Since they did not actually reference anything I removed them for clarity. Their prior locations do need references. As a Mobilian, I'm just trying to make this a better article, no intent to offend anyone. Altairisfar 06:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos preferred in text not galleries: Actually, the accepted practice avoids galleries, and prefers to "illustrate" the text, along the way, with related photos. Meanwhile, Wikimedia Commons is structured to show image-gallery collections, so that would be the place to have a page structured with many photos in a gallery. Instead, the article should convey the Mardi Gras activities, and parades along balcony-lined streets, with the seasonal open-air decorations, with more photos. -Wikid77 20:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs more clean-up. There is too much material about New Orleans Mardi Gras - once the point has been made that Mobile's was first, it's distracting to have such material. It should be moved or deleted, and only be in article on New Orleans' celebration.--Parkwells (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comparison to New Orleans has been limited now to a single section, but I will look to condense the text further. -Wikid77 18:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more images and text

14-Nov-2007: I have restored the images that seemed repetitive: they are similar to others, but also, they function as placeholders for future images to replace them, providing more diversity. To a Mobilian, the images might seem excessive; however, remember that to an outsider, all this is probably quite new. With the popularity of YouTube, the trend to add more visual style, rather than less, is the way of the future. Several wiki pages link to video clips as well as showing images. There is much to illustrate: the article doesn't even show the location of Mobile, in relative terms, while a map noting the distance between both Mobile & New Orleans should probably be added. Many more images would be an improvement, but also as America's oldest Mardi Gras (roughly 100 years longer than New Orleans), more historical text is needed, with extra reliable sources. Also, the Spanish period needs more coverage, IMHO. -Wikid77 23:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text was expanded, years ago, but more could be done. Now, 5 years later, I have added 4 more images (King/Queen Crown float, 1900 poster, and 2 marching bands). -Wikid77 03:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Top vanity-box and markup

16-Nov-2007: Several different people have come to this article, and rather than adding any substantial new, sourced information, have mainly flagged the article with one of those holier-than-thou vanity boxes, "I, the self-righteous, proclaim this article, above all, defective!!!" They're not to blame for the tendency to throw a vanity-box over an article: many people have some strong opinions and given a soap-box (or vanity-box), rant they will.

This_SIGN_has_too_many_images
and_it_needs_additional_sources_for
verification.___________________
Alerting_everyone_is_life_critical.___
For_more_details_or_for_more___
blocking your view keep reading this...

class=notpageimage|

Vanity boxes clutter the scene.

After working on 10,000 articles, I realize those top-billed judgmental boxes are too tempting and typically become vanity-boxes, more than help the situation. I would eliminate most vanity-boxes, except in protected mode, and direct people to flag subsections of an article, not the top attention-getter. We've seen articles flagged by vanity-boxes for 2 years, with little improvement. Vanity-boxes are not the solution: many areas of Wikipedia are staffed by skeleton crews, with just a handful of people writing those articles. It is important to work with them, not simply cast judgments. Contact prior editors and determine when they might have time to help with rewrites.

As far as helping readers, a grandstanding top-rant is not the way: try flagging individual sentences with {{fact}} "citation needed" or "disputed" or even use the superscript tags "<sup>xxx</sup>" to add a particular pertinent comment: ^{[sources disagree as to the date]}. The vanity-boxes just clutter the article, with few details to really warn readers what to question as they read.

Many vanity-box templates allow adding the keyword parameter "|section" for the tag to be placed within a more limited section, rather than demanding attention as a top-billed rant. Consider the grandstanding vanity-boxes to be a wiki-management flaw, not a reason to hate people: if managers knew better, they wouldn't have gone down that dead-end vanity road. Remember, Wikipedia is also an interesting long-term study in failed management concepts and error-prone software designs, as well as a repository of knowledge. Learn from those mistakes and improve. -Wikid77 06:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have have done much hard work on this article, there is no intent to be self-rightous or to offend(though obviously I did). I do understand that it's difficult to take criticism without being offended, I've been there, done that(very recently in fact, it took me a while to stop being offended and see what was valid in their criticism). Everyone has different opinions but if it is to be in Wikipedia, it should adhere to Wikipedia's content policies. If this article is to become a better class of article it should adhere to those policies:

Wikipedia:Verifiability= Many of the references cited do not verify the material. One of the many instances: "The histories of Mobile (founded 1702)^[1] and New Orleans" points to "New Orleans & Mardi Gras History Timeline" (event list), Mardi Gras Digest, 2005, webpage: MG-time as the reference source, but if you check the reference it does not state anything about Mobile's founding in 1702. This one reference, even if you do not question it's validity as a source(since it is about New Orleans Mardi Gras) for an article on Mobile's Mardi Gras, is used 24 times and only verifies the material cited about 2/3 of the time. I also would question using "Louisiana Timeline: Year 1699" (events for March 2-3), Encyclopedia Louisiana, September 2000, webpage: EnLou-year1699; or "NOLA.com : Mardi Gras : About Carnival" (history), New OrleansNet LLC, 2007, webpage: www-NOLA-mardigras-history for an article on Mobile's Mardi Gras as many statements in the article at present discuss N.O. and N.O. Mardi Gras, there are already at least 3 articles on Wikipedia that concern New Orleans and it's Mardi Gras. There is much more out there that is reliable and speaks specifically to Mobile's Mardi Gras, there is a long-standing Mardi Gras rivalry between the two cities and much of what's on the internet is a little biased. I would suggest more published sources.
Wikipedia:No original research= Much of this article is not referenced at all, too many instances to add fact tags to.
Wikipedia:Reliable sources= www.squidoo.com is not considered a reliable source.
Wikipedia:Image use policy= Articles may get ugly and difficult to read if there are too many images crammed onto a page with relatively little text. They should enhance an article, not distract from it.

All of that said, I think that overall the article is good, just a little confusing even to a person with intimate knowledge of the subject. Altairisfar (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

07-Dec-2007: Over the past 3 weeks, I have added additional source-footnotes to the article, citing sources about "school holidays" or Mobile's society balls, etc. I also lowered unref-tags to just individual sections to better pinpoint uncited areas, warning the readers in a focused manner:

Of course, it is not necessary to put a ref-tag footnote on every sentence, and much of the article's text can be verified by reading sources fully and checking for supporting facts: there are now over 128 footnotes in the article, and some readers have complained that the text is "over-referenced" not under. Either opinion does not require a top vanity-box to voice those opinions, so I have removed the top-tag "{{articleissues| refimprove=November 2007}}" as recommended above, while using the smaller unref-tags in limited sections.
Also, I reduced the size of some images to 280px width (from 300px) to better support outside websites, which agree in preferring smaller images to fit their page formats.
As to reliability of sources, I consider the source (and the subject): this article is largely about partying, not brain surgery, and I take a lenient stance about source "Mardi Gras Digest" (which has remained stable all year BTW); however, for expanding "Basal cell carcinoma" I cited medical encyclopedias.
I am not "offended" by people having alternate viewpoints or opinions about the article. As I strongly emphasized above, the issue is top-level vanity-boxes: I have not suggested that issues or complaints be suppressed, just focused with tags in limited areas (as stated above).
The term "skeleton crew" is intended to emphasize the way most Wikipedia articles get improved: in the case of this article, that skeleton crew has been me, but I still hope and encourage others to add ref-tag source footnotes; yet, the reality is that I'm probably the only one to have added sources to this article during the past 10 months.

Also, I am not offended by other people's complaints, but please understand that complaints are conflicting: if one person adds a top-box about "too few" sources, another wants to proclaim the article has "too many" footnotes; if one person wants to reduce the images displayed, another person wants more illustrations; etc. Anyway, thanks for the suggestions, and I hope you now see my viewpoints about this one article in the mix, while I am expanding 9,999 other articles (or more). Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STATUS UPDATE: As of April 2012, the number of footnote links was over 150, up from 128 in year 2007. Again, a book could be written about Mobile's 300-year traditions, as a major city with massive impact (such as the building of liberty ships during WWII), backed by many source records and museum artefacts, so this article was destined to remain large. -Wikid77 19:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barely appropriate pictures and Wikipedia:NPOV issues regarding Hurricane Katrina

1) Are the pictures illustrating regional maps necessary in an article about Mardi Gras? They seem to clutter up the article without giving any meaningful information for the article itself.

2) The section about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is more of a rant about news coverage disparaties and very little to do with Mardi Gras. In addition, as a resident, I can tell you that yes, Mobile Downtown flooded faster... but also emptied faster with less long term damage and a quicker recovery. And does anybody honestly expect Mobile to get near the same news coverage of New Orleans after Katrina?

This article seems to have some good points, but needs a lot of work. --Donovan Ravenhull (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now 4 years later, the above note about the "rant" still seems to be more of a real rant, since the hated text was only a few phrases, not a real "rant" in any sense, and the text stated merely that Mobile had suffered worse flooding in the parade routes. Perhaps more should have, and should still, be added that New Orleans downtown was not flooded, while Mobile flooded over 14 feet (4.3 m) deep, and the parades there were successful, but with only limited attendance. The above text was also an incorrect ("false") rant, faked off-base rant, about the "less long-term damage and a quicker recovery" because the devastating flood in Mobile caused many $millions in damage, which took years to repair, and the eletronic road-speed signs on the elevated Jubilee Parkway took more than 5 years to fix, while downtown NOLA was, again, NOT flooded. The above message with the anti-rant rant is an interesting issue, as to why people would object to mentioning Katrina, while there was a real story of perceived impact scaring tourists away. -Wikid77 19:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

30-Nov-2007: I had added those maps about Alabama history to help illustrate that Mardi Gras in Mobile spanned the 300 years while Mobile changed control from French, to British, to Spanish, to American rule, affecting the customary celebration activities. It is interesting to see a point of view questioning if "maps necessary" whereas the intent was to add more text to tie the maps into the surrounding explanation. I'm not sure why some people dislike maps and images so much, with the opinion that the solution is to remove "excess" images rather than add more text for balance.

The section about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is about exactly that. It contains the term "national news media" in one phrase, hardly a rant about news coverage. That section mentions the "parade route" and "celebration" using the words "flood" or "flooded" 4 times, and addresses Mardi Gras attendance. Nowhere does the article state that Mobile received too little news coverage, but rather, New Orleans received negative publicity giving the impression that Mardi Gras would be hindered by damage in New Orleans, but it wasn't hindered. Downtown Mobile flooded not only faster, but deeper, with several feet of water, whereas New Orleans downtown received less than a foot of water. I'm not sure why the one phrase "national news media" has triggered the viewpoint of being a "rant" with "little to do" about Mardi Gras. Perhaps the section should be expanded to somewhat rant more about the parade-route flooding, so that it won't be seen as a one-phrase "news-coverage rant" compared to all the added text about the parade route. However, I was concerned that ranting about Mobile's flood might give readers a negative impression, "Oh no, Mobile's parade routes were covered with sewage mud like ALL of New Orleans" (both phrases untrue). On balance, the best approach might be to add more about cleanup in Mobile, with rain and streetsweepers washing the parade-route streets. Anyway, the Katrina-aftermath text does not violate WP:NPOV, but apparently can be severely misinterpreted by some, and could be expanded to emphasize non-news issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Donovan. The section on Katrina aftermath seems to have little if any value. There does seem to be a general tone of ranting, not only in regard to national media coverage, but again in regard to Mobile and New Orleans respectively. This in an article about Mardi Gras in Mobile, so I don't see why it's even making a comparison to damage inflicted in Katrina between the two cities. The tone of the section is inappropriate in this aspect. I'll try rectifying these issues, and will remove the section entirely if I feel it cannot be fixed.

74.74.102.247 (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Years later, other sources also confirmed that New Orleans had poor attendance for the 2006 Mardi Gras, following Hurricane Katrina. The decision to include text is backed by mention in sources, where if no sources mentioned Katrina in relation to Mardi Gras, then it might seem "off-topic" but sources noted the issues, and hence, the inclusion was proper. -Wikid77 19:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

28-Dec-2007: As proposed above, I added Katrina battleship Alabama flood-text +source to exceed talk about news coverage, noting Mobile was flooded with bay water (not city sewage). Also, I reduced large images from 300px to only 280px to lessen the impact of the many images. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling from sources

28-Dec-2007: Over the past 10 months of creating/expanding this article, I must emphasize that the subject is basically about partying and, as might be expected, the source documents contain many misspelled words. I have noticed the following particular spellings:

La Louisiane - For 10 months in the article, the spelling had been "Louisianne" yet French websites show "La Louisiane" as the state name, with the old colony now given the French title "La Louisiane français" (with lowercase "f");

Cowbellion - A few sources show "Cowbellian" while 90% use the "o" ending as "Cowbellion de Rakin Society"; Google also says, "Did you mean Cowbellion?"

Michael Krafft - A few sources show one "f" as "Kraft" but many sources use the double-f as "Krafft" which seems reasonable as a Dutch name.

Strikers Independent Society - A few sources use the apostrophe "Striker's" while most sources have shown "Strikers" all year.

Again, the subject of Mardi Gras is basically about partying, so I haven't been too concerned about the spellings all year. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, more than 4 years later, I will check for more sources about these issues. -Wikid77 18:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Massive article now

28-Dec-2007: When I first created the article, I noted that "a book could be written" spanning the 300-year history. I had hoped more people would expand sub-articles, but it didn't happen. Now I clearly realize that, in 2007, Wikipedia was written by relatively tiny "skeleton crews" of volunteers, so it will take a special effort to expand Mobile's mystic societies into sub-articles, to reduce the size of the main article ("Mardi Gras in Mobile"). I obviously had only limited hours all year to deal with the many thousands of articles I modified.

Only just today, I noticed that back in February 2007, I dated the talk-topics as "2006" which is quite indicative of how little time we've had to improve Wikipedia (or re-read to correct our own discussions). I see wiki-burnout as mainly caused by some people's severe attitudes towards others. One desperate editor even replied to me about being surprised to receive a "pleasant" user-talk message, having become mortified when seeing "You have new messages" and dreading the typical contents. Belligerent editors are a real problem, and people must curb their tongues, while others prepare to face opinions and vitriol of the barbaric savages out there in the real world. It is important to develop coping skills to deflect the growing anger (and remember, "A gentleman never loses his temper with the servants"). Also, stand strong against "wiki-terrorism" with people deliberately trolling and hacking articles to perpetuate the "Wikpedia is a total joke" perceptions of the broader public. Have strength to keep creating new articles, as warranted. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have corrected the 5 dates in the topics above that referred to the wrong day or wrong year ("2006" fixed as "2007"). -Wikid77 (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topics from 2008

POV comparison w/ New Orleans

The suggestions that N.O. Mardi Gras is quintessentially "bawdy" while Mobile Mardi Gras is somehow more wholesome family fun seems suspiciously like POV rather than fact. This characterization is also not completely cited, and the partial "citation" bares several problems: (1) what is actually cited is only that Mobile's Mardi Gras "include family-oriented activities, silly fun, and revelry", not that this in any way makes it distinct from New Orleans; (2) the N.O. Mardi Gras article shows that, for much of N.O. Mardi Gras is indeed a family-oriented celebration rather than something inherently lewd; (3) the website for the citation is none other than the Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, hardly an impartial source if we are trying to establish a comparison of character between the Mardi Gras celebrations in these two cities; (4) the linked website doesn't directly support the cited statement itself, at least not directly; (5) the cited website certainly does not make any attempt to distinguish Mobile Mardi Gras from N.O. Mardi Gras in any way other than its claim that Mobile's is slightly older--it does NOT make any characterization that N.O.'s festival is somehow inherently "bawdy" while it's own is inherently innocent; (6) even if it DID make such accusations, these would hardly be substantial or impartial facts, given problem number 3 and given that such a statement would by its very nature be POV or a marketing tactic.

Furthermore, the section comparing the two Mardi Gras directly contains no citations at all, I suppose merely assuming it to be common knowledge. While it may be common knowledge that the French Quarter in N.O. is the site of some lewd behavior during N.O. Mardi Gras, this is arguably more of a public perception than a fact. Regardless, the occurrence of such behavior in Mobile is not well known nationally, and therefore is in no way common knowledge. Lastly, the section itself, like the N.O. article, admits that much of the N.O. celebrations are geared toward family-oriented events.

So, given all that, I am removing the offending distinctions entirely until someone can either fully and appropriately cite such claims and reword them in such a way as to make it obvious that the statements are POV claims (supported by the citation), not indisputable facts. I would also argue that such an obviously controversial topic as comparing the characters of these two city's Mardi Gras activities should be handled in a more delicate, more thorough manner. As it stands, the distinction seems unfair, unsubstantiated, and inappropriate. It is also poorly constructed. In my opinion this should be left alone altogether if it cannot be approached properly, because these subtle distinctions are not only inherently open to opinion and subjective values, but are directly making the implicit and explicit claim that the two celebrations have observably generally distinct characters, with N.O. being "bawdy" debauchery and Mobile's being "silly fun". Obviously, among the controversies (city rivalry, personal POV, subjective values, etc) is that this potentially plays into the old stereotype of New Orleans being a city of vice and immorality. Unless all these controversies can be handled with care, better to not even deal with them and stick to verifiable facts. 74.74.102.247 (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20-Sep-2008: Since the word "bawdy" has triggered such an intense reaction, I can see that removing it will avoid temper issues. Of course, in reality, Mobile does NOT have the nudity issues found on Bourbon Street in NOLA (ergo, "it ain't POV"), but again, some people might freak to think the cities were being judged for morality, so I agree it is best not to throw the "bawdy" stone in the Wikipedia glass house: there are plenty of sources (and videos) that discuss the Bourbon nudity issue, elsewhere. // In comparing New Orleans with Mobile history, I suppose the sources used above should be re-cited for Joe Cain and the NOLA 1838 masked processions, but when written, I had thought all of that had been explained in the article, but just not compared until the "Comparison" section. Anyway, it would be easy to add footnotes citing those same sources for precise references. I am quite sure the comparisons have been 100% accurate over the past 2 years. -Wikid77 09:03, 20 September 2008‎

Retrofit topic year headers

20-Sep-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2007" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topics 2009-2014

External link - EncyclopediaofAlabama.org

Hello, there is an article here, http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1437, and a link here, http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Galleries.jsp?id=e-137, that might be useful.

Thanks,

Justin --Duboiju (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that no one responded 3 years ago, but that link still exists, and I think that webpage is a good source, so thanks. Again, as with many articles, the original author is most likely to make major additions. -Wikid77 18:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

Editors fond of Mobile Mardi Gras have provided many details about the parades and events, but perhaps that has led to excesses - does there have to be so many subheaders on varieties of throws? The bead section itemizes each Asian country where plastic beads have been manufactured - why should we care? There are many details but little overall view - how many people parade? how much money does the season generate? obviously many businesses are geared solely to Mardi Gras, so it's a big deal. Article needs more attention and sourcing.--Parkwells (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The balance of WP:UNDUE weight depends on what the sources have written about the events. The sections about the throws could be combined more. -Wikid77 18:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous?

My impression from this article that French Creoles celebrated Mardi Gras (and Carnival in general) early in the 18th century, then the tradition gradually faded out, and it was essentially defunct by the time it was revived (or reinvented) by Anglos in the mid-19th century. Is that accurate?Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mardi Gras in Mobile, Alabama. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 03:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]