Jump to content

Talk:Mary Tyler Moore/Archive 1

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

Article's biggest need

What the article needs worst that it doesn't yet have IMO is sourced material stating the reasons that MTM's series television work post-Mary Tyler Moore Show has failed so conspicuously. The generally-given (and apparently correct) reason is that these shows are not The Dick Van Dyke Show or The Mary Tyler Moore Show and that her characters are not Laura Petrie or Mary Richards and that this is what the public wants to see her as. (This seems just to apply to TV series; she has done great in other formats.) This, to me, is unfortunate, as some of these shows would probably have done well if not for constant comparison to truly superior previous work. (I think that the same applies to The New Dick Van Dyke Show with Dick and Hope Lange; it would have been thought to have been a fine program except for constant comparisons to his earlier one.) So, does anyone have a published source for this, and if so would you please add it to the article? Rlquall 21:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, this has been messed with

Under theater, someone has erased Mary Tyler's biography and replaced it with the phrase "stupid retard." I would fix this, but I know nothing about Mary Tyler Moore's history in theater.

Brunette-headed

"Brunette-headed" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.32.180 (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Poor formatting

I think that we probably ought to post the Wikify template. I notice some serious problems with the formatting of this page, but I unfortunately don't know enough MediaWiki formatting code to be able to fix it. On my wide screen (1280*800), the page has a horizontal scroll bar because the image formatting within the Filmography section. For instance, the image MTM_and_IDS.jpg is obscuring the Films column of the Filmography section. Like I said earlier, I'm not too familiar with MediaWiki formatting to be able to fix it. Mandanthe1 (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal life

This is missing a great deal about her personal life, including her struggle with alcoholism and the death of her son. I'll have to see if I can snag a copy of her memoirs. 66.243.23.36 (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Happy Hotpoint

Found these videos on Youtube (here's one, there are more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X0XCnzIl4U) that claim to be public domain examples of HH work. I thought they were hilarious. How do we know if they really are public domain/OK for use?Rkaufman13 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Who visited the pope?

They met when her mother was treated by him in New York on a weekend housecall after returning from a visit to the Pope at the Vatican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.206.229 (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Moore and her mother visited the Pope, not the Doctor. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

also

She also adopted a Golden Retriever puppy from Yankee Golden Retriever Rescue in Hudson, Massachusetts. She also is an animal rights activist and promoted her cause on the Ellen DeGeneres sitcom Ellen. She has worked for animal rights for many years. On the subject of fur, she has said, "Behind every beautiful fur, there is a story. It is a bloody, barbaric story." She is also a co-founder of Broadway Barks, an annual animal adopt-a-thon held in New York City. Moore and friend Bernadette Peters work to make New York City a no-kill city and to promote adopting animals from shelters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.206.229 (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Next time just fix it. Remove the parrots or use your thesaurus. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Brother

In the biography it said she tried to assist her terminally ill brother with a suicide attempt but it failed and he died soon after of cancer. Anyone know what they tried? How she avoided legal trouble? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.1 (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC). --69.213.175.150 (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Assist in article link

Watching "Me TV" tonight, a first-broadcast 1960 episode of Boris Karloff's "Thriller" aired, with Mary Tyler Moore as the star, unwittingly carrying a demented person's bomb.

I found the article Thriller_(U.S._TV_series) and put it in using same syntax as other links but it doesn't show up as a link. Perhaps it has to be "approved" or something? WardXmodem (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No, just need to format it correctly. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Elvis

Somebody who has the book can put something in about her affair with Elvis. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Second Marriage

Regarding Mary's marriage in a New York Hotel in 1983, who performed the ceremony? Musicwriter (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought the article stated that this was her third marriage. She and G. Tinker divorced in 1981, no? (RobR044 (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC))
This page is for discussion about hopw to improve the article, not for chit-chat about Mary Tyler Moore. Who performed her wedding ceremony is not material that's important for an encyclopedia to have. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Honors

Re honors and Whose life is it anyway?'" Moore received a Tony for her performance. Here's a link to an interview in which she discusses it. http://www.emmytvlegends.org/interviews/people/mary-tyler-moore# RobR044 (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I added her Broadway awards and nominations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Question about editting

I got the following error message after filling in the cite form for an edit I wanted to add to the article. Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag The text was in all caps & in red. I expanded the cite box and added the date the interview I was quoting from aired, however I could not move down in the cite box so I could not get to the submit button. I had to close the cite box and fill in the name of the show, the URL, and the date retrieved. The smaller size of the cite box allowed me to click on the submit button. What should I do? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobR044 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Every reference needs to start with a "<ref>" marker to indicate that reference is staring and end with a "</ref>" marker to indicate that it has ended. If you don't put in the end marker, then all the ext which comes after the start marker is considered to be part of the ref, at least until you hit the end of a section or the end of the article.Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

MTM Show cancellation.

The following deals with the cancellation of The Mary Tyler Moore Show it is not at all clear.

Producers argued for its cancellation because of its falling ratings, afraid that the show's legacy might be damaged if it were renewed for another season. To the surprise of the entire cast including Mary Tyler Moore herself, it was announced that they would soon be filming their final episode

Who announced it was going to be cancelled? Producers? CBS? G. Tinker? (MTM Enterprises was his company as much as it was his wife's and MTM Show was MTM Enterprises' baby.) So who cancelled the show?
Also, following are 2 other explanations, I think both should be included. The first is Betty White's & comes from an interview. The second comes from Mary Tyler Moore and was given during the 20th reunion of The Mary Tyler Moore Show. I'm inclined to believe Betty White's explanation, though both could easily be correct.
"Interview with Betty White. There's a lot here so I will not quote any of it. (I do quote MTM, below, because her explanation is much shorter.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk24BwdV5lE
Moore "Towards the end of the seventh year when we realized that we might not be able to maintain the quality of the show forever we began thinking of an idea for a last episode that would do justice to the entire series."
Here's the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y249YgQfAQU&feature=youtu.be&t=2m41s — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobR044 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
You Tube is not considered a reliable source and cannot be used as a supporting citation. Perhaps you can find a transcript of the interviews. Also, White's opinion would need to be clearly marked as being her opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
So if I find a video of MTM's 1999 interview Inside the Actor's Studio on that program's website is that reliable? Also, these are interview's with Moore and White. Further, in the above mentioned 1999 interview MTM gives a different account of the show's ending, would not both have to be marked off as her 'opinion' seeing as how B. White's comments are 'merely' an opinion? Don't mean to sound snarky, just baffled that interviews are not primary sources. Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobR044 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Interviews are primary sources, it's just that because of copyright problems we don't use YouTube as a reliable source. The same interview found as an "extra" on a DVD release, or a transcript of the interview published by a reliable source would both be usable.

The difference between White's opinion and Moore's opinion is that as the star, the wife of Grant Tinker and the person for whom the company was created, Moore is,de facto, a producer of the show, so her opinion gets more weight and would be considered to be more reliable as a source for why the show shut down. (Also, her opinion has more probability to be self-serving, which is why labelling it as Moore's opinion and not the reason for shutting down is appropriate.) White, on the other hand, can only report what she was told or that she herself speculated.

I think it's all usable, it just needs to be properly sourced, and properly labelled as opinimton, that's all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, SineBot is having to sign your comments for you. If you would put 4 tildes at the end of your comment – ~~~~ – the system will automagically sign your comment with your name and a link to your talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for your extended answer. I'll attempt to remember to use the 4 tildes. On the help page it has the tildes in parentheses, do I need to use parentheses? (RobR044 (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC))
Nope, no parens, just the 4 tildes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

In the book Mary and Lou and Rhoda and Ted it says they started planning for the end of the show toward the end of Season 6, and certainly knew at the beginning of the season 7 it would be the last. Money passage:

When the cast returned to the set in late summer of 1976, they knew the clock was ticking. "This is the first day of the first week of the last year!" Mary announced. Calliaume (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Got a page for that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

New image: free or non-free?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing per a WP:ANRFC request.
No consensus. If anybody thinks that the 1978 image isn't in the public domain then they should nominate it for deletion at WP:FFD. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The photo at right appears to be PD by all available evidence, but it was removed as being non-free. Please provide proof that it's copyrighted so I can delete it from the PD category. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you have it precisely backwards. It's a promotional photograph, clearly, and promotional photographs were routinely copyrighted, which means that you have to provide evidence that it's not copyrighted and free to use. Although Promotional photographs were almost always copyrighted, they were also widely and indiscriminately distributed, with no real controls about where and how they were used, since their purpose was to provide publicty. That makes them a grey area as far as the legitimacy of the copyright is concerned, by as far as Wikipedia is concerned, WP:NFCC specifies that unless you show that the image is free, or has been licensed for use here, it is considered to be non-free. That also goes for the large number of other publicity pictures you have uploaded here. If you really thought they were free, I think you would have uploaded them to the Commons, and not here -- but, of course, they would not have been accepted there at all. Here, the question is how many non-free images should be used in the article, and this one has a number of them already. BMK (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, when you say that it "appears to be PD by all available evidence", what "evidence" is it that you're referring to? The image came from ebay, so unless you bought it and can actualy look at the physical item, you cannot know if there's a copyright notice on the back. And, in fact, in 1978 copyright notices were no longer required by US law - as soon as something was published it was deemed to be copyrighted. So not only is the Wikipedia assumption that it is non-free, but the legal assumption is the same as well. As a non-free images, it has very proscribed uses, which you should familiarize yourself with. BMK (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy answer. But I think if you had clicked on the photo and read the information about it first, you might have saved yourself some typing time. --Light show (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Not really. Again, copyright notice and registration were not required at that time, so the image is stiil, as far as WP is concerned, non-free. It also not a particularly interesting or indicative representation of MTM. BMK (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC for lead image

Which of the two public domain images would be best for the lead? --Light show (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The second image (1978) is not public domain. It is a publicity picture and therefore copyrighted. It can only be used on Wikipedia with a fair use rationale. Please note that the editor above, under his original name of Wikiwatcher1, is the subject of a contributor copyright investigation, which can be found here. BMK (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • As BMK prefers to ignore guidelines, to Never edit or move someone's comment, I've canceled the RfC. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request. --Light show (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Two points. This is not the place to dispute image licenses. And you are totally wrong in your understanding of PD images, as explained in previous section. --Light show (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright issues can, and should, be discussed in any legitimate discussion area of Wikipedia, because they are taken extremely seriously. And funny that you think you understand copyright and I don't, I'm not the one under investigation for misunderstanding copyright, you are. BMK (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I have asked Moonriddengirl, Wikipedia's resident copyright maven, to comment here, one way or the other, on the question about whether the 1978 image is "public domain" or not. BMK (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Fine. She and others are fully aware of and have edited film still. In the previous section, you wrote: It's a promotional photograph, clearly, and promotional photographs were routinely copyrighted. As she may try to explain, since you prefer not to read the material: Publicity photos taken to promote a film actor or other celebrity were not usually copyrighted prior to 1989, and were intended to remain free for publications to use wherever possible. Good luck trying to rewrite the law. --Light show (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The picture is not a film still, it's a head shot. BMK (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
That's just the name of the article. Read it and argue with the law, not with me. --Light show (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I've read it, and if you had understood it correctly - which you apparently have not - it does not say what you are claiming. The section provides primarily the opinions of various people, and not court cases. The one court case cited in not applicable here. BMK (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • 2011
    2011
  • 1978
    1978

2011 image

  • In point of fact, the 1978 image looks nothing like MTM did either on the Dick Van Dyke Show or on her own show, which can be easily verified by looking at the pictures from those shows in this article, or online. It was a "change of look" look for her, and not typical at all. The 2011 image, although obviously a great deal older, looks more like classic MTM than the 1978 one. It's also on color and not black and white. BMK (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


1978 image

  • Prefer this one since it more closely resembles her TV appearance during her prime career years. --Light show (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • This is not a public domain image. As clearly spelled out in the image information, it is a publicity picture. Publicity pictures are freely and promiscuous circulated, but they are also routinely copyrighted, so the assumption here, according to Wikipedia non-free content policy, is that the picture is copyrighted. Only positive and definitive evidence that it is not copyrighted will allow us to consider it to be in the public domain.

      Having said that, the fact that it is a publicity picture means that it does no harm to use it, because of the free and widespread distribution this images received. (Copyright was maintained only to prevent or punish misuse of the image.) However, it is still wrong to say it is "public domain", because it is not. And it is also not as good as the 2011 image, for the reasons stated above. BMK (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mary Tyler Moore/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I think that this is about a "B" article currently. To be better, it needs references beyond the external links, and probably a little overall cleanup. Importance would to me be "medium" as Moore is an important celebrity of long-running notability. Rlquall 21:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 23:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Is she even active?

If she has retired, shouldn't the "Years Active" be changed? And the filmography section is incomplete! This article is very badly written.In Correct (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT (the article that you think is so "very badly written", not the "years active"). She did a talk shop and a sitcom episode a little over a year ago. Let's not bury her yet. BMK (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
According to this, she was still alive and living in Connecticut as of November -- that's 6 months ago. When you're a male actor and you get old, the calls keep coming -- you can still be an action hero in your 60s, thanks to the magic of film. It's a bit different when you're an actress and you get old. People stop calling, scripts stop coming, work slows down to a crawl. Let's not assume that because she hasn't done anything (that we're aware of!) lately, that means she isn't "active", ready to work if the opportunity presents itself. If a long enough period passes, or she dies, time enough then to change the "years active".
Now get going with your superior writing ability and make this article more super-duper betterer than it is now. BMK (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It's less than 2 years since her last TV role, a repeating role on Hot In Cleveland. She is listed as "attached" to an upcoming indy flick. No reason to treat her as retired. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the last year in Years Active should be 2013. ET said tonight that she hasn't been seen since 2013. Landgar369 (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Aveleyman linkspam

The link to this web page [1] doesn't add anything new or unique that isn't already covered in other better and more reliable links. "Aveleyman" isn't reliable in the slightest, and article would be much improved without it. Master Nomenclature (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Mary Tyler Moore was an animal welfare advocate -- she served on the Board of the A.S.P.C.A.

I am a CT resident named Victoria who worked at the A.S.P.C.A. long before there was a web site aspca.org. Ms. Moore was known to be involved at charity events and on the Board according to Publisher Mort Zuckerman and other employees such as Roger A. Cara, the deceased former President. Naturally, the office of the A.S.P.C.A. is in New York at 424 East 92nd St, NY, NY 10128. The new President of the A.S.P.C.A. Matthew Bershadker could confirm this fact but Mr. Zuckerman might be willing if you call "The New York Daily News" and he is available. Of course, Dr. Robert Levine who is mourning and might not be readily available could also confirm this fact. There are plenty of employees at this fine, animal welfare non-profit so a reliable source can find some of the material pertaining to the Board members past involvement or the A.S.P.C.A.'s magazine or public relations but look for the dates 1994 or 1996 roughly.

I am sorry that I can't help someone who was so devoted and wonderful get the recognition she deserved but someone else can.

Thank you for your interest in this article and for disclosing that you may have a conflict of interest. Do you have any news stories or published books that discuss Moore's involvement with the ASPCA? Reaching out to individuals for confirmation would be original research, which is against Wikipeida's guidelines. Knope7 (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
More details about that have been added. --Light show (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

But there was also....

lest we forget... Look, i'd be the LAST to throw water on a brillant, brave, extremely funny & remarkable woman.. and her recent passing. (i loved the way she could talk and cry at same time. View episodes of the DVDyke Show.) All her good works.. for diabetes and animal rights.. on & on it goes..

However.. lest we forget (and unwittingly insult).. there was, well right off the top o' my head.. i can recall two TV shows that presented? STARRED! strong independent women.. both predecessors to the MTM show.. one of them was 'That Girl', starring Marlo Thomas.. the other starred Diahann Carroll on the show 'Julia'. Wiki's got entry for all this. 2602:304:CDAF:A3D0:D65:4D86:FEE:E1F7 (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

New image now that she died

I think it is commonplace in Wikipedia to put up a profile picture of dead people that is taken of a person at the peak of his/her cultural relevancy, which was maybe during the 70s? There is a discussion about the subject on this talk page, but I believe it was preceding her death. Qwerty21212121 (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Now it was changed to a picture from 1993, which is fair enough I guess. Qwerty21212121 (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Mary Tyler Moore filmography and awards

@AHeneen: Can I re-merge Mary Tyler Moore filmography and awards back into the article? I want to reduce content forking. Also, I can improve the filmography and replace IMDB as the inline reference. --George Ho (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The long tables add a substantial amount of visual clutter to the bottom half of this article. Between Category:Actress filmographies and Category:Actor filmographies, there are 581 pages! Plus there are 128 pages in Category:Director filmographies‎ (possible overlap with actors/actresses) and a handful of pages in Category:Filmographies that may not be in any of the other three. So there's nothing unusual about having a separate filmography article (many also include tables for awards). MTM had a very long and noteworthy career, so her filmography/awards is independently notable for justifying a separate article. AHeneen (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for long-delayed reply, AHeneen. May you please fix some errors of your response, like adding ; before "Category:Filmographies"? --George Ho (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Used the "page size" tool. The prose size is 20 kilobytes. Seems too small to split the filmography and awards list. --George Ho (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I fixed the errors (and the issue is :, not ;, that needed to be added). I still don't see the problem with having the separate article. It's not just that there is 20kB of prose in that article, it is also because much of it is in lengthy tables that look fine in a separate article, but add a lot of clutter to this article. AHeneen (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
...All right, I'll leave the splitting matter alone for now. BTW, my mistake on the ; and :. George Ho (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Question: Article upgrade to Class = B ?

Greetings, Wondering if this article now meets criteria for class B? It appears to be very extensive and rather complete. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Mary Tyler Moore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Tyler Moore. 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) 12:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Tyler Moore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mary Tyler Moore. 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) 22:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Tyler Moore. 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) 14:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding article content

I have no idea why this is significant:

When she was eight years old, Moore's family moved to Los Angeles at the recommendation of Moore's uncle, an MCA employee.

Its source is a 30-min video interview that's set to come in at 4 min & some change, where she discusses "Oh, Rob" on The Dick Van Dyke Show, not moving to LA when she was 8. Why is her uncle's recommendation or where he worked deemed important? Can't it just say the Moore family moved, period? ScarletRibbons (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That her uncle was in the entertainment industry and suggested she move to the entertainment capital of the US seems pretty significant to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
But she wasn't working in the entertainment industry as a child. ScarletRibbons (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, so? I think she eventually ended up in the entertainment industry, didn't she? I have a vague memory of her on TV -- a commercial maybe? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Then we're going with her parents' psychic powers on this one? ScarletRibbons (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I;m sorry, I must have missed where it said something about the uncle's psychic powers. Why don't you point to the statement that says that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

1959

Moore appeared as a Spanish girl in 1959. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.216.125 (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The impression is given in the article that Steve Canyon was in 1961. 1959 seems to be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.216.125 (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 21:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This article contradicts WP:EL

Beyond My Ken, why do you think individual interviews should be included in the external links section? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Those links have been in the article for ages, so it is rather you who needs to justify your BOLD edit to remove them. The fact that MTM has given many interviews in her lifetime is totally and completely irrelevant: the same can be said for every celebrity, so your interpretation of WP:EL would remove every link to an interview from every article about every celebrity. Unless there's something in some way wrong with those interviews -- i.e they're copyvios or BLP violations, they should stay where they are. You should not replace your personal judgment for the judgement of the Wikipedia community that put them there and has kept them there. Two million edits doesn't mean you have better judgment than the rest of us, it just means you know how to use semi-automated software. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, As you likely know, Wikipedia is not a link directory, so arbitrarily choosing two out of the hundreds of interviews she gave as links is a perfect argument for removing these links, not keeping them. Please also walk back all your weird personality-based arguments. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
In my experience, your judgment is very poor. And your argument here is extremely silly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, That's rude. You need to justify why these two links should remain. Just because something has been that way for awhile does not mean things should be that way. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
No, I do not. Justify your BOLD edit, since WP:EL gives no justification for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs)
Since Wikipedia isn't a link directory, each link needs to meet these criteria. Which ones do these particular links meet? There's a lot of unsourced content on Wikipedia too: some of it's been here for a decade. It's not "BOLD" to remove it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken See above. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies are -- every single one -- subject to interpretation according to specific circumstances. None of them is an algorithm in which you plug in some numbers and the answer pops up the other end. How a policy is to be interpreted in any particular situation is determined by a consensus discussion. This is an article talk page in which consensus discussions are held, including those about how policy relates to disputed edits. When you have a consensus from the editors here to make the disputed edit you want to make, you can make that edit. Until then, restoring that edit is, definitionally, disruptive editing.
At this time, you do not have a consensus, therefore, you cannot restore the edit, as you just did. If you do so again, I will have no recourse but to bring the issue to the administrators' board and get a ruling there on whether you are or are not being disruptive, as I believe you are. If you wish not to disrupt Wikipedia, you will not restore this edit without a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, That in no way answers my question. Please answer my question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
"I do not see how these two links turn the EL section into a 'link farm'" and "Get a consensus" are all the answers you're going to get from me. I'm not at all interested in debating this incredibly silly issue with you. Get a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, Per your request: Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Links_to_individual_articles_or_interviews ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • So, you could not get consensus here on the article talk page for your edit, so you opened a thread at WP:ELN, without telling the only other editor involved in this discussion about the thread (i.e. me), and then, after only a couple of days of discussion there, used the so-called "consensus" there to remove the links you wanted to remove. Only then did you tell me bout the other discussion. That is classic WP:Gaming the system, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken, Based on my reading above (tell me if I'm wrong), I thought you were saying, "I'm done discussing this" but now you are asking to be included in a conversation. Are you interested in discussing the validity of these links or not? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • That's pure B.S., Koavf, and you know it. You went there without telling me because you knew it would be advantageous to you to do so. It's so much easier to have a discussion without your opponent around, isn't it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
    Beyond My Ken, It is not BS. You said, "Get consensus for these external links, also I'm not discussing this anymore", therefore, I went to a noticeboard that is about finding consensus for external links. Please assume good faith. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No, there is no good faith to assume. You know full well that if consensus cannot be reached on the article talk page, then the discussion can be moved to another venue, but in that case everyone involved in the discussion needs to be informed, usually via a notice in the article talk page discussion, That's strictly standard procedure, and you know it, damn it. You deliberately didn't notify me so that you would have an open field without my opinion to counter yours. That's just totally shameful on your part, and you should be blocked for it.
    I have been involved with plenty of high energy disputatious discussions before, but in every single one of them, when the participants felt the need to take the discussion elsewhere, a notification of the new venue was dropped in the discussion. It has never happened to me before that an editor was so rude, so concerned about winning their stupid, trivial point that they did what you did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    Beyond My Ken, That is not true. I also don't see anything in the instructions at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard about notifying anyone but I have learned from experience several times that when someone says, "I'm not going to discuss this" that pinging that person just ends with more acrimony. I'm happy to have you discuss this, as I initiated this conversation. Again, please make your case and respond to comments at the noticeboard. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I am not lying. Stop pinging me, I know this discussion is here. And how dare post a comment on my talk page as if you are my friend trying to help me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    You explicitly solicited it. It's confounding: when you ask to be notified and you are, you get upset. When you say that you have no interest in discussing something, you are outraged when you aren't included in a discussion about it. And then you spread falsehoods about me: again, feel free to substantiate your claim below by answering the question I asked. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said at the noticeboard, "As for interviews, it depends on whether or not the interview is extensive enough to be a unique resource even if one tries their best to implement it into the article." It seems like the C-SPAN link has multiple interview videos that would be more in-depth. Since the NPR interview is singular, can it not be implemented more or less fully into the article body? The Television Academy one is interview #2 of 5, and it looks like the full set is viewable here. This seems like it can be a unique resource with its comprehensiveness. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Erik: Would you then recommend replacing the Television Academy link currently in the EL with the link to the entire set of 5? That sounds like a good idea to me. And would you also say that the NPR link shouldn't be removed until it has been integrated into the article? That seems reasonable to me as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
On a related note, maybe Beyond My Ken can explain why MOS:HEAD and esp. MOS:PSEUDOHEAD should not apply here following this revert? Do you have an issue with readers with disabilities? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: -I've asked on your talkpage] on why you continue to edit-war and not discuss this. Please explain here why you think MOS:HEAD and MOS:PSEUDOHEAD does not apply before continuing to revert. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: you are misreading MOS:PSEUDOHEAD. That clearly indicates that '''Pseudo-heading''' is acceptable; it's ;Pseudo-heading that's incorrect. The MOS says "try to avoid using bold markup; in cases where {{TOC limit}} cannot be used because of lower-level headings elsewhere in the article, then using bold for the sub-sub-sub headings causes the least annoyance for screen reader users." My review of the recent edit history shows that this acceptable compromise has been used in the references section since at least the beginning of 2020, and as Beyond My Ken has reverted your bold change, I find that your change is the change that's been imposed by edit warring. You should get a consensus here that including "Bibliography" in the table of contents is the preferred of these two acceptable style choices. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Signature image is messed up

FYI .. .Signature image is messed up ... cannot see it in Firefox browser. Looks like a solid black rectangle. 23:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Where He/She was born

She was born in Brooklyn, NY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.216.158 (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is ignoring the consensus at Talk:Mary_Tyler_Moore/Archive_1#This_article_contradicts_WP:EL and the directive at WP:EL which explicitly states "Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." Ken, can you please explain why you are exempt from this rule? @Erik, Lugnuts, Wbm1058, and Bilorv:. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

There was no consensus in that discussion -- which took place 2 years ago -- to remove those interviews. I suggest that WP:Consensus can change, and since those interviews were not removed at that time, you should start an RfC to determine what the consensus is at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
"Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." Ken, can you please explain why you are exempt from this rule? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Right, there was no consensus. I just see a tiring 1–1 tie vote, on the issue of the interviews links. I'll try to help break the tie by !voting to include all the interview links that are in the current version. BTW, Lugnuts has been blocked since August 2022. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Whatever the outcome is, it should follow process, which is "Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
At this point there is a 2-1 consensus to include them, though this can, of course, change as the discussion proceeds. There is no policy-based reason to remove them at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: "Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." Ken, can you please explain why you are exempt from this rule? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
There is now a clear "consensus to include them", so that question is moot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a consensus against the Find-A-Grave link and it's still worth knowing which rules apply to you and which don't in the future. Please let me know why you are exempt from this rule. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
OK, since you want to talk about this, let's do that.
First, WP:EL is not a policy, which everyone is mandated to follow, it is a guideline, which "editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". (Those words are on every guideline page.) In the circumstances where a consensus discussion winds up with a 1-1 result -- i.e. no consensus -- then there is no reason to follow the literal words of the guideline, because common sense tells us that doing so would be ... silly, and make no sense.
This section is for Koavf, as it discusses the contributor, and not content.
Now, let's talk about another thing: you. As was pointed out to you very recently when we had a dispute on WP:AN, [2], you have recently released from an indefinite block after almost two years [3] with the understanding that you would work to avoid trouble. Yet, here you are, re-opening a picayune dispute from two years ago. One is struck by the notion that you did so specifically to create a dispute with me.
I suggest that instead of trying to start fights with other editors, you look out for yourself, keep out of trouble, and don't go looking to gin up disputes about trivial things.
I think that's all I want to say here about this little quarrel you're trying to stir up.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
This section is for Beyond My Ken, as it discusses the contributor, and not content.
Note that you are wrong about your assumptions about my motivations and that WP:AGF applies to you, who has also an extensive block history and my unsolicited advice about you is that you avoid needless provocation and a refusal to participate in good faith with other editors. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:External links § What can normally be linked specifically says that "interview transcripts" may normally be linked. I think it's reasonable to extend that to sites such as C-SPAN that link to interviews recorded on video. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox Image

I think that we should change the infobox image for several main reasons. 1) MTM has been deceased since 2017. 2) The image is from during her later life (2000). 3) MTM’s career peak was from 1961-1977, when she was on Dick van Dyke’s show and did the Mary Tyler Moore Show, so an image from that period of time would be more appropriate.

One of these images from her 1967 trip to the Netherlands, in my opinion, would be the best option for the infobox image:

  • Mary Tyler Moore in 1967.
    Mary Tyler Moore in 1967.
  • Mary Tyler Moore in 1967.
    Mary Tyler Moore in 1967.
  • Mary Tyler Moore in 1967.
    Mary Tyler Moore in 1967.

What do you guys think? Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

After 14 days of no response, I have decided to go with 1. If there are any objections please respond here. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a black and white image is best as most deceased celebrities usually switch to a younger photo of the wiki subject (usually during their primetime). I'm ok with 1 or 2. 2601:249:8E00:420:80FA:C24A:80C0:6301 (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The image barely looks like MTM - it looks more like Sally Fields. I have restored the previous infobox image, which was removed without consensus to do so, and have deleted the dupe of it later down the page. That image is very useful because it very much looks like her, but was taken later in life. Do not change the image unless you have a consensus from editors on this talk page to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards moving the picture from 2011, the year she was awarded the 2011 Screen Actors Guild's lifetime achievement award, down to the awards and honors section, in favor of a picture from her prime in the infobox at the top. As to which picture looks "least like her" I think it's the one with her standing on the ladder in the article. I like 1 and 3 but it doesn't have to be one of those. I think the point is to use a most flattering photo, and if we have one that looks better than MTM, well great! No rush on this issue, though. wbm1058 (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I totally agree, the infobox photo needs to be updated. However, below is my suggestion. It's MTM are we know her to look like.The One I Left (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Move the current infobox image to the down to the awards and honors section. I'm leaning towards the second 1967 picture showed. I'm also not opposed to The One I Left's suggestion. There's also the 1978 publicity photo which is seen in the article as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Second Spanish girl

Mary Tyler Moore appeared in the series "Steve Canyon" in 1959. See https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051317/characters/nm0001546?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t155 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7996:B900:3C34:1BE1:5D32:60C0 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Second Spanish girl

Mary Tyler Moore appeared in the series "Steve Canyon" in 1959. See https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051317/characters/nm0001546?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t155 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7996:B900:3C34:1BE1:5D32:60C0 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is ignoring the consensus at Talk:Mary_Tyler_Moore/Archive_1#This_article_contradicts_WP:EL and the directive at WP:EL which explicitly states "Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." Ken, can you please explain why you are exempt from this rule? @Erik, Lugnuts, Wbm1058, and Bilorv:. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

There was no consensus in that discussion -- which took place 2 years ago -- to remove those interviews. I suggest that WP:Consensus can change, and since those interviews were not removed at that time, you should start an RfC to determine what the consensus is at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
"Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." Ken, can you please explain why you are exempt from this rule? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Right, there was no consensus. I just see a tiring 1–1 tie vote, on the issue of the interviews links. I'll try to help break the tie by !voting to include all the interview links that are in the current version. BTW, Lugnuts has been blocked since August 2022. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Whatever the outcome is, it should follow process, which is "Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
At this point there is a 2-1 consensus to include them, though this can, of course, change as the discussion proceeds. There is no policy-based reason to remove them at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: "Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." Ken, can you please explain why you are exempt from this rule? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
There is now a clear "consensus to include them", so that question is moot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a consensus against the Find-A-Grave link and it's still worth knowing which rules apply to you and which don't in the future. Please let me know why you are exempt from this rule. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
OK, since you want to talk about this, let's do that.
First, WP:EL is not a policy, which everyone is mandated to follow, it is a guideline, which "editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". (Those words are on every guideline page.) In the circumstances where a consensus discussion winds up with a 1-1 result -- i.e. no consensus -- then there is no reason to follow the literal words of the guideline, because common sense tells us that doing so would be ... silly, and make no sense.
This section is for Koavf, as it discusses the contributor, and not content.
Now, let's talk about another thing: you. As was pointed out to you very recently when we had a dispute on WP:AN, [4], you have recently released from an indefinite block after almost two years [5] with the understanding that you would work to avoid trouble. Yet, here you are, re-opening a picayune dispute from two years ago. One is struck by the notion that you did so specifically to create a dispute with me.
I suggest that instead of trying to start fights with other editors, you look out for yourself, keep out of trouble, and don't go looking to gin up disputes about trivial things.
I think that's all I want to say here about this little quarrel you're trying to stir up.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
This section is for Beyond My Ken, as it discusses the contributor, and not content.
Note that you are wrong about your assumptions about my motivations and that WP:AGF applies to you, who has also an extensive block history and my unsolicited advice about you is that you avoid needless provocation and a refusal to participate in good faith with other editors. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:External links § What can normally be linked specifically says that "interview transcripts" may normally be linked. I think it's reasonable to extend that to sites such as C-SPAN that link to interviews recorded on video. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Tyler_Moore/Archive_1&oldid=1166002263"