Talk:Steel Magnolias/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ouiser

The name of the character played in the film by Shirley MacLaine is "Ouiser", not "Ouisa". In the film, she is addressed one time by her "proper" name, Louisa, but otherwise, it is "Ouiser". This spelling is used by IMDb [1], IBDB [2] and in the original play. Rockhopper10r (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the fact that her home has track lighing as this was one of the humerous interaction in the beauty shop. Kielhofer 03:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kielhofer (talk • contribs)

RfC: Is this advertisement?

I've been a Wikipedian on-and-off for a couple of years, and make mostly random edits. About two weeks ago, I read this article and thought that one of the larger subheadings was blatant advertisement. The 'area in question' is almost as long as the total synopsis of the film/play!!!

It reads Once the primary filming location of Steel Magnolias, the Steel Magnolia Bed & Breakfast now operates full-time in Natchitoches, Louisiana. With a distinct Southern feel and hospitality found greatly appealing to both fans and non-fans alike, hundreds of guests have appreciated a stay in this highly-rated bed and breakfast. To this day the house has retained almost all of its charm with rooms named after the major characters from the popular film. Marketed with reasonable prices to the public, the bed and breakfast has won many awards over the years for excellent service and the overall enjoyability of the entire experience. For more information visit the Steel Magnolia House online at www.steelmagnoliahouse.com.

Seriously, is someone going to say that this is encyclopedic??? I didn't just delete it, though, because I thought it might be of some interest to those who use Wikipedia instead of Wikitravel to plan their trips to Louisiana... I synthesized the paragraph into: The primary filming location of Steel Magnolias became a full-time bed & breakfast in Natchitoches called the Steel Magnolia Bed & Breakfast.

I put that in the Trivia section and felt that that was an acceptable compromise. But, I looked back a week later and my edits had been undone. Ok, so I redid them, only for them to be undone 6 hours later and have my edits be labeled "vandalism," even though I personally don't see the vandalism in said edits. So I request comment on which version should be in this article. Not just that, but also whether or not it should be it's own subsection or a bullet within the Trivia section. I would inform the other party of this RfC....but it's a different (random) IP address each time! Thank you. User:jg325 Jg325 (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing: the B&B development is aaaaarguably notable as a trivium, but it shouldn't have its own section, and that section as it now stands is pure advertising. Calling your good-faith edit vandalism was inappropriate. Iralith (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I made the fix you suggested. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

More 'Is This Advertisement?'

Dear user 72.86.14.75: I wonder if you could provide the reason for reintroducing the material about the Steel Magnolia Bed & Breakfast. Use the Discussion Page at Talk:Steel_Magnolias. Do you have a source for the statement, which seems to me and to one other editor to fall into the "advertising" category? I suggest you turn to the WP:NOT#ADVERTISING section, where you will read: "Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable," There's also a section at WP:Notability which states "Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy. Advertising should be removed by following these steps, in order: Clean up per Wikipedia:neutral point of view WP:POV. Delete remaining advertising content from the article." The editors working on this article would appreciate hearing from you, I am sure. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As you stated, advertising is not allowed, but "articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style."

First, the house not worthy of being limited to a single sentence. This is an absurd notion that continues to be repeated with each revert. The home is more than a 'filming location' - upon visitation is continues to provide materials from the film, visiting neighbors who were in the film, and *memorabilia for sale (see "second" on this). Additionally, the home is much more popular in revenue and media coverage than the house from the film "A Christmas Story" - a house that has its own Wiki Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Christmas_Story_House .... as such, a mini-section within the "Steel Magnolias" article is more than appropriate.

Second, see this revision with the intent to create an "objective and unbiased" section - intentionally fails to advertise memorabilia currently "for sale" on www.steelmagnoliahouse.com yet this house is very popular and was a big part of the film. See the video on their homepage for proof. "A Christmas Story" house has it's own WIKI article....

By the account of the home, there have been four visitors who, as fans, thoroughly enjoyed their stay at the house and claimed that the only reason they knew of the home was due to (its former presence within) the wiki article. Removing the section is a disservice to the kind of loyal fans who would perouse the Steel Magnolias article as well as those who continue to preserve the home.

Thanks for the information. I am asking other Wikipedians to weigh in as well. Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~). It would help your case if you were registered. I am copying this correspondence to the Discussion Page at Steel Magnolias and hope you will continue it there. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

One of my earlier comments was to the effect that if while putting a reference to this house is surely in your economic interests, saying that "people found out about it on Wikipedia" is not a reason it should be within the article; there is another Wikimedia website for called Wikitravel. Using the argument that people find out about this house via its Wiki page and therefore the info should be kept there as a subsection IS in and of itself advertisement.

And I would like to say that I'm not opposed to having a small reference to the house somewhere within the article...just not some subsection where it is described as getting "good reviews" and whatever else was said to hawk the place. Jg325 (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote honestly it doesn't matter what you are "not opposed" to because (hopefully) Wikipedia is not rooted in personal opinion or preference. If you were to apply your test of determining whether something is "advertising," no reference to ANYTHING commercial in any manner would ever be allowed in a Wiki article. While I'm not yet ready to begin assuming you are an anti-capitalist with an agenda, this "test" does nothing to answer for the provisions Wikipedia has established to ALLOW for company/product references if objective and unbiased. Under THIS standard, and not your own personal test, the section is more than worthy to exist.

Additionally, you better go and eliminate the "Christmas Story House" Wiki article in order to remain consistent with your views otherwise you are demonstrating yourself to have a specific, narrow agenda against the Steel Magnolia House and thereby have no credibility.

So far, GeorgeLouis has demonstrated himself to be much more reasonable than Jg325, for he has yet to demonstrate any anti-capitalist behaviors and/or obsessions with the form of government in Iceland. 72.86.14.75 (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "anti-capitalist sentiment" (which I can only laugh at and mock), I would posit that there is a drastic difference between advocating the nationalization of all privately-owned companies and taking blatant advertisement out of a Wikipedia article.

I'm not going to do anything to the Christmas Story House because it has already been vetted by other Wikipedians (72.86.14.75 chief not among them), while this person's entry for the Steel Magnolia House has already been cast as advertisement. I don't see the point anymore; the issue is resolved.

And on a side note, I have been on Wikipedia since 2004 and have made over 350 edits...and some random person hiding behind a ISP calling into question my objectability is nonsensical. This ISP is already in another dispute on the Rob Bell article (whoever that is), while I have never been in such a dispute. This ISP going to my personal page and seeing that (albeit a long time ago) I heavily expanded the Icelandic Althing article and somehow extrapolated that I am some Icelandic anti-capitalist should show who/what we're dealing with. That is all. Jg325 (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

With your laughter, mockery, and a response entirely dedicated to talking about yourself, it is now clear who/what we're dealing with - someone whose will I continue to ignore. That is all. 72.86.14.75 (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an especially experienced Wikipedia editor, and I'm terrified of getting sucked into what has so far been a fairly weird debate, but I expect I threw in for a penny when I posted on the initial RFC.

I guess there are two issues here--the establishment's notability and, assuming that it's notable, what language should be used to describe it.

On the first issue . . . well, that's where I'd really like to hear from a more experienced editor. I think the Christmas Story House point has to be considered; for the C.S.H., is there a good bit of external evidence of notability? Is there similar evidence for the S.M.H.? The dumbest, simplest test I can think of is a Google search for "Christmas Story House" and another for "Steel Magnolia House"; such a search gets you about 65,700 hits for the former phrase and about 855 hits for the latter phrase. So--to me that suggests that the S.M.H. is vastly less notable than the C.S.H. (I've heard of neither of them myself); it may be worth mentioning the S.M.H. in this article's trivia section, or otherwise in a sentence, in passing, as a slightly interesting tidbit, but it's not worth not giving it its own article. If someone were to argue that it shouldn't be mentioned at all anywhere, I wouldn't strongly disagree.

But the second issue's mainly what we're being obliged to talk about, isn't it? Because the section on the S.M.H. keeps getting inserted into the article . . . and looking at it, I can't see any way not to define it as blatant advertising. It's four sentences long. The first sentence only has one thing in it that seems advertising-y to me ("full-time"), but I'd be hard pressed to find any phrase in the next three that aren't ad copy.

And I genuinely feel that that fact would be obvious to most people who, like me, don't have a dog in this fight. I think the section's gotta go, man. And if I'm wrong about that--if this business establishment is more notable than I realize--I am absolutely positive that the section must be totally rewritten. Iralith (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is really a no brainer, it fails on so many different levels. The section has to be removed as per WP:SPAM. This business can however attempt to get a section in the town's article, or do a stand alone article (be bold). Both options might pass muster if they are OBJECTIVE. The section as it is now is so over the top POV (WP:NPOV) its not even close. Full of subjective terms, laced with WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK words that there is little left that warrants even a sentence . This article is about the play and movie, not about the motels of central Louisiana, or any other business in the area that may have had some connection to the movie. Jacksinterweb (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

An editor has noted that "Trivia sections are discouraged" and invited us to combine the trivia with the relevant sections of the article. I would be glad to do this; however, I note that none of the trivia are sourced. I am inclined to delete the whole section unless those who added the trivia (or anybody else) also tell us from where they got the information. The Trivia section is so trivial as to be really un-encyclopedic. I propose eliminating it as violative of this guide: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." See WP:Not Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Since this article is about the play and the movie, I think trivia is especially out of place. Trivia sections can sometimes be woven into an article's backstory about a movie or a play, but this trivia isn't particularily compelling even if it is sourceable. Jacksinterweb (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No angry mastodons

There is an interesting and mildly amusing page at WP:NAM, and particularly at WP:NAM#Disagree_respectfully that might be of interest to people editing the Steel Magnolias page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

off-Broadway revival of the play is being planned for August 2009?

I think this has been up long enough without a citation that it should be removed. Is there a standard for how long something like this is allowed to stay? Dosbears (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

New Page for the Play

Should this page be split into one for the film (here) and a new one for the play, perhaps at Steel Magnolias (play) - AKeen (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it should! --DefyingGravityForGood (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been split --DefyingGravityForGood (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Box Office Section - Diabetes Info

So, the two big paragraphs on diabetes and pregnancy don't really belong in this section (or even really in the article at all). A sentence or two and a link to the wiki page on diabetes that should contain this info is more appropriate.72.89.142.185 (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the content about diabetes and pregnancy does not belong in the article so I removed it. This article is about the movie, not about how it is wrong about whatever and may mislead a viewer. If certain people take a fictional movie's word on a medical condition, I doubt they're reading much of anything to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.28.1 (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)