Talk:Joni James

Discussion

where is Joni James star located on Hollywood Blvd?

thanks Vince (unsigned comment)

6630 Hollywood Boulevard according to this. TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 07:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Now updated with one or two references, and the article is now longer than a stub so I've changed it to start class. TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Peanuts"...

...gave her a shout-out in 1976: http://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/1976/05/01 A²Kafir (and...?) 03:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

In popular culture

All this edit warring has got to stop, it seems like only 1 user want's it changed to "trivia". Every article has it titled "Popular culture" there is no reson to call it trivia, just leave it as isGfyd (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's *NOT* "edit warring" - though those who disagree with the changes often characterize it as such. Here are the facts: "In Popular Culture" is by all reasonable considerations a clear synonym for "Trivia". Now, there is absolutely no ( as in zero ) rule that disallows "trivia", it is simply "discouraged". The key point here is that trying to push trivia around that "discouraged" mentality just to include it results in people calling it TRIVIA ( in fact the more accurate term ). Let's agree to be honest: call it what it is, or get rid of it. "In Popular Culture" is the Wiki Politically Correct term for, you guessed it, "Trivia".

Let's stop with this hyperbole about "edit warring" and see things as they are. If you REALLY think about it, talk, I think you will understand the realtion between "In Popular Culture" and its more honest synonym, "Trivia". Why be dishonest about the reality of the subject matter? Are you embarrassed that you find "trivia" interesting? =//= Johnny Squeaky 04:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"In popular culture" is not a synonym for "trivia". For example: Ben Franklin suffered from insomnia. This is trivia, but it is not "In popular culture". A list of various books, movies, plays, TV shows, songs, etc. that mention Ben Franklin would be trivia and "In popular culture". A sourced discussion of Franklin's impact on popular culture (discussing, for instance, widely used folk wisdom that originated with him) would be "In popular culture", but not trivia. For "In popular culture" sections that are essentially indiscriminate lists of pop culture uses of the topic, we have a specific template, {{inpopularculture}} to label the problem. If editors are able to salvage the section, it can be a valuable addition to the project. If not, the section should be -- and generally is -- scrapped.

Whether or not a particular pattern of "I'm-right-you're-wrong" reverts constitutes edit warring is a topic for another venue. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

In the way it is used in "actual practice", it is in fact used to mislable "trivia". The use of "In Popular Culture" to include TRIVIA is standard practice. The majority of the time, "In Popular Culture" sections contain trivia.

I really don't understand why people object to truthfully labling trivia as "Trivia". It is *in fact* not disallowed at Wikipedia. =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The "way it is used in 'actual practice'" is called the consensus. Another indication that this is the consensus is that several editors have been restoring the "In popular culture" title they you -- and you along -- keep changing. It also seems that the consensus on the talk page is for "In popular culture". I get that you don't understand why and that you disagree. However, when it is you repeatedly reverting several editors against the apparent consensus, the warnings you call "threats" appear. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't have put that better myself. But I have to say, it is most unhelpful when people don't engage in dialogue on issues. I tried to talk too you, Johnny, on several occasions, but just got accused of being uncivil and making threats. Continuously reverting the edits of others, particularly when there is consensus for something, is disruptive, and not helpful to Wikipedia as a whole. If you disagree with something in future, start a discussion about it on the talk page. That's what they're there for, after all. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Clear consensus

As this has been raised again on my talk page (with my warning labeled an "uncivil threat"), I would like to clearly state that I believe a clear consensus exists to not call the section "Trivia". From edits to the article and talk page, the following editor supports calling it "Trivia":

• Johnny Squeaky[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

The following editors disagree:

• TheycallmetheDoctor[14][15]
• Paul MacDermott[16][17]
• 67.170.169.30[18]
• Gfyd[19][20]
• SummerPhD[21][22][23][24]

There has also been considerable discussion on various talk pages. All discussion on Johnny Squeaky's talk page is labeled "uncivil" and/or a "threat" and removed. If anyone wishes to argue this does not demonstrate a working consensus, feel free. If anyone wishes to present new arguments to establish a new consensus, please do. Otherwise, I believe further edits contrary to this consensus are unsupported and disruptive. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the section was removed by Nikkimaria, then later restored by Gyfd. I kind of agree with Nikkimaria though. It's not referenced that well, and doesn't really add anything. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither one gave a summary for why they did what they did. For the moment, I've restored the {{inpopularculture}} tag. By whatever name, it is currently an indiscriminate listing of appearances and does not explain the subject's impact on popular culture in any way. Any other opinions before we yank it? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joni James. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060129151044/http://www.usmilitarypi.com/sangley_message.htm to http://www.usmilitarypi.com/sangley_message.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joni James. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111019161259/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/1996/09/22/1996-09-22_one_from_her_heart___joni_ja.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/1996/09/22/1996-09-22_one_from_her_heart___joni_ja.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110131183532/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/2000/10/28/2000-10-28__joni_james__a_melancholy_ba.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/2000/10/28/2000-10-28__joni_james__a_melancholy_ba.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Biography

James had seven Top 10 hits on the Billboard Hot 100 chart.[1] Note: The Billboard HOT 100 chart started on August 04, 1958. Previously, there were four different Billboard charts: Airplay (DJ), Sales (Best Sellers), Juke Box and from late 1955 additionally the TOP 100. Therefore, Joni James had seven Top 10 hits on any of the different Billboard charts that existed previously to the Hot 100. Werner Mannheim (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Werner Mannheim (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werner Mannheim (talk • contribs) 02:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)