Talk:Jane Powell

confusion on the last paragraph

The last few sentences of the article are very, very confusing. One cannot have one's lungs removed and live! Further, one cannot have one's tonsils "replaced." They can be removed, yes, but not replaced. There are several other points, but those are the two that left me particularly puzzled as to what the author was trying to say. Johngalt2788 (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Album not listed

I have an album by Jane Powell that is not listed - Songs by Jane Powell on Columbia as sung in the picture "Holiday in Mexico". The songs are Ava Maria, Les Filles de Cadiz, I Think of You, and Italian Street Song. Jane Powell was my very favorite actress in the musicals of the day. I wanted to be just like her - but of course that didn't happen. 98.94.158.225 (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC) (I have never written on a site before. Hope this is okay.)

Death

She is as of now 9-16-21 still alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.216.158 (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Deadline Hollywood, which cites a close friend, says otherwise. Wyliepedia @ 23:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Shortened Lead

I don't understand why the lead was shortened so drastically. While I understand that its not good to have a long lead, there should at least be some summarizing in the lead because right now the lead is kind of short. Maybe some mention of her famous film roles and how she was one of the last living actresses from Hollywood's Golden Age. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree It seems like the reason someone changed it was due to "superfluous content and corrected article structure" but ultimately, it does not really violate WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Especially since most celebrity articles look like this. The lead seems too WP:VAGUE. Maxwell King¹²³³²¹ 12:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Maxwell King123321: Would you recommend restoring the lead to this version or the the current version which I've expanded a little. I'd go for either. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101:I would recommend restoring to the original lead although perhaps the last paragraph could be altered and added to the main body of work. What do you think? Maxwell King¹²³³²¹ 13:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Maxwell King123321: I also believe the original lead was best. Should we wait for other comments? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101: Sounds good. But yes I definitely preferred the previous lead. Hopefully people agree. I am unsure why the Hollywood Star picture was removed I will add that back. Maxwell King¹²³³²¹ 13:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Maxwell King123321: Good, we should give it a 2-3 days to revert lead if no one responds. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Maxwell King123321 and TDKR Chicago 101: Thank god I am not the only one. I did a lot of work editing this article (about a week ago, oddly enough, before Powell passed away), and it has been complete gored in every department. I can understand some of the rationales provided, but the editor was excessive in my opinion, and left the article limp with everything they extracted from it. Now, a lot of it just reads: "In XXXX, Powell starred in this. Then, Powell did this. Next, she starred in that." It now feels to me like there is a lot of context missing. I don't mind pruning some of it, but so much was taken that it now reads like a far less developed article than it should. The lead, especially, is extremely vague. I wrote the lead to give an overview of the article, as it is supposed to. Now, it really only serves to list a handful of her credits. –Drown Soda (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Drown Soda Thank you for your opinion and interest. Yes, the article now reads exactly how you described it. That is encyclopedia writing. We write in prose and give only the facts. Every word must carry weight and have a specific purpose, and none of it can be our personal thoughts. We are not writing a news story or a magazine article. We are not her press agents. We write what we can source. We are a media that brings together published sources and puts them together for an article. We write a summary of the subject and not a detailed accounting, as dictated by WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I can understand why bold edits startled you, especially if you had worked on the article. However, the article was incredibly bloated, against Wikipedia guidelines. Let's work together to make this a great article. Please read what I wrote below and let's talk about how to move forward. I appreciate the contributions and thoughts of every editor. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Drown Soda: You should've seen it before I beefed it up a bit. Seeing how three users agreed that the lead is vague maybe restoration of the original lead can occur later today or tomorrow (good to wait for further feedback from other users). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Drown Soda and TDKR Chicago 101: Definitely. I noticed your work a couple weeks ago and was very impressed with it. I am sorry someone changed it up it seems like Wikipedia tends to call upon editors who do that sort of thing. I agree with TDKR Chicago 101 that we restore as much as possible. Maxwell King¹²³³²¹ 23:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Maxwell King123321 and TDKR Chicago 101: It appears the lead has been shortened even further now—it's been reduced to a whopping two sentences, which surely does not meet the MoS guide for the lead sections of articles. I am backing out of this though as it's not worth my time to fight over. –Drown Soda (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Drown Soda and TDKR Chicago 101: I agree I have removed this page from my watchlist. No point wasting my time here; clearly there is either a vendetta or WP:OWN issues involved. @Drown Soda I am sorry about that I did very much like your version. Cheers and all the best for future editing. Maxwell King¹²³³²¹ 04:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Maxwell King123321, your comment is in violation of Wikipedia's policy forbidding personal attacks as stipulated in WP:NPA, which states "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." This article appeared in the next "Random article" that came up and I have set about to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. I have explained ad nauseam my actions so there could not be any misunderstanding about what I was doing. I have stated more than once that I encourage a collaborative atmosphere, which I do. Any further personal attacks on my motives and my character will be addressed and could lead to you being sanctioned or banned. MarydaleEd (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the interest and contributions of editors and your points of view. However, let's consider this logically. What about the short lead offends you? Does the tightened prose not cover why she is notable? That is all we are trying to accomplish in a lead as dictated by MOS:INTRO. I specifically draw your attention to the Wikipedia guideline that states "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead (but not by using subjective 'peacock terms' such as 'acclaimed' or 'award-winning' or 'hit')." Of course, I don't mind the lead being longer, but are we trying to make it longer for length's sake, or are we wanting to make it longer to flatter the subject? Also, a few films were pulled from the content and put in the lead. Powell was in numerous films. Why pull those films out to highlight them and not others? Is it because you recognize those films most? Wikipedia does not allow peacock language or original research, like the reference to Powell being the last of a "Golden Age" of film. Says who? That is subjective content and needs to be sourced. Without a source that is peacock language and original research. When we say that Powell is "noted for" or "best known for" something, that is original content. You are making a subjective opinion based upon, perhaps, what you know Powell best for. I am not picking on anyone, I am just trying to encourage editors to break down the sentences they write and ensure they are writing proper encyclopedia prose. One of the hardest things for some editors to grasp is that encyclopedia writing is different from writing in any other media. I have no opinion about the length of an intro, I am only ensuring that every statement is not subjective, and if it is, it is the words of a published source that we cite, not our opinions, even if I agree with what you write. Sure, I agree that Powell is among the last of the golden age of Hollywood, but I am an editor, not a proper source. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Please forgive the length of my comments. They are unusually long. I just read a comment that was posted while I was trying to post and want to point out that the lead, as it stands, does meet MOS guidelines. Again, I am not opposed to a longer lead. We just don't need to make it longer for the sake of it being longer. Does it cover why this person is notable and has a Wikipedia article? Yes. She was signed to an MGM contract and appeared in films, television and stage. That sentence, alone, meets the requirement for a Wikipedia lead. If you want a longer lead, consider why. Is there additional information that is not covered in that sentence that contributes to why this person is notable? If so, do you have a source for it? I want to work with you all on making this an article of high standards, but let's be sure what we are adding has a purpose and that we are being objective. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Maxwell King123321: and @Drown Soda: I've restored the lead seeing how there was no consensus in this talk page about having such a short lead. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks for doing so. Maxwell King¹²³³²¹ 03:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Primary source

A large amount of content in this article draws from this subject's autobiography, which is a primary source as defined in WP:PSTS. Please help find secondary and tertiary sources to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)