Talk:Hollywood Walk of Fame/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Image request

Could anyone please provide an image of the special "moon" stars?Nemissimo (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There is one in the article. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 20:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Too long? Nah.

An IP editor added {{longish}} without an edit summary, so I reverted it. I don't think it's too long, and I don't see a sensible way to split the article. In terms of organizing by topic, though, looking at the TOC, I have a notion to:

  • Move "Special stars", "Hollywood and La Brea Gateway" and "Homage" under "The Walk today".
  • Move "Theft and vandalism", "Errors and mysteries" & "Star locations" under "History".
  • Rename "Nomination process" to "Administration", and add subsections "Nomination", "Fee", and "Committee" at the existing paragraphs.

Opinions? --Lexein (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it really doesn't need the longish tag (like many articles not yet at GA, it could be trimmed slightly in parts, but not that much), but I do agree that the organization could be better. Quite frankly, "The Walk today" is a very vague title that I think sh/could be changed or clarified. The other stuff you bring up really depends on that. The only new subsection I think is a tad unnecessary is "Fee", whose material would fit well enough into a new "Nomination", IMO. Also, I would suggest that "Star locations" go under "Description"--since that what it is--rather than TWT. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 02:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

2nd image slow rotation?

The star image in the ==Description== section has been slowly changed over time without discussion. It was added here in Feb 2012, without objection. In this August 2012 edit Destiny's Child was replaced by The Supremes. I think this rate (every few months) is fine. To avoid edit wars, shall we:

  • Agree upon a schedule? Precedence?
  • Establish it as a "Theme" position, such as "only female recording stars"?
  • Establish criteria for the image as "only pristine, complete stars from directly overhead"?
  • Establish requirements such as The description should always state "illustrating the brass lettering, icon, and star surround"?

Whatever we can establish as consensus will make it more of a collaborative improvement of the article. --Lexein (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

My own opinion is that it is entirely unnecessary; had I been watching the article when it was added, I would have objected to adding it in the first place. There are plenty of other closeups of stars in the article already. And why are you singling out "girl groups", or even "female recording stars?" And, if you insist on keeping this unnecessary photo, why would you "rotate" it, instead of leaving it alone? The whole idea makes no sense to me. My two cents. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 15:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I was not insisting. Yikes, man. I just noticed that both images were of stars for female recording stars, with an already-established (sample size=2) "theme." Now I notice that with that image, there's a coincidental rough balance of images related to men, and women, and white, and black (or multiracial), which I find pleasing.
The notion of rotating images allows for some variety (if done over months, not weeks or days), without adding or subtracting images from the article, and without edit warring. It only applies to this image location because it is not explicitly discussed in the article, though it very handily illustrates the Description section.
I hear the plaintive cry "how many images of stars must one endure?" But the article does not seem overloaded with images (I would not add any more). And of course, I don't mind just leaving it alone. --Lexein (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't insisting either -- just volunteering my opinion, which you solicited. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 22:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I might add that the current photo is not a "pristine, complete star", and does not properly illustrate the brass outline -- as do, for example, the Woodward and Chaplin stars later in the article. And if I were to rewrite the caption, I would eliminate "honoring the famous girl group The Supremes" (which is obvious), and replace it with your suggested "illustrating the brass lettering, icon, and star surround". And I would pick a better example, of which there are plenty in Commons. Another two cents. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 14:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Yup, this Supremes photo is not supreme. Caption changed, however. I think I'll make a subpage under this Talk page for candidate images for ranking and scheduling, just as a proposal, later today. --Lexein (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Apollo XI (plaque) vs Apollo 11

I have three reasons for reverting:

  • prior discussion and consensus (see archive)
  • WP:BRD - bold edit, I reverted, now discuss. To revert after that without discussion is just warring, so I reverted on _that_ basis. The article is about the Walk, so we don't sarcastically quote it (or mock editors).
  • Lots of NASA missions and assets were officially named with, and emblazoned with, Roman numerals. Saturn V, etc. The anglicised numerals were the most commonly used, but still slang, form. So, there may be a compromise here, but I !vote for use the same text throughout the article. I think parenthesizing or quoting either Apollo 11 or Apollo XI, like lots of explaining around here, seems condescending, since Roman numerals are taught in grade school. I would agree with using "XI" everywhere, but follow its first use with (11), not (Apollo 11), and not quoted - that's how jargon is introduced, if it is used throughout an article.

In wiki, I've seen Roman numerals wikilinked, as in Apollo XI. MOS may speak to this. --Lexein (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Official patch of Apollo 11
Official patch of Apollo 11
The Apollo programme did not use Roman numerals but Arabic numerals. The Walk of Fame is thus quoting it wrongly and the only reason to have Roman numerals at all on the page is because it obviously is written with Roman numerals on the Walk. Because of this, it should also be marked with quotation marks. You reverted something which is a given and said to ME to start talking instead of doing it yourself. That's not serious. BTW, there's nothing about the Apollo programme in the archive to this page, so I don't know what prior discussion you are referring to. Taylor Strand (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
File:AP12goodship.png
The Apollo program, at least in the logos, did not consistently use either Arabic or Roman numerals; the patches for the preceding and following missions are labeled Apollo X and Apollo XII, respectively. —C.Fred (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Taylor Strand's information is provably incorrect. Viz, the patches for X and XII:
Further, here's a Kennedy Space Center NASA archives page about the so-emblazoned Apollo XI mission, and here's a NASA page which calls it 11, while referring to the mission as Apollo XI.
I'd like to find out if the Apollo XI Walk of Fame star was a mistake, or selected by the donors who funded those custom stars, which might have been, oh, I don't know, astronauts or their friends, or friends of NASA.
So, what do we do about this article? --Lexein (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
"Probably"? That's just an opinion. Show some clear evidence before you revert this again. It looks like NASA were using different kinds of numbers for different missions, which was news to me, but I am still convinced the Arabic numerals are the official ones for Apollo and the Roman numerals are just sometimes used because they look a bit fancier. Also, you have still to point to the archived discussion claimed to have come to some consensus before. Taylor Strand (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
So now the page is in a state which disrespects the Walk, and the stars on the walk, by parenthesizing and quoting as if they're wrong, or stupid, against long-standing consensus, and the direct evidence. Can't say I'm not disappointed in your behaviour. --Lexein (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
That's your opinion. I don't think it is disrespecting at all, it's just stating a fact that the people behind the Walk has happened to spell the name of Apollo 11 in another way than it is usually spelled. There is already many examples given on the page about misspelled names on the stars, so why would it be disrespectful to write about this one and not about the others? The Wikipedia reference desk at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Apollo 11 or Apollo XI? also seems to give me right. I ask again: Where can I read that old consensus you are going on about? Taylor Strand (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
It appears you've elected to ignore the documentation I linked to at NASA. So you'll excuse me if I do you the favor of ignoring your WP:Canvassing of the reference desk, who found nothing at NASA, while I reiterate the sources I already posted above: Further, here's a Kennedy Space Center NASA archives page about the so-emblazoned Apollo XI mission, and here's a NASA page which calls it 11, while referring to the mission as Apollo XI. --Lexein (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, but where's the consensus you have been writing about? Taylor Strand (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

requirement stipulated by the original audio recording committee

"A requirement stipulated by the original audio recording committee (and later rescinded) specified minimum sales of one million records or 250,000 albums for all music category nominees. The committee soon realized, however, that many important recording artists would be excluded from the Walk by that requirement. As a result, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences was formed for the purpose of creating a separate award system for the music business. The first Grammy Awards were presented in Beverly Hills in 1959."

Huh? What do the Grammy Awards have to do with the Hollywood Walk of Fame? Who formed the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences and was it formed in the context of something related to the Hollywood Walk of Fame? "A separate award system" within the context of the Hollywood Walk of Fame for choosing recipients of stars in the musical groups category? Or...? Sorry, but this paragraph is incredibly confusing to me, an otherwise highly-educated and comprehending person with no expert knowledge or historical understanding of the HWoF...joepaT 04:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

They forked the project. It's sourced, but I suppose could be phrased better: "As a result, several members formed the separate NARAS..." Exactly who is unimportant (and may be missing from this source) for the purposes of this article. Those initial members should be described in more detail in the NARAS article. I could see removing the Grammy mention, or connecting that phrase with a comma, or rephrasing it. DoctorJoeE? --Lexein (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I could see removing the whole thing; I never really thought it belonged in the article, but never cared enough to object to it. It's referenced, but of questionable relevance, IMHO. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 17:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Wait, what? C'mon now, admit it, it was cool history, and we were all enthusiastic about it, and about expanding and correcting the article.--Lexein (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I fixed it, because it was poorly written as originally posted, but didn't care enough one way or the other to advocate removing it entirely. And I still don't. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 18:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Image changed.

The second image has been changed as the previous image showed the contrast between the pavement and star. Also visible is the modern colours of the stars as well as part of the sidewalk itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.62.162 (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

is marred by the flash glare and non-squared-up star. If you can provide a better one, please do. --Lexein (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Fee?

The article says $30,000, but both references say $15,000. --Episcophagus (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The references are old. The Chamber web site lists the current fee as $30,000, and perhaps that should be cited. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 23:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The $30K was properly ref'd in Nomination but not in Revitalization. I've expanded the fee history in Revitalization, and kept fee solely current in Nomination. More fee datapoints would be of interest.--Lexein (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Kodak Theatre -> Dolby Theatre

There are a lot of references in this article to the Kodak Theatre that should be changed to the Dolby Theatre, or "the former kodak theatre", or somesuch, as that is not the current name of the theatre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.88.123 (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed! Kodak weaseled out of its naming rights contract after declaring Chapter 11. I have made the necessary changes, and added a reference documenting the name change. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 02:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Counting stars

  1. I have not been fighting the updating of the count of stars, only fighting the reluctance of editors to add the ref supporting the updated count.
  2. I see value in standing firm on some estimate, but many readers and the Chamber of Commerce then start screaming about the article's "inaccuracy." I've had to deal with this both in various Talk pages and in private email.
  3. I liken the actual star count to a sports statistic, and we all know how important it is to have updated statistics on all sports figure and team pages.

To sum up, it's one of those battles which is actually better as a unison march. If only updaters would put the ref in the prose rather than leaving it in the f*cking edit summary. --Lexein (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

So in other words, it's a matter of choosing one's battles. Fair enough. I understand why athletes watch their stats so closely, since their livelihood (and future contract negotiations) largely depend on them; but sports fans who obsess over stats could easily find much better uses for their time, methinks. And showbiz fans who need to know exactly how many stars are on the Walk on any given day probably need a significant priority adjustment. My own opinion, FWIW, is that an update every 20 or so stars, i.e. once a year, should be accurate enough for anybody. But if you're okay with it, who am I to argue? DoctorJoeE talk to me! 06:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: I would also point out that if the Chamber is so concerned with keeping the star count accurate and current, one would think that they would have a current, accurate count on their own web site; but as far as I can tell, there is no total count, current or otherwise, anywhere on their site. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 06:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Once a year updating makes excellent sense for a paper encyclopedia; sometimes I wish WP would adopt that conceit, just to slow down newsy gnat-swarm updates. You're totally right about the odd lack of certitude on the Chamber's own website; one would think their database could cough up a number quite simply. Our count updates have been from a variety of IP addresses who all identically insist on leaving the ref in the edit summary, which I find weirdly passive-aggressive. Plus, I just got tired of the Chamber's wearying presumption of bad faith on our part, plus invective, followed by chilly silence. I've had girlfriends who, at their magnificent worst, at least kept up better communication than that. --Lexein (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
A "paper encyclopedia?" What the hell is that? DoctorJoeE talk to me! 12:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I would also point out that the Chamber didn't care a whit about this article until we started rewriting it a couple of years ago. Whatever that means. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 15:55, 8 October 2012 (
First, major credit to your restructuring and expansion. Second, I got the sense from their later communications that they seemed to have been seething about it for years, while taking no action. --Lexein (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Still annoyed, and reverting edits which don't cite the source in the article. I'm not going to cleanup after editors who leave sources in the edit summary for others to fix. --Lexein (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised you've tolerated it this long. I don't really care exactly how many stars are on the Walk on any given day, and I don't really understand why anyone does. If it were up to me I'd remove that half of the sentence, and with it the temptation to change the number every month. But it isn't, of course. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I sorta consider it an editor training mission - if I can get these few editors who update the article to just add the citations inline, I'll be satisfied. I haven't given up on them, in the spirit of WP:WikiProject Editor Retention. --Lexein (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

List

I think there should be a list of all the stars. Pokebub22 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

See List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame -- there's a link to it in this article. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Errors & Mysteries

The final paragraph begins "Two stars cannot be found: The Los Angeles Times, which has documented and photographed the Walk as part of its ongoing Hollywood Star Walk project, has not yet located the stars honoring Richard Crooks and the film career of Geraldine Farrar." It needs reworking or should disappear altogether. (My personal vote is for the latter - it's truly uninteresting trivia, which suggests something - that 2 stars are missing - that is not the case).

The LA Times couldn't find them. but they aren't missing, which is what the current phrasing suggests. The locations of both are cited in the wiki article listing all those who have stars. Irish Melkite (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur, and fixed the prose a bit. Thanks - you know, we're always looking for additional reliable sources about the Walk, perhaps you've read somewhere about the location of those two unlocated stars? We're citing the LA Times:[1][2] And by the way, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce doesn't know where they are either, we just can't get them to admit it in print. We've asked by email and phone. Nor, apparently, does anybody else [3][4]. If you ever visit Hollywood, and you find them, snap a pic, up it to Flickr, and let the LA Times know. --Lexein (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course they are missing -- if they are not missing, where are they? Go to the sites listed on the wiki article! I have, and they're not there. Yes, the LA Times couldn't find them, and neither can anyone else, apparently. So unless you know where they are, I would favor saying that there is no evidence that they exist at all. I don't think the heirs of Richard Crooks or Geraldine Farrar think that it's "uninteresting trivia" that their stars are absent from the Walk. And I don't see any logic behind removing this information entirely. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you arguing with me? What for? Please, I've always felt, and I think you know, that "cannot be found" is too strong, because "cannot" is forever; it's WP:OR because no source says "cannot be found". "Have not been found" or "we have not found" are better because they match the source. I hewed the prose even closer to the source, with "located" - what's the problem with that? The Chamber and the Times both claim the stars exist, and the Times says it hasn't found them. Where's the OR in that? --Lexein (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I am arguing with you, sort of. You have some interesting interpretations of "original research" -- which no one else seems to have (which, I guess, makes them original). But okay, if you really want to split this hair, I'll give you that "have not" is less final than "cannot". So why did you take the sentence out entirely? I'm going to add back that the stars "have not been found". Okay? It's been at least 10 years now -- nobody has found them, including the Chamber, as you mentioned above. How long before we can say "cannot"? Who should lead the search? Should we send Deputy Dawg?
I took it out, because it was redundant and unnecessary as preface. The para still had two sentences. Further, the stars only "haven't been found" by the LA Times (our only RS - blogs and Flickr don't count). Nobody else claims they haven't been found. Why generalize so vastly, by implying that the two stars haven't been found by anyone, in preface? Just leave the preface out. It's not like the remainder is so long or complicated that the reader is left wondering what's going on. Are they? Anyways, on WP, anything an editor writes or means, that a source didn't write or mean, is original, and is OR. If a claim can't be verified in RS(except for blue sky), it is to be deleted. I think that as long as the administrating organization continues to state that the stars exist, with addresses to boot, and we present that as their position, our obligation is met. As long as LAT infers that they exist by saying that they haven't found them yet, and we present that as their position, our obligation is met. Anybody, not just you, insisting on going beyond quoting, paraphrasing, or summarizing what a source says and means, isn't correct. Are you being so obstructive just because I made the edit correctly suggested by the OP? --Lexein (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
No need to personalize it. Nobody else claims that they have been located either, so it's correct to say that they have not been located. There used to be three lost stars, as you may recall; somebody found one of them. If anyone finds the other two, and publishes it, we'll report it! DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 04:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it isn't correct to say they haven't been located - "Nobody else claims that they have been located either, so it's correct to say that they have not been located." is a logical fallacy - stating the truth of a fact by lack of any statement denying it: (1)The LA Times cannot locate the stars (2)Therefore, the stars are missing. The truth is that no one has to claim that they have been located; no one except the LA Times claims to be unable to locate them.
Thus, "The Los Angeles Times, which has documented and photographed the Walk as part of its ongoing Hollywood Star Walk project, has been unable to locate stars honoring Richard Crooks and the film career of Geraldine Farrar." is the only accurate summation of the matter.
We don't even have a source as to how the LA Times determined that these stars are supposed to exist; if we did, it might give some measure of credence to the prefatory sentence. The only place that I could find, other than the LA Times and Wiki, which even references the existence of Crooks' star is that of Danny Zale, who markets maps of the walk. He suggests that there may never have been a star for Crooks.
I have deleted the sentence. Irish Melkite (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's an interesting interpretation of logic that I have not encountered before. But it's not important enough to argue any further. We do, of course, have a source as to how the Times determined that the stars are supposed to exist; they are listed on the Chamber's official roster of stars. I've been out to the two locations listed by the Chamber, and fallacy or no fallacy, they're not there. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 05:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Side note: I've been a bit urgent about this because Wikipedia is quoted by others. There's a little problem over at Warrant canary, where the claim "never been tested in court" was unattributed and unsourced, but now seems to have been circularly sourced, seeming to have been quoted by the now-cited source (see). WP is often quoted, so we have to be (IMHO extra) careful about what we claim. So, all, sorry if I've been annoying. --Lexein (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

big bird is not a Muppets character

Everyone who cares about this issue except the OP, who hasn't participated in the discussion, agrees that Big Bird is a muppet! Not only have many of us learned something new, but we have also seen that it is possible for Wikipedian ideals to work in practice as well as in theory. Many valuable lessons were learned and a good time was had by all!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

In the section on fictional characters and awardees with multiple characters, Big Bird is mentioned as being awarded a star individually and as a member of The Muppets. Big Bird is a Sesame Street character, not a Muppets character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.85.98.210 (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this is incorrect. All of the puppets used on Sesame Street are Muppets. And please sign your talk page posts. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, the IP might have a point. Muppets may have to be externally controlled, whereas Big Bird is a costumed person. Big Bird doesn't appear, e.g., on our list of muppets. However, BB does appear in the muppets article as a muppet. I'm sure there are sources, but I'm certainly not going to look for them. Probably the fastest way to find out is to go over to List of Muppets, add Big Bird to the list, and sit back and watch the people who care provide reasons.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
All of Jim Hansen's creations were (and are) collectively known as The Muppets. All of the puppet characters on Sesame Street, including Big Bird, were collectively credited on the show as Muppets. No one disputes that Bert, Ernie, Elmo, Grover, Cookie Monster, Mr. Snuffelupagus, and all the other Sesame Street puppet characters are Muppets; why single out Big Bird? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Who knows why people do the things they do? Why is it always Elvis beaming in the radio waves and never Eisenhower? I think I'll ask over there on the talk page; I bet there are whole doctoral dissertations written on the subject.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Just for kicks I notified a bunch of talk pages and WikiProjects and stuff and invited them over here. I'm genuinely curious to see what they're going to say.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Per DoctorJoeE's first comment here: all puppets on Sesame Street are Muppets. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is a direct quote from the WP Muppets article: "Other well-known Muppets include Sesame Street characters such as Big Bird, Oscar the Grouch, Bert and Ernie, Grover, Cookie Monster, and the main characters of Fraggle Rock." DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:WINARS— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Sigh, what a ridiculous discussion. There may not be a doctoral dissertation about it, but I could cite several sources that state that BB is a Muppet. For example, Gikow Sesame Street: A Celebration, pp. 48 & 51. I could cite more, but why waste my time? Please don't embarrass yourself by demonstrating your ignorance, and please treat the subject with the respect it deserves. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, dear. Someone seems to have a problem with reading comprehension. It's OK, though. You're not going to waste your time citing more sources. Perhaps you could use some of it rereading my comment to see if I'm really truly "embarrass[ing] myself by demonstrating my ignorance."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the only one embarrassing herself appears to be Christine, who can't be bothered wasting her time citing sources because it's so obvious that Big Bird is a Muppet -- but then proceeds to argue exactly the opposite position (below) based on no sourcing, and after an admission that she's not qualified to have an opinion at all. I know we are supposed to be big boys and girls and let petty nastiness like this slide -- but a "hot mess with very little sourcing"? Really? 127 cites, covering virtually every bit of content, is not sufficient for you? How would you react if someone made a silly comment like that about an article that you had worked on, without having bothered to "waste his time" reading it? How any of this qualifies as "assuming good faith", or "constructive criticism", is not at all clear to me. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 05:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
No response; I thought not. SInce no one has come up with a convincing reason to consider BB anything other than a Muppet, I will leave present content as is. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Sigh... I didn't say that Big Bird wasn't a muppet, see? Read my comment again. I was just wondering if the IP had a point and I thought it would be good to get some input from people who care about it. We did that, and the response was overwhelming. Thus I don't feel that I'm embarrassing myself at all! Reasonable people may disagree. It's happened before.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Big Bird is a Sesame Street Muppet. That is an indisputable fact. Big Bird is an example of a full-body Muppet, one of three types of Muppet, along with rod-hand Muppets, like Kermit, where the arms are controlled by rods, and live-hand Muppets, like Fozzy, where the hands are worn like gloves. That Big Bird is full-body does not change his status as a Muppet at all.
However, the OP may be questoning if the Walk of Fame star is refering to all Muppets, or just the Muppet Show Muppets now owned by Disney. The Sesame Street Muppets are now owned by Sesame Workshop, the producers of Sesame Street. The ownership has been split since 2001, and Sesame Workshop uses the trademarked term "Muppet" under license. Otherwise, the term refers specifically to the characters that appeared on The Muppet Show and its film and TV successors. Even the Fraggles are no longer referred to as Muppets for that reason (even though they originally were).
As the Muppets' star was awarded in 2012, after The Muppets, and the Muppets who were at the ceremony were the Muppet Show ones (with the movie's logo used), the OP might have a point. It seems the star was specifically for the Disney-owned troupe, not Muppets in general, and wouldn't include the Sesame Street group that would include Big Bird. As such, he is not part of the group star, and doesn't have multiple stars. oknazevad (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
My area of expertise here is Sesame Street, and all the major sources call the Sesame Street puppets "Muppets". I've never seen any reliable source supporting your statement, although I admit that I'm not as knowledgeable about the non-SS puppets. This is certainly not the place to debate what's a Muppet and what's not a Muppet. Perhaps the solution is this case is to remove the statement about Kermit and BB having two stars, since the Muppets star is a group one, and to remove the reference to them being a Muppet in the "Fictional characters and their creators" section. This article is a hot mess, anyway, with very little sources, so it doesn't matter all that much. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it seems like it is exactly the place to debate whether or not Big Bird is included in that star. As I said, there's no doubt Big Bird is a Muppet, but he's not a member of The Muppets as a troupe, which is who the star was awarded to. So removing him makes sense. Kermit, however, is undoubtedly included. He was front row center at the unveiling. oknazevad (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. My point exactly. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 05:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
He is a Muppet, but one of the Sesame Street Muppets; not one of the Muppets in the part of the group of The Muppet Show and characters associated with them. There are at least three three different subgroups of Muppet Characters, the ones on with The Muppet Show and associated characters, the Fraggle Rock Muppets, and the Muppets on Sesame Street. 173.51.123.97 (talk) 07:17, 16 February 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.

SUGGEST MAKING THE FOLLOWING FACTUAL REVISIONS ON THIS PAGE

1. INTRO PAR: the below is not true: "The Walk of Fame is administered by the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce and maintained by the self-financing Hollywood Historic Trust."

suggested revision: The Hollywood Walk of Fame is a public sidewalk and is the property of the City of Los Angeles. The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce continues to add stars on the Walk of Fame as the representative of the City of Los Angeles. The Hollywood Historic Trust, a nonprofit agency whose mission is to preserve the history of Hollywood, assists the City in making repairs to the Walk of Fame when requested by the City and as its finances allow. The Trust does this on a voluntary basis and does not have any legal requirement to do so."

2. DESCRIPTION: the below is misleading "The Walk of Fame runs 1.3 miles (2.1 km) east to west on Hollywood Boulevard from North Gower Street to North La Brea Avenue, plus a short segment of Marshfield Way that runs diagonally between Hollywood and La Brea; and 0.4 miles (0.7 km) north to south on Vine Street between Yucca Street and Sunset Boulevard.

The above sentence makes it look like the stars are directional and go east to west, north to south only in one way. The stars on the sidewalk are lined up both ways. Better to refer to as: runs on both east and west sidewalks on Hollywood Blvd. between... and north and south sidewalks on Vine Street between...

3. SPECIAL STARS: Special stars are not more important than the actual stars. The paragraph is placed too early in the article. Move below.

4. NOMINATION PROCESS: Outdated "As of June 2010 Lestz had been replaced as chairman by John Pavlik, former Director of Communications for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.[126] While no public announcement was made to that effect, he was identified as chairman in the Chamber's press release announcing the 2011 star recipients.[127]"

Suggest reverting to generic statement as chairs change periodically without public announcements.

5. SEE ALSO: Misleading statement "TCL Chinese Theatre, a movie theater located in the Hollywood Walk of Fame, whose most distinctive feature is its forecourt, with concrete blocks bearing the signatures, footprints, and handprints of popular film personalities"

It makes it sound as if it is a part of the Hollywood Walk of Fame - private vs public. Suggest editing to: TCL Chinese Theatre is located on the world-famous Hollywood Walk of Fame Boulevard.

MP 198.101.124.226 (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[1]

please add loca diagrams

many wiki's include e.g. for location of a city and its location within a state, small maps diagrams showing the overall state with highlighted location of the city within that state, i would like to see this for the hollywood walk of fame , i.e. the overall general map of LA / Hollywood and within that, the designation of the walk, and also maybe alongside, a detailed view of the walk street wise... etc so anyone sees quickly exactly where it is ... and i know well known but millinos do not know where this is still .... hercool pwarow jr (where is my star !) 24.186.53.181 (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC) ..... I agree this should be added. Would be cool to see. hollywoodd (talk) 2:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Blank stars

I added a sentence acknowledging the existence of blank, unassigned stars. It might not hurt if someone can provide a photo of one of these. Might be of interest showing a "virgin" star before the addition of lettering and insignia. Does anyone know if the blanks count towards the total number of stars? 68.146.52.234 (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

They do not count toward the total -- and I'm not convinced that a procedural detail like that is even worth mentioning in the article. But let's see if any other involved editors care one way or the other. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.walkoffame.com/pages/faqs
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood_Walk_of_Fame/Archive_4&oldid=1136272231"