Talk:Jayne Mansfield in popular culture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJayne Mansfield in popular culture has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 15, 2007Articles for deletionNo consensus
December 6, 2007Articles for deletionKept
July 16, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Split[edit]

This article was split out of Jayne Mansfield per Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

This article needs pictures. Can someone provide some? Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Waters[edit]

This article needs stuff on John Waters and his lifelong fascination about Jayne Mansfield. It may very well include references to his biography Filthy: The Weird World of John Waters, his film Mondo Trasho, and many many subtle and not-so-subtle recurrence of JM in his work. In Bodies Out of Bounds: Fatness and Transgression by Jana Evans Braziel and Kathleen LeBesco, he is quoted to idolize JM all his life. The article may also refer to Hollywood Babylon, Kenneth Anger's magnum opus that caught Water's fancy. Looking up the stuff right now, but it would be very helpful if someone could lend a hand there. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jayne Mansfield in popular culture/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I'll be doing the GA review for this article. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

 Done Removed image; unlikely to be PD as claimed.--Father Goose (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Added some fair use rationales --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the on-line references in the reference section need to be formatted with Template:cite web.
 Done Well, almost done, at least. The current format resembles the template, even when not using the template. If I have missed something, please, let me know. Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMDB is not considered a WP:RS and needs to be replaced in instances where it is citing anything other than "she was in this movie"
 Done Only the hard information remains. Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forums also should not be used. Example: 71
 Done Forums removed. Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why have a red link in a see also section?
 Done Removed redlink, not sure why that was there exactly --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is it for now. I'll put the article on hold for seven days to allow for these improvements. Once these are taken care of, I'll add more specific suggestions for the prose. Nikki311 05:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the remaining three issues, and have made some progress too. But, due to immense pressure from real life, I am not getting done fast enough. Is it possible to ask for a little more time? A week more would do fine. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. That's fine with me. Nikki311 03:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd look[edit]

I've given the article a second look, and I think there are far too many references that utilize IMDB and Amazon still in the article. Instead of citing either of these, it is a better option to just cite the book, movie, television show, or whatever itself. See Wikipedia:Citation templates for specific reference templates to use in these instances. Also, a couple of the references are not fully formatted. In particular, 61, 65, and 66. Nikki311 23:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

61, 65 and 66 fixed. Amazon wholly removed, imdb almost. Please, check if 68, 69 and 70 are alright. Should I remove those as well? Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove them. Nikki311 03:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was copy-editing just now and noticed something else (sorry to be annoying! lol). In the punk rock section, album titles should be in italics, but song titles should be in quotes with no italics. I would have just fixed this myself, but I couldn't tell which was a song and which was an album for some of them, and I've got too many projects going on right now to look it up! :) Nikki311 17:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you missed a few, but I think I fixed them. Pass. Nikki311 21:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Jaynemansfield2.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Jaynemansfield2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broom of the System reference[edit]

I added a section for novels referencing Jayne Mansfield, and included the reference from Broom of the System. A recent Penguin Books cover of the novel actually features the street network on the cover, but I decline to go looking for an image of this to meet Wikipedia's fair use guidelines.65.117.234.99 (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The sentence have been merged into the "physical assets" section. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images removed[edit]

Image:Hollywoodbabylon.jpg, Image:Siouxsie KTFM.jpg and Image:Jun63 cover Playboy.jpg were recently removed citing WP:NFCC violation because the images are not mentioned in the article. I don't see in the policy where it say the image must be mentioned. Looking at the article with the images here, I feel their "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." (as stated in the policy.) I feel the images should be put back. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to that. I have tried putting them back. Aditya(talk • contribs) 22:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for more eyes to have a look from Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the “Kiss Them for Me” cover did not significantly increase reader understanding of mentions of the band and the single, but if desired the caption could be included in the article text. Mentions of the Playboy cover and article are fully understandable without actually showing the cover, but if desired the caption could be included in the article text. I could imagine some article content that would justify the use of the Hollywood Babylon cover, but there is nothing in the article now that needed use of the cover for reader understanding. And a better illustration for that section would be the iconic File:Sophia and jayne.jpg. —teb728 t c 21:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a textbook NFCC violation, failing, inter alia, the standard that the image's "omission would be detrimental to [the reader's] understanding." As teb728 accurately notes, the images conveys nothing related to the that a textual reference would not. This is a standard NFCC situation, and consensus has been overwhelming that a nonfree cover image cannot be used to "illustrate" the publication or existence of the cover. Unless the propenents of including these coverage images can produce sourced commentary regarding the significance of these images in the context of the relevant article, their arguments should be dismissed as frivolous. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you keep ignoring the provided sourced commentary and the benefits for which it's included, it's no wonder that you find the argument frivolous. The book cover was not provided illustrate the publication nor the existence of the cover. If you cared to read the fair use rationale, you'd seen that the book cover is included to provide an image of the way media of the time represented "actress Jayne Mansfield", not the book itself, which is included as one particular depiction of her for which there's no replaceable free image for the same use. If you want to remove the images as non compliant, first gain a consensus that they are not compliant through AfD and wait for it to be closed. Diego (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A statement of the contents of a book is not sourced commentary regarding its cover image. The point should be blindingly obvious. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using the word obvious ever again in dispute resolution which you also keep doing in the edit summaries. It's quite insulting when you use it that way, as it implies that your opponent can't see the obvious. There are valid reasons for disagreement on the suitability of the images, and the way to solve them is by discussing them at talk page or through the other dispute resolution methods, not edit-warring your way against the consensus established by several other editors who have found merits for using the images. Even if there were doubts about the book cover, your reverts are also removing the Playboy magazine image even though it has clear direct sources, you're not providing arguments for its removal, and it's being subject of an ongoing deletion discussion that should be resolved before removing an image that doesn't qualify for speedy deletion.

This combination of ignoring other editors opinions, edit warring, and and lumping two images together is utterly disruptive. This case is not as clear-cut as you want it to be, and consensus is also policy, so you're bound by it as much as to the NFCC. This is not how wikipedia editors are expected to behave. Diego (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to say things which are obviously incorrect, you should expect people to point your errors out. And WP:CONS is subordinate, by its own terms, to the WMF resolution regarding nonfree content. The use claimed here does not even fall into any of the three primary categories identified by the WMF, so the case for including it is particularly weak. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, there are some three mythical categories that the WMF recognized as the only valid ones, and that are not listed in the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria which this image mets? Since you think you are in the position to believe that your opinions are THE TRUTH and keep using terms you've been told that are insulting, I won't continue this conversation here until the AfD finishes. Diego (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Treasures[edit]

This link has a collection JM's playboy appearances. Can someone figure out some NFC rationale for any of it? Aditya(talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This here has a treasure trove of information. Aditya(talk • contribs) 21:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous quote[edit]

When watching the Escrow episode of Dead Like Me, I was baffled by a breakfast order being named "a Jayne Mansfield." I searched for an explanation, and found this article. In the section about her death, Daisy is quoted from that episode as referring to the breakfast in question as "...blueberry muffins with their tops cut off." What she actually says is "Blueberry muffin but just the top of the muffin." Firstly, I guess the quote should be corrected (the correct wording is easily verified). Secondly, this new (i.e., correct) phrasing does seem to reduce the link to the decapitation myth, as the "punchline" of the Jayne Mansfield naming joke seems mainly to be the visual appearance of the breakfast (i.e., that it looks like a pair of breasts). This latter point is of course speculation on the intention of the writers, but then so was the original reference in the article, and it would seem that original speculation is a bit weakened without the erroneous quotation? Mlhetland (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Jayne Mansfield in popular culture. 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:

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) 05:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jayne Mansfield in popular culture. 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:

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) 05:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jayne_Mansfield_in_popular_culture&oldid=1207807237"