Talk:The Valentine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article requires other verifiable sources[edit]

The sources used are pretty well all self-referential, and it would do well to have Wikipedia:Verifiability applied. The references would also be useful to be inline for assistance see Wikipedia:inline citation — billinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 April 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Evidence was provided that the museum is actually known under such name. At first sight, The Valentine (museum) seems more fitting but it would surely be challenged as unnecessary disambiguation. There is no other entity called 'The Valentine' from which it needs to be kept separate, per User:Cuchullain. So assuming we want to do the move at all, it should be at the unqualified name. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Richmond History Center → The Valentine – the museum has underwent revitalization, in which changed the name of the museum from the longer previous name, stated in the article's current title, to the new name which is The Valentine. In the text, The Valentine is listed as the current name of the museum, but the article's title is listed as the former name. I am the public relations and marketing coordinator for the museum and editing the article's title to the current name The Valentine assists online visitors to find the new website domain, which is also listed in the article: TheValentine.org --Relisted. Cúchullain t/c 17:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)66.255.171.114 (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. "The Valentine" clearly does not refer to Saint Valentine. Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, or actually even larger details, nobody would ever refer to the saint as "The Valentine". Thus no disambiguator is required, there are no other notable "The Valentine" entities. And it does appear that the new name has taken root, so per WP:COMMONNAME, this can go ahead.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Thanks for at least reading WP:AT, the bite below does not apply to you. But what is the evidence that the new name has taken root? Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as requested - The official-legal name of the entity remains Richmond Valentine Richmond History Center per IRS 990 filings - [1]. I find the title "The Valentine" to be confusing but will support The Valentine (museum) --Mike Cline (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That IRS link refers to 2012-2013, and the rename was more recent than that. As for "confusing" you'll have to expand on that. Which other notable entities are called "The Valentine", which this might refer to? Where would you propose pointing The Valentine main page to?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can find no evidence that the legal name has changed and there's a high probability it hasn't. I suspect the 2013 Form 990 is the latest audited version available. I do think that The Valentine (museum) is a better title for this article. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy with either, see discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The official name is all but irrelevant in terms of the policy which all contributors are urged in many, many places to read before opening or discussing an RM. No case to answer, and please do your homework. Sorry to bite, but it does waste a great deal of time when you don't. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (change of vote) in view of relevant evidence now provided. Andrewa (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The new name is now several times more common on Google News, and even more so in sources published since the name change in October 2014. "The Valentine" Richmond returns 662 hits compared to 88 for ("Valentine Richmond History Center". I can't imagine The Valentine referring to any other article; adding a hat note at the top will be sufficient.--Cúchullain t/c 17:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is the name that the museum calls itself following the big name change / rebranding announced October 2014. We have reliable sources to back up the name change. Reliable Source 1 Reliable Source 2 MPS (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion[edit]

Perhaps worth relisting in view of the (unsubstantiated) claim above that the new name has taken root. I note the disclosure of WP:COI by nom (good) but there seems no valid rationale in terms of WP:AT, as of yet. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewa: Agreed. I've relisted the discussion and posted evidence that the new name has, indeed "taken root" in the sources.--Cúchullain t/c 17:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I might have got around to doing that but there was a risk of someone closing the RM meantime of course, and similarly thanks for relisting, good call. Note my change of vote above. Progress. Andrewa (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal[edit]

I note above some opposition to the move to The Valentine but mostly support for The Valentine (museum), but is that a consensus? Several supporters of the original proposal are silent on this as an alternative, so far, and there is one note of dissent.

I can argue it both ways, am happy with either, and note that we seem to have strong consensus to move, it's just a question of where to exactly. Andrewa (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would oppose "The Valentine (museum)", as there's nothing else that would compete for the title of The Valentine. At least, nothing that couldn't be resolved easily with hat notes.--Cúchullain t/c 17:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Your similar comment above is the one note of dissent that I see so far. So a better summary may be that we have strong consensus to move, but two suggested destinations, and some opposition to each of these. And the opposition to the original proposal seems relatively strong. Difficult. Andrewa (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The Valentine (museum) as above. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 23 April 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. There should not be more than one move request active at a time, as that causes confusion, and the second request is not listed at WP:RM. Editors are free to suggest alternative titles such as The Valentine (museum) in the request above, before it closes, if they so desire. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Valentine Richmond History Center → The Valentine (museum) – the museum has underwent revitalization, in which changed the name of the museum from the longer previous name, stated in the article's current title, to the new name which is "The Valentine". In the text, The Valentine is listed as the current name of the museum, but the article's title is listed as the former name. I am the public relations and marketing coordinator for the museum and editing the article's title to the current name of the museum "The Valentine" assists online visitors to find the new website domain, which is also listed in the article: TheValentine.org

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rewriting the article[edit]

This article has a LOT of problems, but its subject is notable and worthwhile. I've reached out to a couple of subject matter experts. If they are cooperative, together we can fix the problems with the article. Give us at least a few days. Lou Sander (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is now 87% better after including several references / reliable sources. MPS (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History sub-Sections[edit]

User: CorporateM recentlly deleted ALL subsections in the history section, but I reverted because I am of the opinion that subsection headers adds clarity to the history. I looked at a couple other museum articles and some of them seem to have quite extensive history sections... examples: Solomon_R._Guggenheim_Museum#History & Denver_Art_Museum#History_of_the_museum ... I am not saying that wiki policy demands subsections, but I think it is good form to have subsections if the history section of the article is very long. Thoughts? Peace MPS (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Valentine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about Valentine's day[edit]

What's the true meaning of Valentine's day 200.113.238.211 (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what's the real story of Valentine's day?
Is Valentine's on February 14th? 200.113.238.211 (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Valentine&oldid=1212726688"