This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
SAN PUEBLO
The town where the Partridge Family lived was a fictional town located in Northern CALI. References taken directly from PF episodes indicate a Bay Area location, specifically "40 miles [from] Napa County", which is located near San Francisco in the Northern part of California. If you can find any evidence that they lived in Southern Cali please let us know. Outside of Chris being a "Dodger's fan" and a couple of gigs in Los Angeles, we can't place them in Southern CALI. The idea that they lived in Southern CALI perhaps comes from confusion with the Brady's, or a mistaken FAQ on a misinformed fansite somewhere. Please research before making changes like that, thank you dear.ShirleyPartridge (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you are right about confusion with the Brady's. There was a Saturday Night Live sketch with Susan Dey that had the Partridges living "down the street" from the Brady's. Thank you for clarifying that.DATBUS (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
PEOPLE'S WORK
Deleting an entire section that has taken many months to develop is not helpful to anyone. "References in Popular Culture" incorporates information without having any "Trivia".ShirleyPartridge (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Please make sure that any changes you make to this article are both correct, and necessary.
POV?
"a feeble effort was made by the producers to breathe new life into the show"
"the Partridge Family's records were some of the best arranged and produced of their day"
Fair enough, I will repair this.
-
Wasn't there a kid named 'Adam' on later shows? He was a lot younger than the others.
No, there was no "Adam" on the Partridge Family. In the final season there was a "Ricky", already cited in the article. Also Reuben Kincaid had a nephew in one of the last season episodes, his name was "Alan".
Images
Over the past month, a contributor has been repeatedly violating Wikipedia image use policy by uploading images without source information, fair use rationale, or consideration for replaceability. I blocked this contributor from editing after he/she neglected to address these concerns, or engage in any dialogue. Since then, this contributor has created multiple sockpuppets to evade this block and continue to violate image policy. This brings a severe but necessary solution: until there is a conversation about where these images come from and how they may be used, I am removing all of them from the article and temporarily semi-protecting it. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Some Wikipedia procedures should be examined more carefully, the loss of those great bus images really ruined this wonderful article. What you call "protecting" is questionable, since the page was of a much higher quality before you took the action you did.
"Editors" should work more closely with the "violators" as you call them, to help them contribute within these rules and regulations, rather than sabotage their work. A more direct and communicative approach would be better.
Blocking IP addresses is not a good solution. It is relatively easy to access multiple addresses and edit through them, should someone wish to do so.
You should especially examine the manner in which editors are given power to make these decisions, since clearly some people's judgment is not worthy of that authority, and sometimes inferior to the very people whose efforts they are sabotaging.
BITING
I do recall this from an interview though I can't remember where. I know you've listed sources already, but the formatting is incorrect. I added a link where you can cite the specific source about Jeremy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DATBUS (talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Shirley, do not return material that violates WP:BLP without having appropriate sources. From the POLICY on living persons : "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without waiting for further discussion" Trout Ice Cream (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The comments about biting DC are sourced in the interviews of the show's producers, which are listed at the end of the article. However after talking about this I do think it's in Jeremy's best interest to leave the edit as is, without the biting comment. I believe Trout could have handled this better, like maybe creating a citation and linking it to the source himself, but I'm fine with leaving it out, it is a bit 'gossipy'. ShirleyPartridge (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I refer Shirley to verifiable. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Using inline citations would help show that the claim is supported by a reliable source. I do not have time to read through several books to find out whether a random claim in this article is actually supported by material and thus does not violate WP:BLP. Trout Ice Cream (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well darling, as far as I can see, no one asked you to in the first place. And Jeremy Gelbwaks is not the only living person in this article, in fact the entire cast is still with us. Besides we've already done all the research. I've just never created a sourced citation before, this is all quite new to me. You could have taken a more helpful approach. Either way, even though the comment was sourced, your rudeness is forgiven, and your deletion has been honored.ShirleyPartridge (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Darling, I believe someone (in fact you) did in fact request that I do your work for you. May I quote: " I believe Trout could have handled this better, like maybe creating a citation and linking it to the source himself".
Again, I refer you to actually read WP:V. But I will make it easy for you and highlight some information about the WP policy here:
"page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source."
article content should be "attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"
"Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed "
If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}.
I understand that you may not be familiar with WP citation procedures. That is why in my first message on your talk page, I provided the link to the guidelines (here it is again WP:CITE). I am not sure what else I could have done other than repeating the guideline on this page, doing the work of properly citing the article for you or removing the material completely.Trout Ice Cream (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you may not be familiar with WP citation procedures. That is why in my first message on your talk page, I provided the link to the guidelines (here it is again WP:CITE). I am not sure what else I could have done other than repeating the guideline on this page, doing the work of properly citing the article for you or removing the material completely.Trout Ice Cream (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Trout let me share my concerns with you. So far you've made a couple of drastic edits that were based on not reading the article properly. There was no need for you make comments like "sources, sources, where are the sources???" when the sources were clearly listed in the article already. But that didn't stop you from adding a "no sources" tag. Then, after reverting DATBUS's inline citation, you added a "No Inline Citations" tag to the article. Then you changed the word "Hit" to "Song"... I mean really? The song was on Billboards Top 40, and featured on Network Televison programs like Living Color. This pretty much qualifies it as a "Hit". Is this really what you want to spend your time doing? The other comments I see written in the history by you are equally loopy and cryptic sounding. "footy, footy, footy". These contributions seem less helpful and more on the petty, condescending side. Of course all this is quite is forgivable, but an apology wouldn't hurt, especially considering you are jumping into a page that was constructed before your arrival. And for the record I did not invite you to edit on this page, you did that all on your own. If you want to be helpful, then perhaps you could come to the discussion page first and offer your knowledge and skills in a useful way. You appear to know about Wikipedia rules and have some good information for us, I suggest that you do it through discussion and respectful communication. Otherwise you're coming across like a bit of a jerk, and that's never helpful.ShirleyPartridge (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Removing material that violates WP:BLP policy is not something that one needs to be 'invited' to do, nor apologize for. Trout Ice Cream (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No, just everything else I just finished pointing out.[[1]] ShirleyPartridge (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking back through my 'loopy' edit history, I see nothing rude or hostile or approaching personal attacks, but it does appear that you are upset by my presence and for that I apologize. Trout Ice Cream (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC) I make a peace offering of a cookie, and hope that you dont hate me forever. Trout Ice Cream (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh my, hate is quite a strong word. And besides, it wasn't you, just your behavior.ShirleyPartridge (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Band Members
Since the actual bandmembers are already referenced in the article, perhaps the formatting of the bandmembers should be revised. Also, why include Ron Hicklin but not the Wrecking Crew? ShirleyPartridge (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
cultural references section
I deleted a bunch of items from this section that were not references to the group or show itself, but were references to particular songs. In general, such references if documented at all should be on song pages -- for a popular group listing every time an individual song was used somewhere would be overkill. The exception might be if a group is known for one song in particular, and where the reference or use of the song is a key aspect of the group's identity. In this case that reasoning does not apply. Jgm (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually JGM, you deleted references that were directly related to "the Partridge Family" program and franchise, which includes their music and is absolutely part of this article. As far as your reasoning about songs, the handful of songs that were big hits for the Partridge Family are inseparable from the program. They go hand in hand. In fact each of those hits were featured on the TV program itself. I supported the deletion of a few as a comprimise with you, but the others were appropriate and should remain. Please remember, the category is "References In Popular Culture" which means that anything related to the Partridge Family that is mentioned in a popular venue is relevant. Of course that includes hit songs like "I Think I Love You", which is very much associated with the program. Thanks for your help! ShirleyPartridge (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
"I Think I Love You" has its own page; any notable references to that song belong there, likewise any other song-specific references. The (already often dubious) inclusion of a "pop culture" section explicitly does not imply that any and all mentions of a group, however peripheral, should be listed. Since this article is about the group, the right thing to do is include items that add to the reader's understanding of the influence and implact of the group. We already know from the text and the group-specific items here that the group was popular and that they continue to be a cultural touchstone; knowing which episode of which TV program included which song adds nothing to our understanding of the article topic. Also, I did some work to rewrite and clarify the Tarantino bullet item, I'd appreciate you not reverting it. Jgm (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry JGM, I dont follow your reasoning at all. The fact that "I Think I Love You" has its own article on Wikipedia does not minimize its importance here. This article is about the "group", their songs, the program, the whole phenomenon. "I Think I Love You" remains a well-known Partridge Family hit and belongs here. If you'd like to include a popular culture reference to that article as well I think it would be just fine. Sorry I missed it the first time, but thanks for improving the Tarantino references, I restored your contribution. ShirleyPartridge (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course the song merits mention here as the group's biggest hit, and those facts are well-covered here. That does not imply that every usage of the song in pop culture adds to an article about the group. Look at it this way: The Partridge Family can be considered a prime example of pop music. By your reasoning I could add any random fact about TPF (or Bananarama or Britney Spears or what have you), or any of their songs, or any pop culture reference to any of their songs, to that article. Would you want to read that? By the same token we don't want to have detailed information about individual songs in a group article; that's why there are song articles. Jgm (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
To answer your question simply, yes of course I would. Any reference in popular culture to the show or their music is of interest. In an entertainment article that is actually about a pop culture phenomenon during the 70s, in a section that's specifically for pop culture references I think it is appropriate. This isn't about Britney Spears, its about the Partridge Family so it's a relatively short and concise article as it is. If you wanna see an excessive article, you should check out those pesky Brady's! ;o) ShirleyPartridge (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I maintain that samples and minor covers do not add any understanding to the group's influence on pop culture. Please move these items to the appropriate song articles if you think they need to be on Wikipedia. Jgm (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I have made a couple of good natured attempts to both reason and comprimise with you. If you feel strongly that you are 'right', then we can move to the next level of Wikipedia resolution process, but continuing to revert is not a good idea. Apparently we disagree. ShirleyPartridge (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Third Opinion
So, the songs are important to the show's cultural impact, yet have their own articles. Have you two considered using summary style to include a brief overview of each relevant song here? Failing that, I'd say that Jgm has a stronger case--the show article is already of sufficient length to stand without the cultural references, the song articles are too short and stubby, and the cultural references are more closely associated with the song than the show. Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The section is not "cultural references", it is "References In Popular Culture". Not sure what you mean by the "length" being sufficient, by comparison to similar TV program articles its quite short, and in my opinion, in need of further development. Just look at The Brady Bunch or Happy Days, and you will see what I mean. While I support the deletion of irrelevant and unnecessary content, I don't follow the reasoning presented. How does the fact that "I Think I Love You" has an article all to itself change its relevance here?. ShirleyPartridge (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
One basic principle: content should be found in the most appropriate place, and other appropriate places should reference that "most appropriate place" The fact that the show article is shorter than other contemporary shows didn't factor into my opinion, nor does the actual name of the section mean anything in particular. Cultural references, in popular culture, etc. are all the same sorts of references. Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
oK, So in other words if he deletes the content from here, he should add it to the article for that song and create a hyperlink here? ShirleyPartridge (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikilink, but yes. Do also read up on how and why to use summary style--that seems like it would be an ideal way to both closely link the songs to the show, yet place the information in the song articles. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
And, checking back in, I see that despite having gone to the Third Opinion process and having the sought-after input go in favor of removing the trivial items, ShirleyPartridge has again reverted the items and thrown in a personal attack to boot. It seems clear from this and the response to my good-faith attempts at discussion above that this user feels ownership of this article and is not interested in seeking consensus. Sigh. I'm really not interested in spending any more energy over a Partridge Family article so I'm bowing out and wishing good luck to future editors interested in improving this article.
I will note that "X in pop culture" sections have been hotly debated elsewhere, with some considering them (and often tagging them as) undesirable trivia sections while others feel free to include the most peripherally-related items imaginable. For music-related articles I think pop culture sections are appropriate to the extent that the items aid the reader in understanding the scope and nature of the influence of the group/album/song as opposed to just randomly listing every time in history the subject was mentioned or referenced. (Wikipedia:handling trivia has some good thoughts on this.) This is the basis of the reasoning I outlined above, and generally means that notable song references wind up in song articles, album references in album articles, etc. If there is serious disagreement about this approach, which I have successfully applied to many many other articles, there may be a better place than this particular talk page to work towards consensus. Jgm (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
If you felt that the "cultural references" section wasn't needed then you have contradicted yourself, because your argument centered around which parts to include in that section. For the record: Your characterizations of me "reverting" after the fact, making "personal attacks" or exercising "ownership" over the article are incorrect and unfair. I reverted it for the same reasons you did: To improve the article, and it was before the involvement of a third party. I can't find any personal attacks made by me in any of the paragraphs, except perhaps that I said I can't understand your reasoning? I do not claim "ownership" in fact have made specific efforts to bring in other editors to help with this article. I do exercise concern in the face of random deletionists who annihilate content for no sound reason, throw up tags and wreak general havoc without following any discussion, or concern for consensus or sense of the appropriate. In dealing with you I attempted to use humor and exercised several compromises. When that didn't satisfy you, I sought out and followed third party advice - conceding to allow your deletions to be moved to the song articles you claimed existed - in short; acquiesced to doing it your way. And rather than actually carry out those edits, you chose instead to leave in a huff, mis-characterizing my efforts and trying to insult me on your way out. I don't mind telling you JGM I'm disappointed with your conduct. ShirleyPartridge (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think the “in popular culture” sections are sometimes a nice addition to an article. I guess it depends on how “current” the subject matter is. What I’m trying to say is, I like to see how old pop culture icons influence current pop culture and on the flipside, how we look back on them. Sure, it isn’t exactly encyclopedic in the sense that they’re directly relevant facts, but they do say something as to how people remember or feel about the topic, and that shouldn’t be discounted as irrelevant. — NRen2k5(TALK), 12:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
removed from "external links" as not meeting our guidelines for inclusion there, but it appears to be a reliable source that someone may want to incorporate into the article. Trout Ice Cream (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Cultural references/ trivia needing sources
the following was removed frm the article per WP:V, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR. If you have proper sourcing, feel free to return the material to the article with its source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Spike Lee's 1994 film Crooklyn features a scene where the kids watch The Partridge Family while singing along with "I Woke Up In Love This Morning". (We see a clip from the episode "Dora, Dora, Dora".)
In the 1995 Brady Bunch Movie the Partridge Family bus (actually MTV's version of it) can be seen driving by the high school just before the talent show contest.
The 1996 MTV Video Awards featured a Speed spoof, with Shirley Jones, Dave Madden and Danny Bonaduce reprising their Partridge Family characters aboard Nickelodeon's replica of the bus.
In 2001, the short-lived sketch comedy The Rerun Show spoofed an episode of The Partridge Family. Danny Bondaduce, now an adult, recreated his role as 12-year-old Danny Partridge by performing on his knees but not bothering to shave his beard and mustache.
On Six Feet Under season 1, episode 4 there is a scene where Claire is watching a scene from the pilot episode of The Partridge Family.
In 2006 7 Up featured the Partridge's gospel-style song "Sunshine", from the album Crossword Puzzle in a television commercial.
In Gwyn Cready's comedic romance novel, Tumbling Through Time, Seph Pyle, the heroine, considers Laurie Partridge a personal hero and wishes she could be living life "Laurie Partridge-style.
In 2008, in the movie "Righteous Kill," Al Pacino's character makes reference to a murder of a guy named "Brady." He proceeds to reference the "Brady Bunch" and then state that it may be "The Partridge Family" doing the killing.
In 2009, Dish Network began airing TV and radio ads for its satellite television service using the Partridge Family series theme song, "Come On, Get Happy."
January 20, 2009 Hustler released a X-rated parody called "This Ain't the Partridge Family" directed by Jeff Mullen
The New Partridge Family
On actress Emma Stone's page it mentions a project (TV movie or reality show,it's not very clear) titled "The New Partridge Family". The link redirects to this page but there is no info or mention of this. Does anyone have any information on this and if so can you add it the the article? Apparently it was intended to be a new series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.148.96 (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Evidently, it was added to the article since this post, and no reply was made. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Awards and nominations
Can an editor who understands tables better than I please add to the table the 1971 Grammy nomination for The Partridge Family that the group received for Best New Artist? Here is a ref for the nomination: The Palm Beach Post-Times. Sunday, March 14, 1971. "Elite of the Record Industry Await the Grammy Awards", page B16. Thanks. Cadencool 23:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Done Though, I suspect the reason why it wasn't added before is because the albums are a separate thing from the show -- but I think it should be there as well. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that and I agree it belongs there. I'm not sure why The Partridge Family isnt split in two separate articles like The Monkees, one for the tv show and one for the music group. Anyway could you add the NARM award that the Partridge Family won for best selling single of the year in 1970 for their hit "I Think I Love You". Here is a ref: C'mon, Get Happy...Fear and Loathing on the Partridge Family Bus, by David Cassidy and Chip Deffaa, 1994 DBC Enterprises, Warner Books Inc, p. 92. Cadencool 21:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Done Though, I suspect the reason why it wasn't added before is because the albums are a separate thing from the show -- but I think it should be there as well. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
