Talk:Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow

Untitled

 * Actually, the nomination for the 1st AfD was withdrawn by the nominator. At the time, no consensus had been reached. The article has been nominated/relisted for a second AfD. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If this survives AfD, should we not move it to Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  02:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem like a controversial change. I'd be for it. --Oakshade 02:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Moooooove it. -- Rob C (Alarob) 02:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - I'm new to to this and type poorly - I just don;t know how to change the title or I would have already--Doc Jimmy 187 (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC) 03:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Level of detail
I don't know how I ran across this article, but I have taken an interest in it. I see that the community consensus was to keep it, so I won't comment on that, but there is waaaaaaaay to much detail in this for an encyclopedia article. I don't think we need to know all the brand names of the equipment and paint used. But I did run a spellcheck on all of it. Good luck! Katr67 18:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. This doesn't fit the definition of performance art. Katr67 18:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and fair point, happy to have the detail edited to conform. The salient points are the dates, titles, art, and interpretation - the techniques and materials may be superfluois - but then again they may be relevant as a study of the techniques used to create this art.

I'd be happy with a label other than performance art - but what? The work has been featured with a troop of performers - so I think that fits the bill??? Edits/Suggestione encouraged12.111.52.254 (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)21:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
If this survives Afd (again), it needs some serious copyediting (I ran a few spellchecks but it still needs work on grammar, syntax, typos, etc.), some wikification, changing of the term "performance art" to "public art" throughout, and as I stated above--the listings of materials and methods need to tightened up considerably. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and this is what it reads like. I'd like to see another article about an artwork (and as charming as Gladys is, I'm afraid she is not fine art, but folk art) that lists materials and methods in such detail. That's not a rhetorical question, I really would like to see if there is an example. Also, I have noticed a trend on Wikipedia wherein those who vote to keep articles don't stick around to help bring them up to standard, so I hope that's not the case here. Katr67 08:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Took a shot at the recommneded cleanup - detail out public art in. Comments 12.111.52.254 (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC) 16:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this looks a lot better. Just so you know, I voted delete in the AfD but it's nothing personal, I just had some concerns, as you have read over there. I'll continue to address those concerns on the AfD page. If nothing else, Gladys has made for some interesting Wiki-debate. As far as cleanup goes, this is coming along nicely, but I think I'll refrain from doing more work on it until we see how the AfD comes out. Besides, I'm hoping other editors will help with the cleanup too (hint hint). Katr67 18:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Re the cleanup - Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow is a bit long isn't it? Have a look over at WP:MOS. If the history section is that long it must have some sensible points where it could be broken up if you want to stay chronological, or you could re-write the history section covering topics that have been addressed - racial tension, public services, I haven't actually read the article but it seems to have a bit of need for a copy editor... Garrie 04:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * TX Would yearly headings in the history section do to adderss the comment? 19:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A chronology would be the wrong way to go - please see my reply below. B.Wind 01:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What steps are needed to address the un-encyclopaedic concern tag?
A user posted the tag without making recommendations as to why they believed the content to be an issue. The position of the tag is in the gallery area.

I think the thing that needs to happen is that a discussion of how to alleviate this concern occurs. So I gues I'll start it:

Would removing the scanned images of the media coverage address the concern? If so, I would accept that recommendation--Doc Jimmy 187 (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC) 14:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed 6 images from the gallery as a first attempt to resolve this--Doc Jimmy 187 (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC) 15:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You have way too many pictures for this to be an encyclopedia article. With the gallery, it looks more like a portfolio, which doesn't belong here. You'd have a much more effective article if no more than five or six pictures were used to represent it... and (as mentioned above) about two-thirds of the details were excised as well. In this person's opinion, this will cease becoming spam and become an encyclopedic article if this is edited more in line of other articles about specific pieces of art... starting with identifying the artist. After all, the cow didn't paint herself. Good luck. B.Wind 01:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

While it is informative to name the artist, I respectfully disagree with the last editor as to the primary importance of it. Other folksy art like Elsie the Cow doesnt list the artist at all. But I would still suggest it. As for other parts of the article, I would at least separate the text into sections. IE: Creation, Initial showings, Popularity, etc. --Oakshade 04:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Good day B.Wind and Oakshade.

As you will see I have edited the article further and reduced the level of detail per b.wind.

I'm not sure where to go on the galley thing

Perhaps another editor will move some of the images into the text and delete the rest - which I would acccept with reservation - because my own opinion is that the images contibute significantly to the article - they are not repetitive images of the same work, insteadd they are single images of multiple works. Given that I only have B.wind's opinion to go on - I don't know what to do.

Your feedback would be gratefully received. --Doc Jimmy 187 (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)19:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup finished
OK, I copyedited this to a faretheewell, except for the references section, which could still use more work. But I'm done--I've got lots of other stuff I need to work on. My editing should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its suitability as a Wikipedia article. Since it has passed AfD twice, however, it might as well not be a mess. Enjoy! Katr67 03:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Tagging
Even though it "survived" two AfD (will this be the new GNAA?), this article has some major problems as to its suitability here.

First, its content does not demonstrate its being encyclopedic with an interest beyond (or much beyond) the borders of Connecticut (recall that Wikipedia should have a world view and a worldwide focus - all references came from local sources, nothing national or regional in scope).

Second, the primary purpose of the article appears to be promotional as the primary author "happens to be" the owner of the subject,--Doc Jimmy 187 (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC) - this demonstrates a serious conflict of interest that needs to be resolved by involving third persons not connected with the enterprise in the writing (otherwise it is promotional in nature and subject to removal from Wikipedia).

Third, the article makes many assertions that are not supported by the various supplied references (I placed about have the tags that should have been placed in the article to avoid overkill) - each assertion must be supported by a citation to a reliable source: those that are not are subject to removal at any time. Assertions that require interpretation from a photograph may be considered original research unless backed up with the appropriate reference from a reliable source.

Fourth, the photo gallery works against the article as it tends to give it a "travelogue" approach and adds to the points raised above (better would be to remove all but an essential two or three - if the author dearly wants the world to see his much-transformed bovine online, he could set up his own "Gladys" web page with the various free hosting services).

One last thought: it is rare for the notability of a relatively recent piece of work/art, piece of music, literature, and so forth, to exceed that of its creator (and in the rare times that it does, it would not exceed that of its owner or sponsor). I find it extremely odd that, if Gladys is indeed notable enough and in full compliance with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, her creator/owner/sponsor doesn't have a stand-alone article here as well. I contend that if James Lebinski doesn't merit an article here, neither does Gladys. 147.70.242.40 21:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For the first point, it passes WP:LOCAL as well as WP:NOTE. Just becuase it's not "well known" outside a local area (please see WP:Fame in X) is not a reason for a tag.  Your second argument is simply not correct.  Multiple non trivial sources demonstrate the notability of this work and as long as the notability is supported by WP:RS, the conflict of interst concern is moot.  For the third argument, almost everything in the article is supported by one of the references provided.  Carpet tagging every little point is a bad faith action.  For the forth point about the pictures, the objections are completely WP:POV and there's nothing wrong with multiple photos of a a subject.  And for the "last thought", I strongly dissagree that it is "rare" for a work to exceed the notability of it's creator.  I'll just use one example... The film Casablanca is one of the most popular films in history, but a vast majority of people are not familiar with the film's writers Julius J. Epstein, Philip G. Epstein and Howard Koch.  One other question; I've never seen an anon uswer with such astute knowledge of WP so I'll just ask straight out, are you a sockpuppet of someone involved in one of the previous delete attemps? --Oakshade 00:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No socks here - I've been editing Wikipedia at my work computer for about five years now. I stopped participating in AfDs about a year ago. I do, however, share my computer with a couple of editors who edit when they are on their home computers (the work computer rejects cookies). Regarding the rest of your point, you truly have not addressed the unsourced information that I have tagged in good faith and I suspect that it is you, sir or madam, who reacted by denying that I was editing in bad faith. I was not - please see WP:AGF, WP:V, and WP:COI. Regarding your "carpet tagging" accusation - interesting neologism, but an inappropriate accusation. Just show the sources of the assertion (per WP:V and WP:RS) and they won't be removed. The conflict-of-interest problem needs to be resolved as the primary author is the owner of the work of art in question (regardless of the assertion of the previous editor, the point is hardly moot as it goes directly to whether or not the article as written is an appropriate one). But for the time being, if the previous editor wishes to remove the tags that I have previously placed, I'd suggest he/she find the secondary sources that support the specific assertions that have been tagged last week. 147.70.242.40 21:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Carpet-bombing with tags is seldom a good-faith effort and usually represents someone's grudge, gripe, mission or burr of the moment. Articles that some people don't like frequently suffer from overcite when every sentence sports a reference tag or two. That doesn't help readablity and a number of them get combed out each time someone does the thankless task of boiling-down an article. The references support almost everything in the article and citation tags a primarly used when there's a statement that's controversial. For instance, you chose to tag the sentence...
 * "In 2002, the first seasonal artwork using the sculpture was titled "Gladys as a Skeleton."
 * OH MY GOD!!! HOW COULD WIKIPEDIA MAKE SUCH A SLANDEROUS CLAIM??? I WANT TO SEE THE EXACT REFERENCE SUPPORTING THAT LIBELOUS STATEMENT (becuase I'm too lazy to read the references provided on the bottom of the article) OR THERE'S GOING TO BE A LAWSUIT!!!... Okay, joke over. The material that you carpet tagged is all supported by the references provided.  Just to humor you, I actually cited the above sentence.  As for WP:CUI, it doesn't matter that the subject creator "just happens" to be a major contributor as they have provided sources and verification of notability.  It passes WP:LOCAL and WP:NOTE whethere ther's a CUI or not. Appreciate your answer on the sock question.  --Oakshade 21:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting response. OBTW, it's conflict of interest. Slander has nothing to do with it - only Wikipedia policies, sarcasm notwithstanding. 147.70.242.40 02:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to throw in a third-party opinion... neither speedy nor prod is appropriate for an article that's gone through AfD. It's a waste of effort to try to add them -- even if the article were deleted, it would very swiftly be overturned at DRV as out of process. If you'd like to see the article deleted, listing it at DRV (if you think the previous AfD was closed in error or out of process) or AfD (if you just think it merits a new discussion) is the way to go. On another note, most of the requested citations appear to be verified in the listed references, so the fact tags are unnecessary -- incline citations are not required of a Wikipedia article, though perhaps optimal. Several of the requests for citations concern statements whose veracity can be seen in the photos associated with this article, so those specific requests do strike me as overly hasty, at best. However, at least one of them (the one about the controversy surrounding the St. Patrick's Day rainbow) seems warranted -- that is an exceptional claim, and it should be sourced or removed. Shimeru 00:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Shimeru, thanks for your input. You are accurate in your observation about the item with the citation needed tag, so I removed it. The contriversy itself was brought to my attention by a CT post reporter, but they chose not to add that aspect in the print article - so while a true statement, it is unsourceable - so it is bedt removed. --Doc Jimmy 187 (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)(UTC)

Disruptive move
NOTE: The user below is responding to a vandalism warning I left on their talk page (I mentioned WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT), which was cut and pasted here, with my signature and all. As I didn't post the message here and this is not the correct forum for a message meant for one user, I removed it. --Oakshade (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies for breaching the WPs that you mention. However, the impossible bureacracy that they represent mean that within a few years Wikipedia is going to resemble a low quality blog, not an encyclopedia. You may have noticed that Gladys remains in Wikipedia, despite all the polite attempts to remove it according to the highly inflated body of rules and procedures which have evolved over time. If these depressing processes continue, I hope that someone opens up a more disciplined venture soon, to which we can happily migrate! One in which Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow will not be characterized as "the work of others" (as distinct from the Monroe, Connecticut village website, and with all due respect to The author's major work of art, the type of which can be found in their dozens on the street corners and parks of many major world cities). Monosig (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930033334/http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17382392&BRD=1348&PAG=461&dept_id=432860&rfi=6 to http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17382392&BRD=1348&PAG=461&dept_id=432860&rfi=6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)