Talk:Harry Groener

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Harry Groener. 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.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014001105/http://www.guthrietheater.org/bios/harry_groener to http://www.guthrietheater.org/bios/harry_groener

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Input is requested regarding File:Dear John (U.S. TV series).jpg
Consultation is in order regarding the above-mentioned File:Dear John (U.S. TV series).jpg Revision history: {08:59, 23 October 2011‎ User:Cavarrone (talk | contribs)‎. . (932 bytes) (+932)‎. . ({{Non-free use rationale |Article = Dear John (U.S. TV series) |Description = Main Cast - Dear John (U.S. TV series)}. Three minutes later, this file was appended to the Dear John (U.S. TV series) article where it has remained for the past six-and-a-half years.

On June 6, I added the file to the articles for Jere Burns, Jane Carr and Isabella Hofmann, which had no images and to the article for Harry Groener, which had one other image. 38 hours later, all four images were deleted by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz with the edit summaries, "nonfree image in BLP infobox", "nonfree image in BLP infobox; Undid revision 844754007 by Roman Spinner (talk)" and "obvious WP:NFCC violation, significant sourcing insufficiencies remain; Undid revision 844756243 by Roman Spinner (talk)".

It should be also noted that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz either overlooked or deliberately retained the file at the article for Dear John (U.S. TV series) and did not leave any comment at File talk:Dear John (U.S. TV series).jpg nor submit the file for deletion as an "obvious WP:NFCC violation". This matter needs to be clarified.

Also, it may be observed that in addition to deleting the file at Harry Groener, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz also reinserted the outdated tag {BLP sources|date=March 2013}, which was initially inserted when Groener's article had three inline cites and now, over five years later, has seven. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's edit summary states, "significant sourcing insufficiencies remain", but the article is merely a recounting of Groener's acting credits, with no uncited controversial statements. Are seven inline cites insufficient for such a brief article? Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Input is requested regarding whether the number of inline cites is sufficient
This edit illustrates the disagreement between two editors as to whether the currently existing seven inline cites are sufficient for the relatively brief Harry Groener article, which consists almost entirely of a recitation detailing subject's acting credits, or whether the article requires the below five-year-old tag to call attention to the putative insufficiency:
 * This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (March 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

An unchallenged and uncontrovesial recitation of credits, such as the one comprising the article, would likely create citation clutter if each detail required to be separately cited. Consultation with other editors regarding this topic would help to resolve it. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)