Talk:Sara Niemietz

Apriltools (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Improving Article -- Repairing Hidden Categories
With Ms. Niemietz permission, I (newbie to editing the Wikipedia) have volunteered to help improve this article. I believe we have already reduced the Hidden Category exceptions from a count of 9 to 6.

16:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 *  NOTICE: I guess I haven't made myself clear enough, or my involvement in this article has deepened. I do not work for Ms. Niemietz, I do enjoy her work.


 * I have wanted to learn the Wikipedia for quite some time, but without a topic/subject to write about there is very little chance I would have ever dedicated the time to get seriously involved in the Wikipedia project.


 * I found the Sara Niemietz article needing references, having dead links and under threat of deletion. I am in contact with Ms. Niemietz for verification/clarification of facts and recovering historical artifacts. Again, I have no commercial relationship with the artist, nor do I have the expectation of entering a commercial relationship with Ms. Niemietz.


 * I will post this message again in a separate content section.

009o9 (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability
It is unclear to me if the following are valid instances of notability.

5 million views on YouTube presentation.

Google Search returns 197,000 instances of "Sara Niemietz".

Google Trends returns "search ranking" from five countries in 2011.

009o9 (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Verification
Some of the quotes praising Ms. Niemietz' work are deadlinks or have become dynamic content without a direct path. We are working on this.

009o9 (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Todo
Note to self

A reference link to saraniemietz.com is used in multiple instances, need to fix Expand on Ellen performances: Need a couple of pictures uploaded to wiki - Sara is tasked? I need to research the movie "Home" Sara is 5th on the cast list and the Tracy Lords back story was noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 009o9 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC) forget to sign previous comment 009o9 (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Involvment Notification for editor 009o9
 NOTICE: I guess I haven't made myself clear enough, or my involvement in this article has deepened. I do not work for Ms. Niemietz, I do enjoy her work.

I have wanted to learn the Wikipedia for quite some time, but without a topic/subject to write about there is very little chance I would have ever dedicated the time to get seriously involved in the Wikipedia project.

I found the Sara Niemietz article needing references, having dead links and under threat of deletion. I am in contact with Ms. Niemietz for verification/clarification of facts and recovering historical artifacts. Again, I have no commercial relationship with the artist, nor do I have the expectation of entering a commercial relationship with Ms. Niemietz.

009o9 (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing Notability Template
Removing Template:Notability tag after clean up and adding numerous references. As per the instructions in Template:Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 009o9 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 009o9 (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP Sources
Removed BLP Sources from article, numerous references added with cleanup 009o9 (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Navboxes
While I appreciate that much hard work has been done to get this article into shape, I don't think the editor(s) involved have a grasp of the purpose or style of navboxes. navboxes are free standing templates that are designed to appear on and to link multiple articles with strong common connections, such as characters in a franchise, companies in an industry or common building types. They should not contain links to articles that don't carry the navbox, nor are they to be composed on a single article. They also are just for organizing navigation, not to include information not otherwise present in the article. I saw these navboxes and was sorely tempted to delete them outright, but I figured I'd drop a note first so that the editor(s) involved can read the linked guidelines and learn about them. oknazevad (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears that I may have inadvertently "walked" on one of your edits, I simply dropped by to remove some press information that I was informed is incorrect. I now see some overlap in edit history there was no intention of disregarding input I didn't see the entry.


 * See Wikipedia talk:Related information concerning Navboxes - I'm done with them. 009o9 (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Programming issues
Beyond the Navboxes, I see some open parameters in some cite templates I will tidy up, I wasn't aware the commented notes are a problem. Can you cite a source? 009o9 (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is writing Wikipedia articles is not programming, it's writing. There's really no need for comments such as declaring where a paragraph begins in the edit window, it's obvious from the actual writing, and from the line spacing, just as in a regular document. It's unneeded coding that bloats the page loading, which is undesirable.oknazevad (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The begin paragraph was something to help me keep my place when using the cite templates. They (cite web for instance) are very hard to read embedded horizontally when a lot of parameters are used; conversely, the paragraph (in edit) often scrolls off-screen when using the cite templates horizontally (my preference).  It's very easy to miss short sentences between ref / tags, but I'm getting the hang of it, perhaps stacking parameters (two or three to a line) would be more elegant on vertical cite templates.   009o9 (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I actually find it easier to fill out citation templates in a single line. It allows me to see the flow of body text better, and gives me more of an impression of their appearance in the refs section. oknazevad (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Images
I had considered using the playbills and movie art as fair use, as I am describing the work and describing one of the players in the work. See WP:NFCI Item 1 and Item 8 009o9 (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not an article about the work, though, it's about the actress. If the actress doesn't appear on the artwork (and in none of these cases does she), then it's not an appropriate illustration for the article. Because of it's non-free status, copyrighted artwork must be used very sparingly, and only when absolutely relevant.oknazevad (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree, but with a caveat. You've removed the "photo by" caption on the '13' artwork.  This license was a gift from a man who makes his living off of this artwork  -- he informed me that this is the equivalent of a house payment.  I've been speaking with him for quite some time, but in all fairness, I can't really be an advocate for giving content to Wikipedia if he can't even get the credit for his work that a journalist would get.  What happens in the case of a watermark? 009o9 (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Check out our image use policies and guidelines. Credit for the photo is given on the photo's own page, not in the article. (But do thank the photographer for allowing use of it; it is a good phot and perfect for the article.) oknazevad (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

trivial talk show appearances
These go to notability, I have a list of nationally televised appearances. WP:ENT see item 1 says that a nationally televised appearance constitutes notability.

Can you provide a source where nationally televised talk shows are not nationally televised shows?

I have a list of referenced expose television appearances, can you provide a source that says I can't list the locally televised programs with the nationally televised appearances?

Please provide your source 009o9 (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not that they shouldn't be mentioned, it's that a full recap is excessively long, too detailed and puts undue weight on a run-of-the-mill talk show appearance. They also don't belong in any filmography listing.oknazevad (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * They were not in the Filmography (or not meant to be). The section was something to the effect of "Televised and Expose Appearances" and I don't recall the performances mentioned outside of the section.


 * WP:UNDUE addresses the inclusion of minor "viewpoints" not events.


 * WP:UNDUE quote Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views.


 * You can visit YouTube for the the opposing "viewpoints" on these appearances, there are multiple-thousands of "views" and "likes" and generally less than "twenty" dislikes. Mentioning these "dislikes" would be WP:UNDUE.


 * Also see WP:BLPSTYLE "Balance" section.

009o9 (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Other television appearances", as a subsection of the filmography section (which do, despite the name, conventionally include television appearances in scripted roles) would be a better title. "Expose" has a connotation that isn't what we're intending here. As for what i meant by undue, there's no reason to quote Ellen Degeneres's words of introduction, for example. There's nothing notable about them being praising, that's standard for any such talkshow; the hosts always gives a warm introduction. Also, unless the appearance has some unusual feature or event, not just a routine interview, then it's sufficient to mention that they appeared. Indeed, that's what I was really thinking about. While WP:ROUTINE is more about newspaper coverage, such talkshow appearances are also pretty routine events, done to promote the major new project, and don't need extensive coverage. oknazevad (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

poor WP:MOS usage (too many italics!)
Titles of periodicals, plays, films, musicals, musical albums are supposed italicized. See Manual of Style/Titles 009o9 (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But not companies, such as record companies or film studios, nor concepts (like "Broadway"), which had been italicized. On that note, we don't need to put the studio of every film in this article. It reads like a press release, not an encyclopedia article.oknazevad (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

excessive quotations
In the Theatre, it is well within the norm to quote the critics and even the majority of the critics concerning an artists performance. The use of the Quotation template ensures that writer and publisher are credited. I would rather see a clear background on the Quotation template, but it is the most "correct" template I could find for the application.

I believe that the tag Template:Over-quotation would have been sufficient.

But I have to ask you, if I was writing about a movie would you delete the box-office statistic? The reviews are the actor's box-office. 009o9 (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The quotes were too long and full of PR fluff. Edit them to keep it to the main point.oknazevad (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

excessive praise (hence the tag)
I contend that I am writing from a "Positive Tone". I am finding no credible references of negative references, further, these positive references are part of a dying media. The use of the quotation templates allow me to report facts without injecting my viewpoint, and reinforces references that may become deadlinks.

Consider the following from Neutral point of view/FAQ


 * This most common objection to the neutrality policy also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. In particular, the policy does not say that there is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense—a "view from nowhere" (to use Thomas Nagel's phrase), such that articles written from that viewpoint are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy, and it is not our aim! Rather, to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so.

I didn't see the plays and movies Ms. Niemietz acted in so I can't describe them, I have to rely on what other people have said about them. 009o9 (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be writing from a "positive tone", you should be writing from a formal, encyclopedic tone, as neutrally as possible. When I first saw this article, it read like the "about me" page on an actor's official website, with the sort of phrasing one would find in a press release. That is inappropriate for Wikipedia, which must maintain a neutral point of view. My edits were designed to establish that level of non-PR formality.

I do believe that you mean well, and think you have the skills to be top notch editor. I just say to stick around, take a look at the way some of our featured articles and good articles are constructed to get an idea of the methods and madness of the place (just, for your own sake, stay away from the drama central called WP:ANI!!!)oknazevad (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Here we have a BLP who's on the featured article list of a similar age to Niemietz, Andrew Johnston (singer). As far as I can see, Johnston placed in a talent show, got a music contract, but quit singing and quoted himself and his mother throughout his own wiki article.


 * Johnston did not work with the most prominent producers in the business beginning at age 9, Johnston did not appear in movies and television series, was not sought-out for soundtrack and compilation albums, and did not branch out on an Indie career while maintaining an A average in high school. Part of the Niemietz story, is the companies and top industry personnel who repeatedly call on this young woman to deliver the product.


 * user:oknazevad and I agree that I've misinterpreted the Navbox Guidelines, had a fuzzy fair use definitions of a couple images and to clean up my editing comments. I will be reverting his edits to recover the references (s)he deleted and evaluate the other suggestions made by this editor during the rewrite. 009o9 (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the article on Johnston could use a lot of work, too. But that's not a great argument. Feel free to give it a go on a rewrite. I have this article on my watchlist, so I'll gladly give feedback. It's always a good thing when collaboration works! oknazevad (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, spent all day on this, will get started in the morning.009o9 (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite (dialog)
I saw your edit, I'm not in love with the term "Exposé" either, my purpose with the section title and locating it outside of the Filmography section, is to differentiate these appearances from the acting appearances. These are a combination of human interest and performance appearances. The classic definition "Exposé" (French) means "presentation," so I guess that section would read "Exposé television appearances". I'll run into the correct word I'm looking for eventually.

What is the current opinion on Further reading sections? I two Wall Street Journal articles on Hollywood Arms I'm pretty sure I have not referenced. Niemietz also has a recent Examiner.com interview I haven't considered. These don't really fit the MoS for a WP:SEEALSO section, because these are external links.

I wasn't looking forward to wikilinking the Networks in the Television appearances table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 009o9 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see what your intended with "exposé", I'm sure the right word is just escaping us both.
 * An external link in a further reading section would be fine, I think, but the examiner.com link might be removed by a bot, as I think such links are blacklisted (there was an issue with spamming at one point, since examiner.com is actually largely user generated now).
 * The network names aren't needed for that chart, but just for yor future reference the articles are located at CBS, NBC, American Broadcasting Company, Fox Broadcasting Company and The CW Television Network, in case they are ever needed for an article you're working on.oknazevad (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I ran into a blacklisted site somewhere along the line (youtube.be). I believe the interface lets you know right away when you try to save a bad URI. The Examiner made it to the Google News filter, which isn't exactly easy. I'll give it a try in a userspace.

Thanks for running those down, for future copy-paste operations... CBS NBC ABC Fox The CW

If you think of that word let me know would ya?

Regards, 009o9 (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Gladly. Couple of notes about the network links: Firstly, "Fox" shouldn't be all caps per WP:MOSTM; while he network likes to write it that way, we don't as it's not an initialism, unlike the other networks. Secondly, The CW shouldn't be piped as The WB; the latter hasn't existed in 6 years, and has its own article (The WB). They're not the same and it's incorrect. I fixed these in your list above. Along that line there's UPN, The CW's other predecessor. oknazevad (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem long ago they were launching The WB with that dancing frog animation. Thanks for fixing that and I'll have a look at WP:MOSTM, I'm sure there more in that article I need to know. 009o9 (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed promotional garbage, peacockery, and puffery
This article is a biographical article. As such, it is about the person who is the subject of the article. Therefore, content about what a film she was in was about, how much it made, excessive venue detail, how many people were in the audience, who played other roles in the productions, and so on and so forth, is useless detail. This is not a promotional article and therefore, it should not be written like a press kit, where box office numbers and plot synopses might be important. The fact that the main contributor has a COI here probably says a lot about why the tone of the article is the way it is, even after other editors commented on precisely the same issues. MSJapan (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead section summary
@User:Mr. Guye I have a professional COI here, would you mind posting the additional content for the lead and remove your tag?

I found most of the references already within the article, but the NYTimes ref was stale and needed an archive link. The Nerdist bio page appears to be dynamic, so I did not archive it. I also changed the first instance of the name to match what is given in the Template:IPAc-en (a diaphonemic for "Anne" seems redundant since it is not a part of the name she is known by). Thank you! ESparky (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Sara Niemietz is a Chicago born (June 7, 1992), singer/songwriter and actress, now based in Los Angeles, California. Following a childhood career in television, film, and theatre, which included a leading role on Broadway, Niemietz teamed with Emmy award winning composer W. G. Snuffy Walden. The pair write original music and perform cover-songs for her YouTube channel and record catalog. Niemietz has also co-written music with Melissa Manchester, she is a featured artist on two Richard Marx albums,  and has appeared at the Grand Ole Opry with B.J. Thomas in connection with her appearance on The Living Room Sessions (2013). Niemietz began touring with Postmodern Jukebox in 2016, and is featured on several of their albums and music videos.
 * Proposed lead summary


 * ✅. Content added, tag removed. Thank you for following the process!&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 20:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:Mr. Guye Thank you! ESparky (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you cleaned up the lead a bit, thank you! One more suggestion? The first line in the Early life and education section seems redundant. Perhaps just strike the restated line?

Born Sara Anne Niemietz in Chicago, Illinois, she currently resides in Los Angeles, California.

and begin the section with the copy below it?

"Niemietz first appeared on stage at age 4, when..."

I would not mention, but for me is a hiccup in reading flow. Background info that is already stated in the lead, and the infobox. Is it necessary to restate place of birth and residence again? Thank you. ESparky (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ for now. I have seen biography articles put similar content in that part of the section, but they usually expand on the info from the lead. This one doesn't, so I removed it. Thanks! &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 02:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that flows much better and easier than trying to expand it into a relevant paragraph. That's all I have, thanks again and Happy Holidays! 03:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Request edit Infobox
Apriltools (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Apriltools (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Specific text to be added or removed: Please add bass, piano and supporting citation to Instrument(s) section of Infobox
 * Reason for the change: Restore text deleted by another editor
 * References supporting change:
 * Lewcm Talk to me! 22:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed it again as its only for most commonly used instruments, not ever instrument ever played --FMSky (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Request edit add category
Apriltools (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Specific text to be added or removed: Add category: Category:American people of Polish descent
 * Reason for the change: Restore category deleted by another editor
 * References supporting change: Niemietz mentions her family is of Polish decent in this interview YouTube:Sara Niemietz Interview: “Music is my first love…”

In the request, you stated that another editor changed some information in the article. For clarification, kindly provide the of the changes that were made. When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the template's answer parameter to read from y to n. Regards,  Spintendo  17:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Spintendo Here is the diff IP editor, no edit summary.Thank you Apriltools (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Declined: not WP:DEFINING (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)