Talk:Wild Side Story

Untitled
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please take a moment and read our content policies of verfiability and no original research. If you have any questions, drop me a line on my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Wild Side Story" References No Good?
Are the extensive references given for my articles Wild Side Story and Jacob Truedson Demitz no good? Please explain to my talk! Thanx! EmilEikS (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Emil, I have commented at Talk:Wild Side Story. Let's continued the discussion there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Jossi: Can't find a new comment here from you, if there was supposed to be one. I probably should have added what now is reference #1 before. Have also done my best now to clarify re: all the pictures. Thanx for checking this for me until the article gets done (from this end) during the coming week or so. EmilEikS (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article reads well but it requires verifiable sources in third [party publications. Please become familiar with our content policies, in particular WP:V and WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For example, this reference you placed in the infobox:  .  is not a reliable source for a Wikipedia article. Reliable/verifiable sources are those which have been 'previously published in a reputable publication. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Allt the published sources I have given are reliable. Shall I remove everything from the article that does not have a footnote giving a published source? EmilEikS (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather than delete, try and find reliable sources for the material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the many pictures you have uploaded I have explained on your talk page what you can do to get these cleared from a copyright perspective. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You put that notice on talk at my other page EmilEik for English Wikipedia. I just found it now and will follow these instructions. EmilEikS (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Tone & Verifiability
I have now done my best to rewrite this article for tone and verifiability. I feel enough has been done, though it is obvious that every little detail of such a lengthy and entertaining encyclopedic article cannot can be verified through sources published in major media. Fiandonca (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia is not meant to be entertaining; it's purpose is to provide information. If there are no verifiable, reliable sources for information, it does not belong in the article.  momoricks   (make my day)  11:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Article issues
The template tags on this article were removed because someone thought it was overtagged. That does not mean the issues have been addressed. The article is largely unsourced, and the references that actually have a link are almost entirely to other Wikipedia pages on the English or Swedish WPs which aren't permissible as references. The article needs solid copyediting for tone and neutrality (it has numerous peacock terms like "Show-goers were jolted", "A sensitive reinterpretation", "This is done, in questionable taste", "evening job behind the front desk of luxurious Doral Hotel", "had done themselves up so convincingly and attractively that the staid general-reader publication had no idea (or didn't care?)", "it turned out sadly", "A strikingly handsome “Tony” (called Magnus the Beautiful even by his high school teachers)" and a closing of "With everything properly kept and put away, a hustle here and a hustle there and you never know… somehow… someday… somewhere… a walk on that side might be taken again." This goes on and on). It reads as if it someone's personal anecdote or a fansite for what is essentially a low notability cabaret show with few to no Google hits, the lead is one sentence long for a 58 kb article (much too short), two references are noted to be "certified in Lars Jacob Prod. publicity files", it contains an unverified quote from Max von Sydow that is completely out of context for the article. Mae West was seen to pull up and then leave - Lehman Engel and Boz Scaggs were seen enjoying it - is there confirmation of this? Some BLP issues concern comments about participants, one said a participant "was handsome enough but could not sing". These things can't just be stated, they must be referenced. As it is, this article has major issues and I have returned some more prominent maintenance tags that need to be addressed. LaVidaLoca (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with that. I did thought it was excessively tagged first but I can understand these tags. Especially when you read sentences like "With everything properly kept and put away, a hustle here and a hustle there and you never know… somehow… someday… somewhere… a walk on that side might be taken again." Garion96 (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No Fancruft Here
These is no fancruft (as defined under fancruft which the template links to) in this article. The very fact of the large amount of people involved in the production, a few of them subsequently highly notable, and how many venues it has played for over 30 years in three countries rules out fancruft as defined by Wikipedia. Also, I am asking that we cut down on anything potentially contentious such as (quote Wikipedia on fancruft) "it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's [my] judgment of importance of the topic is inhibited by fanaticism. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith." Lastly, Wikipedia regulations require that articles found containing fancruft be recommended for deletion within 5 days. As admin. Garion96 has suggested I may feel free to remove tags I feel are overtly incorrect even if I am the contributor. Thus I am removing the fan site part of the tag on this article. I hope my good intentions in that can be identified. EmilEikS (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Peacock Terms
I have addressed those terms of this kind of which I have been advised. If anything else needs to be addressed in that regard please specify here or tag the word in the text! I also question whether or not an unidentified (i.e. unnamed) person in a text can be considered to be a victim of BLP issues, but I have also adjusted that spot anyway, in the interest of the opposite of negativity (positivity?). EmilEikS (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Template tags justified?
I have moved my previous comment here from a section above: This article is well written, entertaining and educational. It has now been expanded and improved and appears to be finished. Wikipedia should encourage contributors to write articles of this kind, which, though somewhat unusual in style, are not unthinkable in an enclyclopedia which would like people to read what they publish. The photographic material contributed makes the article valuable. I have adjusted the layout for wide screen viewing. It has an unusual amout of source references now. If any editors may continue to have verifiablity or tone issues, might I respectfully suggest they put tags into the text at specific places where they would like to see improvement? Wikipedia has too many templates at the beginning of articles questioning the quality of what has been submitted, many of those articles are about very well know people and things. Many have been there for month after month. The amount of templates all over tends to make a generally bad impression of Wikipedia. I suggest editors should either mark such texts with specifics as per the above, or remove anything they feel consensus definitely would find unnacceptable. It is easy to smack trial templates all over, much more commendable to actually work on the articles. When someone goes to this much trouble to give us a good article of this kind, we should be as supportive as we can. I am removing some of the trial template again in this case. / Thurgood Rosewood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.225.53 (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I copy edited the lead and first section and added inline tags next to information needing improvement. I added hidden comments next to the tags specifying why they need improvement. The quotes need clear citations per WP:CITE. The remaining information needs citations pointing to verifiable, reliable sources. Essentially, there should be at least one footnote at the end of every paragraph.


 * As mentioned in several conversations above, the current citations in those sections do not satisfy reliable source requirements:


 * Lars Jacob Prod. (Stockholm), extensive references (see Lars Jacob), documentation, photography, film, audio and video on file, and available to the public for third party review, re: all details of manuscript, production, performances, venues, audiences, cast and crew, celebrities encountered and various adventures – this needs to point to an accessible website where readers can go to verify the information.
 * The citation given for the information related to Logan Carter does not mention his involvement in Wild Side Story, therefore the information needs another citation to a source identifying him as a cast member of the show.
 * Boxx managed the New York City club during the Stonewall riots of 1969 – footnotes need sources as well
 * these quotes certified in Lars Jacob Prod. publicity files – saying that something is "certified" is not enough.

 momoricks   (make my day)  12:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Total rewrite done
I have now done lots of work in an attempt to bring this article into line according to multiple issues templates that were at the top of it for years. The old very lengthy (and entertaining) article has been stored in my sandbox. Anyone who might miss it can see it: here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits re: cabaret group using show's material
It's hard to find good faith in edits where several good sources are trashed, especially when it looks like there's a personal reason behind the edit (see Talk:Indian Love Call). Reverting. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

New tag over article
Please see Talk:Jacob Truedson Demitz --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Public access x 2?
Looks like we ended up with a double linking here. The station's name was already linked to an article section on public access stations. In any case the "P" should not be capitalized, and I don't think the words should be red linked, even if the double linking is to be kept there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * fixed. Explains öppen kanal for english traders. Adville (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Creator requests action
Ladies and Gentlemen! As clarified elsewhere I am in touch with the creator of this show as well as the CEO of the organization which currently owns the rights to it (2 different persons). They are asking, respectfully, that previously uninvolved users edit the article as soon as possible for reliable sourcing and encyclopedic relevance so that the tag boxes at the top of it can be removed in an appropriate manner, or else that the article be deleted. The "What links here" section, and the articles in other languages, may be of help. Guidelines in Verifiability may also be of use in evaluating older references, of which I can e-mail scanned copies to anyone who might want to see original printed material. Being bilingual, I am also available to provide any translations from Swedish if such may be needed. On July 6th 2015 (see talk above) I replaced a previous, very long article with this one, which is still nearly intact. Thank you for any valuable attention by previously uninvolved users! Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi there, SergeWoodzing! Not often we see a Help me from such an experienced editor! I appreciate your prompt disclosure of your association with the subject: I think we'll get on :) Can you put in an edit request here, and on the other page? COI edit requests such as these normally get acted on in a few days, there are a good bunch of editors patrolling that area. I can also recommend WP:Peer review to get some more eyes on the article, if you're interested in that. Give the show creators our regards, this is one of the nicest interactions with a COI editor I've come across! -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me &#124; contribs 22:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've now added the tag you suggested, here and at Talk:Birgit Ridderstedt. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Some of the details in this recent article by another Stockholm production company may be of interest also. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply 1-MAR-2018
     Spintendo       09:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I have not touched the article sine June last year, and have no intention of ever touching it again, can the COI part of the template go now? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Did you forget your "intention"? There are two further edits: this one (which isn't an improvement and should be reverted), and this one. The latter edit added a link to the article Alexandra Charles, an article created by User:EmilEik and User:EmilEikS, and immproved by User:SergeWoodzing. Mathglot (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If correcting an small error (the number is lip-synched & pantomimed, not sung) and improving/clarifying an already existing reference, only by adding 2 links, were not in tune with my intention stated 9 months ago, they were done in good faith, at the old directors's request (e-mailed to me) and intended only as constructive. Then, I think I remember that I meant any considerable content alterations, though I too am getting old. I concede that I could/should have submitted them here as edit requests, and I apologize for irritating you, both here and at Drag queen. There I've tried to do a compromise wording, which you seem to be OK with (?). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m not irritated, and nobody claimed the intent wasn’t constructive; that is however not the issue, COI is. I don’t feel like being the judge of what’s a "small error" and what’s a "considerable content alteration" is, so I'll let or someone who is more familiar with COI disentangle this. Mathglot (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I don't mind that. Now that you however have reinstated that old COI tag, I too would be interested in an expert opinion on which of
 * "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (November 2017)"
 * "A former major contributor to this article appears to have had a close connection with its subject. (November 2017)"
 * could be considered accurate today. Looks like I'm still involved considerably, as it's worded now. I am not.
 * I apologize just as sincerely for apologizing that I irritated you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no problem in swapping out the template for the one with the “former” language. Mathglot (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sadly, I don't think there is such a thing. Thus, perhaps the current, sufficiently inaccurate template could just be removed again, now that we've covered this here? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Someone removed it from the article page, so I moved it here. If you want to add "former", go ahead; just hand-roll the banner with a tmbox, or from scratch. Mathglot (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Added it on your behalf; found a side door in the template; hope that works for you. Mathglot (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)