Talk:Phil Hartman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Phil Hartman article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Phil Hartman is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 14, 2008 Good article nominee Listed November 15, 2008 Peer review Reviewed March 1, 2009 Peer review Reviewed March 29, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography / Actors and Filmmakers (Rated FA-Class) BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WPBiographybiography articles Biography portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.  FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (marked as High-priority). WikiProject The Simpsons (Rated FA-Class, Mid-importance) The SimpsonsWikipedia:WikiProject The SimpsonsTemplate:WikiProject The SimpsonsThe Simpsons articles The Simpsons portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Simpsons, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Simpsons on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Tasks you can do: edit · history · watch · purge Here are some tasks you can do: edit Collaboration: Featured topic Drive Copyedit: World of Springfield Merge: Cleanup: The Simpsons Road Rage, Otto Mann, Martin Prince, Ralph Wiggum, Milhouse Van Houten Shorten plot synopsis: 'Scuse Me While I Miss the Sky, Thank God It's Doomsday, Treehouse of Horror X, Maximum Homerdrive, Three Gays of the Condo Free-use images: Julie Kavner, Phil Hartman, Albert Brooks, Jon Vitti, Pamela Hayden Reference: Bongo Comics, Cheese-eating surrender monkeys, Itchy & Scratchy in Miniature Golf Madness, Joshua Sternin, Lona Williams, Montgomery Burns, Night of the Living Treehouse of Horror, Rainier Wolfcastle, List of the Simpson characters in advertisements, Steve O'Donnell, Springfield's state, The Heartbroke Kid, The Itchy & Scratchy Game, Weekend at Burnsie's, World of Springfield Expand: The Simpsons Theme, Josh Weinstein, Bill Oakley, Bongo Comics, Mark Kirkland, Jim Reardon Stubs: Neil Affleck, Bob Anderson (director), Wes Archer, Bart's House of Weirdness, J. Stewart Burns, Itchy & Scratchy in Miniature Golf Madness, The Simpsons: Bart vs. the World, Virtual Bart More... WikiProject Comedy (Rated FA-Class, Mid-importance) ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:ComedyComedy articles Comedy portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article contains or may have contained one or more non-free photograph or photographs. It is requested that a freely-licensed photograph be included in this article to replace such copyrighted images in order to better comply with our policy for non-free content. Many copyright-free image sources are listed at our public domain image resources, or you could create your own. Alternatively, you may request permission from the copyright holder of the original images to release them under a free license.

Archives
Brynn Hartman talk page Archive 1

Contents 1 Free-use image 2 Pee-wee's Playhouse writing credit 3 Copyedit done 4 Long / awkward sentence 5 Overusage of semicolon 6 Photos

[edit] Free-use image

If anyone has, our knows someone who has, or can find a free-use image of Phil Hartman, please upload it. Thanks. Gran² 11:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I did a search of flickr and found none so far. :( Using a copyrighted image should be our last resort. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pee-wee's Playhouse writing credit

The other day I edited the "writer" credit off of Hartman's listing for "Pee-wee's Playhouse".

I'm a huge Phil Hartman fan and a huge Paul Reubens fan. As a writer their collaborations were terrific and I think "Pee-wee's Big Adventure" (which was co-written by Hartman, along with Reubens and Michael Varhol) is arguably the greatest comedy ever. The entire cast (including Hartman, credited using the original spelling of his last name with two n's) is also credited for writing the brilliant "The Pee-wee Herman Show", which was essentially a prototype for "Playhouse" and the first major project centered around the character.

That said, Hartman's credit as writer on the show has been on IMDB for years but it's simply not accurate. The same 5 writers (Reubens, Varhol, John Paragon, George McGrath and Max Robert) are credited on all 13 episodes produced before Hartman and Reubens had their falling out. Furthermore, the first season of "Playhouse" coincides with Hartman's first full season on SNL (Reubens brought him onto the show the previous year as a writer when he hosted as Pee-wee and he made his SNL debut in a minor appearance as well) and as impressive as it is to think he was pulling double-duty as a performer on SNL and "Playhouse" it simply makes little sense to suggest he was on staff as a writer on "Playhouse" with such a full plate.

In any case, very episode of the show is readily available on DVD. I just ran through the credits on every episode just to make sure there wasn't a Hartman credit somewhere. Anyone with the DVD's can see that he's not credited. I'm a fan of the guy, I wouldn't hesitate to call him the greatest SNL castmember in the history of the show, I love his work on "The Simpsons" and "NewsRadio" as well. I'm not a part of some secret global conspiracy with a sinister agenda to deprive the late Phil Hartman of a "Pee-wee's Playhouse" writing credit. I even added the credit to "The Pee-wee Herman Show" so it's pretty much a wash, I just saw an inaccuracy (and IMDB is inaccurate too) and corrected it.

But again, the whole series is available on DVD. I could post all 46 credit screens (45 episodes plus the Christmas Special, though Hartman's association with the show ended after the first 13-season episode) and you could say I'm omitting the Hartman credit and duplicating a non-Hartman credit but a simple screencap of the credit in question would put this whole issue to rest.

He wasn't a writer on the show. IMDB and Wikipedia were wrong. Alert the press.GuruAskew (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, IMDb is more reliable than you just saying something, so that's what I have to believe. However, as it's unlikely you would pretend to go through all the credits, then I see you are correct! I myself am a big Phil Hartman fan, mainly through The Simpsons and his films, but as I live in the UK I cannot buy any DVDs of SNL or NewsRadio. Gran² 18:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit done

Okay, I did a thorough copyedit per request, and by and large it looks good. My only larger comments are as follows:

• The final sentence in "Personal life" (about driving, flying, sailing, etc) feels like fluff. I vote for removing it.

• There is one quote box on the left side of the article. I recommend either right-aligning all the boxes and images, or staggering them regularly.

Good luck with this! A well-researched biography of a great actor. Scartol • Tok 16:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Long / awkward sentence

Hartman met comedian Paul Reubens and the two became friends, often writing and working on material together; one of their collaborations was the character of Pee-wee Herman.

This should probably be split up into two sentences. I just encountered a similar problem with a long sentence also using a semicolon in that portion of the article. Cirt (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That's better. Cirt (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Overusage of semicolon

It seems there is overusage of the semicolon in this article, in some cases in conjunction with comma(s), which has the effect of creating a pause where there often does not need to be one; or at times perhaps the editor just wanted to throw in an extra semicolon or comma, perhaps just to create an air of intellectualism; but really I am not sure, also this sentence is getting a bit long; and maybe I should stop writing it, but also it is fun; and so now I will announce that the sentence is over. Also, semicolon. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to cut them down. Gran² 23:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Doing. :) Cirt (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. Nice work overall. Cirt (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There is overuse of semicolons in many artices. Just as Gran says, feel free to cut them down. I do. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

I note that this article contains a picture of Sinbad appearing in the TV program Houseguest. Why?. Surely, what we need is a picture of HARTMAN appearing in Houseguest. I note that two seperate editors (I am one) have attemted to remove the picture as being pointless... only to be reverted. OK... but I would ask those who wish to include this picture to give a rational for it. What purpose does it serve? How is the article improved by including it? Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Houseguest is a film, not a TV show. Secondly, the image isn't of Sinbad appearing in the film, it's a free-use image of Sinbad. It's included because it can be; the caption is factually accurate and relevant to the article and the section would otherwise have no image at all. I'd like an image of Hartman, but the article already includes two fair-use images of him and that's more than enough. No free-use image of him exists. And I don't want to sound like a politician here, but you say "How is the article improved by including it?" Well, how is the image affecting it negatively? It's not like the caption says "THIS IS PHIL HARTMAN", it says that Hartman's first starring role in a film was alongside Sinbad. As the image of Sinbad is free-use, why not include to illustrate some point in the section? Especially as the caption explains it. It's decoration, but it's not a fair-use image, so policy-wise I fail to see the problem. Gran² 18:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

OK... but that still begs the question... if this photo isn't from houseguest, then what "point" is this picture illustrating? And why does this article need a picture of Sinbad in the first place? Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Hartman had his first starring role in 1995's Houseguest, alongside Sinbad." It doesn't need it, but then it doesn't need anything. But it is adequately relevant, it is free-use and the section would otherwise be empty. I fail to see how it is harming the article. Would you rather the section had no image? Or can you suggest a "more related one"? Gran² 18:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In what way is this specific image "relevant? It does not even show Sinbad in the context mentioned in the caption, much less Hartman and Sinbad together. The fact that the picture is free-use is not an issue, I am not questioning whether it is free-use... I am questioning the images relevancy to the article.

Compare the relevancy of the Sinbad photo to that of the picture of Pee-Wee Herman ... in the Pee Wee case, there is direct relevancy, since it is stated in the text that Hartman assisted in creating the character shown in the photo. That photo directly illustrates material in the text of the article. But the picture of Sinbad does not... It does not illustrate the fact that Hartman and Sinbad appeared in a movie together. It does not even show Sinband appearing in the movie. It serves no purpose in this article.

So, yes... if the choice is between using this specific image, and the section having no image, I would argue that the section should have no image. Nothing says every section in an article has to have an image. Of course the best outcome would be to find an image that does have some direct relevancy to the text (I don't know if this is possible, but the ideal would be non-copyright image of Troy McLure). Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not possible. Well, this is clearly a matter of opinion. As I've said, it is just decoration, but as it's free-use I think it's just a personal opinion whether it should be included. I think it has enough relevancy, but there we go. Gran² 06:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the nub of it. It is an editorial choice, not a policy or guideline issue. I suppose it comes down to this... you seem to focus on whether the photo harms the article, while I focus on whether it benefits the article. I don't think it does. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I suppose you're right about it not strictly benefitting it. It is just decoration. But I do think it would harm the article if there wasn't any image in the section. Perhaps an image of Bill Oakley? I really don't want another fair-use image of Hartman himself. Gran² 16:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

How would it harm the article to not have an image in the section?

FYI - I have posted a request for outside opinions at the Village Pump... (see: here). Perhaps someone there will have a good idea. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never encountered the idea that every section of an article needs an image. If the choice is between no image and an irrelevant one, no image makes more sense to me. The guideline at Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature says, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic." Of course it would be nice to have scads of high quality free use images to choose from for each article, but from the limited supply we have we should choose only those that belong. Ntsimp (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"I've never encountered the idea that every section of an article needs an image." Neither have I, and you have not done that here. I want an image, I'd rather there was one, but is not needed. However, my point is that it is relevant enough. Gran² 17:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that puts us back to asking how this photo is relevant to to topic Phil Hartman? Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I read through all of this, and took a look at the article itself... Thinking about it, I can see both sides, but I'm leaning towards agreement with Blueboar here (for what that's worth). There isn't actually anything wrong with either including or excluding the image, but... the fact that Mr. Hartman doesn't appear in the image at all seems convincing to me. Yes, he was in the movie, and so that's a valid topic to illustrate, but the picture being used just doesn't convey the right message. Isn't there anything else from the movie that could be used as a compromise? A title card, or something?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the photo in question isn't even connected to the movie. It is a shot of Sinbad at a charity event. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Blueboar here. The photo is just confusing, even if the caption says it's not Hartman. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, given the outside opinions, I am going to again remove the image. Let's look for something more appropriate to use. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The current image of Sinbad doesn't make sense. I think Ohms law makes a good suggestion in trying to find another related image. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

...Well I still disagree, but I guess the "majority" has spoken. I can think of no possible replacement. The article already has two fair-use images, that is enough... Gran² 15:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

So, it seems that I am too late to give an opinion, the photo is gone. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)