Talk:Jayne Mansfield

Information

• This source has more on the Pink Palace Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • A haunted Pink Palace? Check out. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Billboard magazine has a lot about her music. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Salon has an awesome review. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • St. James Encyclopedia also has wonderful stuff. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Time magazine archives has a lot. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• This source and this has more on the marriages. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Eventuality of the marriages: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, and 06. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• The publicity stuff: James Byron and more James Byron (also, others he brought in). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Also needed

• Zoltan molsted by lion
• Mickey's first wife's alimony
• JM's animals:
  • Chihuahuas in Las Vegas
  • Dogs that died in the accident (check - original)
  • Pincess the pink Siamese cat
  • Sam the monkey
  • Ocelots on Hollywood Boulevard
• Divoon the word

(inserted) A better fit for Jayne Mansfield in popular culture. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Supermarket openings
• Booze
  • Brawling in a Stockholm nightclub
• Enrico Bomba
• Childhood
  • Shirley Temple
• Wedding dress (check this, and this) - the ring

A bit late, but the Museum of Death on Hollywood Boulevard actually features two of her real (or they were) dogs literally lifted from the accident and shelved. I would say this is definitely notable. That's how I learned about her, actually, since she hasn't been famous for some decades now. She was also famed for being a huge animal lover, though I'm not sure the exact number of pets or names of them she ever had. ★Dasani★ 06:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I have a plan to have serious content on her pets. See the list of stuff write under the sub-head "Also needed". Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

...still searching and researching. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Consolidating the citation of St. James Encyclopedia
• Harvrefing of the Parish book

...and, other technicalities. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Also...

• a bit on Rita Marlowe, her role in Rock Hunter that won her a Theater World Award for the Broadway version and a Golden Globe for the Hollywood version
• characters that portrayed a nightclub performer

...may be other characters too. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation

Can you cite a source for the following?

After The Girl Can't Help It was released, Fox bought Mansfield out of her Broadway contract for $100,000 and shut the production of Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? down after 444 performances.

Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If we can't find a citation for this, we might as well sack it. I've looked around but don't find support for such a claim. ★Dasani★ 06:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead image

File:Jayne Mansfield 1956.jpg looks very much like a WP:COPYVIO image, posted with a mistaken copyright tag. Let's not use it, especially not as the lead image. Besides, it's good to have a video of an actor famous for her movies. It's good to have a free video that serves the purpose. If you disagree, please, post your reason. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite apart from its copyvio situation that Jayne Mansfield 1956.jpg image of her is just dreadful; the aspect ratio is all wrong and her face is squashed up sideways. I suggest it is not used even if the image proves to be available. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 13:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the "Girl Can't Help It" image is not ideal, I think the reason the ratio is all wrong is that it is from one of those squished/Technicolor trailers so popular in that general era. I do wish WP or Commons had a sharply-delineated PD/publicity-photo of her for the Infobox, take a look at what's available on Commons, there really isn't much that isn't a fuzzy screen-capture, the clear photos like the Sophia Loren dinner-table photo (hosted on WP) are already in use elsewhere in the article. The only one I could find on Commons that isn't already in use is this 1957 publicity photo, maybe it could be cropped to only show Miss Mansfield? Shearonink (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Citations: technical check

Error check using the cite button:

{{harvnb|Faris|1994|p=3}} Multiple references contain the same content
{{harvnb|Faris|1994|pp=74}} Multiple references contain the same content
{{harvnb|Strait|1992|p=94}} Multiple references contain the same content
{{harvnb|Faris|1994|p=24}} Multiple references contain the same content
{{harvnb|Faris|1994|p=6}} Multiple references contain the same content
{{harvnb|Faris|1994|p=10}} Multiple references contain the same content
Abbe A. Debolt and James S. Baugess, ''Encyclopedia of the Sixties: A Decade of Culture and Counterculture'', page 391, ABC-CLIO, 2011, ISBN 978-1-4408-0102-0 Multiple references contain the same content
{{harvnb|Faris|1994|p=135}} Multiple references contain the same content
{{harvnb|Mann|1974|p=112}} Multiple references contain the same content
{{Harvnb|Strait|1992|p=11}} Multiple references contain the same content
JaynePaul Multiple references are using the same name

For example, this citation is named three times:

<ref name=summary>{{harvnb|Faris|1994|p=3}}</ref>
<ref name=JaynePaul>{{harvnb|Faris|1994|p=3}}</ref> (defined twice)

The simplest fix is to use {{sfn}} and don't use a name, so we would change the above to: {{sfn|Faris|1994|p=3}}, which would result in the same output

Other issues:

• Some citations use Citation Style 1 templates, others are hand crafted
• Citation titles are mixed between title and sentence case
• Some dates are in YYYY-MM-DD format, others in MMM DD, YYYY
• References section is usually placed after Citations section
• Guessing "Quite wedding" is mispelled
• Some citations have access dates, others don't; not required, but should be consistent
• Shortened footnotes and Footnotes systems are mixed— not a problem if this is desired (I don't like the appearance)
• Don't use state abbreviations

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed the top part. Thanks. "Quiet wedding" spelling has been fixed too. I have two questions here - (1) doesn't "sfn" and "harvref" serve the same purpose? (2) how do I make shortrefs for websites and newspapers? For converting handcrafted citations I guess I'll need more help (how about WP:CLEAN?). About the looks, can you elaborate a bit more? I personally have never worked on so many citations and so much complexity. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Now only one error:

farisclub Multiple references are using the same name

{{sfn}} is essentially {{harvnb}} wrapped in <ref>...</ref>— they actually use the same core template. Regardless, you have that issue mostly fixed.

For the hand-crafted citations, you will just have to go through and update them. Most are missing elements. For example, I converted:

[http://www.time.com/time/time100/heroes/profile/monroe01.html "Heroes and Icons: Marilyn Monroe"], ''Time''; Retrieved: September 21, 2007.

To:

{{cite journal |last=Rudnick |first=Paul |title=Heroes and Icons: Marilyn Monroe |work=Time |date=June 14, 1999 |url=http://www.time.com/time/time100/heroes/profile/monroe01.html}}

As you can see, the original citation was missing the author and date. I fixed a couple to illustrate what needs to be done. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 08:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If you install User:PleaseStand/References segregator, then you can segregate all of the references in an editing box for easier cleanup. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I just ran Citationbot - it found and fixed a few minor problems. Roger (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A ref named farisclub is defined twice and invoked twice. They are both referring to Farris 1994, but one definition is for p 24 and the other is for p 7–8. I have no idea which pages go to which invoked ref. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The page7-8 ref plus the Bosley Crowther/NYTimes ref that follows it are both in error, neither one contains the cited information backing up "The couple became a popular publicity and performing team, starting with a bit part in "Rock Hunter", especially the "starting with a bit part in "Rock Hunter"". What is the sentence referring to? The movie of "Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter", a stage production?...neither assertion would seem to be supportable, Mansfield was the star of the movie and the Bway play and neither ref says anything about Mansfield and Hargitay appearing as a couple in a possible stage production. Text has therefore been adjusted and refs deleted. Shearonink (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Golden Laurel

"Mansfield won a Golden Laurel in 1959 for Top Female Musical Performance in The Sheriff of Fractured Jaw..."

Golden Laurel links to [Producers Guild of America#Producers of the Year Awards]], which were created in 1990. The reference has a link to http://books.google.com.au/books?id=zMSROkev7ksC which has no preview, thus is a useless link. IMDb shows that Mansfield was nominated for a Laurel Award, but came in 5th.[1]

Looks like this was actually one of the Laurel Awards, but I don't see where the golden comes from.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been pondering over this particular piece of information a long time now. So far I have seen no reliable source talking about it. Now that you have found similar unreliability of the information, I believe we should make it disappear. Removing it altogether. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the other instances. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Observations on copyedit

• "Mansfield became a major Broadway star in 1955, a major Hollywood star in 1956, the darling of the movie community in 1957" isn't really captured in "Mansfield made her Broadway debut in 1955, but her film career began in 1956". The original sentence, acquired from Jocelyn Faris, is about her meteoric rise through stardom (no pun intended). Stardom is an encyclopedic matter, and should not be avoided without a reason.

You should note that although the sources are available for usage, you have to be careful. Most of the time, the original text must be rewritten to work into context. Also, taking it word for word is considered plagiarism. I'm not sure what kind of book or style of writing Faris has, but I've noted that this article writes in a very extravagant tone. It's probably the sources that portray Mansfield that way.

Agreed. But: (1) Changing the meaning doesn't serve any purpose; (2) Plagiarism wouldn't apply here (check Plagiarism, Norms, and the Limits of Theft Law). You are, of course, free to edit the line. Just keep the meaning intact.

Rewriting the lines to be something else and rewriting them for clarity are not the same thing. ★Dasani★ 03:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• There is no reason to remove Hargitay's identity (i.e. "actor-bodybuilder"). For and encyclopedia, information should have priority over prose, though the prose also needs to be as brilliant as possible.

Did I remove it? Oops. I don't think that was me. Anyway, feel free to restore it.

• Are you sure "began to collapse" (a not too encyclopedic expression, I guess) is captured successfully by "worsened"? The former has a tone of finality, which seems to be a more appropriate tone.

I wasn't sure if that was the right word, but the former seems far worse. If you want to look at it that way, so many terms used in this article aren't encyclopedic or appropriate at all.

Agreed again. I'm not too fond of the unencyclopedic words myself (peacocks and weasels). A lot of peacocks and weasels harm article quality real bad. But, I would also try to keep the meaning intact as far as possible. It would be a great help if you could identify those words and make them better. For starters, how about replacing "worsened" with "seriously deteriorated" or something like that?

As for "Can this be retitled? They are more relationships than personal life..." – I would say there needs to be more rationale than "her personal life is full of relationships and little else". It's alright to have a life full of relationships. Finally, I seriously can't see the point of taking a staunch stand against – "They met on the set of ___" – and similar stuff. The information is well within the policies, guidelines, traditions and spirit of Wikipedia. The article will not be "very incomplete without", as you put it, but it sure makes it "more comprehensive". Besides, you have already found that a lot many articles, even GAs and FAs, do keep it. For Albert Einstein these information may be irrelevant, but for Jayne Mansfield they are relevant fine. Let's not forget the context, ever. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I specifically reverted it by saying, "Never mind, the paragraphs also mention her children." if you bothered looking. I've already clearly explained to you I was concerned because several administrators said it was garbage. You have very little understanding for some reason which hurts because you seem like a hard worker. ★Dasani★ 05:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen "several administrators" saying "it was garbage" anywhere, and therefore I didn't get your subtle hint. When did that happen? Can you post a diff or something? I don't have "very little understanding" for "any reason", no dear. I think I know more about the policies and guidelines than you do. Don't try to look down on me just because you can't articulate your argument. That's really rude. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, you read too deeply into things. This was part of the original "argument". I just dropped a note that yes, in several other articles that did the same thing (citing the meeting details for personal life, rewording), administrators came by and said that such additions would be better off kept out of the article. For some reason, you still weren't convinced and said you'd need a larger consensus (which never came about). If you want to get technical, you may think you do, but you aren't an admin either. ★Dasani★ 17:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

And, you are not reading at all. "Administrators came by and said that such additions would be better off kept out of the article" - when? where? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you want help or not? I could very well dump this erroneous article. I'm in no way obligated to help you or the site. Check out the Mariah Carey, Ayumi Hamasaki, and Britney Spears articles. Granted they're existing in a society bit more modern than this one did, but I remember previous versions of the pages were cleaned up. BTW, "worsened" and "deteriorated" are synonyms so I'm not sure it'd even make much of a difference. ★Dasani★ 03:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, calling me "dear" sounds too offputting for our maturity level. This isn't a school. Go on ruining the article, then. You don't even know how to write proper English, no one's "looking down on you" for anything. I could very well just leave, and I am. Good luck with that. ★Dasani★ 03:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help (and yes, I requested for help, not bad attitude). With or without you this is going to be an FA. But you exceeding show of incivility needs some attention, I believe. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it wasn't meant to be an argument. We were having a discussion. I became annoyed that you weren't following and you continued to question several of the edits. Finally, there is nothing to thank for. Most of the edits were reverted, actually. 02:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, why do you use parenthesis in this article? I've reread it several times and it seems awkward with parenthesis scattered far more often than I'd expect. ★Dasani★ 05:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't use any parentheses to begin with. Some of those are part of the {{Inflation}} template, and can't be removed. Some others are work of other editors. A couple of them are by me too (where I couldn't find any other solution). If you want to remove the parentheses and incorporate the information more fluently into the body text, please do so (as far as possible, the templates can't be helped though). I'll be glad to help you there. In fact, you'll find that the article has loads of very long sentences, and very awkward semi-colons. I believe those would need some management too. Please, let me know where I can lend a hand.

Note: Due to some screw-up or other, only half of my original post was posted. My agreement didn't show up, but my disagreement did. That obviously looked somewhat hostile. But, in fact, I agree to you on more points than not. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Update. As you have gone from bad to worse with your behavior, I posted the situation to draw community attention. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)