Talk:Pumpkin queen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pumpkin Queen lists[edit]

This is a fantastic article, but is anyone willing to contact the various Pumpkin Festivals to find out the full names and years of their various past pumpkin queens so that we can flesh out the list? --164.107.92.120 03:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That is an excellent suggestion. We can make it a group effort, because this wonderful new addition to Wikipedia is incomplete and should be fleshed in! Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

my recent edits[edit]

I have to say "my" with caution, because I'm using a university computer that others use and so not every Wikipedia edit used with this IP is necessarily mine, but in any case the addition of the web site, which is not mine and which I was suprised to see, strengthens the article's claim that pumpkin queens exist in fiction, as otherwise the article only cited Sally as an example. Two examples just makes the claim much stronger. Second, the Danbury festival is something that I've so far come across on the ebay sale and so I'm not citing ebay to get people to make some purchase, but to reinforce the article's claim that pumpkin queens exist at many, many festivals and that people even sell photos of them. None of this is vulgar or inappropriate and nor is it self-promoting, because I have no relationship with these links. Thanks to 17...whatever (another anonymous editor) for restoring this information. Happy New Year! --164.107.92.120 00:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nightmare Before Christmas[edit]

Can anyone find a citable source for the assertion that "many fans" refer to Sally as the pumpkin queen? It appears twice; once in the introductiory paragraph and once in the main image caption. I've never heard of anyone referring to the character in this way. I'd like to see a source or else it's OR as far as I'm concerned. - Tenmiles 06:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Request fulfilled! :) --164.107.223.217 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I suppose it's a start! I'm still a little concerned that this represents one artist's use of the title, and doesn't support the assertion that its use is widespread among fans. Realize that I'm not against the use of the title, per se, but question whether its appropriate to make the assertion as stated in the article without better support. - Tenmiles 05:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I added a couple other links as corroborating evidence. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You cannot corroborate with self-published fan links. They simply do not count as reliable sources, and they are not acceptable. --Eyrian 16:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Eyrian, you are also deleting official websites of pumpkin queen contests as well as neutral reviews of Marlane Kennedy's book in your blanket mass deletion of the article's content. Moreover, the list of pumpkin queens is consistent with other articles that lists such things as list of wrestling champions, etc. Please stop. Thanks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Directory content[edit]

Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, and the massive list of links at the end of the article was just that. I recommend checking out dmoz.org if you want to add links. The list of pumpkin festival winners was unacceptable, as the individual notability of those events has not been established. Further, as explained above, the material that was "referenced" needs to held to reliable sources. Just because a few fans say something doesn't mean it belongs in the article. --Eyrian 16:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, some of these competitions have been around for almost a hundred years and attract thousands of visitors annually. At least one or two even have separate Wikipedia articles. Saying they aren't notable is factually wrong. Saying the references is a directory isn't entirely accurate as well. But I'll make them more reference like in format. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The one that is notable is the Circleville show, and that article already has the list. It doesn't belong here. No lists of winners belong here. If the festivals have individual articles, indicating notability, then they can be linked, but not otherwise. The list which you seem to be conflating with "references" is just a bunch of different pumpkin festivals. They do not belong. --Eyrian 17:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I whole heartedly disagree and would like to ask for a neutral opinion. I asked Chaser, the admin who adopted me for his insights. I did revise the way the references are though, and some of them are from such sites as CNN. They are notable and the Circleville one is not the only notable festival. The Spring Hope and Barnesville festivals in particular are definitely notable. I think the lists can be improved and fleshed in. Having the lists provide a useful reference, just as a list of Miss America winners does, regardless of if every Miss America contestant is individually notable otherwise. Again, some of these competitons have been going on for thirty or so years, attract large numbers of attendees, etc. As for the opening paragraphs. Those of us who are fans of The Nightmare Before Christmas do indeed typically refer to Sally as the pumpkin queen and the example of multiple fansites of both art and texts (which multiple different people spent all kinds of time on) shows is primary source evidence of this fact. If there are tags that say "this list is incomplete" or something, please do feel free to add those. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Big numbers do not imply notability. If the particular festivals are notable, articles should be created about them, and the lists of winners can be put there. However, dumping that information here is unacceptable. That's like tossing a bunch of detailed information about the Earth into the article about the solar system. Unfortunately, self-published fansites are not acceptable as references, and cannot be used to formulate a thesis in an article. Unless you have some reliable sources about Sally being called the pumpkin queen, it doesn't belong here. --Eyrian 17:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, big numbers do indeed imply notability. Being around since the 1960s or 1970s with thousands (and therefore over the years millions) of attendees demonstrate a significant impact on the economy and culture of those areas and it is necessary for the article to show the large number of pumpkin festivals that exist as doing so shows the notability of pumpkin queens as well. You just reverted everything I did without apparently actually reading the changes. Official websites of the festivals, newspaper articles, CNN's website, etc. were all deleted in your edits! You deleted independent reviews of Marlane's book as well. This unilateralism and apparent failure to review the full extent of my edits is unacceptable and disturbing. I have ssked both Chaser and Durova for their insights. And I hope that you are not targetting my article out of disagreement with me on the discussion regarding Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Popular_culture last month. The other thing about your reversions is that you did them while I am obviously trying to improve the article. It would be one thing if tomorrow or something, you discussed the matter here and then after consensus decided to do so, but you should not revert good faith edits while they're in the process of occurring. I won't know how the finished product looks until after the revision is complete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Article focus[edit]

So, what is this article about? The uses of the term "pumpkin queen" seem to be rather varied. The book concerns a girl who enters a pumpkin at a festival, but she herself has nothing to do with a beauty pageant as far as I can tell. The scope of the article needs to be clearly defined. --Eyrian 18:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The article concerns the multiple uses of the term in fiction and in festivals. Once the stuff you deleted is restored and improved, you'll better understand that.--Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Articles don't work like that. If the material you've alluded to can be reliably sourced, parts of it will need to be spun off, likely into a dab page. --Eyrian 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how you've "improved" the article. You took something that contained lots of information, references, etc. and turned it into something bare bones that makes the notability less obvious. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't. I took an article that was full of original research, trivial fanfiction, and linkfarming into something that is close to compliance with Wikipedia policies. --Eyrian 18:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Pumpkin queen[edit]

Copied, without editing, from User talk:Eyrian, per WP:IAR. This discussion should be visible here.

Please do not vandalize this page any further. You are unilaterally deleting content, including official website links and such reliable sources as CNN! You are misrepresenting changes as well. I have requested feedback from another admin, so you can stop edit warring on this one. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that vandalism requires bad faith. Which is what you are assuming, contrary to WP:AGF. I do everything to better the encyclopedia. --Eyrian 17:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I fear that you may be going after an article I contribute a lot to, because of our disagreement at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Popular_culture last month, which I hope is not the case. Also, in your mass deletion on that article you are even deleting the references for Marlane Kennedy, which are independent book reviews, without any explanation. Moreover, you are deleting content while I am in the process of improving the article, rather than just going about destroying other's work. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Improvement often means editing. Calling it destruction merely attempts to distract from the fact that what is being added does not conform with Wikipedia policies. If you're working on something, and its current form does not conform to policy, try using a sandbox to perfect it, such as this one. --Eyrian 17:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
These edits do not violate any Wikipedia policies. You removed independent book review references, references to official sites, CNN, etc. Even if you don't personally like the list (never mind that we have lists for all kinds of stuff and most editors don't have problems with them), then YOU could have perhaps still took the time to keep the many appropriate references as references to the statement about the contests being held at many festivals or kept the review references for the Me and the Pumkin Queen book instead of just reverting all of my edits and tossing on a need's references tag. The article had plenty of references that no one would justifiably dispute. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't think anyone could justifiably dispute deviantART accounts as references? Please read WP:RS. The CNN reference about a single pumpkin festival, which has an article, and has a link. --Eyrian 18:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Those links and by having multiple examples show that fans do in fact refer to her as a pumpkin queen. The other festivals have various kinds of links, including from newspapers. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to creating articles about other notable pumpkin festivals and listing their websites and winners there, but they do not belong in the main article. Unreliable sources cannot prove anything. This is a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia. --Eyrian 18:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Multiple different sources from multiple different authors is indicative of something. Again, though, what you did does not improve the article, because you did not take the extra effort to look for sources yourself or keep the ones that do provide neutral opinions of Marlane's book and so on. In any event, I requested a third opinion and asked a couple other admins who I've worked with before for their take as I don't see either of us convincing the other in the immediate future. I'll see what others say tomorrow. I'm not unwilling to create additional articles, but most of what you decided yourself you don't like really should be restored. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
No. What you are doing is original research. Please see User:Eyrian/IPC#The number of entries in the list proves notability in popular culture. Some of the removed information might belong in certain other articles (the links to festivals and lists of winners, in the articles of particular festivals), but it most certainly doesn't belong in the main article. The same is true of reviews of the book. --Eyrian 18:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, you are wrong and a link to your own page doesn't indicate Wikipedia policy. The book reviews are there in case if anyone comes upon the article and asks whether or not the book exists. By having the reviews, it shows someone that yes, the book exists and it isn't a hoax. Thus, the links certainly do belong in the main article.--Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it's not policy. It's an argument. You need to refute it if you wish to disagree. I made the essay so that I can set down my counterarguments in a single place, without having to repeat myself constantly. The book is now properly linked. --Eyrian 18:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I am fine with how you have the Marlane book, but you should also consider doing what you suggested with the other festivals as well. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

A third opinion on this dispute was requested at Wikipedia:Third opinion. I am reluctant to provide a third opinion on a user talk page, because it usually gets lost in archiving, and the dispute might arise again after some time. I encourage you to move this discussion to the talk page of the relevant article.

Summarized, User:Eyrian is right in every way. I will explain my position briefly and hopefully clearly.

Some of these shows are indeed notable, as they have been featured on CNN etc. That is why they have their own page, and list the pumpkin queens there. Perfectly fine. However, some of the other shows are not notable - they have not been covered by reliable sources, and do not have their own page. Some forum posts and self-published websites writing about them does not establish notability.

Using deviantart, fanfiction and flickr as sources is not allowed.1

1: Unless, per WP:RS, the author of the work is an expert, who has also had his work published by independent publishers, discussing his field of study - then self-published work is allowed. This does not apply here.

The fundamentally unsourced parts of the article containing lists of queens of non-notable festivals should therefore be removed. However, do list the festivals. Why? Completeness. When three festivals have been covered by reliable sources, making a list of other festivals is perfectly fine. Do not get into details - just list the names. To further illustrate this, the general rule is that if a few (say, three) entries in a list have been covered in a non-trivial way by reliable sources, it is fine to make a list of the rest of them. For example, in model trains, if three trains in the "Supertrain" series had been covered by the Times in an article specifically about each train (a miniseries?), listing the rest of that series would be good, required even. Do apply common sense - if the series contained three hundred instead of ten trains, for example.

In this case, a list of the largest pumpkin festivals - without any details such as the winners back to 1903 - would be fine. --User:Krator (t c) 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the third opinion. By any chance would you be willing to list the festivals you think most relevant along with the appropriate links? I've suggested to Eyrian that he and I take a break from this discussion and article for the immediate future and so it would probably work best if a neutral party improved the article instead. If so, I appreciate it, if not, not exactly the end of the world. Thanks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Other suggestion[edit]

Durova made the folloiwng suggestion. Is her suggestion different than the third opinion? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very much so. --Eyrian 19:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Would it help? Also, as a quick grammar note regarding the word "very":
"Use this word sparingly. Where emphasis is necessary, use words strong in themselves."
-William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition (New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2000), 63.
"Rather, very, little, pretty--these are the leeches that infest the pond of prose, sucking the blood of words. The constant use of the adjective little (except to indicate size) is particularly debilitating; we should all try to do a little better, we should all be very watchful of this rule, for it is a rather important one, and we are pretty sure to violate it now and then."
-William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition (New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2000), 73.
--Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Your pretension astonishes me, and falls victim to the kind of obvious mistakes I've come to expect from you. It's a common idiom. I'll spare you further clever insults and analogies; I'm not here to unmask you. --Eyrian 03:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have no qualms about making observations and comments about other people's edits based on your own personal beliefs, but cannot take constructive suggestions yourself. That is really unfortunate for someone so bent on destroying the work many others put into this site. I hope that in the future you will work harder to compromise with editors and to improve rather than diminish articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 13:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't make this any more personal than it already is. If you want to talk, we can talk about improving this particular article. --Eyrian 13:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not my desire to get into personal debates with people; however, I am a bit suspicious of people after all the what the hecks people have pulled on me in my life. I cannot help but notice that you and I disagreed in that discussion on What Wikipedia is Not and then you were the second person to vote to delete my article on the bosses of The Ocean Hunter and now are all of a sudden going after the first article I created. I do not wish to be paranoid or read into things, but I am not getting a positive impression here. Therefore, I left a message on your talk page basically suggesting that we avoid each other for the immediate future as I think this discussion is not constructive and is preventing us from working to improve this website. A cooling off could help and would diminish any suspicions that I have. So, au revoir for now. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 13:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Diagram request removed, because fulfilled[edit]

I added the following image, which should fulfill the diagram request previously posted on this talk page. If anyone can size it or position it better, feel free to do so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Pumpkin queen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pumpkin queen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pumpkin queen. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)