Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Westerns/Archive 1

Archive 1

Disambiguation pages and redirects

I think dab pages and redirects should be tagged. If an issue comes up on them, and people want to inform the relevant wikiprojects (or one of the subscription bots autonotifies those WPPs who have banners on the pages) then WPWesterns would get informed. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. The primary role of most WikiProjects is to "improve and maintain" articles. Therefore I think the focus should be on just that – "articles", with lists, categories, and templates being crucial additions. Once we start adding non-articles that are totally functionless it just becomes category-lists of "junk" and are a distraction to the primary roles of s project. I don't see need for a project to attach itself to dab or redirect pages. There are many Wikipedians who are not involved in any WikiProject, who watch and maintain redirects and dab pages, without the need for us to also. For example, Lee van Cleef is redirected to Lee Van Cleef. Given that the latter is "the" article, to maintain and develop, why would we need to watch the other? I can't think of any major issues that warrant maintaining lengthy redirect and dab categories that serve no practical purpose. Seems a waste of time just to tag them for the little good it will ever do. In the case of Western, there are like 30 links on there, covering many subject areas, if other projects haven't seen the need to tie themselves to the page, then I don't see why we should need to.. a page that full of dab links isn't going to have issues that go unnoticed. I don't think we need to monitor everything on such a scale. I've seen projects bog themselves down with having to "complete B-checklists" or have drives for things that are the result of keeping lists of unimportant trivial things that inevitably build-up behind the scenes, but don't really need monitoring that closely.. is impedes on real "maintain and improve" efforts. Just my 2-cents though. I think there's being thorough, and then there's being anal to the point we overwork ourselves before we're even established. At the moment I'll still building this project and awaiting members. Perhaps once we've gotten a dozen or so members, and can develop guidelines, coordinators, etc through consensus, we might then consider how closely we need to watch non-article pages. I don't expect us to ever be as big as anyone like MILHIST (top dog), LGBT, Film or U.S. WikiProjects, but I think there is enough material to make a damn good effort for the Westerns genre as a whole. I've already tagged about 600 articles.. and that's probably just scratching the surface given the size of some of the lists and stub categories I've tagged! Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 06:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, maintenance of articles includes maintaining the redirects to the articles, as if a redirect is repurposed for something else, the project should know about it, since a prominent secondary name may disappear, when the primary use of such a title might be the Westerns one and not the reuse one. Or if the primary usage is split, then a disambiguation page might be better for the Westerns topics to have instead of a non-Westerns topic usurping a base name disambiguation page in favor of some other subject. With banners on these type of pages, then there is an increased chance that someone would contact the project should such cases come to pass. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

My point was that redirects/dabs are not maintained, merely "watched" plus some "in the hopes of..." or "on the off chance..." reasons are rare considerations. As I noted before, few other WikiProjects tag such pages, except some of the top projects like MILHIST, which cover an area 1000x greater across WP and need to. Given our smaller scope, I don't think we should worry so much about non-articles. At least not until we've grown to the point we feel the need to do so... though I don't personally think this project is going to exceed 5–10,000 Westerns articles anyway, at a push, compared to MILHIST having 125,000 and growing fast, though that would do me as it allows more focus on specific targets. We don't have any members or input yet to see where we're headed, apart from my own rough ideas on what would be nice. It's going to take a few months to get fully set up, and organised in those respects. That's why, in the meantime, I'd rather we focus directly on what is and makes an article, than worry about Wiki's internal processes such as redirects, dabs, etc that are being maintained by other people anyway. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Should this project be deleted?

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#WikiProject_Westerns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably, yes. I proposed this project back in about 2007 as there was low support for it. A cool project with a lot of potential but the reality is that it is unlikely to thrive.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a WikiProject has to "thrive", as such. Wikipedia is about "building an encyclopaedia", and if a small band of 2–10 people are contributing towards that goal then they are no less worthy of having a dedicated WikiProject than projects like Military history or LGBT with dozens of active members. The word "niche" applies here. Westerns are a very specific genre, but they cover a vast amount of articles. Having them identified by a dedicated project is what Wikipedia is about. The fact that some editors want to "follow the book" and expect projects to support the masses is ridiculous, and what has lead to the dearth of activity in many corners of Wikipedia. There are no main stream topics on Wikipedia.. film is no more predominant than Westerns, just as other "minority" topics are no less important.. LGBT proves that fact. I think the only thing that can be achieved by attempting to subjugate smaller projects and force them into larger projects is driving off editors. There are editors who are more comfortable working in a tighter group than a broad element. Consensus isn't even an aspect of how people coordinate their interests and aim to improve articles in that area. In fact, merging smaller topics into broader ones is a form of POV pushing.. suggesting "transport" as a whole is more important than "trains", or "religion" is more important than "Christianity" alone is very poor reasoning. The other fact is, even if WikiProjects only have a handful of members, Wikipedia, its servers, its logistics, can sustain such projects and the contributions made by those few members to identify and improve articles in the project scope and far more beneficial than the time-wasting discussions led by a few disgruntled editors as to the legitimacy of those projects. The simple fact is, in an encyclopaedia that covers everything notable, nothing is ever second-rate as long as there is a maintained interest. Everything has a different level of interest, whether it be a topic or a person or an event. I'm sure with all the interest he receives, Justin Bieber proponents could have a sustained WikiProject outside of the current Music and Bio projects, just as there is WP:BEATLES, but when you consider how many Bieber related articles there are on Wikipedia (a few dozen?), compared with the ~12,000 Westerns related articles, can 30 million Bieber fans really make a massive contribution from tweaking a few dozen pages, compared to just 2–10 people working on ~12,000 articles, from a genre with more "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" entries to be developed, in the National Film Registry. Let's see crap like "Baby baby baby" gain such notability. My point proves that "millions of members" isn't what makes a WikiProject worthy of creation and retention, but rather the notability of the content itself, and the potential of development of that content. If 2–10 Westerns members improve just 20 tagged articles from Stub/Start to A/GA/FA-class per year, I'll wage be right nut that it's more than can be improved in terms of "Bieber articles". In an encyclopedia with 6,827,286, the percentage of notable Westerns related articles forms a bigger percent than that of the currently more popular Bieber. But if we are to qualify the validity of projects by their present active members than the notability of the topic per se, then there we are in fact imposing a personal set of values on a topic. For all we know a "Neo Nazi" WikiProject could attract more attention than many others. Do we impose a ban or limitations on such groups because of political objections? Of course we do.. because there are controversial POV issues that can undermine the foundations of Wikipedia. But in terms of smaller non-controversial topics, there is no need for such restrictions, no requirement to have larger teams to support the work. WikiProjects cannot be established in order for them to monitor and control how editors contribute towards certain topics, but how certain topics can be developed an improved with as many or as few members who are interested in those topics. It takes as few as two people to make a team or social group. Those few editors are key to starting the project, creating duties, tagging articles to create visibility. Over time more editors will recognise their contributions. The number of contributions they have made is more important than how many of them did the work. One member could improve hundreds of pages single-handedly, whilst other members only improve a few dozen between them. But the overall result is that X pages got improved, and the Wikipedia encyclopedia grew as a result. That the project who did this only had 3 or 4 members who never communicated with each other is completely irrelevant. They worked indirectly towards a common goal, with the WikiProject as their foundation, motive or inspiration. Such Wiki bees need a hive in which their work gets noticed and possibly rewarded. Without such niche projects for hard working yet unpaid editors, they begin to feel slavishly neglected, rejected, unappreciated, and unfocused. That's when they become less contributive, and eventually they leave altogether. Closing down projects or cramming them into larger projects where their work becomes harder to organise and is possibly less appreciated by those who feel the topic is subordinate to the project, can be detrimental. Because the higher powers who manage, design and finance Wikipedia from the WMF have left the WikiProject system to run on its own, there had been a lot of neglect for inactive projects, much demise and loss of editors, and the WikiProject Council does not appear to be all that competent in organising the huge array of mostly minor projects, instead leaving them to fail and decay. The system we have is flawed, the community is unsympathetic because it takes too much effort to fix such a mess, and I feel editors who are requesting that further projects such as Westerns be added to the scrap-pile are only making matters worse, and are disrespectful of the small number if members of niche projects who wish to maintain their projects and keep doing some good for Wikipedia. A project really needs to have had zero members and zero input for at least a year to be deemed inactive. Even 2–3 members doing small edits are better than nothing. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I see you've used the Bieber phenomenon Internet cliche to argue a point, which is probably the worst example of trying to argue the worth of something! I see use for the project as a workpage, but the reality next to nobody is actively working on westerns.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that Bieber phenomenon is a redlink, I'll take it to be a non-notable and conceited concept, and simply point out that the example could relate to any similar popular rage. Wikipedia coverage of the X Factor for example, or 9/11 conspiracy theories. They all fall into the same domain of having but a handful of articles, and don't occupy the same range of cultural and historical significance as Westerns, and are generally all rather vain social interests. Clearly you missed the point of my comments. "Next to nobody" means somebody, and your remark could be seen as dismissive of their efforts, rather than complimentary. As I said, even a small effort to work on articles far outweighs the hollow efforts of editors who use Wiki-bureaucracy to weaken and dismantle areas of Wiki that would better being supported to promote growth and stimulate contribution. Wiki doesn't lose time or money from maintaining smaller projects, but it does lose editors by dismantling them. Its a no-brainer. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 21:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You've done a great job in setting up the project, don't get me wrong. And I see the need for such a project. But I don't see much discussion going on here so assumed it was inactive. I vaguely remember you alerting me of it about 6 months ago.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I sent you an invitation to comment on the original proposal for this project. I think the reason there are no discussions here is because there is nothing complicated, controversial or challenging about editing Western-related articles, in general. Your average editor is just going to get on with it, without fuss, and because a large number of those articles are covered by Film and Bio, there is is a lot of experience there. But because Westerns occupy many areas, i.e. bios, films, books, etc.. it is better that these articles be filtered and identified in one project, rather than in half-a-dozen separate projects with no cohesion. Nothing stops those other projects tagging them also, but Film and Bio don't work together on film articles, only on actor/director bios, and there are a great number of Western novels and authors whose Book project doesn't cross paths with Film, though sometimes Bio. Such a mix-up needs a central project, to help bring all those articles, from a notable genre, under one banner. It's about organising material in a large encyclopaedia, more than just creating a group. Categories provide the ability for readers to find related articles, but not for editors to identify the quality. Only a project is capable of assessing articles and creating drives, duties and such to give editors a chance to focus. If those tasks are straight forward, then there is unlikely to be a great need for frequent member discussions. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate genre splicing

Sleep is for fools who never see the sun rise, who never get to live twice. (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)If you are going to include Bravestarr, you might as well include Trigun and Firefly, both of which are science fiction with heavily Western themes and that are highly popular if marginalized. If the list included films you would have to include Serenity, Living in Oblivion, Undead Or Alive, and Cowboys and Aliens. When does a Western themed science fiction or horror story stop being the other genre and become classed as a Western? Is a story that takes place on a Montana ranch in 1989 a Western, by the purest definition? How about the year 2289? Is No Country For Old Men a Western? Or a crime drama set in the West? Does a Western not have to take place in the Old West (which is definable, generally west of the Mississippi) in the Old West period (which is also definable as Antebellum up to the beginning of World War I, give or take a few years?) If the story does not take place in that area at that time, it is not a Western but is derivative of the Western, and should not be in this list. The ABC Mystery movies of McCloud could be included in this list by the definition I am seeing here, and they took place in 1970s Manhattan.

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Roger WIlliams

Roger Williams (actor) (1889-1939( was deleted from a dab page as "doesn't have own article": I've reinstated him with a link to Red River Range and there are a load of other incoming links. Perhaps someone has access to WP:RS in the field and could create a solid stub, or even article, for him? PamD 09:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong Author Link in Entry

The Wiki entry for [[1]] states that the author Len Levinson wrote books under the pseudonym Gordon Davis, but the "Gordon Davis" Wiki page it links to [[2]] seems to be the wrong Gordon Davis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.172.127 (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC on Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film)

There is a Request for Comments on Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film) concerning how to characterize the process for an earlier version of the movie. You are encouraged to express your views in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC of possible interest

There's an RfC requiring attention at Talk:Gary Cooper#Anderson Lawler regarding whether to include a mention of Anderson Lawler in Gary Cooper's biography. Comments are welcome. Diego (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Greetings from a new member

I grew up watching TV westerns, and over the years I've viewed obscure old series, plus singing cowboy movies, on cable stations. Often I'll want to see what Wikipedia says about a vaguely remembered series and sometimes I've discovered there's no article when there should be one. During the past year I've researched and published Dirty Sally, Judge Roy Bean (TV series), and My Friend Flicka (TV series). I've also expanded Hudson's Bay (TV series), and wrote about the following actors and actress often seen in westerns: William Fawcett (actor), Jimmy Rogers (actor), and Gina Gillespie. I'm currently researching Stories of the Century, because it's in red in a lot of other articles.

I keep seeing tags about WikiProjects Westerns, with the notice that this group appears to be inactive, so I decided to join in an effort to officially help. I don't know anything about accessing articles for categories, but I'll continue to create the occasional new article the old fashioned way – by researching and using my own words to write about what I've learned from verifiable sources. (Several of my articles were replacements for articles deleted due to copyright problems.) In addition, I'll expand stub articles that I come across. I hope to be a useful member of this group. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That's fantastic! Welcome. I'm about as new to the group as you, having stumbled across it last week while doing maintenance on some western TV articles for WikiProject Television. I saw that it was considered inactive, and was hoping to try to revive it. I'm not sure if that will ultimately be successful or not, so it might just be you and me. I was going to reach out to some experienced editors listed in the membership who are still active on Wikipedia. Before your post, I thought I would be just having discussions with myself, so I'm glad to see someone else here now, too. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I see that the group's status has been changed from inactive to semi-active, which may be a result of the discussion above and related activity. I don't know what is required to achieve active status. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Teblick: - I had changed the status to semi-active based on Template:WikiProject status: "...some, but relatively few, discussions on its talk page for several months" (since the above is currently the only discussion so far, I was hesitant to call it "active"). However, there doesn't seem to be any specific criteria to calling it "active" so I would assume that if we have a few folks who want to make it go, it should be listed as "active", which only requires taking the status parameter out of the tag. I'll defer to your experience but if you want me to update the tag, let me know. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Butlerblog, My experience with regard to projects is limited, but your summary in the previous paragraph sounds good. Let's try it that way and see how things go. Eddie Blick (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I just now happened across WP:REVIVE, which gives some guidance, starting with setting it to "active," so I'll go ahead and do that and keep trying to move the project forward. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Project status

I updated the project status on the project page, and also updated the talk page banner to active status, so now articles tagged with Westerns or WikiProject Westerns should show article assessment status. Follow the recommendations on WP:REVIVE for the other items that need to be checked, and making sure the assessment table is working as well. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Butlerblog. I've checked a couple of Wester actors' pages that I worked on last night, and I see that the templates on their talk pages are showing active status. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Western actors and actresses to check

Last night I created personal subpages for biographies that appear in the categories Western (genre) film actors and Western (genre) film actresses. My plan is to go through the lists, checking each article to 1) add this project's template to the talk page if it not already there and 2) try to improve the article. After I do all I can for an article, I will remove it and go to the next one on the list.

Today I wondered if anyone else might like to do the same things. If you do, feel free to use my lists. They are at User:Teblick/Western film actors and User:Teblick/Western film actresses. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding project template sometimes causes red links to appear on talk page

I am seeing red-link categories appear when I add the WikiProject Westerns template to pages such as Talk:John McIntire. Should I create categories for those links that are introduced by our project's template? Eddie Blick (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I see what you mean. That might have something to do with either the project template Template:WikiProject Westerns, or possibly my implementation (or "attempted" implementation) of aritcle assessment at . I'm not sure the answer, I'm looking into it and am also open to opinions/suggestions. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that. I have no idea what might cause it.Eddie Blick (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I have gotten it resolved at this point so if you notice any more that seem to be coming from Westerns, let me know. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Butlerblog! I added the template to an article a few minutes ago and noticed that no red categories appeared. I appreciate your doing that. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Other media

I noticed that the main project page includes the statement, "The project is not limited to TV series' and Western films, it includes any media for which Westerns material has been produced, such as novels, comics and video games." I have done a good bit of work on articles about old-time radio programs, so I'm going to try to add OTR programs that have Western themes to the project if they don't already have that template on their talk pages. Eddie Blick (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds great! (On a personal note, I enjoy listening to OTR, so I'm looking forward to digging into some of the Western programs) ButlerBlog (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Butlerblog Check Category:Western (genre) radio series. That contains all of the OTR Western series titles that I have found thus far. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added the project banner to any of those that didn't already have it. ButlerBlog (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Checking categories for articles.

As we are working on articles related to this project, let's try to check to see whether they contain appropriate Western-related categories. (I write that to myself as much as to anyone else, because I have a tendency to overlook categories when I'm copyediting, adding information, etc.) I'm going to try to check biographies for at least these three:

• Male Western (genre) film actors
• Western (genre) film actresses
• Western (genre) television actors

Any suggestions for others to add to the list for biographies? I'm focusing on biographies now, so I have not started a list for TV shows or films.Eddie Blick (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's a question (and I'm not even sure I know what my own opinion is)... what's the criteria for tagging an actor to the project? For example, certainly someone like Gene Autry would be an important personality to the genre. But what about someone like Timothy Olyphant or Robert Taylor? What about someone who did a modern western, but only one film? Or someone from a "Space Western" like Alden Ehrenreich in Solo: A Star Wars Story? Should we stick to the obvious icons for now and leave the fringe/questionable alone? Just something to consider. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Those are good questions, Butlerblog. My initial thought is to cast a wide net. I think that would be in accordance with the existing text on the project's main page:

The project is not limited to articles based on traditional North American Westerns, but may also incorporate other Western formats, e.g Northern films and Space Westerns. Focus is largely on U.S. Westerns, including their actors and directors, due to the notability and popularity of the genre in American culture.

We can always reconsider later.Eddie Blick (talk)

I'd agree with that. I guess it would fall under WP:BOLD and it seems to be a good opportunity to review some of these articles overall. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It might also attract some new participants if other editors notice addition of (or changes in) the WikiProject Westerns template on talk pages of articles.Eddie Blick (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Expanded assessments section

I recently expanded the assessment section of the project. I used the Television Project's section as a guide as they have some FAQs and other notes that seem helpful in giving some detail on the assessment process. This also includes a section for members (or anyone) to request assessment. It may be that no one uses it, but at least it's there. This also included moving the statistics off the main project page to the assessment page - I think that puts them where they are most relevant, but that's just my opinion. If anyone objects, I'm not married to it and we can easily add them back to the main page and/or remove them from the assessment page. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

All fine by me. Best to have the stats on the assessment page, I agree. Well done, Butlerblog. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Delmer Daves

Hello, all. I didn't know there was a Westerns project until I saw the addition to Talk:Rory Mallinson. I've recently done a lot of work on Delmer Daves and his films. He had a wide repertoire but is probably best known for his westerns. I'll keep an eye on this project and will add your banner wherever it's needed. Good luck. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! The project has been recently revived and does need more members to reach sustainability. If you run across other potential editors, let them know to add themselves to the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Westerns/Members. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, welcome to the group, No Great Shaker. Your help will be appreciated. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, both. Trouble is I'm involved now and finding too much to do, ha! No Great Shaker (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Just mentioning what I'm working on

Just wanted to let people know what I'm working on. Currently, I have been going through the List of westerns on television (in reverse order for no particular reason, if anyone ends up looking at it) and reviewing each of those articles for the following:

• Making sure the article has appropriate genre categories
• Checking them for MOS:TV sections
• Formatting episode sections to use {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}}
• If a separate list article exists for episodes, transcluding the {{Series overview}}
• Making sure those tables have proper date formats ({{Start date}}/{{End date}})
• Checking the {{infobox television}} for invalid parameters and valid date formats (same date templates as above).
• Lastly, checking the talk page for the {{WikiProject Westerns}} (and in some cases {{WikiProject Television}}) banner, make sure it has an "importance" level assigned (as best I can surmise), and if necessary, an assessment level, and then reviewing the television project maintenance items (like needs image, needs cast section, etc).

Part of that has been a crossover project of working with some of the maintenance categories in the Television project, and I have found a lot of articles that either have outdated maintenance tags where the item has been addressed, or doesn't have maintenance tags that it should have. It has also turned up several TV series that were not tagged to the Westerns project. I've noticed other articles being tagged and categorized, so this it good - maybe we'll get some traction ;-). I think once I get through the entire list above, I'm hoping to work on developing some maintenance categories that are specific to the Westerns project. By way of explanation, this would be like current maintenance categories in the Television project, but just pulling the subset of the Television results that are also tagged to Westerns (or are in a Westerns genre category). At that point, I'd like to see if we can work some of that into this project site so that others who come by wondering "what can I do or how can I help?" have some specific maintenance categories to work through. Just my thoughts and updates. If you read this far, thanks! ButlerBlog (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

You're doing a tremendous job, Butler. Well done. I've got far-reaching interests across several projects (one of which is a complete and utter shambles) but I'm trying to give priority to this one as it is in revival mode. For the moment, I'm sort of tidying up as I go along but I'm also striving to ensure each page has both a quality and importance rating. I think there are many articles out there which have not yet been brought into the project fold, especially of actors/actresses who have appeared in westerns. I'll stay in touch. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad to have you and @Teblick: along on this - it has been helpful as I feel more comfortable having more experienced editors I can reach out to if needed. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

My contributions are more modest. I have started going through Western films from the 1930s, adding a WikiProject Westerns template where one does not exist and adding parameter values where those are missing. As I have each film's article up, I also check articles for its cast members, and I add a WPW template where appropriate. In many cases, I also do research to try to add content to articles that have little text.Eddie Blick (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I would consider that much more than modest ;-) That's a huge amount of work! ButlerBlog (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Well done, Eddie. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Eddie Blick (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about a source

What are your thoughts about using The Old Corral (sometimes cited as "B Westerns" or something similar) as a source in articles? The second paragraph in the text block at the bottom of the page linked above begins with "This is a non-profit, non-commercial fan site ...", which makes me think it would come under WP:SELFPUB. On the other hand, the fifth paragraph in that text block ends with "As the Old Corral has expanded, it has been recognized as a comprehensive history and ongoing study of the B western, the western film performers, and the production companies and personnel." — but it gives no specifics about the source(s) of the recognition.

Should we leave citations to this source where they exist? Eddie Blick (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It strikes me as one of those sources that should technically be avoided but is nevertheless reliable so I wouldn't be inclined to remove it when it is already in use. As for whether I would introduce it to verify information, that would depend on the importance of the information and where TOC itself got it from; perhaps also on the existence of other sources. It looks as if some information on the site may have come from WP or from IMDb but there are also references to newspaper articles and, of course, the images are authentic. I think TOC is much more reliable than something like IMDb because it seems to be under the full control of its management. I'm happy for it to be used at the discretion of each editor. It certainly is a rich source of ideas for articles. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, No Great Shaker. I appreciate it. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Importance ratings

Hello, all. I'm currently seeking to expand our portfolio by adding our project banner to articles about events, people and places involved in Western media. As part of this, I'm giving each article an importance rating, although I'm not doing that rigorously. One thing I have thought of is how to rate articles about real-life people, historical events and actual locations which come within our scope, generally because of cultural references. I'm inclined to think these should have mid importance because we are not interested enough for them to be high while, on the other hand, low seems dismissive. For example, I've rated Billy the Kid (real person) and Pat Garrett (real person) as mid; Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid (biopic) as high; and Sam Peckinpah (biopic director) as top importance. Equally, I've rated Dodge City (film) as high but Dodge City, Kansas (actual location) as mid. Does anyone have thoughts on this? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm probably a little tentative. Real life people and places are exceptions in #3 under "What WikiProject Westerns is not" but I tend to lean towards not including real life people and places. It's more based on how to catalog items (articles) and where lines are drawn, but that's just my opinion and I'm certainly not rigid on it. But as far as the actual question of rating importance, your logic definitely makes sense. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Butler. Ideally, I'd prefer to exclude them but they all have cultural sections which are the problem for us. We probably need to decide if we should completely exclude or if we should register an interest in cultural sections only. If we agree to exclude, then we will have to say that at "What WP Westerns is not". Should we have a vote on it? No Great Shaker (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to rate the historical articles as Low, but certainly not higher than mid, because they're in theory covered by another WikiProject. Granted it's not very active. I went with Low because we're looking at one section in some articles, and a popular culture section may or may not be of interest. I could see Mid for some things (Dodge City because of Gunsmoke if nothing else, and Billy the Kid because of the number of films made about him), but I think it's going to be situational. Intothatdarkness 15:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

No Great Shaker If there was a vote, I'd probably abstain ;-) I'm not a "hard" no - more just an opinion in this case. It does make sense to me that the "cultural" sections make the article more relevant to the project and I had not actually considered that, and I like the idea of sticking to articles that have a cultural section, since that would make them more relevant. Intothatdarkness makes some good points - probably a low importance on most, but key ones as mid makes sense. With my opinion stated, I'm certainly willing to go with the flow and defer to those with more experience (or those with a stronger opinion) ButlerBlog (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, guys, I think that does give us the way forward. Never more than a mid and perhaps mostly low, depending on situation. I suppose in some cases we might have to say no but as long as there is some relevance a low should be fine. I'll be happy to go with that. Thanks again, both. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit late joining this discussion, but I have been classifying most of the articles about Western actors from the 1930s as low importance. The vast majority of the ones I have dealt with have only one or two paragraphs and one or two citations -- sometimes none. When I search for the actors on Newspapers.com, their names usually show up only in credits for films. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm doing the same with bit-part players whose articles are stubs. They can always be upgraded if more information comes to light. There's very little on most of the supporting players in the silent era too and it's often difficult to establish how significant a silent film was at the time, especially if it's a lost one. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Actors not primarily known for their Westerns

I have no objection to No Great Shaker adding the Western Project to actors such as Randolph Scott or John Wayne, but I do have a problem with Spencer Tracy. Any actor who has a long, prolific career generally makes films in a wide range of genres, but his Westerns (Broken Lance, narration of How the West Was Won and maybe Bad Day at Black Rock) constitute a small and relatively insignificant portion of his body of work. We'd also have to add the Aviation Project too (Test Pilot, A Guy Named Joe, Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo), and so on and so on. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Same applies to Mickey Shaughnessy. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Clarityfiend. As with Admiral Ramsay six months ago, you have completely missed the point and you are yet again trying to make a WP:POINT on the basis of what you don't happen to like.

While some WikiProjects have a narrow scope that is very precisely defined, the scope of a project like this one is extremely wide. We are interested in ALL Western-related media including the people who have been involved, especially someone who has starred in two major films within the genre. The point about project banners on article talk pages is that THE PROJECT decides if it is interested in the article. It is our choice, not yours. You absolutely DO NOT have the right to decide which projects shall place banners on whichever talk pages.

I can't speak for the Aviation Project but if they should decide they are interested in Spencer Tracy, then they must of course add their banner to his talk page. I presume, however, that they are not actually interested in films and would only be interested in Spencer Tracy if he had been a real life pilot like James Stewart – in whom we are also very interested, by the way.

So that we don't have you running to ANI and screaming "edit war" if we do it, please restore our banner at Talk:Spencer Tracy without further ado and let us get on with developing our project without any more wanton interference. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow. I try to have a civil discussion, and you insult me and attempt to order me around? Are you the owner and sole arbiter of this project? And when have I ever posted to ANI? Seems to me you're the one doing all the "screaming". Clarityfiend (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You are interfering in this project's work by trying to impose your view about what should or should not appear on an article talk page. As I said in two previous posts, one above and the first one at your own talk page, it is the project that decides if it is interested in an article. You have no say in that at all except, perhaps, if a project is defunct. I have had more than enough experience of people like you who decide they will just do whatever they damn well like and, okay, maybe you personally won't run to ANI but that is what the POV-pushers usually do when someone stands up to them. When you have stopped trying to be the innocent victim, please restore our project banner to the page and leave them alone in future. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this discussion was actually brought here instead of being initiated on the actual article's talk page ("the meta information regarding the association between the article and the WikiProject is usually included on the talk page of the article." - WikiProject). But that being said, if a project has an interest in a specific article, then it should be tagged as such. Unlike a category, a project banner is necessary for the project to be able to track various maintenance tasks on articles that are of interest to the project. So if you could just put it back, that would be helpful. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Butlerblog. Your analysis is better than anything I could add. And No Great Shaker, I agree that we are taking a broad perspective with this project. That has been my approach as I have added the template to talk pages. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I brought it here because other actors were involved, e.g. Clinton Sundberg. If all it takes is a couple of credits in Westerns, then so be it. However, No Great Shaker, I recommend you read WP:No personal attacks. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

In compliance with WP:BRD, I made a polite request at your own talk page for you to restore the entry and explained to you that we as a project have a definite interest in Spencer Tracy as the star of two major Western movies. You responded by bringing the matter here and making a big issue out of it, trying at the same time to impose your point of view on this project. We have included or amended our banner on hundreds of talk pages since the project was revived a few weeks ago and this is the first and only time that someone has reverted an entry and told us that they object to us having an interest in anyone other than the likes of Messrs Scott, Wayne "and so on and so on". However, thank you for finally restoring the entry and perhaps we can all now move on. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Spencer Tracy

Actually, Tracy also starred in The Sea of Grass, which I'd forgotten about and, although it's borderline for us, the controversial Northwest Passage. As mentioned above, he narrated How the West Was Won and coincidentally that was on British TV (BBC2) last weekend. I hadn't seen it for many years so I watched it but, as I've thought in the past, it leaves a lot to be desired. I think the best performances are by the leading ladies – Debbie Reynolds, Carroll Baker and the brilliant Agnes Moorehead. Most of the men are miscast although it has LVC as an evil bandit and Richard Widmark stands out as a ruthless railroader. Good to see it again, though. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

CfD

Hello, all. I've opened this discussion at CfD and you may wish to take part. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Cast members and Starring in infobox

As I write this post, I am looking at Roaring Ranch. Eight actors (and their roles) are listed in the "Cast" section, as they should be. Six of the eight are also listed in the article's only paragraph and in the infobox's Starring parameter. That seems to me to be overkill. (I will add that this article is not unique. Most of the Western film articles from 1930 that I have read have similar repetition of cast members.)

I think a significant question is what determines who is a "star" of a film. If a film has eight actors credited, are six of them really stars? What do the rest of you think? Should the repetition remain as-is or should the lists be trimmed? Eddie Blick (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I would trim the lists, Eddie. Looking at this film, the star as such must have been Hoot Gibson, the rest all supporting. It's a case of whose name is billed above the title or in the largest letters, I would say. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, No Great Shaker. That sounds logical to me. I will do so. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I tried to find an image of the film poster earlier but none available online. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, No Great Shaker. Eddie Blick (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

CfD discussion

Hello, all. I've opened this merger discussion. Please take part if you are interested. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Another CfD

On the same theme as the previous one, this discussion has begun at CfD. We have a real problem with categories that have been created haphazardly by User:Sc2353. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I've been AWOL as of late. Thanks for your dedication on this. I've jumped in to add support for the merge (although it doesn't look like you'll get anyone thinking not merging would be a good idea). ButlerBlog (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I had to take several days off myself until this morning. Thanks for your support. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Two more for CFD

Please also see upmerge proposals for Category:Western (genre) drama films by country and Category:Lost Western (genre) drama films in CFD for 19 July. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

New CfD

Hello, all. There is a new category upmerge proposal. Please feel welcome to join the discussion. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Romantic Westerns

Sorry, should have posted this CfD here earlier. Please join the discussion if you wish. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Project standards and guidelines

An update on what I'm doing. I've been working to try and improve talk page banners, categorisation, infoboxes, short descriptions, lead section wording, etc. and I think we need to state some definite standards that should apply to our articles, especially those about films. I'm starting a new section on the project page to address this. It's currently a draft and a work in progress. I'll be happy to discuss any ideas and suggestions here. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Awesome! I've been MIA on another project for a while, but I am getting back around to Westerns. I agree with you about standards. I'm glad you're focusing on films as I am not as active with the films project (so not as familiar with the MoS as much). I'm fairly adept with TV, though, so I can help fill in standards there. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

That would be great, Butler. I need all the help I can get, ha! All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Pioneer Days

I was adding categories to the article on the film Pioneer Days (1930), and noticed that we don't describe its genre. The plot involves Native Americans who attack a wagon train. Are similar plots described as Westerns, or not? Dimadick (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say yes, as that's a common trope in many older Westerns. Intothatdarkness 14:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I would agree - wagon train (and wagon train attacks) would fit the Western genre. I'd say the article should be tagged to the project as well (adding the banner to the talk page). The Westerns project is pretty broad, and there are other animated series/films included (I think). ButlerBlog (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Eats are West

I was adding categories to the article on the film Eats are West (1925), and noticed that we don't describe its genre. The plot involves cowboys and Native Americans, and features the Pony Express. Are similar plots described as Westerns, or not? Dimadick (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, I would say yes. Intothatdarkness 14:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Also agreed, similar to what I noted above. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Work in progress

Hello, all. I haven't been here for a while. Just letting you know I'm trying to improve our coverage of The Three Mesquiteers and their films as well as doing some more work on Revisionist Western. When I look through our film articles, I keep seeing obvious minor copyedits needed so I'm currently doing an AWB cleanup. There's nothing substantial in this – only housekeeping, really. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Task forces & working on banner tags

I added a "task force" for television related articles. Since Westerns as a project encompasses a number of different elements (film, tv, radio, lit to name a few), it will be helpful to subcategorize things into task forces. I think this will help in developing maintenance categories, since the type of needed maintenance could vary greatly depending on what the article falls under. For example, {{Infobox television}} has different parameters and usage than {{Infobox film}}. So scanning for malformed data and such could be problematic in the future if things are not well subdivided. Besides, this may lead to help in specific areas of interest for other editors, since some might be more interested in TV or radio or some other subcategory.

With the addition of the first task force, I am going through television related articles and making sure they are tagged to the task force in the project banner (adding television=yes as a param in the project banner template). In doing so, I have continued to find articles that are in a category that is related to this project, but do not have the project banner ({{WikiProject Westerns}}), so I am adding those as I go.

I have cleared out a few other "pet" projects to make way for more time spent on this project. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I have added all (mostly) actors in Category:Western (genre) television actors to the Television task force. Quite a few of these did not have the project banner at all, so I added that as needed. I was using AWB, and not all of the articles opened (not sure why), so there might be some that lack the project banner and/or the television task force tag. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)