Talk:Jim Henson

Removal of most of the entire page during ongoing deletion debate
This "pruning" is more like eviscerating.

Let's try not to page-blank most of a page of sourced quotes and research carefully done by myself and -- during an ongoing deletion debate.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE: I won't add this material back at this point in time, if it all gets removed again, but please, I ask, let's please discuss here on the talk page why it is so important to remove entire swathes of the page including research by during an ongoing deletion debate about the page, itself. -- Cirt (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't say I much mind the pruning that had been done to the Quotes section. I'm sure there have to be better Henson quotes out there than the one saying that he was interested in theatre and had done some acting.  But, I really do object to the pruning that had been done to the About section that  had created.  Those were some darn good quotes  had found.  Take for example this one:  "Jim Henson was a one-of-a-kind visionary whose works have entertained and sparked the imagination of millions of people across the globe for generations."  That glowing remark was probably the best and most memorable quote on the entire page (at least in my humble opinion) and is precisely the kind of quote we do not want to prune.  Respectfully, allixpeeke (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

"I won't add this material back at this point in time"? You just did, at that point in time. Page blanking? Nobody blanked the page. During a debate? You are well aware it is permissible to edit a page during discussion at VfD. (If not, the page would still look like this.) This sort of misleading and inflammatory rhetoric is not constructive. What rationale is offered to explain why the [//en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Henson&diff=2027551&oldid=2027491 ten quotes in question] are worthy of keeping? Because they are "entire swathes"? Because they are the product of "research"? This says nothing about the merits of the article content. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Thank you for reconsidering the quotability of remarks from what was a very weak interview that ran in a virtually unknown book self-published by its compiler. The one quote I had retained, about friendly competition, is not a particularly brilliant quote, but it was the best to be found in that source and displayed something of his character. Can we go ahead and remove the rest now? I disagree about the "glowing remark" in the About section. Saying something is truly remarkable is not necessarily, by that virtue, a remarkably quotable statement. The two quotes I chose to retain in the section, from Matheson, at least said something of substance about what was remarkably original in Henson's work. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding Cirt's objections to "pruning for quotability":
 * Comment: I strongly agree with comments by, who argued for why we should keep the quotes, above. -- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Regarding allixpeeke's two points:
 * All the quotes in the About section should be retained. They are short, pithy, and descriptive. They are by notable people about another notable person. They all satisfy multiple different suggested points at Quotability. They should all remain. And users should be allowed to see them during an ongoing deletion discussion. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Avoid image spam
Let's please avoid image spam.

The page should not be entirely taken up with images.

And images should not have unsourced quotes as captions, instead of descriptive captions about the quotes. As this violates WQ:NPOV.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I approve of 's edit. She or he wrote, "Pretty much every single article on this wiki follows this format. Fail to see how this should be exceptional."  I concur with that. I wholly reject the view that this is too many pictures.  Quite the contrary, it's a pleasant smattering.  The page is definitely not "be[ing] entirely taken up with images." Also, the quotes are not unsourced.  (Technically, one image did have a quote that was not properly sourced, viz., the one with the Elizabeth Hyde Stevens quote.  It didn't mention that it was an Elizabeth Hyde Stevens quote, which might mislead readers into thinking that it was a Henson quote in which Henson refers to himself in the third person.  When someone other than the subject of the article issues the quote, the name ought to be provided.  I went ahead and fixed this.)  As long as there is a source listed somewhere in the article for each quote, it's fine.  There is no requirement (at least none I've ever heard of) indicating that one is to provide full source info under an image in addition to in the usual place, and it is the universal convention, as I see it on virtually every page, to add quotes to the image captions exactly as  has done.  There's no rule (at least none I've ever heard of) indicating that only descriptive captions are permitted on Wikiquote. Certainly,  has not violated NPOV.  The mere inclusion of quotes within image captions does not ipso facto violate NPOV.  Had someone added a bunch of quotes to images but specifically selected only those quotes that lambast Henson and make him look like a fiend (e.g.), that would likely constitute an NPOV violation, but nothing akin to that has been done. Respectfully, allixpeeke (talk) 11:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Respectfully and strongly disagree. I hate this format. It looks awful and distracting. But I'll defer to the judgment of, above. -- Cirt (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)