Talk:James Stewart/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

James?

When did the article get moved from Jimmy Stewart to James Stewart? I thought articles on Wikipedia were supposed to be under the most popular name. I see this discussed first thing in the archives, but don't see any agreement to move the article. Shouldn't it be moved back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yworo (talk • contribs) 20:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Stewart redirects here, but as far as I can tell from the page logs, the article itself was never at that name. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
According to the discussion in the first section of the archives it was. How do we go about getting consensus to move it to Jimmy Stewart, as the article naming conventions seem to call for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yworo (talk • contribs) 20:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see it was moved on 9 June 2004 by Rossrs without consensus as he believed the rule was to use the legal name. That's not the rule, which is to use most popularly used name which would be Jimmy Stewart. That's how he is referred to by most people, at least in the US, and in practically every DVD special feature, etc. Should be moved back... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yworo (talk • contribs) 20:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
When you say it was moved "without consensus", is that to say that moving it was improper? It's interesting that it's taken exactly 5 years and a couple of thousand edits by numerous editors before someone has seen cause to challenge me on it. As for your interpretation of what I "believed", I noted in my edit summary that this was his professional name. I said nothing about using his "legal name" which is a completely different reasoning, and quite often the wrong name to use. Rossrs (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I am in absolute disagreement about changing the official name of this article to Jimmy Stewart. Stewart used the name "James Stewart" as his professional name, in the credits of every one of his feature film and stage appearances, and in his substantial military career. "James Stewart" is on his tombstone. To change the name of the article to "Jimmy Stewart" simply because a lot of people refer to him that way would justify changing the name of the Humphrey Bogart article to "Bogie," or the John Wayne article to "Duke Wayne," or the James Cagney article to "Jimmy Cagney." I submit that we should honor how Stewart himself chose to be known "officially," as in the name he chose for all his film credits. Johnny Carson chose to be billed as, and always used the professional name, of "Johnny." Stewart always used "James" except in casual situations. Adhering to the subject's own professional, "official," choice of name seems (except in highly unusual cases, of which I cannot think of an example) seems to fit best with Wikipedia's guidelines and intent. Monkeyzpop (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't disagree that he is well known as "Jimmy" but he never used the name professionally, and every single film credit is "James Stewart"
National Musuem of the US Force records him as "Brig. Gen. James M. Stewart"
IMDb - "James Stewart"
IBDB - "James Stewart"
TCM calls him "James Stewart" (although we incorrectly and misleadingly link to it as "Jimmy Stewart")
he received a Kennedy Center Honor as "James Stewart"
American Film Institute calls him "James Stewart" and refers to him as "Jimmy Stewart" (there's a significant difference in context between naming and referring)
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences calls him "James Stewart"
Encyclopedia Brittanica calls him "James Stewart" and notes that his "byname" is "Jimmy Stewart".
We say "James Maitland Stewart (May 20, 1908 – July 2, 1997), popularly known as Jimmy Stewart" and that is completely accurate in giving each name by which he is professionally and popularly known, in correct context, and see no reason to change this. Rossrs (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No reason to move the article. The above arguments against the move are valid. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, okay, if that's what everybody thinks. I note that the naming rules for people are pretty simple:
General Wikipedia Naming Conventions start from easy principles: the name of an article should be "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". This boils down to the two central ideas in Wikipedia article naming:
1. The name that is most generally recognisable
2. The name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles
Jimmy Stewart is as recognizable, perhaps even more recognizable than James Stewart, and it has the advantage of not needing disambiguation. The current title violates rule 2. Yworo (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't interpret this the way you do. Firstly number 2 - just because there are other people with the same name does not mean that "James Stewart" is not the more correct name for this particular "James Stewart". It does not "violate" the rule. If he wasn't known as "Jimmy" at all, we would have to call him "James Stewart" even if we have articles for 50 other "James Stewarts". That alone is not a reason to change it. When you say "the name that is most generally recognisable" that's an opinion. All you are really confirming is that it is the name most generally recognisable by you, and probably a lot of other people too, and that's fair enough, but I've linked to several different and some quite authoritative sites that use the professional name as their choice. That widespread usage, combined with the fact that ALL of Stewart's film credits are listed as "James Stewart" leads me to conclude that it is the name by which he is most widely known. I believe that point one was written so that we would have, for example, a "Frank Sinatra" article, using the most commonly known name, rather than a "Francis Sinatra" article, using the legal name. The naming convention is written in very general terms to be applied across a huge number of articles. You seem to be stating a case for "Jimmy Stewart" that would place his article at odds with just about every other film actor biography. Rossrs (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Our article about Charles Chaplin is called Charlie Chaplin; Chaplin was listed on film credits as Charlie Chaplin much of the time but also as Charles Chaplin. IMDb's page about Chaplin calls him Charles Chaplin. The most recognizable name for him is Charlie, IMO. Same for Jimmy Stewart! James Stewart's museum website URL is www.jimmy.org... at the USAF Fact Sheet about Stewart, they title the page 'James' then kick into 'Jimmy' in the text. Jimmy Stewart: Bomber Pilot is a book by a fellow USAF officer. Etc. etc... lots of instances of 'Jimmy' in pop culture. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Charlie is different in that he was often credited as "Charlie". Again, Stewart was never credited as "Jimmy". You're not giving an equal example by citing Chaplin. There a lots of instances of Jimmy being used in pop culture. But even in one of the examples you've given "they title the page 'James' then kick into 'Jimmy' in the text" which repeats what I said in several examples that I gave, and the museum site is one I already linked to - ie "they TITLE the page 'James'" - as you said. Rossrs (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have to agree with Rossrs and Monkeyzpop here. Stewart was not only official known as James Stewart in film credits, accolades and awards, he generally signed his sketches and autographs that way as well, the exception being to close friends. It's also untrue and counter logical that using the name "Jimmy Stewart" would avoid disambiguation. See Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation). This article is properly named per naming conventions for stage names. I'd also note that while you certainly could pursue changing the name of the article [1] [2], you should really consider that consensus here does not support your contention. Much evidence has been presented that counters your belief regarding this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, Wikipedia purports to be an online encyclopedia, as suggested by its very name and by Wikipedia:About. If you can find even ONE other encyclopedia that includes an article about Stewart and titles it "Jimmy Stewart," that still would be less than a preponderance of the evidence. Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book, Katz's Film Encyclopedia, The International Encyclopedia of Film, World Encyclopedia, International Dictionary of Films and Filmmakers, etc., etc., all use "James Stewart" as the title of their articles, while acknowledging a public familiarity with the actor which leads many to refer to him as "Jimmy." Edward Asner is a similar example. Everyone who knows him, or knows of him sufficiently, calls him "Ed Asner." But he prefers to be billed and officially referred to as Edward Asner, and his article is entitled "Edward Asner," not "Ed Asner." Monkeyzpop (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I just finished reading a biography of Stewart. The author said he was called Jimbo by his family, Jimmy by his close friends, and Jim by Henry Fonda, but he preferred James for his professional name. 4.215.137.118 (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus for →Jimmy Stewart, and no clear consensus at this time for →James Stewart. No move performed. -kotra (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

James Stewart (actor) → Jimmy Stewart — Jimmy Stewart is the name most used in popular discussion about this actor. In fact, it pretty much an iconic name. It also has the advantage of not needing to be disambiguated. Yworo (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Strong oppose : as I've commented in greater detail above, he was billed as "James Stewart" in all his films, and his military record is by his given name of "James", and these are his two fields of notability. Named as "James Stewart" by National Musuem of the US Air Force, IMDb, IBDB , TCM, Kennedy Center, American Film Institute, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences , Encyclopedia Brittanica. He signed his autographs autograph (example) and sketches artwork (example) as "James Stewart". The main basis for proposing this change seems to be the presumption that "Jimmy Stewart is the name most used in popular discussion about this actor", but this is an opinion and it can't be supported by any measurable data to say that it is used over his professional name. "Popular discussion" does not necessarily equal encyclopedic or authoritative discussion. The fact that official credits, encyclopedic and official industry bodies all use "James Stewart" suggests to me that in an encyclopedic context, "James Stewart" is more widely used as an official title while "Jimmy" is acknowledged as a familiar term for him. Many of these sites name him as "James" and refer to him as "Jimmy", which is a different context, and one that is consistent with the way our article already reads. Rossrs (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Alternative proposal. James Stewart, moving the disambiguation page to James Stewart (disambiguation). Clearly he is the primary topic and the only other one with any significant traffic, James Stewart, Jr. is about 6 times less (72,025/mo vs. 12,443/mo). There are way too many people hitting the dis page (9,801/mo) when they are most often looking for the actor. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Regarding this proposal, it has also been made in the section below, headed "Clarification". The discussion there has gone off-track, but for the record three editors - User:Wildhartlivie who suggested it, User:Bzuk and myself have expressed support there. Rossrs (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Support alternative proposal. There does not appear to be consensus to move to Jimmy, but 199.125.109.126 is exactly right that this is the primary use (for either name), and moving to James Stewart addresses one of the two reasons for moving given in the proposal. Station1 (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Support alternative. Station1 is right. As it happens, I think Jimmy Stewart is common usage, but we can wait until there is support for that position. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Again, perceived as common usage, is not the same as common usage, wherein James is most commonly used in authoritative and primary reference sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC).
        • Since the primary purpose of WP:NCCN is so we can find and link to articles, what our readers perceive as common usage is what should count. But that's a separate discussion, which we should have in a different environment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Support alternative proposal. Clearly primary topic for this name. Rossrs makes a pretty convincing case against Jimmy Stewart. Jafeluv (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose As I've stated in fairly extensive terms in the "James?" section above, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and encyclopedic style calls for as close to an "official" name for an article title as possible. As Stewart chose to bill himself professionally in every single film & television appearance as James Stewart, as virtually every other encyclopedia of note titles its articles as James Stewart, as Stewart signed autographs as James Stewart, as his Oscars, Emmys, and Golden Globes were presented to James Stewart, and as it is far less likely that he is known by his nickname nearly as much in non-English speaking countries than in the U.S., the current name of the article ("James Stewart"), with its prominent placement of the information that he was informally and popularly known as Jimmy Stewart, is absolutely the proper style. I doubt seriously that the persons advocating this change would agree to changing the Abraham Lincoln article to Abe Lincoln, even though virtually all of the arguments made in this case would be applicable there as well. Strong opposition. Monkeyzpop (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Have you read the Wikipedia naming policy at WP:NC? For better or for worse, what matters for Wikipedia article naming much more than the "official" name of someone is the name by which they were or are most commonly known, the name which is likely to be most familiar to WP readers. This is a classic example of where the title should reflect the name he was best known by, and the first sentence in the intro should clearly specify the official name in bold. Welcome to Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd like to note that none of the considerations brought up by the previous posters are even mentioned as relevant to Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people). This is supposed to be a discussion about which title best reflects Wikipedia policy, not the policies of other encyclopedias. Yworo (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It may have been helpful to mention the policies and guidelines that you are trying to bring this article into compliance with in your nomination. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually Yworo, my comments relate directly to the naming conventions. To clarify what I'm looking at - Wikipedia:Naming conventions does not give a clear enough instruction to support your proposal. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) gives more detail, but it is a guideline only. Your entire premise is that "Jimmy" is the more commonly used name and that is the part of the naming convention that you are using to make this proposal. It is your basic premise that I am directly disagreeing with, and giving examples. I don't disagree with either the policy or the guideline, only your interpretation of it regarding this one particular person. If you are going ignore any comments that do not directly cite the naming convention, I'll point out two things about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) : 1. it's a guideline not a policy, and it carries the disclaimer that "editors should attempt to follow [the guideline], though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." (my emphasis) One article out of thousands could certainly be considered to fit within an "occasional exception". 2. It has an ambiguous and generic section headed "exceptions". The guideline that you are referring to specifically notes that there are exceptions, and in that spirit several people are saying that this is a case for exception. In the earlier discussion I directly challenged your interpretation of the naming convention, and for whatever reason, you did not reply. The naming convention guideline has evolved as a blanket to serve all articles in generic terms. There is no way it could be worded to fit every single Wikipedia article. In less obvious cases, we have to use consensus and common sense, and understand the purpose of the convention. The intention was to eliminate articles that were named by the birth name of the person rather than the name under which the person established his or her notability. The example I gave was "Frank Sinatra" over "Francis Sinatra". That's the type of thing that it is meant to clarify in terms of naming. In Stewart's case we have two names for one person that are both widely used. Looking at how each is used, and whether in an official or informal capacity is an important consideration. That comes down to common sense and the concept that the "principle of the rules is more important than the letter." The naming convention was not intended to allow nicknames or media created derivatives to overtake widely known legitimate or "official" names. Why not "Jimmy Cagney", why not "Jimmy Dean", why not "Liz Taylor"? They are all widely used. Why is it OK to selectively choose a sample of uses of "Jimmy Stewart" related media, ignore legitimate instances of "James Stewart" and say that "Jimmy" is used more frequently or more commonly than "James". How exactly do you measure that "Jimmy" is more widely used? How would you prove that uses of "Jimmy" are more legitimate than "James"? Rossrs (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The Jimmy Stewart Show settles the argument? Our own article says "The Jimmy Stewart Show was a television series starring James Stewart". (my bold) Should it not say "The Jimmy Stewart Show was a television series starring Jimmy Stewart"? It links to IMDb which lists the cast, headed by "James Stewart". I don't think "the name of his TV show alone" settles this. Rossrs (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
imdb.com uses professional names. WP uses "most easily recognized" and "most commonly used". Big difference. Let's not apply imdb naming rules at WP - let's use WP rules at Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I've stated more than once that the actual WP rules are a bit ambivalent in application for this particular case. Otherwise, there would be no question here. No one is trying to impose IMDB rules upon this. Don't cloud the waters by claiming that anyone is doing that. Also, please distinguish between "professional name" and "stage name". Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't suggest applying IMDb rules. You are twisting what I said. I was questioning why you would give an example that is not supported by the Wikipedia article you held up as evidence. You're saying we should use "Jimmy Stewart" and as an example you quote an article that uses "James Stewart". The disagreement is about what is "most easily recognized" and "most commonly used". To say that "Jimmy" is either of these, is an opinion. It's not a fact. Rossrs (talk) 06:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose James Stewart was the name on the marquee, "Jimmy" was a product of the media and never used in his lifetime nor since in nearly all official publications. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC). If we are throwing references out: Beaver, Jim. "James Stewart." Films in Review, October 1980. Brig. Gen. James M. Stewart. "National Museum of the United States Air Force Fact Sheet." National Museum of the United States Air Force. Coe, Jonathan. James Stewart: Leading Man. Jones, Ken D., Arthur F. McClure and Alfred E. Twomey. The Films of James Stewart. McGowan, Helene. James Stewart. Thomas, Tony. A Wonderful Life: The Films and Career of James Stewart. and many more. 17 million hits on James Stewart and 2 million on Jimmy Stewart via Google. Absolutely not authoritative but... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC).
  • Strong oppose to Jimmy Stewart - I've clearly outlined my opposition to moving this page to Jimmy Stewart and in fact, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) is a bit ambiguous regarding this particular "stage name" application. However, his professional working name was James Stewart. What is recognizable or the most common use is largely a matter of POV rather than whether when someone says "James Stewart" if that is not clear. The book Jimmy Stewart and His Poems is also authored by Stewart's son, and note both Jimmy and James Stewart are credited as authors. Just as many books can be found about James Stewart the actor and basing argument on the colloquial use is also a bit ambivalent. Also per Monkeyzpop, Bzuk, and Rossrs. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • So his official/legal/professional name was James Stewart, but his stage name, and the name with which most people are most familiar, is Jimmy Stewart. The usage on book titles like "Jimmy Stewart and His Poems" (and his TV Show The Jimmy Stewart Show) reinforces this. I mean, if people were more familiar with "James Stewart", why didn't he title his show and books accordingly? Wikipedia is different from other encyclopedias in some respects, and one big difference is in how it names articles. In particular, Wikipedia puts more emphasis on "easily recognizable" and "most commonly used" than do other encyclopedias in the determination of article titles. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Please show me anyplace that states that his "stage name" was Jimmy Stewart and wherein you can support that "most people are familiar" with Jimmy Stewart. What "most people" are familiar with is a POV statement, depending on who saying it. The stage name is the professional name, it is the name the person is credited as. The name that the man used in the credits of 100 movies is James Stewart. I stated quite clearly that the one book you've posted was authored by both father and son and both names appear as authors. You can't authoritatively state that he went by Jimmy Stewart based on one book. Rossrs has already addressed his comments about the TV show. You cannot simply say "Jimmy Stewart" is more easily recognizable or that it is the most commonly used. Again, if that were the case, why aren't the articles called Jimmy Dean, Liz Taylor and Jimmy Cagney? Most people know John F. Kennedy, Jr. as John-John, should that article be changed to reflect that name?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly - "stage name" = "professional name". To answer your question about why "Jimmy" would be used? One answer may be "marketing". A TV show may well use "The Jimmy Stewart Show" if it's aiming to create an atmosphere of warmth and informality and wanting to attract a family to come sit by the fireplace and watch it together. You're assuming that it's because people were more familiar with the name, but your assumption can't be taken as definitive. I don't know for sure any more than you do, but at least consider that your first guess may not necessarily be the only possibility. It's not greatly different to Lucille Ball who appeared in I Love Lucy and Here's Lucy. "Lucy" is friendlier and less formal. Can you imagine "I Love Lucille"? Rossrs (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I just finished reading a biography of Stewart. The author said he was called Jimbo by his family, Jimmy by his close friends, and Jim by Henry Fonda, but he preferred James for his professional name. 4.215.137.118 (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The sense of familiarity the audience had with him, brought on by his persona, made them think of him as "Jimmy", the name by which his friends and acquantances referred to him, but there is no doubt whatsoever that his billing name from the beginning was "James Stewart", and that's the way an encyclopedia entry about him should be titled. This is really a no-brainer. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Since this discussion began on June 9, and the survey began on June 12, we thus far have a total of 6 votes opposing the name change from James to Jimmy, and 1 vote in addition to the initiator in favor. At what point do we conclude either that no consensus has been achieved (thus halting the change) or that one side has a preponderance of votes extensive enough to call consensus for that side? Also, if discussion is to continue, why has no one answered the opposition side's questions of how this name situation differs from renaming articles Liz Taylor, Abe Lincoln, Bogie, John-John, Lucy Ball, or Jimmy Cagney? Is the side advocating the change unable to articulate how this situation differs from those? The arguments presented here fit those situations just as easily.Monkeyzpop (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Since this request has been listed at WP:RM one of the WP:RM closing admins will close it when the time is up (about a week from the time it was listed on WP:RM). --Born2cycle (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a probable WP:SNOWBALL issue. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC).
I agree. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per every reason cited above. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the only logical main title header for this article is James Stewart, not Jimmy Stewart and not James Stewart (actor) (more on the latter subject in "Clarification"). As has been exhaustively elucidated above by Rossrs, Monkeyzpop, Bzuk and others, the name "Jimmy" is a well-known affectionate nickname, but, in no sense, an officially used name, such as Johnny Carson. The more tangible need, in the discussion below, is to move this article's title back to "James Stewart"—Roman Spinner (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clarification

Regarding the proposal to make this page name the primary use page for James Stewart, moving the disambiguation page to James Stewart (disambiguation). Do the persons who oppose the move to Jimmy Stewart also support this alternative? I would support this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support this too. Rossrs (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that seems reasonable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I, for one, would not. Most people I know have never heard of "James Stewart". No way does this person (the actor) meet primary usage criteria for that name. He does have primary usage of "Jimmy Stewart" - no question about that. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, please support that most people have never heard of James Stewart. I'm just not seeing proof beyond your contention about who and what name has primary usage. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
This is just an opinion. Just because most people you know have never heard of James Stewart does not provide a compelling reason to aim his Wikipedia article at their level of knowledge. An encyclopedia is supposed to educate and if they don't know his name was James, perhaps Wikipedia should be telling them that it was. He is widely known as James Stewart, and is documented as such by primary sources, with Jimmy as secondary. So, please support your notion with something of substance that we can assess. Rossrs (talk) 06:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, in line with Wildhartlivie's specific question which is not about the name "Jimmy": This sub-proposal is "James Stewart (actor)" vs "James Stewart", and in this section, "Jimmy Stewart" is not a candidate. It's a secondary consideration that could only be considered if there is no consensus in the main discussion to move to "Jimmy Stewart" . The "Jimmy" vs "James" discussion needs to stay in the main section, otherwise this is just going to become confusing. Rossrs (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I didn't say most people have no heard of "James Stewart", so I'm not going to support it. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NC and particularly WP:NC (people), which states:

This boils down to the two central ideas in Wikipedia article naming:

  1. The name that is most generally recognisable
  2. The name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles
The fact that he himself used "Jimmy Stewart" in his own TV show and book title shows that he himself recognized that that name is the one that is "most generally recognizable". So should we. The fact the he used "James" officially, legally, and professionally is neither disputed nor relevant with respect to what should be used as the name of the Wikipedia article. Even if you insist that "Jimmy Stewart" and "James Stewart" are a toss-up for (1), Jimmy Stewart wins easily by criteria (2). --Born2cycle (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Even the canard of "stage" name is being invoked; there was never one film or production in which he was credited where "Jimmy", "Jimmi", "Jimmie", "Jim" or other form of "Jimmy" was used. "James Stewart" was his personal, professional and stage name throughout his life. The fact that a reporter, publicity agent or media type used a familiar name was a part of the marketing of the Stewart persona as an everyman. Gerard Molyneaux in his comprehensive James Stewart: A Bio-Bibliography (1992) explains that as a young boy, to his mother, he was "Jimsey" while his father called him "Jimbo", but these were names of affection, kept in the family and rarely ever heard outside of his immediate relatives. His father also later called him "Jimmie" (sic) in a letter and other close friends invariably used "Jimmy" up until and into his later life. At Princeton, he went by the unlikely moniker of "Elmer" bestowed as he was a gangly and awkward youth. As a grown man, entering the field of the theatre and movie business, he was credited as "James Stewart" and from that point on, always used that form of address. While in the US Army Air Corps, and USAAF (later USAF) service, he was always addressed as "<rank> James Stewart." Although he acknowledged that people called him "Jimmy", it was not his preference and in all of his personal writing, he signed his name as "James." In later years, being know as "Jimmy" did not detract from the role that he took on as a storyteller and his folksey poetry was compiled in a 1989 collection as Jimmy Stewart and His Poems by Jimmy Stewart. The publishers used the "Jimmy" in this case, to indicate his iconic connection to his fans and admirers, with the back cover even having an explanatory note in his own words from "Jim." Albeit the use of "Jimmy" was not personal, professional or even commonly used name, so I still would consider this article to be more faithful to the individual to use his preferred name, "James Stewart", one that was most often used in primary sources, while recognizing that the public often knew him in a more familial way, as one of their own, their "Jimmy." FWiW, the fact remains that consensus is what needs to be reached and there appears to be a long stretch before there is consensus on a name change from the present article title, regardless of the flapping about made above. (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC).
Born2cycle : Why would you be so presumptuous as to suggest that I familiarise myself with WP:NC or WP:NC (people), when I have quoted some of the bits from them that you have avoided quoting, in my comments in the previous section. I have no dispute about the policy or the guideline and there are no points that I'm unclear about, but thank you for your concern. I've said several times that I disagree with the selective interpretation of the policy and the guideline, and with the line of argument you are offering in support of your opinion, so do not kid yourself that you are scoring a point by dismissing my disagreement as ignorance. I'm not going to continue repeating why I disagree with you, simply because you keep repeating your viewpoint. For now, let's focus on this section only. Look again at what I've said here and I'll repeat it for the last time. There are two things being discussed. 1. whether to use James Stewart (actor) or Jimmy Stewart. That is being discussed as the main topic above in the previous section. Call it Question 1. If there is no consensus there, (and currently there is no consensus for a move) this sub-section is asking whether "James Stewart (actor)" or "James Stewart" should be used. This subsection is question number 2. Question 2 is framed as a follow-on from Question 1, and Question 2 only comes into play if the decision is made to not use "Jimmy Stewart". Therefore to give "Jimmy Stewart" as an answer to Question 2 is illogical as it is not one of the options in this section. For the record, you said "Most people I know have never heard of "James Stewart" and I replied about the "most people you know. Read my comment again if you missed it. I did not reduce it to "most people", so I do not understand why you've directed such a comment at me. As long as you've raised the point, "most people" and "most people I know" are equally bad in terms of quantifying something that you say is easy to quantify, so I'm not going to continue quibbling over semantics. Enough. I know your opinion, so if you reply to me, please don't just repeat it all again. If you've got something new to say, find the right place in this discussion and say it there, and unless there is something new to discuss, I'm done. Rossrs (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) If the move above is not approved, which I believe it will not be, I would Support a move to "James Stewart". I've gotten quite used to writing "James Stewart (actor)", but I'm fairly sure that the vast majority of inquiries for "James Stewart" will be about him, and there's no reason to make all those people go through a disambiguation page. "James Stewart" is the best option. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That would have to be a separate move request and discussion, noted on the James Stewart talk page, and on the talk pages of all the other uses of that name. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Given that the discussion of the proposal to make this page name the primary use page for James Stewart, moving the disambiguation page to James Stewart (disambiguation) appears to be going that way, a change in the disambiguation page can involve a WP:BOLD move. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC).
All potentially controversial moves are supposed to go through WP:RM precisely to notify all potential editors who may have input. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
And considering that the alternative proposal was posted within 3 hours of the initial posting of the requested move posting, which is more than available to any interested editors, it is contained in the current discussion and has been available for comment, and to date, the "controversy" has been almost completely on your part, there is no valid reason why it would require reposting. Please don't wikilawyer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm wrong, certainly am not 100% sure, but I think it's reasonable to assume that the key is not the listing at WP:RM, but the listing at the dab page and the other James Stewart articles. This discussion is not listed at Talk:James Stewart, so anyone who is watching that page, but not WP:RM or this page, will not know about this discussion. We can verify either way at WT:RM, if you'd like. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Fine, ask at WT:RM, but for note, there has never been a posting at Talk:James Stewart. Of the 27 pages using this spelling of Stewart listed at the disambiguation page now called James Stewart only one has a capnote saying "For other persons named James Stewart, see James Stewart" and two have notation of other pages named James Stewart, and those have a capnote saying "For other persons named James Stewart, see James Stewart (disambiguation)", which is the proposed name of the page, and which is currently redirected to James Stewart. To me, that extends the page name discussion unnecessarily and drags this out for no good reason. I do not believe the spirit of the guidelines require the posting of such a change to garner comment from 27+ article pages. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Added a link to this discussion from Talk:James Stewart. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. No separate move request needs to be initiated to move to James Stewart. It is sufficient to use this move request to decide what to do and how to do it. It is quite common for a move request to evolve into a very different suggestion than the one originally proposed. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Since he was always billed as "James Stewart" in his movies, that is what we should use here. In Britain and Europe few people ever referred to him as "Jimmy", and apparently he didn't even like the nickname. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

  • Support move of James Stewart (actor) to James Stewart From its creation on November 2, 2001 to June 9, 2004 this article was titled "Jimmy Stewart", then "James Stewart" until January 21, 2008, and for the past 17 months, it has been "James Stewart (actor)". To deprive such a world-renowned figure of his seemingly indisputable position as the primary target seems tantamount to putting Gary Cooper as one of a number of other same-named individuals at Gary Cooper (disambiguation), or John Ford at John Ford (disambiguation) or Elizabeth Taylor at Elizabeth Taylor (disambiguation). At least, unlike the inability of the few weak voices to return one of the world's key religious philosophers, Jonathan Edwards (theologian), back to his position as the primary target, James Stewart has, presumably, enough of a constituency to support the move. In neutral terms, however, this should not even be positioned as a popularity contest. Simple facts as in, for another example, William Powell and William Powell (disambiguation), clearly indicate the primary target.—Roman Spinner (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Leave this page where it is, or move to James Stewart (American actor) to distinguish from James Stewart (Australian actor). Page James Stewart lists 26 James Stewarts. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are lots of pages currently linking to James Stewart (presently the disambig page). Could someone please fix these to point to the specific page of the appropriate person? If the meaning of that page is changed, those links will either suddenly point directly where they should (i.e, the specific intended "James Stewart") or to a totally urelated page (i.e., some specific "James Stewart" other than the intended one). Even if no change is made, may as well have links go where the reader (or page-editor) expects them to go instead of having to guess and click-though. Full disclosure: I came here via WP:RM; as admin, I was going to close "no consensus to rename to Jimmy, weak consensus to move the American actor to the pimary and send disambig back to (disambig) page", but this linking issue is blocking the latter action. Please fix at least for users' sake, even if you disagree or agree with any possible renaming games. DMacks (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. Rossrs (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • But how dominant is James Stewart (American actor) over 25 other James Stewarts? He died 12 years ago and his memory is going back into history. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The determining factor must always be the prominence of the subject's place in history, rather than the remoteness of his time period from our own, otherwise, George Washington, who died 210 years ago would become one of seven other same-named individuals listed in George Washington (disambiguation). Gary Cooper died 48 years ago and yet no one has seriously proposed that he should simply join five other Gary Coopers on the Gary Cooper (disambiguation) page. There are seven other blue-linked names on the William Powell (disambiguation) page, but nobody has yet indicated that the actor, who died 25 years ago, should not be the primary target. Likewise John Ford, who won four Oscars as Best Director, and died 36 years ago, is the main topic rather than the 17th century playwright notable for 'Tis Pity She's a Whore or the twenty others in John Ford (disambiguation). Jack Warner, who died 31 years ago, having been in charge of Warner Bros. production during the Golden Age of Hollywood and beyond, is the primary one, rather than five others with that name, including the English Jack Warner (actor).
In American Film Institute's list of the 25 Greatest Male Stars in American Cinema, James Stewart came in at number three, behind Humphrey Bogart and Cary Grant and ahead of Marlon Brando, Fred Astaire, Henry Fonda, Clark Gable, James Cagney, Spencer Tracy, Charlie Chaplin, Gary Cooper, Gregory Peck, John Wayne, Laurence Olivier and... need we go on?—Roman Spinner (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) How dominant is determined by how many times the pages have been viewed. James Stewart (actor) has had 364381 page views since January 1. Going down the disambig page from January 1, 2009 - now:

The sum total of page views for all 26 others was 158767, 39.41% of which were for Stewart Granger alone, which is more than a bit misleading since his stage name isn't anywhere close to James or Jimmy. Regardless, the James Stewart on this page was viewed over 2 1/4 times as many as all other James Stewarts combined. Without the Stewart Granger figure included, there were then 96191 views of the entire other 25 articles. That makes this James Stewart viewed over 3 3/4 times as many as all the other articles combined named James Stewart. I don't know about anyone else, but that says to me that James Stewart (actor) more than dominates over all the other James Stewarts combined. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is definitive to me: The purpose of the dab page is to navigate quickly. These statistics strongly support the assumption that a reasonable majority of people entering "James Stewart" into the search box are looking for the (American) actor. This would suggest access to his article should be more streamlined than the others. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Support as primary meaning. Since another admin is handling this now, I'll state my own position on this issue. Wildhartlivie's data supports what I already suspected, that the (actor) really is who "most" readers probably want or expect to find. And indeed time doesn't matter, no matter how many less-used-by-readers or less-notable/generally-important other same names may exist more recently. Another interesting analysis of the relative "primary" nature would be the number of direct What Links Here links pointing to each page. "Fight data with data" if you want to counterargue that (actor) isn't primary meaning. DMacks (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I'd like to continue the discussion of having the American actor as primary topic. To keep it separate from the Jimmy Stewart discussion below, I am moving the discussion to Talk:James Stewart. Please continue the primary topic discussion there (John User:Jwy talk) 19:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that that is settled

Given the plethora of other uses of "James Stewart" I think the claim that this person is the primary topic is doomed forever. The longer he's dead, the less likely he is to be considered primary, anyway.

However, the fact that Jimmy Stewart currently redirects to this page establishes that this article is the primary topic for that name. I wonder if any of you who voted against the move to Jimmy Stewart are open to reconsidering that decision?

Yes, yes, I know he preferred James Stewart as his professional name, but Wikipedia prefers most commonly used and most familiar names to "professional names", and that's what should determine the title of this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

First, what you are asking is not at all clear. The discussion regarding moving this specific article to the primary page is not in any way concluded. What was closed was the requested move to Jimmy Stewart. So if you are asking if the preponderance of opinion is to reconsider the move to Jimmy Stewart, then no. If you are stating that there will be no consensus to make James Stewart (the actor) the primary page, that is far from dead. You failed to comment on the rather lengthy study of page hits for each and every use and variety of the name James Stewart that I made via the page hits tool. That this page outnumbers 2 1/4:1 all the other page hits combined with Stewart Granger included, and over 4:1 when it is not, speaks for itself. The discussion continues at the disambig talk page for James Stewart. Comment there, please. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Are we starting over again? I disagree with the premise of your final paragraph, and oppose the move. I think, aside from the preponderance of opposition arguments, that the recently posted overwhelming numerical-hits imbalance in favor of James Stewart the actor being the primary topic searched for under the name "James Stewart" effectively dismantles your argument. It was my impression that this had been settled, in that there was no consensus (putting it mildly) in favor of a title change to "Jimmy Stewart." Is it your wish to rehash that discussion as if it had never occurred, or am I missing your point here? Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
First, when I started to create this section both discussions were marked concluded - that was reversed apparently while I was entering this section.
Second, I'm simply asking whether anyone who voted against the move to Jimmy Stewart is now willing to reconsider. If that does not apply to you, then there is no need to reply here, much less get all huffy about it. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Please don't confuse vigorous disagreement with huffiness. I vigorously disagree with you, but asked a sincere question as to whether I had missed your point or if you were rebeginning the argument. Monkeyzpop (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, my closure of the RM above was not meant to stifle discussion on either proposal; it was merely my evaluation of the consensus at that time, since the usual discussion time for RMs (7 days) had long passed, and it was starting to become difficult to navigate the discussion. Mainly I was addressing the original proposal (Jimmy Stewart), which at the time of closure had no consensus for the move, and may arguably have had a rough consensus against the move.
Concerning the second proposal (James Stewart, as primary topic), I did not see a clear consensus for it either, so I made a note as such in the RM closure. However, it appears to be gaining support, and a rough consensus may be imminent. Discussion is good, but repetition isn't so much, so all involved are encouraged to raise new evidence and points instead of just rehashing old ones (I'm not directing this at any particular person, just a broad statement). -kotra (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Kotra, at the time I created this section, you had closed both discussions as "no consensus". With that in mind, I argued why I felt that is never going to change with respect to the James Stewart primary topic issue, and, that that reality might affect their decision on the other issue. Apparently, some are still holding out for the James Stewart possibility, and as that is still open, my question is premature. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It's my impression from the RM discussion that most of those opposing Jimmy Stewart would still prefer James Stewart (actor) even if James Stewart were not an option, but I may be mistaken. Only they can say. Regardless, I think these two proposals can still be evaluated independently and simultaneously, but I would suggest the two discussions be split to avoid confusion. If there are any new views or information about the Jimmy Stewart proposal, this seems as good a place as any. -kotra (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The issue is over, please see previous discussions, as the name change to "Jimmy" was not supported, rather than "no consensus", there was an overwhelming consensus to use "James Stewart" and/or "James Stewart (actor)". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC).
My no consensus was shorthand for no consensus to move. -kotra (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Continued resistance to efforts in restoring primacy of position

-- this discussion is being held here --

One might have thought that it should be a WP:SNOWBALL---one of the world's most renowned film stars, number three on American Film Institute's list of 25 Greatest Male Stars in American Cinema, James Stewart would be so indisputably more prominent than all others who were known by that name that comparisons became moot (as for the British royal Stuarts, they are so firmly ingrained under that form of the name, that the Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't even bother with a "Stewart"→"Stuart" redirect). He was the primary target from 2001 to 2008 (more about that below), but was relegated without a vote or consensus (unless silence, at the time, was taken to represent consensus or absence of dissent) to the disambiguation page and has languished there for a year-and-a-half.

To provide convincing contrary evidence for those who continue to support the use of "Jimmy Stewart" as the sole primary target, one can point to the 37 Interwiki links to James Stewart (actor) (from "ar-Aragonese" to "zh-Chinese"), with virtually all of the languages using either the Latin and Cyrillic alphabet, indicating "James" in the local-language article, with not a single "Jimmy". Are they slavishly taking their cue from the English-language Wikipedia and if we were to title it "Jimmy", they would follow suit? It's possible, although immaterial to this argument which aims to prove that James Stewart and Jimmy Stewart are each the primary topic within their respective disambiguation pages. The only exception among the interwikis is, incidentally, the principled "la-Latin Wikipedia", which remaining steadfast to its literary mandate, has titled its entry "Iacobus Stewart". Further examination also shows that of the 37 interwikis, only five ["cy-Welsh", "id-Indonesian", "nl-Dutch", "ja-Japanese" and "sh-Serbo-Croatian"] use a parenthetical qualifier. Thus, in the remaining 32 Wikipedias, there are no other "James Stewarts"---he is the only one.

The twenty-seven names on the English Wikipedia's James Stewart page which, until January 21, 2008, was known as James Stewart (disambiguation), consist of the actor and twenty-six others. Stewart Granger (who is not indexed in any reference volumes under "Stewart, James") aside, fifteen of the names have no interwikis, seven have one or two interwikis, James Stewart, Jr. and James Stewart, 1st Duke of Richmond have three interwikis and two of the noblemen, James Stewart, the Black Knight of Lorn and James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray have seven interwikis. Returning to the most recent edition of that arbiter of historical prominence, Encyclopedia Britannica, of the twenty-seven individuals listed here as "James Stewart", only one appears under that name in its pages, and all of us know which one. The Britannica also includes an adjacent redirect to the letter "M", for those Earls of Moray whose full name incorporates "James Stewart".

Finally, some of this subject's Wikipedia history is necessary to put the entire matter into perspective. A glance at James Stewart revision history shows that the actor's entry (as "Jimmy Stewart") was created in Wikipedia's first year, 2001, on October 28. A redirect to "James Stewart", created five days later, on November 2, indicates that date as the first one at the article's present location, James Stewart (actor). Thus, from October 28, 2001 until January 21, 2008, it has been an unchallenged primary topic for both James Stewart and Jimmy Stewart and, until the creation of a James Stewart disambiguation page on July 13, 2002, the sole topic. The newly-created disambiguation page stated that "[T]he best-known Jimmy Stewart|James Stewart is the Hollywood actor of that name."

On June 9, 2004, the main title header was changed to reflect the proper form of the actor's given name, "James". Since "James Stewart" was already occupied by the redirect, instead of requesting the deletion of the redirect, "Jimmy Stewart" was simply moved to James Stewart (actor), which it remains to this day. At the same time the redirect was changed from "James Stewart→Jimmy Stewart" to "James Stewart→James Stewart (actor)". The actor was still the primary topic, although now accessed via the redirect, and remained so for the next three-and-a-half years. During the first year-and-a-half there was no hatnote, until the addition, on December 17, 2005, of "Jimmy Stewart redirects here. For other uses, see Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation)". Thirteen months later, on January 13, 2007, the hatnote was revised as "James Stewart redirects here. For other uses, see James Stewart (disambiguation)".

A brief, but illustrative first discussion (from 2002) under the header "Jimmy" in Talk:James Stewart (actor)/Archive 1 is worth a glance for its early James/Jimmy outlook, but the more-specific one in the archive is another brief exchange (from August 2007), #20. "Requested move", in which an editor requested the move from James Stewart (actor) to simply James Stewart. Five editors participated (including Bzuk, one of the current voters in favor of restoring the actor as the primary topic). Only two of the participants expressed opposition to "James Stewart" as the primary topic, but five-and-a-half months later, on January 21, 2008, they were cited as representing consensus for such a move. It was spurred by action taken three weeks earlier, on December 30, 2007 by admin JHunterJ who deleted the "James Stewart" redirect and moved "James Stewart (actor)" to "James Stewart", reasoning that the parenthetical qualifer "(actor)" is redundant since the redirect leads users typing "James Stewart" to the actor's article. Restoration of the hatnote missing since January 13, 2007, "Jimmy Stewart redirects here. For other uses, see Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation)", accompanied the move.

Three weeks later, another admin, who expressed one of the two dissenting views in the August 2007 discussion, returned "James Stewart" to "James Stewart (actor)" and then took two additional key actions—deleting the "James Stewart" redirect and moving the page which had always been titled "James Stewart (disambiguation)" to "James Stewart", thus depriving the actor, who had been the primary topic since 2001, of that place. The comment associated with the move was "[S]omeone went and moved it anyways. I guess consensus doesn't count."[3]. Six months later, on July 9, 2008, another editor repositioned "James Stewart (actor)" from the top of the disambiguation page, where it still gave the appearance of being the primary topic, to be the first name (in order of birth year, 1908) under the subheader, "Actors", ahead of Stewart Granger (born 1913) and James Stewart (Australian actor) (born 1975), thus becoming one of the 27 entries on the page, presumably of equal importance to the remaining 26. The entire action was performed without any discussion or vote, and now, over 17 months later, even eleven strongly argued votes in favor of restoration and only one clearly marked, "oppose", were insufficient for the cause to prevail. Since this is not Twelve Angry Men, a lone holdout cannot influence any views on this topic and further rounds of voting should be initiated at whatever intervals the procedures mandate.—Roman Spinner (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's not have the same discussion in two places. This is essentially a copy/paste of a similar post at Talk: James Stewart. Let's continue the discussion there. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Image

Could it be possible to have another image? You can barely recognize him. There sure might be a better pic of him from another trailer, wouldn't it?... Klow (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is what is available. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no problems with the ones we are currently using. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a Wonderful Life character

What is the source for the spelling of Clarence's last name as "Odbody?" I don't have the film itself in front of me, but every single source I can find says "Oddbody," but when I make that edit, someone always reverts it. The studio cast sheet says "Oddbody," the American Film Institute catalog listing (based on both the studio documents and viewing the film) says "Oddbody," every book on Capra and Stewart I can find says "Oddbody," and I can't find a single source that says otherwise (as I said, I don't have the film itself available at the moment). Yet everyone who has put in a vote here claims it's "Odbody," without anyone yet mentioning what the source of that claim is. I have to presume it's something in the film, but could someone actually explain it to me? At present, I've got about six citations for "Oddbody" that everyone else seems to think are wrong. (BTW, the character isn't given a name in the original short story, so don't look there.) Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Should have replied earlier, the original script and character list clearly show "Odbody" and that is confirmed by the following sources:
  • Cox, Stephen. It's a Wonderful Life: A Memory Book. Nashville, Tennessee: Cumberland House, 2003. ISBN 1-58182-337-1.
  • Goodrich, Francis, Albert Hackett and Frank Capra. It's a Wonderful Life: The Complete Script in its Original Form. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1986. ISBN 0-312-43911-3.
All the other misspellings are just that– misspellings. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC).

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:James Stewart which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 12:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Image overload

There are currently 29 images in this article. Most of them are repetitive and add very little to the text. The reason we link to Wikimedia Commons is so we can give the reader access to images of the subject, without having those images smother the information we present here. Most of these images should be removed. If there is no objection, after a reasonable time has passed, I will remove them.  Chickenmonkey  00:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this, there's no need for more than two images a section. And certainly no need for repetitive, similar images. I love images on pages but as long as there are a few to give you an idea of the person and brighten up the page, that's all that's needed. Too many just looks a mess. It seems to be a common problem on classic actor pages: there are a lot of free images available but most of the articles are short, so they end up being overcrowded with images. And they're often poor quality, making the page look worse. I added two images to this particular page today, but they both show Stewart later in life so I think they are good additions. It's the pre-war, military and Hitchcock/Mann sections that need to be trimmed. The ones that show him clearly and in decent quality are the ones that should stay. --Lobo512 (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
There is definitely something about a lot of images that bothers many people. Lobo512, I certainly hear you about blurry images, never really thought about it before, and I agree with that. With Stewart, to do him justice, it takes a lot of images since his appearance changed rather starkly from decade to decade. And Chickenmonkey, I think photos enhance rather than smother our information, especially since, more often than not, the photographs literally illustrate the topic of the paragraph they'd been placed next to. Since I certainly added most of the images myself, I just took the liberty of being "bold" and culled them down to what I think is the absolute bare minimum. Lobo512, your "Hawkins" 1973 image from the day before yesterday is a blazing jewel and I left that one in. I took out what I believe to be the dreary bane of Wikipedia: endless photos of the Hollywood Walk of Fame, a bit of trivia that always finds it's way in because, like Golden Globe nominations, they are a fact albeit an irritatingly trivial one (celebrities have to pay out of pocket(!) for their "Walk of Fame" slab, and the Golden Globes are nominated by the dregs of Los Angeles). And with those damned photos of sidewalks, if you've seen one, you've seen them all. I put that picture over on the awards and tributes page instead, where it belongs, along with the "Jimmy Stewart" flagpole stand.
Looking at what very few I left in, I think there has to be a shot of Stewart with Margaret Sullavan since everyone agrees that she had a more profound effect upon his career than anyone else. I think the Philadelphia Story shot is the most beautiful picture of Hepburn that I've ever seen and the guy who apparently somehow runs her page won't leave it in, and this is obviously an even better spot for it anyway. In the military section, I culled the shots of Stewart and Gable talking on the couch and the French medal-pinning ceremony but left in the marvelously angry-looking 1960 portrait of Stewart posing in his general's get-up. In the shot from It's a Wonderful Life with Clarence, Stewart's facial expression evokes the noir section of the movie and two-year-olds have already seen the closing "family" shot a thousand times. The Naked Spur still is practically a requirement so that readers know what his 1950s western films look like, and they're a very far cry even from his single 1930s western, Destry Rides Again (speaking of which, did you know that Stewart impregnated Dietrich and she surreptitiously aborted it--it's in Bogdanovich's book Who the Hell's In It? and she told Bogdanovich about it on a plane ride--what might that baby have grown up to look like??). The other day I had enlarged the How the West Was Won photo to belt readers in the face with the grandeur of Cinerama (I actually saw Cinerama in New York and we'll never see its like again, I can promise you that) but since there are practically no photos in the article now, that's anything but necessary. Which brings us back to the sparklingly fine still from 1973 (hurrah, Lobo512!), and that's it. Hope this satisfies everyone. Photographs evoke such storms of removal from Wikipedia that I'm beginning to think it would be easier just to ban them altogether, in spite of the fact that it would obviously make the articles less informative, which is precisely what I've just done: made the article less informative. Upsmiler (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
"I think the Philadelphia Story shot is the most beautiful picture of Hepburn that I've ever seen and the guy who apparently somehow runs her page won't leave it in"
Well I suppose that must be me you're referring to (and you didn't recognise the name?). I don't remember having any disagreement about that image being on the Hepburn page. It used to be there, but there's no space in that section for it with the current one (I even decided to remove this beautiful image, even though I love it, to avoid crowding). The image of The Philly Story of her and Stewart drinking champagne is just so perfectly representative of the film (to my mind). I think it is the best depiction to give of the film and the crucial role (especially since the text mentions her being glamorous). We can't include every nice picture, there's just not room (especially since I might be going for FA status, and they're extremely nitpicky about things like that). I'm sorry if I give the impression of "running the page", that's not how I approach it at all, I just work very hard on it...if you'd like to help out, great. I could do with a hand, it's hard freaking work. And I'm a girl btw.
Anyway back to this article, I don't think that many images needed to be removed. Like I said, I do think they are a fantastic addition to a page. And I'm sure Chickenmonkey thinks that too: he just said 29 was excessive. I suggested two per section, which I still think would work (apart from smaller sections of course...I think WP:Images suggests one every 200 words, so there's a guideline). --Lobo512 (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is over 8,000 words long. By that "one image per 200 words" guideline from WP:Images, that's 40 images for this article, so I should've added eleven images instead of subtracting eight. Upsmiler (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I don't know where I got that from, I looked at the image guidelines after posting that and can't see any reference to it. It also is clearly wrong, so I don't know why I had that in my head! Forget I said that, I regularly say dumb things I'm afraid. Anyway, it basically just says try not to sandwich text between images. It also prefers that image sizes aren't fixed unless really necessary. And that there aren't a lot of similar images, like Chickenmonkey said. That's all there is to it really. --Lobo512 (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe you did a good job, Upsmiler. I just moved some images, to allow the text of the article to flow easier. I would not object to the addition (or readdition) of an image in the "Personal life" section. It is not necessary, but I do not believe placing another image there would be too much.

Lobo512, you interpreted me intentions correctly.  Chickenmonkey  23:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so, I thought we were good to go, but apparently we need to discuss this some more, which is fine.
File:James Stewart in After the Thin Man trailer.jpg, File:James Stewart in Rear Window trailer 2.jpg, and File:James Stewart in The Mortal Storm trailer.jpg add very little to the article and are all essentially the same image. Why does the article need all three?
If there is to be an image in the Legacy section, File:Stewart walk of fame.jpg would be a more sensible inclusion.  Chickenmonkey  05:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh come on, they are adding to the article because they make the text less daunting and brighten up the page. They make an article far more user-friendly. WP encourages pictures, just so long as they aren't overwhelming. I encouraged Upsmiler to add back some more, because it was looking very bare yesterday. S/he says they don't like "Walk fo Fame" pictures, but I think they're fine and I agree it would be more appropriate for the legacy section. I don't see why there shouldn't be the one of him in the 1980s (that I added) in the "Later career" section and the one of him getting married in "Personal life" as well. It's good to have an image in every section, we're lucky that there are so many available that we can use so it's silly not to take advantage of that. The Rear Window one should definitely stay because that's one of his most famous films, and it's good to highlight that. A lot of people who come to the page won't look at anything other than the pictures, so they should draw attention to his important roles. --Lobo512 (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that images add to the quality of articles. We agree on that point. We also agree that there currently are not too many images in this article. The number, right now, is not huge and the images, currently, do not overwhelm the text. My issue is with images that are almost exact replicas of each other. The three I mentioned are all headshots of Stewart with text of his name, from film trailers. What unique information does each image add? The article already contains multiple images that demonstrate Stewart's appearance; what further information does these particular images supply? Use of one such image would seem sufficient. When adding images to an article, it is important to look at what supplemental information is being contributed. The image of Stewart in his military regalia is an excellent picture that adds a lot to the article. The other images show Stewart in various film roles; for the most part, those are good, and I am certainly not arguing against them. It's just the repetitive images that I am concerned with. As you said, there is a large amount of images available. It would seem we should be able to incorporate a better array of images that can both brighten the page and offer more information.
That is not to say we should return several more images to the article. As I mentioned, we do already link to Wikimedia Commons, where a multitude of images can be viewed, without having them overwhelm the article, here.  Chickenmonkey  19:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The headshot images differ quite a bit in the facial expressions as well as the important films from which they're culled. If they were all shot the same decade and had the same facial expression, you'd be right that they'd be repetitive, but they obviously aren't. The extremely unusual expression on Stewart's face in the After the Thin Man shot looks quite different from any I've seen before and the inclusion of the photo spotlights a film featuring one of Stewart's most pivotal performances, a Thin Man movie in which Stewart becomes a raging maniac when Nick Charles (William Powell) outs him as the murderer. It was his first major role and he arguably never topped that performance for the balance of his career, which immediately put him over with MGM: he never stopped working after that one.
In the wheelchair shot from Rear Window, we see a much older, sad, pensive Stewart; this highlights Stewart's biggest hit with Hitchcock and the one that made him the #1 box office attraction in 1954, the year it appeared. Those two photos are extremely, starkly different despite both being headshots featuring his name (indicating that they're from trailers and reducing the propensity for photo-phobic Wiki-vandals snatching them down).
The Mortal Storm remains one of Stewart's finest films for a range of reasons and to put that photo, another headshot with his name but again starkly different in terms of his age, facial expression, and noir lighting, in the Legacy section is altogether appropriate. As Lobo512 noted, most people who visit this page will basically look at the pictures and let it go at that, and it's comprehensively helpful to feature his best, most worthwhile films in the photos. As for including another dreary photograph from the Hollywood Walk of Fame, now you're talking about the very soul of sanity-threatening repetition. If you've seen one of those pictures (and there's one on almost every actor's page in Wikipedia because, although it's of zero importance, its existence is at least a "fact" that requires no inline reference), you've seen them all, since they're absolutely identical except for the name. (And they're as meaningless as Golden Globe nominations but that's a different topic.) If you want to look at Stewart's name, which is literally all the sidewalk shot from the Walk of Fame has to offer, why not depict Stewart himself with an entertainingly different facial expression from a trailer of arguably his finest film? Upsmiler (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The fact that any editor feels any film is any actor's "finest film" is irrelevant to Wikipedia's uses. Your argument for keeping three almost identical images is, essentially, that they show his progressive age, correct? Why not use images that are not almost identical to do this? The article already has images of Stewart from 1938, 1940, 1946, 1953, 1960, 1962, and 1973. These effectively show how Stewart's appearance changed, throughout his career; the other three images are not needed for that. As far as the Walk of Fame image, I do not care if it is added to this article or not. My point in mentioning that image was that it is more logical to include that image in a section titled "Legacy" or "Honors and tributes" than it is to include yet another image of Stewart from a 1940 film. It is my opinion that having such images that are repetitive not only does not add to the article but actually subtracts from it.
I am not trying to be confrontational about this. I am sure we can work together to include images that accomplish what we want to accomplish.  Chickenmonkey  00:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The qualitative aspects of the accomplishments of any subject of a Wikipedia article are scarcely irrelevant, they're the essence of the entire exercise, the reason for the article itself. If Stewart's films were indistinguishable from one another in quality, this article would be the length of Ed Wood's, or wouldn't exist at all. Lobo512 mentioned that the pictures we include should highlight his best films for sheer educational purposes and that should be self-evident to anyone.

You can't seem to see the differences in these photographs and I'm beginning to feel at a loss to explain them since I've already tried. These three images are as different from one another as three close-up images of the same person could possibly be, if you look at and analyze them. I surmise that this is a case of either you can see it or you can't, and you apparently can't. No, the main point is not to show how Stewart aged, although that is an element of it. As I mentioned before, there's lighting (the noir lighting in the Mortal Storm photo differs markedly from the other two), and facial expressions, denoting Stewart's range as an actor, and they're actual scenes from the film itself, selected for dramatic impact in order to sell the movie, albeit with his name superimposed, giving the reader a notion of what the films looked like and how he registers in them.

And the sheer entertainment value of the pictures themselves remains important since each one is quite striking in its own way if you look at it. If the clothing in the military picture was the only shot in which you can detect a difference in the photographs aside from Stewart's age, that's tantamount to sinking to the level of paper dolls. I already destroyed half the utility of this article by removing photos for you and it isn't enough. Lobo512 requested that I restore some of them and she was right, the article was so bare of them that it was half as informative as before (if you go back and look, you'll see that I had originally placed individual photographs beside the paragraph about that particular film or incident, lending an immediacy and making the article extremely illustrative). And no, Stewart's legacy, his sole real legacy that sets him apart, isn't an embarrassingly silly slab from the "Hollywood Walk of Fame," it's his finest films, made with the very best directors. And The Mortal Storm is certainly one of them by anyone's measure, and it's an extraordinarily striking photograph (can't you see that?). If you honestly can't tell the difference between that one and the other two aside from his ages, I don't know how else to attempt to explain it. Upsmiler (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I have upset you in any way. That was not my intention. I did not mean to imply that the qualitative aspects of a subject's accomplishments are irrelevant. What I meant, and what I said, was that an editor's opinion of what is an actor's "finest film" is irrelevant, and it is. I do understand the nuanced differences between the three images. The point is that, in my opinion, those differences are not great enough to warrant the use of three such similar images. You did not "destroy" half of the utility of this article. You improved it, and I commended you for that. It is not a question of what is "enough" for me; it is a question of what is best for the article and its quality. Images do not need to be placed directly beside what they are illustrating; they are capable of standing alone. I understand that you have apparently had confrontations about images, previously (please correct me if I'm wrong). I am not someone who runs around Wikipedia looking for some reason to remove images; I agree that images enhance our articles. I just noticed this article was very crowded with images and felt compelled to say something. I also understand that you have something against the "Hollywood Walk of Fame". That is fine. I did not mean to imply that Stewart's legacy is solely "an embarrassingly silly slab". All I meant, which I have said twice, is that an image of that "silly slab" makes more sense in that section. The reason I say that is because, no matter how silly you feel it is, that is a representation of his legacy. Honestly, this is not such a big deal that I feel discussion absolutely has to continue.  Chickenmonkey  01:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I would never describe a movie as someone's "finest film" in an article (even with Orson Welles, it would be a dead heat between Citizen Kane and Touch of Evil and several others), and I didn't, but it is most definitely up to the editors to discern which films are better than others when choosing photographs to illustrate an article about an actor, it's part of the job. And if the editor has no idea, he's obviously working on the wrong article. Again, Stewart's legacy remains his films, that loathsomely silly slab is merely a tribute, which is why I placed it on the separate "Honors and Tributes" page a couple of days ago, where it belongs, along with the flagpoles and other junkshop geegaws. I'm curious, what is similar about those three photographs? Is it the fact that his name is superimposed in each? Or that all three are "headshots," albeit being utterly different in lighting, facial expression, and tone? Or is it that they're all pictures of James Stewart? (He is the subject of the article, after all.) And yes, I agree that there's no point to continuing this discussion, and I certainly never meant any offense; we're all on the same side in attempting to enhance the article. Upsmiler (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
What is similar about the three images is as clear to me as what is different about them to you. It seems we are discussing different things. Yes, as images, there are several nuanced differences between the three of them. In terms of what they bring to the article, however, they are almost identical. All they do is illustrate the subject's visage. The fact that the lighting, facial expression, and tone differ does not change the information brought to the article by each image. We should not add images just because they are good images; we should add an image to illustrate something within the text. For instance, the military image not only shows the subject but also illustrates the fact that the subject was a decorated veteran. Merely saying "Stewart was a decorate veteran" is greatly enhanced by showing him as a decorated veteran. We can say "Stewart starred in After the Thin Man" and the image of his face in After the Thin Man adds very little to the text. Saying "Stewart won an Academy Award for The Philadelphia Story" is a statement enhanced slightly more so by including an image of him in The Philadelphia Story. Saying "Stewart began making western films" is greatly enhanced by showing an image of Stewart in a western film; it illustrates an important career change. The image of Stewart in How the West was Won adds a large amount to the text because the text mentions that the film was filmed in Cinerama, and the image illustrates that. As much as you dislike the Hollywood Walk of Fame image, it does illustrate the impression Stewart left on cinema; his legacy. Again, however, I am not arguing for that image's inclusion. I am merely saying that, if there is to be an image in that section, that image would add more to the article than the image currently there.
I am not saying these images are not good images; they are. Wikimedia Commons exists to house images. Wikipedia exists to inform readers. Images used on Wikipedia should firstly complement the written material; whether they look good or not is secondary.  Chickenmonkey  03:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Just as the pictures of Stewart in a military uniform or a cowboy hat indicate that he was in the military and made westerns (we're back to the paper dolls again), the shots from After the Thin Man, Rear Window, and The Mortal Storm not only illustrate that he indeed did make these films (just as he was indeed in the military and made westerns) but demonstrate what those films looked like and what Stewart looked like in them, just as the picture of Stewart in a uniform demonstrates what Stewart looked like in a uniform. We know from the text that Stewart was in a wheelchair in Rear Window just as we know from the text that he made westerns and wore a uniform, but these pictures also serve to enrich the article by showing stills from the trailers, which are in turn stills from three of his most important and pivotal movies. These pictures say a lot about these crucial films. The melancholy look of a crippled Stewart sitting in a wheelchair in Rear Window speaks volumes just as the still of a desperate Stewart lit in noir style conveys that The Mortal Storm features a serious Stewart grappling with something intense, thereby magnificently and memorably amplifying the article's statement that this is the first American film delineating the poison of fascism/Nazism and that his former friends were chasing him to try to gun him down in down in cold blood (which is precisely what they do to the film's other lead, Margaret Sullavan's character). There's more education in the look on his face, expertly lit by Frank Borzage and directly captured right from the screen in the midst of one his finest performances in one of his greatest roles, than in a hundred mere costume changes. Plus, as Lobo512 mentioned, many readers will simply glance at the pictures and it's more educational for them to view handsomely compelling photographs (of scenes chosen by the studios for the trailers themselves) than paper doll pictures of Stewart in uniform or cowboy hat or a ballerina tutu. With Stewart, don't lose sight of the fact that it's the films that count, it's the reason we're talking about him, not because he wore a uniform and parlayed his film fame into one of the fastest rises through the military ranks in American history, interesting though that may be, but because he made some the greatest American films with some of the finest directors, and delivered some of the most superbly inspired performances. The article practically requires pictures from the movies themselves because they're the point, you have it backwards about what's more or less superfluous, which is the military uniforms and sidewalk slabs and anything else not directly screen-oriented. Upsmiler (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
It is not "paper dolls"; it is using an image to complement the written material. That is Wikipedia's use for images: to complement the written material. The films are not the focus of this article. James Stewart is the focus of this article. When using images, in this article, we have to be careful to make sure the image is illustrating the subject of this article and not the film. Images that show how great the film is could possibly be used in the article on the film, but images here should be used to complement the material we have on James Stewart.
Full disclosure: in an attempt to improve my editing, I asked about images and their use at WT:Images#Image use and the purpose of images. In that post, I mentioned this discussion.  Chickenmonkey  04:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
James Stewart's film career is the reason for and the focus of any article about James Stewart. Why else write about him? It's the main topic of discussion through most of the article since Stewart made movies non-stop through most of his adult life, and definitely dwarfs his military heroism in importance, although that certainly is part of his story and is accounted for here in both text and image. And I've just painstakingly explained to you four to six different times, until I'm literally blue in the face, that the images do complement the written material (which is largely about his movies, as a matter of course) but for some reason you seem unable to take in what I'm saying. Somehow you simply cannot connect the dots. May I ask your age? And as for your "full disclosure," please mention this discussion anywhere you like and convince as many people to read it as you can. I have a feeling that the more people who read it, the better for Wikipedia in general. Upsmiler (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
You may ask my age, but I will not give it. I apologize, again, for the confusion we are experiencing. I do understand that the images do complement the text. My point is, and has been, that what is added by the images is not significant enough to warrant three images that, in my opinion, are very similar to each other. That is all. It is nothing personal. The current version of the article (as far as the images are concerned) is better than it was.
I disclosed my post at WT:Images because I had mentioned this discussion and felt the polite thing to do was to let you know.  Chickenmonkey  06:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: The wedding picture you restored is a great picture that adds plenty to the article. See? We can agree, sometimes.  Chickenmonkey  06:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
It's always better to agree than disagree, and I'm delighted to close out the evening on that note. And by the way, Happy New Year! Upsmiler (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy New Year!  Chickenmonkey  07:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
It sounds to me that the thing to do is improve the captions. So I'm going to go ahead and do this. I think I'm also going to make a couple of image changes, so you guys can see what you think of them. --Lobo512 (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay take a look, see what you think. I think with the captions, the images now enhance the reader's understanding of Stewart's life and career. I added back the star I'm afraid, but if you really hate it Upsmiler I won't care if you remove it. I know the image of him in 1981 isn't particularly relevant, but I still think it's useful to have an image of him from that time period in the section (basically, a "better than nothing" approach.)
Now the thing this article desperately needs is a better lead. It is far too short for such an important, widely-loved individual. --Lobo512 (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I think your edits were very good. I agree that the lead needs to be expanded. Ideally, the lead should offer a summary of all information contained in the article. The current lead does not do that.  Chickenmonkey  17:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Stewart/Archive_2&oldid=1136834822"