Talk:Joni James

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians. Illinois Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Chicago Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pop music This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Women in Music This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

where is Joni James star located on Hollywood Blvd?

thanks Vince (unsigned comment)

6630 Hollywood Boulevard according to this.

talk) 14:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 07:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now updated with one or two references, and the article is now longer than a stub so I've changed it to start class.

talk) 14:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

...gave her a shout-out in 1976: http://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/1976/05/01 A²Kafir (and...?) 03:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All this edit warring has got to stop, it seems like only 1 user want's it changed to "trivia". Every article has it titled "Popular culture" there is no reson to call it trivia, just leave it as isGfyd (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's *NOT* "edit warring" - though those who disagree with the changes often characterize it as such. Here are the facts: "In Popular Culture" is by all reasonable considerations a clear synonym for "Trivia". Now, there is absolutely no ( as in zero ) rule that disallows "trivia", it is simply "discouraged". The key point here is that trying to push trivia around that "discouraged" mentality just to include it results in people calling it TRIVIA ( in fact the more accurate term ). Let's agree to be honest: call it what it is, or get rid of it. "In Popular Culture" is the Wiki Politically Correct term for, you guessed it, "Trivia".

Let's stop with this hyperbole about "edit warring" and see things as they are. If you REALLY think about it, talk, I think you will understand the realtion between "In Popular Culture" and its more honest synonym, "Trivia". Why be dishonest about the reality of the subject matter? Are you embarrassed that you find "trivia" interesting? =//= Johnny Squeaky 04:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In popular culture" is not a synonym for "trivia". For example: Ben Franklin suffered from insomnia. This is trivia, but it is not "In popular culture". A list of various books, movies, plays, TV shows, songs, etc. that mention Ben Franklin would be trivia and "In popular culture". A sourced discussion of Franklin's impact on popular culture (discussing, for instance, widely used folk wisdom that originated with him) would be "In popular culture", but not trivia. For "In popular culture" sections that are essentially indiscriminate lists of pop culture uses of the topic, we have a specific template, {{inpopularculture}} to label the problem. If editors are able to salvage the section, it can be a valuable addition to the project. If not, the section should be -- and generally is -- scrapped.

Whether or not a particular pattern of "I'm-right-you're-wrong" reverts constitutes edit warring is a topic for another venue. -

talk) 13:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

In the way it is used in "actual practice", it is in fact used to mislable "trivia". The use of "In Popular Culture" to include TRIVIA is standard practice. The majority of the time, "In Popular Culture" sections contain trivia.

I really don't understand why people object to truthfully labling trivia as "Trivia". It is *in fact* not disallowed at Wikipedia. =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "way it is used in 'actual practice'" is called the

talk) 04:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I couldn't have put that better myself. But I have to say, it is most unhelpful when people don't engage in dialogue on issues. I tried to talk too you, Johnny, on several occasions, but just got accused of being uncivil and making threats. Continuously reverting the edits of others, particularly when there is consensus for something, is disruptive, and not helpful to Wikipedia as a whole. If you disagree with something in future, start a discussion about it on the talk page. That's what they're there for, after all.

talk) 11:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

As this has been raised again on my talk page (with my warning labeled an "uncivil threat"), I would like to clearly state that I believe a clear

• Johnny Squeaky[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

The following editors disagree:

• TheycallmetheDoctor[14][15]
• Paul MacDermott[16][17]
• 67.170.169.30[18]
• Gfyd[19][20]
• SummerPhD[21][22][23][24]

There has also been considerable discussion on various talk pages. All discussion on Johnny Squeaky's talk page is labeled "uncivil" and/or a "threat" and removed. If anyone wishes to argue this does not demonstrate a working consensus, feel free. If anyone wishes to present new arguments to establish a new consensus, please do. Otherwise, I believe further edits contrary to this consensus are unsupported and disruptive. -

Well, the section was removed by

talk) 15:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Neither one gave a summary for why they did what they did. For the moment, I've restored the {{inpopularculture}} tag. By whatever name, it is currently an indiscriminate listing of appearances and does not explain the subject's impact on popular culture in any way. Any other opinions before we yank it? -

talk) 00:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I have just modified one external link on Joni James. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060129151044/http://www.usmilitarypi.com/sangley_message.htm to http://www.usmilitarypi.com/sangley_message.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joni James. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111019161259/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/1996/09/22/1996-09-22_one_from_her_heart___joni_ja.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/1996/09/22/1996-09-22_one_from_her_heart___joni_ja.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110131183532/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/2000/10/28/2000-10-28__joni_james__a_melancholy_ba.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/2000/10/28/2000-10-28__joni_james__a_melancholy_ba.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James had seven Top 10 hits on the Billboard Hot 100 chart.[1] Note: The Billboard HOT 100 chart started on August 04, 1958. Previously, there were four different Billboard charts: Airplay (DJ), Sales (Best Sellers), Juke Box and from late 1955 additionally the TOP 100. Therefore, Joni James had seven Top 10 hits on any of the different Billboard charts that existed previously to the Hot 100. Werner Mannheim (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Werner Mannheim (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werner Mannheim (talk • contribs) 02:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]