Jump to content

Talk:Shirley Temple/Archive 1

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

Headline text

Italic textshirley rules and i think thats "what Brittany rocks.." Shirley Temple said!everyone says. shes the best child star in the world she showed that kids can act so that probaly took alot of time.So thank you shirley.Shirley Temple should be honored as the the most famous child star of all time, not just the 1930s... She also carries one of the most famous, familiar names on Earth. Simply stating her to be the most famous child star of the 1930s is a serious understatement. It should be changed immediately.

I read somewhere that Shirley Temple had a fetish for surgery. Does anyone have any proof of this?

Here is a Shirley site you might like to look at: Shirley Temple: Little Star http://littlestar.bravepages.com

Why don't we have a picture of her as a child, if that is how she is remembered?

Finding copyright-free pictures is difficult. RickK 07:00, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Anyone want to mention how SNL and the Simpsons both made fun of her?

  • Why? Is there anything that SNL and the Simpsons haven't both made fun of? -- Nunh-huh 07:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What about the mixed nonalcoholic drink named after her? --Onlyemarie 22:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It says she is currently dating OJ simpson???? Can someone delete?? That is super stupid whoever wrote that about her and OJ simpson.

What is with the giant list of movies?

The list of movies is huge. Let's pare it down to something representative. There has to be ten that are the most famous. The rest are red (no page), just getting in the way, and there are plently of other web sites with the full filmography, including IMDB. I will wait two days for objections.

On second thought: I am doing it now. There are twelve movies that are blue (they have pages). The rest go.

Why not spin it off into a seperate article -- Shirley Temple Filmography? John Barleycorn`
Great idea. Im will do that. Thank you. Amorrow 16:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Look at that NNDB entry!

Now, THAT is what I call judgment! Look at that photo they use as NNDB! It is NOT the little girl. It the later teenager! See how they subtly acknowledge that the woman had a life after she got married? Great call! I congratulate them.

For IMDB to have the photo of the little girl works also, because IMDB is only about her movies. That works also.

You walk down the street and hit someone with the name "Shirley Temple". We already know the reaction, or the "vote" if you will, is going to be. Why bother even asking? The biographer is suppose to look beyond that.

Now, there are lessons in this little episode. Do we go and apply them to Stepin Fetchit or do we not? Antaeus? What do you think? Quill? Raul? Noitall? (You must have some more to say). And, of course, Mr. Kaufman? Come on, wake up! Wake up! What will it be? Amorrow 17:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

A fine point about references...

I find that one of the things that makes Wikipedia is that the references can be so brief. Unless there is a special relationship between this page and the page point to, you need only minimal explanation. The reader can just drill down if they want extra details. The reference is otherwise fine, but in other cases I run into, I see sometimes that writers try to insinuate something about the thing referred to because they do not have the guts to put it on the other page and to then duke it out with the people who have that other page on their watchlists. It is not that the minimal reference completely solves that problem, but it helps to avoid it. That is why I made the reference to the drink minimal, but the expanded reference is fine as it is now.

In an earlier version (which, BTW, I know I make too many of), I took out the "most famous" thing out becuase I thought I read that you are supposed to avoid that kind of thing. No biggie. I will conceed the point because, I think that most people wold agree and again, it is fine point of style in this case.

And Antaeus, thanks for cleaning up the extra word "image" in the Stepin Fetchit page. That certainly improved on how I had left it. Amorrow 16:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

A point of style/Breast Cancer

Now look at how I did the reference to the breast cancer thing. I could have just come out and written she had breast cancer. What did I do instead? I made a reference to her being on the cover of People magazine again later that year with some other very fine women. That is what a lady would want. It is elegant. It is honorific. It gives additional information in a compact form and tells the reader how to get even MORE information, if they wish. It is completely legitimate technique, without NPOV problems, and yet it still allows the author to demonstrate his good breeding and do Mrs. Black a tiny, little favor. The nice gesture is simply "tastefully done". Amorrow 16:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I see that Amorrow is proud of how Black's breast cancer is handled in the article, but I strongly disagree. First, the implication is that there is something "untasteful" about getting breast cancer, which is simply not true. Second, it suggests that Black herself is somehow embarrassed about it, or has tried to downplay it, when the opposite is the fact - and it is an important fact. Arguably Black's courage and grace in coming out publicly with her breast cancer in the early 70s was more important, and probably saved more lives, than her work has a child star during the depression. But most importantly, this is an encyclopedia, and the primary criteria must be the clear presentation of accurate and relevant information. The previous manner of handling the "breast cancer thing" was far too ambiguous and indirect. I have made a first stab at a clear description of Black and breast cancer, but of course welcome any help in improving it.Gogh 23:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The passing of Mr. Black

I called my local KR newsdesk and they confirmed Mr. Black's death. Knight Ridder Community Newspapers Inc. (650) 327-9090 http://www.paloaltodailynews.com/

What was Mr. Black?

Kaufman: I am going to let your deletion about the religious stuff stand, but the situation is complicated. Now I know that Mr. Black was a Ivy-league educated junior executive. I gotta do some more reading about this. I mentioned the explaination about the religious stuff because I anticipated that the reader would assume that there was something wrong because of his not seeing any of ST's films. The guy just passed away and hopefully some decent info will come out in some obits that will allow us to write a page on him. The whole way that Andrea Dworkin's death was handled at Wikipedia was so messy. Let's try to do this one more nicely. We need that ten-word summary of what he was: marine research entrepaneur is close, but we need better.

BTW: My citation on the religious stuff (I assume it is true):

http://www.adherents.com/people/pt/Shirley_Temple.html

"Later Shirley Temple met Charlie Black, a man who had been raised in a boarding school with extremely restrictive practices limiting exposure to films and even radio. Charlie was completely unaware of her fame and had never seen any of her movies."

As far as I am concerned, this is journlistic standards applied to an on-line encyclopedia. Together, we will figure out the right thing to do. Amorrow 05:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

A fine point: News and niceness

Yes, I de-wikified the Bobby-Soxer link. I want the page to be nice and complete if people look at it next week because of Mr. Black's passing. The red link bothers me. Can anyone put out a quick review of that film? I have already done something (not very good yet) for her first husband. Amorrow 05:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Justification for recent changes

I changed the intro. The long list of movie is uninteresting. IMDb has that. Why did I do it. It was practically an involutary act.

1. I listen to KQED in San Francisco. Every Sunday, they have City Arts & Lectures. http://www.cityarts.net/ Every Sunday, I hear Linda Hunt say: Great artists ... blah blah blah .. "often discussing the creating process." THAT is what people want to know. THAT is what Mrs. Black wants people to know. How did she DO THAT? How the heck did get get all those movies made??? She has a great memory and she has talent.

2. I sat through "The Little Princess" with my daughter at least a half dozen time, and I loved it because I got to spend time with her and she liked it. At the end of the video, they summarize Temple's work style. She could memorize entire scripts. Steel trap memory. She could learn all the dance steps (citation: "Codfish Ball"). She could cry on cue, but the rest time... if was as if she was on happy pills all the time.

That is why I made the changes. In light of the recent events, it also reads well.

Now, I feel that I have described part of MY creative process.

Sources

Since people have a "thing" about all those links, I am going to start a new practice here at Wikipedia. I will cite my sources (shock, shock).

OK, some of the source suck on the page, like that last Reagan link: That massive document for just one line. But some of those things are better cites about STB than Wikipedia will EVER be. I was just trying to dredge up some info on Mr. Black. I heard that there was an obit in

Now I guesss I will have to scrounge for a copy of the rag (it is actually a nice paper, I just like rough humor a lot).

I am laughing

I am sure that we all enjoy the obvious insinuation that STB drinks a lot of ST cocktails of all varieties. I am laughing at the newly-widowed person, boys. Ya happy now? Amorrow 00:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If any sane person thinks that observing the perfect true fact that several cocktails including probably the most famous non-alcoholic cocktail contains an "obvious insinuation" that the person they were named for drinks a lot of cocktails, please do speak up. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Look dear: SHE JUST LOST HER HUSBAND OF 55 YEARS. If she tried to handle it by going on a bender for three months, I would not blame at all. 'nuff said. Amorrow 01:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


Obituary on Mr. Black

The Palo Alto Daily News (the Friday edition, i.e. the August 5, 2005 edition FYI) says this:

Shirley Temple's spouse, C. Black, dead at 86

Charles Black, a businessman, maritime expert, and the husband of former child star Shirley Temple Black, died yesterday of complication of a bone marrow disease, his wife said. He was 86.

Black died at his home in the San Francisco suburb of Woodside, with his wife off 55 years and other family members by his side. He had suffered from the bone disorder myelodysplastic syndrome for nearly three years.

The couple met in 1950 in Honolulu where Black had been working for a shipping company. They married that same year. "He was an intensley interesting and fascinating man to me," Mrs. Black, a former U.S. ambassador to Ghana, said by phone from her home yesterday night. "I fell in love with him at first sight. It sounds corny, but that's what happened. But I don't think he did with me."

Mrs. Black, 77, was 22, when she and her husband met.

After moving to California, Black started a fishing and hatchery company and worked as a consultant on maritime issues. He served on a U.S. Commerce Department advisory committee as well as various National Research Council panels. He also co-founded a Massachusetts-based company that developed unmanned deep ocean search and survey imaging systems.

Born in 1919, Black earned a master's degree in business from Stanford University and served as a naval intelligence officer in the Pacific theater during World War II, earning the Silver Star and other honors. He also served as a regent for Santa Clara University and helped established a charity that helps youth.

The famous Shirley Temple dress seen in Teen Titans

A Shirley Temple-style dress appeared in an episode of Teen Titans. Raven's cloak was transformed into the dress by Mother Mae-Eye. --User:Angie Y.

Could someone elaborate on this? Racism in Temple's Films

From the second paragraph of the Film career section: "Many of these films are dated and would be considered offensive now." Why? --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It is because the black dancers she worked with had to take on clownish, smiling Sambo-like roles. On the other hand, the target audience of seven-year-old girls are unlikely to go out and join the KKK because they watched a S.T. video. The comment is out-of-place. It is, at best, speculation. -- Pinktulip 11:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the comment referred to the Baby Burlesks, not the later roles. If you watch these short films, they depict small children in very adult situations--in one film Temple (who was about four at the time) plays a prostitute; in another she's tied to a stake and pelted with mud. A lot of reviewers, including Temple herself in Child Star, note the controversial nature of these films. Mademoiselle Sabina 08:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A section on racism in Shirley Temple's films is clearly not out of place - indeed, the absence of such a section is a serious flaw in the article, given how much this topic has been discussed both in film and in sociological studies. I agree that the comment that "many of these films are dated and would be considered offensive now" does refer to the early films putting children in adult roles and situations, but there has been ample criticism of racist stereotypes and images in her films. Note that simply recognizing this is not the same as accepting the claim that her films were racist - and, particularly given her age, says nothing about Temple's responsibility for it if it is racism. But to ignore this topic undermines the credibility of the entire article. I have added such a section and given two references, that specifically argue that three of her films contain racist images. This is just a begining however, and I welcome and invite other editors to add to and improve it.Gogh 06:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: "But to ignore this topic undermines the credibility of the entire article.":
Whether or not an entire section devoted to this subject is appropriate, the above remark strikes me as inflated rhetoric and indefensible. I think this remark "undermines the credibility" of the argument Gogh is attempting to make. Gogh seems to me an editor with an agenda. TheScotch 07:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I am new to this page and do not know the culture you have developed here - perhaps personal attacks are accepted as the side effects of the hard work that committed editors often put into their articles, and taken in stride. I will do that here. I do not have an "agenda" (I am not sure what the scare quotes are intended to convery), other than making the article more accurate. If I have written something inaccurate, I welcome your pointing it out. If I have expressed myself badly, or offended you, I apologize. Let me try again: Many modern (I welcome your improved word there by the way) film and social critics see many of Temple's films as racist. This has been discussed at great length. Wikipedia is not the place to take a position on whether or not her films were racist, but it is the place to recognize and summarize the discussion. Ignoring this undermines the credibility of the article, as it leaves the impression (untrue I am sure) that the article is ignoring negative or unpleasent information relating to Temple. I belive that by adding such a section I have strengthened the entire article, though of course it is just a begining, and is in need of much more work and improvement - a task which you have already begun. I think the optimum outcome here would be to have a brief section on this page, and then link to a new page titled something like "racism in film" which could discuss the issue in greater detail.Gogh 07:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

SEWilco made a helpful change in the text - though I note that I never claimed that the word "infused" was part of Gibron's quote. I think a more complete discussion of racism in Temple's films might justify the use of the word "infuse", (and note here I do not mean that her films were infused with racism, but that the claim of most critics of her films is that they were infused with racism) but I agree that such an elaborate discussion is not appropriate to the current article, and so I agree with the revision. I made a small copy edit to SEWilco's revision to make it grammatically correct. Thanks for the help with this. I am going to look for a reference that lists the Temple films that have been identified by critics as racist - I currently note three in the article. If it is only three then it would be good to note that, as it is a small percentage of her total output. If it is more than three it would be appropriate to note that tooGogh 16:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As Gibron says, there are many bits scattered around which would never be used in a remake of her films. Any old media will have a few things which are not presently acceptable (I recently edited some from a 1900 biology book). A significant review would be relevant, but not a list of every film with one second of obsolete material. And I couldn't find a "racism in film" article. (SEWilco 05:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

lists...

I have a thing about lists: I do not think that they belong in brilliant prose. A long list of wikilinked costars is information, but the value of all that detail is low. Just characterize her has have worked with "many of the most famous" stars and let it go at that. -- Pinktulip 11:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Shirley Temple Video clips

Folks,

I cannot post the video clips of Shirley Temple below because my family owns evtv1.com and there is a :15 commercial in front of the clips. I have spoken with several long-time editors and they suggested I post the appropriate video clips on the article's talk pages for the editors to see if they wish to post them in external links.

All of these clips are 100% legal from a copyright status. You have to decide if the :15 commercial is too obtrusive or if the clips are worth the "pain" of the commercial. I leave it up to you. -Jaffer

Shirley Temple Dancing With Bojangles http://www.evtv1.com/index.asp-itemnum-226

Shirley Temple War Babies http://www.evtv1.com/index.asp-itemnum-223

Shirley Temple’s 6th Birthday http://www.evtv1.com/index.asp-itemnum-225

Unsigned post by User:Jaffer 19 Jan 2006

Keep the film career stuff in its section

Mrs. Black has been trying for about five decades now to get beyond the little girl everyone else is in love with. Keep the post-film-career section about her non-film activities only. It is not like she sat around and watched TV or her own movies for five decades. -- Pinktulip 12:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Legend Films

I added the bit about the colorized re-releases. (Ibaranoff24 05:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC))

Delta Theta Tau

I am dubious of the honorary alumnae of Delta Theta Tau claim. I've done a google search for '"Shirley Temple" "Delta Theta Tau"' and come back with 2 wiki links, 1 greek101 link (where you can contribute your own information), 1 University of North Florida page of notable greeks, and a library link. And absolutely no google hits for shirley black "delta theta tau." It may be that it is an established fact but I cannot find it anywhere else other than those pages. I think if citation can't be provided then the information needs to be removed. Thanks. --ImmortalGoddezz 05:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I took down the sorority fact since this is a biography and as the tag states unsourced or poorly sourced items shouldn't be left up there. If anybody has a source for that please feel free to add it again! --ImmortalGoddezz 21:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Use Of Her Name For Beverage

I can believe that she didn't like any of the "Shirley Temple" variations because they were too sweet, but did she really say that one of the reasons she objected to "Shirley Temple" cocktails is because she doesn't get compensation for the use of her name? I would have thought that a celebrity who has gained such notoriety that he/she was honored with a namesake beverage would be a bit more gracious. -Grammaticus Repairo 02:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

More info

I go to wikipedia for all of my history information. I went to look up Shirley Temple, my favorite childhood actress, and I didn't find much. I just thought I would leave this comment because I feel there is so much more information that you could have in your encyclopedia. Thank you for listening.

husband's death

the dates of her husband's death in this page don't match up. Does anyone know for sure the day and the year? 24.19.12.229 07:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)KP Adams

According to IMDb: August 4, 2005. (JosephASpadaro 09:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

I think Shirley Temple is a really awesome actress and person.

Famous Relatives?

According to Ancestry.com Shirley Temple's 15th great grandfather is Chaucer. Not sure how reliable this may be; should it be mentioned? Gavroche42 18:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I would question the reliability of the website, furthermore, I believe it is irrelavent to mention this tid bit on an enclyopedia website. -Signaleer 08:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
After 15 generations a significant number of people are related to anyone. That probably makes a significant number of people's relationship not notable. (SEWilco 05:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Removal of Trivia Section

I have removed the Trivia section - which seems to be strongly encouraged by wikipedia. I tried to integrate as many of the significant items from this section into the main body of the article as I could. Anyone who contributed items that have been lost may want to try to integrate them into the body of the article as well.Gogh 00:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Headings

I am not sure the heading labels and organization really hold together very well. I think it might be better to go for something like "early film career" "height of film career" and "later film career" or something like that. Right now heading names are taken from one item in the section that follows, but other items in the same section do not really relate. I have not changed this for now, but suggest that others give it some thought.Gogh 00:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like something I might have done to break up an endless chain of paragraphs. If the material is in chronological order, by all means use chronological sections. (SEWilco 05:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Bad Link. Bad, Bad Link!

The link for "Poor Little Rich Girl" goes to the Andy Warhol movie -- quite a different story, I imagine. Pittsburgh Poet (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Dates wrong?

In the child star section, it says she worked for Educational Pictures starting at age 3. Later on, the article says she started working in 1928, the year of her birth! I don't know anything about her, so maybe the birth date is wrong, but one of those dates should be fixed.69.177.232.182 (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

i'M W0NDERiNG WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO HER NOW.

iS SHiRLEy TEMPLE STiLL ALiVE BECAUSE i HAVE N0T HEARD ANyTHiNG ELSE ABOUT HER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.51.77 (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to replace two os in your title with zeroes. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

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) 00:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Pictures as a child?

In an article about America's most famous child star...there are no photos of her as a child! Surely (no pun intended) there are some avaliable for use? Morhange (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Her Oscar

" ... is an Academy Award-winning actress and tap dancer ...".

This isn't quite accurate. The Oscar was awarded to her; she did not compete against other people in any competitive category, so I doubt we can say she "won" the award. Any ideas about alternative wording? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Award-winning" is common usage. And I think acting and Academy actions can be considered competitive. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The common usage explanation satisfies me. But I quibble with the second statement. Actors hope to be nominated for their performances in individual films, in either Best Actor/ess or Best Supporting Actor/ess categories. They don't compete for honorary awards, which are typically given out for an actor's entire body of work rather than any individual film, and are decided entirely at the Academy's whim. Some years there are 2 or more, some years there are none. Also, the Academy could in theory give out 30 honorary awards in a given year, so there's no sense of any competition. Although an honorary award is a nice form of recognition for an actor's overall skills, actors would much rather compete for and win a competitive award because of the immediate prestige they get. Peter O'Toole was considering refusing to accept his Honorary Oscar, because he thought filmmakers would get the impression his career was at its end - but he had more films to make, and he's since been nominated for another competitive Oscar. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It does seem to be common usage, but it's still misleading, and I think the main reason is that the information is given out of context. "Academy Award-winning" is used throughout Wikipedia as a kind of shorthand, but I think we should try to place it within its true context. As it currently reads, it could refer to a competitive award, an honorary award, or in Temple's case a special award. She was a performer as a child and as an adult - so when did she win the award? As a child, of course, but the lead doesn't explain this. Judy Garland won the same award, and in her article, it's given in context to explain what the award was and when she won it. The layout for Garland's article seems to have satisfied a community standard as it is a featured article, and was featured on the main page. It may be that it's had wider exposure than Temple's article, and been worked on by more editors, and given the same exposure, the lead for Temple's article may also be expanded to allow for context. I also think that although the award is notable, it crosses to the wrong side of the POV issue, by making the very first adjective about Temple a reference to an award. The main point for the first sentence should be that she was notable for her acting, singing and dancing, and for the fact that she achieved all this as a very young child - she wasn't particularly notable for winning an award. It gives undue weight to one award, when the important thing that we should be talking about is the reason for her notability. This is a different issue however. Just another point about common usage - I'm not disputing this, however in forums such as featured article discussions, "award winning" is almost always removed in favour of something more neutral and/or explanatory, for the reasons I've outlined above, so "common usage" in this case falls short of the higher application of Wikipedia standards. Rossrs (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Political affiliation

She was a Republican? Is she no longer a Republican? This is a somewhat abrupt and ambiguous statement.

I agree. I also moved the statement to this section and polished it a little. Thank you for your input!  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  05:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Shirley Temple Black

Yes, this is her name, fellow editors. This is her name now and has been her name for many years since her wedding in 1950. So I would like to ask all the editors who are involved with improving this article, "Would you consider it an improvement to retitle this article with this great lady's present name?"

There are some good reasons to do this:

  1. While the "Shirley Temple" name is and has been a notable and well-loved name for 75 years or so, this phenomenal lady has attained an esteemed notability as an adult as well. One can read right here in this article about some of her important achievements and contributions as an ambassador, an American diplomat. One would think that this personage is deserving of an encyclopedic entry that begins with her present name, Shirley Temple Black.
  2. Instead of this, the Shirley Temple Black page is merely a REDIRECT to this article. If one puts oneself in the shoes of this person, how would one feel to come to Wikipedia, look up one's name, and find that it merely redirects to an article with one's child-star name for a title?
  3. See Wikipedia naming conventions.
  4. Categories. If you scroll down to the bottom of this article you will find several categories listed that include this person within them. Click on the "American diplomats" category and look for her name. I did. And this is why I am here today writing this. When I clicked on these categories, I found that each and every one of them lists this person not under her present name, but under her child-star name. You won't find her in the "B's" under "Shirley Temple Black", as one would expect to find her in the "California republicans" category. No. You will find her only in the "T's" listed under "Shirley Temple".

Regarding the fourth reason above, over the last several days I have sought remedies for this situation. There is a partial solution I received at the Wikipedia:Help Desk. I found that by changing a Category template to include her full name, like this...

  • turn [[Category:United States ambassadors to Ghana]]
  • into [[Category:United States ambassadors to Ghana|Black, Shirley Temple]]

...this did accomplish moving her name from the "T's" to the "B's" on the category page. However, due to the fact that the name that actually appears on the category page is fully governed by the PAGENAME (the name of the article where the category is installed), the name on the category page is still simply "Shirley Temple", even though it's been moved to the "B's".

  • Summary: The reasons to retitle this article that are listed above include (1) – takes the subject's adult notability into account, (2) – personally appeals to do this living person a justice and good deed, (3) – brings this article more closely into conformance with Wikipedia policy on naming conventions, and (4) – largely a technical reason, because the only acceptable way to see her full name listed alphabetically in these categories appears to be to retitle this article to Shirley Temple Black. This article has a history that goes back seven years to May, 2002. Isn't it high time the title reflects the adult and present name of the honorable and notable Mrs. Black? Any and all discourse on this subject is sought and welcomed.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  04:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I think renaming the article won't do justice; She had a notable career in politics and as a diplomat, but reading or hearing the name "Shirley Temple" makes most, if not all people, think of a curly-haired six-year old tap dancing in celluoid, and not as an adult. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Taken as a very valid point. The beauty of this proposal, though, is that nothing is really lost. The article will be called "Shirley Temple Black", not "Shirley Black" nor "Shirley Jane Black", so the "Shirley Temple" is retained, both for the sake of nostalgia AND for the sake of search engine hits. Those people who search for Shirley Temple will still find her just as easily as they can now. Nothing is lost, and yet this esteemed personage receives proper-name mention in every appropriate part – article, categories, etc. – of this great reference work, Wikipedia.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  08:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Concur with change - the right thing to do. Mikebar (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I can see the argument for her maiden name, but today she is almost universally referred to by her married name. WP:UCN's guidance, I think, supports this. Powers T 12:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Very strongly oppose Is she most notable as an actress, or as a second-string diplomat? The question answers itself. As a parallel, we use Alice Liddell, not Alice Liddell Hargreaves, which I had to look up. The assertion that she is universally referred to by her married name is, as with Alice, patent nonsense.
    • However, the category problem is real, and easily resolved. Move relevant categories to the redirect (they may have to go on the same line) and make a comment among the cats here that this has been done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Done; undo my edits if moved. I also removed two redundant cats. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
      • If you'll check the edit history of the Shirley Temple Black redirect, you'll find that I already tried this. It was reverted by an admin assumably because her name shows up in italics on the category pages. This happens because the categories are listed on a redirect page.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  02:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
      PS. In all honesty, another reason the admin reverted was because I had only copied the categories to the STB redirect. So she was listed twice in those categories, once as ST and again as STB. I see that you have cut the categories from the ST page and added them to the STB redirect (except for "Female diplomats", which is now on both pages). To the admins cutting and pasting might be more acceptable than copying and pasting. However I also note that you may have left some categories behind. How about "Breast cancer survivors", for example. You may also want to consider adding back in the {{Lifetime}} template to the STB redirect page. Thank you for your efforts!
    • This person is "most notable" for her entire life of service to people, first as a phenomenal child entertainer who lifted the spirits of people during some of the hardest times the United States has known, and then as an adult, she went on in the same spirit of service to people and to her country. She deserves so much better than to be remembered in an encyclopedia with an article titled with her child-star name. The Britannica also "redirects" people from the Shirley Temple Black listing to their Shirley Temple listing with a note to "See Shirley Temple". So I suppose that makes it all right, right?  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  02:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Very strong oppose I think contemporary folks may not understand how truly big a star Temple was in her heyday. If this person had never been a huge child star, there would have been very little attention to her later political career. (In fact, she likely would never have had a political career at all.) The crux of her fame, and her notability, is her time as a film star, so that the vast majority of people looking up this person will go to "Shirley Temple". Those few who are aware of Temple's later career and go to "Shirley Temple Black" will be redirected anyway. The article should stay at "Shirley Temple", but should begin with the bolded name "Shirley Temple Black". Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, that's a good idea, Ed. Another editor recently added the bolded Shirley Temple Black to the lead, which was an excellent step forward. And your idea to begin the lead with her bolded adult and present name is also a great step forward. However the biggest step really should be taken. It is time to recognize this great lady in the same manner as the vast majority of notable people are recognized in Wikipedia: by her full, present adult name of Shirley Temple Black.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  03:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Diplomacy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - articles should be titled with the most common English language name for the person. She is most commonly known as Shirley Temple, not as Shirley Temple Black. Geraldk (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Search engines will disagree with this and other statements about "hits" below. Shirley Temple may get more hits than Shirley Temple Black on some search engines; however, one will find that the first choices after searching are all pretty much the same for both the ST and the STB entries, with Wikipedia always at or near the top of the first page. The name Shirley Temple Black works just as well as the name Shirley Temple in the searches.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  03:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As stated by Ed Fitzgerald and Geraldk, the title does not need to be moved. The standard naming convention is to use the form of the name most commonly used in the English language. Shirley Temple has always been more well-known for her acting career than her political career. A cursory scholar search reveals 5320 hits for Shirley Temple versus only 248 hits for Shirley Temple Black. Even the weight of the article indicates this: it is more heavily skewed towards her acting career than her later career (as it should be) and the section on references in popular culture makes only one mention of her politics. All of these indicate she is most commonly known as Shirley Temple. — CactusWriter | needles 19:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The article does need to be renamed, CactusWriter, for the reasons stated above. Those were very interesting advanced searches you performed; however, this begs the question as to how many people who would search for either ST or STB would use just the "regular" Google or the scholarly search? The regular Google gives more hits to Shirley Temple Black if parentheses aren't used and fewer if they are. In both cases however the first links at the top are pretty much the same, with Wikipedia out in front – in both cases.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  03:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose Most of the world knows her as Shirley Temple, child actress, and will search for her in Wikipedia under that name. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for the reasons given above. If she'd been a minor actress and a more notable diplomat the balance would be opposite and I'd support the move. That's not the case. In fact her degree of success as "Shirley Temple" exceeds that of most entertainers, and even though her career is a long way in the past, it was of such great note, that it and her professional name are widely known, and certainly more widely known and widely used than her married name. It's always been the practice here to use the more commonly known name and there is a gulf of difference in the level at which each name is commonly known. This implies no disrespect to Shirley Temple Black or her achievements of the last 60 years. Rossrs (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Rossrs, as I mentioned above, Shirley Temple Black's notability is the result of her entire life of service to people and to her country. Her life taken as a whole is what should be honored here. And the best way to honor this great lady is for her article to be named in the same manner as the vast majority of other notable people in this encyclopedia: Using her full, present name.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  03:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ed Fitzgerald's rationale. I did know that her name is currently Black, but her early career GREATLY overshadows everything she's done after her name change. Like it or not, people remember her for her youth. Shirley Temple Black is second best behind Shirley Temple, but it does miss the mark. Royalbroil 02:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    • How does it miss the mark, Royalbroil? Shirley Temple Black is the mark. It is the subject's full, present name and has been her name for nearly 60 years. That's almost three-quarters of her entire life that she's been known as a public service notable named Shirley Temple Black. Don't you think she's earned the notability of being remembered in this encyclopedia by her full and present name?  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  03:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment How many people have to disagree with you before you realize you're fighting a losing battle? Why don't you just accept the fact that most people oppose the change you proposed and move on to something else? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Data

I observe that this article uses a large number of sources. Sources primarily discussing what she did after 1950 are right to use her married name, but there are only two - one a news article.

As a wider view, Google books has 1860 entries which use "Shirley Temple"; only a third even mention Shirley Temple Black at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. All of your comments and opinions are certainly appreciated and noted. It seems very clear that this is not a popular move; however, I still contend that it is a necessary one. This great lady has been so for her entire lifetime since she was three years old. Any article in any encyclopedia ought to reflect her full and present name that she's held for nearly three-quarters of her life. Her notability should not be based upon just one aspect of her life. Just because much of her lifetime service to people has been "behind the scenes", and therefore fairly invisible to most, does not seem to me to be a good reason to reject this move. Her whole life has been truly notable, and she deserves to be remembered with an article titled with her full name:
Shirley Temple Black.
So it is hoped that all who have opposed this move will rethink their positions and realize the impact Mrs. Black has had upon the people of the United States, not just when she was 3 - 9 years old, also while she's been an adult.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  04:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no particular need to keep repeating the same arguments. You've made your points, others disagree and have made theirs - now let's see what consensus is. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Redundancy is a usual fault of the minority, Ed. Please forgive me for the repetition. It was spawned by my intense feelings for the issue. I shall try to be more objective from here on out.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
No need to back off from what you believe is right - your devotion to proper appreciation to Shirley Temple Black's post-show biz achievements seems quite fitting. Others simply have a different perspective. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, Ed's right -- your "intense feelings for the issue" are apparent and perfectly fine. But sometimes this creates a problem of perspective. You state that the article should "honor this great lady." This is not true. The article is not here to honor her (nor to criticize). This is an encyclopedia. It's not a fansite, or promotional, or a memorial, (I'm sure you know all the other stuff at WP:NOT). Articles have a completely neutral POV -- without regard to our personal feelings. That we are big fans is great-- but this shouldn't be reflected in the way an article is edited. — CactusWriter | needles 07:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Requested move result

The no consensus result, regarding the renaming of the Shirley Temple article to Shirley Temple Black, is acknowledged and accepted for the present. There is still a set of objective issues that remains...

  • The "categories" issue set:
  1. There are still categories on the Shirley Temple page that ought to be on the Shirley Temple Black redirect page.
  2. There is at least one category, "Female diplomats" that is on both pages. This results in her name listed twice in this category, once as "Shirley Temple" under the "T's", and also as "Shirley Temple Black" under the "B's".
  3. There might be an issue regarding those categories on the Shirley Temple Black redirect page. Her name becomes italicized in those category lists evidently because it is generated from a redirect page.

If number three isn't really an issue, then I or any one of us can easily fix the other two issues. I would like to hear other opinions about number three, though, before these repairs are made.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  21:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There's absolutely no issue here, all' categories should be in the article, none in the redirect. We don't have two articles about the same person, we have one article about a person who is eligible for two different sets of categories. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I've moved all cats into this article, no cats in the redirect. Those which need it got a sort to "Black, Shirley Temple". Does this not solve the issue? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
And BTW, what do you mean "for the present?" Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Please assume good faith.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  00:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem with cat sorting is that it alphabetizes "Shirley Temple" as if it were "Black, Shirley Temple". This could lead to reader confusion. Powers T 23:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Bingo.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  00:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • PS. At great risk of being redundant and repetitive, I brought this up in the previous section as the number 4 issue, the main technical issue. There are two ways to get her full name, Shirley Temple Black, into those categories under the "B's":
  1. Either put the appropriate categories on the STB Redirect page and settle for her name showing up in italics on the category pages, or
  2. Rename this article to Shirley Temple Black.

(out)I'm sorry, Paine, please get past this. The article is not going to be renamed, and certainly is not going to be moved for such a trivial reason as a minor category glitch. Now, I'm entire willing to assume good faith, but that doesn't preclude you explaining to everyone here what you mean by "for the present." If it means that you intend to keep pursuing this, please just stop right there: that would be disruptive, and could get you into trouble. The consensus here was clear, and overwhelming - please don't tilt at that windmill.

So, I've restored the cats to the redirect, which has a default sort of "Black, Shirley Temple" so they'll alphabatize correctly, and removed the duplicate cat from this article. It seems to me this puts the issue to rest, and we shouldn't need to discuss it any longer. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Curious, Ed, as to what the "(out)" means at the beginning of your words just above? Okay, I am glad to be crystal clear on what I meant by "for the present". I'm pretty new here as a member of the community. I've been editing Wikipedia for many years (just minor stuff and vandalism undoing), but only recently got my Wikipedia login ID. So I haven't really had time to look into what, if any, alternatives may exist in a case like this. Even you indicated in the previous section that there is no need for me to back off from what I believe is right. So "for the present" simply means that if there are further steps to take, then I intend to take them. I have no intent to be disruptive. But I'm not averse to getting myself into trouble when I know I'm right.
You've restored some of the appropriate cats to the redirect. I've restored the other one that's not controversial (Breast cancer survivors). Then we, together all of us as editors, must decide on some of the remaining cats as to which page they should be on. I say this because there are some cats that obviously can be attached to the adult Mrs. Black and other cats to the childstar, and there are other cats that are not so obvious. Following are the cats in question:
  1. American Presbyterians
  2. Kennedy Center honorees
  3. Living people
  4. The {{Lifetime}} template
  5. Any other cats that editors might like to discuss
  • Okay, in the next section it is seen that it is all right to place some of the categories on the STB redirect page. For future reference, it should be remembered that the categories should find a home on just one of the pages, either this Shirley Temple article or the Shirley Temple Black redirect page. If a category is just copied to the redirect, then the subject's name appears twice in that category, and this of course ought to be avoided. With no further adieu, I shall go ahead with moving the first 3 above to the redirect. They all apply to Mrs. Black's adult life, and I'm sure that if a reader goes to the Living people cat, they will be hunting for her under her full name. In the future, my fellow editors are welcome to discuss, move, or let alone the cats as you wish. Be bold! <g>  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  17:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
In addition, the usage of the {{Lifetime}} template takes the place of the {{DEFAULTSORT}} template. So I've removed the redundant template from this article's list.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  02:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Whether you're "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant, since consensus has determined that the article stays here. As for the category questions you ask - frankly, I have little or no interest in them. I'm sure someone will be happy to engage you on this issue.

I will say this, though, that by pressing that trivial issue in the manner that you are, you are almost certainly headed towards disruptive behavior. I'd take care, were I you.Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Good for you, Ed, and thank you very much for the wise, cautionary demeanor you suggest. We seem to disagree on the triviality of the issue, and that is, of course, your prerogative. In my worthless opinion, any notable person who is represented for any reason for all time in an encyclopedia entry by her nee, her childhood, unmarried, maiden name, is being misrepresented, and I do consider this a very large issue. And just because "Round One" is ended, there is no reason not to go on to "Round Two", whatever that may be.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  05:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec) PS. Please do forgive me, because I do not want to be corrective; however, I feel it necessary to point out that, as editor Dekimasu concluded in the previous section, a consensus has not been reached. Dekimasu correctly indicated that a consensus to rename the page has not been reached. If I'm not mistaken this also implies a commutative effect, i.e., that a consensus not to move the article has not been reached. This also appears to be correct. So precisely speaking, consensus has not determined that the article stays as it's presently titled, or "stays here", as you wrote above. When a consensus has not been reached, then I am finding that there are other avenues to investigate, and to perhaps utilize, if I consider that the renaming that I suggest is an article improvement. And I do consider the renaming of this article, as I have herein described, to be an improvement. 07:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
You see, that's what I'm saying, your intention to force a "Round Two", in spite of the clear and obvious consensus against you, is exactly the disruptive behavior I'm referring to. Again, my warning to you is that travelling that path could well lead to your being blocked, so please proceed with caution.

In the meantime, as a man married to two woman (at different times, of course) who retained their maiden names after marriage, I'm unimpressed by the gender card you're attempting to play. "Shirley Temple" may have been her "maiden" name, but it was also her professional name, at least until she changed professions, and her massive popularity as a performer (really, you should look into it sometime -- if anything, the article undersells her impact on the public in her heyday) versus her modest success as a politician/diplomat leaves no doubt whatsoever, except, apparently, in your mind, about which of her two names is more appropriate to adorn the article. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, to answer a question you posed earlier "(out)" means that I'm indicating that I've deliberately "outdented" the comment, instead of continuing the usual indentation scheme. This happens either when the conversation is taking a new tack, or when the indentation becomes too great to allow anything to be written without taking up a lot of space. You may also see people using "<--" or other symbols to indicate deliberate outdenting. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) No reason to be sorry, Ed, for it's just my inexperience that you're enlightening. For this I think a mere "thank you" is deplorably insufficient. But since it's all there is presently at my disposal, you do have my gratitude for your civility and for your instruction. No need to embellish further upon the subject of our conversation, except to say that I do not feel there is any "force" involved except the power of my conviction that renaming the article would be an improvement. There is no "consensus against" me. How can there be? A consensus was not reached. There was a "vote" against me; I and at least two other editors are apparently in the "minority"; however, Wikipedia arbitration is not left to a mere "vote". It is left to discussion/consensus (general agreement). And if there is no consensus, if agreement is not reached, then there are other avenues to pursue per Wikipedia policy. With the greatest and sincerest respect for you and all the other involved editors, including the "majority", those editors who do not consider my suggestion an article improvement, I do intend to continue to pursue, to "endeavor to persevere", as Lone Watie put it. It may get me nowhere. However this possibility does not dissuade me from knowing that renaming this article to Shirley Temple Black is a definite improvement.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  08:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Saw your P.S. concerning consensus. I'm afraid you are incorrect. Deskana said that there was "no consensus to move the page", not that there was no consensus as to what to do -- there was clear consensus on that mattter. Bearing in mind that this is not a !vote, 7 editors expressed opinions against moving the page, and only you and 1 other person were in favor of moving it. As these things go, that's overwhelming. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, use "(ec)" at the beginning of your comment to indicate an edit conflict, and to indicate a comment is later in time than the next comment in the thread, used additional indents. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, thank you very much, Ed!  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  08:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) Just to let it be known, upon reflection I have decided to put my task to rename this article on the back burner for the time being. The main technical issue seems to be resolved to satisfaction. I do still consider that the article would be improved by being titled with Mrs. Black's full name; however, I shall keep an eye on this for awhile to see if perhaps another editor may bring up the issue independently. You have all been of tremendous help to me in my personal task to better-learn Wikipedia. Thank you very much!  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  17:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The question is (or should be) whether she was more famous as an actress or as a politician and diplomat. I would suggest that it was as a chold actress. Accordingly Keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Most editors would seem to agree with you Peter. Just a gentle reminder, tho', that "notability" and "fame" are often separate aspects of a person's life. Mrs. Black achieved both as a childstar. Her notable achievements did not stop there, and she spent a good deal of time achieving notability (if not fame) in appointed service to her country and to the world. Much of this later notability was achieved less visibly than that which she gathered as a curly-haired, dimpled icon who lifted people's hearts from the depths of despair during the Depression. There is no doubt in my mind that Mrs. Black's notability ought to be measured over her entire great lifetime, and not just over a short span of it. However, I have been "overruled", and I gladly cede the point... for now. (All I mean by this is that if the rename issue is raised in the future independently by another editor, I will probably support that editor.)  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  02:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories on the redirect

I would suggest that it may not be a good idea to move categories to the Shirley Temple Black redirect, despite the issue that results from having "Shirley Temple" alphabetized on category pages under "B". As it's one woman, not two, all the categories should be together. This is an area that our naming and categorization guidelines do not appear to address. I'd be surprised if it hasn't come up before, but I haven't yet found any precedent for what is done in these cases. Powers T 13:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You will find what you are looking for at Display of category pages (under the "Form of entries" section) or Categorizing redirects. Both pages suggest placing alternate names on the redirect pages. The example given in the first link is an exact mirror of the Shirley Temple Black issue. — CactusWriter | needles 15:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, and somehow I knew that just the italics showing up on the category pages for the STB cats was not really an issue. The real issue that got the cats removed the first time was that they were on both the ST and the STB pages, thus showing her name twice in those cats. As long as a cat finds its home on only one of the pages, it works just fine. Technical issue resolved.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  17:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, I hadn't stumbled across that particular page yet. =) Powers T 00:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think your difficulty can be adequately resolved by putting the categories in the article in the form: [[Category:Ambassadors to Ghana|Black, Shirley Temple]]; I may not have this quite right. This should make it unnecessary to have categories on the redirect page. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Peter. That's usually how this sort of thing is dealt with. Just set the default name with the DEFAULTSORT template (or the Lifetime template), and then change the name for appropriate individual cats. However, what happens in this case is that, while Mrs. Black's name does go from the "T's" to the "B's" in the cat, it shows up as just "Shirley Temple" rather than her full name, "Shirley Temple Black". This is because the appearance of the listing in the cat is governed by the PAGENAME, the name of the article the cat is in. So no matter what you change the DEFAULT name to, it will always appear as "Shirley Temple" in the cat. To get her full name listed, one either must move the appropriate cats to the Redirect page, or rename this article. Renaming isn't an option at this time, so moving the cats to the Redirect page seems to be an acceptable bandaid.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  02:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

New info

Somehow I missed this --> Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages before, which reads:

It is also usually considered helpful to put redirects into the same categories as their targets, allowing the names of both the redirect and the target to appear in the category.

— [[WP:TMR]]

This seems to say that dual listings in categories for the same person is not only okay, it is "usually considered helpful". So if this is correct, then it should be okay to list all the categories on both the Shirley Temple page and the Shirley Temple Black Redirect page, don't you agree? And this makes me wonder why an admin reverted my edits back when I first copied all the cats to the STB Redirect page? I thought it was either because the name shows up in the categories in italics, or because both names show up in all the categories, or perhaps even because of both these reasons. However, now, since we find that neither reason is a big deal, then why did the admin revert my edits and rm the cats from the Redirect page?  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  17:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shirley_Temple/Archive_1&oldid=1246186902"