Talk:Noel Neill

message: :Image:Neilll.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Neilll.jpg

message: If she isn't dead (and there's no evidence that I could find) the quote at the end is useless.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.21.5 (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well? 

message: According to the "Actors Compendium" Noel Neill died September 27th, 2013. . I'm not able to provide other sources yet. Aristeides (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Today the hosts of the "Actors Compendium" deleted the entry. Therefore it must have been a hoax. Aristeides (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  dead? 

message: Did Noel Neill die on July 3, 2016?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BDDE:5790:5DEB:E757:4589:FEF7 (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Died? 

message: I suggest removing the aveleyman.com one because they also list her as dying on July 4, 2016. BLP violation, right there. — Wyliepedia 00:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Noel Darleen Neill (November 25, 1920 - July 3, 2016) is an American actress of film and television.
*Note to reviewing admin(s): Removal of FPP has been requested at 's talk page as it seems to no longer be needed - reliable sources (Boston Herald and Houston Chronicle) are now reporting her death.  Pending Changes status has, however, been requested to keep the riff-raff and trivia-type additions to a minimum.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  01:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The protection has been dropped to a semi. --NeilN talk to me 01:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 5 July 2016 

message: I have removed the Variety reference re: Neill's death per WP:OVERCITE as unneeded in the presence of two very reliable, major news sources (Boston Herald and MSN).  Even if were not already an unreliable source, the Entertainment Weekly ref would be removed for the same reason.  We don't need four sources that all say the same thing; having two sources from major news outlets verifying a death date is sufficient. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  01:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cites 

message: There is currently a proposal to replace the old image on the left and currently on the article, with this new image to the right. To vote on which image you prefer, place your support if you would like to see the new image inserted or oppose if you prefer the old image. It would be helpful if you could include your reasoning for or against the change. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: An RfC usually runs for thirty day, for the purposes here though I think it would be best to call this one for one week. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

text: SUPPORT: The new image is a vast improvement over the original. RJ4 (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

text: OPPOSE: The older image looks best in my opinion. An alternative idea would to get a more recent photo if possible. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 06:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

text: 'SUPPORT the newer photo.  It is decidedly better and preferable over the previous which is too wide for an infobox photo, too dark to see her features, and not cropped in a manner that focuses on the individual in the photo.  The new photo is a cropped version of the previous that has been lightened/brightened so you see the article subject clearly.  It's really a no-brainer that the newer version is not just better, but is more in line with the MOS on infobox images.  For reasons unknown to me (and I won't speculate as to why) Fouetté has decided edit warring over the infobox photo is a worthy endeavor.  The old, poorly lit, badly cropped, inferior image is now back in the article.  The improved, cropped photo that is more suited to the infobox is my choice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  06:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you are changing your statement, I do need to address the change. You say something about the "old" image displayed is too wide for the info box". The two images are displayed on this talk page to choose between the images. The old image came out of the infobox (it had been there for some length of time!) I am sure it can be fit right back in there where it came from before you removed it. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 08:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

text: You are the one that edit warred after BRD was begun, the discussion was active, you were told of the discussion, but preferred to edit war to get it back to your preferred version. I am going to call ad admin for help to start one of the rfcs so we can really discuss the matter fairly.  Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 06:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

text: We need to reach a consensus. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 05:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unnecessary to reach a consensus on everything, especially when it's an edit that helps the reader better understand the article subject and is an obvious, overall improvement that enhances the article.  The current photo is decidedly better and preferable over the previous which is too large for an infobox photo, too dark to see her features, and not cropped in a manner that focuses on the individual in the photo.  The new photo is a cropped version of the previous that has been lightened/brightened so you see the article subject clearly.  It's really a no-brainer that the newer version is not just better, but is more in line with the MOS on infobox images.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  05:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that you unilaterally decided all this without even considering what other members may think about your change. Wikipedia has no deadline, so there is always time to have a discussion on a matter such as this. Hopefully some more editors will stop by in the next day or two so that we may collaborate and discuss the matter rather than one editor making unilateral decisions. Please see WP:OWN. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 06:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: While I know that RfC's aren't always needed, unless you come to a solution between yourselves, this informal RfC should hopefully resolve it for you. I won't vote, but am happy to close a week from now, unless solved earlier. Feel free to ping me if you want to have it closed early if you do solve the issue ahead of time. I have the talk page now on my watchlist, feel free to discuss. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks so much for your assistance  Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 07:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem, hope to see a resolution soon. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Which Image is better suited for the article? 

message: :SUPPORT: The new image is a vast improvement over the original. RJ4 (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OPPOSE: The older image looks best in my opinion. An alternative idea would to get a more recent photo if possible. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 06:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

text: 'SUPPORT the newer photo.  It is decidedly better and preferable over the previous which is too wide for an infobox photo, too dark to see her features, and not cropped in a manner that focuses on the individual in the photo.  The new photo is a cropped version of the previous that has been lightened/brightened so you see the article subject clearly.  It's really a no-brainer that the newer version is not just better, but is more in line with the MOS on infobox images.  For reasons unknown to me (and I won't speculate as to why) Fouetté has decided edit warring over the infobox photo is a worthy endeavor.  The old, poorly lit, badly cropped, inferior image is now back in the article.  The improved, cropped photo that is more suited to the infobox is my choice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  06:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you are changing your statement, I do need to address the change. You say something about the "old" image displayed is too wide for the info box". The two images are displayed on this talk page to choose between the images. The old image came out of the infobox (it had been there for some length of time!) I am sure it can be fit right back in there where it came from before you removed it. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 08:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

text: You are the one that edit warred after BRD was begun, the discussion was active, you were told of the discussion, but preferred to edit war to get it back to your preferred version. I am going to call ad admin for help to start one of the rfcs so we can really discuss the matter fairly.  Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 06:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey of Opinions

message: :We need to reach a consensus. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 05:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unnecessary to reach a consensus on everything, especially when it's an edit that helps the reader better understand the article subject and is an obvious, overall improvement that enhances the article.  The current photo is decidedly better and preferable over the previous which is too large for an infobox photo, too dark to see her features, and not cropped in a manner that focuses on the individual in the photo.  The new photo is a cropped version of the previous that has been lightened/brightened so you see the article subject clearly.  It's really a no-brainer that the newer version is not just better, but is more in line with the MOS on infobox images.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  05:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that you unilaterally decided all this without even considering what other members may think about your change. Wikipedia has no deadline, so there is always time to have a discussion on a matter such as this. Hopefully some more editors will stop by in the next day or two so that we may collaborate and discuss the matter rather than one editor making unilateral decisions. Please see WP:OWN. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 06:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: While I know that RfC's aren't always needed, unless you come to a solution between yourselves, this informal RfC should hopefully resolve it for you. I won't vote, but am happy to close a week from now, unless solved earlier. Feel free to ping me if you want to have it closed early if you do solve the issue ahead of time. I have the talk page now on my watchlist, feel free to discuss. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks so much for your assistance  Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 07:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem, hope to see a resolution soon. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion