Talk:Peter Ostrum

message: * , with regard to these edits: (a) "former child actor" is not an occupation; (b) per this discussion,  and I agreed that the format of  for occupation, and  for years_active was the clearest and most accurate way to present the information; (c) Mr. Ostrum was an actor first, and a veterinarian second; and (d) he's known for acting, not for Charlie Bucket.I can concede a possible use for including the occupations in years_active, or vice-versa, but I'd like to discuss whether it's necessary here first.
* , with regard to this edit: the citation () and the film's credits spell the character's surname as "Teevee".
* , with regard to this edit: I can't find any policy, guideline, or MOS that depreciates linking "XXXX in film".  Can you point me to such?
I've reverted these edits for the reasons above.  Please feel welcome to participate in a discussion of these edits as part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle.  Thanks!  —  fourthords | =Λ= |  17:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:YEARLINK would seen to apply for the article on Peter Ostrum. The closest example for a work here, on the Sydney Opera House, is the precedent for not using a year in film link. The two uses for a legitimate year link are not applicable here in my view. Philip Cross (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I don't agree that that guideline is exactly relevant here, I can see your interpretation of its intention.  —  fourthords | =Λ= |  22:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: recent edits

message: This is one of the most popular pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicine's scope.  Very few editors watch WT:VET's pages, which means that questions may not be answered in a timely manner.  If you are an active editor and interested in animals or veterinary medicine, please put WT:VET on your watchlist.  Thank you,  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:VET

message: On 14 October 2022,  began editing the article (without a single edit summary) in contravention of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, and the logic of the prose itself.  Then, when I replaced the previous version IAW the the BRD cycle, they instead continued making their unexplained edits.
* We don't have a reliable source for the specific year of Ostrum's marriage, only which of two years it has to be; this is in accordance with the verifiability policy.
* The sourced prose of the article specifically says that Wonka was his only professional acting role, which makes that section wholly inappropriate to fall under a second-level header of "Career".
* Wikipedia:Red link says,   I haven't seen any evidence, and Ladyoftrees provided none, that South Lewis Central School shouldn't ever have an article, should somebody be so inclined to make one.
* Double-spaces after terminal punctuation shouldn't be removed, as the English Wikipedia Manual of Style says,   Since it doesn't affect readers, and makes the monospaced editing interface easier to manage, there's no reason to remove them.
* What is the bright-line delineation of the subject's "Early life" as opposed to their "Personal life".  Furthermore, how is his "Early life" not a component of his "Personal life"?  In addition to the logical inconsistencies, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout says,   We know very little about his non-professional life to sustain two separate, short, stubby paragraphs.
I have reverted these edits explained above, and left a note to discuss such edits here.  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: October 2022