Talk:Rin Tin Tin

message: The hoary old myth that Rin Tin Tin garnered the most votes for Best Actor in 1929 but the studios decided they needed a human winner while patently absurd is widespread on the net and elsewhere. Deleted the assertion, which has no contemporary evidence at all to back it up. aldiboronti (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed nonsensical claim concerning the first Oscar for Best Actor

message: Looks like this was taken from a web page, not wikified in any way, probably copyright, includes ad copy.  Ortolan88
:Yup, it's a copyright violation alright... http://www.citipets.com/2_article8.cfm
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rin_Tin_Tin&action=edit#
::Could some wikicop do the copyright violation honors to this article?  Ortolan88
:::Anyone can add a copyright violation notice.  I'd do it, but I can't access the aforementioned page.  WP:CP explains how to do it, for future reference. Stephen Compall 16:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: Birth/death dates fmted per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death; the birth & death places are usually included in text in the article. Also if the dog was "found", I question the actual birth date--hence added "c.".  Added back the partial list of films because it's interesting & relevant; although maybe should be a separate section at end of article listing all of his films.  Elf | Talk 21:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, that's about my speed, too. :-)  Elf | Talk 05:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My edits to the page

message: The bit about Rin Tin Tin III seemed to be nonsense, however creative.  If this can be confirmed, feel free to add it back. Stephen Compall 16:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  146.163.160.132 

message: Wasn't there a Rin Tin Tin cartoon at one point? However, in the series I'm thinking of, the dog was very small, and went on adventures with a young boy.
:Maybe you're thinking of the Belgian comic Tintin about a boy who went on adventures. He had a little white dog.
I very definitely recall a Rin Tin Tin comic book series back in the 1950s and early 1960s, mostly of  RTT as the companion/possession of a park ranger in (IIRC) Alaska.   As a matter of fact, I wish this article would provide adequate summaries of the plots of the radio series, movies, and TV series.  Apparently the dog was first presented in the frozen north, evidently paired with an adult, but the TV series moved him to an wild west Army cavalry fort in the wilderness where he was paired with an orphan boy.  What, definitively, was supposed to be the backstory to this dog? Sussmanbern (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cartoon? 

message: The Rin Tin Tin Kennels website claims that "Jr." and "II" were both sired by the original.  And that "IV" was sired by "II".  Until someone comes up with a source that says otherwise, I've taken out the claim that the subsequent dogs are not decended form the original. 
They also say that the "Jr" that appeared on TV was not "Rin Tin Tin Jr." but another dog.  The makes sense as RTT Jr would have been over twnety years old when the TV show was recorded.
cdixon 76.183.29.230 23:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloodline 

message: There's an image of Rintintin's grave on Flickr at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26022927@N00/37160552/. If we can legally add this to the article I think it would add a nice touch. Off2Explore 22:54, 16 Apr 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested image

message: Something is wrong with the final paragraph of the Radio section. There are run-on sentences, and the final information there, noting the performers Lee Aakers, James Brown, and Joe Sawyer, refers to the television series but is not clearly stated so. I am not sure how to correct this, but it is garbled as currently shown.
StevenTiger (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio 

message: At least two solid new books on Rin Tin Tin, one on his film career, one on his (and his pups') lives. The book by the respected journalist Susan Orlean just got a big review in the New York Times. The article should be updated from these solid new sources, and possibly cross listed with the Darryl F. Zanuck article, and Warner Brothers. Interesting new information on Zanuck that I hadn't seen elsewhere. Profhum (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an extract from the Susan Orlean book here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/9010387/Rin-Tin-Tin-the-dog-who-charmed-the-world.html that disagrees with the article as it presently stands.  Most noticeable where he was buried.  MidlandLinda (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been using the book to expand the article. It's quite good. Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitive new books-- call for additions 

message: "In New York City, New York, Mayor Jimmy Walker gave Rin Tin Tin a key to the city". This is currently in the Death and posthumous recognition section, and is given the reference Orlean, Susan. "The Dog Star", The New Yorker, August 29, 2011. This positioning implies the award was posthumous.
Considering that Walker was only mayor for one further month after Rin Tin Tin's death, are we sure this isn't referring to an earlier event? Anyone got the book? Something I've found on google http://www.statesman.com/life/books/orlean-tells-all-about-rin-tin-tin-1903031.html?printArticle=y tells that his owner once received the key - are we sure some confusion hasn't occured? LukeSurl t c 22:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key to New York 

message: We have :Category:Animal actors. I am pretty sure that is the only category this dog really should go in. However it is more clear to me that dogs do not go into nationality categories. :Category:American actors is a sub-cat of :Category:American people by occupation, so dogs do not go in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are describing is a problem caused within Wikipedia by Wikipedians who are interested in categorization. The problem is iatrogenic; caused by those who are supposed to be fixing it. Clearly actors can be animals. Clearly animals can have a nationality, and they can be described as having been active in the 20th century. So we can have an animal be a 20th century American actor, such as Strongheart and Rin Tin Tin, even though both of these dogs were born in Europe (one in Germany, and one in France). Both acting careers were from American residence and American activity. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Keep in mind here folks that if we are  going to be listing the dog's nationality, the original Rin Tin TIn was by birth French, not American. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

text: There is long-standing practice to not mix up fictional with real characters in categorization, and in general to keep "people" categories populated only by people. In this case, the same should apply, and Rin tin tin should not be in any categories with "people" as the top-level parent. I think the animal actors are sufficiently small in number that categorization of them as animal actors is sufficiently defining. In the future, if there were hundreds or thousands of animal actors, one could imagine dividing that grouping by nationality (whatever that means) of the animal in question, or by type of animal, but for now with only 42 notable animal actors, we don't need more categories for them at this point. Yes, animals can be actors and can be active in the 20th century, but people categories should contain people only, that's just the way it's always been, and non-humans have always been hived off into other categories. The naked "actor" in english generally is taken to mean a human in this case, and animal actors almost always use the qualifier "animal" when describing them. I suggest we apply a dose of common sense here - when such categories were set up, or when users are browsing these categories, do they expect to see non-human actors? Would they expect to see fictional actors as well? I think the principle of least surprise suggests that no, Virginia, they aren't looking for or expecting dogs here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: another example is Hatsune Miku who is a virtual algorithm but who also happens to be a singer. She is in the idols category, which is probably inappropriate, but she doesn't show up in any japenese singers cats ongside humans I don't think.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I've been contributing to Wikipedia for six years, I still cannot wrap my head around categories. I think they are an artificially hierarchical construct, with whimsical limits placed on them, when they could have been more free-form and organic from the start. That said, I will leave the categorization of this article in other hands. Clearly there are a great many proponents of the current system.I'm dismounting Rocinante and I'm chopping up my lance for firewood. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Categories are not tags, for one, and yes they do impose artificial hierarchy - and if you follow a given category down to subs of subs of subs, you will often find things that would have no business in the parent, since parent/child relationships are often incorrectly used to indicate relations as opposed to proper sub-setting. There are also somewhat inconsistent rules around when they are used - for example, if someone is from X, then they can always be categorized as being such - even if people rarely talk about it - but OTOH if they were once a waiter, they cannot be categorized as such, since that is not DEFINING. Then the whole business of non-diffusing gendered/ethnic categories gets added in and the media dramaz around that, with 90% of people not understanding that doing non-diffusing cats correctly in an emergent (vs top-down designed) category tree is rife with challenges. Read the algorithm here, which gives correct results and is the clearest way I could find to explain it, and then ask yourself how many wikipedia editors are likely to follow that algorithm. The problem is, if you don't follow it, someone will write an article about how wikipedia is sexist/racist. If you want to discuss categorization further, please swing by my talk page, I find it a fascinating topic and I think I understand the current system -with its many flaws - pretty well - and I'm trying to push for a better system of category intersection which may interest you.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animals do not go in nationality categories 

message: I have not been able to find any sources describing exactly how a jump height of 11 feet 9 inches was achieved. This is likely either a boosted jump or complete fabrication, as the current world record dog jump height is 5 feet 8 inches.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:5500:C370:FD00:7CF7:A88A:5DB5:653A (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Guinness Records confirms a dog named Feather made a vertical jump of 191.7 cm (75.5 in).  Mediatech492 (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jump height dispute/clarification 

message: The introductory section contains this sentence:
"Duncan groomed Rin Tin Tin IV for the 1950s television series The Adventures of Rin Tin Tin, but the dog performed poorly in a screen test and was replaced in the TV show by trainer Frank Barnes's dogs, primarily one named Flame Jr., called JR, with the public led to believe otherwise." 
This is a poorly written sentence.
It is unclear what the phrase "with the public led to believe otherwise" refers to, since the sentence has stated numerous things.
I hope someone knowledgeable on the subject can write this clearly. 2601:200:C000:1A0:CF1:8191:EC52:4A97 (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad sentence