Talk:Nick Adams (actor, born 1931)

message: "Hollywood" and "gay" are words to conjure with, as the voluminous discussion here and in the existing archive proves. Nevertheless, 
: "Nick Adams stories" 
has 25K Ghits, all of which may be presumed to focus on Nick Adams (character) while 
: "nick adams "  Rebel OR dean
(which differs by about 2% from e.g.
: "nick adams "  Rebel OR dean OR Hondo OR "wild wild west"
and thus can be presumably be counted on to capture virtually all of the pages that would focus on the actor) has only 46K. Perhaps someone who's read the actor's bio thru can construct a more compelling G-srch, but barring that, IMO the actor and the Hemingway stories are close enuf in significance that readers would be better served by more equal Dab'n than by letting the actor keep the unsuffixed title.--Jerzy•t 18:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Gwen Gale 11:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Title and Give this Title to Dab page? 

message: In this edit, demurely summarized as some minor changes and additions, User:Onefortyone adds about three kilobytes, notably a lengthy section on "Adams's sexuality" and another on "Adams's off-screen dates with actresses". In other words, stonking great bucket-loads of steaming tittle-tattle. Mmm, fragrant!
But I'm disappointed by megastars such as James Dean (a cultural icon who also died tragically young). For one thing, the word legendary is missing, yet the article needs that to satisfy the Hello!-consuming "demographic". Can't we rephrase this bit as gigastars such as James Dean (a legendary cultural icon who also died tragically young)? (Though actually I've always thought that for Dean, as for Mr Vicious, early death was a sage career move.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that we should rename the article "Nick Adams (hustler)", though a special subsection concerning Adams's and Dean's activities as street hustlers may be included in the Hollywood section. As for the Sexuality section, it was already there but wrongly entitled. The other interesting section on "Adams's off-screen dates with actresses" had been removed by User:Gwen Gale. I only reincluded it, as it throws much light on the studio-arranged dates of the time, of which Nick Adams was part of. By the way, I am happy with most of Gwen's recent edits, as they are indeed improvements.  Onefortyone (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Onefortyone, on this topic, I think it's more than ok to mention these tabloid sources about Nick Adams but since a) they're all 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay with no confirmation and b) they have little or nothing to do with his notability as an actor, I am going to put them back into their own section at the end of the article, citing context worries which would be more or less covered by WP:WEIGHT along with WP:RS. I do strongly support the inclusion of this published material in the article and will help you in any way I can to keep it there, in its own section. I would also support a new article called Nick Adams (sexuality) but dealing with these sources in their own section here is, IMHO, as helpful. Please feel free to bring up anything meaningful to you about all this here on the talk page and all the best to you! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Onefortyone, when I much expanded and rewrote the article a few weeks ago, I mistakenly rm'd the Natalie Wood text. I've rs'd this to the gossip section (since it's supported by citations of gossip/tabloid sources), thanks for bringing it up. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, Gwen, I hadn't realized this -- are you saying it's really OK to write "encyclopedia" articles out of "gossip/tabloid sources"? I may have to rethink my approach here. I mean, my assiduous reading of the "Street of Shame" and other pages within Private Eye had given me the impression that the British tabloids (or redtops, as the Brits call them) were only suitable for amusement, and that their respect for facts was close to zero. Am I wrong? Or is this tattlopedia we're writing here? -- Hoary (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just can't believe a Wikipedia article would have anything in it by Larry Quirk or Albert Goldman. Chandler75 (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Shall we rename the article [[Nick Adams (hustler)]]?

message: :Image:Nickadamsmars.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replied on the image page. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nickadamsmars.jpg

message: :Image:Nickadamsrebel.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replied on the image page. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nickadamsrebel.jpg

message: :Image:Nickadamsmars.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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this notice is mistaken. Rationale has been provided and I believe it is wholly in compliance, please restate the objection with more specificity relating to Nick Adams, if need be, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nickadamsmars.jpg

message: :Image:Nickadamsrebel.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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The objection seemed to related to the image being linked to multiple articles, which was inaccurate, the image is linked only to this article and a full fair use rationale was already provided. However, please restate the objection if need be, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nickadamsrebel.jpg

message: This was added by an IP, it's a plot synopsis which in this form is inappropriate for this biographical article. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced episode description

message: In March of 1964, viewers of the innovative (and short-lived) dark science fiction anthology series The Outer Limits witnessed one of Adams' most affecting performances.  In the episode Fun and Games, Adams portrays Mike Benson, an emotionally wounded ex-boxer, conditioned to expect the worst from life.  He is offered a chance for redemption: he can save Earth from being destroyed-- cataclysmically over a period of several years -- for the entertainment of a jaded extraterrestrial audience, but only if he will provide alternative entertainment by joining a female human in battling to the death two primitive aliens, who are likewise fighting to save their own distant world.  Benson is a character whose best impulses lie buried beneath layers of fear and defensive cynicism, and Adams persuasively brings him to life.  Initially refusing to take up the alien's challenge, Benson revels in the possibilities of hedonism open to a man who knows that the world is just a few years from utter destruction, noting that there would be "enough time" for "just about everything a man could enjoy".  When Laura (Nancy Malone), the other human facing the aliens, bitterly asks him if that includes raising a child, Adams lends understated emotional conviction to Benson's distant reply: "I don't think I'd enjoy that...my Dad always said it was a lot of trouble."  Fun and Games is, as critic David Schow notes "in terms of emotional impact and existential honesty, one of The Outer Limits finest hours." ref: http://www.davidjschow.com/limits/ol_episodes2.html#fun  This is due, in no small part, to the depth of Adams' characterization.
Having read the Outer Limits review at the URL in the text, the IP's phrase "This is due, in no small part, to the depth of Adams' characterization," is placed to imply that it is supported by the linked review but it is not, it's WP:OR. However, I have added two sentences to the text which are supported by the review. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Fun and Games''

message: I never cared for Addams, I'm not a fan. But I feel your bio of him is too negative. Even if all the negative input is 100% true, its irrelevant. The man is long dead, what matters is his career, his legacy as an actor, not that Elvis Presley's mother didn't like him, or that he was a pool hustler.
He only has a biography because of his movie and television career, without that he would be long forgotten. I'm gay, and I don't care if Addams was gay, bi, or whatever. The time when it was headline news if a celebrity was gay is long past.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:924F:8300:BCBD:7A2D:DFCF:EC81 (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the section on his sexuality is excessively large, and is undue emphasis. Figureofnine (talk • contribs)  15:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your Nick Addams Bio is too negative 

message: :I think this article was prematurely -- or -- bot wrongly-assessed. There is a multitude of "unsourced statements" (citation needed) from 2011, 2014, 2019, and July and August 2022, as well as balance issues 
:The B-class criteria #1 states; , and #4, 
:Reassess the article to C-class.  --  Otr500 (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Article issues and classification

message: This is so bizarre. It seems to belong to something like Cracked.com rather than in an encyclopedia.  Montju (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is so bizarre