Talk:The Valentine

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article requires other verifiable sources

The sources used are pretty well all self-referential, and it would do well to have Wikipedia:Verifiability applied. The references would also be useful to be inline for assistance see Wikipedia:inline citationbillinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Evidence was provided that the museum is actually known under such name. At first sight, The Valentine (museum) seems more fitting but it would surely be challenged as unnecessary disambiguation. There is no other entity called 'The Valentine' from which it needs to be kept separate, per User:Cuchullain. So assuming we want to do the move at all, it should be at the unqualified name. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Valentine Richmond History CenterThe Valentine – the museum has underwent revitalization, in which changed the name of the museum from the longer previous name, stated in the article's current title, to the new name which is The Valentine. In the text, The Valentine is listed as the current name of the museum, but the article's title is listed as the former name. I am the public relations and marketing coordinator for the museum and editing the article's title to the current name The Valentine assists online visitors to find the new website domain, which is also listed in the article: TheValentine.org --Relisted. Cúchullain t/c 17:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)66.255.171.114 (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

Perhaps worth relisting in view of the (unsubstantiated) claim above that the new name has taken root. I note the disclosure of WP:COI by nom (good) but there seems no valid rationale in terms of WP:AT, as of yet. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewa: Agreed. I've relisted the discussion and posted evidence that the new name has, indeed "taken root" in the sources.--Cúchullain t/c 17:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I might have got around to doing that but there was a risk of someone closing the RM meantime of course, and similarly thanks for relisting, good call. Note my change of vote above. Progress. Andrewa (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal

I note above some opposition to the move to The Valentine but mostly support for The Valentine (museum), but is that a consensus? Several supporters of the original proposal are silent on this as an alternative, so far, and there is one note of dissent.

I can argue it both ways, am happy with either, and note that we seem to have strong consensus to move, it's just a question of where to exactly. Andrewa (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 23 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. There should not be more than one move request active at a time, as that causes confusion, and the second request is not listed at WP:RM. Editors are free to suggest alternative titles such as The Valentine (museum) in the request above, before it closes, if they so desire. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Valentine Richmond History CenterThe Valentine (museum) – the museum has underwent revitalization, in which changed the name of the museum from the longer previous name, stated in the article's current title, to the new name which is "The Valentine". In the text, The Valentine is listed as the current name of the museum, but the article's title is listed as the former name. I am the public relations and marketing coordinator for the museum and editing the article's title to the current name of the museum "The Valentine" assists online visitors to find the new website domain, which is also listed in the article: TheValentine.org


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rewriting the article

This article has a LOT of problems, but its subject is notable and worthwhile. I've reached out to a couple of subject matter experts. If they are cooperative, together we can fix the problems with the article. Give us at least a few days. Lou Sander (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is now 87% better after including several references / reliable sources. MPS (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History sub-Sections

User: CorporateM recentlly deleted ALL subsections in the history section, but I reverted because I am of the opinion that subsection headers adds clarity to the history. I looked at a couple other museum articles and some of them seem to have quite extensive history sections... examples: Solomon_R._Guggenheim_Museum#History & Denver_Art_Museum#History_of_the_museum ... I am not saying that wiki policy demands subsections, but I think it is good form to have subsections if the history section of the article is very long. Thoughts? Peace MPS (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Valentine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about Valentine's day

What's the true meaning of Valentine's day 200.113.238.211 (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what's the real story of Valentine's day?
Is Valentine's on February 14th? 200.113.238.211 (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]