Talk:Thurston Howell III

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Comedy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

I have re-added the my contribution after deletion by Mr. Vernon. It certainly seems notable for followers of Thurston Howell III, that he lives on. I realize that my contributions have been put on the notice board and have looking for resolution there. Wikipietime (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howell continues to be cited in the GOP 2012 presidential campaign by popular media channels. I would like the advise of experienced editors on how this might be added to the article. I have a unresolved issue with an editor who I feel may exhibit cultural biases that has waylay-ed previous attempt for reasons that are not exactly clear to me. Wikipietime (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to review NPOV, OR, notability, etc. Mr. Vernon is an experienced editor.Sandcherry (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The characterization about Romney being equated to the fictional Howell (in this case, by a NY Times commentator) was added to this article along with a cite by two editors on September 18th. The continuing characterization by Maddow equating Romney with Howell is similar so it has been restored to the article along with cites. Shearonink (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the Romney mention into the article. I have an unresolved issue with what I feel is a vindictive bias being waged against my contributions by Mr. Vernon. I have taken a few months for resolution to take place and have heard nothing. Apparently, Mr. Vernon trolls for what he feels is negative mentions of Mitt Romney and then performs a take down. Having to fight for inclusion of worthy material to Wikipedia is pitiful. The Backus/Howell/Romney issue is the epitome of this. Mr. Vernon has sought to limit and suppress the inclusion of what will surely be a case for future study as to the politics of Wikipedia editor's abusive powers. The discussion of comparing Romney's mannerism in presentation to those of Howell is highly worthy topic of character development. For evidence of this, watch the stunning Romney performance in Colorado on November 3 2011 and the similarity of gesturing to Howell is powerfully evident. Also, a most interesting fact; Cleveland, Ohio has been a very important city for Romney's election campaign, coincidentally being the birthplace of Jim Backus; beckoning the imagination as to Backus's continued existentialism existence thru Mitt Romney via Thurston Howell. --Wikipietime (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. To wit:

- Shearonink used "hab" (closed discussion) in violation of Wiki policy as he/she is an involved editor

- Citations include a NY Times article with Thurston Howell Romney in the title, but no direct comparison between Romney and Howell other than both are wealthy and a Rachel Maddow program. If Rachael Maddow is an unbiased source, than Ann Coulter could also be considered unbiased. Not.

- Wikipietime is using the talk page as a forum for some reason

Perhaps a more rational approach to this issue will prevail after Tuesday. Until then... Sandcherry (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to Mitt Romney is retained along with the notable references - New York Times and Time magazine. Sandcherry (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More Rational Approach and it is after Tuesday and your Bias is showing. Popular culture, fictional characters, caricatures of political figures are cultural and cite-able. Please do not vandalize my contributions or be a sore loser. Look at the page views for Thurston Howell III and see the facts. Persons of interest reference the article upon mention in the media. --Wikipietime (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipietime, you have already been given a last warning regarding violating WP:PA. Also, you do not seem to grasp or care about WP:NPOV. Using biased sources like Rachael Maddow to advance an agenda and using talk pages as a soap box are not acceptable. If you find WP:PA and WP:NPOV too onerous, please consider contributing elsewhere. Sandcherry (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged experienced editors are exerting intimidation and improper deletion of my contributions to the article. For the record, an understanding of popular cultural icons and relations to political figures has been well established. It would be much appreciated if any disturbed editor, not in agreement, with my contributions; make an entry in this section as to what the problem is. --Wikipietime (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC) "Appearing in the November 15, 2012 New York Time Book of The Times section, book reviewer and Pulitzer Prize recipient Michiko Kakutani of the NYT, chose the selection "Thurston Howell types in the expensive seats who radiate an aura of “Connecticut license plates and very green lawns” from book Both Flesh and Not byDavid Foster Wallace 2012 Little, Brown & Company.^{[1] [2]}" Not sure why since Thurston Howell is working it's way into the vernacular. --Wikipietime (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added it back and contest the deletion. I am not easily flummoxed;but, you got me on this one. Why such a simple explanation? and no discussion. I would like this reviewed by other editors.

"Then, lest I get the wrong idea about Rubio and the grassroots, Governor George Pataki plops down in front of me and a line of supplicating Thurston Howells approach." is an example that supports inclusion. --Wikipietime (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion of the deletion is fine IMHO. However, your additional citation is off-topic relative to Mitt Romney and therefore removed.Sandcherry (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to include a comma in his name. There are few, if any, historical examples, even for royalty. I propose that someone knowledgeable about renaming articles rename this one to "Thurston Howell III" without any comas. I would try to do it but don't want to break the referring links or the talk page. Veriss (talk)

(If you're going to nitpick about punctuation, at least spell it correctly: comma; coma is a medical condition). I don't know if there's a Wikipedia guideline, but it is quite common to see a comma before "III". Cresix (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Touche'!. You are quite right in the minor point about my personal spelling weaknesses in that I did misspell the word "comma" though I was consistent in my misspelling. However, this is not about you or I being more or less clever then the other. There is a HUGE difference between spelling on a talk page observation and the spelling of the title of a human being's biography. Let's keep things in perspective here.

Show diffs to significant biographies that put a comma before the suffix that is convincing to most observers that placing a comma before the suffix is conventional. I do not think that there are many, if any. Let's get it right for this guy. Cheers, have a great one! Veriss (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not about how Wikipedia articles handle the comma. My point has to do with the world beyond Wikipedia, where I recall often seeing it without a comma. I'm not really sure that there is a standard way of doing this on Wikipedia. If you think the article needs to be retitled, find something in a writing style manual (preferably one written for Wikipedia because Wikipedia sometimes handles punctuation differently than other styles, such as punctuation within quotation marks) that states there should not be a comma, or do a search of Wikipedia articles and see which is more prevalent (and how prevalent). Cresix (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No, it is not in any sense common to see a comma before roman numerals in the manner of Senior and Junior. (It was once common to suffix it with a period, but that dropped out of fashion over the 20th century.) It's been three years. Move the article to the right location already. [W/r/t the silly request for research: no, in a case like this, the onus is on the highly unusual typography to justify itself. Still, feel free to scroll through the pages and pages of articles with roman numeral III or the pages and pages of Google results for this particular name if you really needed to be reminded, no, absolutely no one writes it this way. OP was some sort of subtle troll and/or a non-native editor.] — LlywelynII 13:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where did they go Wikipietime (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed! Every source I have read says nothing of her first name other than “Lovey”. Greg Mote (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Mote: I removed the unsourced name with a warning not to change her name without a reliable source. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Mote: Right you are - only reference is in a dream sequence. Good catch! ^[1]

Came to the page on Thurston Howell III following a reference to him elsewhere, being British I've never seen Gilligan's Island, though I have heard of it. Also, possibly because of being British, I am not familiar with the term used in the first line of the Portrayal section, 'Croesus'. I had to look it up. Is it possible that it's more common in US English? Perhaps a better English word could be found so all speakers can better understand the meaning? I don't feel best placed to make the edit having never watched, and not having a sound grasp of the intended meaning. Anyone care to take a punt at this? Blueskyredkite (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Sandcherry (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]