Talk:James Stewart/Archive 2

4161:

understand the nuanced differences between the three images. The point is that, in my opinion, those differences are not great enough to warrant the use of three such similar images. You did not "destroy" half of the utility of this article. You improved it, and I commended you for that. It is not a question of what is "enough" for me; it is a question of what is best for the article and its quality. Images do not need to be placed directly beside what they are illustrating; they are capable of standing alone. I understand that you have apparently had confrontations about images, previously (please correct me if I'm wrong). I am not someone who runs around Knowledge (XXG) looking for some reason to remove images; I agree that images enhance our articles. I just noticed this article was very crowded with images and felt compelled to say something. I also understand that you have something against the "Hollywood Walk of Fame". That is fine. I did not mean to imply that Stewart's legacy is solely "an embarrassingly silly slab". All I meant, which I have said twice, is that an image of that "silly slab" makes more sense in that section. The reason I say that is because, no matter how silly you feel it is, that is a representation of his legacy. Honestly, this is not such a big deal that I feel discussion absolutely has to continue.

4324:(which is precisely what they do to the film's other lead, Margaret Sullavan's character). There's more education in the look on his face, expertly lit by Frank Borzage and directly captured right from the screen in the midst of one his finest performances in one of his greatest roles, than in a hundred mere costume changes. Plus, as Lobo512 mentioned, many readers will simply glance at the pictures and it's more educational for them to view handsomely compelling photographs (of scenes chosen by the studios for the trailers themselves) than paper doll pictures of Stewart in uniform or cowboy hat or a ballerina tutu. With Stewart, don't lose sight of the fact that it's the films that count, it's the reason we're talking about him, not because he wore a uniform and parlayed his film fame into one of the fastest rises through the military ranks in American history, interesting though that may be, but because he made some the greatest American films with some of the finest directors, and delivered some of the most superbly inspired performances. The article practically requires pictures from the movies themselves because they're the point, you have it backwards about what's more or less superfluous, which is the military uniforms and sidewalk slabs and anything else not directly screen-oriented. 1176:." (my emphasis) One article out of thousands could certainly be considered to fit within an "occasional exception". 2. It has an ambiguous and generic section headed "exceptions". The guideline that you are referring to specifically notes that there are exceptions, and in that spirit several people are saying that this is a case for exception. In the earlier discussion I directly challenged your interpretation of the naming convention, and for whatever reason, you did not reply. The naming convention guideline has evolved as a blanket to serve all articles in generic terms. There is no way it could be worded to fit every single Knowledge (XXG) article. In less obvious cases, we have to use consensus and common sense, and understand the purpose of the convention. The intention was to eliminate articles that were named by the birth name of the person rather than the name under which the person established his or her notability. The example I gave was "Frank Sinatra" over "Francis Sinatra". That's the type of thing that it is meant to clarify in terms of naming. In Stewart's case we have two names for one person that are both widely used. Looking at how each is used, and whether in an official or informal capacity is an important consideration. That comes down to 3678:

decade to decade. And Chickenmonkey, I think photos enhance rather than smother our information, especially since, more often than not, the photographs literally illustrate the topic of the paragraph they'd been placed next to. Since I certainly added most of the images myself, I just took the liberty of being "bold" and culled them down to what I think is the absolute bare minimum. Lobo512, your "Hawkins" 1973 image from the day before yesterday is a blazing jewel and I left that one in. I took out what I believe to be the dreary bane of Knowledge (XXG): endless photos of the Hollywood Walk of Fame, a bit of trivia that always finds it's way in because, like Golden Globe nominations, they are a fact albeit an irritatingly trivial one (celebrities have to pay out of pocket(!) for their "Walk of Fame" slab, and the Golden Globes are nominated by the dregs of Los Angeles). And with those damned photos of sidewalks, if you've seen one, you've seen them all. I put that picture over on the awards and tributes page instead, where it belongs, along with the "Jimmy Stewart" flagpole stand.

3938:

each other. The three I mentioned are all headshots of Stewart with text of his name, from film trailers. What unique information does each image add? The article already contains multiple images that demonstrate Stewart's appearance; what further information does these particular images supply? Use of one such image would seem sufficient. When adding images to an article, it is important to look at what supplemental information is being contributed. The image of Stewart in his military regalia is an excellent picture that adds a lot to the article. The other images show Stewart in various film roles; for the most part, those are good, and I am certainly not arguing against them. It's just the repetitive images that I am concerned with. As you said, there is a large amount of images available. It would seem we should be able to incorporate a better array of images that can both brighten the page and offer more information.

993:

television appearance as James Stewart, as virtually every other encyclopedia of note titles its articles as James Stewart, as Stewart signed autographs as James Stewart, as his Oscars, Emmys, and Golden Globes were presented to James Stewart, and as it is far less likely that he is known by his nickname nearly as much in non-English speaking countries than in the U.S., the current name of the article ("James Stewart"), with its prominent placement of the information that he was informally and popularly known as Jimmy Stewart, is absolutely the proper style. I doubt seriously that the persons advocating this change would agree to changing the Abraham Lincoln article to Abe Lincoln, even though virtually all of the arguments made in this case would be applicable there as well. Strong opposition.

2036:. The publishers used the "Jimmy" in this case, to indicate his iconic connection to his fans and admirers, with the back cover even having an explanatory note in his own words from "Jim." Albeit the use of "Jimmy" was not personal, professional or even commonly used name, so I still would consider this article to be more faithful to the individual to use his preferred name, "James Stewart", one that was most often used in primary sources, while recognizing that the public often knew him in a more familial way, as one of their own, their "Jimmy." FWiW, the fact remains that consensus is what needs to be reached and there appears to be a long stretch before there is consensus on a name change from the present article title, regardless of the flapping about made above. (LOL) 231:

tombstone. To change the name of the article to "Jimmy Stewart" simply because a lot of people refer to him that way would justify changing the name of the Humphrey Bogart article to "Bogie," or the John Wayne article to "Duke Wayne," or the James Cagney article to "Jimmy Cagney." I submit that we should honor how Stewart himself chose to be known "officially," as in the name he chose for all his film credits. Johnny Carson chose to be billed as, and always used the professional name, of "Johnny." Stewart always used "James" except in casual situations. Adhering to the subject's own professional, "official," choice of name seems (except in highly unusual cases, of which I cannot think of an example) seems to fit best with Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines and intent.

2030:(1992) explains that as a young boy, to his mother, he was "Jimsey" while his father called him "Jimbo", but these were names of affection, kept in the family and rarely ever heard outside of his immediate relatives. His father also later called him "Jimmie" (sic) in a letter and other close friends invariably used "Jimmy" up until and into his later life. At Princeton, he went by the unlikely moniker of "Elmer" bestowed as he was a gangly and awkward youth. As a grown man, entering the field of the theatre and movie business, he was credited as "James Stewart" and from that point on, always used that form of address. While in the US Army Air Corps, and USAAF (later USAF) service, he was always addressed as "<rank: --> 2099:, when I have quoted some of the bits from them that you have avoided quoting, in my comments in the previous section. I have no dispute about the policy or the guideline and there are no points that I'm unclear about, but thank you for your concern. I've said several times that I disagree with the selective interpretation of the policy and the guideline, and with the line of argument you are offering in support of your opinion, so do not kid yourself that you are scoring a point by dismissing my disagreement as ignorance. I'm not going to continue repeating why I disagree with you, simply because you keep repeating your viewpoint. For now, let's focus on this section only. Look again at what I've 4140:

tantamount to sinking to the level of paper dolls. I already destroyed half the utility of this article by removing photos for you and it isn't enough. Lobo512 requested that I restore some of them and she was right, the article was so bare of them that it was half as informative as before (if you go back and look, you'll see that I had originally placed individual photographs beside the paragraph about that particular film or incident, lending an immediacy and making the article extremely illustrative). And no, Stewart's legacy, his sole real legacy that sets him apart, isn't an embarrassingly silly slab from the "Hollywood Walk of Fame," it's his finest films, made with the very best directors. And

4407:

importance, although that certainly is part of his story and is accounted for here in both text and image. And I've just painstakingly explained to you four to six different times, until I'm literally blue in the face, that the images do complement the written material (which is largely about his movies, as a matter of course) but for some reason you seem unable to take in what I'm saying. Somehow you simply cannot connect the dots. May I ask your age? And as for your "full disclosure," please mention this discussion anywhere you like and convince as many people to read it as you can. I have a feeling that the more people who read it, the better for Knowledge (XXG) in general.

3543:

listing (based on both the studio documents and viewing the film) says "Oddbody," every book on Capra and Stewart I can find says "Oddbody," and I can't find a single source that says otherwise (as I said, I don't have the film itself available at the moment). Yet everyone who has put in a vote here claims it's "Odbody," without anyone yet mentioning what the source of that claim is. I have to presume it's something in the film, but could someone actually explain it to me? At present, I've got about six citations for "Oddbody" that everyone else seems to think are wrong. (BTW, the character isn't given a name in the original short story, so don't look there.)

4072:

already has images of Stewart from 1938, 1940, 1946, 1953, 1960, 1962, and 1973. These effectively show how Stewart's appearance changed, throughout his career; the other three images are not needed for that. As far as the Walk of Fame image, I do not care if it is added to this article or not. My point in mentioning that image was that it is more logical to include that image in a section titled "Legacy" or "Honors and tributes" than it is to include yet another image of Stewart from a 1940 film. It is my opinion that having such images that are repetitive not only does not add to the article but actually subtracts from it.

2134:. Read my comment again if you missed it. I did not reduce it to "most people", so I do not understand why you've directed such a comment at me. As long as you've raised the point, "most people" and "most people I know" are equally bad in terms of quantifying something that you say is easy to quantify, so I'm not going to continue quibbling over semantics. Enough. I know your opinion, so if you reply to me, please don't just repeat it all again. If you've got something new to say, find the right place in this discussion and say it there, and unless there is something new to discuss, I'm done. 1470:

person is credited as. The name that the man used in the credits of 100 movies is James Stewart. I stated quite clearly that the one book you've posted was authored by both father and son and both names appear as authors. You can't authoritatively state that he went by Jimmy Stewart based on one book. Rossrs has already addressed his comments about the TV show. You cannot simply say "Jimmy Stewart" is more easily recognizable or that it is the most commonly used. Again, if that were the case, why aren't the articles called Jimmy Dean, Liz Taylor and Jimmy Cagney? Most people know

2912:. Since another admin is handling this now, I'll state my own position on this issue. Wildhartlivie's data supports what I already suspected, that the (actor) really is who "most" readers probably want or expect to find. And indeed time doesn't matter, no matter how many less-used-by-readers or less-notable/generally-important other same names may exist more recently. Another interesting analysis of the relative "primary" nature would be the number of direct What Links Here links pointing to each page. "Fight data with data" if you want to counterargue that (actor) 4032:

will basically look at the pictures and let it go at that, and it's comprehensively helpful to feature his best, most worthwhile films in the photos. As for including another dreary photograph from the Hollywood Walk of Fame, now you're talking about the very soul of sanity-threatening repetition. If you've seen one of those pictures (and there's one on almost every actor's page in Knowledge (XXG) because, although it's of zero importance, its existence is at least a "fact" that requires no inline reference), you've seen them all, since they're

2508:(presently the disambig page). Could someone please fix these to point to the specific page of the appropriate person? If the meaning of that page is changed, those links will either suddenly point directly where they should (i.e, the specific intended "James Stewart") or to a totally urelated page (i.e., some specific "James Stewart" other than the intended one). Even if no change is made, may as well have links go where the reader (or page-editor) expects them to go instead of having to guess and click-though. Full disclosure: I came here via 3015:

Stewart, then no. If you are stating that there will be no consensus to make James Stewart (the actor) the primary page, that is far from dead. You failed to comment on the rather lengthy study of page hits for each and every use and variety of the name James Stewart that I made via the page hits tool. That this page outnumbers 2 1/4:1 all the other page hits combined with Stewart Granger included, and over 4:1 when it is not, speaks for itself. The discussion continues at the disambig talk page for James Stewart. Comment there, please.

4222:

identical. All they do is illustrate the subject's visage. The fact that the lighting, facial expression, and tone differ does not change the information brought to the article by each image. We should not add images just because they are good images; we should add an image to illustrate something within the text. For instance, the military image not only shows the subject but also illustrates the fact that the subject was a decorated veteran. Merely saying "Stewart was a decorate veteran" is greatly enhanced by showing him

4190:

Stewart's legacy remains his films, that loathsomely silly slab is merely a tribute, which is why I placed it on the separate "Honors and Tributes" page a couple of days ago, where it belongs, along with the flagpoles and other junkshop geegaws. I'm curious, what is similar about those three photographs? Is it the fact that his name is superimposed in each? Or that all three are "headshots," albeit being utterly different in lighting, facial expression, and tone? Or is it that they're all pictures of James Stewart? (He

3657:

to be a common problem on classic actor pages: there are a lot of free images available but most of the articles are short, so they end up being overcrowded with images. And they're often poor quality, making the page look worse. I added two images to this particular page today, but they both show Stewart later in life so I think they are good additions. It's the pre-war, military and Hitchcock/Mann sections that need to be trimmed. The ones that show him clearly and in decent quality are the ones that should stay. --

1595:

change) or that one side has a preponderance of votes extensive enough to call consensus for that side? Also, if discussion is to continue, why has no one answered the opposition side's questions of how this name situation differs from renaming articles Liz Taylor, Abe Lincoln, Bogie, John-John, Lucy Ball, or Jimmy Cagney? Is the side advocating the change unable to articulate how this situation differs from those? The arguments presented here fit those situations just as easily.

1092:? For better or for worse, what matters for Knowledge (XXG) article naming much more than the "official" name of someone is the name by which they were or are most commonly known, the name which is likely to be most familiar to WP readers. This is a classic example of where the title should reflect the name he was best known by, and the first sentence in the intro should clearly specify the official name in bold. Welcome to Knowledge (XXG). -- 31: 1447:) reinforces this. I mean, if people were more familiar with "James Stewart", why didn't he title his show and books accordingly? Knowledge (XXG) is different from other encyclopedias in some respects, and one big difference is in how it names articles. In particular, Knowledge (XXG) puts more emphasis on "easily recognizable" and "most commonly used" than do other encyclopedias in the determination of article titles. -- 3295:(from "ar-Aragonese" to "zh-Chinese"), with virtually all of the languages using either the Latin and Cyrillic alphabet, indicating "James" in the local-language article, with not a single "Jimmy". Are they slavishly taking their cue from the English-language Knowledge (XXG) and if we were to title it "Jimmy", they would follow suit? It's possible, although immaterial to this argument which aims to prove that 4007:, we see a much older, sad, pensive Stewart; this highlights Stewart's biggest hit with Hitchcock and the one that made him the #1 box office attraction in 1954, the year it appeared. Those two photos are extremely, starkly different despite both being headshots featuring his name (indicating that they're from trailers and reducing the propensity for photo-phobic Wiki-vandals snatching them down). 3386:, which it remains to this day. At the same time the redirect was changed from "James Stewart→Jimmy Stewart" to "James Stewart→James Stewart (actor)". The actor was still the primary topic, although now accessed via the redirect, and remained so for the next three-and-a-half years. During the first year-and-a-half there was no hatnote, until the addition, on December 17, 2005, of " 3718:

still from 1973 (hurrah, Lobo512!), and that's it. Hope this satisfies everyone. Photographs evoke such storms of removal from Knowledge (XXG) that I'm beginning to think it would be easier just to ban them altogether, in spite of the fact that it would obviously make the articles less informative, which is precisely what I've just done: made the article less informative.

3414:, one of the current voters in favor of restoring the actor as the primary topic). Only two of the participants expressed opposition to "James Stewart" as the primary topic, but five-and-a-half months later, on January 21, 2008, they were cited as representing consensus for such a move. It was spurred by action taken three weeks earlier, on December 30, 2007 by admin 3442:(born 1975), thus becoming one of the 27 entries on the page, presumably of equal importance to the remaining 26. The entire action was performed without any discussion or vote, and now, over 17 months later, even eleven strongly argued votes in favor of restoration and only one clearly marked, "oppose", were insufficient for the cause to prevail. Since this is not 2880:

Stewart Granger figure included, there were then 96191 views of the entire other 25 articles. That makes this James Stewart viewed over 3 3/4 times as many as all the other articles combined named James Stewart. I don't know about anyone else, but that says to me that James Stewart (actor) more than dominates over all the other James Stewarts combined.

3910:

legacy section. I don't see why there shouldn't be the one of him in the 1980s (that I added) in the "Later career" section and the one of him getting married in "Personal life" as well. It's good to have an image in every section, we're lucky that there are so many available that we can use so it's silly not to take advantage of that. The

1503:

the fireplace and watch it together. You're assuming that it's because people were more familiar with the name, but your assumption can't be taken as definitive. I don't know for sure any more than you do, but at least consider that your first guess may not necessarily be the only possibility. It's not greatly different to

3033:

for under the name "James Stewart" effectively dismantles your argument. It was my impression that this had been settled, in that there was no consensus (putting it mildly) in favor of a title change to "Jimmy Stewart." Is it your wish to rehash that discussion as if it had never occurred, or am I missing your point here?

2326:", which is the proposed name of the page, and which is currently redirected to James Stewart. To me, that extends the page name discussion unnecessarily and drags this out for no good reason. I do not believe the spirit of the guidelines require the posting of such a change to garner comment from 27+ article pages. 4130:

You can't seem to see the differences in these photographs and I'm beginning to feel at a loss to explain them since I've already tried. These three images are as different from one another as three close-up images of the same person could possibly be, if you look at and analyze them. I surmise that

4031:

remains one of Stewart's finest films for a range of reasons and to put that photo, another headshot with his name but again starkly different in terms of his age, facial expression, and noir lighting, in the Legacy section is altogether appropriate. As Lobo512 noted, most people who visit this page

3656:

I agree with this, there's no need for more than two images a section. And certainly no need for repetitive, similar images. I love images on pages but as long as there are a few to give you an idea of the person and brighten up the page, that's all that's needed. Too many just looks a mess. It seems

1873:

Just to clarify, in line with Wildhartlivie's specific question which is not about the name "Jimmy": This sub-proposal is "James Stewart (actor)" vs "James Stewart", and in this section, "Jimmy Stewart" is not a candidate. It's a secondary consideration that could only be considered if there is no

1314:

I've stated more than once that the actual WP rules are a bit ambivalent in application for this particular case. Otherwise, there would be no question here. No one is trying to impose IMDB rules upon this. Don't cloud the waters by claiming that anyone is doing that. Also, please distinguish between

810:

his professional name. "Popular discussion" does not necessarily equal encyclopedic or authoritative discussion. The fact that official credits, encyclopedic and official industry bodies all use "James Stewart" suggests to me that in an encyclopedic context, "James Stewart" is more widely used as

405:

of Stewart's film credits are listed as "James Stewart" leads me to conclude that it is the name by which he is most widely known. I believe that point one was written so that we would have, for example, a "Frank Sinatra" article, using the most commonly known name, rather than a "Francis Sinatra"

400:

to call him "James Stewart" even if we have articles for 50 other "James Stewarts". That alone is not a reason to change it. When you say "the name that is most generally recognisable" that's an opinion. All you are really confirming is that it is the name most generally recognisable by you, and

4071:

The fact that any editor feels any film is any actor's "finest film" is irrelevant to Knowledge (XXG)'s uses. Your argument for keeping three almost identical images is, essentially, that they show his progressive age, correct? Why not use images that are not almost identical to do this? The article

3972:

The headshot images differ quite a bit in the facial expressions as well as the important films from which they're culled. If they were all shot the same decade and had the same facial expression, you'd be right that they'd be repetitive, but they obviously aren't. The extremely unusual expression

2894:

This is definitive to me: The purpose of the dab page is to navigate quickly. These statistics strongly support the assumption that a reasonable majority of people entering "James Stewart" into the search box are looking for the (American) actor. This would suggest access to his article should be

1469:

Please show me anyplace that states that his "stage name" was Jimmy Stewart and wherein you can support that "most people are familiar" with Jimmy Stewart. What "most people" are familiar with is a POV statement, depending on who saying it. The stage name is the professional name, it is the name the

1180:

and the concept that the "principle of the rules is more important than the letter." The naming convention was not intended to allow nicknames or media created derivatives to overtake widely known legitimate or "official" names. Why not "Jimmy Cagney", why not "Jimmy Dean", why not "Liz Taylor"?

4323:

features a serious Stewart grappling with something intense, thereby magnificently and memorably amplifying the article's statement that this is the first American film delineating the poison of fascism/Nazism and that his former friends were chasing him to try to gun him down in down in cold blood

4126:

The qualitative aspects of the accomplishments of any subject of a Knowledge (XXG) article are scarcely irrelevant, they're the essence of the entire exercise, the reason for the article itself. If Stewart's films were indistinguishable from one another in quality, this article would be the length

3909:

more user-friendly. WP encourages pictures, just so long as they aren't overwhelming. I encouraged Upsmiler to add back some more, because it was looking very bare yesterday. S/he says they don't like "Walk fo Fame" pictures, but I think they're fine and I agree it would be more appropriate for the

3835:

I believe you did a good job, Upsmiler. I just moved some images, to allow the text of the article to flow easier. I would not object to the addition (or readdition) of an image in the "Personal life" section. It is not necessary, but I do not believe placing another image there would be too much.

3717:

photo to belt readers in the face with the grandeur of Cinerama (I actually saw Cinerama in New York and we'll never see its like again, I can promise you that) but since there are practically no photos in the article now, that's anything but necessary. Which brings us back to the sparklingly fine

3636:

There are currently 29 images in this article. Most of them are repetitive and add very little to the text. The reason we link to Wikimedia Commons is so we can give the reader access to images of the subject, without having those images smother the information we present here. Most of these images

3132:

consensus for it either, so I made a note as such in the RM closure. However, it appears to be gaining support, and a rough consensus may be imminent. Discussion is good, but repetition isn't so much, so all involved are encouraged to raise new evidence and points instead of just rehashing old ones

2421:

From its creation on November 2, 2001 to June 9, 2004 this article was titled "Jimmy Stewart", then "James Stewart" until January 21, 2008, and for the past 17 months, it has been "James Stewart (actor)". To deprive such a world-renowned figure of his seemingly indisputable position as the primary

2261:

And considering that the alternative proposal was posted within 3 hours of the initial posting of the requested move posting, which is more than available to any interested editors, it is contained in the current discussion and has been available for comment, and to date, the "controversy" has been

1502:

Exactly - "stage name" = "professional name". To answer your question about why "Jimmy" would be used? One answer may be "marketing". A TV show may well use "The Jimmy Stewart Show" if it's aiming to create an atmosphere of warmth and informality and wanting to attract a family to come sit by

230:

I am in absolute disagreement about changing the official name of this article to Jimmy Stewart. Stewart used the name "James Stewart" as his professional name, in the credits of every one of his feature film and stage appearances, and in his substantial military career. "James Stewart" is on his

4449:

You may ask my age, but I will not give it. I apologize, again, for the confusion we are experiencing. I do understand that the images do complement the text. My point is, and has been, that what is added by the images is not significant enough to warrant three images that, in my opinion, are very

4406:

James Stewart's film career is the reason for and the focus of any article about James Stewart. Why else write about him? It's the main topic of discussion through most of the article since Stewart made movies non-stop through most of his adult life, and definitely dwarfs his military heroism in

4358:

It is not "paper dolls"; it is using an image to complement the written material. That is Knowledge (XXG)'s use for images: to complement the written material. The films are not the focus of this article. James Stewart is the focus of this article. When using images, in this article, we have to be

4189:

and several others), and I didn't, but it is most definitely up to the editors to discern which films are better than others when choosing photographs to illustrate an article about an actor, it's part of the job. And if the editor has no idea, he's obviously working on the wrong article. Again,

3937:

I agree that images add to the quality of articles. We agree on that point. We also agree that there currently are not too many images in this article. The number, right now, is not huge and the images, currently, do not overwhelm the text. My issue is with images that are almost exact replicas of

3807:

Yeah I don't know where I got that from, I looked at the image guidelines after posting that and can't see any reference to it. It also is clearly wrong, so I don't know why I had that in my head! Forget I said that, I regularly say dumb things I'm afraid. Anyway, it basically just says try not to

3542:

What is the source for the spelling of Clarence's last name as "Odbody?" I don't have the film itself in front of me, but every single source I can find says "Oddbody," but when I make that edit, someone always reverts it. The studio cast sheet says "Oddbody," the American Film Institute catalog

3032:

Are we starting over again? I disagree with the premise of your final paragraph, and oppose the move. I think, aside from the preponderance of opposition arguments, that the recently posted overwhelming numerical-hits imbalance in favor of James Stewart the actor being the primary topic searched

2025:

Even the canard of "stage" name is being invoked; there was never one film or production in which he was credited where "Jimmy", "Jimmi", "Jimmie", "Jim" or other form of "Jimmy" was used. "James Stewart" was his personal, professional and stage name throughout his life. The fact that a reporter,

183:

Ah, I see it was moved on 9 June 2004 by Rossrs without consensus as he believed the rule was to use the legal name. That's not the rule, which is to use most popularly used name which would be Jimmy Stewart. That's how he is referred to by most people, at least in the US, and in practically every

4160:

I apologize if I have upset you in any way. That was not my intention. I did not mean to imply that the qualitative aspects of a subject's accomplishments are irrelevant. What I meant, and what I said, was that an editor's opinion of what is an actor's "finest film" is irrelevant, and it is. I do

4135:

photo differs markedly from the other two), and facial expressions, denoting Stewart's range as an actor, and they're actual scenes from the film itself, selected for dramatic impact in order to sell the movie, albeit with his name superimposed, giving the reader a notion of what the films looked

3426:

Three weeks later, another admin, who expressed one of the two dissenting views in the August 2007 discussion, returned "James Stewart" to "James Stewart (actor)" and then took two additional key actions—deleting the "James Stewart" redirect and moving the page which had always been titled "James

3418:

who deleted the "James Stewart" redirect and moved "James Stewart (actor)" to "James Stewart", reasoning that the parenthetical qualifer "(actor)" is redundant since the redirect leads users typing "James Stewart" to the actor's article. Restoration of the hatnote missing since January 13, 2007,

2123:

there is no consensus there, (and currently there is no consensus for a move) this sub-section is asking whether "James Stewart (actor)" or "James Stewart" should be used. This subsection is question number 2. Question 2 is framed as a follow-on from Question 1, and Question 2 only comes into

490:

credited as "Jimmy". You're not giving an equal example by citing Chaplin. There a lots of instances of Jimmy being used in pop culture. But even in one of the examples you've given "they title the page 'James' then kick into 'Jimmy' in the text" which repeats what I said in several examples

395:

I don't interpret this the way you do. Firstly number 2 - just because there are other people with the same name does not mean that "James Stewart" is not the more correct name for this particular "James Stewart". It does not "violate" the rule. If he wasn't known as "Jimmy" at all, we would

213:

When you say it was moved "without consensus", is that to say that moving it was improper? It's interesting that it's taken exactly 5 years and a couple of thousand edits by numerous editors before someone has seen cause to challenge me on it. As for your interpretation of what I "believed", I

4246:

adds a large amount to the text because the text mentions that the film was filmed in Cinerama, and the image illustrates that. As much as you dislike the Hollywood Walk of Fame image, it does illustrate the impression Stewart left on cinema; his legacy. Again, however, I am not arguing for that

4036:

except for the name. (And they're as meaningless as Golden Globe nominations but that's a different topic.) If you want to look at Stewart's name, which is literally all the sidewalk shot from the Walk of Fame has to offer, why not depict Stewart himself with an entertainingly different facial

3677:

There is definitely something about a lot of images that bothers many people. Lobo512, I certainly hear you about blurry images, never really thought about it before, and I agree with that. With Stewart, to do him justice, it takes a lot of images since his appearance changed rather starkly from

1858:

This is just an opinion. Just because most people you know have never heard of James Stewart does not provide a compelling reason to aim his Knowledge (XXG) article at their level of knowledge. An encyclopedia is supposed to educate and if they don't know his name was James, perhaps Knowledge

992:

As I've stated in fairly extensive terms in the "James?" section above, Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and encyclopedic style calls for as close to an "official" name for an article title as possible. As Stewart chose to bill himself professionally in every single film &

4314:

just as we know from the text that he made westerns and wore a uniform, but these pictures also serve to enrich the article by showing stills from the trailers, which are in turn stills from three of his most important and pivotal movies. These pictures say a lot about these crucial films. The

4310:(just as he was indeed in the military and made westerns) but demonstrate what those films looked like and what Stewart looked like in them, just as the picture of Stewart in a uniform demonstrates what Stewart looked like in a uniform. We know from the text that Stewart was in a wheelchair in 3760:

perfectly representative of the film (to my mind). I think it is the best depiction to give of the film and the crucial role (especially since the text mentions her being glamorous). We can't include every nice picture, there's just not room (especially since I might be going for FA status, and

3014:

First, what you are asking is not at all clear. The discussion regarding moving this specific article to the primary page is not in any way concluded. What was closed was the requested move to Jimmy Stewart. So if you are asking if the preponderance of opinion is to reconsider the move to Jimmy

2879:

26 others was 158767, 39.41% of which were for Stewart Granger alone, which is more than a bit misleading since his stage name isn't anywhere close to James or Jimmy. Regardless, the James Stewart on this page was viewed over 2 1/4 times as many as all other James Stewarts combined. Without the

1329:

I didn't suggest applying IMDb rules. You are twisting what I said. I was questioning why you would give an example that is not supported by the Knowledge (XXG) article you held up as evidence. You're saying we should use "Jimmy Stewart" and as an example you quote an article that uses "James

1165:

gives more detail, but it is a guideline only. Your entire premise is that "Jimmy" is the more commonly used name and that is the part of the naming convention that you are using to make this proposal. It is your basic premise that I am directly disagreeing with, and giving examples. I don't

1594:

Since this discussion began on June 9, and the survey began on June 12, we thus far have a total of 6 votes opposing the name change from James to Jimmy, and 1 vote in addition to the initiator in favor. At what point do we conclude either that no consensus has been achieved (thus halting the

4139:

And the sheer entertainment value of the pictures themselves remains important since each one is quite striking in its own way if you look at it. If the clothing in the military picture was the only shot in which you can detect a difference in the photographs aside from Stewart's age, that's

3307:", which remaining steadfast to its literary mandate, has titled its entry "Iacobus Stewart". Further examination also shows that of the 37 interwikis, only five use a parenthetical qualifier. Thus, in the remaining 32 Wikipedias, there are no other "James Stewarts"---he is the only one. 3287:

doesn't even bother with a "Stewart"→"Stuart" redirect). He was the primary target from 2001 to 2008 (more about that below), but was relegated without a vote or consensus (unless silence, at the time, was taken to represent consensus or absence of dissent) to the disambiguation page and has

2031:

James Stewart." Although he acknowledged that people called him "Jimmy", it was not his preference and in all of his personal writing, he signed his name as "James." In later years, being know as "Jimmy" did not detract from the role that he took on as a storyteller and his folksey poetry was

3696:

shot is the most beautiful picture of Hepburn that I've ever seen and the guy who apparently somehow runs her page won't leave it in, and this is obviously an even better spot for it anyway. In the military section, I culled the shots of Stewart and Gable talking on the couch and the French

440:; Chaplin was listed on film credits as Charlie Chaplin much of the time but also as Charles Chaplin. IMDb's page about Chaplin calls him Charles Chaplin. The most recognizable name for him is Charlie, IMO. Same for Jimmy Stewart! James Stewart's museum website URL is www.jimmy.org... at the 4221:

What is similar about the three images is as clear to me as what is different about them to you. It seems we are discussing different things. Yes, as images, there are several nuanced differences between the three of them. In terms of what they bring to the article, however, they are almost

3981:

movie in which Stewart becomes a raging maniac when Nick Charles (William Powell) outs him as the murderer. It was his first major role and he arguably never topped that performance for the balance of his career, which immediately put him over with MGM: he never stopped working after that

3151:

Kotra, at the time I created this section, you had closed both discussions as "no consensus". With that in mind, I argued why I felt that is never going to change with respect to the James Stewart primary topic issue, and, that that reality might affect their decision on the other issue.

3751:

Well I suppose that must be me you're referring to (and you didn't recognise the name?). I don't remember having any disagreement about that image being on the Hepburn page. It used to be there, but there's no space in that section for it with the current one (I even decided to remove

3434:. Six months later, on July 9, 2008, another editor repositioned "James Stewart (actor)" from the top of the disambiguation page, where it still gave the appearance of being the primary topic, to be the first name (in order of birth year, 1908) under the subheader, "Actors", ahead of 3768:

many images needed to be removed. Like I said, I do think they are a fantastic addition to a page. And I'm sure Chickenmonkey thinks that too: he just said 29 was excessive. I suggested two per section, which I still think would work (apart from smaller sections of course...I think

1966:

The fact that he himself used "Jimmy Stewart" in his own TV show and book title shows that he himself recognized that that name is the one that is "most generally recognizable". So should we. The fact the he used "James" officially, legally, and professionally is neither disputed

106:

When did the article get moved from Jimmy Stewart to James Stewart? I thought articles on Knowledge (XXG) were supposed to be under the most popular name. I see this discussed first thing in the archives, but don't see any agreement to move the article. Shouldn't it be moved back?

339:

General Knowledge (XXG) Naming Conventions start from easy principles: the name of an article should be "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". This boils down to the two central ideas in Knowledge (XXG) article

3186:

were not an option, but I may be mistaken. Only they can say. Regardless, I think these two proposals can still be evaluated independently and simultaneously, but I would suggest the two discussions be split to avoid confusion. If there are any new views or information about the

3761:

they're extremely nitpicky about things like that). I'm sorry if I give the impression of "running the page", that's not how I approach it at all, I just work very hard on it...if you'd like to help out, great. I could do with a hand, it's hard freaking work. And I'm a girl btw.

1367:) 17:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC). If we are throwing references out: Beaver, Jim. "James Stewart." Films in Review, October 1980. Brig. Gen. James M. Stewart. "National Museum of the United States Air Force Fact Sheet." National Museum of the United States Air Force. Coe, Jonathan. 3353:

revision history shows that the actor's entry (as "Jimmy Stewart") was created in Knowledge (XXG)'s first year, 2001, on October 28. A redirect to "James Stewart", created five days later, on November 2, indicates that date as the first one at the article's present location,

406:

article, using the legal name. The naming convention is written in very general terms to be applied across a huge number of articles. You seem to be stating a case for "Jimmy Stewart" that would place his article at odds with just about every other film actor biography.

2173:. I've gotten quite used to writing "James Stewart (actor)", but I'm fairly sure that the vast majority of inquiries for "James Stewart" will be about him, and there's no reason to make all those people go through a disambiguation page. "James Stewart" is the best option. 805:

as "James Stewart". The main basis for proposing this change seems to be the presumption that "Jimmy Stewart is the name most used in popular discussion about this actor", but this is an opinion and it can't be supported by any measurable data to say that it is used

4359:

careful to make sure the image is illustrating the subject of this article and not the film. Images that show how great the film is could possibly be used in the article on the film, but images here should be used to complement the material we have on James Stewart.

4144:

is certainly one of them by anyone's measure, and it's an extraordinarily striking photograph (can't you see that?). If you honestly can't tell the difference between that one and the other two aside from his ages, I don't know how else to attempt to explain it.

3381:

On June 9, 2004, the main title header was changed to reflect the proper form of the actor's given name, "James". Since "James Stewart" was already occupied by the redirect, instead of requesting the deletion of the redirect, "Jimmy Stewart" was simply moved to

2450:, back to his position as the primary target, James Stewart has, presumably, enough of a constituency to support the move. In neutral terms, however, this should not even be positioned as a popularity contest. Simple facts as in, for another example, 293:

We say "James Maitland Stewart (May 20, 1908 – July 2, 1997), popularly known as Jimmy Stewart" and that is completely accurate in giving each name by which he is professionally and popularly known, in correct context, and see no reason to change this.

811:

an official title while "Jimmy" is acknowledged as a familiar term for him. Many of these sites name him as "James" and refer to him as "Jimmy", which is a different context, and one that is consistent with the way our article already reads.

3914:

one should definitely stay because that's one of his most famous films, and it's good to highlight that. A lot of people who come to the page won't look at anything other than the pictures, so they should draw attention to his important roles.

1181:

They are all widely used. Why is it OK to selectively choose a sample of uses of "Jimmy Stewart" related media, ignore legitimate instances of "James Stewart" and say that "Jimmy" is used more frequently or more commonly than "James". How

1166:

disagree with either the policy or the guideline, only your interpretation of it regarding this one particular person. If you are going ignore any comments that do not directly cite the naming convention, I'll point out two things about

1415:

is also authored by Stewart's son, and note both Jimmy and James Stewart are credited as authors. Just as many books can be found about James Stewart the actor and basing argument on the colloquial use is also a bit ambivalent. Also per

4675:

hate it Upsmiler I won't care if you remove it. I know the image of him in 1981 isn't particularly relevant, but I still think it's useful to have an image of him from that time period in the section (basically, a "better than nothing"

4131:

this is a case of either you can see it or you can't, and you apparently can't. No, the main point is not to show how Stewart aged, although that is an element of it. As I mentioned before, there's lighting (the noir lighting in the

1859:(XXG) should be telling them that it was. He is widely known as James Stewart, and is documented as such by primary sources, with Jimmy as secondary. So, please support your notion with something of substance that we can assess. 401:

probably a lot of other people too, and that's fair enough, but I've linked to several different and some quite authoritative sites that use the professional name as their choice. That widespread usage, combined with the fact that

2512:; as admin, I was going to close "no consensus to rename to Jimmy, weak consensus to move the American actor to the pimary and send disambig back to (disambig) page", but this linking issue is blocking the latter action. Please fix 3283:, James Stewart would be so indisputably more prominent than all others who were known by that name that comparisons became moot (as for the British royal Stuarts, they are so firmly ingrained under that form of the name, that the 1442:

So his official/legal/professional name was James Stewart, but his stage name, and the name with which most people are most familiar, is Jimmy Stewart. The usage on book titles like "Jimmy Stewart and His Poems" (and his TV Show

2280:

Maybe I'm wrong, certainly am not 100% sure, but I think it's reasonable to assume that the key is not the listing at WP:RM, but the listing at the dab page and the other James Stewart articles. This discussion is not listed at

765:: as I've commented in greater detail above, he was billed as "James Stewart" in all his films, and his military record is by his given name of "James", and these are his two fields of notability. Named as "James Stewart" by 3205:

The issue is over, please see previous discussions, as the name change to "Jimmy" was not supported, rather than "no consensus", there was an overwhelming consensus to use "James Stewart" and/or "James Stewart (actor)". FWiW

3951:

That is not to say we should return several more images to the article. As I mentioned, we do already link to Wikimedia Commons, where a multitude of images can be viewed, without having them overwhelm the article, here.

4194:

the subject of the article, after all.) And yes, I agree that there's no point to continuing this discussion, and I certainly never meant any offense; we're all on the same side in attempting to enhance the article.

3808:

sandwich text between images. It also prefers that image sizes aren't fixed unless really necessary. And that there aren't a lot of similar images, like Chickenmonkey said. That's all there is to it really. --

2394:

Since he was always billed as "James Stewart" in his movies, that is what we should use here. In Britain and Europe few people ever referred to him as "Jimmy", and apparently he didn't even like the nickname.

3401:

is worth a glance for its early James/Jimmy outlook, but the more-specific one in the archive is another brief exchange (from August 2007), #20. "Requested move", in which an editor requested the move from

2972:

Given the plethora of other uses of "James Stewart" I think the claim that this person is the primary topic is doomed forever. The longer he's dead, the less likely he is to be considered primary, anyway.

3691:

Looking at what very few I left in, I think there has to be a shot of Stewart with Margaret Sullavan since everyone agrees that she had a more profound effect upon his career than anyone else. I think the

3081:

Please don't confuse vigorous disagreement with huffiness. I vigorously disagree with you, but asked a sincere question as to whether I had missed your point or if you were rebeginning the argument.

1538:

I just finished reading a biography of Stewart. The author said he was called Jimbo by his family, Jimmy by his close friends, and Jim by Henry Fonda, but he preferred James for his professional name.

628:

4713:

I think your edits were very good. I agree that the lead needs to be expanded. Ideally, the lead should offer a summary of all information contained in the article. The current lead does not do that.

2379:. It is sufficient to use this move request to decide what to do and how to do it. It is quite common for a move request to evolve into a very different suggestion than the one originally proposed. 4127:

of Ed Wood's, or wouldn't exist at all. Lobo512 mentioned that the pictures we include should highlight his best films for sheer educational purposes and that should be self-evident to anyone.

1557:

The sense of familiarity the audience had with him, brought on by his persona, made them think of him as "Jimmy", the name by which his friends and acquantances referred to him, but there is

4671:

Okay take a look, see what you think. I think with the captions, the images now enhance the reader's understanding of Stewart's life and career. I added back the star I'm afraid, but if you

214:

noted in my edit summary that this was his professional name. I said nothing about using his "legal name" which is a completely different reasoning, and quite often the wrong name to use.

4268:

exists to house images. Knowledge (XXG) exists to inform readers. Images used on Knowledge (XXG) should firstly complement the written material; whether they look good or not is secondary.

948:

is so we can find and link to articles, what our readers perceive as common usage is what should count. But that's a separate discussion, which we should have in a different environment.

1874:

consensus in the main discussion to move to "Jimmy Stewart" . The "Jimmy" vs "James" discussion needs to stay in the main section, otherwise this is just going to become confusing.

4242:. Saying "Stewart began making western films" is greatly enhanced by showing an image of Stewart in a western film; it illustrates an important career change. The image of Stewart in 3113:, since the usual discussion time for RMs (7 days) had long passed, and it was starting to become difficult to navigate the discussion. Mainly I was addressing the original proposal ( 750: 578:. If you can find even ONE other encyclopedia that includes an article about Stewart and titles it "Jimmy Stewart," that still would be less than a preponderance of the evidence. 3863: 369:

Jimmy Stewart is as recognizable, perhaps even more recognizable than James Stewart, and it has the advantage of not needing disambiguation. The current title violates rule 2.

2943:

I'd like to continue the discussion of having the American actor as primary topic. To keep it separate from the Jimmy Stewart discussion below, I am moving the discussion to

3427:

Stewart (disambiguation)" to "James Stewart", thus depriving the actor, who had been the primary topic since 2001, of that place. The comment associated with the move was "

1330:

Stewart". The disagreement is about what is "most easily recognized" and "most commonly used". To say that "Jimmy" is either of these, is an opinion. It's not a fact.

3291:

To provide convincing contrary evidence for those who continue to support the use of "Jimmy Stewart" as the sole primary target, one can point to the 37 Interwiki links to

602:, etc., etc., all use "James Stewart" as the title of their articles, while acknowledging a public familiarity with the actor which leads many to refer to him as "Jimmy." 3871: 857:

Regarding this proposal, it has also been made in the section below, headed "Clarification". The discussion there has gone off-track, but for the record three editors -

794: 790: 288: 283: 2743: 1020: 3701:

with Clarence, Stewart's facial expression evokes the noir section of the movie and two-year-olds have already seen the closing "family" shot a thousand times. The

1844:

Again, please support that most people have never heard of James Stewart. I'm just not seeing proof beyond your contention about who and what name has primary usage.

2999:

name, but Knowledge (XXG) prefers most commonly used and most familiar names to "professional names", and that's what should determine the title of this article. --

2124:

play if the decision is made to not use "Jimmy Stewart". Therefore to give "Jimmy Stewart" as an answer to Question 2 is illogical as it is not one of the options

3867: 1971:

with respect to what should be used as the name of the Knowledge (XXG) article. Even if you insist that "Jimmy Stewart" and "James Stewart" are a toss-up for (1),

1296:

imdb.com uses professional names. WP uses "most easily recognized" and "most commonly used". Big difference. Let's not apply imdb naming rules at WP - let's use

546:

that way as well, the exception being to close friends. It's also untrue and counter logical that using the name "Jimmy Stewart" would avoid disambiguation. See

80: 4247:

image's inclusion. I am merely saying that, if there is to be an image in that section, that image would add more to the article than the image currently there.

87:

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article.

3977:

shot looks quite different from any I've seen before and the inclusion of the photo spotlights a film featuring one of Stewart's most pivotal performances, a

3705:

still is practically a requirement so that readers know what his 1950s western films look like, and they're a very far cry even from his single 1930s western,

2568:

The determining factor must always be the prominence of the subject's place in history, rather than the remoteness of his time period from our own, otherwise,

1411:. What is recognizable or the most common use is largely a matter of POV rather than whether when someone says "James Stewart" if that is not clear. The book 841:

is about 6 times less (72,025/mo vs. 12,443/mo). There are way too many people hitting the dis page (9,801/mo) when they are most often looking for the actor.

559:, you should really consider that consensus here does not support your contention. Much evidence has been presented that counters your belief regarding this. 2026:

publicity agent or media type used a familiar name was a part of the marketing of the Stewart persona as an everyman. Gerard Molyneaux in his comprehensive

929:

Again, perceived as common usage, is not the same as common usage, wherein James is most commonly used in authoritative and primary reference sources. FWiW

2719: 1246:. And that's only a partial list. Oppose votes don't seem to cite policy or guidelines, much less evidence, in arguments supporting the current title. -- 4450:

similar to each other. That is all. It is nothing personal. The current version of the article (as far as the images are concerned) is better than it was.

3488:

Could it be possible to have another image? You can barely recognize him. There sure might be a better pic of him from another trailer, wouldn't it?...

3448:, a lone holdout cannot influence any views on this topic and further rounds of voting should be initiated at whatever intervals the procedures mandate. 3322:(who is not indexed in any reference volumes under "Stewart, James") aside, fifteen of the names have no interwikis, seven have one or two interwikis, 3303:

are each the primary topic within their respective disambiguation pages. The only exception among the interwikis is, incidentally, the principled "la-

1139:

It may have been helpful to mention the policies and guidelines that you are trying to bring this article into compliance with in your nomination. --

250:(outdent) I don't disagree that he is well known as "Jimmy" but he never used the name professionally, and every single film credit is "James Stewart" 802: 539: 3342:, of the twenty-seven individuals listed here as "James Stewart", only one appears under that name in its pages, and all of us know which one. The 1404: 1167: 1162: 1118: 3331: 2725: 273: 2552:

But how dominant is James Stewart (American actor) over 25 other James Stewarts? He died 12 years ago and his memory is going back into history.

782: 4657:. So I'm going to go ahead and do this. I think I'm also going to make a couple of image changes, so you guys can see what you think of them. -- 3109:

Just to clarify, my closure of the RM above was not meant to stifle discussion on either proposal; it was merely my evaluation of the consensus

4097:

I am not trying to be confrontational about this. I am sure we can work together to include images that accomplish what we want to accomplish.

2801: 2380: 2345: 842: 3697:

medal-pinning ceremony but left in the marvelously angry-looking 1960 portrait of Stewart posing in his general's get-up. In the shot from

3398: 1569:

from the beginning was "James Stewart", and that's the way an encyclopedia entry about him should be titled. This is really a no-brainer.

3558:

Should have replied earlier, the original script and character list clearly show "Odbody" and that is confirmed by the following sources:

281:

calls him "James Stewart" and refers to him as "Jimmy Stewart" (there's a significant difference in context between naming and referring)

3713:

and she told Bogdanovich about it on a plane ride--what might that baby have grown up to look like??). The other day I had enlarged the

3756:

beautiful image, even though I love it, to avoid crowding). The image of The Philly Story of her and Stewart drinking champagne is just

3327: 3067:

is now willing to reconsider. If that does not apply to you, then there is no need to reply here, much less get all huffy about it. --

2761: 2186: 1693: 1660: 1582: 1539: 629: 1121:. This is supposed to be a discussion about which title best reflects Knowledge (XXG) policy, not the policies of other encyclopedias. 4555:

It's always better to agree than disagree, and I'm delighted to close out the evening on that note. And by the way, Happy New Year!

2588:, who won four Oscars as Best Director, and died 36 years ago, is the main topic rather than the 17th century playwright notable for ' 2573: 2247:

All potentially controversial moves are supposed to go through WP:RM precisely to notify all potential editors who may have input. --

3748:

shot is the most beautiful picture of Hepburn that I've ever seen and the guy who apparently somehow runs her page won't leave it in"

2285:, so anyone who is watching that page, but not WP:RM or this page, will not know about this discussion. We can verify either way at 3585: 3571: 2813: 2731: 2443: 1383:

and many more. 17 million hits on James Stewart and 2 million on Jimmy Stewart via Google. Absolutely not authoritative but... FWiW

606:

is a similar example. Everyone who knows him, or knows of him sufficiently, calls him "Ed Asner." But he prefers to be billed and

3905:

Oh come on, they are adding to the article because they make the text less daunting and brighten up the page. They make an article

1274:". (my bold) Should it not say "The Jimmy Stewart Show was a television series starring Jimmy Stewart"? It links to IMDb which 1218:. Do we want to rewrite history and change the name of his show, too? But also note the name of most (all?) biographies of him: 3709:(speaking of which, did you know that Stewart impregnated Dietrich and she surreptitiously aborted it--it's in Bogdanovich's book 3152:

Apparently, some are still holding out for the James Stewart possibility, and as that is still open, my question is premature. --

1912:(ec) I didn't say most people have no heard of "James Stewart", so I'm not going to support it. Please familiarize yourself with 4181:

I would never describe a movie as someone's "finest film" in an article (even with Orson Welles, it would be a dead heat between

3439: 3335: 2749: 2713: 2576:. Gary Cooper died 48 years ago and yet no one has seriously proposed that he should simply join five other Gary Coopers on the 2480: 2581: 2455: 1185:

do you measure that "Jimmy" is more widely used? How would you prove that uses of "Jimmy" are more legitimate than "James"?

3280: 2620: 1826:

No, I, for one, would not. Most people I know have never heard of "James Stewart". No way does this person (the actor) meet

1158: 754: 531: 3349:

Finally, some of this subject's Knowledge (XXG) history is necessary to put the entire matter into perspective. A glance at

3346:

also includes an adjacent redirect to the letter "M", for those Earls of Moray whose full name incorporates "James Stewart".

3315: 2322: 2225: 1776: 834: 547: 152:

According to the discussion in the first section of the archives it was. How do we go about getting consensus to move it to

2128:. For the record, you said "Most people I know have never heard of "James Stewart" and I replied about the "most people 3880: 2843: 2831: 2447: 1614:

one of the WP:RM closing admins will close it when the time is up (about a week from the time it was listed on WP:RM). --

1355:

James Stewart was the name on the marquee, "Jimmy" was a product of the media and never used in his lifetime nor since in

4537:

EDIT: The wedding picture you restored is a great picture that adds plenty to the article. See? We can agree, sometimes.

2819: 1177: 3370:

disambiguation page on July 13, 2002, the sole topic. The newly-created disambiguation page stated that "he best-known

2755: 2577: 2427: 1170:: 1. it's a guideline not a policy, and it carries the disclaimer that "editors should attempt to follow , though it is 71: 59: 1760:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1729:

and others, the name "Jimmy" is a well-known affectionate nickname, but, in no sense, an officially used name, such as

663:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2779: 2737: 2584:

page, but nobody has yet indicated that the actor, who died 25 years ago, should not be the primary target. Likewise

2557: 2492: 535: 317: 200: 172: 123: 1117:

of the considerations brought up by the previous posters are even mentioned as relevant to Knowledge (XXG) policy at

1012: 2476: 2789: 2773: 2767: 2593: 2435: 38: 2446:. At least, unlike the inability of the few weak voices to return one of the world's key religious philosophers, 2263: 1407:

is a bit ambiguous regarding this particular "stage name" application. However, his professional working name was

2837: 2384: 2349: 846: 3552: 2400: 1827: 887: 550:. This article is properly named per naming conventions for stage names. I'd also note that while you certainly 491:

that I gave, and the museum site is one I already linked to - ie "they TITLE the page 'James'" - as you said.

4484: 4385: 2096: 1917: 886:

There does not appear to be consensus to move to Jimmy, but 199.125.109.126 is exactly right that this is the

1543: 633: 4720: 4616: 4544: 4494: 4395: 4275: 4168: 4104: 3959: 3890: 3846: 3644: 3511: 3453: 3276: 3020: 2984:

that this article is the primary topic for that name. I wonder if any of you who voted against the move to

2885: 2684: 2616: 2605: 2463: 2331: 2271: 2182: 1849: 1788: 1738: 1689: 1656: 1578: 1483: 1433: 1320: 579: 564: 92: 3874:

add very little to the article and are all essentially the same image. Why does the article need all three?

3117:), which at the time of closure had no consensus for the move, and may arguably have had a rough consensus 1733:. The more tangible need, in the discussion below, is to move this article's title back to "James Stewart" 1211: 188: 160: 111: 3358:. Thus, from October 28, 2001 until January 21, 2008, it has been an unchallenged primary topic for both 2795: 2553: 2488: 1444: 1215: 574:

Additionally, Knowledge (XXG) purports to be an online encyclopedia, as suggested by its very name and by

3622:

which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —

3463:

Let's not have the same discussion in two places. This is essentially a copy/paste of a similar post at

969:

alternative proposal. Clearly primary topic for this name. Rossrs makes a pretty convincing case against

706:— Jimmy Stewart is the name most used in popular discussion about this actor. In fact, it pretty much an 3858:

Okay, so, I thought we were good to go, but apparently we need to discuss this some more, which is fine.

3525: 3403: 3383: 3355: 3292: 3179: 2695: 2413: 2396: 2177: 1714: 1651: 1573: 1015:

for a collection of links which say we prefer common usage to official names when they conflict. We use

699: 455: 138:

redirects here, but as far as I can tell from the page logs, the article itself was never at that name.

3793:, that's 40 images for this article, so I should've added eleven images instead of subtracting eight. 3272: 1629: 3338:

have seven interwikis. Returning to the most recent edition of that arbiter of historical prominence,

2262:

almost completely on your part, there is no valid reason why it would require reposting. Please don't

2103:

here and I'll repeat it for the last time. There are two things being discussed. 1. whether to use

731:

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with

3637:

should be removed. If there is no objection, after a reasonable time has passed, I will remove them.

3548: 3472: 3157: 3086: 3072: 3038: 3004: 2294: 2252: 2211: 1980: 1835: 1619: 1600: 1471: 1452: 1305: 1268:

settles the argument? Our own article says "The Jimmy Stewart Show was a television series starring

1251: 1144: 1097: 1069: 1036: 998: 953: 920: 615: 236: 2698:

has had 364381 page views since January 1. Going down the disambig page from January 1, 2009 - now:

2304: 2286: 1830:

criteria for that name. He does have primary usage of "Jimmy Stewart" - no question about that. --

766: 441: 252: 2807: 2609: 143: 3790: 3770: 270:

calls him "James Stewart" (although we incorrectly and misleadingly link to it as "Jimmy Stewart")

4715: 4611: 4560: 4539: 4489: 4412: 4390: 4329: 4270: 4200: 4163: 4150: 4099: 4042: 3954: 3885: 3841: 3798: 3723: 3639: 3619: 3507: 3464: 3449: 3323: 3016: 2950: 2944: 2881: 2680: 2459: 2341: 2327: 2308: 2282: 2267: 1845: 1784: 1734: 1683: 1479: 1429: 1316: 899: 858: 838: 560: 88: 47: 17: 3304: 778: 575: 267: 1717:(more on the latter subject in "Clarification"). As has been exhaustively elucidated above by 4688: 4662: 3920: 3813: 3778: 3662: 3582: 3568: 2825: 2608:

and beyond, is the primary one, rather than five others with that name, including the English

2569: 2311:. Of the 27 pages using this spelling of Stewart listed at the disambiguation page now called 1028: 978: 4487:

because I had mentioned this discussion and felt the polite thing to do was to let you know.

4265: 2319:" and two have notation of other pages named James Stewart, and those have a capnote saying " 2229: 945: 450:

is a book by a fellow USAF officer. Etc. etc... lots of instances of 'Jimmy' in pop culture.

4384:

Full disclosure: in an attempt to improve my editing, I asked about images and their use at

3521: 3444: 2921: 2861: 2855: 2849: 2676: 2539: 2521: 2439: 2139: 1879: 1864: 1803: 1520: 1335: 1287: 1239: 1190: 870: 816: 496: 451: 411: 299: 219: 2091:

Born2cycle : Why would you be so presumptuous as to suggest that I familiarise myself with

3544: 3468: 3435: 3319: 3234: 3196: 3153: 3138: 3082: 3068: 3034: 3000: 2707: 2660: 2628: 2572:, who died 210 years ago would become one of seven other same-named individuals listed in 2290: 2248: 2220:

Given that the discussion of the proposal to make this page name the primary use page for

2207: 1976: 1831: 1722: 1615: 1596: 1448: 1417: 1301: 1247: 1140: 1126: 1093: 1065: 1032: 994: 949: 916: 715: 689: 611: 610:

referred to as Edward Asner, and his article is entitled "Edward Asner," not "Ed Asner."

523: 437: 374: 315: 232: 196: 168: 119: 3789:

This article is over 8,000 words long. By that "one image per 200 words" guideline from

2509: 2199: 2092: 1913: 1751: 1611: 1297: 1089: 654: 1403:- I've clearly outlined my opposition to moving this page to Jimmy Stewart and in fact, 1045:

The point still being is that "James" was more often the common name, not "Jimmy". FWiW

4319:

speaks volumes just as the still of a desperate Stewart lit in noir style conveys that

4286:

Just as the pictures of Stewart in a military uniform or a cowboy hat indicate that he

3598: 3493: 3211: 2451: 2237: 2041: 1817: 1637: 1388: 1364: 1064:

section below, and would be most helpful; but M's claim above is still not what we do.

1050: 934: 837:. Clearly he is the primary topic and the only other one with any significant traffic, 139: 4556: 4408: 4325: 4196: 4146: 4038: 3794: 3719: 3415: 3407: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3350: 3311: 3300: 3296: 3188: 3183: 3175: 3125: 3114: 3064: 2985: 2977: 2958: 2899: 2656: 2636: 2624: 2484: 2417: 2376: 2312: 2221: 2203: 1972: 1780: 1772: 1730: 1710: 1706: 970: 895: 891: 830: 703: 681: 673: 486:

Charlie is different in that he was often credited as "Charlie". Again, Stewart was

445: 153: 135: 309:

No reason to move the article. The above arguments against the move are valid. --

4726: 4692: 4684: 4666: 4658: 4622: 4564: 4550: 4500: 4416: 4401: 4333: 4281: 4204: 4174: 4154: 4110: 4046: 3965: 3924: 3916: 3896: 3852: 3817: 3809: 3802: 3782: 3774: 3753: 3727: 3666: 3658: 3650: 3626: 3602: 3529: 3515: 3497: 3476: 3457: 3397:

A brief, but illustrative first discussion (from 2002) under the header "Jimmy" in

3238: 3215: 3200: 3161: 3142: 3090: 3076: 3042: 3024: 3008: 2962: 2925: 2903: 2889: 2694:(outdent) How dominant is determined by how many times the pages have been viewed. 2688: 2668: 2652: 2640: 2601: 2561: 2543: 2525: 2496: 2467: 2404: 2388: 2353: 2335: 2298: 2275: 2256: 2241: 2215: 2192: 2143: 2045: 1984: 1883: 1868: 1853: 1839: 1821: 1807: 1792: 1742: 1697: 1666: 1641: 1623: 1604: 1588: 1547: 1524: 1504: 1487: 1456: 1437: 1392: 1339: 1324: 1309: 1291: 1255: 1194: 1148: 1130: 1101: 1073: 1054: 1040: 1024: 1016: 1002: 982: 974: 957: 938: 924: 903: 874: 850: 820: 719: 693: 637: 619: 603: 568: 500: 459: 415: 378: 319: 303: 240: 223: 204: 176: 147: 127: 96: 2516:

for users' sake, even if you disagree or agree with any possible renaming games.

2169:(out) If the move above is not approved, which I believe it will not be, I would 1412: 1243: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 3623: 3421:

Jimmy Stewart redirects here. For other uses, see Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation)

3392:

James Stewart redirects here. For other uses, see James Stewart (disambiguation)

3388:

Jimmy Stewart redirects here. For other uses, see Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation)

2917: 2664: 2648: 2644: 2597: 2535: 2517: 2423: 2228:

appears to be going that way, a change in the disambiguation page can involve a

2135: 1875: 1860: 1799: 1718: 1516: 1515:. "Lucy" is friendlier and less formal. Can you imagine "I Love Lucille"? 1425: 1331: 1283: 1186: 866: 812: 519: 492: 407: 295: 215: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

444:

about Stewart, they title the page 'James' then kick into 'Jimmy' in the text.

3230: 3192: 3134: 2672: 2632: 1122: 798: 711: 685: 583: 543: 370: 313: 192: 164: 115: 786: 278: 3594: 3489: 3411: 3390:". Thirteen months later, on January 13, 2007, the hatnote was revised as " 3207: 3133:(I'm not directing this at any particular person, just a broad statement). - 2585: 2431: 2233: 2037: 1937:

This boils down to the two central ideas in Knowledge (XXG) article naming:

1813: 1726: 1633: 1475: 1421: 1384: 1360: 1046: 930: 862: 291:

calls him "James Stewart" and notes that his "byname" is "Jimmy Stewart".

4238:" is a statement enhanced slightly more so by including an image of him in 2955: 2896: 3503: 1275: 915:

common usage, but we can wait until there is support for that position.

4234:

adds very little to the text. Saying "Stewart won an Academy Award for

3063:

Second, I'm simply asking whether anyone who voted against the move to

2206:

talk page, and on the talk pages of all the other uses of that name. --

1771:

Regarding the proposal to make this page name the primary use page for

774: 770: 527: 262: 257: 3262: 3174:

It's my impression from the RM discussion that most of those opposing

4679:

Now the thing this article desperately needs is a better lead. It is

1161:

does not give a clear enough instruction to support your proposal.

710:

name. It also has the advantage of not needing to be disambiguated.

894:

addresses one of the two reasons for moving given in the proposal.

3429:

omeone went and moved it anyways. I guess consensus doesn't count.

555: 4315:

melancholy look of a crippled Stewart sitting in a wheelchair in

1007:

I'm sorry, but Monkeyzpop is simply mistaken. We do not call for

3275:---one of the world's most renowned film stars, number three on 3253:

Continued resistance to efforts in restoring primacy of position

1207: 557: 333: 3579:

It's a Wonderful Life: The Complete Script in its Original Form

356:

2. The name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles

526:

here. Stewart was not only official known as James Stewart in

25: 3593:

All the other misspellings are just that– misspellings. FWiW

1157:

to the naming conventions. To clarify what I'm looking at -

4683:

too short for such an important, widely-loved individual. --

4264:

I am not saying these images are not good images; they are.

2701: 2375:. No separate move request needs to be initiated to move to 1944:

The name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles

1173:

best treated with common sense and the occasional exception

911:. Station1 is right. As it happens, I think Jimmy Stewart 3773:

suggests one every 200 words, so there's a guideline). --

3520:

I have no problems with the ones we are currently using.

1705:: the only logical main title header for this article is 1371:. Jones, Ken D., Arthur F. McClure and Alfred E. Twomey. 4037:

expression from a trailer of arguably his finest film?

3310:

The twenty-seven names on the English Knowledge (XXG)'s

2317:

For other persons named James Stewart, see James Stewart

1478:, should that article be changed to reflect that name?? 1381:

A Wonderful Life: The Films and Career of James Stewart.

653:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

3432: 3058: 3054: 2505: 1214:. I think the name of his TV show alone settles this, 156:, as the article naming conventions seem to call for? 4294:(we're back to the paper dolls again), the shots from 2580:

page. There are seven other blue-linked names on the

2426:

as one of a number of other same-named individuals at

1783:

also support this alternative? I would support this.

1750:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

1282:

think "the name of his TV show alone" settles this.

4653:

It sounds to me that the thing to do is improve the

3864:

File:James Stewart in After the Thin Man trailer.jpg

3577:Goodrich, Francis, Albert Hackett and Frank Capra. 1088:Have you read the Knowledge (XXG) naming policy at 1031:- although both are, as they should be, redirects. 753:, please explain your reasons, taking into account 184:DVD special feature, etc. Should be moved back... 3879:If there is to be an image in the Legacy section, 3872:File:James Stewart in The Mortal Storm trailer.jpg 3839:Lobo512, you interpreted me intentions correctly. 2600:, who died 31 years ago, having been in charge of 2307:, but for note, there has never been a posting at 3314:page which, until January 21, 2008, was known as 3567:. Nashville, Tennessee: Cumberland House, 2003. 2744:James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray (1501 creation) 1021:State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 600:International Dictionary of Films and Filmmakers 3868:File:James Stewart in Rear Window trailer 2.jpg 3330:have three interwikis and two of the noblemen, 1935: 353:1. The name that is most generally recognisable 3318:, consist of the actor and twenty-six others. 3191:proposal, this seems as good a place as any. - 2111:. That is being discussed as the main topic 4388:. In that post, I mentioned this discussion. 4386:WT:Images#Image use and the purpose of images 3061:apparently while I was entering this section. 3053:First, when I started to create this section 2949:Please continue the primary topic discussion 1232:Everybody's Man: A Biography of Jimmy Stewart 255:records him as "Brig. Gen. James M. Stewart" 8: 2034:Jimmy Stewart and His Poems by Jimmy Stewart 1941:The name that is most generally recognisable 436:Our article about Charles Chaplin is called 3764:Anyway back to this article, I don't think 3467:. Let's continue the discussion there. -- 3271:One might have thought that it should be a 2720:James Stewart, 5th High Steward of Scotland 2321:For other persons named James Stewart, see 1405:Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (people) 1168:Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (people) 1163:Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (people) 1119:Knowledge (XXG):Naming_conventions_(people) 791:Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences 284:Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences 3618:There is a move discussion in progress on 3537: 1228:Jimmy Stewart: The Truth Behind the Legend 1009:as close to an "official name" as possible 865:and myself have expressed support there. 751:polling is not a substitute for discussion 3281:25 Greatest Male Stars in American Cinema 2988:are open to reconsidering that decision? 2895:more streamlined than the others. (John 2621:25 Greatest Male Stars in American Cinema 1276:lists the cast, headed by "James Stewart" 3410:. Five editors participated (including 3288:languished there for a year-and-a-half. 2506:pages currently linking to James Stewart 1779:. Do the persons who oppose the move to 1060:Evidence of actual usage belongs in the 554:pursue changing the name of the article 4306:not only illustrate that he indeed did 3378:is the Hollywood actor of that name." 3332:James Stewart, the Black Knight of Lorn 2726:James Stewart, the Black Knight of Lorn 3581:. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1986. 3055:both discussions were marked concluded 2458:, clearly indicate the primary target. 1610:Since this request has been listed at 1315:"professional name" and "stage name". 592:The International Encyclopedia of Film 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4136:like and how he registers in them. 3128:, as primary topic), I did not see a 2802:James Stewart (Australian politician) 2340:Added a link to this discussion from 7: 3883:would be a more sensible inclusion. 3565:It's a Wonderful Life: A Memory Book 3399:Talk:James Stewart (actor)/Archive 1 2224:, moving the disambiguation page to 1775:, moving the disambiguation page to 833:, moving the disambiguation page to 755:Knowledge (XXG)'s naming conventions 81:WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers 3328:James Stewart, 1st Duke of Richmond 2762:James Stewart, 1st Duke of Richmond 2422:target seems tantamount to putting 1208:Use the most easily recognized name 1153:Actually Yworo, my comments relate 767:National Musuem of the US Air Force 668:The result of the move request was 2574:George Washington (disambiguation) 1159:Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions 24: 4226:. We can say "Stewart starred in 3261:-- this discussion is being held 2980:currently redirects to this page 2814:James Stewart (American football) 2732:James Stewart, 1st Earl of Buchan 2444:Elizabeth Taylor (disambiguation) 2198:That would have to be a separate 2171:Support a move to "James Stewart" 2032:compiled in a 1989 collection as 2028:James Stewart: A Bio-Bibliography 1812:Yes, that seems reasonable. FWiW 890:(for either name), and moving to 3440:James Stewart (Australian actor) 3336:James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray 3124:Concerning the second proposal ( 2875:The sum total of page views for 2750:James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray 2714:James Stewart (Australian actor) 2627:came in at number three, behind 2481:James Stewart (Australian actor) 1359:all official publications. FWiW 29: 4230:" and the image of his face in 3538:It's a Wonderful Life character 2582:William Powell (disambiguation) 2456:William Powell (disambiguation) 2315:only one has a capnote saying " 1975:wins easily by criteria (2). -- 1244:Jimmy Stewart: A Wonderful Life 1061: 678:no clear consensus at this time 518:(outdent) I have to agree with 253:National Musuem of the US Force 3316:James Stewart (disambiguation) 2991:Yes, yes, I know he preferred 2477:James Stewart (American actor) 2323:James Stewart (disambiguation) 2226:James Stewart (disambiguation) 1777:James Stewart (disambiguation) 1680:per every reason cited above. 1401:Strong oppose to Jimmy Stewart 835:James Stewart (disambiguation) 799:autographs autograph (example) 548:Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation) 1: 4727:17:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 4693:13:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 4667:12:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 4623:07:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 4565:06:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 4551:06:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 4501:06:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 4417:04:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 4402:04:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 4334:04:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 4282:03:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 4205:02:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 4175:01:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 4155:01:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 4111:00:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 4047:20:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 3966:19:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 3925:12:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 3897:05:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 3881:File:Stewart walk of fame.jpg 3853:23:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC) 3818:20:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC) 3803:20:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC) 3783:19:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC) 3728:19:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC) 3667:01:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC) 3651:00:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC) 3366:and, until the creation of a 2844:James Stewart (mathematician) 2832:James Stewart (archaeologist) 2448:Jonathan Edwards (theologian) 2114:above in the previous section 1220:Jimmy Stewart: A Life in Film 944:Since the primary purpose of 884:Support alternative proposal. 743:, then sign your comment with 4003:In the wheelchair shot from 3553:21:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC) 2756:James Stewart, Earl of Arran 2578:Gary Cooper (disambiguation) 2473:Leave this page where it is, 2428:Gary Cooper (disambiguation) 3614:Move discussion in progress 3423:", accompanied the move. 2780:James Stewart (Greenock MP) 2738:James Stewart, Duke of Ross 2200:move request and discussion 1413:Jimmy Stewart and His Poems 1236:Jimmy Stewart and His Poems 447:Jimmy Stewart: Bomber Pilot 328:Well, okay, if that's what 4751: 3530:01:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC) 3516:01:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC) 3498:01:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC) 2910:Support as primary meaning 2790:James Stewart (Glasgow MP) 2774:James Stewart (politician) 2768:James Stewart (Wigtown MP) 2594:John Ford (disambiguation) 2436:John Ford (disambiguation) 2117:. Call it Question 1. 1798:I would support this too. 1373:The Films of James Stewart 1369:James Stewart: Leading Man 1240:Jimmy Stewart:Bomber pilot 803:sketches artwork (example) 538:, he generally signed his 286:calls him "James Stewart" 3973:on Stewart's face in the 3627:12:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC) 3239:23:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 3216:23:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 3201:21:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 3162:20:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 3143:20:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 3091:02:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 3077:20:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 3043:20:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 3025:20:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 3009:18:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 2963:19:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 2926:18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 2904:15:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 2890:08:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 2838:James Stewart (solicitor) 2689:08:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 2562:05:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 2544:21:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 2526:17:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 2497:16:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 2487:lists 26 James Stewarts. 2468:15:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 2405:17:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 2389:04:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 2354:04:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 2336:07:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 2299:05:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 2276:05:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 2257:04:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 2242:16:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 2216:14:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 2193:03:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 2144:15:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 2046:14:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1985:13:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1884:13:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1869:06:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1854:05:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1840:05:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1822:14:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1808:03:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1793:00:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1743:15:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 1698:14:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 1667:07:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 1642:04:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 1624:04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 1605:04:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 1589:03:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 1548:13:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1525:06:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1488:05:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1457:05:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1438:01:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1393:22:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 1340:06:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1325:05:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1310:05:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1292:03:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1256:21:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 1224:Jimmy Stewart:A biography 1195:03:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1149:21:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 1131:17:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 1102:21:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 1074:16:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1055:16:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1041:16:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1003:16:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 983:08:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 958:16:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 939:16:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 925:15:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 904:00:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 875:16:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 851:15:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 821:15:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 720:13:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 694:18:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 638:13:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 620:16:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 569:00:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 501:21:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 460:15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 416:13:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 379:13:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 320:11:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 304:10:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 241:09:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 224:10:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 97:07:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 3603:15:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC) 3477:05:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC) 3458:05:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC) 2968:Now that that is settled 2938:Any additional comments: 2592:or the twenty others in 1757:Please do not modify it. 1300:at Knowledge (XXG). -- 1113:- I'd like to note that 660:Please do not modify it. 332:thinks. I note that the 205:20:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 177:20:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 148:20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 128:20:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 4483:I disclosed my post at 3340:Encyclopedia Britannica 3285:Encyclopedia Britannica 3277:American Film Institute 2976:However, the fact that 2617:American Film Institute 2606:Golden Age of Hollywood 795:Encyclopedia Brittanica 787:American Film Institute 580:Encyclopedia Britannica 334:naming rules for people 289:Encyclopedia Brittanica 279:American Film Institute 4240:The Philadelphia Story 4236:The Philadelphia Story 4224:as a decorated veteran 3506:is what is available. 2820:James "Tadger" Stewart 2796:James Augustus Stewart 2604:production during the 2590:Tis Pity She's a Whore 1947: 1445:The Jimmy Stewart Show 1266:The Jimmy Stewart Show 1216:The Jimmy Stewart Show 684:. No move performed. - 3711:Who the Hell's In It? 3699:It's a Wonderful Life 3404:James Stewart (actor) 3384:James Stewart (actor) 3356:James Stewart (actor) 3305:Latin Knowledge (XXG) 3293:James Stewart (actor) 3180:James Stewart (actor) 2696:James Stewart (actor) 2679:and... need we go on? 2414:James Stewart (actor) 2105:James Stewart (actor) 1715:James Stewart (actor) 1238:(autobiographical), 700:James Stewart (actor) 576:Knowledge (XXG):About 42:of past discussions. 4244:How the West was Won 4034:absolutely identical 3715:How the West Was Won 3227:no consensus to move 2504:. There are lots of 2479:to distinguish from 2289:, if you'd like. -- 1472:John F. Kennedy, Jr. 827:Alternative proposal 274:Kennedy Center Honor 4288:was in the military 3465:Talk: James Stewart 3178:would still prefer 2808:James David Stewart 2610:Jack Warner (actor) 1628:This is a probable 1560:no doubt whatsoever 1375:. McGowan, Helene. 909:Support alternative 336:are pretty simple: 276:as "James Stewart" 83:priority assessment 4296:After the Thin Man 4232:After the Thin Man 4228:After the Thin Man 3975:After the Thin Man 3746:Philadelphia Story 3707:Destry Rides Again 3694:Philadelphia Story 3620:Talk:James Stewart 3324:James Stewart, Jr. 3225:was shorthand for 2945:Talk:James Stewart 2342:Talk:James Stewart 2309:Talk:James Stewart 2283:Talk:James Stewart 861:who suggested it, 859:User:Wildhartlivie 839:James Stewart, Jr. 596:World Encyclopedia 265:- "James Stewart" 260:- "James Stewart" 18:Talk:James Stewart 4266:Wikimedia Commons 3456: 3059:that was reversed 2916:primary meaning. 2872: 2871: 2826:James Stewart Jr. 2687: 2570:George Washington 2554:Anthony Appleyard 2489:Anthony Appleyard 2466: 1916:and particularly 1741: 1072: 1039: 1029:James Earl Carter 1013:WP:Official names 956: 923: 797:. He signed his 588:Film Encyclopedia 208: 191:comment added by 180: 163:comment added by 131: 114:comment added by 77: 76: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4742: 4725: 4621: 4609:Happy New Year! 4549: 4499: 4400: 4321:The Mortal Storm 4308:make these films 4304:The Mortal Storm 4280: 4173: 4142:The Mortal Storm 4109: 4029:The Mortal Storm 3964: 3895: 3851: 3649: 3452: 3445:Twelve Angry Men 3438:(born 1913) and 2862:James S. Stewart 2856:James G. Stewart 2850:James B. Stewart 2702: 2683: 2677:Laurence Olivier 2462: 2440:Elizabeth Taylor 2412:Support move of 2397:GranvilleHouston 2191: 1759: 1737: 1687: 1665: 1587: 1507:who appeared in 1379:. Thomas, Tony. 1068: 1035: 952: 919: 747: 741: 735: 662: 312: 207: 185: 179: 157: 130: 108: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4750: 4749: 4745: 4744: 4743: 4741: 4740: 4739: 4714: 4610: 4538: 4488: 4389: 4269: 4162: 4098: 3953: 3884: 3840: 3638: 3634: 3616: 3540: 3486: 3481: 3436:Stewart Granger 3320:Stewart Granger 3255: 2970: 2934: 2873: 2708:Stewart Granger 2661:Charlie Chaplin 2629:Humphrey Bogart 2619:'s list of the 2381:199.125.109.126 2346:199.125.109.126 2202:, noted on the 2189: 2174: 2126:in this section 1920:, which states: 1769: 1764: 1755: 1681: 1663: 1648: 1585: 1570: 1066:Septentrionalis 1033:Septentrionalis 950:Septentrionalis 917:Septentrionalis 843:199.125.109.126 745: 739: 733: 727: 658: 648: 442:USAF Fact Sheet 438:Charlie Chaplin 310: 186: 158: 109: 104: 85: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4748: 4746: 4738: 4737: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4702: 4701: 4700: 4699: 4698: 4697: 4696: 4695: 4677: 4646: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4636: 4635: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4630: 4629: 4628: 4627: 4626: 4625: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4568: 4567: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4459: 4458: 4457: 4456: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4422: 4421: 4420: 4419: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4363: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4342: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4336: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4248: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4011: 4010: 4009: 4008: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3900: 3899: 3876: 3875: 3860: 3859: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3762: 3749: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3670: 3669: 3633: 3632:Image overload 3630: 3615: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3590: 3589: 3575: 3563:Cox, Stephen. 3539: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3485: 3482: 3480: 3479: 3450:—Roman Spinner 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3256: 3254: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3146: 3145: 3122: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3062: 2969: 2966: 2941: 2940: 2933: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2870: 2869: 2866: 2865: 2859: 2853: 2847: 2841: 2835: 2829: 2823: 2817: 2811: 2805: 2799: 2793: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2777: 2771: 2765: 2759: 2753: 2747: 2741: 2735: 2729: 2723: 2717: 2711: 2700: 2692: 2691: 2681:—Roman Spinner 2613: 2565: 2564: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2529: 2528: 2499: 2470: 2460:—Roman Spinner 2452:William Powell 2392: 2391: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2181: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2097:WP:NC (people) 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1946: 1945: 1942: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1918:WP:NC (people) 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1768: 1765: 1763: 1762: 1752:requested move 1746: 1745: 1735:—Roman Spinner 1700: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1655: 1592: 1591: 1577: 1551: 1550: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1397: 1396: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1327: 1260: 1259: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1151: 1134: 1133: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 987: 986: 985: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 906: 880: 879: 878: 877: 783:Kennedy Center 760: 759: 734:*'''Support''' 726: 723: 697: 666: 665: 655:requested move 649: 647: 646:Requested move 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 623: 622: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 386: 385: 384: 383: 382: 381: 362: 361: 360: 359: 358: 357: 354: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 323: 322: 292: 287: 282: 277: 272:he received a 271: 266: 261: 256: 251: 248: 247: 246: 245: 244: 243: 228: 227: 226: 181: 103: 100: 84: 78: 75: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4747: 4728: 4724: 4723: 4719: 4718: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4694: 4690: 4686: 4682: 4678: 4674: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4664: 4660: 4656: 4652: 4651: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4624: 4620: 4619: 4615: 4614: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4566: 4562: 4558: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4548: 4547: 4543: 4542: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4502: 4498: 4497: 4493: 4492: 4486: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4418: 4414: 4410: 4405: 4404: 4403: 4399: 4398: 4394: 4393: 4387: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4335: 4331: 4327: 4322: 4318: 4313: 4309: 4305: 4301: 4297: 4293: 4292:made westerns 4289: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4279: 4278: 4274: 4273: 4267: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4229: 4225: 4220: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4214: 4213: 4206: 4202: 4198: 4193: 4188: 4187:Touch of Evil 4184: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4176: 4172: 4171: 4167: 4166: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4152: 4148: 4143: 4137: 4134: 4128: 4112: 4108: 4107: 4103: 4102: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4048: 4044: 4040: 4035: 4030: 4027: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4006: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3980: 3976: 3971: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3963: 3962: 3958: 3957: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3926: 3922: 3918: 3913: 3908: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3898: 3894: 3893: 3889: 3888: 3882: 3878: 3877: 3873: 3869: 3865: 3862: 3861: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3850: 3849: 3845: 3844: 3837: 3819: 3815: 3811: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3800: 3796: 3792: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3780: 3776: 3772: 3767: 3763: 3759: 3755: 3750: 3747: 3744:"I think the 3743: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3729: 3725: 3721: 3716: 3712: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3695: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3668: 3664: 3660: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3648: 3647: 3643: 3642: 3631: 3629: 3628: 3625: 3621: 3613: 3604: 3600: 3596: 3592: 3591: 3587: 3586:0-312-43911-3 3584: 3580: 3576: 3573: 3572:1-58182-337-1 3570: 3566: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3508:Wildhartlivie 3505: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3495: 3491: 3483: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3455: 3451: 3447: 3446: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3430: 3424: 3422: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3408:James Stewart 3405: 3400: 3395: 3393: 3389: 3385: 3379: 3377: 3376:James Stewart 3373: 3372:Jimmy Stewart 3369: 3368:James Stewart 3365: 3364:Jimmy Stewart 3361: 3360:James Stewart 3357: 3352: 3351:James Stewart 3347: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3333: 3329: 3325: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3312:James Stewart 3308: 3306: 3302: 3301:Jimmy Stewart 3298: 3297:James Stewart 3294: 3289: 3286: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3264: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3252: 3240: 3236: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3219: 3217: 3213: 3209: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3198: 3194: 3190: 3189:Jimmy Stewart 3185: 3184:James Stewart 3181: 3177: 3176:Jimmy Stewart 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3163: 3159: 3155: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3131: 3127: 3126:James Stewart 3123: 3120: 3116: 3115:Jimmy Stewart 3112: 3108: 3107: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3065:Jimmy Stewart 3060: 3056: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3040: 3036: 3031: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3022: 3018: 3017:Wildhartlivie 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2993:James Stewart 2989: 2987: 2986:Jimmy Stewart 2983: 2979: 2978:Jimmy Stewart 2974: 2967: 2965: 2964: 2960: 2957: 2953: 2952: 2946: 2939: 2936: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2901: 2898: 2892: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2882:Wildhartlivie 2878: 2868: 2863: 2860: 2857: 2854: 2851: 2848: 2845: 2842: 2839: 2836: 2833: 2830: 2827: 2824: 2821: 2818: 2815: 2812: 2809: 2806: 2803: 2800: 2797: 2794: 2791: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2781: 2778: 2775: 2772: 2769: 2766: 2763: 2760: 2757: 2754: 2751: 2748: 2745: 2742: 2739: 2736: 2733: 2730: 2727: 2724: 2721: 2718: 2715: 2712: 2709: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2699: 2697: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2657:Spencer Tracy 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2637:Marlon Brando 2635:and ahead of 2634: 2630: 2626: 2625:James Stewart 2622: 2618: 2614: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2566: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2550: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2500: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2485:James Stewart 2482: 2478: 2474: 2471: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2420: 2419: 2418:James Stewart 2415: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2377:James Stewart 2374: 2371: 2370: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2328:Wildhartlivie 2325: 2324: 2318: 2314: 2313:James Stewart 2310: 2306: 2303:Fine, ask at 2302: 2301: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2268:Wildhartlivie 2265: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2245: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2222:James Stewart 2219: 2218: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2204:James Stewart 2201: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2190: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2179: 2178:Ed Fitzgerald 2172: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2132: 2127: 2122: 2121: 2116: 2115: 2110: 2109:Jimmy Stewart 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2029: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1973:Jimmy Stewart 1970: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1943: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1846:Wildhartlivie 1843: 1842: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1828:primary usage 1825: 1824: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1785:Wildhartlivie 1782: 1781:Jimmy Stewart 1778: 1774: 1773:James Stewart 1767:Clarification 1766: 1761: 1758: 1753: 1748: 1747: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1731:Johnny Carson 1728: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1711:Jimmy Stewart 1708: 1707:James Stewart 1704: 1701: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1686: 1685: 1684:LiteraryMaven 1679: 1678:Strong oppose 1676: 1675: 1668: 1664: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1653: 1652:Ed Fitzgerald 1646: 1645: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1590: 1586: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1575: 1574:Ed Fitzgerald 1568: 1567: 1562: 1561: 1556: 1555:Strong oppose 1553: 1552: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1540:4.215.137.118 1537: 1536:Strong oppose 1534: 1533: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1480:Wildhartlivie 1477: 1473: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1430:Wildhartlivie 1427: 1423: 1419: 1414: 1410: 1409:James Stewart 1406: 1402: 1399: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1377:James Stewart 1374: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1353:Strong Oppose 1351: 1350: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1328: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1317:Wildhartlivie 1313: 1312: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1272: 1271:James Stewart 1267: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1212:WP:COMMONNAME 1209: 1205: 1202: 1201: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1179: 1175: 1174: 1169: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1109: 1108: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1058: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1000: 996: 991: 990:Strong Oppose 988: 984: 980: 976: 972: 971:Jimmy Stewart 968: 965: 959: 955: 951: 947: 943: 942: 940: 936: 932: 928: 927: 926: 922: 918: 914: 910: 907: 905: 901: 897: 893: 892:James Stewart 889: 885: 882: 881: 876: 872: 868: 864: 860: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 848: 844: 840: 836: 832: 831:James Stewart 828: 825: 824: 823: 822: 818: 814: 809: 804: 800: 796: 792: 788: 784: 780: 776: 772: 768: 764: 763:Strong oppose 758: 756: 752: 744: 740:*'''Oppose''' 738: 732: 729: 728: 724: 722: 721: 717: 713: 709: 705: 704:Jimmy Stewart 701: 696: 695: 691: 687: 683: 682:James Stewart 679: 675: 674:Jimmy Stewart 671: 664: 661: 656: 651: 650: 645: 639: 635: 631: 630:4.215.137.118 627: 626: 625: 624: 621: 617: 613: 609: 605: 601: 597: 593: 589: 585: 581: 577: 573: 572: 571: 570: 566: 562: 561:Wildhartlivie 558: 556: 553: 549: 545: 541: 537: 533: 529: 525: 521: 502: 498: 494: 489: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 461: 457: 453: 449: 448: 443: 439: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 417: 413: 409: 404: 399: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 389: 388: 387: 380: 376: 372: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 355: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 347: 338: 337: 335: 331: 327: 326: 325: 324: 321: 318: 316: 314: 308: 307: 306: 305: 301: 297: 290: 285: 280: 275: 269: 264: 259: 254: 242: 238: 234: 229: 225: 221: 217: 212: 211: 210: 209: 206: 202: 198: 194: 190: 182: 178: 174: 170: 166: 162: 155: 154:Jimmy Stewart 151: 150: 149: 145: 141: 137: 136:Jimmy Stewart 134: 133: 132: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 101: 99: 98: 94: 90: 89:Wildhartlivie 82: 79: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4721: 4716: 4680: 4672: 4654: 4617: 4612: 4545: 4540: 4495: 4490: 4396: 4391: 4320: 4316: 4311: 4307: 4303: 4300:Rear Window, 4299: 4295: 4291: 4287: 4276: 4271: 4243: 4239: 4235: 4231: 4227: 4223: 4191: 4186: 4183:Citizen Kane 4182: 4169: 4164: 4141: 4138: 4133:Mortal Storm 4132: 4129: 4125: 4105: 4100: 4033: 4028: 4004: 3978: 3974: 3960: 3955: 3911: 3906: 3891: 3886: 3847: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3765: 3757: 3745: 3714: 3710: 3706: 3702: 3698: 3693: 3645: 3640: 3635: 3617: 3578: 3564: 3541: 3487: 3443: 3428: 3425: 3420: 3396: 3391: 3387: 3380: 3375: 3371: 3348: 3343: 3339: 3309: 3290: 3284: 3270: 3226: 3223:no consensus 3222: 3129: 3118: 3111:at that time 3110: 3029: 2997:professional 2996: 2992: 2990: 2981: 2975: 2971: 2948: 2942: 2937: 2913: 2909: 2893: 2876: 2874: 2867: 2693: 2669:Gregory Peck 2653:James Cagney 2641:Fred Astaire 2602:Warner Bros. 2589: 2513: 2501: 2472: 2411: 2393: 2372: 2320: 2316: 2176: 2175: 2170: 2168: 2130: 2129: 2125: 2119: 2118: 2113: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2033: 2027: 1969:nor relevant 1968: 1936: 1770: 1756: 1749: 1702: 1682: 1677: 1650: 1649: 1632:issue. FWiW 1593: 1572: 1571: 1566:billing name 1565: 1564: 1559: 1558: 1554: 1535: 1512: 1508: 1505:Lucille Ball 1408: 1400: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1356: 1352: 1279: 1270: 1269: 1265: 1203: 1182: 1178:common sense 1172: 1171: 1154: 1114: 1110: 1025:Jimmy Carter 1017:Rhode Island 1008: 989: 966: 912: 908: 883: 826: 807: 762: 761: 748: 742: 736: 730: 707: 698: 677: 670:no consensus 669: 667: 659: 652: 607: 604:Edward Asner 599: 595: 591: 587: 551: 528:film credits 517: 487: 446: 402: 397: 329: 249: 105: 86: 65: 43: 37: 4317:Rear Window 4312:Rear Window 4005:Rear Window 3912:Rear Window 3522:Binksternet 3279:'s list of 3273:WP:SNOWBALL 2982:establishes 2665:Gary Cooper 2649:Clark Gable 2645:Henry Fonda 2598:Jack Warner 2475:or move to 2424:Gary Cooper 2232:move. FWiW 1630:WP:SNOWBALL 1513:Here's Lucy 1509:I Love Lucy 1062:#Discussion 888:primary use 452:Binksternet 187:—Preceding 159:—Preceding 110:—Preceding 36:This is an 4676:approach.) 3703:Naked Spur 3545:Monkeyzpop 3469:Born2cycle 3406:to simply 3344:Britannica 3154:Born2cycle 3083:Monkeyzpop 3069:Born2cycle 3035:Monkeyzpop 3001:Born2cycle 2932:Discussion 2673:John Wayne 2633:Cary Grant 2291:Born2cycle 2264:wikilawyer 2249:Born2cycle 2208:Born2cycle 1977:Born2cycle 1832:Born2cycle 1723:Monkeyzpop 1616:Born2cycle 1597:Monkeyzpop 1449:Born2cycle 1418:Monkeyzpop 1302:Born2cycle 1248:Born2cycle 1141:Born2cycle 1094:Born2cycle 1070:PMAnderson 1037:PMAnderson 995:Monkeyzpop 954:PMAnderson 921:PMAnderson 612:Monkeyzpop 608:officially 584:World Book 544:autographs 524:Monkeyzpop 233:Monkeyzpop 4485:WT:Images 3791:WP:Images 3771:WP:Images 3121:the move. 2586:John Ford 2432:John Ford 1647:I agree. 1563:that his 1476:John-John 863:User:Bzuk 586:, Katz's 532:accolades 330:everybody 140:Wuhwuzdat 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 4655:captions 4557:Upsmiler 4409:Upsmiler 4326:Upsmiler 4197:Upsmiler 4147:Upsmiler 4039:Upsmiler 3979:Thin Man 3795:Upsmiler 3720:Upsmiler 3416:JHunterJ 3182:even if 2956:User:Jwy 2897:User:Jwy 2514:at least 2131:you know 1713:and not 1298:WP rules 1155:directly 896:Station1 749:. Since 540:sketches 201:contribs 189:unsigned 173:contribs 161:unsigned 124:contribs 112:unsigned 4722:monkey 4717:Chicken 4685:Lobo512 4659:Lobo512 4618:monkey 4613:Chicken 4546:monkey 4541:Chicken 4496:monkey 4491:Chicken 4397:monkey 4392:Chicken 4277:monkey 4272:Chicken 4170:monkey 4165:Chicken 4106:monkey 4101:Chicken 3961:monkey 3956:Chicken 3917:Lobo512 3892:monkey 3887:Chicken 3848:monkey 3843:Chicken 3810:Lobo512 3775:Lobo512 3659:Lobo512 3646:monkey 3641:Chicken 3119:against 2995:as his 2502:Comment 2483:. Page 2373:Comment 2230:WP:BOLD 1694:contrib 1424:, and 1204:Support 1183:exactly 1111:Comment 975:Jafeluv 967:Support 946:WP:NCCN 340:naming: 39:archive 4673:really 3870:, and 3624:RM bot 3454:(talk) 3394:". 3030:Oppose 2954:(John 2918:DMacks 2685:(talk) 2536:Rossrs 2534:Done. 2518:DMacks 2464:(talk) 2136:Rossrs 1876:Rossrs 1861:Rossrs 1800:Rossrs 1739:(talk) 1719:Rossrs 1709:, not 1703:Oppose 1517:Rossrs 1426:Rossrs 1357:nearly 1332:Rossrs 1284:Rossrs 1278:. I 1187:Rossrs 1027:, not 1019:, not 1011:; see 867:Rossrs 813:Rossrs 725:Survey 708:iconic 676:, and 536:awards 520:Rossrs 493:Rossrs 408:Rossrs 296:Rossrs 216:Rossrs 102:James? 3484:Image 3231:kotra 3193:kotra 3135:kotra 3130:clear 2951:there 2914:isn't 2828:53954 2710:62576 2510:WP:RM 2430:, or 2305:WT:RM 2287:WT:RM 2093:WP:NC 1914:WP:NC 1612:WP:RM 1280:don't 1123:Yworo 1090:WP:NC 712:Yworo 686:kotra 680:for → 672:for → 552:could 488:never 371:Yworo 311:Mufka 193:Yworo 165:Yworo 116:Yworo 16:< 4689:talk 4663:talk 4561:talk 4413:talk 4330:talk 4302:and 4290:and 4201:talk 4185:and 4151:talk 4043:talk 3982:one. 3921:talk 3814:talk 3799:talk 3779:talk 3766:that 3754:this 3724:talk 3663:talk 3599:talk 3595:Bzuk 3583:ISBN 3569:ISBN 3549:talk 3526:talk 3512:talk 3504:This 3494:talk 3490:Klow 3473:talk 3412:Bzuk 3362:and 3334:and 3326:and 3299:and 3263:here 3235:talk 3212:talk 3208:Bzuk 3197:talk 3158:talk 3139:talk 3087:talk 3073:talk 3039:talk 3021:talk 3005:talk 2959:talk 2922:talk 2900:talk 2886:talk 2864:1171 2858:1101 2852:6484 2846:2978 2816:2351 2764:1429 2752:8443 2746:1504 2740:2311 2734:1539 2728:1656 2722:4670 2716:1908 2631:and 2558:talk 2540:talk 2522:talk 2493:talk 2454:and 2401:talk 2385:talk 2350:talk 2332:talk 2295:talk 2272:talk 2253:talk 2238:talk 2234:Bzuk 2212:talk 2140:talk 2101:said 2042:talk 2038:Bzuk 1981:talk 1880:talk 1865:talk 1850:talk 1836:talk 1818:talk 1814:Bzuk 1804:talk 1789:talk 1727:Bzuk 1690:talk 1638:talk 1634:Bzuk 1620:talk 1601:talk 1544:talk 1521:talk 1511:and 1484:talk 1453:talk 1434:talk 1422:Bzuk 1389:talk 1385:Bzuk 1365:talk 1361:Bzuk 1336:talk 1321:talk 1306:talk 1288:talk 1252:talk 1210:and 1206:Per 1191:talk 1145:talk 1127:talk 1115:none 1098:talk 1051:talk 1047:Bzuk 999:talk 979:talk 935:talk 931:Bzuk 900:talk 871:talk 847:talk 817:talk 808:over 801:and 775:IBDB 771:IMDb 746:~~~~ 716:talk 690:talk 634:talk 616:talk 565:talk 542:and 534:and 522:and 497:talk 456:talk 412:talk 398:have 375:talk 300:talk 263:IBDB 258:IMDb 237:talk 220:talk 197:talk 169:talk 144:talk 120:talk 93:talk 4681:far 3907:far 3229:. - 3221:My 2947:. 2877:all 2840:743 2834:461 2822:575 2810:690 2804:261 2798:331 2792:298 2782:381 2776:447 2770:465 2758:440 2615:In 2596:. 2442:at 2438:or 2434:at 2416:to 2107:or 2095:or 1754:. 1474:as 779:TCM 403:ALL 268:TCM 4691:) 4665:) 4563:) 4415:) 4332:) 4298:, 4203:) 4192:is 4153:) 4045:) 3923:) 3915:-- 3866:, 3816:) 3801:) 3781:) 3758:so 3726:) 3665:) 3601:) 3551:) 3528:) 3514:) 3496:) 3475:) 3265:-- 3237:) 3218:. 3214:) 3199:) 3160:) 3141:) 3089:) 3075:) 3057:- 3041:) 3023:) 3007:) 2961:) 2924:) 2902:) 2888:) 2675:, 2671:, 2667:, 2663:, 2659:, 2655:, 2651:, 2647:, 2643:, 2639:, 2623:, 2560:) 2542:) 2524:) 2495:) 2407:) 2403:) 2387:) 2352:) 2344:. 2334:) 2297:) 2274:) 2266:. 2255:) 2244:. 2240:) 2214:) 2185:/ 2142:) 2120:If 2044:) 1983:) 1882:) 1867:) 1852:) 1838:) 1820:) 1806:) 1791:) 1725:, 1721:, 1696:) 1692:• 1659:/ 1644:. 1640:) 1622:) 1603:) 1581:/ 1546:) 1523:) 1486:) 1455:) 1436:) 1428:. 1420:, 1391:) 1338:) 1323:) 1308:) 1290:) 1254:) 1242:, 1234:, 1230:, 1226:, 1222:, 1193:) 1147:) 1129:) 1100:) 1057:. 1053:) 1023:; 1001:) 981:) 973:. 941:. 937:) 913:is 902:) 873:) 849:) 829:. 819:) 793:, 789:, 785:, 781:, 777:, 773:, 769:, 737:or 718:) 702:→ 692:) 657:. 636:) 618:) 598:, 594:, 590:, 582:, 567:) 530:, 499:) 458:) 414:) 377:) 302:) 239:) 222:) 203:) 199:• 175:) 171:• 146:) 126:) 122:• 95:) 4687:( 4661:( 4559:( 4411:( 4328:( 4199:( 4149:( 4041:( 3919:( 3812:( 3797:( 3777:( 3722:( 3661:( 3605:. 3597:( 3588:. 3574:. 3547:( 3524:( 3510:( 3492:( 3471:( 3431:" 3419:" 3374:| 3233:( 3210:( 3195:( 3156:( 3137:( 3085:( 3071:( 3037:( 3019:( 3003:( 2920:( 2884:( 2612:. 2556:( 2538:( 2520:( 2491:( 2399:( 2395:( 2383:( 2348:( 2330:( 2293:( 2270:( 2251:( 2236:( 2210:( 2187:c 2183:t 2138:( 2048:. 2040:( 1979:( 1878:( 1863:( 1848:( 1834:( 1816:( 1802:( 1787:( 1688:( 1661:c 1657:t 1636:( 1618:( 1599:( 1583:c 1579:t 1542:( 1519:( 1482:( 1451:( 1432:( 1395:. 1387:( 1363:( 1334:( 1319:( 1304:( 1286:( 1258:* 1250:( 1189:( 1143:( 1125:( 1096:( 1049:( 997:( 977:( 933:( 898:( 869:( 845:( 815:( 757:. 714:( 688:( 632:( 614:( 563:( 495:( 454:( 410:( 373:( 298:( 235:( 218:( 195:( 167:( 142:( 118:( 91:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index