Talk:Miss USA
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Beauty Pageants, a WikiProject related to beauty pageants, their contestants and winners. |
Contents |
[edit] Pageant Locations
I'm not exactly enamoured with the edit done to the pageant locations. Fine, perhaps, to only link to the first instance, but I think the place and state should be linked together (i.e. not a separate link to the state) rather than separately. Comments? CarlyPalmer 06:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge List of Miss USA winners into Miss USA?
And since I'm starting the discussion thread off here, what do people think about the decision to split Miss USA 2006 away from the main article?
Any other comments/suggestions? CarlyPalmer 06:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- While I don't like the removal of repeat links, unfortunately, its pretty much standard, so I can't really contest it. On the issue of spinning off winners to List of Miss USA winners, I think that was a mistake. The winners are the heart of the article. Generally, one spins off semi-off-topic lists. We now have the odd scenerio, where we tell people the names of contests appearing on Fear Factor and Deal or No Deal, but don't mention title holders. People typing in "Miss USA" expect to find the Miss USA's. I'm not going to reverse this myself at this time, but would support reversing it. It's important to note Miss USA is not the name of an organization, its a title, and therefore the titleholders are who one expects to find an an article. --Rob 16:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- If that is the heart of the article then it isn't much of an article. It's a basic style constant (going back to the original title of FAs) that good articles have brilliant prose and not list after list. About half the content of the Miss USA article was a giant list that broke apart the text completely, even with my huge resolution monitor. The Miss USA article should be about the pageant, as the women who have won are in a seperate article (see Academy Awards, Emmy Award, etc). Staxringold 16:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree there wasn't brilliant prose. If some was put in, and list list moved out the way, I might not mind. I do think there's a distinction between a title (where people expect to find the holder of a title) and an award show. If you win an Emmy, you are not known as "Emmy". If you win "Miss USA", you are known as "Miss USA" (sometimes more so than your real name). Incendently, your example of Academy Awards proves my point. That article lists all of the Academy Awards (current and retired), just as Miss USA used to list all the Miss USAs. Emmy Award does the same (over half of the content). --Rob 17:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- ...How does listing the awards prove your point? The only award given at Miss USA is Miss USA. The point is that both have split-offs to lists of winners, not just plastered on the main article. The article about the award should be dedicated to the history and background of the award, and possibly the presentation ceremony (if it isn't notable enough for it's own articles). Award winner lists are split-off articles as any award more than a few years old has too much content to be included in the actual article. Staxringold 17:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- The title of the article, should match what's in the article. The Emmy Award article has Emmy Awards. The Miss USA article
hashad Miss USAs. --Rob 17:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)- The Emmy Awards listed at Emmy Award are the actual awards, not the recipients. Staxringold 18:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that. You didn't get my point. I think your failing to appreciate the sigficance of what the term "Miss USA" actually refers to. An "Emmy Award" obviously refers to the awards (which the article lists), and not to the winners of the award. "Miss USA" refers to the actual winners, who each become "Miss USA". The winner of Miss USA doesn't "receive a Miss USA", she "becomes Miss USA". This article is about people who became Miss USA. Nobody became an Emmy, or an Oscar, so those aren't relevant examples (in the way your tried to use them). --Rob 20:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Someone moved the list of winners? I'm sorry but that is absurd. The article if anything should be about the winners more than anything else - they are Miss USA. We can include a short descriptor about each or something if that will keep you happy but as such the article now looks pretty strange. As for the discussion at the Emmy's - there are many awards handed out at the emmys, but with Miss USA there is only one award that has any significance, and that is the Miss USA crown. Bring back the winners list! CarlyPalmer 20:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- The other thing is that the way the page looks at the moment, all you see is white space until you scroll beneath the photos. Anyone know why this is happening? CarlyPalmer 20:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Fixed that. I think it had to do with the merge tag being placed below the three images (so it wasn't placing correctly). As for the article, Wikipedia is a democracy, so however the cookie crumbles is how it crumbles, but if the article is purely about the winners then why is there any other content? And if there is any other content you have to appreciate that information about the event and the raw data are seperate things, and that having all of that raw data smack in the middle of the article ruins the flow. It's the reason professionally written labs have distinctly seperate results and analysis sections and Emmy Award/Academy Awards split to this and this, because raw data shouldn't be in the middle of prose. Staxringold 22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm new here, so I'm probably sticking my head out a bit far, but isn't it also about consensus? And it looks like there's two in favour of it being part of the main article and one against... CarlyPalmer 22:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's why I said it's a democracy, so currently the majority is for it. However, generally merge discussions are left up for more than a day before reaching a decision. Staxringold 22:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree the merge tag should be left here for longer, to let others have an input. It would probably be good to try to get a consensus for all similiar articles (all the "Miss Something" articles). Also, I have to concede the article wasn't in a great state before either, so while I want a merge back, its worth discussing different ways of organizing things. Also, you're right, my mergefrom tag, probably messed the layout, sorry about that (may bad). --Rob 23:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's why I said it's a democracy, so currently the majority is for it. However, generally merge discussions are left up for more than a day before reaching a decision. Staxringold 22:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm new here, so I'm probably sticking my head out a bit far, but isn't it also about consensus? And it looks like there's two in favour of it being part of the main article and one against... CarlyPalmer 22:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Fixed that. I think it had to do with the merge tag being placed below the three images (so it wasn't placing correctly). As for the article, Wikipedia is a democracy, so however the cookie crumbles is how it crumbles, but if the article is purely about the winners then why is there any other content? And if there is any other content you have to appreciate that information about the event and the raw data are seperate things, and that having all of that raw data smack in the middle of the article ruins the flow. It's the reason professionally written labs have distinctly seperate results and analysis sections and Emmy Award/Academy Awards split to this and this, because raw data shouldn't be in the middle of prose. Staxringold 22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- The other thing is that the way the page looks at the moment, all you see is white space until you scroll beneath the photos. Anyone know why this is happening? CarlyPalmer 20:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Someone moved the list of winners? I'm sorry but that is absurd. The article if anything should be about the winners more than anything else - they are Miss USA. We can include a short descriptor about each or something if that will keep you happy but as such the article now looks pretty strange. As for the discussion at the Emmy's - there are many awards handed out at the emmys, but with Miss USA there is only one award that has any significance, and that is the Miss USA crown. Bring back the winners list! CarlyPalmer 20:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, I know that. You didn't get my point. I think your failing to appreciate the sigficance of what the term "Miss USA" actually refers to. An "Emmy Award" obviously refers to the awards (which the article lists), and not to the winners of the award. "Miss USA" refers to the actual winners, who each become "Miss USA". The winner of Miss USA doesn't "receive a Miss USA", she "becomes Miss USA". This article is about people who became Miss USA. Nobody became an Emmy, or an Oscar, so those aren't relevant examples (in the way your tried to use them). --Rob 20:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- The Emmy Awards listed at Emmy Award are the actual awards, not the recipients. Staxringold 18:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- The title of the article, should match what's in the article. The Emmy Award article has Emmy Awards. The Miss USA article
- ...How does listing the awards prove your point? The only award given at Miss USA is Miss USA. The point is that both have split-offs to lists of winners, not just plastered on the main article. The article about the award should be dedicated to the history and background of the award, and possibly the presentation ceremony (if it isn't notable enough for it's own articles). Award winner lists are split-off articles as any award more than a few years old has too much content to be included in the actual article. Staxringold 17:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree there wasn't brilliant prose. If some was put in, and list list moved out the way, I might not mind. I do think there's a distinction between a title (where people expect to find the holder of a title) and an award show. If you win an Emmy, you are not known as "Emmy". If you win "Miss USA", you are known as "Miss USA" (sometimes more so than your real name). Incendently, your example of Academy Awards proves my point. That article lists all of the Academy Awards (current and retired), just as Miss USA used to list all the Miss USAs. Emmy Award does the same (over half of the content). --Rob 17:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- If that is the heart of the article then it isn't much of an article. It's a basic style constant (going back to the original title of FAs) that good articles have brilliant prose and not list after list. About half the content of the Miss USA article was a giant list that broke apart the text completely, even with my huge resolution monitor. The Miss USA article should be about the pageant, as the women who have won are in a seperate article (see Academy Awards, Emmy Award, etc). Staxringold 16:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] General discussion separate article for list of winners
I've suggested in a couple other "Miss" articles, we all discuss this issue (see above) in general. I think a common approach is desireable. --Rob 23:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- To re-voice my opinion, I think raw data tables like delegates, state pageants, directors, winners, etc, should be split-off (or put in nav templates, as with 2006 Delegates or State Pageants) as opposed to sitting in the main article where they disturb the pretty prose. Staxringold 01:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- How do you feel about Miss America which puts the table near the bottom, after the prose? --Rob 02:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's better and would be my choice if we decided to merge the info back in, but I still think it looks odd. The beauty of the net (and especially Wikipedia) is how easy it is to link materials together, and there is a reason Awards have seperate lists for winners, TV shows have seperate lists for episodes, etc. Staxringold 03:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- How do you feel about Miss America which puts the table near the bottom, after the prose? --Rob 02:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I just had an idea on this one (partially from the Commonwealth Games medal table) - why not put the titleholders from the last five or ten years on the main page, with a link to the rest of them? PageantUpdater 02:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- That would standardize the article to others that have large sections of data, using summary style to split-off the data. Staxringold 03:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
My 2¢ is that as the article stands, it looks really lopsided with the Fear Factor/Deal or No Deal information taking up a majority of the article, and if anything should to be sectioned off in to a new article, it would be that, since it's more network related than pageant related. Also, I think the Miss America article's style should be emulated. That article fixed the problem of the ugliness of the table by putting pictures of the past winners beside it. Frenchgeek 03:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Massive Edits
I had some spare time so I decided to be bold and put some work into this page. Taking a hint from the Miss America page as suggested I have added a lot of new information and rearranged some of the existing information.
I also returned some of the Miss USA winners table to this main article, but just the last ten years, with a link to the rest of the table.
I think that I might add some more information on interesting delegates (like Danni Boatwright's Survivor win) because there's certainly enough to justify it, but I don't have time right now.
And for those of you who didn't see, I was formerly "CarlyPalmer" in this thread.
PageantUpdater 05:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay I've put a huge burst in and finished the individual titleholder profiles (thought I better get them up before much happens in Baltimore. If anyone has any opinions about these pages or about the state pages (now including all the Miss Teen USA states, or can think of improvements, I'd like to hear them! PageantUpdater 06:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reality TV
I've included a section on Reality TV... its not exactly brilliant formatting/prose so please improve it if you can! The whole topic of beauty queens in reality tv practically deserves its own article, but I couldn't think of a suitable title and how to avoid making it sound like OR, so I've included the list here, so hopefully I might get some suggestions as to what to do with it! -- PageantUpdater 06:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
For the record... a couple of other Reality TV contestants/beauty queens are Kelli McCorkle (The Amazing Race 7/Miss South Carolina 2002) and Marshawn Evans (The Apprentice 4/Miss DC 2002) -- PageantUpdater 06:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proper Title
[edit] Miss USA Pageant
I was wondering why the Miss USA article refers to the competition as the "Miss USA pageant" and not the "Miss USA Pageant." On the Miss USA website and in the organization's official press releases, the word "pageant" is capitalized when it follows "Miss USA." See http://www.missusa.com/press/03.23.07.html, http://www.missusa.com/press/03.20.07.html or http://www.missusa.com/press/02.22.07.html. I also noticed that for the "Miss Universe pageant" the word pageant is not capitalized in these press releases. To me this indicates that the capitalization is intentional - and it is "Pageant" with a capital "P" for Miss USA and "pageant" with a lowercase "p" for Miss Universe. I didn't want to bother changing the "p"s to "P"s if there was a reason for it - or if someone was just going to change it back. Epopp 18:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Organizations often capitalize more than is required in their official releases, but that does not obligate the news outlets to follow that same capitalization. From what I can fine the P in pageant is only consistently capitalized in the press releases when it follows Miss USA® with the ® symbol included, and I certainly don't think we should start adding the trademark symbol to the article(s). --After Midnight 0001 14:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Maps
Am I missing it, or is there no legend in any of the three maps? The states have various bright colors, but I can't find anywhere that says what the colors mean. Czolgolz (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
