Talk:Reggie Parks

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that championship belt designer Reggie Parks, whose work was used by WWE, UFC, and Madonna, was the first wrestling opponent of future NWA Worlds Heavyweight Champion Dusty Rhodes? Combination of refs 1, 5 and 6 in the article

• Reviewed: William Utermohlen

Created by Grapple X (talk). Self-nominated at 21:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC).

• Oppose — This is a subject who the real world has viewed as notable for decades. Someone on Wikipedia creates the article out of the blue in response to the news of his death. Par for the course around here, really. Specific to this case: the nominator creates this article, immediately nominates it at ITN/C, then days later nominates it at DYK. However, this is an article that exists as a reaction to someone's death, yet another editor had to add it to Deaths in 2021. This is blatant hat collecting. Why should we reward that? If you're looking for an excuse to ignore that, let's go over the article and nomination. The most obvious problem is the inclusion of a "Life" section, the smallest part of the article body. A biography is intended to tell the story of a person's life as a whole. Professional wrestling biographies already suffer greatly from the POV of a subject's life as a whole serving as a footnote to a whole bunch of topical POV/trivia. This article is nearly as much an article about championship belts, Stu Hart and WWE as it is an article about Reggie Parks. On to the nomination, the hook starts with "that championship belt designer Reggie Parks, whose work was used by WWE, UFC, and Madonna". The lead says the work for Madonna was an album cover. The way the hook is written, readers may be mislead into believing that he designed a belt for Madonna rather than an album cover. The hook in general reads like a series of coatracking mentions of others intended to puff up an article on an obscure subject. The footnote "Combination of refs 1, 5 and 6 in the article" is confusing. Are we supposed to be sourcing the fact about Dusty Rhodes or every single minute fact contained within the hook? Smells of puffery. So does this. There's no reason to use {{Sfn}} when there's only a single book citation in the article. The KISS principle goes a long way. As for the actual mention of Dusty Rhodes, "Joe Blanchard's Texas territory" is confusing to me. Other, more credible sources mention that the booking office for Texas at the time was centered around the Dallas and Houston promotions, which provided talent to local promoters throughout Texas. Therefore, the territory would have been Texas as a whole. Additionally, Blanchard's article states that he was a full-time wrestler until he started promoting in 1978, or a decade later. If your source consisted mostly of Dusty's personal recollections, what sort of editorial or fact-checking process existed prior to publishing? There's no online link provided to that source, so I really don't know. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Appearing on the "recent deaths" ticker has never been sufficient to disqualify a subject from DYK, this isn't abut "rewarding" anything. As to the hook—he did design a belt for Madonna, to wear on the album cover in question; the "refs 1, 5, and 6" part is simply because the hook isn't sourced to any one ref in particular; one of those refs discusses the connection to Rhodes, two details who have used his belt designs. A simpler hook could written, sure, but feel free to propose one in that case. If you wish to contest the Rhodes source; it's available to preview on Google Books, Rhodes himself describes the territory as Blanchard's and I have no reason to question that, but Blanchard's name can be omitted without losing anything. I'm not particularly keen on the tone of this review and the insinuation that it's "hat collecting" (is there some other purpose for DYK other than to ... run hooks?) or that by missing an opportunity to wikilink it on another page I've somehow committed a personal failing; this smacks of assuming bad faith in a run-of-the-mill nomination. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• Why is it bad that someone creates an article after news of a persons death and then nominate it for ITN or DYN?★Trekker (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Trekker’s implication in their question. There is absolutely nothing wrong creating an article after news of a death and then nominating it to ITN/DYK. “Hat collecting”. What?? It’s one of the most bizarre ‘opposes’ I’ve ever seen. If RadioKAOS believes that the subject has been notable for decades then they should be thanking the creator for rectifying the omission from WP. Editors discovering notable topics from news items and seeing that a valid article is missing is a valuable route for the development of WP. Long may it continue! DeCausa (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• New article is 3,848 characters long and nominated four days after creation. It is eligible for DYK per Rule 1d, because it only appeared in the "Recent Deaths" section of ITN and not as a bold link. No copyvios detected (Newdeaths.com copied off this article and not the other way around; high confidence of violation due to direct quotes that have all been cited) and duplication detector of online sources[1][2][3][4][5][6] reveal no close paraphrasing issues (AGF book which can't go through Dup detector). Article is well-sourced. Hook is 180 characters long (under 200 character max.) and is interesting. Refs 1, 5, and 6 (verifying the hook) are reliable sources. QPQ done. Looks good to go! —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P3

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Reggie Parks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 18:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• Are any photos of him available?

  Unfortunately none that are free, I did not feel that a non-free file met NFCC personally here.

• "before branching out into belt design." — I would make this the start of a new sentence, and give a short explanation of how he got into belt design.

  Reworded with some extra detail.

• As below, any word on who gave him the nickname?

  Nothing in the sources to indicate who coined the name, unfortunately.

• "may be" — See WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Unsupported attributions. Also, this is somewhat inconsistent with the article, which also mentions the WWF Intercontinental Heavyweight Championship belt.

  Reworded, let me know if this works better for you.

Early life

• Perhaps clarified that those he admired were professional wrestlers.

  Tweaked.

• Anything else to say about his early life?

  Thin on the ground, I'm afraid.

Professional wrestling

• What do you mean by "territories"?

  I've added a link to List of National Wrestling Alliance territories here for clarity.

• What are "legitimate" matches? Are there also illegitimate matches?

  Legitimate as in not "worked" like professional wrestling usually is; perhaps this is a case of jargon not being easily understood by a lay reader. I have clarified a little further by explaining that they were "unscripted" bouts, but if you think there is a better way to word this I am open to changing it.

• Are audience challengers ever actually competitive?

  Generally yes, this is one of wrestling's old carnival roots, it's "competitive" in as much as any untrained volunteer grappling a trained competitor will be.

• "Parks also wrestled under a mask" — What's the significance of wrestling under a mask?

  It's normally a sign of playing a different character, especially when someone who doesn't usually wear one starts to adopt one. In some countries like Mexico there's a lot of significance but in this case it's just that wearing a mask and calling himself "The Avenger" meant he was appearing as a "new" wrestler.

Belt designing

• Who dubbed him "the King of Belts"?

  As above, unfortunately I couldn't see any source noting who coined the name, it's just one which appears in retrospective sources.

• Anything else that can be said about his belt designing?

  Honestly I was surprised to have gotten this much details, having some information on "how the sausage is made" such as the electroplating or the zinc base is more than I thought would be available at first.

• Any other photos (particularly detailed ones) of his belts?

  Nothing that would be free--the commons category Commons:Category:WWE championship belts was where I scoured but his designs aren't well-represented here and this was what I felt was the clearest shot of one. I don't know that NFCC would be met by a clearer non free image as it's largely just a matter of clarity.

• Is there anything that indicates how pervasive his belts were? For example, was he one (albeit a significant one) of several belt makers for wrestling, or the primary one?

  Anecdotally, he seems to have been the primary engraver for North America for about two decades, designing most of the belts for the largest companies of the 1980s and 1990s, but unfortunately that's mainly original research. I can demonstrate from the sources that he was significant, but not necessarily how significant beyond the quotes provided.

Personal life

• Did he ever retire from belt design?

  I do not believe so--any sources which describe his retirement speak only about him retiring from wrestling. I believe he was still engraving until his death. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Footnotes

• Any other references about him?

  There are a few additional obituaries from non-reliable sources (wrestling has a lot of fan-journalism with no editorial oversight) but at present I think this is as comprehensive as the material allows. I would not be surprised to find that more material becomes available in the coming years—unfortunately it's an industry where stories are often not told until someone passes, but I think it's likely that people will give interviews or testimonials in the future which may allow for further expansion.

  At a quick glance, looks like the Arizona Daily Star may have done something about him? --Usernameunique (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  Looking at the video, it seemed to be repeating what other sources have (although given its age it might be where they have taken the info from). There does seem to be a corresponding article on the website but unfortunately it's paywalled. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  Grapple X, the article opens for me. Try opening it in another browser, or in incognito mode. If that doesn't work, email me and I'll send it to you. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  Tried it in incognito (and Edge's private view too) and also tried coming at it sideways through Google Translate which can sometimes be enough. If you'd be able to email it to me that would be fantastic though, thanks. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  Grapple X, send me an email with the above link; that way I will have your email address, and can reply and attach the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  Grapple X, did you get the article? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  Grapple X, just following up. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry about the delay in getting back to this; thank you for having a look at it. I am about to start addressing/responding to your above points now and am leaving this just to let you know I have started. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  I hope I have addressed or at least discussed the above points to your satisfaction but please let me know if anything else needs attended to. Here is a diff of any changes made. Thank you again for your time on this. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Second opinion requested in the hopes of finding reviewer to take over

Regrettably, Usernameunique has been inactive for a while and although they have replied to queries, they have twice failed to resume reviewing on the schedule they themselves proposed. The nomination status has been changed to "2nd opinion" in the hopes of finding a new reviewer to take over the review. Thank you to whoever steps up. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Grapple X: I'm pinging you as I see it's been a while since you were active. I'll also send you an email. My plan is to place a second opinion here for you and then put the review on hold for two weeks to give you time to address the feedback. If not, hopefully there will be a roadmap that you can follow later, or someone else can take this on. Hope you're doing well! Also pinging BlueMoonset in case they'd like to be in the loop. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, I had made the changes to the template and was looking to start a review - Noticed your comment when I was looking to leave my own ping for Grapple X. However, if you want to take it up, feel free. You are much more experienced here and would do a better job. I'll move to other pages. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi CapnJackSp. Sorry I stepped on your toes here! I've been working for a few hours on my review and would love to keep going. I hope that's ok. I'll be sure to check the talk page history for any recent changes, and I recommend you pull the entry from the Backlog Drive list as soon as you decide to take it on. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Nope, no issues with me at all. Happy editing! Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated. Hit me up for an article copyedit as amends sometime. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Grapple X. I hope this doesn't come off as pestering, but I wanted to give you time to address the issues below before this GAN is closed. I plan to keep it on hold for another week. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I have to fail this nomination. I hope GrappleX or another interested editor can use the comments below as a roadmap for improvement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

FFFeedback

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See feedback below

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Metro is a generally unreliable tabloid source (see WP:METRO). It's possible the specific article used and claims cited to it are exceptions. Please try and use other sources to replace it and let me know which facts don't have a replacement source.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Scrupulously adherent to NOR! I'm also tempted, having read the sources, to overstate Parks' relevance in the title belt field, relative to how the sources describe him.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran a toolforge report and spot checked a few phrases. Checks out.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Could use a non-free lead image as noted below

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Good caption. Has alt text (thanks!)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Please address the comments below. As noted above, I'm willing to leave this on hold for two weeks in the hopes of enticing Grapple X back from inactivity. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

GA notes

• Lead
  • If you've put in a good-faith, unsuccessful effort to find a freely-licensed photograph, then you should upload a suitable copyrighted image and provide a free-use rationale. As Parks is now dead, NFCCP #1 is met as "no free equivalent is available, or could be created". For the record, I tried Google Images, Flickr, US government, and Library of Congress.
  • Add Tucson to death location in infobox
  • Drop the comma after Stu Hart or go with "and he wrestled"
  • "first creating a championship": is "belt" implied here? It's a toss up if lay readers will pick up on that
  • Is the nickname not just "King of Belts", without the "the"?
  • How about "he also contributed work to other wrestling promotions, the UFC, and a Madonna album cover"?
• Early life
  • no comma after "city"
  • "he admired the brothers George and Sandy Scott, and Tiny Mills" doesn't need the comma. How about "he admired Tiny Mills and the brothers George and Sandy Scott"?
• Professional wrestling
  • expand the "wrestling territories" link to "National Wrestling Alliance (NWA) territories"
  • Thank you for adding "unscripted". I think this part could be even clearer with a link to Legit (professional wrestling) (redirects to a glossary).
  • "based with" is unusual phrasing. "associated" or "affiliated" with?
  • "appearances for territories": looking at the source, isn't it just one Nebraska territory, and doesn't it also include Iowa?
• Belt designing
  • add "belt" to the caption? Again, maybe "championship" as a reference to the belt is common in wrestling circles
  • "He made a replacement" → "Parks made a replacement"
  • Try "His work was then sought out by other wrestling organizations, taekwondo and boxing associations, the UFC, and Madonna, for the cover of her album Hard Candy."
• Personal life
  • Marriage, divorce, partnership segment is a bit confusing and could use a light rewrite

Thanks for an enjoyable reading and learning experience. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Non-GA notes (optional)

• Overall
  • Can you help me think through whether the licensing info on File:NWATNAFirstXTitle.jpg looks reasonably correct and whether it can be transferred to Commons or used in this article?
  • I'd replace the url in the Tucson Weekly source with this one, which includes the full text in one page. Will help with readers (or editors) trying to ctrl-f a particular fact.
  • Another source to use: Arizona Daily Star (subscription). Archive available here.
• Lead
  • Drop the infobox wlink to Alberta per MOS:LINKSTYLE: "For geographic places specified with the name of the larger territorial unit following a comma, generally do not link the larger unit."
  • Infobox citations not necessary, all content is mentioned and sourced in the body
  • I'd go with "Parks earned the nickname "King of Belts" for his design work."
  • "while working in Nebraska" may be too much detail for the lead. Either that or add Arizona in there somewhere
  • It's a matter of opinion, but I'd prefer not to use "then-" constructions, as readers can generally understand that past descriptors aren't forever. Either way, the "the" doesn't need to be part of the link.
• Early life
  • Drop the link to Alberta per above
• Professional wrestling
  • add "(AWA)" after the full name for use later
  • Quote marks for "The Avenger"?
  • It might be worth it to add a definition for "mask" at Glossary of professional wrestling terms that covers the meaning intended here, and then linking that instead of Wrestling mask. The lead of that article is focused on the physical object and it takes some digging to get to what's needed for this link.
  • period before quote mark in "I was always nice." (I almost always have to make MOS:LQ fixes in the other direction!)
• Belt designing
  • "NWA" and "AWA" (x2) instead of the full names
  • I think plating would be a useful link when we get to "plated in nickel". Would appreciate a second opinion.
• Personal life
  • Probably worth mentioning that Parks mentored Millican (Tucson Weekly source)

Again, none of this part is necessary for a GA pass, but I hope these comments are helpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Um, really?

If Reggie Parks didn't have any children does that mean I dont really exist??? LOL My dad changed his last name, never re-married and lived well below his means all to protect me. He was the most amazing dad and I am lucky to be his child! RIP daddy. 2600:8800:7204:E770:8CBF:6BF8:3D12:9FD0 (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any proof?★Trekker (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I do. But why does it matter to you? ColdRainnThunder (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia needs sources for claims.★Trekker (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for the attitude I gave you. The past couple years since he and my mother passed a week apart from each other (they were divorced). They adopted me as a baby. So what type of proof would you need? ColdRainnThunder (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)