Talk:Frankie Lymon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia. | ||
Do The Teenagers need their own entry? Iamvered 05:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Created one... since the group continued touring without Frankie, and still does, I thought it was appropriate. 69.208.3.124 02:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Outstanding article
This has to be one of the most informative, concise and professionally written entries I have read yet on Wikipedia. Please keep up the great work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.38.64.182 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Facts in the movie
Did Lyman, in fact, actually kill his wife/girlfriend's dog or is that a bit of Hollywood hype? I could not find any reference to that in any biography. IrishAirWolf 21:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RFC
Should Lymon be in the category: Category:American bigamists --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not unless he was criminally convicted of bigamy. WP does not categorize people according to marital status. See Category talk:American bigamists. Rich Uncle Skeleton 06:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you quote some actual rules? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe there's a rule that says we don't categorize by marital status, but it just doesn't happen. Do we have categories of people who have been divorced, or people who have married three times, or people who are part of a same-sex partnership? The category Category:Polygamists was deleted HERE—as some mention in this discussion, the implicit assumption with Category:Bigamists is quite different, in that a criminal conviction for the crime of bigamy is involved. For other evidence of this assumption, see the old CFD for Category:Bigamists HERE. You're trying to apply the category of "Bigamists" in the way the category of "Polygamists" USED to be applied. I know, I know, polygamy and bigamy are not the same, but the Bigamy category was kept with the assumption that it would be used to categorize those convicted of bigamy. Hence its inclusion as a subcategory of Category:Criminals.
- All this being said, I'm happy to nominate Category:Bigamists and its subs for deletion if you are intent on applying it in this way. We'll see what the consensus is. Rich Uncle Skeleton 08:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
