User talk:MarnetteD/archive21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

nowiki

I just tried to use the nowiki command in the References section of the Albert Sieber article and it does not seem to work any longer. Any ideas? 4.240.117.254 (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The no wiki command is for when you want to prevent an item like a link [[Albert Sieber]] from working. What you needed to use is the hidden message command <!-- -->. I have placed it in that section for you. MarnetteD | Talk 17:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Slap my forehead and now its red. Of course! I forgot that one. Thanks. Use it or lose it.
  • IF it was titled "notext" or "hide" I might have remembered it. 4.240.117.157 (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's something that we have no control over... the <!-- hidden comment --> construct is one of the basic unalterable features of HTML, also found in XML, XHTML and several other markup languages - it dates back at least to SGML in 1986. See HTML comment tag and the W3C recommendation. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Myrna Loy

I was wondering if you wanted to weigh in on my questions on talk:Myrna Loy? 4.240.117.157 (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Your research seems pretty good. I don't know that I have anything to add as I have not studied this wonderful performer very much. You might try asking User talk:Gamaliel. I have found him to be very good at tracking birth info down. However, I can't guarantee that he will have the time or the inclination to take a look. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks. I am also accepting Tigers on my user page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Red Nose Day

You do realize that I can't stop looking at Red Nose Day clips on YouTube, and it's all your fault, don't you? It's been a stressful couple of work weeks, and I do appreciate the laughs. Drmargi (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Borge

Go to about 4:10 of this clip.[1] Or, feel free to watch the whole thing. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM May 2011 Newsletter

The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 01:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Head pic

How was adding File:Buffy The Vampire Slayer cast.jpg inappropriate for Anthony Head? Was it the wrong people or the wrong section or... what? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

To familiarize yourself with the ins and outs of the use of pictures you should probably start here Wikipedia:Image use policy. The picture had very little to do with Mr Head. It was about the TV show and could go in an article about the show. MarnetteD | Talk 01:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Birth name in Infoboxes/Roy Skelton

Hello. I've been monitoring and editing the article on the late Roy Skelton and am now involved in a dispute over the use of the "birth name" field of the infobox. Examining the article history, I see that you made this edit; as such, I was wondering whether you know if there is an extant guideline on how the "birth name" field is used, other than the ill-defined statement made at Template:Infobox person.

Regards, --88.104.35.41 (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. That statement at the template is the one that I have always used. IMO it's fairly clear but I understand the allowances that you are giving it. It is just infobox clutter to have the same name in there twice. If you think that it should be even more specific you might start a discussion on the talk page for the template and you can certainly point the editors that are insisting on putting the name in to that template and any discussion that you start. I hope that this is of some help and I apologize if it isn't. MarnetteD | Talk 17:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah I see that you have already informed the other editor of the template talk page. Good job. You are also free to ask for further clarification at the talk page for the WP:BIOGRAPHY project as well as the actors and filmmakers project. MarnetteD | Talk 17:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, it is appreciated. --88.104.35.41 (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Couldnt help but notice this convo, but you both are misinterpreting stuff. A birth name is a person's first, middle and last name. It would be different if they had no middle name, then it would be pointless to include there. Thewildone85 (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. The middle name does not alter the name of the article, nor does it make a given persons name different, and the mention of it in the lead is sufficient to cover its fact. If you need to discuss this further I will suggest that you take it to the talk page for the template. MarnetteD | Talk 19:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Don Adams

I agree with your edit of the Roman Catholic thing, but thought you might be interested to know that Adams was a member of Good Shepherd Roman Catholic Church in Beverly Hills for many years and his private funeral service was held there. But that's from my personal knowledge, and isn't citable as such. Monkeyzpop (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Female actors

I have read Wikipedia's policy on Gender-neutral language yet again but I still don't see any clear advice that actor should always be used instead of actress. If that were indeed Wikipedia policy, how do you explain such article titles as this one Liz Smith (actress)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Because naming conventions did not take into account the move away towards from the gender neutrality when that article was written. Erik started a discussion about this awhile ago and the upshot was that there are editors that wont be able to give up using the sexist terminology of the past. The change may not happen in my time of editing here but you can bet your bottom dollar, pound, yen, Euro or whatever that should there ever be another Emily Dickinson that merits an article here that the more famous ones page wont be dismbiguated with the word "poetess" and indeed the word is not used in her article now - though it would have been 60 years ago. MarnetteD | Talk 22:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm not discussing poets and poetesses, which is an interesting area in itself. For the moment I'm concerned with actors and actresses. You seem to be suggesting that, like Emily, the notability of certain actresses might eventually lead them to not need any disambiguation. But that's going to be a bit 'hit and miss' isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
No you have missed the point completely. Some day the term actor will be the only one used for disambiguating a persons article. Unfortunately, for me, that will be after my time and you all will probably have computer chips in your head and edit by blinking your eyes. On another note I apologize for anything that I say that may upset you. I know that you are a good editor who has wikipedia's best interests at heart. I have taken Ms Wanamaker's page off my watchlist so I hope that you will keep it on yours to revert any vandalism that may come along. Cheers and have a good week on wiki and off. MarnetteD | Talk 22:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
No need to apologize, thank you. And you certainly haven't upset me (though not so sure about Will). But I am quite keen to discuss actors and actresses in general with you, especially since your edits on this matter are certainly not limited to this article, are they? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I may be able to discuss it down the road but I am worn out from things here and offline at the moment. I will say that - as a child of the sixties - there are things I grew up saying and doing that I am now appalled at. I have also seen the effects of the unthinking use of terminology that causes harm. I have to stop now because it is welling up inside again. On another note I recently purchased and watched the Canadian series Slings and Arrows. While sold as a comedy it is actually a loving tribute to all those who work on stage and off to give us "members of the audience" the magic of their craft. Of course, it might not interest you and/or you might not like it. Should you find the article interesting it might be worth tracking down the first season at least. MarnetteD | Talk 23:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
That is very thoughtful of you MarnetteD. I will try and read that. You are to be admired for your honest and genuine approach. I hope we can discuss at some other time. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please allow me to set out my basic fundamental objection to your approach? You may then choose to respond at your leisure. There really is no urgency from my point of view.

I fully agree with you that Wikipedia should use gender neutral descriptions where otherwise there might be some underlying question of sexism or gender bias. So, for example, the terms Headmaster and Headmistress should generally be replaced by a neutral term such as “Head teacher” or simply “Head”. Gender specific terms should not be used in occupational titles if gender has, or should have, no bearing on performance in that occupation. The case is slightly different where there is a female-only variant title, i.e. where the male variant is also used to cover both genders, as with author/ authoress and poet/ poetess. But I also agree with you over these two - that “authoress” and “poetess” are now just outdated and old-fashioned, i.e., the female variant has ceased to exist in common usage.

But with actor and actress I'd say the situation is wholly different. And it’s not just that actress is still in perfectly common usage. I would argue that the acting profession is essentially and unavoidably sexist (and ageist for that matter). This is because gender and age are basic and inescapable human traits. Actresses are chosen for female roles and actors for male roles. Boys play boys. Women play women. That’s just the way it is, unless the director is deliberately looking for some unusual, perhaps comic, effect. Men do not get to play Cleopatra. Women do not get to play James Bond. Of course this was not always the case - in Shakespeare’s times women were typically played by young men or boys. So fashions change. But in the current era, to describe a woman as “an actress” is not to suggest that she can’t act as well as a man (in the role of a man or a woman). Or even that she necessarily acts “differently”. It’s simply saying that she is a woman and she will thus (primarily) act a female role. It’s her very womanliness that enables her do that. Now you may argue that in the acting profession male actors earn more money, or more respect, or more success than, do actresses (although this does not seem to be necessarily the case). But that’s another altogether separate question. And I would argue it’s not a state of affairs that will ever be altered by simply choosing to describe all actresses as “actors”.

Of course they may be exceptions, where individuals have made it clear that they wish to be called "an actors" instead of "an actresses"£ But I think these are exceptions to a current normal usage rule. At least in the UK, anyway.

By contrast, I think the case of comedian and comedienne is less clear. Although, again, fashion seems to have moved here. And I don’t think the argument extends to other media roles such as television newsreader, or radio presenter – we certainly don’t want newsreaderess or presenteress. It’s the same news and the same programme regardless of the gender of the presenter. And there are, of course, real issues where sexism and ageism interact in the media – there are fewer positions for older women, regardless of how their job titles are described. That said, the television and radio audience does often seem to have fixed ideas as to who are “appropriate” presenters are in different contexts. Perhaps this is society’s entrenched sexism at work. But it’s not the same thing as accurately describing a performer as either "an actor" or "an actress".

I’m also unsure about masseur and masseuse, the distinction between which might be pretty vital. But like chauffeur and chauffeuse these are words borrowed from the French language, where there are gender forms for all or most nouns, not just for people and for some of their job titles. Do French speakers regard the use of feminine terms as sexist? Some languages, such as Welsh, even mutate adjectives to match the gender of the subject.

Any way I'd be very interested to hear your response to my argument. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine this wall of text is a bit tiring but I appreciate the amount of time that you put in on it. I feel that things are already moving beyond this. As I point out on Ms W's talk page several shows (both entertainment and documentary) on both sides of the pond are now using the term actor to identify men and women. Your description of actors show is a bit narrow IMO. First and formost, just because actors play their gender more often then not does not mean that we need two different terms to describe them. Second, though you allow for this a bit in your statement, the current revival of The Importance of Being Earnest on Broadway shows that crossover roles do occur and it is not always for effect. Perhaps the best example of this is Linda Hunt as Billy Kwan in The Year of Living Dangerously. She was the best person for the part. As to the James bond reference - and I'm afraid that you set yourself up for this - remind me again what sex was M in the books and the Connery/Moore films and has the series been damaged by the switch in the gender of the person playing the role in the last several years. Also actors often play roles (both onscreen and onstage) that aren't anywhere close to their actual age. One of the most impressive example of this for me is Pheobe Nicholls in the TV version of Brideshead Revisited. She was in her mid twenties when the series was made. She played Cordelia Flyte as a tweenager and then as a spinster in her late 30's/early 40's. She was brilliant at both.

You may never be able to understand the use and abuse of power in the nature of gender specific language. The origin of differing terms for male and female is rooted in the need for power but I don't expect you to ever understand this. You wont be the first or last in that regard. I do have an onwiki example though - in one of the discussions about this at the MoS talk page an editor suddenly started referring to me as she. Up to that point my gender had never been a part of the discussion but choosing one (the incorrect one BTW) made my stance easier to dismiss. Lastly, you and others point out that the actor situation is not mentioned specifically at the gender neutral section of the MoS. I would state that almost no specific words are mentioned there. The reason that the guideline exists is to encourage movement away from the power problems of gender specific language.

I will close by making two more points. One, as stated in our article for actor, in a survey of a "wide cross-section of current British English", compiled in 2010, actor was almost twice as commonly found as actress. This is from the British National Corpus which shows the error in thinking that the UK is somehow behind in this process. If it is on You Tube just look at the opening of any recent years of "The Screen Actors Guild Awards" wherein the women all introduce themselves as actors. As I have state before the commentaries for the Mad Men DVDs have both those that work in front and behind camera use the term actor for both sexes. Two, (I know it may well seem that I have already gone beyond this number but I am wrapping things up) the term actress did not exist until the 1660's and it is now in the process of disappearing again. No doubt I will never change your mind and you certainly wont change mine so let me just say again thank you for your time. As someone who is a volunteer here and doesn't usually like to spend this much time on one thing I am tired of this (most definitely my fault not yours) so after you have read this I will be archiving the whole thing along with several other threads here. I hope that the rest of your summer is a pleasant one. MarnetteD | Talk 23:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note there is an edit conflict here so I am responding to your initial post before any updating - this may cause some of my words to be out of date and I am just to spent to go back through it. Again my apologies for this. MarnetteD | Talk 23:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure, there are exceptions in the acting world, in terms of gender and age cross-overs. But these are notable for their rarity. In general actresses have female roles and actors have male roles. To make this clearer by using gender specific descriptors has nothing to do with "the need for power". Characters whose gender is ambiguous may be successfully played by both men and women.
I am quite happy to use a word originating in the 1660s. Its etymological origin is utterly irrelevant to common usage. I would not be at all surprised if, before too long, none of Wikipedia articles for US actors will use the term "actress". This might even arise from a perception that use of that word is sexist. But I also believe that it would then be quite mistaken to assume that the continued preference for its use in the UK denotes some kind of sexist intention on the part of UK editors. It doesn't. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
First, the power involved in gender specific language is way beyond just whether actor is the only term used. Second, other editors in other threads have stated that they feel that the UK is leading, not following, in this situation and the evidence that I have seen backs this up. That also leads to my last point and then I really am closing this down. I continually present dictionary, style guide and other real world examples that the change is/has occurring/ed. These all meet the criteria for WP:RSs and IMO we should follow their lead. I know I started with this so I will wrap it up this way too - is anyone confused when Emily Dickinson is referred to as a poet or Agatha Christie as an author. The gender specific term for both these women's profession was used in my lifetime - it is now gone. This will occur with regard to actors too and it could easily be accomplished in the UK before it does so here. MarnetteD | Talk 00:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel you have to archive this discussion immediately. If it's too long, perhaps you could consdier a drop-down box to hide it? I was only just getting started. But before I go - what about Catherine Deneuve, for example? I'm sure she calls herself "une actice", as do most of the people who have ever talked or written about her. The correct translation of this word is "actress", isn't it? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)