Talk:Halle Berry

Awards style

I've reverted this change to the established style of a table in this article, which has long had the colored won/nom as used in many other articles. The claimed reason for the change (in the edit summary) was the Wikipedia:Deviations guideline, which resolves to Wikipedia:Deviations#Styles and markup options, but it is at least disputable whether that section of that guideline applies to this situation, let alone whether that part of that guideline is consensus. On the other hand, one of the general principles of the WP:MOS is to maintain article stability, and the spirit of WP:RETAIN is to not change arbitrary styles without a strong reason. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I also referred to User talk:Rossrs#WP:Deviations#Styles and markup options, where you discussed this with Rossrs, who gave strong arguments with which I agree.

Gimmetoo, these disputes are not about styles or 'established' things, they are about you chosing to dog my editing. This is Wikipedia:Harassment, which has plainly been your intent since

• this statement
• ANI632#obstruction of ref clean-up
• ANI632#Gimmetoo, again (link fixed;)
• ANI641#RexxS behaviour (which was about Gimme' reverting me. link fixed;)
• All of this originates with you reverting reasonable edits of mine.

The colors are mere ornamentation, and the vertical format (on Jolie) are a readability improvement. Jack Merridew 19:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RETAIN is about maintaining consistency of English spelling, not about colouring cells in a table. WP:MOS supports maintaining guideline-supported styles, and coloured cells in a table is not a guideline supported style. Anyway Gimmetoo, I tried my best to discuss this with you at User talk:Rossrs#WP:Deviations#Styles and markup options, and addressed every comment you made. Much of what I said remains unanswered and unchallenged. You reverted me in the middle of the discussion, and the discussion which you started, was over. Well, I guess the discussion has started again, and although I don't feel like repeating myself, perhaps my comments will more useful on the talk page of the article in question, rather than my own talk page which not many people are likely to see. If these coloured, aligned cells are so important that you restore them time and time again, why is it that you have not yet written a sentence or two to compellingly address their usefulness. What do the coloured, aligned cells do that actually needs to be done? The only answer I can think of is "nothing", and nothing you've said indicates anything more than an aesthetic preference and a gratuitous use of colour. Surely the readers of Wikipedia are not so incompetent that they can't decipher the difference between the word "won" and the word "nominated" without the word sitting on an arbitrarily chosen background colour. I also want to know why that column is so important that it needs to be coloured when all the other columns and rows work perfectly well on a nothing background. Isn't the text in those cells equally important? Why highlight just one column? These are all questions I've asked before, but which you have not answered. Rossrs (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOS#Color_coding: "It is certainly desirable to use color as an aid for those who can see it". The colors exist in most awards tables on Wiki that I know of, which suggests many editors find it useful; editors apparently did not find it useful to highlight other columns. But the other point here is that to maintain article stability, don't arbitrarily change one acceptable style to another. While RETAIN is specifically about English varieties, the spirit of RETAIN applies to any arbitrary style choice. The horizontal format for tables, for instance, is preferred by some editors, and it shouldn't be changed arbitrarily. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. If users find the colour useful, why is it that not one has actually stated how or why they find it useful. If they find it useful, that should be a very easy question to answer. You're reading more into RETAIN than is actually there. "Other stuff exists" seems to be the main thrust of your comment, but usage doesn't necessarily make it "acceptable" when there is a also a guideline saying to avoid use of colour without context. We disagree on the acceptability of this style. Rossrs (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The featured article Emma Watson uses the same style table. During the FAC, an editor said [1]: "Lastly, it's more of a visual thing (I like to use red and green, but that's a matter of preference also) I like to separate the colours of the wins from nominations so they can be easily distinguished at a glance as to which is which." You appear to want to remove all colour from Wiki articles, and that would go against what a lot of editors think (and the MOS quote above reflects), that colour is an aid to conveying information. It really wouldn't make much sense to colour-code years qua years, but colour coding selections from a limited set of options, like yes/no or won/nom, can make sense, and by usage, apparently does so to many editors. Green and red are conventional colours for these contexts. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't want to remove all colour from all articles. I would like to see colour removed where it doesn't serve a genuine purpose. I would like to see a standardised "look" for all articles rather than the mishmash of styles and colours that exist throughout the project and which would never be tolerated by a commercial website. Yes, I know we're not a commercial website, but this is now one of the world's major sites, and standardisation is an aid towards creating a professional look. I would like people to look at Wikipedia and be impressed by its professionalism and quality rather than be distracted by various decorative styles that seem to be utilised because we can, rather than because we should. I accept, and have always accepted, that some editors like the use of colour. Some don't. The quote you provided goes some way to explaining a rationale, but it's incredibly weak in my opinion. It addresses a desire much more than it addresses a need. I'm not sure how to interpret "I like to use red and green, but that's a matter of preference also". If the author is saying that other editors may prefer to choose their own colour combinations, that's just plain wrong. Why do we need any colour? We're not in the habit of highlighting text to make it stand out and make it easier to read. We don't use coloured text or bolding in articles to highlight text - that would be reverted most likely on the basis of WP:UNDUE - but some editors think the awards are so important that they have to be distinguished from all else, and the words "won" and "nominated" are so difficult to distinguish that they need a coloured background. It's just not true. The colours are not needed to make them more distinguishable, and they shouldn't be made more distinguishable than other text anyhow. That's the basis of my concern. Not a crusade to eradicate colour.

The sorting of the tables makes a better job of splitting the wins and nominations anyhow and that goes further in addressing accessibility concerns too. I know editors have added the coloured cells to many articles, but I'm also aware of many articles in which this does not occur. It's not that different in concept to the coloured headers for the film tables. That was added by some editors, and was copied/pasted into numerous articles. It may be that some editors felt it had value, and some, including me, (I was wrong), took the view that the colour made the header more distinguishable and thereby justified its use. It could also mean that they didn't know or care particularly what they were doing and were just copying a style that they were aware of. It would be wrong for either of us to draw conclusions that editors see value in these things just because they copy them into articles. Copying is often done with minimal thought. Another question - if you look at a table such as Jennifer Aniston#Awards and nominations, does the absence of colour make the table less accessible for you? Secondly, if you wanted to look at "wins" or "nominations" alone, does the sortability serve that purpose? Rossrs (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you should mention the Aniston awards section. Perhaps this may surprise you, but yes, I find the former version [2], with colour coding, more accessible in some ways. You seem to like sortability. Is there something wrong with having both? Gimmetoo (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I do like sortability. I think it allows individual users to view a table according to their own preference, and if they don't want to sort the table they don't have to. They can ignore the feature, without depriving other editors of it. On the other hand, if they don't like the colours, that's too bad - if they're there they have to look at them, like them or not. I see it as "individual viewer display style choice" vs. "no individual viewer display style choice". The sortable table is unobtrusive and the only visual difference is the sort "button" in the column header/headers. The colour is obtrusive, so I do think they are different. Rossrs (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say they were not different issues. But could you expand more on why you don't think it appropriate to have both sortability and colour in the same table? You seem to be saying that "colour" is an imposition on readers. Well, {{reflist}} imposes a smaller font on articles, which is fairly clearly an issue for readers with poor eyesight, but apparently that's not a problem. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute. "Apparently that's not a problem"?? Because it never entered my head to mention it here and now? Should it have? You're right. It's an issue. I'm not sure how to expand on what I said to address your question so I'll try to reword it. If you use colour, it is forced on readers. If it's there, they can't get away from it. When the sortability feature is available, any reader can take it or leave it. Nobody has to click it unless they want to. To have sortability and colour in the one table makes the colour redundant, in my opinion, because the sortability can highlight the wins or noms if a reader wants to. Rossrs (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sortability and colouring are not substitutes. Sortability does not aid scanning, and colouring doesn't help much with large or complex tables. Rd232 ^talk 14:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The core issue with WP:Deviations is that such things as colour, where appropriate, belong in the site style sheets, not in individual articles or in templates invoked from articles. This is about separation of presentation and content. See the doc on these templates; they say 'an appropriately coloured background'. Nothing was ever said, as far as I know, about rationales for colours or for any of the specific colours. They're just gaudy ornaments that credulous editors have propagated inappropriately. Recall when word processors such as WinWord were introduced; for a few years, all sorts of memos sported a dozen colours... until people woke up to the reality that they looked like common refrigerator door postings. The same thing happened with html-email. Wikipedia is now one of the major sites on the internet, and its look and feel should reflect that reality and not the look and feel of Geocities circa 1996. Merridew Jack Merridew 02:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Rossrs and I were making progress. I do hope Rossrs continues responding here. But I'm not sure that a reply dismissing one form as "gaudy ornaments" is going to be helpful in advancing discussion. I would also suggest that the WP:BRD cycle is bold-revert-discuss, not bold-revert-revert-discuss. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"Gaudy ornaments" is an opinion/assessment, and anyone reading Jack's comment will realize that it's his opinion and he's entitled to hold it, and to express it here. It shouldn't be a barrier to discussion. His point gets down to the professionalism that I was talking about earlier. I've been editing here for a few years now, and I've made this comment in various discussions over that time, and that is that we often do things because we can, rather than because we should. Often the most elegant and effective style choice is the simplest one, and I think Jack is right in his comment about the Geocities-type sites that were all about chunks of colour. A lot of commercial sites are busy with colours and images and such because they have something to sell, but an informational site should have a different perspective and not offer anything that is a distraction to the main thing being conveyed, which is the information itself. We have a canvas that is inherently elegant and effective. Less is often more, and I think this is an example. I agree with Jack's comments, but that's not to say that we're not making progress. Any discussion is a step in the right direction. Rossrs (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

He is welcome to his opinion, but my point is that expressing his opinion in that manner may not be particularly conducive to resolution. Indeed, I perceive some of his comments as personal attacks. I likewise have opinions, but I try to moderate their expression so as not to inflame things more. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The existence of Template:Won and Template:Nominated shows that this method of colouring awards tables is both acceptable and standardized. The only issue is whether the choice of colours in the templates can be improved. I suggest the "Geocities 1996" objection is really an issue of colour choice, not colouring. Rd232 ^talk 15:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to ask the creator of those templates whether they were created to improve access and usability of the project as a whole.  pablo 16:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be easy to do so, as I suspect you know. It was meant to improve maintainability and usability. They were created to simplify coding of awards-related tables. The most commonly-used shade was templatized. That made the tables easier to maintain and easier for editors to implement consistently (rather than copy batches of html coding). It also meant that later, when opinions changed on the contrast appropriate for certain forms of vision impairment, it was easy to change all the tables that used the templates. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The creator is, unsurprisingly, Gimmetoo/trow. Nymf _hideliho! 16:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If there is a need for the central maintenance and and there is a demonstrable improvement in usability then perhaps these would be best implemented in the site css.  pablo 18:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

@Rd232, the existence of the template does not make it "standardised", and it's acceptability is disputed. Something needs to do more than merely exist to become either accepted or standard. Gimme, I think I see your point about the reason for the template's creation. It does allow for all tables using the template to be updated by maintenance of the template. That is certainly preferable to coding individual tables. That would be a nightmare. Rossrs (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A template by definition standardises something. You can see from what links there that its use is accepted in several dozen articles: not a norm, but the beginning of one. Rd232 ^talk 10:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I misinterpreted your comment. My apologies. I agree that it standardises the presentation of the information in each instance of its use. Likewise I didn't make it clear what I meant by standardisation. I meant standardisation across all tables presenting similar information. To be fair, you have underestimated when you say 'several dozen'. There are many more than that. Much as I dislike the use of colour, I think it would be far more desirable for the project to adopt it for all award tables or for no awards tables, and I lean towards the latter. I dislike the randomness of its application, even more than the use of colour, and considering how much I dislike the use of colour, that's saying something.Rossrs (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you absolutely sure there's no colour shade that you would actually like? Have you experimented a bit? Even shades of grey might be an option to discuss. Rd232 ^talk 11:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No I haven't experimented although I have looked at the colours at Template talk:Table cell templates and most of them would be inappropriate. I'd prefer no colour at all, but if consensus ultimately supports the use of colour, perhaps something more neutral or muted would be a compromise. The hard part would be finding something that everyone could live with. Rossrs (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the use of color here; the typical problem is with WP:ACCESS, and I don't see that, because the wording gives vision-impaired readers an alternative, while the colors are useful for other readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Shades of red and green don't necessarily help the vision-impaired.  pablo 18:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

They don't necessarily help anyone. If editors want to use an add-on such as colouring cells in preference to the bog standard default, I don't understand why it's those editors who prefer the bog standard who have to do all the justification. I accept fully and completely that some editors like the colours but that does not in itself make them useful. The word "useful" gets used over and over without any kind of context, and that's the main point I have been harping on here, and at my talk page with Gimmetoo. If it's useful, can someone please explain to me how. I'm genuinely trying to see it, but everything seems to boil down to users like it, users use it. That makes it's ok. But there are some users who don't like them and don't use them. If someone drafted a compelling sentence that went something like "The coloured cells are useful to me because .... and they benefit Wikipedia by....", that may help this discussion move forward. The closest anyone has come in addressing this, was Gimme linking to a comment at the Emma Watson FAC which was a variation of "I like it". It's not too much to ask the supporters of this feature to explain why and how they find it useful. Rossrs (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Rossrs, colour-coding of results helps me read the table. To answer the obvious objection that this is "I like it", consider that there are lots of features on Wiki that don't help certain editors, but we generally recognize they help some others, and we leave them be. For instance at WP:RFD#KEEP, we have "Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." Gimmetoo (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I won't make the obvious objection. You can read the uncoloured tables so any help the colour provides to you, must be minimal. Does that minimal benefit outweigh everything I've said and make it right to force the colour on those who don't want it? Rossrs (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Colouring the table in this way makes it easier to scan. Scanning is the default way internet users read and absorb information, stopping only occasionally to read things carefully. The colouring helps identify things to read more carefully. In this case, awards won are of more interest than mere nomination, and picking them out allows the reader to identify them more easily and quickly. That is why it is a useful thing to do. I'm not mad about the current colour choices, but that's a matter to discuss on the template talk page. Rd232 ^talk 10:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a solid reply. Rossrs (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it begs the question of why the mere nominations are even mentioned when someone else actually won. And Spike Guys' Choice Awards "Decade of Hotness"? NB: not a reference for any of them. Jack Merridew 13:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

So, is there anything more to discuss here? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Here, probably not, although you didn't answer the last question I asked you. I can't think of anything else. Rossrs (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

methinks the root of a lot of this is that these are Gimme's templates (which I had not realized until reading the above). Jack Merridew 14:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Gimme, you already had your discussion; no consensus here; they're gratuitous, arbitrary colours that *you've* foisted on the project. Anyway, the floor is yours, as I'm off for the weekend ;) Jack Merridew 14:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You made a bold edit, you got reverted, there was discussion, and there was no consensus for your change. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Not. You've been reverting me on this article since March. And you started the reverting on the red/green. Jack Merridew 15:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not convinced that there is any good reason to use color in these tables. In fact, I have been complaining about this sort of thing for quite some time in various places when this issue comes up. Gratuitous color does nothing to improve the article space other then taking away from and overshadowing many other more important points. It also over shadows and usually clashes with the images making the article look unprofessional and childish. When I see useless color and useless table content, I just assume some kid, who has nothing better to do with his time, has been adding this stuff because they have nothing of real value to add. In my opinion adding color anywhere, in info boxes or tables, borders on vandalism. - Josette (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

African American

Why do articles on this site consistently group celebrities as some other race when they are biracial?

68.10.90.26 (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC) DIEGO IS GAAY . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.248.234.5 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Biracial isn't a race. People can call themselves whatever they want to without your permission. President Obama and Halle Berry say that they are Black, end of story whether you accept it or not.99.6.4.126 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Diabetes

Halle Berry is a Type 2 Diabetic not a Type 1 Diabetic. This should be changed. I have tried to change it, but it keeps getting changed back. Below are my many sources. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-371528/Halle-Berry-My-battle-diabetes.html http://www.chickrx.com/general-health/celebRx/dealin-with-diabetes http://diabetes.webmd.com/slideshow-celebrities-with-diabetes http://thegirlsguidetodiabetes.com/2010/06/30/halle-berry-diabetes-age http://bethelcommunication.com/diabetes-yoga-and-halle-berry/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.128.72 (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Past discussion was here, limited though it was. Most of the sources listed above are not reliable, and reliable sources also say type 1: New York Times. One explanation for the discrepancy claims the initial diagnosis was type 1, but it might have been wrong. See Linda Brannon, Jess Feist (2009). Health Psychology: An Introduction to Behavior and Health. p.286. Also [3]. The health24 source isn't really great. I'm puting just "diabetes" for now. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Does not qualify as 'African-American'

"She was the first African-American Miss World entrant in 1986..." I'm sorry but this is not accurate. If your mother is 100% Caucasian (AND your grandmother is a Caucasian from England no less) then you are not 'African-American'. You are something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.184.195 (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow. pablo 00:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Her father was African American. --BwB (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

But seemingly this is more than negated by the mighty English granny. pablo 12:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's the one-drop rule, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Jungle Fever

"Nominated—Chicago Film Critics Association Award for Best Supporting Actress Nominated—Chicago Film Critics Association Award for Most Promising Actress" I don't believe this is accurate for Jungle Fever. She had a very small part as a junkie/prostitute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.172.20 (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Frankie-and-alice-halle-berry2.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Frankie-and-alice-halle-berry2.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)