Jump to content

Talk:Nicole Maines: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
|listas=Maines, Nicole
|listas=Maines, Nicole
}}
}}
{{WikiProject LGBT|class=start|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject LGBT|class=start|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Maine|class=start|importance=low|bio=yes}}
{{WikiProject Maine|class=start|importance=low|bio=yes}}
}}
}}

Revision as of 09:29, 4 August 2018

Inclusion of birth name

The birth name of Maines is well sourced and is part of sources which are authorized biographicals. The book for example is an authorized family biographical with an entire section of the book dedicated to the fathers petitioning for a name change and Maines selecting her current name. Not including this is ignoring the sources and ignoring that this information was released by the family and Maines in an authorized fashion. The inclusion is done to reflect the sources which are authorized by Maines and do not go anywhere near the issues of other individuals on Wikipedia where the inclusion of birth names is malicious or transphobic. Maines is clearly comfortable with her birth name being shared and the book reflects this with the details voluntarily and freely provided on the issue. 91.110.126.179 (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting of Doe v Clenchy in to this article

The article Doe v Clenchy can stand on it own. It has multiple sources and simply requires expanding. The subject of this article is known for inclusion in that case but it is not all they are known for. Previously this article was after a deletion discussion agreed to be redirected in to Doe v Clenchy. This indicated that Doe v Clenchy has consensus to be a separate article and not part of this article. Doe v Clenchy simply needs expanding. in terms of LGBT rights articles it is an important articles and having it redirect would be akin to having the Vermont gay marriage case redirect to the successful litigants. It doesn't make sense. Both articles can stand by themselves neither should be redirected to the other. If anything a link to Doe v Clenchy as a main article should be included in this article to give more information on Doe v Clenchy. 91.110.126.179 (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can add information and expand the article then it's useful on its own, including more information, its significant, etc. other than that it's honestly kind of just stating everything that's being said here. QueerFilmNerdtalk 07:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the point it needs expanding not redirecting. redirecting is effectively giving up on the article. Also it could potentially be said that some of the information be moved from this article over to the main article. The main article is also multiply sourced for a short start class article. 91.110.126.179 (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if someone is able to do that, then they're welcome to, if not everything is said here on this page. I've added a tiny bit but it's way out of my scope of editing. QueerFilmNerdtalk 15:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a good go at it then. 91.110.126.179 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the case should absolutely not redirect here. Doe v. Regional School Unit 26 (the correct name of the case at the Supreme Judicial Court, and I note that an requested move is underway to correct that) is independently notable, and is a target for those using Wikipedia for research into gender issues in the law. Such readers are poorly served by sending them to an article on a minor actress.
The proper treatment for a stub is to mark it as such and to expand it, not redirect it to a related article on a markedly different subject.
One could argue that Maines is not sufficiently notable as an actress to merit an article on her acting career; and under WP:BLP1E, the article on the actress should redirect to the article on the case; but not the other way around. Indeed, that was the finding at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Maines. That being said, it seems to me that the notability of the actress today (as distinguished from 2016, when that AFD was conducted) rises above WP:BLP1E and two articles are called for. TJRC (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporation of awards

How best can awards received by Maine and her family be incorporated in to this article.
The awards are as follows:

  1. Girls Rock Awards 2014 Community Organizing Award a secondary source can be found here
  2. Spirit of Matthew Shepard Award 2015 a secondary source can be found here
  3. American Civil Liberties Union of Maine (2011 Roger Baldwin Award) and by Equality Maine (2012 P.E. Pentlarge Award)

91.110.126.179 (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]