This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fourthords(talk | contribs) at 03:31, 27 April 2024(+ replies; + consistency in capitalization;). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:31, 27 April 2024 by Fourthords(talk | contribs)(+ replies; + consistency in capitalization;)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
Note that Category:Film actresses and Category:Television actresses are both container-only categories, meaning that they're only allowed to contain subcategories, and are not allowed to directly contain any actresses at all. There is never an acceptable argument for decontainerizing any actress out of a subcategory and back into the container — if you dispute the nationality of an actress, your choices are either (a) find the correct other nationality and laterally move her from Country-X film/television actresses to Country-Y film/television actresses, or (b) suck it up and move on — your options do not include unsubbing her back up into the nationally-undifferentiated container category, because the container category is not allowed to have articles in it. There is absolutely no acceptable argument to the contrary, and I will brook no clapback on that. Get her out of the container categories, and into an appropriate national subcategory, immediately. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm entirely unconcerned about what you are or aren't concerned about, because "container-only categories must be kept absolutely empty of individual articles at all times" is an absolute rule that there is never any acceptable grounds for breaking. So because my thing is an actual absolute rule and yours isn't, my lack of concern about your issue trumps your lack of concern about mine. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. If she's been an actress in film, then she must be found somewhere under that tree, and if she's been an actress in television, then she must be found under that tree, and removing either category entirely is not acceptable. The only acceptable solution here is figure out the correct nationality and move her into the correct subcategories, and there will be no removal of any categories absent their replacement with the correct national subcategories. But there also won't be any just walking away and leaving her in the containers either: the only acceptable solution is figure the correct nationality out, and figure the correct nationality out now. Bearcat (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're italically demanding opposite outcomes, and you can't have it both ways. Either the container category is not allowed to have articles in it or she must be found somewhere under that tree. Category:Film actresses has subcategories for receiving awards, speaking languages, nationalities, being a child, performing in pornography, performing in film serials, performing in silent films, and performing in Westerns; nothing in the article supports any of those subcategories. So by your personal intransigent demands, the three options are either removing the occupational categories, categorizing simply as [medium] actresses, or finding reliable sources that explicitly support her nationality. Since I can't reconcile your contrary demands, I can't help you and am leaving it as-is. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody else here has ideas, I'd like to resolve the current state of tagging ambiguity. Thanks, all, — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rotten Tomatoes is not a reliable or notability-supporting source; its pages are just directory entries, not analytical coverage. The National Screen Institute is an organization that was directly affiliated with the film it's sourcing, not a media outlet, so it does not constitute a notability-building source as it isn't independent of the film. Awards only count as notability claims if you can source them to media coverage that treats the awards as news, and not if you have to source them to the award's own self-published content about itself due to a lack of evidence that the award would pass WP:GNG on media coverage about it, so the Leo Awards' own website does not count as a reliable or notability-supporting source. (I've been able to replace it with a proper media source, but that only solves one footnote out of many that are still problematic.) Screen Rant and Digital Spy are marginally acceptable for additional verification of facts after GNG has already been passed by stronger sources, but are not in and of themselves bringers of any GNG points if GNG has not already been passed by stronger sources. So 16 (now 15, following my replacement of the Leo source) of 22 footnotes here are not reliable or notability-supporting at all, and four more are marginal – only three are genuinely solid, and that's not enough to constitute a GNG pass all by itself if all the rest of the sourcing is primary or unreliable or marginal.
The only acceptable GNG-building sources are real media of record doing journalism, and/or published books. Nothing else that isn't one of those two things ever counts as GNG-building sourcing. Any movie or TV show she was in only contributes to building notability if you can source it to media coverage or books, any award she did or didn't win only contributes to building notability if you can source it to media coverage or books, and on and so forth — we're not looking for simple verification that acting roles were had, we're looking for verification that acting roles got her third-party media attention, so nothing counts as a notability claim until it's sourced to evidence of third-party media attention.
The Gemini Award nomination is enough of a notability claim that I didn't take her to AFD — and incidentally, you don't need to separately primary-source her loss of the award, because the fact that there's just a source for the nomination and not for a win already covers off the fact that she didn't win it all by itself — but conversely, the Leo is only a regional award, not a national one, so it doesn't secure notability by itself at all. So the Gemini nomination is a reason why it got tagged for improvement rather than taken to AFD, but the overall article still has to be based on better sourcing than this before it's well-sourced enough to not need tagging for improvement. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're confusing acceptability/reliability of sources with whether the source confers notability as understood on the English Wikipedia. You instead added templates that effectively say 'the sources here are unacceptable to use' and 'there is unverified material that needs sources'. Since neither of those are true, you actually meant to say 'this article may not meet our notability requirement', with which I don't necessarily disagree. I've fixed that tagging for you.incidentally, you don't need to separately primary-source her loss of the award, because the fact that there's just a source for the nomination and not for a win already covers off the fact that she didn't win it all by itself So you're suggesting we leave it with only the one source so that readers are left uncertain as to whether (a) she lost, or (b) nobody's updated the article since the nomination. The source for nomination verifies that Harlow was nominated, and nothing more. The later primary source is serving as verification that she lost; while I would prefer a secondary source, the primary one will suffice to source the actual loss for the time being. Similarly, only the primary source for the Leo Awards gives us the detailed name of that award, but the other is a good find! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sourcing never suffices for anything. A nomination only needs a source for the nomination itself, and does not need a separate primary source to verify her failure to win; an as yet unknown possible future award that hasn't been updated yet is coded as {{pending}}, not as {{nominated}}, so the fact that the award is already coded as red/"nominated" and not yellow/"pending" already communicates that she didn't win. If you really think that a second source is actually necessary to verify that she wasn't the final winner, then you find and cite a media article that reported the actual winner as news, not the award's own self-published website.
And no, I'm not confusing anything at all, either. The Gemini Award nomination specifically is a valid notability claim, such that the article does have to be given a chance at improvement on that basis — it can still potentially be taken to AFD in the future if other reliable GNG-worthy sourcing really can't be found at all, but a Gemini nomination is enough of a notability claim that tagging it for notability, rather than for sourcing problems, wouldn't be the correct first step. The sources here largely aren't appropriate for use, I'm neither wrong about that nor confusing anything — a source has to be GNG-worthy media coverage to support notability, and cannot support notability if it isn't GNG-worthy media coverage, but she has enough of a notability claim that the article has to be given a chance at getting its sourcing improved before deletion becomes an option. Bearcat (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sourcing never suffices for anything. Our policy on no original research says that "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia", and that "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The primary sources are acceptable.The sources here largely aren't appropriate for use They are. Some patently so, I've already linked to WP:RSP for those less obvious, and argued in favor of the single source for which there isn't explicitly-codified consensus on using. a source has to be GNG-worthy media coverage to support notability, and cannot support notability if it isn't GNG-worthy media coverage. I'm not discussing notability, though. Whether or not you think Harlow is notable isn't the discussion at hand; she may not be. If a source and its prose doesn't support notabilty, that doesn't mean its unreliable or inappropriate. {{More citations needed}} is to be used when an "article needs additional inline citations. This template should be used only for articles where there are some, but insufficient, inline citations to support the material currently in the article." There is no mention of notability at that template, and I will remove it duly momentarily. {{Unreliable sources}} is to be used when "[s]ome of this article's listed sourcesmay not be reliable." There is no mention of notability at that template and I will remove it duly momentarily.None of this is to mention that you not only inexplicably removed source formatting, but that your whole edit summary said merely nope. Per my explanations here and the templates' explanations themselves, I have now replaced the Leo source and removed the inapplicable templates; I've also replaced the Province formatting and replaced the Times-Herald source (which I tried to verify, but couldn't) with a fuller Star sourcing. If you feel compelled to continue edit warring, I'd ask you save our time and just continue this discussion here, first/instead. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
