Talk:Annie Wersching/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Annie Wersching. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Date of Birth
Has no one found out her birthday?? --164.76.164.14 (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I've heard that it is March 28, 1977, but I cannot find anywhere to verify it. I suggest you try searching from there to find a source.
Heritage
Given her surname, she surely has German ancestry, or German-Jewish. What is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.208.30 (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
As she took part in Irish dancing, I'm assuming she's one of the many Irish-German Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.50.94 (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Annie Wersching. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090208222628/http://anniewersching.com:80/home/index.php?location=bio to http://www.anniewersching.com/home/index.php?location=bio
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100512042801/http://tv.sky.com:80/annie-wershing-24-interview to http://tv.sky.com/annie-wershing-24-interview
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
consistency for access dates and archive dates
User BattleshipMan has for some reason objected to my edit here which changed two sets of access-dates and archive-dates on the page to render all such values in a consistent format; that is, in yyyy-mm-dd. I chose that format because on coming to the page, the majority of access-dates and archive-dates were in said format, so per WP:RETAIN I retained the most prevalent format found in the article, which was mdy for regular dates and yyyy-mm-dd for access-date and archive-date values.
Could others chime in on whether they feel this is a useful/appropriate change? —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand BattleshipMan's comment,
Dates of articles and citations should of national origins should be with what the nation perfers, not the other way around.
– that applies (potentially, anyway) to article dates, and ref publication dates. But it doesn't apply to ISO dates at all which in fact can be considered to be "international" in origin. Regardless, MOS:DATEUNIFY makes very clear that ISO dates for ref access- and archive-dates are completely acceptable, and WP:CITESTYLE makes clear that there is no "required" or "preferred" format for references. Finally, as this version of the article verifies, ISO dates were in fact used in this article's first "full" reference, and so WP:DATERET applies. Therefore, I agree with Joey that there was nothing wrong with his edit, and it should be restored. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)- @IJBall: The date format of anything related nationality should have preference date formats like in America, they use MM/DD/YYYY and Great Britain and some countries, they use DD/MM/YYYY. Changing the date format YYYY/MM/DD on an American-related article takes away a proper date format for any articles and it takes away a preferred date format from that certain country. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- No – MOS:DATETIES is just one factor to consider. MOS:DATERET is another, and WP:CITEVAR is yet a third... And, to be clear, while I would support MOS:DATEUNIFYing all of the ref pub. dates at this article to 'mdy' format, I would strongly oppose doing the same for this article's access- and archive-dates, exactly as per MOS:DATERET and WP:CITEVAR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- Archive dates preferred dates probably shouldn't really matter. What matter is that the date format consistency. WP:RETAIN, MOS:DATERET and WP:CITEVAR shouldn't cause consistency issues on access dates and archive dates on articles that countries that use preferred date formats and those rules with incorrect date formats makes that less consistent. Articles from certain countries with their preferred date format should have access dates and archive dates the same date format. I'm good with the fact that the articles from Great Britain and other preferred countries would have their articles DD/MM/YYYY and that articles from certain countries that use YYYY/MM/DD, just like articles from America and such would have their articles with the format MM/DD/YYYY. So therfore, it's probably better for those articles that are from certain countries to have their access dates and archive dates with their preferred & correct date format instead having all articles to have access dates and archive dates with the format YYYY/MM/DD, which will makes it inconsistent with many of the articles from countries that don't use that date format. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no requirement for citation styles to be consistent across articles, whatever their national origin; in fact, WP:CITEVAR specifically says that they won't be. It's not like all citation styles in the US use a consistent date format for all elements in a citation. You are making up a requirement that completely does not exist. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- That sounds outdated that should have been changed some time ago and it should a very strong requirement to have access date and archives date to the preferred date format of the national origin. WP:CITEVAR affects consistency of the country's date format of articles and it makes it look inconsistent of those articles of their national origins. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- There is no consensus for that, as has been demonstrated over and over again. In fact, the consensus is the opposite way – that editors should feel free to use whatever reference date style they like, as long as it's consistent within the article, and stays to the same format the article's refs started with, unless there is a demonstrated local consensus to change it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- That sounds outdated that should have been changed some time ago and it should a very strong requirement to have access date and archives date to the preferred date format of the national origin. WP:CITEVAR affects consistency of the country's date format of articles and it makes it look inconsistent of those articles of their national origins. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no requirement for citation styles to be consistent across articles, whatever their national origin; in fact, WP:CITEVAR specifically says that they won't be. It's not like all citation styles in the US use a consistent date format for all elements in a citation. You are making up a requirement that completely does not exist. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- Archive dates preferred dates probably shouldn't really matter. What matter is that the date format consistency. WP:RETAIN, MOS:DATERET and WP:CITEVAR shouldn't cause consistency issues on access dates and archive dates on articles that countries that use preferred date formats and those rules with incorrect date formats makes that less consistent. Articles from certain countries with their preferred date format should have access dates and archive dates the same date format. I'm good with the fact that the articles from Great Britain and other preferred countries would have their articles DD/MM/YYYY and that articles from certain countries that use YYYY/MM/DD, just like articles from America and such would have their articles with the format MM/DD/YYYY. So therfore, it's probably better for those articles that are from certain countries to have their access dates and archive dates with their preferred & correct date format instead having all articles to have access dates and archive dates with the format YYYY/MM/DD, which will makes it inconsistent with many of the articles from countries that don't use that date format. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- No – MOS:DATETIES is just one factor to consider. MOS:DATERET is another, and WP:CITEVAR is yet a third... And, to be clear, while I would support MOS:DATEUNIFYing all of the ref pub. dates at this article to 'mdy' format, I would strongly oppose doing the same for this article's access- and archive-dates, exactly as per MOS:DATERET and WP:CITEVAR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- @IJBall: The date format of anything related nationality should have preference date formats like in America, they use MM/DD/YYYY and Great Britain and some countries, they use DD/MM/YYYY. Changing the date format YYYY/MM/DD on an American-related article takes away a proper date format for any articles and it takes away a preferred date format from that certain country. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- There really is no reason not to go with consistency.
"Annie Wersching Welcomes Son Ozzie". People.com. August 8, 2013. Retrieved 2013-08-08.
(emphasis mine) looks horrible and is also confusing. Pick a style and stay with it. --Gonnym (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)- No, that's not the policy. And this drive for "mega consistency" across Wikipedia is often wrong-headed, and this is one example – 'access-dates' and pub. dates should be in different format – the latter is a defining characteristic of the ref, while the former is basically nothing more than "maintenance info". In the case of 'access-dates' what is actually most important is the year the ref was last checked, so it makes sense that the year be listed first, as ISO dating does... But all of that is actually besides the point – WP:CITESTYLE is clear: Wikipedia has no "house ref. style", and thus every article should stick with the ref format that was first used at the article (unless there is later consensus to change that). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- Disagree. Also disagree that the guidelines you are quoting are backing up what you say they do. I also disagree with the "year" being the most important factor. The date is a one element. Having the dates in a different format on the same line is just stupid. --Gonnym (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- Which comes down to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT kind of thing. Which is why WP:CITESTYLE and WP:CITEVAR exist – so that editors don't change ref styles on a purely WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis... But in terms of 'access-date' – yeah, year (i.e. in terms of "age") is definitely the most important part, because what matters is how long it's been since somebody has checked that ref's URL to see that that the URL is still functional and not a 'dead link'. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- It actually doesn't. You are citing guidelines, claiming they backup what you say, but there is absolutely nothing there that talks about a) the year being the most important and b) that the years should use a different style. I should really create an essay to counter WP:IDONTLIKEIT called WP:GUIDELINEDOESNTSAYTHAT for cases such as this. Adding to that, the guideline you cite actually do backup a consistency claim. Under "Generally considered helpful":
imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles
which is as close that it comes to talk about this subject. --Gonnym (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)- No,
imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles
doesn't mean that – it means doing 'mdy date' formats in one source, and then using 'dmy date' formats in another. Or even more extreme, doing inline citations in some places, but non-inline citations (e.g. paranthetical) in another. But MOS:DATEUNIFY specifically mentions using ISO dates in access- and archive-dates, which explicitly means using ISO dates for that is "allowed". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)- First of all, my quote does not not mean that, as that is the entire quote. You can put your own meaning into the words, but that doesn't change the fact that I quoted the entire sentence. Secondly, I never said that your style is not allowed. I just said that given all other guidelines and policies, I think consistency prevails here. MOS:DATEUNIFY also talks about
the format expected in the citation style adopted in the article (e.g. 20 Sep 2008)
andthe format used for publication dates in the article
- these two, combined with CONSISTENCY and basic ease-of-use-sense backup my argument for keeping the same style (whichever it might be). --Gonnym (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)- Actually no, the quotation refers to imposing a citation style across an entire article. A citation style can specify different date formats for different elements. And MOS:DATEUNIFY specifically lays out that publication date formats should be consistent with each other and that access and archive date formats should be consistent with each other. If things were as you say, it would simply state that all date formats in a citation should be consistent. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- And it doesn't state that, for a reason – because there is no site-wide consensus that ref date formats should be "consistent" like that. Because, every time it comes up, it goes exactly like this discussion – with a rough split, both ways (i.e. "no consensus", really either way). So the current formulation, allowing either, depending on what was done at an article first, is really meant to "keep the peace". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- Actually no, the quotation refers to imposing a citation style across an entire article. A citation style can specify different date formats for different elements. And MOS:DATEUNIFY specifically lays out that publication date formats should be consistent with each other and that access and archive date formats should be consistent with each other. If things were as you say, it would simply state that all date formats in a citation should be consistent. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- First of all, my quote does not not mean that, as that is the entire quote. You can put your own meaning into the words, but that doesn't change the fact that I quoted the entire sentence. Secondly, I never said that your style is not allowed. I just said that given all other guidelines and policies, I think consistency prevails here. MOS:DATEUNIFY also talks about
- No,
- It actually doesn't. You are citing guidelines, claiming they backup what you say, but there is absolutely nothing there that talks about a) the year being the most important and b) that the years should use a different style. I should really create an essay to counter WP:IDONTLIKEIT called WP:GUIDELINEDOESNTSAYTHAT for cases such as this. Adding to that, the guideline you cite actually do backup a consistency claim. Under "Generally considered helpful":
- Which comes down to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT kind of thing. Which is why WP:CITESTYLE and WP:CITEVAR exist – so that editors don't change ref styles on a purely WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis... But in terms of 'access-date' – yeah, year (i.e. in terms of "age") is definitely the most important part, because what matters is how long it's been since somebody has checked that ref's URL to see that that the URL is still functional and not a 'dead link'. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- Disagree. Also disagree that the guidelines you are quoting are backing up what you say they do. I also disagree with the "year" being the most important factor. The date is a one element. Having the dates in a different format on the same line is just stupid. --Gonnym (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- No, that's not the policy. And this drive for "mega consistency" across Wikipedia is often wrong-headed, and this is one example – 'access-dates' and pub. dates should be in different format – the latter is a defining characteristic of the ref, while the former is basically nothing more than "maintenance info". In the case of 'access-dates' what is actually most important is the year the ref was last checked, so it makes sense that the year be listed first, as ISO dating does... But all of that is actually besides the point – WP:CITESTYLE is clear: Wikipedia has no "house ref. style", and thus every article should stick with the ref format that was first used at the article (unless there is later consensus to change that). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)