Talk:Chen Liping

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chen Liping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080803101617/http://celebs.mediacorptv.sg:80/en/ChenLiPing/portfolio to http://celebs.mediacorptv.sg/en/ChenLiPing/portfolio

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk page please

@Robertsky, Justanothersgwikieditor, and Manwë986: I have no dog in this particular fight, but I swear if I see Manwë986 engaging in one more edit summary pissing contest while ignoring the existence of the talk page, I'm going to drag them to ANI and do my best to get them blocked - and I'm trying to avoid that. Would you people please use the talk page and refrain from edit-warring? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae: There is an existing conversation on WT:SG#Actor_BLP_articles that started before all these edit warring, one which Manwë986 refuses to engage in, ever since their earlier edits on Jeanette Aw.

My reasoning has been clear:

1. Unsourced, unsupported synthesis at the best, original research at the worst. The filmography table is largely unsourced. The only part of the table that is possibly sourced is the titles of the shows the actress here have acted by virtue of the external links section which contains links to their acting profiles on xinmsn (a precursor of current day meWatch and other Mediacorp related digital properties). The unsourced nature was also highlighted in the WT:SG#Actor_BLP_articles by AlanM1 (in fact, the spark which started me on the task of improving the artistes BLP pages).

2. The additional information is a distraction at the very least and does not value-add to the article. We don't need to know who they had pair with on-screen, or the characters relations. These film-related information are better presented in the films/tv series articles themselves.

Other editors may have other reasons for removing the excessive information, i.e.:

The comment of this edit done by an IP editor (different page then this, but with similar content removed) which Manwë986 had undone without reason: "Removed notes which are unnecessary and also contain potential spoilers with regards characters she plays"

1. who they are paired with in the work,

2. characters relations indicated, i.e. mother of Y, child of Z, etc.

3. lead and supporting roles. The distinction between supporting and lead roles may not be stated explicitly in the sources that I have seen: drama synopsis articles on 8world.com, Mediacorp's content distribution profile pages i.e. A Quest to Heal profile page, or even on meWatch. Note: I am pulling these links as examples, but they are generally representative of the sources I have found for the works. Cameo roles are generally left in because I generally could find sources to back the cameo role up.

You are not alone in the regard of drag them to ANI. Onwiki, the only thing that is stopping me currently is deciding if a RfC is necessary to appease just one editor here, when there are other editors in agreement with the content removal. I foresee this will happen over an over again through the 160+ articles of Singaporean's artistes BLP articles. I appreciate a second opinion on having a RfC, and even if have, where will be an appropriate venue? – robertsky (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky: If you suspect this will come up again in other articles, probably an RfC with that declared scope is the best choice. It's more difficult to make the case that the consensus for one instance is to be applied (or not) to other instances as well - I mean, it may be a reasonable conclusion, but historically "reasonable conclusions" have not made any impressions on Exhibit A this side of an admin's truncheon. You probably don't want the grief of escalating that, and more input is always good. Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board may not be a bad spot, but with only 165 watchers you may want a wider venue? Maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on content in Notes column of filmography tables in Singapore artistes BLPs

There is a current RFC on certain content in Singapore artistes BLP articles that editors watching/editing/passing through this article may be interested in weighing in: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Content in Notes column of filmography tables in Singapore artistes BLPs. This article may be affected due to the inclusion of Category:Singaporean actors‎ and/or one of its subcategories in the article. RobertskySemi (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)