|Katherine Crane was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 19 September 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Crane family. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I agree that NBC's website is frequently unreliable, but, unless we've got an actual screencap or something of LaToya's name being spelled sans-intercapitalization, NBC is the only thing that we really have to go on. (I was also under the impression that NBC's closing credits were in all caps.) — Spanish lullaby (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
So, I just discovered Template:Infobox Family and before I add these to all of the Passions family pages I thought I'd check to make sure that it won't be judged unnecessary and reverted. Thoughts? — Spanish lullaby (talk) 07:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm not sure how useful that would be at least for the Crane family, although there's probably no reason not to use it. Perhaps it would be better with other soap families who do have family crests, etc. -- Dougie WII (talk) 10:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed the link to the real Crane family site again. It has nothing to do with the article. And I don't forsee a reason why someone would think to search for the real Cranes personal website on wikipedia. Maybe Myspace would be better. User:ksofen666
Just out of curiousity, why does it bother anyone that this real family link is up there? Relax.
I could understand if it was a link to a commercial/for profit page or somehow against policy, but believe it or not people do search for Crane family relatives and info at Crane family within Wikipedia. Silly huh?
Bottom line is, if you don't like the link, don't follow it. But seriously, deleting (again and again) a link that maybe helpful to someone on Wikipedia - settle down.
Esstmaeb 02:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The way I see it:
- The link has nothing to do with the article. I for example wouldn't put a link to my or my family's homepage in the articles for Keanu Reeves, Dan Reeves, Jim Reeves (of whom I am related) or Reeves construction. It wouldn't be relevant to the article.
- The website is a PERSONAL family website.
- The real life Cranes have no claim to fame.
- The last name is hardly unique or noteworthy. If we were talking about a link to a real life Focker family website in an article about Meet The Fockers article then yeah I could see it.
- Last I checked Wikipedia wasn't a social networking site where people search for their relatives and their websites.User:ksofen666
The way I see it:
The link is to "cranefamily.com" within an article titled "Crane Family". Hardly a stretch if you take a step back (maybe a deep breath would help) and think about it.
Determining the relevance to the article should be left up to individual readers who may, believe it or not, use Wikipedia differently than you. It is far from up to you, one person, to personally manage content that the world has a right to use. Just a bit high and might of you - if you ask me.
The website is a PERSONAL family website. Exactly. Not against policy in any way.
The real life Cranes have no claim to fame. Maybe true, maybe not. But certainly not a valid reason for deleting an external link that (once again) may be helpful to another user.
The last name is hardly unique or noteworthy. And yet it is a family none the less.
The bottom line is that while there may be no good reason to have the link up there, there is definitely no good reason to remove it. Since this is the world's wikipedia and not just ksofen666's you really should leave it up there. Seems to me like you are the only person with a problem with this link. Get over it.
Esstmaeb 18:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that the link to the real-life Crane family webpage does not belong in this article. If the Passions Crane family were based in some way on that family, the link might be relevant, but the only connection the two families have is their surname. If this real-life Crane family is so important that others might want to see their webpage, then they need their own, separate article. Charity 20:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- There's a good reason to not have the link there, Esstmaeb: see WP:EL, Links normally to be avoided number 11 and 13. It's not your wikipedia either. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 16:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I moved this article back to Crane family from Crane family (Passions). There was no article at Crane family - in fact, it redirected to Crane family (Passions), which is ridiculous. There's no need to pre-emptively disambiguate pages. Charity 20:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Understand my intent isn't to be difficult on this but after you moved all of those I tried to complete what you started and move everything over to the cateogeries you created and then delete my former category names. As a result the newly renamed articles (Bennet family, Russell family etc) have also been nominated for deletion by others. One of the concerns cited was that some of the familes need to be disambiguated because the average user wouldn't expect to see an article about Passions in a search for something like the Russell or Bennett family. So perhaps it would be best not to throw around the word ridiculous for pre-emptively disambiguating pages considering what happened when I followed the course of action you started :) User:ksofen666.
- If you've noticed the discussion here someone seems to think the real life Crane family needs to be acknowledged on Wikipedia presumably for some genealogy search or somesuch (not sure why though)...if he or she wants to create a page for them at Crane family I don't want to stand in his/her way :) User:ksofen666
- Whatever everyone else decides is fine with me. I don't think the link belongs in the context of the article but I think I finally get why the person keeps adding it back. I know there is the category of Category:American families so I guess his point is that other families have entries so why can't the Crane family have a link since apparently people do search for info on actual families via wikipedia. My understanding after a cursory glance is that those are prominent families and thus it makes sense there might be pages for those families. If the real life Cranes were noteworthy I wouldn't argue with the need for their own page and would disambiguate this article to Crane family (Passions) and see no problem with them having Crane family for such an article.User:ksofen666