Talk:Emily VanCamp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Talk[edit]

Information Copied from IMDB.com
Much of the information here has been copied verbatim from IMDB.com. It is not very well written and likely is out of date. LLP 15:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So go ahead and re-write it. Gamer Junkie 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the name must be Van Camp, 2 words...

VanCamp is one word. Ffgamera - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 22:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Article information[edit]

What the hell happened to this article? It's been reduced to a few quotes and trivia points and looks like a glorified stub. Is this somebody's idea of a good rewrite? 203.194.53.14 17:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This edit indicates that a large portion of the article was copied from another website and was therefore removed as a copyright violation. Slideshow Bob 17:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Why wasn't it simply rewritten? Wikipedia uses third party information as a rule, doesn't it? 203.194.53.14 18:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Removing copyright violations is something that should be done immediately upon discovery, and only takes a moment. I suppose rewriting that section fell outside time restraints or the scope of interests of that other editor. Perhaps someone with an interest in Emily VanCamp can step up and do the rewrite (hint, hint). That's the only way that Wikipedia articles get written. Slideshow Bob 18:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm afraid I've become quite fed up with the increasing amounts of red tape and policy heaped on Wikipedia's editors and am now on indefinite hiatus. I'm also fed up with administrators reducing articles to footnotes to fit with policy and then not taking the time to fix or rewrite them properly. What's left of this article being a perfect example. 203.194.53.14 18:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rebharp.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Rebharp.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dating history[edit]

I have again removed the list of past relationships per WP:BLP as WP:UNDUE as well as the pointy links to multiple poor sources. There has been no discussion to show how these relationships are significant and notable enough for inclusion. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOT Wikipedia is not meant to be used as an indiscriminate repository for all possible information; that is, just because a trivial item may be verifiable does not mean that it should be included. If dating history is added and there are concerns that the information is immaterial or undue then consensus is required for its inclusion. Please explain how each of the relationships you wish to add are historically significant (with a reliable source noting it's significant nature (as opposed to mere existence or length) and the individuals can be added on a case by case basis. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

All the four relationships listed have occured with relatively famous actors, each of which is at least as notable as Emily VanCamp. Each relationship has been long-term, thus a significant part of VanCamp's life (the relationships are mentioned in a section labeled "Personal Life"). Moreover each relationship has occured with a co-star of VanCamp's, in several cases impacting the production of the programs in question, and certainly showing a pattern of behavior on the actress' part. Moving along, your initial complaint was that the sources were "poor" and "tabloidy". This is no longer the case as the sources I've added come from respectable publications such as Variety, who don't trade in Gossip. And once again, why is her relationship with Josh Bowman relevant if no other one is? Finally, since you are so fond of quoting rules about an encyclopedia that has no rules, how about you give these a read: Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars#Accusation. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Ponyo, who's said things quite well. Note all this RFC [1], on another celebrity "dating history", which comes to the same conclusions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Remove List - (summoned by the RfC bot) Ok, several points. 1) This desire to detail the minutia of VanCamp's dating life is a little weird and "stalkerish". 2) I'm not sure what parts of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE Jezebel'sPonyo feels are being violated here. Perhaps he could point to a specific passage in those policies? My sense is that one's dating history is a somewhat relevant part of one's personal life. And, for better or worse, it seems to be a particularly notable part of celebrity's dating lives. 3) It looks a tad awkward to have "Personal Life" section be only a list of boyfriends. Perhaps this goes to Ponyo's WP:UNDUE point, b/c it seems to suggest the only notable part of VanCamp's personal life is her boyfriends. Conclusion - The boyfriend info is probably OK info to have, but it shouldn't be included unless the "Personal Life" section gets expanded. NickCT (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep - Per my earlier comment; I objected to "Personal Life" section being solely a list of boyfriends. At the time I made my earlier comment, I didn't realize the revision I was looking at had apparently been stripped of a large portion of material. That material appears to have been restored. Given that's the case, my objection is seemingly addressed, and hence my sense is that the "boyfriend" info seems legitimate and should stay. NickCT (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - We include the dating and marriage history of scores of other celebrities, but let's avoid that, as someone is bound to play Devil's Advocate and cry OSE (this despite the fact that when enough articles follow the same idea, it is no longer "other stuff" but instead 'the way its done'). Focusing on the fact that the subject is in fact a celebrity who dates almost exclusively other celebrities, it seems fair game to note those relationships. Extrapolating any meaning from that is outside our purview and not in keeping with BLP. Mentioning a simple fact is part of a biography. That said, it cannot overpower the rest of the personal section; the actor is not defined solely by her social life (although an argument opposing that view could be made using Amy Winehouse, Lindsay Lohan, etc.). I completely agree that over-populating the section with prior bf's is pretty creepy. Note it and move on to other aspects of VanCamp's life off-screen that have been publicized by reliable sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. If the dating history is well-documented in reliable sources and represents serious relationships over many months, its existence is relevant to the subject's personal life. However, any gossip regarding any relationship has no place in an encyclopedic article. Factchecker25 (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)