Talk:Candace Cameron Bure

Birthdate doesn't match

I notice that the birthdate at the top of the page has her born in 1978, while that in the box on the right beneath the photo lists the same day and month, but 1976. I have no idea which one is correct, but it should presumably be made uniform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.175.183 (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

the promo pic has another site's liogo on iit for Petes sake - we shouldn't be using it. PMA 00:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong picture?

That picture on the front of the page is not Candace Cameron. I suggest someone who has a picture of her please change this and get rid of whoever that woman is on the front, and replace her picture with Candace Cameron's, ok? Thanks. 71.116.23.185 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated picture?

Should there be an updated picture, seeing as how she's like 30 now?? Cactusjump (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Since Candace Cameron now goes by "Candace Cameron Bure" on a professional and personal level, the page title should change to reflect this since she is married to Valeri Bure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkhardt (talk • contribs) 02:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I second that. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

D.J. Tanner

If you click on D.J. Tanner it takes you to the Full House section. Also Candace's Book will be available on January 1, 2011.

Religious Beliefs

Has the subject ever discussed her religious beliefs in public? I'm only curious given her brother, and readers may be curious to find if hers line up or diverge from his. 12.154.167.144 (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

How is her last name pronounced?

Is it like byer-ay (rhymes with "purée"), or...?

Disagreement about hyphenation and dehyphenation of name

I've been noticing in edits over the past couple of weeks the hyphen being inserted and removed constantly between "Cameron" and "Bure". [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Which is it? I'm siding with how it's shown in the title of this article, without the hyphen (when someone searches by using the hyphen, it does redirect here), and that's how it should be written throughout the article.

A number of the diffs I cited come from one user (M Rob1119), who keeps (re)inserting the hyphen after it is taken out. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Go with how the name is credited. If it's been credited both ways, go with the predominant version. If it's a pretty "even split", then WP:RS will have to break the tie. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, in the series Fuller House, the opening credits sequence in the show clearly displays her name without the hyphen. In addition, her Twitter account (verified) has no hyphen in her name. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of her political party in infobox

I've seen this kind of edit a number of times in 2016, most recently here. This info is currently sourced later in the article under the Personal life section, but in the other times the political party detail was added to the infobox, it wasn't. In either case, I don't find this stuff relevant at the moment in terms of her career, and it should be left out unless there are sources identifying her strong involvement in politics or political activism. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be tied to just one particular IP user 73.228.109.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who added it three other times between June and August, and whose edits I reverted each time. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I did notice other IPs recently adding this political party info, but in the article's prose. Unsourced material was reverted until this edit sourced it. And where it was placed: yes, this is relevant to her personal life, but not her career as a whole, and I believe the infobox is there to highlight what she is notable for. (Politics? Not really—not until sources point to that.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Revisiting

I fully agree – political affiliations should be left out of all WP:BLPs save those that are actual political figures. Cameron Bure comes nowhere close to that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Filmography notes

In response to Amaury's ES saying "Please follow WP:BRD protocol and discuss it on the talk page": I thought I was reverting (in my edit on 9/11) a recent incorrect change. (I haven't been watching this article for a while.) So I look in the history and see that Autumnking2012 made the changes on 6/14. And I also didn't see the last post he/she made in the discussion at WT:FILMBIO - because it was made about 3 weeks after the previous post.

Now, to the issue: I reiterate and maintain that it makes no sense and is completely unnecessary to have such redundancy. When the table has the heading "Television", everyone knows it's a list of TV credits. And even though I still think there's nothing wrong with using "Movie", I compromised by using "TV film". It is standard procedure in articles that words like "United States" and "television" shouldn't be repeated as such in the same section, but should be abbreviated -- and that includes the filmography. I tried to explain to Autumnking2012 that WP:FILMOGRAPHY is just a guideline (a somewhat erroneous one), not policy, and that each article has its own consensus. [pinging IJBall] --Musdan77 (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

In the discussion at FLIMBIO you cite, you are the only one that expressed an issue with use of "Television film" and thought it was redundant. No one else did. Additionally, as I (and I think Autumnking2012) pointed out, there are scenarios (e.g. articles with a single combined Film & Television Filmography table) where you have to list it as "Television film" to differentiate those entries from the "Film" (i.e. theatrical film) entries. Bottom line: As you are the only editor who has ever expressed a problem with "Television film", I personally consider that there is no consensus against its use. Further use of "TV" is just sloppy, and non-encyclopedic, and should be avoided. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I do agree on "TV" being non-encyclopedic since it's an abbreviation, which can be just as bad as putting contractions in prose. I did see in a Google search about that abbreviation that it can mean something else ([10]), though I'm thinking at least 99% of the time, people would equate "TV" to television. But because of the vagueness of the abbreviation, albeit slight given the aforementioned, probably a good idea to avoid it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

IJBall, the issue of "Television film" vs. "TV film" was not part of that discussion. "Television film" vs. "Movie" was. But, AngusWOOF did say "It can be shortened to TV for the Notes, if it's in the television section." -- and that's what gave me the idea to make that compromise. Your third sentence is just irrelevant for this article, and no one, here or in the other discussion argued with that. No, "TV" is not "sloppy" or "non-encyclopedic" --or "vague" (MPFitz1968). In fact, it's not just an abbreviation; it's considered another word that's a synonym for "television". And, more importantly, it is listed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Miscellanea, where it says: 'Generally use "TV" in most articles, except historic articles and cultural or scholarly discussions, e.g. "TV show", "TV cameras"' (and I would add "TV film"–or "TV movie"). By the way, it also says that it does not "need to be written out in full upon first use..." —Musdan77 (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

As MPFitz said, TV doesn't just stand for television, and while television is what it's commonly used for, because of those rare instances where it can mean something else, it should be spelled out. Also, in the same vein that we spell out United States in prose, television is along the same lines. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel I should point out here that when I changed the listings in the filmography table to 'Television film', I changed it from 'Movie' and not 'TV Film', as shown here [[11]], which was inline with the discussion at WT:FILMBIO. Neither Musdan77 or anyone else edited the table to use the term 'TV Film' prior to this present discussion. I would also support the argument that 'Television film' is the most appropriate term to use in the filmography table. AutumnKing (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Amaury, don't be ridiculous. Absolutely NO ONE would think that "TV film" means "transvestite film"! 1) We don't put genres or descriptions in filmographies 2) If we did, it would probably be written out 3) If it did mean that, and was abbreviated, it would be pipe-linked to that article. And besides all that, MPFitz1968, did a search on "TV", not "TV film". But, when I searched that, what came up first? The WP article on Television film (the page I would pipe-link to when I used "Movie"), which says: "also known as a TV movie, TV film, television movie, telefilm, telemovie, made-for-television movie, made-for-television film..." Any of those are acceptable—in prose or a table. Actually, abbreviations are encouraged, not discouraged, in a table. Did you read my last 2 sentences? MOS says that not only can/should "TV" and "U.S." be used, it says that because they are "commonly-referred-to entities, the full name does not need to be written out in full on first use..." I didn't know that before, but it makes sense when you think about how linking to "United States" is overlinking. Anyway, I have to bring it all back to the main issue, that it is very unnecessary to put "television film" in a table with a heading of "Television" -- especially when it's repeated over and over. It's cringe-worthy to me. [FYI: I will be gone for a couple of days, without internet access. When I'm back, IJBall, I'll address your last edit.] —Musdan77 (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if no more replies means no dispute with the last post or what.

Last edit/revert by IJBall

Normally, I would go to the editor's talk page to discuss something like this, but the last time I had a discussion on IJBall's talk page, he said that he didn't want to discuss such topics on his talk page, but rather on the article talk page. So, here we go:

IJBall, you said in your ES: "Do "The View", DwtS correctly." 1) That's a pretty rude way to speak in an ES about a good faith edit by an experienced editor. See point #4 in WP:SUMMARYNO. 2) It doesn't give a valid reason for reversion (WP:REVEXP). 3) There is not one "correct" way, so that's an invalid reason for reversion (WP:DONTREVERT). 4) "Herself" is not really a "role" (usually) itself -- not when there are roles as in these cases. Her role on DwtS was "contestant". Her role on The View was "panelist". I know that some people call then "co-hosts", but a host is someone who has guests. And while they do have guests on the show, their main purpose is to discuss topics. —Musdan77 (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

No posts means that no one agreed with your position on "TV film", basically. As to this latter point, it's awkward to have "Herself/co-host" under 'Role' – generally, it's left as "Herself" under role, and things like "Host", "Panelist" or "Contestant" are put under 'Notes'. Now whether it's "Co-host" or "Panelist" basically depends on what The View article calls them, and how it's handled at the articles of the other co-hosts/panelists. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

IJBall, your first sentence doesn't really make sense. It's when you disagree that it's up to you to voice why you think what I said (in detail) was wrong. Now, let's just look back a little at the history: On April 3, 2018‎, you made the change to "Movie", then on 6/14 Autumnking2012 (who now seems to agree with me) made his changes. Then when I made my compromise, you just reverted without a valid reason (only saying "Spell it out"). Then, in your reply in this thread, you still didn't give an explanation for it, and when I fully rebutted what you did say, you don't respond to that. And now, in your last reply, you give your opinion (as if it was fact) without anything to back it up. While I give 3 links to WP pages and you ignore all of them. —Musdan77 (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

My initial 'disagreement' with you was over usage of the term "Movie" as opposed to "Television film", hence the discussion at WT:FILMBIO. And as I stated above, I would maintain that "Television film" is preferred over "TV film", as seems to be the consensus of this discussion. Additionally, I was under the impression that users reply to discussions if they either want to clarify or add to their comments, or if they have changed their position. A none reply would seem to indicate that no-one has changed position regarding this discussion. AutumnKing (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

You posted twice in this discussion; neither time giving a reason why you prefer "Television film" to "TV film" (which is similar to reverting without a reason). It does little good to give an opinion in a discussion without a reason why – especially after everything I've said. And in an actual (physical) debate, the person opposed doesn't just keep sitting down after speaking only once. If one person gives strong facts backed by sources and there's no rebuttal, that would indicate that there's nothing the other person can say to dispute it. —Musdan77 (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I entered this discussion because your original comments implied I had made an edit pertinent to the discussion. This was in fact false, as I have already stated. The point at issue you have raised here is the use of the term "TV film" as opposed to "Television film". Prior to your most recent edit (which you intimate was a revert when it wasn't) the filmography table did not use the term "TV film". My edit of June 14 changed it from "Movie" to "Television film" which was both the principal topic of discussion at WT:FILMBIO and the consensus view there. In that discussion, the use of "TV film" was brought up, but no consensus reached regarding its use. Regarding repilies to comments, this page does not functon as a debate, but a discussion. In a discussion, a user will make their point, and only continue to contribute if that changes. A none reply means you have not altered their opinion. The outcome of said discussion is judged by consensus opinion within it, not by the last opinion given. I support the use of "Television film" over "TV film" for the reasons stated by others in this discussion. This is the consensus view of those who have contributed to this discussion, and should be respected. AutumnKing (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Autumnking2012: I would just stop bothering trying to argue with them if I were you. You're just going to go around in circles. They're never going to accept the fact that consensus is against them here, and this isn't an isolated case. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Autumnking2012, although you weren't at fault, you were a part of the history of this issue, and I appreciate your input. Sorry for any confusion. Now, I'm wondering if you can clear up something I'm confused about. Why "thank" me for an edit if you disagree with it? Yes, a discussion many times can be a debate. A debate is when there are sides taken in an issue. As for "reasons" given, the only thing given were personal opinions, not facts based on anything substantial - as I've explained in my replies. —Musdan77 (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Musdan77 If I did thank you for an edit, then it was a mistake on my part (this has happened to me a couple of times when editing on mobile). I apologise for any confusion caused. However, my position has not changed, which makes futher discussion redundant. AutumnKing (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Amaury, are you pissed because I "yelled" at you? I apologize if I offended you, but I was just stating the truth. If I asked an admin for a Rfc, they probably would side with me because I'm the only one who backed their statements with sources. And that's what really matters. (And I don't know what you mean by not an "isolated case".) —Musdan77 (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that it wasn’t in Mrs. Cameron’s filmography that the appearance of her in season 8 episode 10 of the sitcom Alice was left out. LSchadler (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that it wasn’t in Mrs. Cameron’s filmography that the appearance of her in season 8 episode 10 of the sitcom Alice was left out. LSchadler (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that it wasn’t in Mrs. Cameron’s filmography that the appearance of her in season 8 episode 10 of the sitcom Alice was left out. LSchadler (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Filmography incorrect

Filmography Shows Candace as Victoria, other sources show it is really her daughter Natasha in Film Home Sweet Home from year 2020 DRBushee (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Exact Full Name of Her Character in Full House and Fuller House

Her Full House character’s name was Donna Jo Margaret Tanner, not just Donna Jo Tanner, and then Fuller got added to her last name with a hyphen in between on Fuller House. Cbsteffen (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)