Talk:Courtney Peldon

Untitled

I'm not going to change it, but exactly why is this actress's Jewish family so high in biographical value that it has to be in the first sentence?

Because she doesn't have what are considered Jewish features? I don't know, that might seem kind of plausible if you squint at it the right way. Stilgar135 07:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Nearly every biography page on Wikipedia includes a reference to the subject's ethnicity/ancestry, even if it's not directly related to his/her career. I don't see why it's a big deal to mention La Peldon's JAP blood. --Aemilia 20:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Dispute over MOS:SYL and WP:OVERLINK

Relevant conversations can be found here: User talk:Dismas#Courtney Peldon and User talk:G.-M. Cupertino#Courtney Peldon [version link].

[Added version link above. — Athaenara ✉ 00:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)]

Reason

Dispute regarding whether birth dates should be linked as well as the degree to which WP:OVERLINK should be applied. Keep in mind, G. -M. Cupertino spilled the conversation into the following two sections on my talk page. Dismas|^(talk) 20:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Date links

I have removed the links for dates per MOS:NUM. In an effort to work with User:G.-M. Cupertino, I'm taking the discussion here as to why he keeps going against the new MOS guideline about date linking. So, please explain why you feel that delinking of dates is vandalism.

To anyone else reading this, please note, that I have already taken the issue up at WP:3O and User:G.-M. Cupertino is acting in violation of the third opinion that was given. Dismas|^(talk) 02:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks

I was asked by G.-M. Cupertino to comment here (admittedly a few days ago, but I've had a rather hectic RL for the last week :P). I can only really echo what's already been said by other editors: Linking dates is now deprecated by the manual of style. Many editors don't realise that dates were only ever linked to allow them to be displayed according to user preference settings, and there are strong arguments for preventing this - in my opinion, the strongest being the endless confusion it caused with 'proper' wikilinks (ie those that add value to an article). At some point date-display preferences may be addressed in a software update, but until then we have (or had) enclosing them in square brackets as a work-around.

Having said that, date linking is not prohibited... just strongly discouraged. Editors who wish to link dates should not be reverted without talk-page discussion and consensus first. Personally I feel that those who still want to link dates are taking a Canute-like stance against the incoming tide of wiki-opinion, and will be constantly frustrated by the bots running to de-link dates, but it's still a valid - if slightly masochistic - choice ;) I also think that 'year-on-TV'-type links are valuable, and probably ought not to be removed by the bots - but this needs taking up with the bot programmers, not the article editors. It's also worth pointing out that removing date-formatting links adds value to 'year-on-TV'-type links, as it then becomes obvious to a reader that the link is likely to take them to something relevant rather than just existing for formatting reasons. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 18:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "Year in X" linking. Are you aware that WP:LOW states that the "Year in X" links should not appear in a list of works? It says: "Solitary years remain unlinked (preferred) and should not generally be 'piped to articles (e.g. 1989), especially when part of a date." So by listing a filmography, the "Year in film" should be avoided. I do agree that these links are of value when dicussing something like the influence of Citizen Kane on a particular year in the film industry but simply doing this for every year in a filmography is link-abuse and of very low value.

Furthermore, when these links appear in an actor's biography, something like:

"In [[1984 in film|1984]], Bill Murray appeared in Ghostbusters."

or

"Bill Murray has been in several films including Ghostbusters ([[1984 in film|1984]]) and ..."

These are basically nothing more than a filmography in paragraph form. Nothing is discussed as far as the film's influence on cinema of that year. Although, both of these are what User:G.-M. Cupertino is defending. And they seem to feel that you agree with them on the issue.

And finally, I'm sorry but I don't understand the reference to Canute.

If you could reply again, I would appreciate it. Although, considering this same argument is taking place via edits and reverts, over several articles that Cupertino has been working on, I don't know if this is the best place for this discussion. Dismas|^(talk) 03:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with any of your comments above. Even though I think that arguments can be made for linking 'Year in X' dates, as you say these are discouraged. However, they're not prohibited (yet!), so I think these links come down to a case-by-case basis, and editors should defer to talk-page consensus as to whether or not to include them.

Canute, according to legend, once sat on the shore and ordered the incoming tide to turn back - needless to say, he got his feet wet. That's what I was alluding to regarding those editors who are trying to take a stand against the current well-supported move to delink everything with a date in it. I have some sympathy with them, because it always seems to be the case that whenever there's a change to the MoS some editors immediately try to enforce that change across the encyclopedia - even when there may be room for interpretation and extenuating circumstances. Removing 'Year in X' links apparently doesn't have the community support that removing auto-formatted dates does; to take one illustration, as a result of protests the feature to do so has been disabled on User:Lightbot.

Personally I agree with removing virtually all types of date link, as I think they normally add little value to an article, but where an editor makes a good case to retain them I have no issue with that either. This is the position I've tried to explain to G.-M. Cupertino; that discretion is permitted, but it will need to be backed up by very strong arguments given the current climate... and should defer to talk-page discussion and consensus. I should also note that edit-warring, either to remove or add links, will lead to sanctions. I hope this helps clarify... EyeSerene^talk 09:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the Canute reference. I'll remember that for the future.

Unfortunately, you don't really clear anything up, I feel, with G.-M. Cupertino. He/She has held onto your marginal agreement with him/her and used it to keep the links. You are, after all, his/her "Admin for emergencies". Just take a look at their talk page and you'll see. Now because of your tacit approval, I will have to take every instance of this to the talk page of the article in question. Get a third opinion on each one. Etc. etc. Dismas|^(talk) 09:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)