Jump to content

Talk:Dylan Sprouse/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dylan Sprouse. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 06:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Archive for Popstar was unhelpful because the archive didn't bring over the actual content that upheld the source, but that's not the bot's fault, and I don't think there could have been a suitable replacement archive, so I found a better source and replaced the ref entirely. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dylan Sprouse. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 22:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Labeling these failed for now; neither have anything load in the page and I'm not sure why. I'll look into trying to find a proper archive after dinner but I'm not sure there's an easy way to fix it. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Edits that changed the structure of the article today?

(Pinging User:Princessruby since this is largely about disputes with their edits)

This is probably more about some edits than others, but I don't think consensus has been defined over the edits Princessruby made today, so I wanted to start this discussion to try to figure it out. Some edits I think were welcomed (like the career section, something I myself had planned to do but abandoned because real life obligations got in the way), but others were reverted or changed by other people. In specific:

  • This edit by Joeyconnick reverted an addition of "businessman" to the list of things he does/is, with the rationale that it's not what he's known for. (I don't personally know how I feel about this edit myself either way.)
  • This edit is me reverting the movement of the college information to the early life section (putting it back in the lede), with a rationale that I wasn't sure it fit there. In my opinion, I'm not sure it's "early life" unless his whole life is early life (he graduated three years ago or so). Maybe this warrants a change of the section name or something (perhaps to "personal life"?), but... yeah, I reverted it?
  • A few other assorted reverts/edits (mostly copyedits, though) that have less to do with any large content changes, which is why I'm not linking to the individual diffs in those cases: stuff like unexplained removal of a citation (I reverted this then adjusted it (replacing an instance of the same ref with a ref name) when copyediting the career section), an unrelated removal of the link to All-Wise Meadery in the external links (I say unrelated because it wasn't part of Princessruby's edits (or reverts of their edits) but was removed by someone else in between the other edits, and I felt weird not mentioning it), addition of a title/name ("Prince" on the front of Calaf, "Paul" as the character name in Daddy) which is not in the sources cited (I reverted Prince and templated Paul), etc.
  • Princessruby moved the college info back to early life again (after my revert) with this edit, with the summary "Shifted his college information to early life, kindly leave it there. Thank you." ...which is more like an order than a rationale? (It's also the only one of their edits today that has any sort of summary at all.)
  • In summary, this diff is the whole of how the article has changed today after all the edits by everyone, excluding the revert that I made right before writing up this section. (For completeness: this is the whole of the edits including my last revert and AnomieBOT's date addition.)

...I created this section to see if we could hash out consensus and when I started I feel like I had suggestions for what to do, but now I'm just kind of... meh? (I also somehow managed to get a headache while typing, which is probably not helping me either in idea generation or maybe my tone. I hope I don't sound harsh; I was just trying to provide a map of what happened.) I did provide a vague suggestion in the second bullet point but other than that... what does everyone think about these edits and/or how to make them better? - Purplewowies (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I was just trying to make the article look better. I made some changes which I thought were necessary. I had earlier requested (which may seemed like an order) to let the college part stay in the early life, but sadly it was avoided and added back up which according to me looks extremely awful.--Princessruby (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the "businessman/businessperson" additions, they should absolutely not be included. Warren Buffett is notable for being a businessman. Or John Jacob Astor IV. Dylan Sprouse is notable for being an actor. We can certainly mention (and do) that he owns a business but there is no way we should be adding "businessperson" categories to every actor who also owns businesses.
As for the other edits, it definitely doesn't make sense to mention college in an "Early life" section of someone who is essentially still of college age (or only a year or two out of it). That being said, we shouldn't be mentioning college and the bar in just the lede, as the lede should summarize the article. I would suggest something like:
  • Early life
  • Career as a child actor
  • College (or Education)
(put the bar here)
  • Return to acting
Although, checking other child stars who continue as acting as adults like Dakota Fanning, Jodie Foster, and Drew Barrymore, etc. it looks like is often done as:
  • Career
    • span of years
    • span of years
    • span of years
Anyway, apart from the fact there's info in the lede that doesn't appear in the body, I'm fine with the article as it is (after Purplewowies restored it)/how it was before. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Ooh, that's a good layout idea (the first one, not the second; I'm not sure the career layout needs subsections at this point in time, especially not if we're mainly covering his solo career in detail and even if we expand extensively on his career with Cole). I think my brain was taking cues from Kim Rhodes for the layout I had suggested before I read your response here (for reference: Personal life (which encompasses her early life, education, and later personal life), Career, Filmography, etc.--basically what this article has now, with a one-word change to the early life section title). I definitely agree with the lede info not in article bit, though; I only moved it back there and not somewhere else because there wasn't another extant fitting section and I would have felt the need to turn what's technically half a sentence right now into a fuller (and well-sourced) section somehow if I created a, say, education section (an undertaking I probably could have done but really didn't have time for since I was already borrowing time from other activities as it was the other day). But in short, I basically agree with you. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dylan_Sprouse/Archive_1&oldid=933476897"