Talk:Emily Bett Rickards

Is "Very fit" pertinent?

Is the mention "she's very fit" relevant to the Wikipedia article? Beside being a subjective opinion, and a likely temporary state, what value does it bring to the reader? 94.71.59.12 (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It's been removed. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 23:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Please use a better photograph of Ms. Rickards

Emily Bett Rickards has a reputation of being a very attractive young woman. Not only is she a star on a television series, CW's "Arrow" , she is also known for her many fashion photo shoots in respected magazines and on various web sites. The main photo of her with this article does not faithfully represent her best appearance. She is known to go about appearing as she does here, because she is naturally attractive, but I doubt seriously she would want a first impression of herself to be made from this image. I realize this is my opinion, but I follow her daily online and see many other opinions similar to mine.

Could some responsible person make contact with whoever represents her and obtain a better image she would approve?

Sparkyland3r5 (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That isn't really how images work on Wikipedia! I have left a note on your talk page.AutumnKing (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

References

personal life section

It looks to me that "Aisha Tyler Reveals She's Dating Actress Emily Bett Rickards". theJasmineBRAND. October 30, 2018. Retrieved January 4, 2020. and MaGee, Ny (October 30, 2018). "Aisha Tyler Finds 'True Love' with Actress Emily Bett Rickards (PHOTOS)". EURweb. Retrieved January 4, 2020. are sufficiently reliable sources. Neither source has been discussed at WP:RSN. They seem to have staff and I'm assuming they have an editorial policy. Neither have retracted their "news" that I can see, so I'm not sure how it can be dismissively claimed that it's gossip and speculation passed on an Instagram post is neither an announcement or a revelation, nor is it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia and its content be deleted. A bit more info would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Both sources are purely speculative. The first is deliberately misleading ("Aisha Tyler reveals"), the second at least has the decency to add the word 'reportedly'. Tyler posted an Instagram post, that gossip sites speculated meant she was in a relationship with Rickards. Neither she nor Rickards have given any further indication that they are in a romantic relationship. In fact, at the time, Tyler was joking about the speculation among her friends online. Until they either announce that they are in a relationship, or appear publicly as a couple, the idea that they are a romantic couple is purely gossip and speculation. WP:BLPRS should apply here as the information is "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced ". As such, I have reverted article per WP:STATUSQUO until consensus is reached here. AutumnKing (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Neither is misleading, but that neither she nor Rickards have given any further indication that they are in a romantic relationship is telling. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The reason I would characterise the first article title as misleading would be because when an article discusses a 'revelation' by a public figure, it more usually follows on from an actual announcement or interview in which they have made a revelation. To categorise an ambiguous Instagram post as a revelation seems, to me, dishonest clickbait. Just a personal view. That aside, I agree it is telling neither have given any further indication. Until such time as Rickards (or any partner she may have) chooses to disclose her relationship status, it best left out of a Wikipedia article. AutumnKing (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yet there are additional sources that make the same claim. I'm fine with leaving the decision to comment on it to Rickards. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

All the 'sources' I have seen make their claim purely on speculation from the Instagram post. And every single one is gossip. No reputable site has carried the 'story'. AutumnKing (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You have not been reading them then. Many I read asked both subjects directly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

If that is the case, it seems rather odd that you were relying on sources that clearly have not. If more reliable sources exist, use them. Al the ones I have read, thoroughly, have asked no-one. AutumnKing (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I provided additional sources above. Clearly, you have not read them. They make claims that go against what you have stated, but support the statement that Rickards has not commented on the relationship. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I provided additional sources above Those are not additional sources, they are the same two used in the edit. You have provided no further sources. Many I read asked both subjects directly I have read the only two you cite. Which you do not appear to have done, despite accusing me of such. Neither have spoken to the subject directly. Neither have even stated that they have asked for comment. The Jasmine Brand piece only cites her Instagram posts, and the EURweb quotes both Tyler's Instagram and cites comments previously made by Tyler regarding her sexuality, from 2016 and 2014, neither of which were comments given directly to that publication, nor were they related to Rickards. That is not asking a subject directly. And provides no information on her current romantic status, with Rickards or anyone else. A quick Google search provides no sources that have spoken to either party. As you state that many sources you have read do so, then please provide them. AutumnKing (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I must have provided them in an edit I abandoned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Editing Needed

This page contains a lot of grammatical problems. For example, "Originally signed as a one-episode guest star, positive reaction from her co-star" makes no sense at all grammatically since it says that positive reactions were originally signed as a one-episode guest star. It would be good to get someone with good writing skills to clean it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.149.12 (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

If you read the whole sentence, it makes complete sense. Originally signed as a one-episode guest star, positive reaction from her co-star, show-lead Stephen Amell, and from Warner Brothers executive Peter Roth as well as from journalists at preview screenings, led to Rickards being signed as a recurring star for the rest of the show's first season. However, you don't need to ask someone else to reword - anyone can edit Wikipedia. Daff22 (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It's a misplaced modifier, with or without the rest of the sentence. A competent writer would know this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.149.12 (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

And how would you rewrite the sentence to avoid the problem you have detected?

Oh, and if you want to be taken more seriously, please sign your comments with ~~~~.

I don't care if you take me seriously or not since that's irrelevant. The point is, the grammar is nonsensical. Anyone with a background in writing would know this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.149.12 (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears to make sense in context. If you could offer an alternative to the current sentence, it would make it easier to make the change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Hi 120.28.234.201 (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)