Talk:Emily Perkins

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Emilyperkins.com

Just a note about the website, this is Emily's personal site. She does have an editor, but does contribute personally, even to the point of answering questions for fans.

Regarding Emily's middle name, All Hallow's Wraith, if you don't believe me, or the website, then plese write to Emily at the website, or to her reps in Vancouver. Details are on the website, or available at IMDB Pro. Lost Girls Diary 20:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kept the middle name as "Jean", although I did not double check your sources. All Hallow's Wraith 21:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines

It says clearly in WP:Mosbio guidelines, first and foremost that "adherenece to these guidelines in not required" That should tell anyone that tampering with a page to make it conform to some imaginary rule is not only unnecessary, but is actually the height of bad manners.

Beyond that, the guidelines actually say that any editor should show common sense, and also that one should go with the majority decision regarding any given page. if the majority like it as it is, then it should remain that way. Just as it says if a page is written in British English, that you shouldn't come along and change it to American English, for the very same reasons! Lost Girls Diary 20:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what WP:MOSBIO says first and foremost is "It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow". Nowhere on that page does it say "adherenece to these guidelines in not required". Yes, it says the guidelines should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception, but I see no common sense in your edits, and you haven't outline any good reasons for any exceptions. I see no evidence that "a majority" supports your version, or that anyone but you does. All Hallow's Wraith 21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reread this, and you are wrong. The first thing it says on that page is that "adherence to these guidelines is not required". Also read through about use of names, and nowhere does it state that after declaring the name you must use the surname thereafter. That being the case, we should keep the use of the forename. It shows a much creater respect for the person in question. Another thing is that according to the guidelines, the date/place of birth SHOULD be in the opening paragraph, not as you have said, excluded from it. so, in sum total, the EP and KI pages, as I have revised them are in general accordance with the guidelines. I would appreciate it if you leave them alone now. Lost Girls Diary 02:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As said elsewhere, the "majority" are the silent ones that visit the pages, yet do NOT feel compelled to change the layouts just because they can.

You are interpreting Mosbio to your own ends. Of course, you will say I am doing the same. The common sense in my edits comes from the fact that I know my subject - you, very clearly do not! As for reverting you, if that's what you mean, then the common sense in that is clear - no-one else finds it necessary to change it, so what makes you so different and superior?! Actually nothing at all. Lost Girls Diary 21:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the "majority" are the silent ones that visit the pages, yet do NOT feel compelled to change the layouts just because they can." - ok, that's just absurd. All Hallow's Wraith 21:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, that is common sense in action. Do you really feel that you and I are the only visitors to visit this page, or any other for that matter? Do you really imagine that if those other people felt a page needed revision/change that they would simply leave it alone? To imagine that is absurd. It should be obvious that the majority find the EP and KI pages acceptable as they are, otherwise there would obviously be changes left and right. Apart from yours, the odd true vandal, and a recent dispute over an image, then there is very little. Those people are the silent majority. their silence is quite obviously a vote for the status quo. That's not absurdity, that's logic. Lost Girls Diary 22:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't imply that you're taking this "silence of people who watch this page implies argreement" argument seriously. All Hallow's Wraith 03:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't imply that you are stupid enough not to recognize a valid argument when you see one. Look, seriously, if you, or I or myriad other people saw a page which desperately, or even slightly needed revision, we would do it, so would the majority of people who use these pages. The number of people who come here just to look can be counted on one hand, and you know it, or ough to. You KNOW that I am right, but are just loathe to admit it for fear of losing face. you are wrong, and in a minority. Lost Girls Diary 05:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a compelling reason to make the "occasional exception" to WP:MOSBIO, go ahead and offer it. Otherwise, I certainly see no reason why I shouldn't pursue the proper formatting of this article under MOSBIO, which I am going to do. All Hallow's Wraith 07:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-contradictory...

The article states that she refuses to marry until same-sex marriage is legalized world-wide, and then a few sentences later it states that she got married anyhow. Unless I wasn't paying attention, legalized world-wide (or even country-wide in Canada or the US) same-sex marriage hasn't happened yet, so either she changed her mind, or the article is mistaken. Either way, it should probably be clarified... Lurlock 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't seen this before. The article was indeed reporting correctly. Hpwever, n the intervening period, Emily fell in love, bless her. And, as everyone knows, love conquers all :) Lost Girls Diary 20:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth finally sourced

I finally found it's sources from a different website, and TV.com is not much for it's information so I already remove it's sources from TV.com and replace it with FilmReference.com to be sourced for it's date of birth and birthplace. I already went on Emily Perkins's official website it didn't show it's date of birth but only it's birthplace. And I was already at WP:BLPN on the article Katharine Isabelle also an actress and a friend of Emily's. At WP:BLPN I already made comments about sourcing it's date of birth from another website. But a user remove my comments and move to it's archive. I already make comments at Katharine Isabelle's talk page to the disputed users that I will put it's date of birth with a website to be sourced. Also IMDb is not the source for it's information so IMDb is not an option. At the article Katharine Isabelle, I already put it's date of birth with sourced information. And now, I am putting Emily Perkins's real sourced information replacing TV.com into FilmReference.com for it's bio. The sourced that I already put both articles is done. And I finally read all the citing/reliable sources guidelines. So I know how to put sourced inforamtion. That's all about the information on relaible sources. My edits are done and I hope the users will like it's information on the reliable sources. Steam5 (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no indication that filmreference.com is a reliable source. Please explain how you decided it was. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the article Shawn Ashmore and there is a date of birth is already sourced for FilmReference.com. So FilmReference.com is the good source for it's information for this article. And for TV.com is not a little much information. Steam5 (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emily Perkins. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101217200719/http://northernstars.ca/actorspqr/perkins_emily.html to http://www.northernstars.ca/actorspqr/perkins_emily.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]