Jump to content

Talk:Grace Randolph

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

Image use

[edit]

@Nthep: After a further search, it appears that there is a better candidate for the article image on Wikimedia.[1] However, I don't know how to link that image. Do I have to upload it to Wikipedia as well? Please assist. AWildAppeared (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I figured that part out. Please delete the original disputed image.[2] AWildAppeared (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for letting me know you'd found a free image. Nthep (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concerns

[edit]

@RichardOSmith: Grace and/or her work has been referred to in USA Today, The Austin Chronicle, WTNH, AV Club, ScienceFiction.com, Out Magazine, Bleeding Cool, Comics Alliance, Comic Book Resources, The Nerdist, and The Mary Sue, among others. Why do you consider her not noteworthy? AWildAppeared (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything noteworthy where she was the subject of the article. The USA Today one, for example, is about Lois Lane, with a only passing comment attributed to Grace Randolph. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RichardOSmith: Well, no, a quarter of that Lois Lane article is attributed to her quotes. The other USA Today article (15) is all about her and her Supurbia comic. The Bleeding Cool article referenced for her Watcher job (21) is pretty much all about her. The Nerdist podcast (10) splits the discussion between her and another guest. The NMR article (22) is all about her and her work on YouTube. I've included references to interviews where she talks about more than just her work. All of the articles establish that she's notable for X or Y or Z. I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. Are you saying people are not notable for their work? AWildAppeared (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I confess I missed the second USA Today article; it is more significant - although it does describe her as "up-and-coming" which is pretty much saying she's not yet notable in their opinion. Not all of those are reliable sources and my own searches showed primarily twitter and facebook postings - a generally good indication of non-notability. IMDb lists someone else with the name. I'm not convinced of notability but I did only tag the article rather than nominate it for deletion, which is principally a call for other editors' opinions. (My experience is that the tag brings others to the article and if they come they may do one of several things: agree sufficiently to nominate the article for deletion, add further indication of notability and remove the tag, simply contest the concern by removing the tag, or join a discussion either supporting or opposing the concern.) RichardOSmith (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: the IMDB listing is hers.[3] AWildAppeared (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is? There is zero correlation between this article and IMDb, and in places they are contradictory (official websites are different; this article says she was active from 2008 but IMDb gives her a 2005 acting credit). If they are supposed to be biographies of the same person then there is real problem with either or both of them. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grace Randolph. 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.

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) 23:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grace Randolph. 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.

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) 01:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help

[edit]

I needed help with an issue but it was resolved, thank you!

Issue was resolved! :)

How is this person notable?

[edit]

Per the discussion a few years ago, this person is simply a comic writer and Youtuber? And there's been nothing to enhance that notability in the five years that have elapsed.

I'm not sure how to nominate for article deletion, but this appears to be a prime candidate, as it fits into the very large category of Youtubers with middling to scant reputations suddenly having Wiki pages because of industrious fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:406:8280:D500:313B:6019:983:C7DE (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grace is two faced and far from notable . Why does she have an article?

[edit]

Grace Randolph is just another one of those members of clickbait media that generate controversy for attention. How is this worthy of having an article?

Further more , theirs a lack of consistency in Randolphs reviews and she classifies anything not diverse as trash . Shes far from professional .

Since when does wikipedia allow a few industrious fans of specific youtubers create articles out of fan worship . A couple of mentions dont make you worthy - shes just part of the culture of allowing toxic fans to be apart of film/tv/comic critercism Hpdh4 11:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Subjects having an article depends on their notability, not whether or not you like them. If you feel Randolph is not notable, complaining about it on the talk page is not going to asccomplish anything.
Nothing here is a direct violation of policy, so there's no reason for a speedy deletion.
The article is far too developed for an proposing an uncontested deletion.
If you are convinced Randolph is not notable and this article should be deleted, your only option is to take it through the articles for deletion process. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BLOCKED
Blocked indefinitely as a sock by Oshwah NonsensicalSystem(err0r?)(.log) 11:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please stop

[edit]

@EditsToday44: Please stop adding poorly sourced birth dates to Wikipedia. Facebooks is not realizable as it is user generated content. I recommend you read through WP:RS. NonsensicalSystem(err0r?)(.log) 15:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NonsensicalSystem: Hi - I don't see why you are so upset about this. It is the subject's birthday directly from their own Facebook page, and it's listed as the same birthday on COUNTLESS other websites. I checked and MOST Wikipedia bio pages don't list sources for the subject's birthday, so you seem to have a personal vendetta against this subject which is odd and unprofessional. Unless you go and remove ALL birthdays on Wikipedia that don't have "legit sources", what are you doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditsToday44 (talk • contribs)
@EditsToday44: If you re-add something, it's your responsibility to put a source in (pretty sure the policy is WP:BURDEN but I might be wrong). I'd appreciate it if you didnt cast WP:ASPERATIONS against me. NonsensicalSystem(err0r?)(.log) 15:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention WP: BLP. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the matter of this article, I have removed the alleged DOB from the article for failing to cite reliable sources:
    • The Facebook page is not verified, so there is no way to confirm the data comes directly from Randolph.
    • Allfamous.org, like other famous birthdays sites, is not a reliable source.
This removal is to comply with WP:BLP and is, effectively, an administrative action, even though I have provided justifications per policy for the edit. I hope I do not have to take other administrative action here, either with respect to WP:BLP or WP:3RR, but I will if necessary.
Finally, this action relates only to this article. Other stuff exists. If there are unsourced dates of births on other pages, the correct action is to challenge them there or to provide reliable sources; their existence does not justify an ill-sourced DOB here. —C.Fred (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that's the person's Facebook page. It is ridiculous that you keep coming after this page when MOST Wikipedia bio's don't have sources for the birthdays. You should be deleting all of them if this person's cannot stand when their actual Facebook page is sourced, and is CLEARLY there's as it's active and has all the same info as posted in this article.EditsToday44 (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EditsToday44: Facebook is not a reliable source, and is a self-published source. If you insist on finding a birth date, please find a reliable news source about the birth date. Thank you. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Destroyeraa: It's hypocritical of you to keep coming after the birthday on this page when literally thousands of other bios here on Wikipedia don't have ANY sources for the birthday yet you leave those alone. Here I'm citing what the subject listed publicly as their birthday and its not good enough for you?EditsToday44 (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EditsToday44: Facebook is not a reliable source. AllFamous isn't either. It's like Fandom, which isn't a reliable source. Find a new article (such as one from a news website - CNN, Fox, NYT, etc.). ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting extremely disruptive. You probably broke the 15 revert rule if there was one, in less then 2 hours. You are a suspected sockpuppet. You got multiple Level 4 warnings. You were taken to WP: AN3. There is consensus by multiple editors not to have the birth date. Please stop. This is a final warning. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Destroyeraa: ::@HurricaneTracker495: Please clarify why it's okay for other wikipedia bios to cite no sources for a birthday and that birthday can stay up, yet you are correcting this one which is sourced to the subject's actual Facebook page? EditsToday44 (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I honestly don’t believe you that a bio does not have a reliable source. Show me an example, please. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Destroyeraa and HurricaneTracker495: Please clarify why it's okay for other wikipedia bios to cite no sources for a birthday and that birthday can stay up, yet you are correcting this one which is sourced to the subject's actual Facebook page? EditsToday44 (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EditsToday44: Per WP:RS, social media is not a reliable source. Those that are unsourced will be removed. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Destroyeraa: ::@HurricaneTracker495:

Here are pages with no valid source for age: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Boon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Ellis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_StuckmannEditsToday44 (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supports John Campea. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added the same website you listed for that John Campea dude but for Grace Randolph, since you said it was acceptable. Hope I was able to help out! Happy Thanksgiving everyone, if you’re in the USofA! BrianBanksEditor (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrianBanksEditor: Thank you, and happy Thanksgiving to you too. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HurricaneTracker495, idolbirthdays is very obviously a crap source [4], but we can ask WP:RSN if there's doubt. Personally, I don't know any list-celebs-birthday site that's considered WP:RS, but that's me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HurricaneTracker495, Destroyeraa, and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: EditsToday44 is a confirmed sock and has been blocked indefinitely. NonsensicalSystem(err0r?)(.log) 09:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of Controversies Section

[edit]

Hey, so Grandpallama said I should suggest the removal of the "controversies" section here.

Grace Randolph, who I'm a fan of, gets a lot of heat for being a woman online. So I was pretty upset to see this section here because these are not real controversies.

Furthermore the way they are written out here, it suggests that Grace Randolph was wrong in both cases when the truth is many people - many fans and YouTubers - felt the argument with Yan proved Randolph correct, and The Mandalorian season 3 has not started filming yet. Also, Pascal has signed onto another show on a competing service which films for the next whole year.

I could go in here and try to rewrite these, but why create further problems for Grace Randolph AND Cathy Yan, Birds of Prey and Pedro Pascal? These are not real controversies, they are blown out of proportion, and hurt all parties involved.

Finally, the person who added these is also new to Wikipedia and only added them AFTER trying to get the entire page deleted. So I believe that makes a case for not having the best intentions.

I strongly feel the section should be removed as this isn't what Wikipedia is about. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChromaticaCali (talk • contribs)

First, the motivation of the editors (plural, because this is the second time this material has been added, and the second time you have removed it) who have added the material is less important than whether the material is relevant, sourced, and neutrally worded. As an account that apparently only exists to scrub material critical of Randolph from the article, you probably shouldn't be casting aspersions as to other editors' intent, nor should you casually accuse editors of trolling.
The sources that were added all solidly meet the criteria of WP:RS, and the material they support is easily verified. The fact that both of these incidents gained significant attention also means their mention is WP:DUE; while the Pascal rumor might not merit mention on Pascal's page or at The Mandalorian, it was definitely of note for Randolph, her reporting, and her reputation. That said, I have tweaked the wording to be a bit more neutral and less wordy.
You've offered up argumentation that these weren't really controversies, and that the wider pop culture world believes Randolph was vindicated. Do you have reliable sources to back up those claims? Grandpallama (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do have reliable sources to back it up, I'll add it all next week with the proper links. Thank you again! ChromaticaCali (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help Requested re Troll

[edit]

An anonymous editor Taynix (who has already been called out for misleading additions to other pages) is coming in here and ONLY adding a trove of negative info to this page and is not neutral in their additions. They are using articles from sites that are not credible. The article from Pajiba is unable to site any actual proof re what Randolph said or wrote and is using third party tweets as proof. Furthermore there's not a single article from any reputable websites to pack up these accusations.

Again I'm a fan of Randolph and it's bad enough to see hateful false gossip about her on Twitter, isn't Wikipedia supposed to demand proof?

Taynix even intentionally removed my addition that Randolph is a Rotten Tomato critic and a member of Critics Choice even though I cited her membership pages from both websites, further proof that Taynix has troll intent.

Grandpallama you said I should not get into edit wars so I'm appealing here to the higher up editors in charge. Thanks. ChromaticaCali (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intentionally remove that she was a Rotten Tomato critic and a member of Critics Choice, that was accidental because of the manual revert. The reason I cited that page is because it was a secondary source and I didn't want to link the video itself, but it is all literally stuff she's said. You also removed a reliable piece of information about her getting fired from Bleeding Cool, which she SAID HERSELF. You obviously don't care about anything but making the page make her out to be as good as possible when there is a ton of controversy to her name, it's not like I'm deliberately trying to make her look bad when everything I cited came straight from her mouth. The James Gunn one was extremely reliable (covered by Screen Rant, etc) while the Tessa Thompson racebending issue and everything else came right from her videos. Your only history is defending Grace Randolph, and you haven't been on Wikipedia for 2 months before making this edit. You don't care about removing "false gossip", all you care about is removing legitimate information that makes her out to be better than she actually is. My additions were neutral since it is all from stuff she has said and I tried not to take a side.--Taynix (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Taynix's own comment here - "makes her out to be better than she actually is" proves their troll intent. I have been on Wikipedia for almost a year, and am simply removing false accusations in this case. You say the evidence is Randolph's own videos yet you can't point to any of them, and neither can the Pajiba article you irresponsibly used as a source. The tweets that the article irresponsibly uses as "evidence" are A) from a malicious suspended account which can't even be seen and B) total hearsay. The reporter for that article even states that upon visiting Randolph's YouTube channel himself, he can't find anything offensive and sees videos of Randolph ADVOCATING for representation of special interest groups. ChromaticaCali (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ChromaticaCali, if I see you call another editor a troll again, you're going to be reported to the admins. Grandpallama (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Grandpallama I apologize for any name calling, but two wrongs don't make a right. I'm shocked you'd allow a false article like the one from Pajiba, as it offers NO PROOF and there are no other articles to back this up. I removed anything that has to do with the Pajiba article. ChromaticaCali (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grace_Randolph&oldid=1202438385"