Jump to content

Talk:Judy Ann Santos/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Requested move

I think it is better to bring/move this article back into Judy Ann Santos. It is her name as an actress and even though she is already married to an Agoncillo, i think it is still not right to include her husband's surname on the title. Please present a valid source stating that Ms. Santos will start using Judy Ann Santos-Agoncillo as her screen name. If there is no valid source, then this article must be moved back to its original title. jmarkfrancia (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Images

Anyone who can upload free-image for Judy Ann Santos that we can use in the article content? The image in the infobox is okay, but we need more to put in the article body. jmarkfrancia (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Too long

The article is too long. Awards and Filmography should be separated from the main page. jmarkfrancia (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC) 

bakit tinawag ka na entrepreneur ??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.146.201.254 (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Judy Ann Santos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Judy Ann Santos. 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) 23:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judy Ann Santos. 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) 05:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Judy Ann Santos. 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) 19:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Youngest with most

Source says "She was the youngest actress to be featured in ABS-CBN's anthology before they featured other young stars. To this day, Juday holds the distinction of being the only young star who was featured three times (four episodes each) in STAR DRAMA THEATER PRESENTS."

It is noted that this was written "before 2008".

So she was youngest, until she wasn't, and she was "featured" more times than any other "young" (whatever that means) star - up to some unknown date, before 2008.

I don't think this stands up "having held the distinction of being the youngest artist with the most number of appearances in the series, starring in twelve" which is in any event meaningless - and will remove that sentence.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC).

Copyedit request

Hey Pseud 14, some questions:

  • [...] and Manuel Dayrit Santos, a businessman and proprietor of the defunct Victoria Supermarket and complex in Tanay, Rizal. Is the supermarket separate from the complex? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The supermarket is part/within the complex.
  • Santos's second love triangle film was the drama Kahit Isang Saglit (2000), in which she played an architect who opens a firm with her college friends (played by Leandro Muñoz and Piolo Pascual). Wikilinks removed, emphasis in original. Is there anything special about this film other than that it's her "second love triangle film"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I think since you've removed the mention of the first love triangle film, we can take it out as well and call it a romantic drama. This would have been her first film with Pascual, who eventually becomes a perennial screen partner.
  • Santos regarded it as a "welcome change", and said that her character is "strong and dedicated ... who always lives by the book". References removed. Her description of the character doesn't seem to be relevant on this article, but "welcome change" could be expanded on here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree on this one. It's inclusion isn't necessary.
  • She considered the role to be a "childhood dream fulfilled", and trained in martial arts and Muay Thai to prepare. References and wikilinks removed. Muay Thai isn't a martial art? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Ahhh, Muay Thai is in fact a form of martial arts. Thanks for catching.
  • The film premiered at the 8th Cinemalaya Independent Film Festival and was jointly awarded the Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress awards for the ensemble cast. I think this is supposed to mean she was awarded two awards, maybe at the same time? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes - All four actresses (including Santos) were awarded with Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress awards
  • Will add the sources from the main body
  • Named as a portmanteau of "angry adobo", an argument between Santos and her husband, Ryan Agoncillo, inadvertently led to the development of the restaurant's signature cuisine, a reinvention of the Filipino dish. I'm trying to parse what's being said here: the two had an argument that brought up the topic of "angry adobo", which became the inspiration for the dish's name? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • "AngryDobo" is also the name of the dish served. It is a reinvented version of the Philippine dish called "adobo". Couple had a fight, Santos then blew off steam by cooking adobo, and because she was mad/furious while doing it, that's how they ended up naming the end product as "AngryDobo". Hope that made sense :)
  • She is also noted for her ability to "cry on cue", often specifically asking directors in certain scenes which side they require it to be shed. References removed. Does "side" refer to a side of her face? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes. The actual quote is in Tagalog, so I tried to translate best I could. Basically she said she would ask these directors for camera angle intent and purposes, where they needed her to shed a tear: left or right side of the face, inner eye, etc. :)
  • After a one-year absence [...] This entire paragraph could be reduced. Some things of note:

    • Rito Asilo of the Philippine Daily Inquirer wrote that "Santos deftly demonstrates how much she's grown as an actress on point of versatility—by leaps and bounds! She is believable as a tough career woman. And she is also as hilarious as she is endearing in comic scenes". Butch Francisco of The Philippine Star asserted that "more than the romance and this wonderful lecture on life ... it is her [Santos] acting discipline that helps make this film succeed as a light romantic drama".

      Emphasis in original. Might be better in the article about the film. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The first review, def discusses her performance. The second one is more about the film, so that can be taken out I guess or just leave the one that talks about Santos.
  • question mark Suggestion: My concern with the excerpt from the first review is that while the tone can remain as it's not in Wikipedia's voice, it looks like it's promotional, partly because of the length. Maybe paraphrase it, something like Rito Asilo [...] wrote about Santos's growth in acting versatility and comedy? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree with the suggestion.
    • Will add source.
  • Santos said that the character is tougher, describing her as oppressed but knows how to stand her ground. Not really a copyedit issue, but is this relevant for an article about the actress instead of an article about the TV series or the character? It seems to be peppered sporadically in this article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I would say this one is, since it explains how she's trying to break away from being typecast from these roles.
  • Definitely reads better. Thanks  :)
  • She has enjoyed the variety of starring in both low-budget independent films and major film studio productions. Sounds a little promotional; is it needed? Not sure I'm seeing the relevance here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I would think it could use less of the peacock/puffery statement. My intent was to describe her as an actress who can transition between independent films and big-budget studio films, and receive accolades for these performances too (and some criticisms). Since not every Filipino actor(s) has had that kind of career.
  • question mark Suggestion: It seems that this source only mentions one indie film that received awards. I don't think we can make the jump to say she is able to transition. This one focuses on how she finds indie filmmaking more liberating than mainstream, but this source could probably be added to the section on Mga Mumunting Lihim. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree, it could probably be reworded/tweaked to not sound assumptive about her crossover. Also, the second source is actually already used in the Mga Mumumunting Lihim section that states the quote.

Looking forward to your responses! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: Addressed some points, would like some further response on the ones not done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: Thanks for the clarification, have provided my responses on your suggestions. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@Pseud 14: Alright, I think that's everything! I'll go over it one last time tomorrow. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
@Pseud 14: I think that's everything! Best of luck with your FAN. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: thanks very much! Much appreciate your copyedits and thorough review as well. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

BLPNAME

@Pseud 14: The names of low-profile/non-notable individuals being published isn't the deciding factor for BLPNAME, it's whether they're relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. There's no apparent need to distinguish between the children (eg. Bob did this, John did that, and Jack did this and that) and we don't need to know their names to know they were born; the parents don't appear to be notable and we don't need to know their names to know they're her parents; and unless the nanny's surname is McPhee or Poppins, I see no reason whatsoever to include her name. Is there something I'm missing that makes the names relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject (additional context elsewhere in the article)?– 2.O.Boxing 14:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: Not to pull a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST but its usage is also frequent in many other FA-class biographies, whether American or non-American. e.g. Oscar Issac who is the TFA, Amy Adams, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Shah Rukh Khan to name a few. If the guideline is strictly imposed, wouldn't it have been brought up/addressed before any of these were promoted. Would we have to apply all these to our current Media and Music FA-class biographies? --Pseud 14 (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to say yes, unless there's a reason other than 'the names have been published in RS', then names of low-profile/non-notable individuals should be removed from all of the articles you mentioned. I don't think the inclusion of such names in FA articles is an indication that the policy should be ignored. I see it as more of an indication that the reviewers haven't considered or were unaware of said policy. Before I knew of the policy I would often include such names in articles simply because they were covered in multiple RS (which a considerable amount of editors believe is the only requirement, understandably).

From my experience with BLPNAME, it always boils down to whether or not the names are relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. – 2.O.Boxing 15:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: As you're intent on the inclusion, and you've demonstrated they're not exactly low-profile (which is the main purpose of BLPNAME), I'll leave the children's names. Have the parents, siblings and nanny also appeared in multiple advertisements and marketing campaigns? If not, then they still need to go.

And to note, the consensus for these edits are BLPNAME (policy). There is no precedence to ignore any aspect of WP:BLP on FA-class articles, quite the opposite. And what happens with this article has no impact on any other article, regardless of genre or quality. – 2.O.Boxing 19:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: Both her mother and nanny do not appear in commercials/campaign, but are relevant to the readers comprehension of the subject. They have had media coverage alongside the subject since her career began. They have also been covered in articles and have made television appearances/interviews, which includes her nanny's death having substantial media attention. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. So I would say it's inclusion is significant to the subject, given that it is reliably sourced in the article. Santos's siblings (brother Jefferey is an actor and politician) are notable within the Philippine entertainment and I don't think it is a breach of privacy. The policy states that it's inclusion is permitted as long as reliable sourced. I would argue that what happens in this article impacts other FA-class BLP too. Should we remove Oscar Isaac's parents and siblings then? or Brad Pitt's even though we barely hear of them being covered by the media? It would be going down a rabbit hole if we overhauled every media FAs to apply such. Why is this the only isolated case for an FA when before it's promotion it was deemed acceptable by coords/reviewers? I don't think it should solely rely at the discretion of one editor. --Pseud 14 (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm beginning to see that I may have jumped the gun on this one. Apologies for wasting your time. Silver lining: I'll remember to give FA articles (and the evidently-more-experienced nominators and reviewers) more consideration when I see such names in the future. – 2.O.Boxing 21:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
@Squared.Circle.Boxing: No apologies needed. There is mutual learning to be had on both sides and nothing that a civil exchange can’t resolve. FWIW, it’s a good consideration perhaps for future reviewers in the FAC or GA space. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Judy_Ann_Santos/Archive_2&oldid=1123865693"