Talk:Kit Connor/Archive 1

Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kit Connor 1883 Magazine 3.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kit Connor.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2022

Change ‘completed his a levels’ to ‘in the process of finishing his a levels’ ~

 Done corrected as requested. Aviator006 (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

British instead of English

In my opinion, I think we should say “British actor” instead of “English actor”. He was born in England in Great Britain which makes him British. I mean British and English are basically the same thing. And people on here think they are completely different nationalities. British and Scottish are the same thing. British and Welsh are the same thing. Beatlemania2002 (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

As Kit was born in England, it is natural that he is called English, similar to other famous actors/musicians like Daniel Craig, Elton John, Judi Dench, Julie Walters, Sean Connery, Tom Jones and Catherine Zeta-Jones etc they are all called by the country they were born in (e.g. English, Scottish or Welsh). Aviator006 (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

British and Scottish are not the same thing. Neither are British and Welsh nor British and English. Being English, Welsh or Scottish makes you British. But being British doesn't make English, Scottish and Welsh. English is more specific than British, which is probably why the change was made. SSSB (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Kit S Connor photoshoot.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

image

Why isn’t there an image for this article ? It seems that two of them have been deleted, can’t we find one which isn’t copyrighted ? Verturquoise (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, nobody wants to make a photo available with the commons license (Wikipedia only accepts photos with this license). I contacted the fans website and asked if they have contact with one of the many people who took pictures with the actor. So far no one has responded. Either nobody wants to make photos available in this license or I can't contact the auot of the photos. The other two that were uploaded here are copyrighted, one was from imdb, and the other was from getty images by David m. Bennett, which Kit Connor just reproduced on Instagram. Theys York (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I managed to get in touch with a source for the photo (an agency), but I'm still waiting for a response Theys York (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Another non-free image was uploaded yesterday by Anahiei98; according to VanityTeen it was taken by Jemima Marriott. If you want an image for this article contact fans who have taken a photo with him (or of him) and are willing to upload it under free license. 7szz (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I asked several people on Twitter, YouTube and Instagram, only two responded, but they didn't want to authorize the photo. It's easier for me to get the picture when he goes to Brazil, and take the picture myself.😔 Theys York (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Fourth time they uploaded Kit Connor's photo in violation of the license.😠Theys York (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

New image

The person in the photo contacted me via private message on Twitter saying that he will not be able to send the authorization. I didn't know I needed to have the deletion notice on the photo to remove it from the article.🙂 Theys York (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

What about adding a free-license in a tweet below the pic? See permission of this pic for example. Peter Ormond 💬 02:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond: This one doesn't have it, and is currently in the article. It is waiting to receive an authorization via e-mail, but the person in the photo said he will not be able to send it, so I removed it from the article, and put one that has authorization, like the one you showed me, but 7szz reversed.Theys York (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ask the Twitter user to post the pic (File:Kit Connor with @voidlucy - May 2022.jpg) again and mention a free license in the same tweet. Peter Ormond 💬 07:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond: this rule only works for selfies.😔Theys York (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Filmography

@Joeyconnick: I disagree with the removal of references from the filmography. If the filmography is ever separated into another article, it will take a lot of work to reference everything again.See Aviator006's notice here. Theys York (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Filmographies do not need referencing for works that have been released. Once released, the work itself provides the reference for people's credits per WP:PRIMARY, except, again, if the role is uncredited or the scenes were cut. The fact some filmographies have reference columns does not mean all filmographies must, and given the existence of literally hundreds of filmography tables without them AND in the absence of any guideline specifying that we must reference people's roles beyond WP:PRIMARY, it is fine to leave them out. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, in no universe whatsoever should most people's filmographies be in a separate article. That is completely overkill and definitely 100% not something we need to worry about for someone whose career is in its infancy. And even if there were somehow a WP:SPLIT justification for moving Connor's filmography to a separate article, the same rationale for not sourcing his roles in released works would hold. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I also disagree with the unilateral decision to remove references from the article without consensus for its removal:

(1) Considering that filmography tables that appeared in Featured Lists required sourcing to establish WP:VERIFY, therefore, it is inherited that filmography tables in any articles can be fully referenced.

(2) Just because the work have been released, it does not mean the work listed in the actor's article is true and correct since Wikipedia can be updated by anyone, false information can be included if there are no reference to support such content.

(3) Additional referencing will not harm the content of the article but only add an extra layer of credibility of the content. Aviator006 (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I would argue a consensus was needed to have added the references, to be honest, but whatever. I'd also argue that sometimes some editors hew just a little too closely to what is done in featured lists/articles, as if every article must match those conventions exactly, with no room for variation.

With reference to (2), that is not really any kind of real problem or else, again, hundreds of filmographies would have issues. I'm not saying all filmographies are perfect, but they are definitely no more in danger of being incorrect than any other section of actors' articles, regardless of sourcing.

(3) There's always the possibility of overkill... for instance, I sometimes see Wikipedia statements with 4 or more separate citations, which is clearly unnecessary. References for filmographies fall into the same category. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• My preference is no reference column, but putting a reference in the table when the film doesn't have an article. It's not a strong preference, but I am concerned that if we keep the reference column, entries that are clearly correct may be deleted as "unsourced".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• In response to @Joeyconnick: ‘s comment “sometimes some editors hew just a little too closely to what is done in featured lists/articles, as if every article must match those conventions exactly”, I would suggest that emulating feature articles is *exactly* what we should be striving for. Feature articles represent the best we have and reflect the broadest condenses we as a community have as to what articles should look like. *Should* entries require references? I am not sure, nothing here has really convinced me either way. My biggest thing is, why-oh-why would we ever *delete* references that someone has spent the time adding (assuming they are valid). Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)