Jump to content

Talk:Kyra Sedgwick

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

Question

[edit]

Is she married til Christopher Columbus? 'Cause at Kevin Bacons page, it says that HE is married to her? I'm really confused!Turner92 (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What source provides her nickname "Kiko"? What source provides proof of Travis' birthday? KyraAG326 (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions?

[edit]

Anyone have any opinions on acting ability or episode creativity, personally I believe The Closer is overrated and another CSI copycat.--Acp 1987 07:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if it were overrated, sedg would not have won the golden globe
Yes, because overrated actresses NEVER win awards. Ever. 66.209.130.208 17:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians opinions on the show are irrelevant to an article on the actress who stars in it. It's probably even irrelevant to the article on the show. The talk pages aren't precisely a forum. Things like that are more appropriate to say the boards at TV.com,--T. Anthony (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article surely goes need improvement, as flagged, because it is full of unimportant, trivial bullcrap. And "bullcrap" is the word for it.

[edit]

The link to "writer John Sedgwick" goes to a bio of a Civil War officer--probably an ancestor--but not to the writer who is a cousin and contemporary of Kyra.

So she married Kevin Bacon on the 4th or the 3rd of September?

filmography

[edit]

I do not believe mentioning every single appearance of Kyra Sedgwick on film or television adds anything to this article. Instead it weakens the article. I've been to many actor biographies on WP, and concensus is to only include appearances in notable works. If, as the edit comment claims, the content is straight from IMDB, then is it not sufficient to include a link to the IMDB page, as we already do? I was looking down the list trying to find out what I knew her from, or what she did that was important, and found it extremely difficult to sort through all the unimportant appearances in talkshows and such. Further, the revert comment seems to imply that the editor is not familiar with WP:OWN. It may be other people's efforts that are being removed from the head revision of the article, but those editors freely committed their efforts to the GNU Free Documentation License and to WP, meaning anyone is free to modify it, so long as it meets concensus. Barring comments, I'll re-add my changes in a couple days. -Verdatum (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It weakens to add data? Maybe in your mind!... Beside, independently of IMDb, wikipedia has articles related to many, if not most or even all of films and series. You think talk show appearances are unimportant because you're not an agent nor a talk show person. Who's to say something is not relevant? Series and talk shows are made of many small and "unimportant" participations, otherwise the shows' articles would then indeed be poor and hollow. Use real arguments, please. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are many articles related to films and series. But you'll note, the majority of the items mentioned in the list are redlinks, meaning they do not have an article on Wikipedia. The intended audience of Wikipedia is not agents or talk show hosts. Those people use information sites such as IMDB pro; they have no reason to use inherently unreliable sources such as Wikipedia for critical reference information. Appearances on talk shows are generally for the sole purpose of pluging a separate work. Mentioning her participation in that work being plugged is informative and adds to my understanding of the person's career, but mentioning the one-time appearance on a talk show does not. If someone wants to know that level of detail, they can go to IMDB. My argument mirrors the one presented at WP:HTRIV: "an ideal Wikipedia article would present its subject in a straightforward but well-organized way, and refer the reader to other articles or outside resources where more details can be found. The overinclusion of an exhaustive list of unnecessary details detracts from this goal." I'm happy to compromise and ask that only the talk show appearances and brief appearances in award shows be removed. Hosting an award show seems reasonable to include, and I'm even willing to accept minor roles in random tv-movies of no established notability. I think my point is, this person is an actress So I want to know the occurences when she's acting. -Verdatum (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the items mentioned in the list are redlinks, meaning they do not yet have an article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a permanent constructive site. It's just natural that it is so. Talk shows are part of information and television information as anything else. Perhaps they should be listed in another section, but then some other zelous editor would come and say This is bad! This looks like IMDb! I have the God given right of deleting all your hours of work!... I did this on her birthday as a tribute, I never though!... I can't read or memorize all of the stupid Wikipedia rules you all seem to have memorized so well, and much less to assume or have to submit to the wide and anal retainer interpretations of some people. How can you say minor appearances not to be notable Do you know or even understand how incomplete articles would get? Have you even payed any attention to those people on screen called secondary actors? Her participations in other shows, decurrent from her work as an actress, are also part of her life, and are or part of her being known or the result of it, or a combination of both. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I ask you to read WP:OWN. I'm glad you spent your time working on this article, but I'm concerned with improving it, not keeping stuff that clouds achievements just because it was an effort to add it. Based upon the general notability guideline, many of those redlinks will never have their own articles; at best they will be redirects to parent topics. Beyond that, my arguments have been made. I'll look to a third opinion. -Verdatum (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you check television series Bones, Veronica Mars, The Closer, How I Met Your Mother and Boston Legal you'll verify that they all have episodes list with resumes, and series and films such as Twilight even has a page for minor characters!... For that reason, listing actors participations in such detailed episodes is more than justified!... How can you tell they'll never have their own articles? Are you a Prophet???... Each year's Oscar or Emmy ceremony has its own page. In time, people will make a retrospective and create pages for every other shows of it's kind too!... And, even if they will be redirected to somewhere then the red links will have their own purpose as redirect pages, I know that because I've created some too!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of Living Persons

[edit]

My edit to remove unsourced information was twice reverted. The person reverting does not seem to be aware of the details of WP:BLP which says, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." If you want information about this actress' personal life fine, all you need to do is find a real source. Until then, I will continue to revert it and request administrative assistence if nessisary. -Verdatum (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with this. She has two children. What's the problem with that? You want to delete them from History, like no other actors' children is being excluded in here? It's certain that she has these two children, even she said so on Inside the Actors Studio. Check her husbands page, for Pete's sake!... I can't believe that it's so hard to find a source for something that obvious and that no one can edit it in the article, and that someone is so stupid and ignorant that comes up with such doubts over something that is so sure that it's even unthinkable to have to find a source for it!... How can you even call unsourced to a source? Are you stupid or you're trying to piss people off?... We don't have to take this bullshit from a minor and non-Administrator editor!... Why don't you look for one instead of deleting information?... That would be the smart and constructive thing to do!... Or, are you accusing the second largest and greatest genealogical site in Portugal and one of the largest and greatest in the World of being a "poor source" or an "unsource", not even recognizing its existence?... If it is so, if the administrator of it sees or knows about this - and I can warn him because I know him personally - here he'll most certainly sue you in Court for difamation, because that's what we do things, specially someone in his position and with his prestige and recognissance!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness me, please assume good faith. If it's so easy to find a reference, then you're welcome to do so. I can look for a reference myself, but until I find one, the content does not belong. WP:BLP is clear. It is more important to have a verifiable article than it is to have a true article. I don't know what the sentence "How can you even call unsourced to a source" means. I fail to see how my editing status comes into question, I am merely enforcing appropriate policies. According to the reference previously provided, the second largest geneological site merely states that the two people of that name exist. It does not say that the kyra sedwick mentioned is the same kyra sedwick, nor any of the other details given in that paragraph, including current residence. Also, for the reasons given in the following link, please do not make legal threats. -Verdatum (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one else has picked up with it until now, in years, and that includes Kevin Bacon's page!!!... Call unsourced to a source was what you did when you said it was an unsourced information when in fact it had an online source attached to it with ref, and it means your own lack of logic "explained" by me!... And what stupid argument is that? It is the same person! How many Kyra Sedgwick's with that ancestry and a husband with the same name as hers can there be? And with the same portaits?... Current residence what???... That's ludicrous!... This is why some people say Americans are stupid, I try to defend you but hey, sometimes there comes one!... Someone creates a database with the actual elements of one's ancestry and we still have to doubt it's the same person???... How would that be? With that "logic", if one presented his/her ID and a Birth Certificate one would still say it doesn't mean it's that person!... What do you want, that people authograph their genealogies or advert personally that it's them or anyting? It's putting everything in cause without any sense!... Or, are you again questioning the integrity of the people who made that database? Which genealogical works would be credible then? OK, I don't make threats!... (I make warnings!...) In that case I attack without warning, that would work better for me, for me and for the site author!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I expect there are language barrier issues here. You are continuing to make nonconstructive personal attacks, and I percieve a strong level of wikistress. I fail to see why you think I am "again" questioning the integrity of the given source, as I hadn't done so a first time. I believe I have made it clear that the source provided does not properly support the claims made in the section. I'm afraid most of the rest of your comment comes off to me as raving (I don't mean to presume that was your intention). I regret that I cannot take the time to decipher/address it. WP:BLP stands, and you have not made any arguments to explain why that strict policy is not applicable in this situation. -Verdatum (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't question the integrity of the source, then you don't question the source, and for that reason you shouldn't have deleted the information!... There is no lost in translation in here!... The source is valid. You're not in position of denying it!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, forgive me, I double checked the second source and found I was partially mistaken. My browser screwed up and gave me the "california births" page twice. The california births reference is innapropriate, as well as the information about current residence. I removed the offending information, but restored the information about marraige and children. I hope in the future you'll act a bit more WP:CIVIL so these sort of mistakes can be resolved in a quicker and more enjoyable manner. -Verdatum (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second, like, mine? If it was the same as it was I wouldn't have added it, and I removed the other relatives of hers I've never seen mentioned in any way!... No need of civility to see the arguments!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

[edit]

The main argument for not including the complete filmography is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of everything which might imply that only notable events should be included. Notable however applies only to topics, not to content, which is governed more by the WP:five pillars. One could argue that some of the redlinked films/appearances are not notable but then all that needs to be done is to remove the link, not the entry in the list. The list definitely needs some reorganization (for example, into major roles, supporting roles, brief appearances, and talk show visits) but I don't see why it needs to be curtailed. (To clarify my rather pedantic summation - including every appearance in filmography is, IMHO, perfectly acceptable.) --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 17:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'd be satisfied with such a reorganization as a compromise. Cupertino, your thoughts? -Verdatum (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of sites, but of information I can't believe it is so selective!... Wikipedia should aim to have everything, as long as well organized!... I didn't knew there was knowledge you refused!... And whio's to say this or that actor appearance is a part of "everything" to be excluded?... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not indescriminate collection of everything. However, I can't make the argument that this is applicable, as the information is not indescriminate. RegentsPark does not appear to claim that the filmography listing is indescriminate either, so no need to fret on that. The only critical criteria for inclusion of information is that it is verifiable (and it is, by it's very nature, plus confirmation on imdb). All I'm asking is, per RegentsPark's reccomendation, are you ok with me splitting the list up into a bunch of lists, without removing any of the information? -Verdatum (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film and video - films not in order

[edit]

The films are not sorted properly. Would anyone like to fix this? Thanks 89.138.116.72 (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listcruft

[edit]

I've removed the talk show and awards show appearances. It's listcruft and the appearances are non-notable. Dismas|(talk) 09:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that a lot of the television roles in non-notable TV movies. As well as the listing of episode titles. Dismas|(talk) 09:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though this issue has been brought up in the past and shot down, this is probably appropriate. Support for the minor appearances was lead by User:G.-M. Cupertino who has since been banned for a year for reasons of conduct. -Verdatum (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubbed other people's voices?

[edit]

What does this mean: In the animated movie Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman, she dubbed the voices of Kelly Ripa, Elisa Gabrielli, and Kimberly Brooks as Batwoman. Staecker (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

genealogy

[edit]

Sorry, but does anyone know which John Lathrop is meant (the current link goes to a disambiguation page)? Or perhaps we should remove that name altogether until we do figure it out?--little Alex (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So pretty..

[edit]

le sigh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.214.14.63 (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Union General

[edit]

If both pages are correct, she is also related to Major General John Sedgwick, who was famously shot by a sniper at the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House in 1864. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete photo

[edit]

Hi,

We represent Kyra Sedgwick and we are requesting you please remove/replace her main photo on her Wikipedia page. It is a photo she feels does not looks like her. We are happy to provide other photo options, if desired.

Please let us know the next steps towards replacing Kyra's photo.

Many thanks,

173.196.146.62 (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Olivia[reply]

Hi Olivia, and thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. If you have a better photograph of Sedgwick, Wikipedia would be glad to replace the one we currently display. However, you must agree to release the photo under a compatible free license (i.e. give permission to Wikipedia and anyone reading Wikipedia to freely use, reproduce, and modify the image provided they give credit). Please visit commons:OTRS, and read the instructions there for for uploading the photograph along with the required legal waiver. Preferably, use one of the email templates for declarations of consent. Once you have uploaded the photograph to Commons, come back here and file another edit request. Altamel (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kyra Sedgwick. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 08:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kyra Sedgwick. 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) 23:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyra_Sedgwick&oldid=1233013934"