Talk:Lauren Lapkus

Rampant vandalism at this article

NathanielTheBold, regarding what you stated in this edit summary, do take care to revert WP:Vandalism when you see it. The same goes for others watching this article. This is per WP:Vandalism and WP:BLP. Because of the rampant vandalism at this article, I've put it on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the 4 characters that have caused such a fuss

"Lapkus married actor and improviser Chris Alvarado..." Chris Alvarado is not "actor and improviser," he is a or, in this case (as we're referring to a specific person), the actor and improvisor. This use of articles is a simple, if often overlooked, grammatical rule and I don't see the need for it to be reverted for such subjective reasoning as "flow." Jg2904 (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the edit that Jg2904 is referring to. Jg2904, I'll ask about this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, pointing editors there to this discussion. As you can see with this link, I recently discussed a grammatical dispute there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Alerted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

See the article "False title".—Wavelength (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Wavelength, thanks for the link, which shows that there is opposition to and support for such grammar. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"Lapkus married actor and improviser Chris Alvarado" is perfectly grammatical and understandable in English, though it borders on news style. It is unlikely to be confusing to anyone except perhaps an ESL learner whose native language requires a definite or indefinite article there. "Lapkus married the actor and improviser Chris Alvarado" is arguably preferable in encyclopedic writing, but only if Alvarado is notable; the use of the definite article conveys "the Chris Alvarado, yes that one". "Lapkus married an actor and improviser Chris Alvarado" would be ungrammatical, and require a comma: "Lapkus married an actor and improviser, Chris Alvarado". Stylistically, however, it would be a poor choice, unless a) Alvarado is not notable, and b) it's important to stress that the husband is an actor/improviser. Probably the best solution is "Lapkus married Chris Alvarado, an actor and improviser", which implies nothing about Alvarado's notability, nor about his line of work's relation to Lapkus. Avoid "Lapkus married Chris Alvarado, the actor and improviser", which is tabloid style, even more excessive than "Lapkus married the actor and improviser Chris Alvarado"; it implies that the reader must surely already know who Alvarado is, and should be duly impressed. Finally, "actor and improviser" is clumsy. Improv is a style of acting, so he can simply be characterized as an actor, or as an improv actor if he specializes in that. "Improviser" is ambiguous. I, too, am an improviser, since I fix a lot of things with duct tape and klugey shell scripts, but I've never acted since the 3rd grade, much less in improv comedy or improv theatre.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Man, when you are on, you are on SMcC. Summed up perfectly. The "the" has always had an air that presumes that the reader knows who the person is. That, along with conserving space, is why US newspapers drop it conventionally. oknazevad (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, SMcCandlish. Jg2904, any opinions on what has been stated above since your initial comment? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, too, Oknazevad. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Though I'll likely continue writing any new articles with the encyclopedic style SMcCandlish mentioned above, I will defer to any consensus reached here. It's something I'm particular about, but ultimately, I concede, not that important. Jg2904 (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Image copyright status ?

I have used Yandex to reverse search the image since the original source link is dead. Yandex spit out this. All other pages that contain this image appear to not be the original source. Where as this Stephanie nelson person is listed as i think a author several times ? I would also point out that in the source i found the image has a Watermark where as the Wiki one does not because it was cropped out.

I think the fact the source link is dead, and that the only version which might be an original source has some sort of logo which is cropped out is enough of a basis to revert the change back to the image used before hand. If nobody finds any more detail i would guess the image has a copyright. Erik Hall (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You made the right call, in my opinion. The original image had an unclear licence, per the wikimedia page. nice userpage, btw. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I looked some more but couldnt really find anything. No idea where the person who added the image got it from. All i found was that the name of a file on a different beside had a "-81" on it. Which i think was an index for a service like Gettyimages. On the page, yeah it got deleted xD Perhaps i misinterpreted what the userpage is for Erik Hall (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not even sure how that IP editor got the image, since the webpage wasn't even available. The image upload date on commons shows 15:07, but according to archive.org, by 15:07 the blog had already been removed.(1) (New links on WP are automatically archived.)

Looks like your userpage got U5'd, which isn't too surprising. Your page creation showed up on edit filters as promotional (that's how I discovered it in the first place), so other patrolling editors probably saw it and marked it for CSD. As long as you make it shorter, and connect it to Wikipedia somehow, it should be fine. The humour is fine, as well. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)