Jump to content

Talk:Natalie Morales (journalist)

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

Biography assessment rating comment

[edit]

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 22:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

I have moved the following sentences from the main article to the talk page. If the speculation can be substantiated, then it may belong in the article. Lbbzman 13:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morales will likely take over for Ann Curry full time on the newsdesk at the end of 2005. Morales may take over for Katie Couric as co-host of the Today show sometime in the future.

Admin rollback of content change

[edit]

An edit war has emerged over the career start date of the subject, specifically whether it was 2003 or 2006. I am dismayed to observe there has been no attempt to discuss the matter on the talk page. I have restored the content to its state prior to this edit war.

All parties are advised to discuss the matter on this page before making any further changes, and especially before engaging in an edit war. Please also read the WP:3RR policy in case you are not familiar with it. Manning (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Career Start date

[edit]

Natalie Started as a Correspondent and Sub anchor, But she didn't Permanently join until Late 2005-Early 2006. Here is her Biography on Today Show Website: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080436/http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080436/ JoMontNW (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[reply]

Surname

[edit]

Please change her surname at the beginning of the article from Morales to Morales-Rhodes. Citation: http://www.today.com/video/today/49118142#49118142 at the 0:52 mark.

69.140.2.13 (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)4/23/13[reply]

Done thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Children

[edit]

Someone put that she had 3 kids and put Bobby (2014), can someone change that please? She only has 2 and neither are named Bobby 184.9.91.82 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - the edit was unsourced and named a child supposedly born in 2014 in an edit made in 2013. Arjayay (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newer Photo of Natalie Morales

[edit]

Hi since I am not sure how to and having problems could someone please update the Image of Natalie Morales with this Photo? this is form september of this year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Newer_Photo_of_NBC_Natalie_Morales.jpg Morningtv13 (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The file is a clear copyright violation of an image found at Getty Images here. It has been flagged for deletion. Dwpaul Talk 04:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I understand. I do think a new photo of Natalie should be posted. Morningtv13 (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Career Timeline

[edit]

Why can't this page have a Career Timeline on it? Many other wiki Pages on Journalists have therm. Morningtv13 (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Merely because another article or group of articles have a particular characteristic doesn't mean it should be reproduced here (and the argument you are using will usually fail immediately). A timeline is mostly appropriate when there is insufficient information to populate a description (in prose) of someone's career. In this case, everything that appears in your timeline is already described in the Career section of the article, making a separate timeline redundant and excessive. Its value to the article is certainly great not enough to justify your edit warring over it (and I know this has been explained to you before, as this is not new behavior for you). You would have been well advised to have started this conversation here after the first or second revert rather than persistently repeating the edit. Dwpaul Talk 21:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's completely redundant. --NeilN talk to me 02:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please can someone remove it, it's redundant, and the user who's just added it has a COI and has been reported to WP:AN3 for edit warring. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it before I posted here. --NeilN talk to me 03:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2006 or 2008

[edit]

Worldtvjr15 the edit you are making is not supported by the source. Why are you making that change? Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Natalie Morales. 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 20:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 April 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved.(non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 12:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Natalie Morales → Natalie Morales (journalist) – There is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC between Natalie Morales and Natalie Morales (actress). The actress gets more pageviews and the journalist does not appear especially significant. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I would like to see the difference in number of page views broken down by month (or at least by year) since 2008 when the actress' article was created. I'm not impressed with page views as an indicator of notability unless the difference is overwhelming. For example, change the time frame and we get this; quite a different picture. As Mark Twain said, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics". Regarding your comment that "the journalist does not appear especially significant", I disagree, and point out that the comment is very much a matter of opinion. Sundayclose (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me, that link just shows the journalist and the actress were roughly equal for nearly a year, then the journalist briefly had a pageviews spike for a month or so, and then it went back to little difference in pageviews. Hardly the whopping difference that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC requires. Also, since the journalist and actress don't have such significant pageview differences, I think it's hard to tell whether some of the journalist's pageviews are meant for the actress. The significance thing is my opinion, sure, but it's also a facet of determining a primary topic, and neither of these people appear especially signiciant to me. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, over a period of years there is little if any difference in page views; if anything the overall pattern is slightly in favor of the journalist. We can twist statistics easily to fit our preferred interpretation. Bottom line: page views are not a good criterion for establishing notability here. Other standards must be used. It's a matter of opinion as to which is more notable, but I think your assessment that "the journalist does not appear especially significant" is flat wrong, and I think those familiar with the field of journalism would agree with me. Those who are fans of the actress, of course, might agree with you. Again, it's a matter of opinion, not page views. Sundayclose (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - They seem to be of equal notability, even if the journalist is slightly more so, it's not to the degree necessary to make her the unambiguous primary topic. The actress is well covered in the press. It's not about "those familiar with the field of journalism" vs "those who are fans of the actress" but about WP's policies, and these are both high profile women with the same name, neither of which is heads and tails above the other to be the PT. JesseRafe (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too little in it. WP:2DABS applies. The current situation is less confusing than changing things. Wait for the third Natalie_Morales biography and then make a DAB page at the base name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support per WP:TWODABS in particular If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, but per the criteria at Is there a primary topic? there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term. The monthly view given by as linked by Sundayclose does not appear to show that either is the primary topic. Why there was a spike it was short term and then both fell back to the same level. And even looking at the views over time, the difference appears to be less than a factor of 2, 63% vs 37%. PaleAqua (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. They both look to be C-grade media personalities and thus roughly equal. I don't see the anchorperson as being head and shoulders above the actress in terms of overall or long-term encyclopedic importance at this time. Herostratus (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:TWODABS – they are of equal notability these days. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support To someone outside the U.S. the only Natalie Morales of any importance is the actress. I had no clue that there was an American Journalist with the same name till this Wiki page which I found while searching for the actress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.28.106 (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC) — 86.163.28.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Support move. No primary topic.  ONR  (talk)  12:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Neither of these is a clear primary topic. kennethaw88 • talk 03:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

high school

[edit]

see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Natalie_Morales.27_high_school Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natalie_Morales_(journalist)&oldid=1209165593"