Jump to content

Talk:Nathalie Paulding

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

reconstitution

[edit]

As a WP:BLP, I culled the article of all unverified information, striking everything uncited and rebuilt it with 100% referencing. The prior version is here for anybody interested in going back to try and reference any of the information that had been there with reliable sources. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we use IMDB or TV.com as references for her film credits? The two you used have almost nothing on her and I can't see how they are any more reliable than IMDB or TV.com. (I'm assuming you thought they were unreliable which is why you removed references to her being in things like Bully or L&O:SVU.) For An Angel (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb and TV.com are both user-generated content sites, much like Wikipedia itself; and while, like Wikipedia, they may be generally accurate, they cannot be considered a reliable source due to their ... fluidity? There may be other reliable sources; I would consider Amazon.com one, and may look up the performances listed previously and see if Amazon can coroborate for us. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's strange that you don't want to use IMDB for references for some of her credits such as Bully, when the Wikipedia article for that film has her listed in the Cast section, for which it probably got its information from IMDB. Not to mention she is also listed in the closing credits in the movie. Oh yeah, and Amazon.com doesn't have much of a cast listed (they only listed the actors who played the parents of the main characters, but almost none of the main characters themselves). Would any of these be okay to use? If not I can always take a screencap of her in the movie or of her name in the credits from the DVD for you to see. For An Angel (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realized you'd followed me to WT:RS, but you picked up on the prevailing consensus. As soon as somebody can find reliable secondary sourcing, we should replace the primary sourcing in there now. I did some cleanup and reformatting, but otherwise left it alone for now. Everything sunny-side-up? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose. But I still don't understand why these references aren't good enough for you. You said that as soon as somebody can find a reliable secondary source, that we should replace the primary source. I don't see why that's necessary. After reading WP:PSTS that you linked to and seeing this:
To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
  • only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
  • make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
I can't see how someone can interpret that to mean that if a primary source is the only reference used to say "Nathalie Paulding was in the movie Bully" that is should eventually be replaced by a secondary source. For a simple statement of fact, a secondary source is just not needed. Also, you said below that since BroadwayWorld.com is already used in many articles that it is okay to use. However, when it comes to listing an actors credits, no other website is used more often than IMDB. Yes, it's true that users can submit changes, but that doesn't mean that it is as open to edit as Wikipedia. If you've ever submitted changes to IMDB you'll know that every update is moderated by administrators which means not every change goes through. However, most of the information is not created by the IMDB users but rather by the IMDB staff themselves. For An Angel (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources > primary sources, when available. That was discussed at WP:RSN, and WP:PSTS says re: secondary sources: Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. Also, with a primary source, it's saying "user:For An Angel saw this film and says such and such." While a secondary source is saying "Ben Brantley saw this performance and says such and such." The less the Wikipedia contributor is a part of the sourcing, the better.

IMDb is considered an unreliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, I've seen this come up time and again. It's become consensus that as a user-contributed source (as is TV.com), it doesn't constitute a reliable source. As for BroadwayWorld.com, I used my own discretion and some searching to determine this source's reliability. I saw it well-used throughout Wikipedia as a source, and found no explicit determination to the contrary. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if I say she was in the movie then I am not giving my opinion or making an evaluative statement about anything, which is what secondary sources are needed for. For example, for movie articles, a simple summary of the plot doesn't need a reference to a secondary source because it's understood that the source is the movie itself. I could upload a screencap of the credits from the movie and that way no one has to go out and rent the DVD to see that she was in it. For An Angel (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this reliable for her theater work? For An Angel (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While BroadwayWorld.com doesn't have a Wikipedia entry, it is used fairly frequently and in some high-profile articles. I would give it a thumbs-up for reliability. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

98.113 2/1 edits

[edit]

I take issue with a number of recent changes by 98.113.187.11 (talk · contribs). Primarily, we have no reliable sources that Ms. Paulding is an American, which negates the new stub sorting, categorization, and lede. Secondly, there's no reason to assume that the various lists of performance credits are incomplete, nor do we have any reason to state such without explicitly omitting information we know is available. Thirdly, the anon apparently listed her name twice as another credited name for unknown reasons; I deleted the duplication, but don't understand its purpose and if I was in the wrong here, would certainly look again. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

98.113.187.11 (talk · contribs) replaced his edits without discussion, so I'll enumerate my subsequent edits here to try and initiate the same.

  • Spelling out "circa" vs. "c": WP:ABBR lists the "c." as a common abbreviation for "circa", and I've frequently seen the former, but not the latter, in infoboxes. This isn't so much a point of MOS/guideline/policy contention, but 98.113.187.11 did not explain her/his reversion. As for its application in the lede prose, I'll acquiesce to spelling out the Latin there.
  • The actress' name is "Nathalie Nicole Paulding". It is not an "othername" or "sometimes credited as", it's her name and implying it's not is simply confusing.
  • According to {{infobox actor}}, the proper formatting for "yearsactive" is "year of professional debut–year of final professional appearance (If still active, use "present" in place of the end year.)]", not "Since year of professional debut".
  • There are no reliable sources to declare Ms. Paulding as an American.
  • Citations should not be modified, especially with the removal of information.
    • Also, I've found that leaving templates expanded in the wiki-markup makes it much easier to examine, interpret, and edit later as opposed to not. The latter makes it much more difficult to differentiate the code from prose.
  • I interpret {{inc-film}} and {{inc-tv}} to be used in articular lists, not lists in articles; I've furthermore never seen them used in the latter instance. That being said, the templates themselves describe an incomplete list as "an incomplete list is any well-defined list which is missing obvious entries." We don't have any reliable sources (which the IMDb is not) that we're even missing any list entries; if we did have reliable sources that we're missing list entries, then conversely we have reliable sourcing for those same entries.
  • Giving it some thought, I can appreciate adding the locale and production company information to the theatre listings. I've truncated them minorly, and adjusted them to meet WP:LOW.
  • I re-adjusted the Film and TV LOWs to meet WP:LOW too. Re: Paulding's role in Third Watch, the source only lists the two episodes present, not four.
  • I'm not married to the two-columned LOWs, it just better took up blank space in the article; simply an aesthetic decision. 98.113 gave no reason for removing it, but I've left the columnization commented in the markup for the time being. I still prefer the second-level header for "Performance credits" and listing Theatre, Film, and Television under there, but am certainly willing to discuss it here.
  • I was unaware that {{imdb}} now redirected to {{imdb name}}, and remained so at the discretion of the anon.
  • Lastly I removed the {{BLP sources}} tag, as everything in the article is reliably sourced.

I left alone or incorporated a goodly more edits from the anon than I did the first time (when I didn't peruse the gout of changes and content sufficiently), and whatever I reverted or changed further is noted here. If 98.113.187.11 (talk · contribs) or any other editor would like to discuss my or other edits, doing so here with words is preferable to in the article with reversions. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nathalie Paulding. 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) 10:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spend a week with her- you will know everything you need to know. 2600:6C5E:177F:8E01:F0D5:4C87:DAB5:AB4F (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nathalie_Paulding&oldid=1203687681"