Jump to content

Talk:Peta Wilson

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Image-Mina Harker (Peta Wilson) in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen 2003.jpg

[edit]

Image:Image-Mina Harker (Peta Wilson) in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen 2003.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson and Putin

[edit]

What was the occasion she met with Putin? If it is notable, as it is likely to be, it should be mentioned in the article. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple links for you: [1], [2]. I didn't really look too closely but they may be basically the same. Dismas|(talk) 00:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I added a line to the article. It may be improved upon. Debresser (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy spread?

[edit]

Her Playboy appearance is not notable? I though (and I still think) that these are always notable. She is listed there @ July 2004: List_of_people_in_Playboy_2000–2009 and here is a cover for the magazine if you won't believe otherwise: http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_2752848/playboy-magazine-united-states-july-2004/. 82.141.127.50 (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it isn't notable? I don't see mention of it in the article, so are you saying that someone removed it from the article? Could you be more specific about what you're talking about? Dismas|(talk) 22:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

Lady Lotus repeatedly removed two parameters from the infobox. He claims that the height parameter is not relevant, only for "athletes, dancers, etc.", but not for models and actors. He has not been able to show such consensus, even though per WP:BRD the onus of proof is on him. Why he repeatedly removed the "know_for" parameter, he doesn't even explain. Debresser (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think both are valid and should be kept. Models are often known for their heights and is often part of the reason why they might get a job. Dismas|(talk) 00:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She is not known for being a model and height is only stated in infoboxes for athletes or dancers when it is relevant. The other "known for" is redundant when it is in the first paragraph of the article. Lady Lotus (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked to weigh in. I looked around at the Manual of Style, particularly at the talk archives at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies, and couldn't find anything concrete other than what units of measurement to use, at WP:UNIT. Searching for examples of models and actress-models found height is included in the infoboxes for Paulina Porizkova, Christie Brinkley and Cindy Crawford, but not for Milla Jovovich or Cameron Diaz. I'm not sure how much help this is, but at least it's additional information. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just now Lady Lotus again made a no consensus edit, removing this time just the "know_for" parameter. Sorry, but you're wrong again. This parameter is also useful. That is why the template has it... The template says in short a few things about the person. Among other things, what the person is known for. Debresser (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Purpose of an infobox:
When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.
The 'known_for' field is for a brief description of why the person is notable.
Notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary.
Entertainers:
Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:
  1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
Pipe? Smoke it. Lady Lotus (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, now that I have given you clear reasons to remove the "known for" parameter, are we all in a CONSENSUS to keep it out of her infobox? Seeing as how it is not necessary for it to be there, regardless if the template has it on there or not. Lady Lotus (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see no such reason in all of the text you wrote here. Perhaps you could explain yourself again, a little simpler. Debresser (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please, explain again. And this time, please don't just quote various guidelines and talk pages. Please give your rationale and interpretation of those quotes. Dismas|(talk) 01:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simply, it says that infoboxes are to summarize key facts about the person and the less information, the better. While infobox templates, out of necessity, have more fields than they require for certain pages, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. The "known for" parameter is for a brief description of why the person is notable. Notability is simply being 'worthy of notice', with things that are significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. And in terms of actors, models, celebrities, etc, they are notable if they have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, etc.
Therefore, it isn't necessary to have the 'known for' parameter in her infobox, especially since the very first line of her article states the exact same thing. It isn't worthy of being in her infobox, it isn't notable nor is it necessary and should be removed. Lady Lotus (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a minimum of parameters necessary (or we wouldn't have the infobox). Which of the many films or series an actor played in he/she is most known for is very relevant and useful. Debresser (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that there is a minimum of parameters necessary? You could have 1 parameter and the infobox would still be there. You wanted me to explain how it isn't relevant and I want you to explain to me how it is. How many times do I have to say that the exact same sentence that you want to put in her infobox is in the second sentence of her page. I've already given you more than enough legitimate reasons, and guidelines by wikipedia that show that it isn't necessary to have it in there. So explain to me why are so hell bent on having 'known for' in there? Lady Lotus (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all information in an infobox will be in the article itself. The infobox just concentrates that information (in a specific format). So your argument is not an argument at all. Debresser (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you keep dodging my questions because you don't have a logical answer for any of it. It's all your opinion. So maybe you need to do some research on editing wiki pages before you actually get into a discussion about one when you clearly aren't paying attention to the guidelines that I have clearly laid out for you. WP Manual of Style Infoboxes, Help:Infobox, Infobox Parameters, there that's a start. Lady Lotus (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I simply do not see things the same way you do. And I do not seem to be the only one. Also, why do you keep restoring your edit when you clearly see it is being contested? I warned you about this on your talkpage already two days ago! Debresser (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As this person was both an actress and model at one time, I suppose both arguments for and against have precedence. For Actors/Actresses; a quick look showed that Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, Vanessa L. Williams, and Jennifer Lopez (all A list actors that have a large portion of the info box fields filed in) did not include either the height or best known as fields. As discussed above by Tenebrae; Paulina Porizkova, Christie Brinkley and Cindy Crawford have it in, but not the one's that are more recently known by being an actress, rather than a model (like Milla Jovovich or Cameron Diaz). If that is the norm across these types of articles, then it would stand to say, this is the current standard. With that said, I would say it boils down to whether she is better known as a model or as an actress. If model put it in, if actress and for that film, then leave it out. As far as the "Known for" in the info box; I have rarely seen a need for it, or seen it used in other articles. The lead usually covers that, along with the summary. Placing it in the info box seem a little overkill IMO. Calmer Waters 02:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to "height". Apart from being a model, the fact that she is tall is mentioned often in articles about her discussing her foremost as an actress. As to "known_for". I have seen it used many times, and your argument of overkill should probably be discussed on the Infobox person template talkpage, not on this or any other specific article. Debresser (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peta Wilson. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 01:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peta_Wilson&oldid=1204759461"