Talk:Tara Strong/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Beloved"

Please stop adding "beloved" to the description of Strong; it's POV. —tregoweth 01:00, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Fridays

Tara Strong is not the host of Fridays. It is, in fact, Tara Sands. --Beau99 00:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tara's picture

That is a lovely picture of Tara. But it has been marked for possible deletion because "it is missing information on its source or copyright status". Will the owner please verify the source or status of the picture? Otherwise, I'll find another one. Joe 02:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I have received permission from "The Official Tara Strong" at http://www.tarastrong.com to use this official publicity picture: http://www.mkbmemorial.com/TOTS/main/printout_08262005.jpg instead of the one that is currently on the page, which has questions about its copyright. I will replace the picture in the next couple of days unless somebody puts a notice in this discussion page telling me why I shouldn't. Joe 14:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The current image now has a "fair use" tag, but no copyright clearance. I guess we should leave it alone for a while until that gets settled. I'm not an image expert. But I'd rather have an image on the page that has "clear" clearance, like what I obtained from www.tarastrong.com. Any other thoughts? Joe 15:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Some stuff is out of date...

It said that she currently plays Raven on Teen Titans, but that series is finished, so I got rid of that. Hope it's ok.

There's still the DTV movie. Its not quite over.

Factual Error

I deleted the film credit for the Mega Man TV series, as it appears nowhere in her list of credits on IMDB nor on her own site. I have a feeling there may be more, but that's one I noticed. --Crazdgamer 04:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The HUGE List

Perhaps the current list could be broken down into Films, TV Series and Video Games? Lsjzl 17:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. --Jack Zhang 11:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Jak X: Combat Racing

Tara Strong is also the voice of Keira in Jak X: Combat Racing. Just wanted to let you know that. --Jack Zhang 11:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Spyro

Tara also played Blink the Mole, Ember, Flame, and a mermaid on Spyro:A Hero's Tail.

Dear God, she sure does get around. 24.184.200.190 (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

D She sure does. Oh yes, she sure does. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.7.157 (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Penelo

Her official site says that she is not the voice of Penelo on Final Fantasy XII

Ethenticity

It states that she is Canadian-American while in the catagories attached to her page has a 'Canadian Jews' link to it. We know that her nationality is not American but is Canadian.

She, I think became a naturalized US citizen, a citation would be needed for this.

I like to make these changes to her Statistics on her page but am not sure how to go about it.69.199.109.29 16:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Cris

Tara Strong is Canadian-American. It says that she was born in Canada, but her parents are American, so that makes her Canadian-American. Nintendoman01 talk, 9:36, 20 March 2009.

Awards

Once again, I have removed the "Awards" section. Reason: the awards are not major accomplishments. Marcus2 13:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Unless you can cite a policy on this, the awards should not be removed. Valrith 05:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The closest thing I can come up with is Wikipedia is not a soapbox, which is a pretty strong argument. And frankly, hardly anyone will bother to read it since she isn't that famous. Marcus2 13:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see that any of the points in the soapbox section apply to this list of awards. A stronger argument would be that the awards list was entirely unsourced. It's only for that reason that I'm not going to restore the list; if someone can find reliable sources for the list, I'd support putting it back in. Valrith 20:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fairly Odd Baby

Tara Strong also voices the baby. --Igglybuff63 (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Home

Why is it that someone keeps saying that Tara lives in Studio City? I heard from her webmistress that she moved to Encino a while ago. Please stop changing it back to Studio City. Nintendoman01 talk, 8:39, 25 January 2009

I've been bold and removed the place of residence from the article all together until a source can be provided. I urge everyone involved in editing this article to come here and talk this out and find sources for the correct information before this turns into an edit war! Thanks John Sloan (view / chat) 14:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comedian

This article used to state that Tara is a comedian. Why was it removed? Nintendoman01 talk, 9:03, 25 March 2009

Biography

A short time ago, I expanded Tara's biography, saying that she became a soloist in a school production when she was four, performed at the Yiddish Theater, took classes in a performing arts school, moved to L.A., and also when the awards she both won and was nominated for and things that she has stated in interviews about on-camera work. Why was it removed? I had the exact sources for these things and everything. Most of that stuff was from her official website! The Mario Bros. are the bomb!, 8:27, 16 July 2009

Picture wars

I see there are some picture wars going on. What's wrong with the 2009 picture? Why is it getting reverted? It's a better picture, I think. Luminifer (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no good reason why the current image should be replaced. Marcus2 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is. Two new pictures were recently put on this article. Only one should be on this article and replace that 2008 picture. There is nothing wrong with the newer pictures. If a new picture is put on this article, you don't need to be replacing it with the old one. That would result in Edit warfare. And we do not want that, do we, sir? 206.255.176.234 (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely true. Marcus2, do you have any justification for not allowing a new picture up? The new pictures (all of them I have seen) are all better - which I suspect is the reason people keep coming on and replacing them. Also, could you explain your inflammatory comments in the edit history when you revert the edits? It does feel like edit warring to me. Thanks.. Luminifer (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I did the right thing and replaced the old picture with the new picture of Charendoff at the 2009 Comic-Con. And I hope no user (not even Marcus2) tries to put back that old picture, especially because that user likes the old picture better. If so, then that means an edit war will start. If an edit war starts, then some users are certain to get blocked for a few days.Jim856796 (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling and Grammar (etc)

I just fixed a spelling mistake and inserted a missing article, however there are several more mistakes throughout which ought to be fixed, along with at least one overly long sentence. It would not be a bad idea for someone to go through the article and correct it's English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.140.148 (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Fish Hooks

In the Filmography section it says she voiced Piranhica Courtney... That is wrong because she hasn't given a surname yet. Also I have seen the credits for the episode "Happy Birthfish, Jocktopus" and she was voiced by Laura Ortiz. However she voiced Mrs. Shark in "Baldwin the Super Fish". PFMuffinStrike455 ^Talk 04:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

redirect

this page is re-directed from tara lynn charendoff strong. "lynn" is spelled wrong. is there any way to fix it so it only redirects from tara lyn charendoff strong, tara charendoff strong, tara lyn charendoff, or tara charendoff? 99.234.157.37 (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Marla

Please try to communicate your edits before fighting for Undo/Redo

Hello, just a thought to share. Let's try to be a bit more descriptive when making edits so that we can better understand your reasoning for the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzstoyanov (talk • contribs) 22:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't she voice someone in The Boondocks too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.247.0.66 (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2014

Yes, she is in The Boondocks. References have been added: one from her own Twitter feed and one from the closing credits themselves. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

#twilightlicious

As Tara herself has (supposedly, considering how she herself continously uses the phrase) said, she'd like the Twilightlicious section to remain. I propose a slight cleanup/rewrite of the section, though, as the suggested reason for removal is valid - it does partially push the entire article in a specific direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abzol (talk • contribs) 22:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is about Tara Strong, but that doesn't mean that she has the authority to have on the article whatever she wants. Wikipedia articles are informational pages regarding the subject, not a fan club. Jeremjay24 22:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but as far as I can tell, the twilighticious tag can be considered a minor part of her online personality. Maybe it doesn't deserve it's own section, though. Abzol (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think necessarily that it deserves a section to itself, but if perhaps there were a section about her involvement in MLP:FiM and the fan community, it would belong there. I almost want to suggest that it be merged into the fandom section on the MLP:FiM article itself, since it did arise from her interaction with the fans, and is something of a milestone of the cast's growing involvement with the fandom. --Billdorr (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the problem with this section: it's unsourced, the concept of 'twilightlicious' hasn't been discussed outside of Tara, her Twitter, and the brony community, and it's not encyclopedic. (the EW link uses the word in the headline but does not discuss it.) I was going to leave it as it stood for the moment and allow for potential sourcing; another editor has decided, while I was writing this post, to remove it, as is his/her right. I suggest that if people want it to be replaced, they source it properly from good references, rather than Twitter posts et al, and rewrite it once the sources are available. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I really don't mind - I just read that people were "warring" over this section's removal. I went on here simply to see this play out and opened the talk both to quickly try and fix the problem I've seen on many other so-called "wars" (namely multiple users editing the main article at the same time) and see how many bronies would care. I'm indifferent, really. I'm not a part of the fandom, nor do I dislike it. If noone can come up with a solid reason to keep it, I'm for deleting it. Abzol (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm requesting protection for this page to prevent inexperienced contributors from adding content that is not encyclopedic. Jeremjay24 22:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea considering Tara Strong's response to all of this.  █ EMARSEE 23:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Meh. If the herd arrives and starts going crazy, I'll push the magic button, but for now it's one IP who has replaced the section again. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we at least take into account that it's really just been one IP that's been constantly removing that section? Dzstoyanov (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It feels more appropriate to mention the tag under the article My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic fandom over Tara Strong's article, since it is highly emphasized more towards the fandom over her entire career. It can be briefly mentioned on the article but as mentioned before by other users, it doesn't deserve an entire section of its own. I actually did not want to have it in the beginning, since it felt more like fancruft from MLP than anything relevant to her career. However, if it emphasized with enough sources, it can be briefly mentioned in this article and the article describing the fandom. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 23:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning Esanchez, does anyone have a solution that can provide a mention to the subject while not giving it undue weight? Dzstoyanov (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so the content of that section is moved to Early life and Career, is this a suitable compromise considering that there is no more undue weight given to the section?Dzstoyanov (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Under the Personal life section, I've added a small paragraph highlighting her visit with the military bronies (since that made Military Times and other major news headlines) and the fundraising for the girl who was battling cancer. It could be reorganized with Charities but these appear to be one-off things she has done with the MLP fanbase. Other details like "I leave messages on my fans' answering machines as my characters" is a bit crufty, and discussing what titles she uses on her website falls into that as well since it doesn't have the coverage by independent secondary reliable sources. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about valid sources

Is content from http://tarastrong.com/ considered a valid source? Dzstoyanov (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a primary source. Reliable sources are generally secondary sources where possible. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. To be honest, if that's the case it seems all pretty subjective. Say if Tara Strong publishes an autobiography and puts Twilightlicious in that biography. Does that make it primary source? If so, what is the difference between that and her writing on twitter? Additionally, I could just request the webmaster on tarastrong.com to add a tidbit on Twilightlicious. Would that mean that Twilightlicious would now be cited from a primary source? I'm sorry if I'm being difficult but it just seems that the whole idea of "reliable sources" is paradoxical. Dzstoyanov (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Does wikipedia have a list of reliable secondary sources? Dzstoyanov (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:IRS is your friend.  █ EMARSEE 04:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Two additional credible sources added for Twilightlicious. I've restored the section to Tara's Personal Life now that it has a substantial amount of support. Dzstoyanov (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It is okay to use if it's WP:SELFPUB, especially with her personal information (birthdate, early life). For appearances in television shows, try to use secondary sources that refer to her part, then the episode/video game closing credits and press releases (primary source, but publicly available), and as a last resort, her website/resume. On interviews, if the interviewer shows knowledge of her role (e.g. "How did you feel about voicing X in Y?" or captions "Tara Strong, voice of X in Y") then that could be secondary, but if she is substantiating that information (e.g. "I voice X in Y"), then it's primary. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note that some of her roles on her official website pages have been substantiated with old newspaper and magazine articles, screen captures of her in the show, behind the scenes pictures, and audio, so this helps show reliability beyond just the blanket listing on her filmography. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a new issue with the picture.

Tara Strong hereself, on her Twitter profile, has requested that a specific picture of her be used for this article rather than an older one of her at Comic Con. The picture here states that it is freely licensed. Why can't the image be changed? dogman15 (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:COPYRIGHT and this is Wikipedia's article about Strong, not Strong's personal web page. If there are choices between freely licensed images, then it will be Wikipedia editors, not Strong nor accounts acting on her behalf that will determine which images are used. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that the current picture is terrible, are you able to give a definition of her "meatpuppets" other than "editors who want to change the picture"? Or is this going to be one of those things where any editor who agrees with the change is automatically compromised and can be safely ignored? Imaria Prime (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

given that there is no other free use image, such a discussion is hardly relevant. However, any editor whose account was created within the timeframe of the twit request and whose only invovlement in editing is in relation to Strong and content related to her will be considered a single voice. (as is explicitely outlined in the link "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.") -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Webshow table (filmography)

Tara Strong recently voiced the character Plum in the youtube show Greatest Warriors, would it be appropriate to create a table in the filmography section (as with the current format) or to have it mentioned in the article in some other way? Taylorderek (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: sorry, the show is called Bravest Warriors Taylorderek (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This is under Animation. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The Outer Limits

Would anyone explain which episode of "The Outer Limits" did Tara appear in? I can't seem to find it anywhere. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

She's been confirmed to appear in Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain

Presumably voicing Paz again. Source http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elMikUGFfqw (English Ground Zeroes trailer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.36.189 (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That video doesn't show Strong's name, so it is original research to assume that. However, other videos of the closing credits have listed and confirmed her voice and facial capture of Paz on Ground Zeroes only -AngusWOOF (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC), updated 23:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

As The Phantom Pain has not been released, there needs to be a cast announcement and news article that confirms that she will be reprising her role for that video game. -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Dead or Alive 5 Ultimate

Erin Fitzgerald is Rachel's voice actor in Dead or Alive 5 Ultimate, not Tara Strong. http://www.erinfitzvo.com/credits — Preceding unsigned comment added by User No. 99 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Name in lede

Her legal name is Tara Lyn Strong. She was born Tara Lyn Charendoff and used Tara Charendoff for her pre-marriage credits as explained in the article. After her marriage she used her married name Tara Strong for her credits and that is her current legal name. Her legal name which is also the name she is most commonly known as and what this article is named (plus middle name is required here) is the name that belongs in the first mention in the lede and other names used can follow. For more see WP:BIRTHNAME in manual of style. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It is also not universal that a married woman keeps her maiden name as a middle name after marriage. If Strong has done so, it requires a reference showing that she herself uses this form. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It is also certainly not universal for women to take their husbands' married name, either. Adding "née" is really unnecessary, and if anything, her legal name would be Tara Lyn Charendoff-Strong or perhaps Tara Charendoff Strong or Tara Charendoff-Strong. Taking a husband's name doesn't replace maiden name, only adds to the name. Therefore, "Tara Lyn Charendoff Strong" isn't "wrong". Saying she doesn't have the "Charendoff" name anymore would be misleading since "keeping" a maiden name is really just identifying oneself by maiden name. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Changing a name on marriage is a choice but when it is done taking the husbands name does indeed replace a maiden name unless that maiden name is deliberately kept (also a choice, not automatic) as an additional middle name. This is actually a legal change of name, when done, not just a convention. It is not universal to change a name after marriage, but in this specific case she did take her husbands name. Usually actresses will continue to use maiden name in credits. She changed her official credits to Tara Strong so obviously she changed her name otherwise she would have kept her maiden-name credit. She never used Charendoff for anything after her marriage. Charendoff is no longer a part of her legal name so it is wrong to use it as such in the article. You need to find examples where she uses her maiden name as a middle name or has changed her name from Charendoff to Charendoff-Strong before using any of those names in the article. I have never seen either usage. The article is correct to follow the manual of style and say Tara Lyn Strong (née Charendoff). This was also the way the lede was formatted in this article until recently changed. Check article history. There is no reason to use a non-MOS-compliant form of introduction in the lede. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

http://www.nndb.com/people/866/000088602/ is not a reliable source but info there just reflects that she has credits as Tara Charendoff, not that it is her current legal name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

http://voicechasers.com/database/showactor.php?actorid=1073 is also not a reliable source per its own about page. Just another wiki run by anonymous people getting info from the web. Need something from Strong herself. See her own web page for what she calls herself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've heard of using maiden names as if they were middle names (i.e. Victoria Anne Reggie → Victoria Reggie Kennedy), but not replacing maiden names. I have a feeling you've confused maiden name "replacing" with the "replacement" of middle names. Maiden names remain part of identity, and Tara lists herself as Tara Lyn Charendoff in the "Early Career" part of her website. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Her identity is how she identifies herself now, if she chooses to drop her maiden name, that is her choice to make, not someone else's. She uses her old name when talking about her early carreer because that is what she was named at the start of her career and that is what her credits stated then and she still retains those credits for her early work. As I said before sometimes people use their maiden name as a middle name and sometimes they don't. It is a choice THEY make, not others on their behalf. You can't presume that Tara Strong did this. All evidence to date shows she has completely stopped using Charendoff for anything after her marriage. We should respect that and not presume she didn't mean to do this. As an example see Sarah Michelle Gellar where she changed her name still uses old name for credits, Strong even stopped using her old name for credits. All this is well covered in the manual of style at WP:BIRTHNAME where the name to be used in the lede intro is the current LEGAL name. Charendoff is not part of her legal name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:BIRTHNAME also states it is fine to use it as something like "Tara Lyn (Charendoff) Strong". I would suggest using that as it is more concise if you insist on having "Strong" in the lead. What sources indicate "Charendoff" is not part of her legal name? Chances are she is listed as "Tara Lyn Charendoff" on legal documents like her sons' birth certificates. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That's an acceptable alternative per the MOS. And Strong must stay in the lede intro as that is her current legal name per her own usage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

TV.com is not a reliable source

See WT:WikiProject Television/Archive 10#TV.com a reliable source?, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 34#TV.com and WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 50#TV.com and IMDB. TV.com should not be used as a reference for anything in this article. More specifically it should not be used to support any biographical information about Strong. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Only articles written by CBS Interactive staff members for TV.com (and Gamespot for video games) can be considered for reliable source. Most of the site, especially episode cast lists, is user-submitted so they can't be cited, however, they can lead people to check the episodes themselves and see if they are listed in the closing credits. I have yet to see a tv.com staff article about Tara Strong though. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Full names and birthdates of children don't belong in article

This is personal private information about non-notable people. Even if it had a reference, which so far it doesn't, it doesn't belong in this article as this article is about Strong, not her children. See WP:BLPPRIVACY and consider what possible reason that info would add any value to this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, tons of articles have children of celebs listed that haven't achieved notability on their own, so nothing wrong with including their info. In fact, one cannot simply neglect them by leaving them out. Her sons are referenced in the "2004 Archives" section of her website. If that section had its own URL, I would've given the more specific link. Besides, if it's been revealed to the public (in this case, through her own personal website), then it's definitely valid to include. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

They shouldn't be in those articles either. Her children are not notable and it adds nothing to this article about Strong to give that level of detail about people who are not her. Their first names and year of birth should be sufficient - there is nothing of value in an article about Strong for more than that detail about her children. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Not true- it adds to the "personal life" section (hence why it isn't part of her career section or anything). Just because a child hasn't achieved notability doesn't mean info on them shouldn't be included. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Some info, OK, but not detailed census info. I would be OK with first names and year of birth, not full names and birthdates. See WP:BLPPRIVACY - we shouldn't be publishing complete birth info about non-notable minors. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Upon reviewing WP:BLPPRIVACY, there actually doesn't really seem to be anything wrong with including full names and birth dates. Besides we wouldn't actually be the ones who published info- that would be the sources the info comes from. Also, it's not like we're posting WP:OR about their birth locations or times of day they were born (which would belong in their own articles).

Again, what purpose does it serve to give full info? These people are minors and peripheral to the subject of the article. The fact that she has two sons is about her. More than that becomes about them. Look at WP:BLPPRIVACY and what it is trying to accomplish with respect to privacy of individuals and why that is important. It says if "... the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year". That applies here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Biographers would likely seek to know full birth dates when writing about her. Also, it isn't exactly private if she herself published the info publicly. Maybe month and year could be listed. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The info is not widely published, it is in the depths of her personal site as birth announcements and can't be directly linked to. The info is not being released by the people directly affected, but by a parent. We have no indication that her sons are now OK with releasing that info, they are now old enough to care. It is their privacy that we are respecting, not hers. Birth year should be sufficient to give a general idea of age and when Strong gave birth, appropriate for this article as that is about her. Their first names are somewhat benign. I propose that we just list first names and year of birth. In the spirit of WP:BLPPRIVACY that should be the most we do. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

If you insist on not including full dates, I'd say include the birth months- it definitely wouldn't hurt to at least have those. First names I suppose can suffice. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY suggest just the year in marginal cases and listing month and year looks awkward as that is seldom done. Let's see if there are any other editors who wish to comment on this before doing anything. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Month and year don't tend to be seen as "awkward", and I've seen it used when exact date is unknown. How long should we wait before making the additions?

3 days should be sufficient. May also be worth asking on WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if there is no other input here. FYI - check documentation at Template:Infobox person/doc#Parameters "Children" for some options of how info should go in infobox. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody else has commented to date. Listing of first names and birth year of children in the personal life section is fine although it still needs a reference, which I added. Instructions for the infobox template at Template:Infobox person/doc#Parameters "Children" says "Number of children (e.g. three or 3), or list of names if notable" - her children aren't notable per notability in their own right. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a feeling you may have misunderstood what the template was saying. Tons of non-notable children are listed by name in articles (indicating that name listings are valid), and the template says consider not including them rather than "don't include them". Also, listing only a number would be ambiguous as it doesn't say much about children themselves. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how that would be ambiguous - she has two children. The template instructions in the first sentence are pretty explicit, the last sentence softens it - problem with writing instructions by committee. Other articles listing non-notable children probably should not list them in the template. They are listed in the article proper, that should be sufficient to appropriately get the information out. The infobox is supposed to be a quick overview of key information, not a summary of the whole article. One other editor @Miss.Indecisive: at with this edit also put a count in and removed the names. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I did some more checking at WP:featured articles in some biographies. These articles are appropriate exemplars for good practices, other articles, not so much. Some articles just give a count, others give names, so I retract my objection to listing the names in the infobox. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Geraldo- I strongly agree. The names are not needed, especially when children are not notable. Gender, name, birthdate, age etc of the children is mentioned in the personal life section and need not be repeated. Infoboxes are to be as compressed and simple as possible. Giving a count of children provides a nice introduction into Tara Strong's personal life but this need not be overdone and made complex by addition of the children's names PARTICULARLY because they have no wikipedia page links!! Miss.Indecisive (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Geraldo changed his mind already after viewing the way features articles list children. Also, number of children would be ambiguous as it doesn't say much about them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with listing them by name, notable or not, and listing then is not "overdoing" anything. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I still think it is not desirable to list names of minor non-notable children there and I would prefer to just put a number there, but this is more of a concensus choice of article editors than anything strongly set by policy and good practice so have no basic to object to names there if that is the consensus. @XXSNUGGUMSXX: wanted the names there more strongly than I didn't and nobody else seemed to care at the time. Check Charles Darwin and Antonin Scalia for examples of two featured articled that have made different choices both accepted in the FA review, what we strive to achieve in all the articles we write. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

As I have read, infoboxes "quickly summarize important points in an easy-to-read format". They are "Concise [and] are "at-a-glance", and used for quickly checking facts. Long bodies of text belong in the article body. Also, " they are comparable to data tables in some aspects" and hence numerical information is favoured (e.g. children = 3). Mentioning childrens' names would be redundant, since this page is about the individual, not primarily concerned with the names of their children. Names of children should not be included in the infobox because they are "Already cited elsewhere in the article. Infoboxes should primarily contain material that is expanded on and supported by citations to reliable sources elsewhere in the article".

It does seem that you are are unaware of the definition of "summary", so here are a few dictionary definitions for you: "not including needless details or formalities; brief"; "Presenting the substance in a condensed form- concise". Take some time to comptemplate this.

I beg to differ- there is no ambiguity, this is not Hamlet or a complex literary piece, it is a Wikipedia article. "Ambiguities" are cleared up in the personal life section where more detailed information e.g. names, birthdates of children, is and should be included.

Miss.Indecisive (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware of what summaries are. It's just that numbers don't tell us much, and actually it wouldn't be redundant to list them by name. In fact, listing by name would make things clearer, and it is perfectly valid to list by name regardless of notability. For example, Presidents Andrew Johnson, Rutherford B. Hayes, William McKinley, and Barack Obama are each featured articles that have their children listed out by name, notable or not. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because it's been done there, doesn't mean it is an accepted and suitable format. I don't think listing would be clearer- it just makes the infobox look complex and crowded. Numbers would suffice- it can be considered as a "yes or no" question: "do you have children?" "Yes, 2". Save the detail for the personal life segment! What have you left to be discussed if their names are already in the infobox??? I just don't understand how it makes the infobox more efficient and concise! How unusual that you view this format as the more favourable!

Miss.Indecisive (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, the fact that listing out names have been used in FA's actually DOES indicate it is acceptable as Geraldo pointed out. It is not "crowded" or "complex" to do so. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you will not be shaken and wish Wikipedians 'do it your way'. Who knows, maybe you made those edits on the FA's yourself?

Miss.Indecisive (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually did not make those edits myself or make wishes for anything, and there's no need for anybody to be "shaken".

There is a need to be flexible, and accept the opinions and methods of others if they are justified and reasonable. Honestly, you cannot tell me that using your preferred format makes the infobox less complex - compare this to this. How concise and well-presented is the second one? Looking at the first (antonin scalia), the listing of all the children has just made the infobox a tedious read- it's quite ridiculous. Miss.Indecisive (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't exactly being inflexible. I'm not saying listing by name makes things less complicated- I said that listing by name is less ambiguous aka more specific. It certainly isn't more complex to list by name. As one user indicated on your talk page, replacing the names with a number is not "tidying". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Specificity is clearly meant to be for the personal life section- as I said above, if we make the infobox specific, then what have we left to be discussed in the personal life section? Most importantly, if the child does not have a wikipedia page, mentioning them in the infobox is wasted space since you cannot click on a link to access their page. I would support your view about listing IF the children mentioned did have wikipedia pages, otherwise, what's the use? Do you see where I'm coming from?

Miss.Indecisive (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I do follow what you are trying to say, but still feel it is best to include specifics when known. "Wasted space" isn't exactly the term for it..... used, but not wasted..... "wasted space" would be more like listing things like times of birth or hospitals born at..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll let it slide for this page but I hope not to see this done often, as specifics do not belong in the infobox...

Cheers, Miss.Indecisive (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2

Hi,

Guild Wars 2 appears three times under the video game section of her filmography: 2001, 2013, 2014. It only came out in 2012.

For some reason I couldn't fix it myself, the edit page only showed 2001 and 2014. In order to avoid screwing anything up I preferred to leave it to someone else (first time I've ever clicked an "Edit" button :D). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangolio (talk • contribs) 16:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done I put in the release date August 28, 2012. That she might appear in DLC and later scenarios counts should be grouped as part of that release. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

"Siena Williams"?

Of all my time playing the Tony Hawk skateboarding games, I've never heard of the character Siena Williams. I have searched for any information on this character and my ONLY result leads back to THIS ARTICLE. I'm deleting those voice acting credits from the article. If you're going to re-add them, better have some kind of source. --Ifrit (Talk) 09:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Dual nationality description in intro

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

From editor talk page comments at User talk:Geraldo Perez:

What in the world? Canadian-American is not an 'ethnicity.' 'Canadian and American is unnecessary,' Canadian-American is used to describe people with dual citizenship OR of descent. In this case, it's obviously citizenship and the 'and' is repetitive and unnecessary. Either way, 'Canadian' and 'American' aren't ethnicities, they're nationalities.Ladysif (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

In the US any hyphenated American is a subtype of American. The first adjective modifies the second per normal rules of grammar. "And" is necessary to to make dual nationality clear. Just as Mexican-American, Italian-American, German-American are ethnicities so is Canadian-American, they are exact parallels. Canada is not special. Also if Canadian-American is commonly used as both a descriptor of decent and duality it is ambiguous and meaning is lost if the "and" is dropped. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Canadian American is also ambiguous as the linked article states it can mean either one of two distinct things, one being a subset of the other. Making a list removes the ambiguity. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Look at any other Canadian-American's Wikipedia page. Jim Carrey, for example. He has dual citizenship. See what's linked there? Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's ambiguous. And, for that matter, the link grants the generic reader more information on the subject at hand. Ladysif (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

"Canadian Americans are Americans who were born and/or grew up in Canada and later moved into the United States, or born to parents of Canadian ancestry. The term is particularly apt when applied or self-applied to people with strong ties to Canada, such as those who have lived a significant portion of their lives, or were educated, in Canada, and then relocated to the United States. To others, especially for those living in New England or the Midwest, a Canadian-American is one whose ancestors came from Canada.[1]" Very un-ambiguous. For the record, I have also included her in the list of "Canadians who obtained American citizenship" on that page. Ladysif (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

For that matter, review every single person listed in that list - almost every one has Canadian-American or Canadian American in reference to their citizenship. It's not ambiguous at all.Ladysif (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A hyphenated American is an American citizen who was born outside of the United States and holds citizenship in both countries. Also, "Canadian" is not an ethnicity, and neither is American (unless referring to Native Americans like Cherokees or Native Canadians like Algonquins). Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

An antiquated term is still irrelevant - I fail to see how the page linking to information on Canadians with dual American citizenship is 'unnecessary.' Compromise?Ladysif (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

From what I've observed in articles, nationality isn't linked, with editors frequently citing WP:OVERLINK for not having it linked. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The majority of the people in the "Canadians who obtained American citizenship" section of that article have nationality linked. I see no difference here. It's relevant.Ladysif (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Mexican-American is definitely an ethnicity as used in the US, in what way is Canadian-American not an ethnicity label or at least an origin label, a type of American. It has the same form. Canadian is as much of an ethnicity as a label of origin as Mexican or any other country of origin that modifies American.

In the Canadian Americans two meanings are defined. The "and" picks one of them and makes the meaning perfectly clear without having to read a linked article to gain understanding. And even the linked article leaves the desired communicated meaning unclear. She is a dual national with strong links to both countries and notable activities in both countries. Both countries are equally important for her description. Canadian modifying American subordinates the Canadian portion as being of lesser importance. A test for importance is can the adjectives be swapped and mean the same thing. "Canadian and American actress" is the same as "American and Canadian actress". Canadian American has a different emphasis than American Canadian. It is somewhat US centric that the "American" adjective is the primary one in the description. She is just as much Canadian. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Mexican-American is an ethnicity because the majority of Mexican citizens are of hispanic descent. That is an ethnicity. The majority of Canadian citizens, with the exception of French, Italians, First Nations members, et al., which are usually otherwise defined, are of British/white descent. Neither of those things are classically considered an ethnicity. No other article or description of a person details "Canadian AND American," as it's easily discernible from "Canadian-American" and any other variant. The Canadian first indicates the place of birth, the American is the transplant. It's the order of the person's citizenship and placement, and has nothing to do with Amerocentric beliefs. That's the same for any other hyphenated nationality, no matter where the citizen is. Italian-Canadians,Mexican-Canadians, among others. Ladysif (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

And if you were somehow trying to make the term less Amerocentric by changing the word order, you made that information incorrect. American-Canadian specifically refers to a person who was born in the United States.Ladysif (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

See MOS:NDASH, American–Canadian and Canadian–American mean exactly the same thing.

This article is read by people not familiar with US conventions. Rules of English grammar adjective order with same type adjectives is the first modifies the second, it is not an order of achievement of something. I am OK with using an MOS:NDASH to separate the adjectives as that is something that is commonly done with equal weight adjective where order doesn't change meaning. Franco–Prussian War for example. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

No, in the context of this article, it makes zero sense to have 'American-Canadian' when (believe it or not, even outside of US conventions), it indicates that she was born in the US. You would not refer to someone from the United States living in Canada as 'Canadian-American,' because it would be incorrect. They do not mean "the exact same thing." I don't understand your second sentence, because it doesn't seem to follow the rules of English grammar. Thank you for recognizing the proper usage of "-" in the place of the word "and."Ladysif (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

"–" means "and", "-" doesn't, there is a distinction. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Geraldo, the point Ladysif was making is that when listing dual nationalities, the birth country (or wherever person first had citizenship in) comes first. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it meant "and." I said "in the place of." Thank you, Snuggums. It's the same with married surnames, and various other uses of "-". In indicating a spans of years, you wouldn't put 2012-1992, you would use 1992-2012, because 1992 was first. If my surname were 'Smith' and I married a 'Jones' and decided to hyphenate my name, it would usually be 'Smith-Jones,' because my last name was 'Smith' before marrying 'Jones.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladysif (talk • contribs) 06:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

See also - hyphen. Ladysif (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia manual of style for Wiki usage of MOS:HYPHEN and MOS:NDASH. Ndash can mean "and" or "through" based on context. I'm fine with leaving it as Canadian–American. Keeps the order that SNUGGUMS finds important and give proper weight which I find important and removed the "and" which Ladysif desired in the first place. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If you read the manual of style for the Wiki usage of MOS:HYPHEN or use Google.com, you will see that hyphens are used as compound modifiers. Canadian modifies American. That is how it is written in every other article regarding a Canadian-American individual, for the billionth time, see the Canadians who obtained American citizenship section of Canadian American. English is filled with many exceptions to grammatical rules, and this is one of them in that Canadian-American CAN be hyphenated when used as an adjective, as in this case, but not so when it is used as a noun (as per the example of the title of the Canadian American article itself). A dash is never used, and the very issue with this is your use of "Canadian and American" which was unnecessary in the first place when Canadian-American is already indicative of that. I would advise you to avoid edit warring.Ladysif (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

We are supposed to be working the issue on the talk page, not making edits while the discussion is on-going and arguing the issue in edit history comments. It looks like this has gone full circle and nothing is being resolved. I would like to see other people comment and work for a consensus on this issue on this talk page. I put the article back to before this all started WP:STATUSQUO - suggest it stay in that state until consensus is reached. The original is "correct" grammatically, this is purely a visual style issue. If you wish dispute resolution, I'm fine with that too. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, see other Canadian American with dual citizenship Wikipedia pages for reference because apparently this still is not clear. "Canadian and American" is beyond unnecessary when you literally already have a compound word in existence in the English language to describe it. Is this not an English language article? Pamela Anderson, Jim Carrey, Alanis Morrisette, Guy Lombardo, etc.Ladysif (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

But another go round. Canadian American is a noun, Canadian-American is a compound adjective. We seem to agree on that. I disagree that Canadian-American means the same as Canadian and American even in the face of other articles using it that way. I suggest that they are wrong as in a compound adjective the first modifies the second. This is still a very American centric way of describing her and I think diminished her Canadian accomplishments. Not surprised that with most editors being American the other nationalities get subordinated in the American being the most important attribute point of view; the the other nationalities in a dual situation being a minor modification to that. She had accomplishments as a Canadian separate from being an American. She is much more that just a type of American now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia biographies are by no means the place for your POV, and it has nothing to do with my point of view. You don't know my nationality because it's irrelevant, and I don't care how you want to interpret "Canadian-American" or vice versa. That is how nationalities are written, they are by nature neutral, and Canadian-American is the most appropriate for this article. It's correct in that she was BORN in Canada and RECEIVED American citizenship, in that it's hyphenated as a compound adjective as per the beginning description, and that anyone reading it can easily attain that she is both Canadian and American. End of story. Leave it at that. I am not the only person who has iterated to you that Canadian and American are not ethnicities and that this order is normal.Ladysif (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

No as we seem to get circling back to Canadian-American is the way ethnicities are written and how in some other articles, which you wish to use as a precedent, incorrectly try to describe dual national Americans. Those articles should be corrected. Which countries imply an ethnicity and which ones don't is something we shouldn't need to presume the readers know and understand. "Canadian and American" gives equal weight to both, and is grammatically correct and unambiguous in meaning. Changing it to what looks like an ethnicity to most readers reduces clarity and does nothing to improve the readability of the article. The article describes her notable activities both before and after she obtained American citizenship – she is not merely a type of American as the compound adjective form indicates. If the objection is to the use of "and", the ndash is an acceptable alternative grammatically and is probably what all the other articles that used hyphenated dual nationalities should have done in the first place. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I genuinely hope someone else pays attention to this, otherwise please learn the distinction between ethnicities and nationalities. Your incorrect interpretation of a "type of American" is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard in my life. The "and" is unnecessary in any form. Period. If your problem is so much with the fact that she has Canadian and American citizenship, please note that fact is also in the biographical section of this article. CANADIAN-AMERICAN indicates that she PREVIOUSLY solely held CANADIAN citizenship, and THEN moved to ATTAIN AMERICAN citizenship. How many times does this have to be said? Linking it to the Canadian American article provides further clarification if anyone possibly could interpret that as "being ambiguous."Ladysif (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Canadian-American makes the most sense in this context, and is likely the most correct. It's an adjective form. One uses adjectives in descriptions. I have never in my life seen a dash used to indicate dual citizenship like that.138.16.128.0 (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please note that editing while logged out to add appearance of support to a logged in account during a discussion is discouraged. See WP:SCRUTINY and edit history of both above users. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is an adjective but even in context is has at least two potential meanings. The dash is just a replacement for "and" and WP:NDASH supports that usage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

From Canadian-American "Canadian Americans are Americans who were born and/or grew up in Canada and later moved into the United States, or born to parents of Canadian ancestry." Notice the "and/or" and the other "or" there and the two potential meaning of the phrase. Also don't even need Canadian citizenship to fit that description, just strong ties to Canada. That is what makes it ambiguous and why the "and" is needed to specify what is meant. Also note I used "type of American" as that is what an adjective modifier does to the adjective it modifies, it refines it to a smaller meaning. I was just trying to explain the grammar rules for compound adjectives. Canadian-American can also mean, per the linked to article, that she just had Canadian parents a.k.a. "ancestry". I guess if ethnicity is not appropriate for Canadians (news to me I must say), ancestry still is. With an ambiguous meaning we need to make it non-ambiguious. The "and" serves that purpose and is an extremely small thing to add to clear up potential multiple meanings.

Other than a personal style issue of not liking "and" there, really what is the harm of having "and" when it strongly clarifies the meaning of something. You assert that the meaning is clear with the compound adjective "Canadian-American" meaning dual national and possibly in the context of a correctly written intro sentence were nationalities and only nationalities are expected it might be. I see the red-flag of WP:OPENPARA violation and an easy fix where the lede of a lot of bio articles get ethnicities, birth location, ancestry added when it is inappropriate for them to be there. When I see Canadian-American I see an ethnicity descriptor and, now that I have been informed that Canadian can't be an ethnicity, at least a decent or birth location descriptor which are also not to be in intro sentence. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Neither "American" nor "Canadian" falls into the definition of Ethnic group or Ethnicity, as there are too many racial and cultural sub-categories within both nations. Canadian-American is NOT ambiguous as the two are nationalities, and as such it is still NOT ambiguous to the "average reader." If one is reading an opening sentence, it makes sense to have something simplified in a *basic* biography. No one is EVER referred to as having an "American ethnic background" or vice-versa and that is blatantly clear.Ladysif (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Based on this other editor's wanton misunderstanding of the English language, grammatical rules, and evident POV standing in the thought that the generally used term "Canadian-American" is in some way inappropriate in being Amerocentric, and that a generic reader will somehow question the supposed "ethnic" dual meaning of "Canadian-American" (when there is no such thing), I would consider conceding to the use of "Canadian–American" only for the reason that is a waste of time continuing to give this any more of my attention.Ladysif (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Canadian is considered an ethic group by Canadians per the list at Ethnic origins of people in Canada and supported by descriptions at Canadians. Meets most definitions of Ethnic group - ethnicity is a soft concept with a lot of overlapping and sometimes conflicting definitions. Americans are considered a distinct cultural people by non-Americans. Americans just see the distinctions, not the commonality that other people in the world perceive. In my opinion I also think that Americans are somewhat immune to seeing Amerocentricism in themselves that non-Americans think is blatant. I guess as a Canadian, naturalized American living in the US I may be excessively sensitized to it.

However, I too don't wish to belabor this issue and I find myself repeating myself, even if I do find the discussion interesting – I've learned some stuff I didn't know or considered. It looks like we are in agreement to use "Canadian–American" in this article. See if others comment for a day or so then request that the protect be removed to make the change. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The lead sentence is worded strangely and doesn't flow well. How about this: "Tara Lyn Charendoff Strong (born February 12, 1973) is a Canadian-born American actress who has done work in numerous films and television series, both live-action and animated." This is taken from the example Barbara Williams (actress). —Farix (t | c) 17:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:OPENPARA birth location is not included in intro unless it is major part of why she is notable which is not really the case with Strong. It also removed the info that she remains a Canadian citizen if phrased that way, Canadian birth does not always mean Canadian citizenship. Non-Canadian diplomats and military posted in Canada children for example. "Canadian–American actress" is being proposed per above discussion to replace Canadian and American actress. I suppose "Canadian, naturalized American actress" would also portray the meaning but it is a bit more wordy. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

"Canadian born, naturalized" would not really work because she still has the dual citizenship and it would draw even more attention to the term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Naturalized citizen doesn't work if she has dual citizenship. Under the US Constitution, she loses any previous citizenship once she becomes naturalized. I'm not sure about if Canadian immigration and naturalization laws are similar. In order for her to have dual citizenship, her parents must be US citizens or she was born in the US with her parents hold citizenship elsewhere. But since she was born in Ontario, the latter cannot be the case. —Farix (t | c) 19:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A common misunderstanding of both US and Canadian law, you don't lose your previous citizenship with naturalization. Basically oath of allegiance taken for naturalization is ignored by the other country and both US and Canada require an explicit declaration to their governments before you lose previous citizenship (actually release you from any obligations of citizenship). Only issue is US gets upset if you try to enter US on a non-US passport. Believe me, I've been though all that and legally had two passports for a while. State Department website has a lot of info on that issue for casual browsing. Strong is still a Canadian citizen unless she made a formal renunciation of Citizenship to Canada directly. Most people don't do that and article says nothin about that happening. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Then if she wasn't born an American citizen, then leave it as "Canadian actress". Canadian-American gives the impression that Canadian is an ethic group. —Farix (t | c) 00:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Farix, a hyphenated American is someone with citizenship in both the United States and their birth country (or wherever they first had citizenship before becoming an American citizen). While her ethnicity (aka heritage) is unknown, Strong is a hyphenated American for having dual nationality. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic origins of people in Canada lists Canadian as a recognized ethnicity in Canada, probably for those who can't or won't identify as anything else and have no known or vastly diffused links to any other country. It is a self identification label, who can judge they are wrong. So Canadian-American is a valid ethnicity label for Americans who identify as ethnic Canadians. hyphenated American is much more complex than any statement of dual nationality and mostly includes origin and ancestry as a hyphenated compound with American as well described later in that article after the deprecated usage described for the early 1900s at the beginning. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Tara Strong's "ethnic identification," you can't make that assumption, which again ties into your POV issues, and no one on the planet refers to themselves as being "ethnically Canadian" without also referring first to their inherent racial group. Canadian-American has to do with nationality and citizenship, and this has been iterated to you over and over and over again. This is an English language article, and should use English language terminology. Everyone else in this thread has said that, either make it Canadian-American (the correct form), or Canadian–American, your misconstrued form, and be done with it. I'm sick of reading through this drivel.Ladysif (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

"no one on the planet refers to themselves as being "ethnically Canadian" without also referring first to their inherent racial group" Per well-referenced info at Ethnic origins of people in Canada 5,748,720 Canadians do exactly that. 5,748,720 people is a lot more than "no one". This has nothing to do with how Strong self-identifies, she's said nothing. The issue is how she is classified by us in a wiki article about her in a section of the article that requires nationality be specified. An ethnicity label does not belong there per WP:OPENPARA. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Strong's ancestry (aka heritage or ethnicity) is unknown. All that is known is that she was born in Canada, and has citizenship both there and in the United States. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Census information =/= self identification and/or heritage. Those are options on a form which could refer to someone's generational background, and a NUMEROUS amount of other things which I can guarantee you could even mean a misunderstanding of the word "ethnic." If you ask anyone Canadian/American their "ethnic" background, they will give you a list of European countries or others. This really should not be that difficult to understand. From what I've already stated, because this is beyond pointless to keep writing to someone with their fingers in their ears, either make it Canadian-American (the correct form), or Canadian–American, your misconstrued form, and be done with it.Ladysif (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC) 2:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep - official definitions by the Government of Canada with people given the option to pick more than one. for those interested. People were asked their ethnic background and were given the opportunity to pick "a list of European countries or others" and choose not to and still picked "Canadian" only. For a large number of people in Canada and for the Canadian Government, Canadian is considered an ethnicity. I think your definition of ethnicity may not be universal and it is possible people who do have different ethnicities define what ethnicity is in different ways. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Still doesn't mean that "Canadian-American" in this context could be construed as an "Ethnic identity" in the first section of a Wiki article in the English language, primarily read by English speakers. By your logic, no individual should EVER have their nationality written in the first line of a Wikipedia page, because God forbid someone (you) accidentally misconstrue it as an ethnicity when it's really incredibly a minor fact.Ladysif (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Also by Geraldo Perez's complaints over a hyphen and 'logic', neither "Canadian" nor "American" should be in that sentence at all, because either of them could be construed as an "ethnicity." Huh. Riddle me that. Use Canadian-American, or Canadian–American and be done with it. I'm out.03:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Please remain civil, even if you feel he is mistaken. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Break and a call for civility and a sense of perspective here

Folks, this is way too much heat, and indeed way to much wasted editorial energy, for such small thing. I've seen a number of suggestions above that seem like they would work reasonably well, but the most tenaciously argued positions seem to be way off the mark as far as policy is concerned. We go with what the sources say on these matters, not our personal perspectives. And our Canadian-American article has just the sourcing we need in that regard, and also just happens to include pretty much a summary of the differing perspectives above. It should clearly be linked to in the lead here. Snuggums gave his (welcome) impressionistic feeling that the trend was against such linking, but having had this conversation few times now in various context, I can tell you those impressions vary and that there has been no broad community consensus on the matter, nor a central discussion at all, that I am aware of. Clearly the very presence of ambiguity of the meaning (or, clearly, from our sources meanings) amongst our editors is a simple common sense litmus test for its usefulness for our readers in this instance. There's no harm in arming said readers with every possible interpretation of the term, so long as they are sourced. Anyone who insists on their idiosyncratic view beyond that is advised to first read prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar and then refresh themselves on WP:NPOV and WP:V.

Regardless, the stakes and the principles here are not nearly important enough to justify the lack of attention to WP:AGF and the collaborative principle that is fomenting here. Partly this can be attributed to how poorly the WP:RfC process was handled. There's no central and clearly defined question presented in neutral wording, only indictment of another editor's perspective and then some POV-pushing. Perhaps this explains some Geraldo Perez's tenaciousness in response, but it doesn't make his narrow semantic interpretation the "logical" approach that should be put before policy. Unlike the other contributors who have put forward their positions here, the above two editors have needlessly taken this matter to a tendentious and antagonistic place, when there are obvious compromise solutions available. I advise them both to remember that we are here to empower our readers with the ability to explore the greater context of this subject and draw their own conclusions, not to force our own perspectives upon them, and that extends to trivialities of semantics. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This discussion evolved from a WP:BRD contested change in the article that is leading to a RfC as an attempt at dispute resolution. A compromise solution has been proposed that is a change in the article that both initial editors in this dispute don't particularly like for different reasons but were willing to accept. I thought the issue was resolved so the RfC was a bit of a surprise to me. I also find it surprising that Snow Rise finds my attempts to justify my position and persuade others in this discussion as being not WP:AGF, WP:tendentious editing and pushing a WP:POV, wishing to add info that can't be verified to the article, not being WP:CIVIL and in general trying to go against policy. I can't change perceptions but none of that is my intent and I really am familiar with wiki policies on most issues and do try my best to conform. As to the interesting articles provided about prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar do note that Wiki does try to resolve that conflict with its manual of style that is, by its nature, prescriptive about how what goes in Wiki itself is presented, which is the sole point about this conflict.

First the information in the lead is currently well referenced, parallels what is in the infobox and the source quote in reference 1 "I cheer for both the US and Canada, since I'm a dual citizen! Yay!". Also the article mentions she moved to the US in 1994 and the article documents notable activities both before and after that point. Per WP:OPENPARA that justifies and means both nationalities should be in the intro sentence. The only issue of contention is how that information is presented.

The version before the dispute read "Canadian and American actress". This parallels the infobox "Citizenship Canada and United States" using the adjective forms for the countries mentioned. This reflects that she had notable activities as a Canadian actress and also notable activities as an American actress. This is what I would prefer stays in the article and that is my only issue.

The change that led to this discussion [1] changed "Canadian and American actress" to "Canadian-American actress", with that change explained in this talk page discussion as being a better and clearer way of expressing the same information. I don't see that facts that need to be expressed under dispute, just the wording to express them. I disagreed that that change had identical meaning as the article Canadian-American basically describes Americans with strong ties to Canada, which while true for Strong, doesn't explicitly describe the specifics of what exactly that strong tie is, that she was and still is a Canadian citizen. My POV, is that it is important that her being a Canadian citizen be plain and clear and not subsumed as just an American with strong ties of some sort to Canada. I can't see how linking to the Canadian-American article as suggested by Snow Rise and others in any way solves the issue of what I think needs to be plainly and unambiguously stated.

The proposal that the two initial editors in this dispute tentatively agreed on that "Canadian and American" be changed to "Canadian–American" was to use the semantically equivalent WP:NDASH with one of its meaning being "and" to make the intro read less awkward (the real issue in my opinion) but still express the equivalent weight of her Canadian notability and her American notability. I am still willing to go with that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

In other words, all of the above in order to argue over the length of a dash -- an orthographic detail so minor that it will almost certainly make zero difference in how the sentence will be semantically parsed by the vast majority (if not the entirety) of our readers? And you don't see why I view that as a questionable use of editorial energy? Look, you're very big on citing POV and verification above, but having reviewed the sources on the matter, it doesn't seem you have so much as a single one which supports the notion that your narrow interpretation of the meaning of "Canadian-American" (or "Canadian--American", or whatever), is the "one true" meaning of that word. Quite the contrary, our actual sources (and the useful article we have based upon them), clearly demonstrate that term has a plurality of meanings, the primary of which is expressed in the first two sentences of said article:

"Canadian Americans are Americans who were born and/or grew up in Canada and later moved into the United States, or born to parents of Canadian ancestry. The term is particularly apt when applied or self-applied to people with strong ties to Canada, such as those who have lived a significant portion of their lives, or were educated, in Canada, and then relocated to the United States."

...which seems to pretty much adhere to the perspective you want to give with regard to this particular actress. Your suggestions that "Canadian-American" overwhelmingly refers to cultural/legal Americans with Canadian ancestry or that it implies weak connection to the Canadian side of an individual's nationality do not seem to be supported by sourcing, so I wouldn't be so gung-ho in citing WP:V here.

All of which is neither here nor there; "Canadian-American", "Canadian--American", and "Canadian and American" all would work perfectly well in this context. Rather the point I am trying to stress here is that, at the point where an editor finds themselves making accusations of possible bad-faith behaviour as part of their twelfth sizable posting on a discussion about the length of a hyphen, they probably ought to take a step back and consider whether said discussion is really serving the article or the project very well. Because there's no way the above represents an efficient use of time for our editors. Seriously guys, just settle on an option and put an end to this nonsense. If it helps establish consensus, the ndash looks perfectly fine to me. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Filmography Erratum

There is a duplicate entry for "1997–99 The New Batman Adventures" in Ms Strong's Animated Filmography.

 Fixed AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"Overlinking"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A very experienced editor, Snow Rise has suggested above, and approved of on their talk page, that "Canadian-American" be linked as it provides more information to persons who may be confused by the term (and evidently this is 'ambiguous'). If anyone feels that this is inappropriate, see discussion above. Another editor, Geraldo Perez, with serious WP:POV issues, sees otherwise, and continues to demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. I see no danger in linking for these reasons. "There's no harm in arming said readers with every possible interpretation of the term, so long as they are sourced. Anyone who insists on their idiosyncratic view beyond that is advised to first read prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar and then refresh themselves on WP:NPOV and WP:V."Ladysif (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

While WP:OVERLINK says not to link commonly known terms, I'd say countries aren't necessarily overlinking; not everyone is familiar with the places. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Geez, really guys? Ok, I'm not keen on watching round two of this matter progress at the length of the last one, so I'll try to make my thoughts on the policy here comprehensive. In his edit summary, Geraldo Perez cites WP:Overlink, saying it precludes this type of linking, but this is in fact not in any sense the case. The wording from OLINK advises against toponyms in some cases, but it says nothing about nationalities or ethnicity. Point in fact, the use of internal links for these topics is ubiquitous across the project and can be found, in my experience, on roughly half of all BLPs. As was already pointed out in the previous discussion, there is no community consensus on the matter, despite it coming up from time to time, so the editors of a given article are expected to use their editorial discretion (and in the case of disagreement, formulate a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) as to the value of the added clarity in that particular instance.

My thoughts on that are also reflected above: we just watched the present primary editors on this article enter into a prolonged knock-down, drag-out fight that was based on ambiguities of the meaning of this particular demonym, and differences of opinion as to its exact nuances. Doesn't that tell us something about the possibility of confusion amongst our readers? If ever there was an occasion where this sort of linking would seem to unambiguously appropriate, I'd say this is it. Geraldo Perez's opposition to this is on its face a little odd, because he spent a large amount of time and energy in the previous discussion advocating passionately over a minor detail of punctuation because he felt it was absolutely essential to emphasize a particular take on the meaning of "Canadian--American", and that particular definition is the very one that is presented first and most prominently in the article on that topic that he now does not want linked here.

Myself, I'm inclined to assist our readers with as much contextualizing information as possible in this instance, since that's a primary function of this (or any) encyclopedia and when a plurality of meanings for a given concept exists, we tend to cover all of the notable ones, rather than pushing a central definition against the weight of our sources. But given the profile of this article and the importance of the distinction being made here to overall-understanding of the topic of said article, and the disproportionate amount of energy wasted on this (I remind you guys) one single word, that's the extent of how much I want to say on this matter, and I'd only caution that you guys keep things more civil this time, because you were both pushing WP:AGF and WP:C by the end of the last discussion. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The piped destination is contentious and WP:OVERLINKING supports leaving it out. Also the non-linked version was the consensus of the previous discussion. The first line at Canadian American which people will see is (hover over link):

Canadian Americans are Americans who were born and/or grew up in Canada and later moved into the United States, or born to parents of Canadian ancestry.

That includes among the 4 definitions (Americans who were born in Canada, Americans who were not born in Canada but grew up in Canada, Americans who were both born and who grew up Canada, Americans with parents of Canadian ancestry) in that one sentence summarized as "people [Americans in context] with strong ties to Canada". Strong's own words in ref 1 that support the related info in the article intro and inbox is:

I cheer for both the US and Canada, since I'm a dual citizen![em added]

That she, personally herself, is a Canadian citizen is missing in that piped article. It leaves the meaning of "Canadian–American" in the intro of this article ambiguous and leaves out a key piece of info, and what I want to see, is she is still a Canadian citizen. Canadian American is not useful in defining this particular usage to readers, it gives a non-definitive definition. I changed the pipe to Multiple citizenship 5 days ago which is directly on point since any English speaking person knows what "Canadian" and "American" mean when not linked in some way and "Multiple citizenship" actually explains in some detail the concept of "dual citizen". There is no "plurality in meaning" here, just one. If you are going to link to an article, link to a useful one. Canadian American#Canadians who obtained American citizenship is more on point here but is currently just a list header in that article and doesn't really add much in of itself but the header itself is a very accurate description to interested readers of this article, so if we must have a piped link, I could support that one and expand on that section in that article. (and someone please explain to me why my position here is pushing some point of view). Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I spoke too soon and will have to comment again briefly, because, as I see it, you've asserted some clear factual errors here that need to be addressed, but at the same time you've also proposed a very reasonable solution.

You keep insisting that OLINK supports leaving this link out, but it just doesn't. If you make this assertion again, please provide the exact wording in that guideline that you think supports your position here, because I have never known it to be interpreted in this manner and there's never been any manner of broad community consensus on the matter. If you know of a central discussion I don't, please elucidate. Otherwise your insistence on treating this as a matter in which policy mandates your position relies on an outright canard and is getting us nowhere by preventing the real discussion that needs to take place here as to what the best common sense solution is in regard to the linking in this case.

You're also misrepresenting the consensus of the previous discussion by suggesting that leaving the linking out was in any sense an element of what was agreed upon; it wasn't a part of the consensus in even a tangential fashion, but was rather mentioned only in passing -- and to the extent that it was discussed (in both the previous discussion and this one) all three editors other than yourself who have directly commented on the issue agree that the article ought to be linked in this case.

Look, this is clearly not an important issue, no matter which way it goes, but if you misrepresent both community and local consensus on this topic to try to strong-arm in your preferred approach rather than making the best practical-use argument you can, you're only going add fuel Ladysif's accusations of POV-pushing. And it would be unfortunate if the contest of wills proceeded purely because of that, because your Canadian American#Canadians who obtained American citizenship suggestion strikes me as a reasonable and practical compromise solution that ought to be given strong consideration. Snow ^{let's rap} 15:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I am still trying to get to a compromise on this and I have suggest two.

As for overlinking I was going with "everyday words understood by most readers in context" – Canadian and American, "unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article" which is under discussion. I am not objecting to a relevant link.

I have already compromised in order to reach agreement, I have suggested other compromises above. I was OK with this edit made after the last discussion was closed. I supported having a relevant link here. This discussion is about whether or not to have a link and if so which one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I know this is with a specific application, but the Overlinking script will remove links for "Ontario", "Canada", "Los Angeles" and "English language". It also catches [[United States|American]]. It does not catch [[Canadian American]] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's what the script did with this article: [2] (also fixed some dashes on that edit) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

How is linking to something with just a list of people, vs. generic link which provides further information, any more helpful? GP has no one else's interests in mind but his own. You do not own this article.Ladysif (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I explained in my first message in this thread why a generic link that links to extraneous info that doesn't define the words being linked and doesn't even mention Canadian citizenship at all is unhelpful and misleading. Why do people wish to remove from the lead the explicit fact that she has Canadian citizenship? I gave references that support that fact that she has Canadian citizenship. She self-identifies having dual citizenship. What is the problem with that info being in the intro? My only interest is not dropping well-referenced relevant information that the MOS says should be in the lead and the fact that she is Canadian as well as being American is relevant. The article as of January 19, 2015 stated only that she was a Canadian actress. American was added after new referenced info was obtained. She hasn't stopped being a Canadian actress she is just recently acknowledged as also being an American actress. The lead was clear and unambiguous before your original changes. I am willing to compromise and have, but effectively dropping the fact that she is a Canadian actress from the lead by wording or piped links to articles that don't state that is going too far. The link to the article section I proposed at least covers this case. That section there can be improved with more explanation if deemed necessary. As it is the header is accurate and interested people will read the whole article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, MoS doesn't really require that the exact status of her nationalities be discussed in detail in the lead, as it is not essential in any sense to an an understanding of her as a topic, especially as her notability (as determined by sourcing) derives from her profession and not in any significant sense from her nationality (again, as determined by sourcing). It totally suffices, as with the vast, vast majority of BLP's, to simply mention her origin in passing with a generic term (like Canadian--American) in the lead, and to provide the exact details in lower sections, especially given her dual citizenship is explicitly noted in the infobox and her place of birth is the subject of the very first sentence of the very first section after the lead. That's pretty much the standard approach and it's found to suffice for most biographies. I don't think it's in any sense accurate to suggest that anyone here is trying to sanitize the article of references to her Canadianess because they feel differently about the what word is used here or which article is linked.

But I'm saying all of the above just for pro forma purposes, to be clear for the record. I for one still fully support your approach of linking to that particular section. I agree with Ladysif that it's not strictly speaking necessary and that the original link probably should not have been removed on the rationale that was given, but this is a perfectly reasonable solution that hits the sweet spot between providing a link to the article which provides broader context on the subject of Canadian-Americans and your desire to make her citizenship status overt. If we can do both at once, I don't see the harm. It doesn't even matter who, if anyone, is getting possessive of the article -- this is a solution that meets in the middle and serves our readers decently well. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

A link to an article about Canadian Americans, and multiple definitions of Canadian Americans somehow.... removes the fact that she's a Canadian? That's one for an article on "misinterpretations of logic," for sure. I still don't understand why one must follow someone with such severely flawed interpretations of wikipedia policy and reason itself - considering that one can easily see on the opening page of this article that her citizenship is in Canada and the United States (see bio info on the right if you don't believe me), and that she was also born in Toronto, which by the way happens to be in Canada.Ladysif (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bad source

<ref>{{cite web | url=http://support.I I.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/GetAttachment/328/4 | title=Armored Core V – PS3 Manual | work=Namco | format=PDF | page=20}}</ref>

Does anyone know where this source comes from? I have tried support.I I.com, support.II.com, support.com none of these appear to lead to a web-site. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Found it: https://support.bandainamcoent.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/328/325/armored-core-v---instruction-manual-ps3 I'll throw it back in. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tara Strong. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040407180656/http://www.animerica-mag.com/features/mononokereview.html to http://movies.disney.com/princess-mononoke
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150105012813/http://comicsalliance.com/harley-quinn-voice-arkham-city-arleen-sorkin-tara-strong/ to http://comicsalliance.com/harley-quinn-voice-arkham-city-arleen-sorkin-tara-strong/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150710030321/http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/btva-awards/2014/video-games/ to http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/btva-awards/2013/video-games/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141011230201/http://game.infinitecrisis.com/en/infinite-crisis-credits to https://game.infinitecrisis.com/en/infinite-crisis-credits

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) 20:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)