Talk:Aaron Schwartz (Canadian actor)

Odd
Check out this diff. I wonder when the article for this Aaron Schwartz was deleted, and why? David in DC (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * See User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads
 * 117 Who killed Aaron Schwartz (and why) … “Very odd. I cannot find a trace of a deleted article with that name.… --Elen of the Roads”. (Nor can I.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

LinkedIn
LinkedIn may only rarely be used as a source, so I've removed that reference. Typically, the only time we used LinkedIn is when approached by the subject who then verifies his identity with OTRS. This is detailed at WP:ELPEREN, where the requirement that LinkedIn can only be used when the profile has been verified as actually belong to the subject. Yworo (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Article meets WP:BIO & WP:V criteria
Meets criteria for WP:BIO, see WP:ENT. “Has had significant roles in multiple notable films [or] television shows.”


 * Subject played father of title character in The Outside Chance of Maximilian Glick, which won Best Canadian Feature Film award at the Toronto International Film Festival.


 * Subject played a leading role in all 66 episodes of Check It Out! (Canadian TV series).

Meets criteria for WP:V. Sources include


 * Toronto Star – Starweek sec.


 * Toronto Star – Entertainment sec.


 * The Plain Dealer (Cleveland)


 * Tim Brooks & Earle Marsh, The complete directory to prime time network and cable TV shows, 1946–present (Ballantine Books)


 * Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory (LexisNexis)

--Dervorguilla (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

'Aaron Schwartz (Canadian actor)' page moved to 'Aaron Schwartz (actor-lawyer)'
Moved “Aaron Schwartz (Canadian actor)” page to “Aaron Schwartz (actor-lawyer)”. Description as “actor-lawyer” is recognizable to someone familiar with Schwartz as lawyer but not actor. Also, “actor-lawyer” = 3 syllables; “Canadian actor” = 6 syllables. WP:CRITERIA --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved it back. The article indicates he's notable primarily (or entirely) as an actor, and we don't choose disambiguators based on syllable counts (especially given the apparent difficulty of correctly counting them *cough*). Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Restoring-

WP:NOUN “Use nouns. Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech.”

WP:CRITERIA “Conciseness. The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.”

Merriam-Webster Unabridged (2013):

actor, noun. \ˈak-tər …\. [2 syllables]

Canadian, adjective. \kə-ˈnā-dē-ən …\. [4 syllables]

lawyer, noun. \ˈlȯyə(r) …\. [1 syllable] [‘Their lawyers told them that …’ = 4 syllables, not 5.]

actor-lawyer: 2 + 1 = 3 syllables.

Canadian actor: 4 + 2 = 6 syllables.

3 syllables < 6 syllables.

actor-lawyer = 12 characters.

Canadian actor = 14 characters.

12 characters < 14 characters. --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Counting sylables or characters (or miscounting them, for that matter) is an approach that has little to re commend it in deciding how to name an article on concisely on wikipedia. As a matter of editorial judgment, in my view, "Canadian actor" is more concise than "actor-lawyer". One concept, "actor" modified by an adjective to disambiguate from another actor of the same name --- rather than two usually unrelated concepts "actor" and "lawyer."
 * Both Aaron Schwartzes are notable, primarily, as actors. Actor is the noun that should be used here. The adjective "Canadian" is what distinguishes (i.e. disambiguates) the two. David in DC (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You’ve been asked to settle content disputes politely, David in DC. This suggests that you should try not to cite yourself as the sole authority for a statement — even if you’re right.
 * I must however acknowledge that your comment is rather more thoughtful than our colleague’s...
 * Do you think you could formulate a somewhat more meaningful answer to my concerns?
 * Consider that our international readership may not agree that a person’s national origin outweighs what the person does to make money. And I don’t how to tell an American actor from a Canadian. (If you do, I withdraw my objection!) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My initial response is as meaningful as I can get on this topic.
 * I'm not citing myself as the sole authority for a fact in an article. Facts in an article need a ref (or refs) to a reliable source or sources. (Like if a writer reports a fact and it's published in two reliable sources. You may be familiar with such a situation.)
 * Not so statements of editorial judgment. We're editors. We edit. That involves editorial judgment. If editors' editorial judgments differ, they hash it out on the talk page and reach consensus or they agree to disagree, collegially, and let the matter drop after everone has had their say and the bulk of comment is on one side.
 * Here, so far, three editors have expresed their editorial judgment and two of the three agree. After another week or so, if there's additional commentary by additional editors, we try to determine consensus. Additional argumentation by the same three people descends into a repititive circle jerk. So, unless I see new points being expressed, I'm content to stand on what I've written.
 * Finally, there are two ways, beyond wiki-disambiguation, to differentiate an American actor from and Canadian one:
 * 1) Ask each to recite the alphabet. The Canadian ends with "zed". The American with "zee".
 * 2) Listen to how they end their sentences. If one of them ends a fair number with "eh" - pronounced AY - especially if it's pronounced with an upturned inflection that makes the statement sound like a question, that one's the Candian. David in DC (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not responding sooner -- I've been extremely busy lately and unable to check on Wikipedia. I agree that "Canadian actor" is not an ideal disambiguator, and would be happy to support a better one -- ideally, the title would be able to identify the subject by a single trait that would be recognizable to most or all people seeking his article. Based on the article, I don't know what trait might serve that purpose better than his nationality. The article doesn't indicate that people seeking his article would be likely to identify him as a lawyer, or as an actor who is also a lawyer. I remain unconvinced that shedding a couple syllables (how often would anyone be speaking the article title aloud?) or characters is any kind of priority in naming or disambiguating articles -- in my rather significant experience working on disambiguation, conciseness tends to come into play when discussing something like Koko (gorilla) vs. Koko (gorilla who knows sign language). (And as a wholly, 100% irrelevant aside, I remain unconvinced that "lawyer" is generally considered to have one syllable.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Our interlocutor cannot post right now. I think we should leave things as they are, at least for now.  Both Aaron Schwartzes are actors, as is Aaron Swartz (actor).  All three of these articles were a side issue in ongoing content disputes at Aaron Swartz. Given the plethora of actors with the same or similar names, plus the much more prominent computer programmer, I think we've got things disambiguated as best we can. David in DC (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Aaron Schwartz (Canadian actor). 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/20130621234413/http://aschwartz.zenfolio.com:80/ to http://aschwartz.zenfolio.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130621234413/http://aschwartz.zenfolio.com:80/ to http://aschwartz.zenfolio.com
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130621234413/http://aschwartz.zenfolio.com:80/ to http://aschwartz.zenfolio.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)