Talk:Alyson Court

Redfield
From the article:
 * She is best recognized for providing the voice of Claire Redfield in the Resident Evil video games.

Um, really? I think there are probably far more kids in Canada and the U.S. who know Alyson from her childrens' television programming (especially as Loonette the Clown) than gamers who would happen to recognize her voice in some video game. That's when she met co-star actress Amber Delly. 70.20.179.75 13:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The world > NA 80.153.106.137 (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)---
 * No "best recognized" statement should exist without a source. 64.231.171.166 (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Filmography
Court's filmography is terribly out of order. Also, it seemed she sort of dropped off the map for about a decade after X-Men. Any reason why? She's been a favorite actress of mine since the Beetlejuice days. --The_Iconoclast (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alyson Court. 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/20090525092725/http://www.capcom-fc.com/re_dc/2009/05/claire_presence.html to http://www.capcom-fc.com/re_dc/2009/05/claire_presence.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced relationships
Hello, Court's relationship to Z. M. Thomas is cited to an unverified Twitter account that she does not own. This is not admissable as a reliable secondary source in a biography of a living person. There are no sources provided for her alleged former marriage. Please do not restore these without citing actual sources. This is per WP:BLP. Thank you. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, so it has been restored in contravention of WP:BLPREMOVE; another reference has been provided with the name of "David Suzuki" placing him with Court as his wife, circa 2000. No mention of the end of their relationship, its date or the manner of their breakup. So it is wholly insufficient to support the information proposed in the article. And for Z. M. Thomas, once again, an unverified Twitter account is never a WP:RS. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The second twitter reference belongs to Court's tweets herself. I re-read the BLP policy, and to quote it word for word "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." The second Twitter source was written by Court herself on her own Twitter account, and she has full discretion on whether or not the information is public. Since she made the announcement as a response to Thomas's tweets, that is public knowledge for anyone following their profiles on the website. As for the Game Informer article, this was sourced to confirm that Court was married to Suzuki. Dibol (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Every Twitter account you have referenced is "unverified" (no blue checkmark) and therefore we cannot be assured of the owner's identity, and until they become "verified", they are unusable here as a WP:RS. See WP:Twitter-EL. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Once again, the Game Informer article seems to corroborate that Court was married to Suzuki in 2000 and nothing else. The information you added contains significantly more than those facts which can be verified. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I have no control over whether or not Thomas or Court want to have their twitter accounts verified. Considering that getting verification requires the usage of a credit-card and the like just to get that little checkmark (this is coming from someone who actually has a Twitter account), they may have their own personal reasons for not doing this. Let's leave this alone for the time being.Dibol (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it shall not be "left alone" because you are adding information without reliable sources. Please conform to WP:BLPREMOVE and revert yourself until you can adequately source it. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the claims for now. Self-published sources like Twitter can be used for claims about themselves and never other living persons, which these are. See WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPSELFPUB, our policies on this are quite clear. Furthermore, these tweets were being used to support claims that they in no way make. The Game Informer source was as well. We may, at most, use Game Informer to say that "Court and Suzuki are or were married". We could possibly use Court's tweet to say that she is engaged (but not to whom), though the lack of verification on Twitter is an issue. Ultimately, if their relationships aren't widely reported in reliable sources, it's probably UNDUE to mention them anywhere on Wikipedia. When it comes to living persons, it's better to have no details than to have inaccurate details or poorly-sourced details. Woodroar (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Woodroar, I do not understand what you mean by the entirety of this last paragraph. The walking contradiction I am seeing about here is "Self published sources can be used for claims about themselves, but not others." In the case of these tweets, Court made a tweet confirming, "Hey, this actually happened, and I got engaged, and here are real life pictures to prove it on my personal behalf“ and yet that got dismissed off-hand with little rhyme or reason despite Court's tweets or actual real-life photos (which by the way are uploaded by the account holders' discretion) of Court confirming such events happened (i.e. “Hey, I am publishing this tweet about myself, confirming that these claims are true,” which seems to be selectively enforced.) What does this mean "These tweets were being used to support in claims that they in no way make?" Are you saying, "Just because he said something, and I made a statement confirming this is happening on my behalf" said statements are false just because they did not get their twitter accounts verified before 2017? If that is the intent of the wording, the policy of requiring the "Verified Twitter account" has created a minefield since we already have articles like Erica Lindbeck not fall under said scrutiny that Court’s page is with the whole “We do not accept these accounts as sources because of the lack of checkmark. By the way, getting your personal twitter account in general is IMPOSSIBLE as of 2017, since the platform DISCONTINUED THIS PRACTICE, so good luck getting that magical checkmark for “complying with Wikipedia’s guidelines.”Dibol (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)