Talk:Amanda Righetti

Being born does not create a notable link
People should not be categorized by where they were born, only where they were raised. If a person was not raised there, having been born there is just a trivial detail.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion, one which is not supported by Categorization. We don't operate on POV, but on facts. All we can do is list the pertinent fact &mdash; and birth place by any biographical standard is a pertinent fact &mdash; and let readers conclude whether it's "a trivial detail" or not. That's not for you or me to say. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not my opinion. It is the long agreed upon fact.  There are clear statements that in general the location of someone's birth is trivial.  Place of birth is included in articles, but people should be categorized as "from" where they were raised, not just where they were born.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Categorization of people under place states "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual." This clearly indicates we do not categorize people merely by where they were born, but by where they were raised.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Filmography
An editor has begun edit-warring in the Filmography section, reverting to a version requiring two footnotes when one will do. Per WP:BRD, after his edit was overturned and status quo returned, protocol is to discuss his edit on the talk page and try to reach consensus with other editors. I invited him to come here and do so. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear, disagreeing with you is not edit-warring. I gave reasoning for my edits, which is that the extra info you want to add (i.e. an alternate name for a film) is something that is suitable for an explanatory note. It doesn't "require" two notes when "one will do": one of the footnotes is a standard reference/citation and the other is, well, a note, additional information that is perhaps of use but not the main focus of the cell (i.e. the title of the film). It's debatable whether the alternate title should even be present in this table as there's no indication it's sufficiently well-known by that title to be included (since the movie itself apparently doesn't warrant its own article). But whether the 2nd title is trivial or not, it certainly doesn't belong in the title cell along with the primary one (fwiw IMDb lists the second title as the alternate UK title, and given the film is American, this obviously makes that title less noteworthy than its primary one in its market of origin). The efn template is perfect for adding this kind of secondary info. As per its documentation, Explanatory footnotes or Efn are footnotes which give something more than just a reference.
 * Also, in reversing my last edit, you reintroduced an error in the table. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BRD, once reverted, protocol is to discuss the reverted edit on the talk page and try to reach consensus with other editors. Continuing to insert is edit-warring.


 * The only reliable cited source I could find for this movie shows the titles in the order given. If there's a reliable source that could be cited with the titles reversed, then substitute that.


 * Alternate titles are given within filmographies all the time in Wikipedia. It's neat, concise and uncluttered. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All due respect, but an uncluttered and concise manner to include it would be the format where it's included with a note, rather than jamming two titles into a single cell. Obviously a superscript notation is more concise in a table than "a.k.a. {secondary title}". I have no strong objection to the second title's inclusion (although as I mentioned, I don't think it has to be included); the objection is to its inclusion with equal prominence and the "messy" manner, what with the "a.k.a." abbreviation and all. If put in a note, you could even spell out the "also known as".
 * Alternatively, I've seen secondary titles included in the "Notes" cell, such as in . Just never in the same cell as the primary title. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I was just about to suggest that, a la Rita Hayworth, as a compromise. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well compromise is the spirit of Wikipedia, so sure, let's go with that! —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amanda Righetti. 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://archive.is/20130119015326/http://www.cbs.com/shows/the_mentalist/cast/23107 to http://www.cbs.com/shows/the_mentalist/cast/23107
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131125185934/http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2013/08/the-mentalist-season-6-amanda-righetti-and-owain-yeoman-set-to-leave.html to http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2013/08/the-mentalist-season-6-amanda-righetti-and-owain-yeoman-set-to-leave.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) 13:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Separation
Hi

I just copied from Jordan Alan article. Also "Separation" has been used in many articles. Why it shouldn't be used in this article? Shkuru Afshar (talk) 05:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it's been discussed and, again, when people separate, their marriage is not ended. Only divorce, annulment, or death ends a marriage. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)