Talk:Dafne Keen

Birthdate
The source for birth year of 2005 is e-talenta which purports to be a casting registry. Not a great source but likely the info is fed by agents and reports what an actress' agent wants to be known about her for casting and employment decisions. The only reference I've seen for day and month is a dated twitter entry from her verified twitter account titled "My Birthday!" the date of the entry as adjusted to display in my timezone as 8:31 AM - 19 Jan 2018. Presumption being that she posted it on her birthday which is not explicit in what she wrote and disputed by other following edits after that info was posted in the article. Normally a verified twitter from the article's topic would be sufficient per WP:ABOUTSELF if the statement is unambiguously clear which it is not in this instance. WP:BLPPRIVACY is not met with that twitter info in this case. The year info is sufficient to give age range in this article, more detail is not needed and this is private info about a minor so extra care needs to be taken to not post info the person or person's guardian has not clearly and unambiguously indicated that it is OK to publish. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Private info about a minor? It's just her birthday.. not the route she takes to school in the morning.. who cares? www.famousbirthdays.com also lists her birthday as January 19, 2005, making her 13 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.107.235 (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLPPRIVACY, which is a Wikipedia policy statement, for why we care. www.famousbirthdays.com is not a reliable source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Dafne's latest instagram photo her birthday was on the 4th of January and she is now 14; putting her birthday as January 4 2005 RoboBongoCuckooCop (talk)
 * Meets WP:ABOUTSELF and also illustrates lack of reliability of famousbirthdays.com as a source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Debrett's Peerage source for descent from 6th Earl Howe
There has in the past evidently been some doubt cast on the fact that Dafne Keen is a descendant of the 6th Earl Howe. Dafne Keen is accepted to be daughter of actor Will Keen and Maria Fernandez Ache, whom he married in 2002; Debrett's 2011 (148th ed.), p. 799, in the pedigree of the Earls Howe, in the section detailing descendants of the 6th Earl, clearly shows William Walter Maurice Keen (b. 1970) to have married, in 2002, Maria Fernandez Hernandez ('Ache', it's worth observing, being the Spanish pronunciation of 'H'., presumably the source of her pseudonym), daughter of of Manuel Fernandez Delgado, and their daughter being Dafne Maria, b. 2005. This well-respected source is sufficient in countless other articles, but for some reason not this one? It almost comes across as a concerted effort to keep this information from the article, which is rather strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.68.131 (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Keen family and relatives
The article on Alice Oswald's poetry collection identifies her brother as 'actor Will Keen' ('Her father is a retired banker, her mother the garden designer Mary Keen, her brother the actor Will Keen.'). The article on Mary Keen (she simply doesn't use her first name of 'Priscilla', which makes sense as it was also her mother's name; as also clearly shown here https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp130975/lady-priscilla-mary-rose-keen-nee-curzon) mentions both Alice Oswald and Laura Beatty as her children: 'Keen lives in Gloucestershire with her husband, Charles, with whom she has four children... My third daughter, Alice [Oswald, the poet]... my daughter Laura [Beatty], who is a writer...' Therefore the three are siblings, and Dafne Keen, Will's daughter, is the niece of Alice Oswald and Laura Beatty.

This all matches up with the Debrett's 2011 pedigree of the Earls Howe, which under descendants of the 6th Earl, gives the full names of all these siblings and their marriages. This firmly- beyond any shadow of a doubt- establishes the identities of all these individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.70.169 (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit by user "Mariakeen"
On 5 March 2020, this user (whose name, it must be noted, is that of Dafne Keen's mother, and whose only edit not on this article is to add the name of Dafne Keen's mother to a cast list) removed information citing a reliable published source: "I erased information that is irrelevant and probably false". This, I suggest, is rather disingenuous, as: a) "irrelevance" and "probable falsity" are two very different things, and it strikes me as an attempt to cover bases just to get rid of the piece of information; b) Dafne Keen's mother- who it would appear is this editor- would know very well that it's not "probably false". The talk pages of this article, that of Will Keen, and those of Laura Beatty and Alice Oswald present published sources and reliable media sources (also cited in-article) which make it entirely clear that Dafne Keen descends from the 6th Earl Howe; quite why this piece of information is undesirable I'm not sure, but I tentatively suggest it's because of the present-day numbers of actors of privileged background and a feeling that this might be something best kept under wraps, which I consider dishonest and unencyclopaedic.

I think it's enough to state that the chances would be a million to one that Debrett's just happens to list, amongst the descendants of the 6th Earl Howe, three siblings who happen to have exactly the same names as Will Keen, Alice Oswald and Laura Beatty, the same parents' names, and the same names for their spouses, as supported by the other sources indicated in-article and on the aforementioned talk pages, and in addition for that completely unrelated Will Keen to just happen to have a daughter named "Dafne", a form of "Daphne" not commonly encountered at all.

Infobox
An editor seems to think the Infobox should be deleted because it is redundant. I pointed out Help:Infobox they are redundant by design since are intended to summarize information in a structured format. That editor again deleted the Infobox and pointed to WP:INFOBOX and again stated that it was redundant but failed to explain what part of that guideline supported deleting the Infobox, or how redundancy is a problem. I understand that Infoboxes are not required in every article but they are usually included and it not clear why anyone would feel it was necessary to delete the Infobox from this article. (If anyone is concerned about redundancy then those Navboxes are linkdumpsters and should be the first to go.)

Anyway if someone else wants to restore and improve the Infobox at some later date, for your convenience here is the diff where the Infobox was removed. I'll go edit something else instead for a while. -- 109.79.178.201 (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Infoboxes are supposed to be redundant. This is clearly mentioned in the MOS:IBX. "You should summarize, and not supplant, facts that appear in an article." As such, it is okay to have this infobox. The data within it is available for third-party reuse, mostly machine readers. Infoboxes are usually skipped when the entire article's summary appears in the lead section itself. I'mFeistyIncognito | Talk 20:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I didn't want to argue about it before so I started a discussion but (as the diff I linked above showed) User:Davey2010 deleted the Infobox with the edit summary "25 July 2020‎ talk contribs‎  16,076 bytes -689‎  Infobox adds nothing to the article and is in fact redundant to the text on the left. Please read WP:Infobox."
 * I had read Help:Infobox and pointed to it in my edit summary!
 * Anywyay, an anonymous ipv6 editor added a new Infobox to the article, but it wasn't as good as the old Infobox so I have taken the opportunity to restore the better more detailed version. -- 109.78.211.204 (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Except for her relatives and birth place everything else is in the lead making the ib redundant. Alls the infobox is doing is repeating everything that's literally in the lead of the article. Thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 09:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Davey2010 is still not listening, redundancy is not a good reason for deleting the infobox, the infobox is supposed to be redundant. -- 109.78.211.204 (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree there, As complete random examples if you take a look at Robbie Williams or Maisie Williams - both list new and helpful information that isn't in the lead thus making the infobox of use and of importance, In this specific case everything bar her birthplace is all in the lead making it useless, I understand what you're saying inregards to redundancy however IMHO infoboxes should not be redundant and weren't made to be redundant either, I've started an RFC below. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm merely restoring what other edits have added in good faith. Infoboxes provide structured data providing an overview, organized information that is easy for both machines and casual readers to parse in a predictable way. Infoboxes are supposed to summarize information "Already cited elsewhere in the article" i.e. redundant by design but despite that Davey2010 asserts they "weren't made to be redundant either" his comments appear to be contradicting the documentation and explanation is needed. It is not clear what downside there is to having it.
 * The relevance of those two examples of other Infoboxes are not clear either. The first is a former "good article" and the later is a current "good article" and they will of course have more detailed Infoboxes, it doesn't seem like a helpful comparison. It isn't clear how anyone thinks removing the Infobox helps improve the article, or what changes Davey2010 thinks are needed before the article would need an Infobox. I really hope Davey2010 will make it clear what he thinks needs to be improved about the article and infobox to make talk about deleting moot. Isn't discussion supposed to happen before calling for votes? -- 109.78.211.204 (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made myself perfectly clear as to why I wanted it removed and why I removed it, The discussion here wasn't leading anywhere so felt an RFC was the next best choice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 12:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made myself perfectly clear as to why I wanted it removed and why I removed it, The discussion here wasn't leading anywhere so felt an RFC was the next best choice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 12:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Infobox RFC
Should this article have an infobox in the article ?, (This is the infobox in question), Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 16:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

!votes

 * No - IMHO bar her birthplace everything else in directly in to the left making the infobox redundant and useless, The infobox is simply repeating everything that's in the lead. (There was a discussion about redundancy above however I still ibs shouldn't be redundant in that way), Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 16:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, weakly While the infobox might just repeat information in the lead, it might be more reader-friendly to have something more skimmable. --I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 18:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I added another category to the RfC at 18:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC). I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 18:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No We may need to have an infobox in the future when the text becomes lengthy, but until then, I support removing the infobox. ~ HAL  333  03:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak no per HAL333. Most[*] infoboxes are not helpful on short stubs like this. Definitely keep the image, though.  And I don't think having the infobox at this early stage is "harmful", it's just kind of pointless.  I agree that after significant further development, an infobox would be appropriate (though not required).  [* Some specialty infoboxes should be included in certain categories of articles no matter what, such as  or a variant of it on species articles.  This kind of concern doesn't generally apply to biographies.]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes - There should be no doubt at this point that infoboxes are meant to be redundant. This discussion is whether it makes sense for this article to have one. By convention, if the infobox summarizes only the lead section, then the infobox can be removed, because the lead section is just an introduction, and itself being an inexact summary of the article, lines in it can be expanded further in the body. However, neither this infobox nor the article limits itself to the lead section. Besides, it allows third party software to read infoboxes and get a picture of the article.


 * If you are so keen on purging infoboxes from articles, then why haven't you done so already from these articles? Here are some examples where the infobox could've been totally avoided.
 * Haley Ramm
 * Heather Graham
 * Angourie Rice
 * Anna Kendrick
 * Eliza Bennett
 * Eleanor Tomlinson


 * ... Just to name a few. I think policies on Wikipedia should be uniform. And the constraints on them shouldn't be so nuanced that it becomes harder to be productive.

I'mFeistyIncognito | Talk 14:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please keep your unfounded accusations out of this RFC - If I were so keen to remove them you'd see me on your watchlist every day removing them!, It's done purely on a article-by-article basis, If I believe the article warrants one based on the content provided > It stays, If not > it goes, Also on a few RFCs I've !voted Keep so no I'm not keen on having these removed not at all. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your argument seems like a fallacy to me. Whether or not Davey tries to remove those infoboxes has nothing to do with this infobox. Let's stay on topic. And Wikipedia policies don't have to be uniform per Pocket consensus. ~ HAL  333  20:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes No down side to having the infobox, standardized structured information in additton to prose. Removing it does not improve the article. Instead of deleting the Infobox we should be asking how to improve the article. -- 109.77.214.109 (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I seriously don't see the downside to including an Infobox, and I still don't understand why someone would single out this Infobox? But apparently some people have been objecting to Infoboxes for years, yet unable to gain consensus or come up with clear policies on the matter, so much so that editors would dramatically refer to the discussion as the The Infobox Wars and yet another discussion about it is ongoing on the Village_pump_(proposals) noticeboard. Weird. -- 109.78.207.89 (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, per HAL333 and SMcCandlish. Idealigic (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's useful for quickly scanning information. – Anne drew  19:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

confusing sentence
'She is the daughter of British actor Will Keen, and Spanish actress' I can't tell if this is supposed to say 'She is the daughter of British actor Will Keen, and a Spanish actress' or 'She is the daughter of British actor Will Keen, and she is a Spanish actress'. The sources are in spanish so I can't check those. Is there anyone who could translate or is the original writer? Thanks. ― TaltosKieronTalk 01:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please try reading the entire sentence: She is the daughter of British actor Will Keen, and Spanish actress, theatre director, and writer María Fernández Ache. I added the Oxford comma after "theatre director", but it still should have been clear without it.  General Ization  Talk  02:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)