Talk:Lana Parrilla

Cite for full name (BLP)
After User:Meters made a edit here, removing the WP:RS cite for the subject's full name, I restored the cite for the BLP detail and he re-reverted here rather than following WP:BRD. I offered a compromise here, and he continued edit-warring here. I restored the status quo from before his edits and asked in my summary to follow BRD and discuss the issue on this talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * References go after punctuation, so it is incorrect to have a reference after her name, and we don't need to use the same reference twice in the same line. As for the supposed compromise, I see no reason to add metadata about what information is sourced in the reference. The comment about the information being in the archived source but not the currentonline source is fine, but we do not need to further explain that the reference covers a particular fact. If we need to do that we would need to do it for every single reference we cite in Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, it's somewhat deceptive to to say that I removed a reliable source. I removed an improperly placed and unneeded duplication of a reliable source . Meters (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It was not improperly placed — there was no punctuation after the last name, but simply a letter space. That's where a footnote goes.
 * Incorrect middle names have been given on numerous occasions in Wikipedia biographical articles, even when the birth date is reliably cited. That is why a reliable-source citation is necessary for that BLP claim.
 * Other editors should weigh in. We can also ask for informal dispute resolution. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that we do not need to source her middle name. I'm saying that is already reliably sourced in that line. And yes, it is improperly placed. There's nothing particularly contentious about her middle name, so there is no need to have the ref directly after her name rather than a few words later with her birth date. For that matter, since there is nothing particularly contentious about either of those bits of sourced information the ref should not be in the lead at all, but either in the infobox where we mention both pieces of info or in the "Early life" section. And yes, I know that the "Early life"section currently does not give her birth date or her full name, but it's a logical place to do so. We already use the same ref that lists her middle name and birth date on the first sentence where we say were she was born. Easy enough to change "Parrilla was born in the Brooklyn borough of New York City. " to "Lana Maria Parrilla was born on July 15, 1977 in the Brooklyn borough of New York City. " or something similar. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 May 2018 (edit)


 * I think we've reached a workable middle ground, which I'll go into in the next paragraph. We first have to define our terms, since I believe the middle name is contentious if not reliably sourced — we are in fact contending about it this very moment. And I believe, whether intentionally or not, you're ignoring my stated point that "incorrect middle names have been given on numerous occasions in Wikipedia biographical articles, even when the birth date is reliably cited," necessitating a separate footnote.
 * So, a suggestion: Why don't we compromise based on your idea: We cite her middle name in the article body and her birth date in the lead (since it's in the lead that we generally cite birth dates. We wouldn't do it in the infobox, since infobox MOS is not to have footnotes for things that can be footnoted in the article body.)
 * This way, we don't have two footnotes in the lead sentence, which is what you want, and we have both her middle name and her birth date reliably sourced, which is what I want. Compromise is at the heart of collaboration, and so I hope you'll accept this suggestion that represents neither of us demanding our way only. What do you say?--Tenebrae (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just mention and reference both her middle name and her birth date in the section where we already mention her birth, sourced to the same reference already in that sentence, and the same one you have used twice in the first seven words of the lead. It is not normal to put references in the lead unless the information is contentious. The lead is a summary of the article content, and the sources are used in the body of the article.
 * There's no contention here over her middle name or her birth date, unless you are suggesting that the source is not a reliable one. If it's reliable then there is no contention. I already said that it is already reliably sourced. We are simply discussing whether we need the reference twice, once or not at all in the first sentence of the lead. That does not make the information contentious. Meters (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I might have been unclear, and if so, I apologize.
 * The reason we need the full name and birth date separately cited is because many times, a birthdate in a lead will have a cite and so people assume that means the full name is cited by the same source.
 * But that's often not true. The cite for the birth date often does not verify the full name.
 * So what I suggest is this: Cite the name in the lead and the birth date in the body, in the same place we cite the birthplace. That avoids two footnotes in one sentence. What do you say?--Tenebrae (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what other sources do or do not cover in other articles. In this case we have a source that covers everything. Use it and use it once. Sometimes sources only give a birth month and year. When we have one that gives all three we don't repeat the source after each of the year, month and day so that readers will know that this particular reference covers all three. Your reasoning would seem to lead to repeating references after each word that can be sourced to that reference.
 * What I say is exactly what I just said. Just mention and reference both her middle name and her birth date in the section where we already mention her birth, sourced to the same reference already in that sentence, and the same one you have used twice in the first seven words of the lead. It is not normal to put references in the lead unless the information is contentious. The lead is a summary of the article content, and the sources are used in the body of the article. We don't need to reference it in the lead at all if it is properly sourced in the body of the article, where references normally are. Meters (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sourcing it in the body is fine. But both claims of a birth date and claims of full names require RS citing. RE: "It does not matter what other sources do or do not cover in other articles." Yes, it does, because it is burying one's head in the sand to pretend that BLPs are not rife with uncited claims of full names that falsely appear to be cited because the birth date is cited. This is a reality. Perhaps we need an RfC, though I'd be surprised if editors argue for less accuracy and more vagueness in a BLP. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * And solely by coincidence, since another editor added a birth date to a page on my Watchlist, Jax (singer), we have an example of a cite for a birth date that does not include her birth name. I don't believe we should leave a claim of a birth name uncited.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2019
Truth&#39;sGuardian (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC) Edit request for grammar changes.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DannyS712 (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

LANA IS NOT BISEXUAL
Lana didn’t came out bisexual it was a joke and then you have people who I believe it lana never said that people thought she did but was just a joke so please stop spreading rumors Imkekrols (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It has been taken care of. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Instagram source for her divorce
Would you explain why you removed the CS parameters that I've added in this edit? Secondly, this source doesn't mention the year of divorce. It could very well be 2019. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wasn't my intention; I've restored it. My only edit to the date in the marriage template was to remove the month, since as you say this source doesn't specify.  Someone else has subsequently changed it to 2019, but since we don't know one way or the other, I won't revert that change.  General Ization  Talk  16:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No probs mate. As for the year of divorce, I've searched it quite a lot but was unable to find any reliable source. Since the Instagram source is dated 13th April 2019, I believe we can keep it that way for now. Actually "(m. 2014; div)" looked ugly. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)