Talk:Makenzie Vega

Fair use rationale for Image:Makenzie Vega.jpg
Image:Makenzie Vega.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Name of school
The name of the school Makenzie attends was listed in the article, for safety reason I think it's a little much to name the exact school; I removed the name. This portion of the article is now how it was previously (prior to 1/22/2011), and I think contains enough information without being overally intrusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.216.197 (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Makenzie Vega. 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/20100627200841/http://www.alexa-vega.com/forum-archive/questions-for-miss-alexa-vega.html to http://www.alexa-vega.com/forum-archive/questions-for-miss-alexa-vega.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) 17:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Singer capability of person's sister
,  NowLaterorNever (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Neither of those are valid sources. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Those look like copies of what is in her Wiki article. She shouldn't be listed as a notable singer in her article either, she is just an actor who can sing but doesn't have a notable separate occupation as a singer. Only singing credits is on soundtrack albums for films she was in. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What about her being on Spotify then? NowLaterorNever (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See MOS:ROLEBIO. People aren't generally considered notable singers unless it is actually an occupation and they have achieved some level of fame doing it. Lots of peoples have hobbies and other things they like to do. Lots of amateurs put stuff out on social media. It seldom raises to the level of being notable though, much as in this case. A good test is WP:NMUSIC and did anything they do show up on a national chart of some sort. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Her account on Spotify is official though, plus you admitted yourself the edit existed for 15 years, thus the non-inclusion of it needs consenus anew. NowLaterorNever (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This article has been stable about how her sister was described since 2010. Reflects the fact her sister isn't really notable as a singer. Sister's article having singer as a notable occupation is wrong but that isn't the issue with this article. We are not obligated to reflect the mistakes made on other articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, to add, even if a person has a whole list of notable occupations in their article, for referral in other articles, to give context, only the most notable one needs to included with the name. The others add nothing to understanding of who is being referred to. This article refers to her sister as a biographical detail of who she is related to. Details about her sister are in the wikilink to her article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Except the article referred to her as actress and singer for more than a decade, something implying most editors were ok with it. NowLaterorNever (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant here – it's wrong, and Alexa is primarily known as an actress regardless. The Makenzie article has no need to mention anything beyond that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Articles have to keep up with the lede of others they support in the main body or in general. NowLaterorNever (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not for the purpose of basic identification as in this case here. Just the minimum necessary to give context is all that is needed. That is why we have wikilinks for people who need to know more. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no they don't – there is no such guideline or policy. You're just making stuff up now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can equally claim the same for both of you since nor is one for what you mention above. NowLaterorNever (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We're arguing a common sense position – refer to a sibling for what she is primarily and overwhelmingly notable for. You are arguing a guideline that doesn't exist, in support of a claim that is almost certainly objectively incorrect. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In the lead only notable occupations are referred, others go on infobox at the occupation section. This version included singer for fifteen years (at least), thus the majority of editors were ok with it as I already said, but the main point is it should be referred since under these circumstances, it is part of the lede. NowLaterorNever (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As per my comment on your Talk page, WP:CCC is directly relevant here, and based on the discussion at Talk:Alexa PenaVega, it has. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)