User talk:Lady Lotus/Archive 1

Compliment
Some very nice specificity and very nice footnoting at Tom Hiddleston. Always good to see a solid Wikipedia editor doing such a fine job. Just extending a sincere compliment. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And again, very nice footnoting of all those awards. That must have taken some time. Bravo! It's good to have such a conscientious fellow editor around! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for asking
It's very kind of you, and collegial. You're probably right ... I think I even did so when I reverted myself! : )   I guess the whole craziness at The Avengers (2012 film), which appeared to have been a settled issue, is aggravating. Plus, I'm working both days this weekend and etc.  I appreciate your noticing I might not have been myself for a bit there. Calm discourse is, of course, always best. Thank you. I do sincerely mean it. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries, I just think of you as a very knowledgeable and gracious editor and I always think if you ever revert anything I edit it's with good reason ;) So when I see you slowly losing your calm over histories, I think to myself that someone or a collection of someones must have royally pissed you off lol I hope everything is good again, try to ignore any stupidity over the internet, that's a never ending battle lol. Take care xx Xpinkxcasualtyx (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hemsworth
I've added a second-warning template, and I'll keep watching that page. Hope it helps. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, L.L. Just wanted to chime in to confirm what Fat&Happy said on the Demi Moore page. If you go to the talk-page archives, you will see a literally months-long and figuratively stomach-churning debate over Demi Moore's name that resulted in the compromise that was finally arrived at. I can't imagine any aspect of the issue that wasn't covered in agonizing detail over that period. Equally credible sources the likes of The New York Times, Time Inc., Encyclopedia Britannica and many others are divided as to Moore's name. Honestly: You'd be doing yourself a favor by looking over the archived debate before jumping into the maelstrom! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Date ranges in filmography
I don't know where you have seen the opposite, but from all the articles I watch, it is standard practice to write "2008–present", e.g., for current projects. Here are two examples: Aubrey Plaza and Christina Applegate. Elizium23 (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to reference WP Manual of Style: Filmography or Filmography tables, no where does it list, reference, or suggest using through dates; I'm assuming it's due to interfering with accessibility. Lady Lotus (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I will address this at WT:ACTOR, to me it seems more like an oversight by the MOS writers than a rule against. Elizium23 (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * if you think it's worth addressing, I personally don't and don't like how it widens the row just to put a through date in it, but I can be ocd about organizational things like that lol ;) Lady Lotus (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) That is just an example, a guideline to go by. It's not saying that all Filmographies need to be just like that one. 2) The example given is of an actor who didn't have a regular role in a series, so that's why there's not a year range given. I understand how you feel about the row being too wide, but "–99" doesn't make it much wider, and when it's "–present" (or 1999–2000), I put a break in it so it's not so wide. But year ranges really are needed for continuous roles -- and it is done for every TV filmography table that I know of. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverts
Hello. Thank you for your contributions. I recently reverted some of your edits, please see Talk:Mitt_Romney. Regards —Eustress talk 16:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Second that. Please discuss high-visibility structural changes you want to make to the Romney article on the Talk page first and get consensus for them. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I dont really care either way, I figured I'd make the personal life section to make it easier for people to navigate but if you want to keep it the way it was then thats fine too. No big deal to me. Lady Lotus (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Details about his wife, his children, his parents, and his religion are spread throughout the article in chronological order, because that's the way it occurs in real life and in real biographies. "Marriage and children" is part of a section title so it's easy to find the text where he gets married and where his children are named.  These facts were also in the infobox, at least until you removed them.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Children and relatives are only to be listed by name in an infobox if they are notable, his sons are not so then it is to just list how many he has. Template:Infobox person Lady Lotus (talk)
 * Can you point me to the WP guideline that says this about children and infoboxes? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)  Sorry, missed your link.  That page says "Number of children (e.g. three or 3), or list of names, in which case, separate entries using  or . For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable."  In this case, privacy reasons are not at issue; all five sons have been campaigning for their father, both in 2008 and this year.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * right, "independently notable", which none of his sons are. i'll use Bruce Willis as an example: he has several daughters but only Rumer is listed bc she is independently notable. you seen now? Lady Lotus (talk)
 * The other children of Brfuce Willis (Scout and Tallulah) are named later in that article, so how does it promote their privacy to remove them from the infobox?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I dont know about the privacy issue or who Brfuce is ;) but i know they mainly want to keep all names of children unless notable out of the infobox bc the infobox is used to just summarize the person or article its being used in. "Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject." Listing all his kids isnt necessary for the infobox and kids are most always talked about in the article anyway. Lady Lotus (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well at least I spelled the kids' names right! :-)  And I agree with you that Van Gogh's Starry Night is beautiful.  But I really wish you would revert your edit at Mitt Romney until we get some consensus about it.  You're more than welcome at the talk page there.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * bah oh alright but only cause you sweet talked me with your starry night comment. I'm a sucker for van gogh lol Lady Lotus (talk)
 * Thanks, sweet talking is my specialty, but it rarely works at Wikipedia. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lady Lotus. I noticed that you recently shuffled around the images at Mitt Romney. However, we were trying to follow MOS:Images which includes the following guidelines:

"Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar."

"It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text."

Also, images should not force a heading to be indented. I think it would be a good idea if we follow these guidelines. I'm not sure I understand why you have rearranged the pictures, and I hope that you will participate in the talk page discussion about it, at the Mitt Romney article. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * does nobody read edit summaries anymore?? i clearly stated that i moved the pics to avoid stacking (having them all on one side). doesnt take consensus to move pictures if it's something like that and betters the page and follows guidelines Lady Lotus (talk)
 * What about the guidelines that I just described for you? Also, co-aligning images is fine; see STACKING.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Any chance you might revert the picture shuffling too, for the same reason? Incidentally, I noticed the article you wrote about Nymphomaniac (film).  There are some big stars in it, which is surprising to me.  Are there many porn movies that have big mainstream stars?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The pics i'll just give to you bc I don't care that much about it plus they werent too bad off to start with.

Relating to the film, it isnt just porn but its a new style that this director is ballsy enough to try and give "method acting" a whole new meaning by having them really have sex but i guess it is technquially considered porn. there are really big names in it so i hope it's done well and wont be some b-list movie with raunchy sex Lady Lotus (talk)
 * Okay, thanks. Take care.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox kids
That is a really good question. I've seen so many back-and-forth reversions through the years on whether to include birth dates for celebrity's children &mdash; which major outlets such as People, Us Weekly and Entertainment Weekly cover, often with frikkin' cover stories. Given that, my feeling is that this is legitimate biographical information. I do understand concerns regarding minor children, though, so I basically sit out this debate. I wish I could be more help. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, here you go: Elizium23 has posted a helpful below your post on my talk page. Now that's community! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

United Bates of America
Hi, Lady Lotus. I know you and I know you operate in good faith, so I didn't revert your edit though it runs afoul of WP:BLP. Instead, I'd just to ask you to add citations on all the birth dates you've just added at United Bates of America. Where did these birth dates come from? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Opps sorry love my bad, but i fixed it, they each have a ref to them :) you better be happy too bc i did all of that from my iPhone. i'm going to bed now before i go blind! ;) xx Lady Lotus (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You are, as always, exemplary! : )   And jeepers, don't hurt yer peepers on my account! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Always for you dear :) Lady Lotus (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Always an unexpected pleasure! But more importantly, it's a much-appreciated show of support from a peer. Thank you, dear Lady! With best wishes, --Tenebrae (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Invitation
Hi Lady Lotus, if you have a moment, please see here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Filmography table (Selena Gomez edit)
Hi Lauren, you didn't give a link or address to the "manual of style for filmographies". The only thing I know of is WP:ACTOR, and your edits don't really reflect that. I don't really have a problem with your edit (for the most part -- though I think that most of the removals are unnecessary), I just wanted to know where your MOS is. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * All the 'lead' or 'minor' roles are unnecessary for a filmography table, same for the whole 'replaced madonna/miley cyrus', those kind of details belong on the film or shows article page, not in the actors filmography table. Lady Lotus (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

rooney mara
hey, i noticed that you edited rooney's page

don't you think that the old form is better (the awards form) coz the old seems more neat and the new kinda so repetitive when looking at it, and distracting. whatever the most actors' page use the old form, hope you consider it :)


 * Regards--hosam007 (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks for explaining it i understood what you mean and thanks again for editing for wiki too :) --hosam007 (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Filmography year breaks
Hello Lauren, The reference you gave for reverting my edit was WP:FILMOGRAPHY. While I appreciate you wanting to adhere to WP MOS and guidelines (I do too), (1) it doesn't say not to use breaks, (2) WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers isn't an MOS, it's just a guideline to go by, and even if it was, an MOS is not set in stone. Consensus found on an individual article can override what is on an MOS (unless it's actual policy). Now, the reason I believe breaks are sometimes necessary in years is, when it comes to year ranges for TV series, they are supposed to be like "1998–99" (or 1998/99) unless it's in a different century from that of the first year, like "1999–2000" (per MOS:YEAR), however, this causes the year column (I know I said row before, but I meant column. Sorry for any confusion.) to be too wide -- especially when there's a table above or below (or both). To have one table one way and the next much different is inconsistent and just looks bad. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand where you are coming from and to be honest, I hate that year spans are used at all because it affects the width of the column but then putting breaks between the years I don't see as a good alternative either. Also, by using breaks in the table, it affects WP: Accessibility when breaks in a table aren't necessary, which they aren't in this case Lady Lotus (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Jessica Chastain
The Daily Mail is a tabloid, so I wouldn't use it as a reference. However, I know that there are reliable sources out there that state that she was born Jessica Howard. There was a long discussion about her birth name and date on Talk:Jessica Chastain. In short - and I know all this can't go in the article - it appears Jessica's then-unmarried mother gave birth to Jessica, in 1977, and thus Jessica was born under her mother's maiden name. Later, she took on the surname "Howard", the last name of a stepfather. I am not sure who Jessica's biological father is - it may have even been the man surnamed "Howard". I just don't know. The California Birth Index shows a Jessica M. Chastain born March 24, 1977, but no Jessica Howard born on that same day. That's why I took out the Howard part - it is just a mistake that will repeat itself around the net if it's kept in the article. She was raised Jessica Howard, but she was born Jessica Chastain. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like it is now publically known who Jessica Chastain's biological father is - see this. I thought it would possibly come out before the Oscars - or at least if Jessica ever runs for President. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hi, LL. I agree with you that only notable children should go in the infobox, but when I made a similar change elsewhere as you did recently to Stanley Tucci, another editor reverted me and I couldn't find the MOS to back up my edit. Could you point me to it? It would help me out. With thanks, Tenebrae (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello dear, yes on the Template:Infobox person, where it talks about parameters, underneath children it states


 * "Children: Number of children (e.g. three or 3), or list of names, in which case, separate entries using Plainlist or Unbulleted list. For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable."


 * Hope that helps :) Lady Lotus (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood
Please don't remove the award summary. The sub articles have full lists but it is very important to document his most important awards in a summary and the GA reviewer and Nehrams my co-writer on the whole article agree. I founded WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and have as much experience editing actor articles as most and you've definitely got the wrong end of the stick over MOS. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  17:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Because a good article on him should mention clearly the Academy Awards and other high importance things. We have articles split on his politics and personal life too, does that mean we should completely obliterate the section just because they have separate articles? The awards section is one of the most important parts of the article. The list mentions all of the minor awards lots and lots of them. The main article doesn't need to mention every one but a decent summary of the most notable ones is very important. I'm not particularly bothered with kids names in the infobox, I'd personally rather not have an infobox. Please don't get into an edit war. Leave the award summary as it is, names in infobox I don't really care.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"Partners" listed in infobox
I noticed your insertion of this on Eastwood's page was reverted. The women he cohabited with are basic common knowledge, but apparently one of the editors on there has a problem with it being listed in the infobox (see the revision history). If you think they should be listed in the infobox, look on the revision history of popular Wiki pages like Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt, where there is a lot of activity, and request input from several of the editors on there so you can gain "consensus." Helliea (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Meryl Streep Filmography
Hey! I just want to people see how the kind of accolades the actor won or was nominated for each film. I tried different forms, and all of them were erased. Now, I'll be creating another page, which will be separate from "Meryl Streep Filmography" or her profile. And just add a link to it in the profiles. Is that okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santy960529 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Santy, you might want to take a moment and see this article List of awards and nominations received by Meryl Streep which already accomplishes what you are saying you want to create. There is a link to it on both her profile and filmgraphy pages, which we explained in various edit summaries. Lady L the one think we might want to consider is changing the "See also" section on the filmography page into a hatnote or to put the link in the lead so that readers and editors do not have to scroll through the whole article to find the link. Let me know what you think when you have a moment and I have your talk page on my watchlist so I will look forward to your reply. MarnetteD | Talk 18:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi again LL. I see that you have already made Santy aware of the other article. Thanks for you efforts and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)