Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2015 April 21

= April 21 =

Changes to the American version of Grimm's Fairy Tale Classics ?
Does anybody remember a Japanese anime series called Grimm's Fairy Tales Classics that was shown on Nickelodeon? I was just wondering if any major changes were made for the American version, such as name changes or dialogue changes. I know that the original Japanese title was Grimm Meisaku Gekijou,but I'd like to know about more changes. I've searched the Internet,but I haven't been able to find any information. I've watched unedited versions on Youtube, but they're in Spanish and German. Does anybody have any information ? Greenpaper19 (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Greenpaper19 (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Different artists, the same person
I've been confused for a while about if and how this information should be added to Wikipedia.

The idea is that there is a singer who we'll call X, and one who we'll call Y, but both of these artists are actually the same person. X was active for some years on a major record label, but disappeared after a while on what her label is calling "a temporary hiatus". However, since then the same person has reappeared as the independent artist Y, but legally it seems like Y is not able to make any reference to her past as X: she can't perform X's songs even through she wrote them, and she can't mention the stage name she used as X. Anyone can see and hear it's the same person, but there are no official and reliable sources to connect one to the other. Anything else looks like unbelievable gossip, and the person in question has never revealed personal details that could be used to definitively identify her as both artists.

In this case, should Y be mentioned on the article for the "on hiatus" X, thus undermining X's management and their official position? Or would they become separate articles once Y can reach the level of notability she had as X? 46.193.160.18 (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That would depend on what valid sources have to say about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Does Chris Gaines and Garth Brooks help clarify the OP's situation? Or maybe Damon Albarn and Stuart Pots?  Perhaps he's thinking more along the lines of Cat Stevens and Yusuf Islam?  -- Jayron 32 08:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If "there are no official and reliable sources to connect one to the other", then Wikipedia cannot make that connection. It's not a matter of "undermining X's management", but instead of avoiding WP:OR.  Assuming Y reaches the threshold for notability, and there are still no reliable sources connecting her to X, then Y would get a separate article (and unless there is a reliable source for the rumour, there should not be a mention of Y on X's article, or X on Y's article). MChesterMC (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Edward M. Favor
Why did he use the middle initial M, when his real middle initial was A ? (I'm thinking out of concern that "A favor" might have been taken the wrong way.) StuRat (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's his stage name. (Hey, if Superman can get away with just glasses as a disguise ...) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe for the same reason Michael J. Fox changed his middle initial from A, so as not to risk getting headlines like "Michael, a fox!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I realize that's just an aside, but our article explains the reason he changed his name - and that wasn't it. Matt Deres (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Where? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Michael_J._Fox. -Modocc (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought you were talking about Favor. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You're right. But the point being that he changed it, for a specific reason. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * We may never know. He may have just liked the sound of it.  And given the time that he lived, I doubt interviewers spent too much, if any, time thinking about it.  Now we can fill space with such minutia with no problem but back then paper and ink were spent on more eye catching and relevant information.  Dismas |(talk) 21:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)