Talk:Caitríona Balfe

Fansite

This page reads more like a fansite than an encyclopedia article. I realize someone went to a great deal of effort to write out the companies for whom Balfe has modeled but this information belongs on her webpage, not here. I think the lists of companies for which she has modeled should be cut completely and replaced with something like this: "Balfe has modeled for many top designers." In addition, the quotes to magazines should be cut from from the text. Wikipedia articles should speak with authority with their claims backed by references.

Also, the fact that she has an uncredited role in "The Devil Wears Prada," means it shouldn't be in the lead section. It makes all her acting roles sound trivial. Questions? Comments? Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Why cut the list of companies for which she's modeled?

I just completely fail to understand why a professional fashion model's list of companies that she's modeled for should be cut from the modeling career section of her article. If you think of modeling or the fashion industry as something trivial or that it becomes irrelevant once a model turned actress has achieved a certain degree of success in acting then good for you, that doesn't mean it's trivial and that doesn't mean there aren't countless Wikipedia articles about fashion models with detailed information on their careers. I seriously find it mind-boggling that you think listing a bunch of brands she's modelled for means "fan-perspective", I mean you can say there are too may and tell me to cut down on them, but "fan-perspective"? Is listing an actor's acting credits "fan-perspective"?

I agree on The Devil Wears Prada thing. And the quotes to magazines? Considering literally every Wikipedia article on an actor has direct quotes from magazines on their acting performances... If on the other hand again you believe there are too many of those quotes I'll happily remove a couple. I have to say though I can understand that the tone of the article might sound a bit like fan-perspective, I can definitely re-write some parts so that it sounds less like it. But I just don't agree on the 2 main reasons you said (the fashion brands and the quotes), although like I said if they feel like too many I can cut down on both of them. Thank you User:Narciso003 (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

relevancy

The subject of this article was not notable before being selected by Starz. Indeed, prior to sept 2013 this article didn't even exist.

Discuss. CapnZapp (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

"supermodel" vs "model"

I realize that the subject was highly paid as a model, and worked for a number of high end brands, but I feel that it's inappropriate to introduce her as a "supermodel," which is more of a judgment call than a profession. Even the article for Gisele Bündchen introduces her as a "model." As others have pointed out, she did not have a Wikipedia article during her modeling career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.118.208 (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Unwieldy information

Listing every designer or advertising for whom this model/actress worked and how many times she worked for each is unwieldy. All of these are attributed to the same source and are taxing for the reader to have to sift through, especially since each of the designers or advertisers are links, as well, and as such are written in blue. I tried to break up the massive sentence that included all of it and use semicolons to try to control all of that unnecessary information, but it is still too much. It is simply unnecessary to have those exhaustive lists included in this article. I agree with the editor below who states that this article reads like a fansite. It is appropriate to say that she has modeled for many "top fashion designers, including..." and then listing maybe five of the most exclusive designers. As it reads now, it appears to have been written by an over-zealous fan. I'm not suggesting it was an over-zealous fan who wrote it, of course. I'm just saying it appears that way to the reader. It should be heavily cut, and since this actress is in the public eye quite a bit right now, it should be changed immediately, as I would expect visitors to her article to increase, especially with the anticipation of season three of the television show in which she stars. Perhaps someone with more authority than I might consider making such cuts. MarydaleEd (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

MarydaleEd, feel free to do something about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

MarydaleEd, no-one has more editorial authority here than you do. It's up to you to fix problems that you perceive. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2017

(UTC)

MarydaleEd "it appears to have been written by an over-zealous fan" Um, no, it's been written by someone with sartorial knowledge. If you aren't interested in/don't know anything about fashion then just skip that part. Can't believe a Wikipedia editor is openly promoting the prioritization of low-quality information. If anything, it would be great if those companies she's worked for could be put into a sort of retractable list, so that they wouldn't occupy as much space and the people interested in that information could read it by clicking on "show". Narciso003 (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caitriona Balfe. 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/20150402014313/http://www.sunherald.com/2015/03/30/6150585_outlander-star-had-to-unlearn.html to http://www.sunherald.com/2015/03/30/6150585_outlander-star-had-to-unlearn.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing engagement information

Multiple IPs (who I assume are the same person) continue to remove sourced engagement information without explanation, despite multiple editors reverting the blanking. If you are the one removing information, please explain yourself here because from your edits it just appears to be disruptive editing. If Caitriona is no longer engaged (which would be the only valid reason for removing the information) then please post your source that the engagement was called off. Otherwise please stop changing the article.

DeniedClub^{❯❯❯ talk?} 21:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

As the vandalism has continued into 9+ months, I've nominated the page for temporary semi-protection, but I'd also like to call for other ideas to help reduce these changes, and certainly to remove the need for editors threatening others in the body of the text. (ref. WP:OWN, wp:BITE)

Add fada mark on page name?

Is it possible to add the fada (accent mark) to the second "i" in Caitriona in the title of this page? It's there in other spots on the page but I can't figure out how to change it in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashram molter (talk • contribs) 19:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)