Talk:Chelsea Kane

Rumors?

According to the August 2008 issue of Cosmogirl!, in the interview with Vanessa Hudgens, she accidentally spilled that Chelsea Staub is dating Joe Jonas. Should we add that in? ♥, calliegal_x (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Calliegal

Kevin Jonas, added that Joe Jonas is not dating Chelsea Staub! The rumors started because he held her hand while she was trying to get out of an elevator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.235.67.157 (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

They are just friends. CrystalicIsMe (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Lock?

A while back, someone put that she had died...in Joe Jonas' house. And people frequently vandalize her page for some reason. Should we lock it?--Wreckedd08 (talk) 02:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Move to Chelsea Kane

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Chelsea Staub → Chelsea Kane — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC) It was announced that Chelsea Staub had changed her professional name to Chelsea Kane. Should this page be moved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisneyFriends (talk • contribs) 21:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Relisted for further input. Jafeluv (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is this announced? Myspace, livejournal, facebook, justjared and bopandtiger are not reliable sources for such information. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I support the move, She announced the name change on her official twitter [1]. Plus IMDB already took the initiative to file her under the name change [2]. QuasyBoy 16:42, 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NAMES. The subject is not (yet) notable for activities under another name. — AjaxSmack 03:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, until she becomes well-known under her alleged new name.--Kotniski (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to Chelsea Kane (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Chelsea Staub → Chelsea Kane — I am re-opening the discussion that this page be moved to "Chelsea Kane". Now that Ms. Kane is a contestant on the new season of Dancing with the Stars (one of the highest-rated shows on the United States), I am assuming that people looking her up won't look her up by her former name with her now being exposed to a new audience. IMDb and a number of other websites have conformed to this name change, I don't see why Wikpedia shouldn't as well. QuasyBoy 19:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be moved. If that's what she is going by professionally, I don't see any reason why the article shouldn't be moved. After all, it has been confirmed by many media sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.239.69 (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

support the rationale makes perfect senase.--Na zdravy (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC) I support

Support I agree that it should be moved. She already confirmed it. IMDb, Facebook, Twitter, they've all have changed to Chelsea Kane, and her official website too. 19:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.203.39 (talk)

Support per arguments above. -The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

endashes

WP:DATESNO and WP:ENDASH make it clear that endashes should be used in the film-table. Edits to the contrary should be reverted. --168.122.165.145 (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That interpretation of the MOS is currently being discussed, and is not generally accepted. Nevertheless, I note that you have reverted an edit that was completely compliant with even your interpretation of WP:DATESNO and WP:ENDDASH. That would seem to indicate that your primary intent is to edit-war rather than solve the problem. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Not by /you/. The problem is resolved by using proper endashes. --168.122.165.145 (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem was resolved. You chose to undo an edit, intentionally making the table less compatible. Do you have any explanation? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Gimmetoo, perhaps it's time for you to join the modern age and upgrade your browser (and your computer, if necessary). You won't be sorry, believe me; I switched fron Internet Explorer to Firefox a few months ago, and it is so much better. Also, you will have then time for more productive things other than monitoring these tables to keep people from modernising them. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

+1 on the above by Dianna. Gimmetoo, you are also well on your way to becoming pointy, as well as violating 3RR. Nymf _hideliho! 19:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make this personal, as your comments could be taken as personal attacks. This is an issue for readers, some of whom use this browser. If certain editors would stop undoing any fix whatsoever, there wouldn't be a problem. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You should be blocked if you do not stop your edit warring. --168.122.165.145 (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

less compatible with a browser that very few people still use? So what? It's not worth the deviation from normal usage. There are lots of dead browsers that should not be bothered with. The web turned twenty the other day; should the mosaic browser be supported? (rhetorical question alert). --168.122.165.145 (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from anything that might be considered a personal attack. Now, can you respond to my question. There are numerous simple fixes to make the table compatible, yet certain editors undo every one of them. Repeatedly. Essentially always. Why would that be? Gimmetoo (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Saying that you should be blocked is not a personal attack; quit making things up. I /did/ respond to your question: I said that your fix should not be bothered with for a dead browser. That's a very good reason to restore the standard emdashes. --168.122.165.145 (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

So you intentionally and consciously want to make the table less compatible with that browser, no matter what type of fix might be used to make the table compatible? Is that correct? Gimmetoo (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. Supporting your browser is not worth the deviation from normal conventions; almost no one uses various old browsers, time to move forward, not make a few articles quirky. --168.122.165.145 (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Supporting the browser is trivial. There are quite a few fixes that are simple to do, comparable to fixing a typo. If you would stop undoing every possible fix for this issue (and I have tried quite a few now), eventually one of them would be standard. Tell me clearly why you undo every single possible fix I make for this issue? Why are none of them acceptable, even ones that conform to your interpretation of the MOS? Gimmetoo (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The /fix/ is to use any common browser. Your use of 'to' is non-standard and at odds with normal typographical usage in English; kindly quit pushing it. I've said this about a half dozen times, counting edit summaries: don't be obtuse. I see others saying about the same thing @you, too. --168.122.165.145 (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

this website shows all versions of Safari accounting for 5.17% of users in July 2011. Of this, Safari 5 accounts for 3.52%, leaving only 1.65% of Internet traffic is using all other versions of Safari. It hardly seems worth our while to convert our filmography tables to a style that does not follow our own Manual of Style to accommodate such a tiny percentage of internet traffic; Safari 4 came out two years ago and even Safari 5 is over a year old and is being replaced with 5.1. This stuff is little used, and Safari 4 is obsolete, antique in internet terms. This post is being copied to the discussion at the MoS page. --Dianna (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Way to go, you add more distraction info the MOS page. Do you really want to discuss non-MOS issues there? Now let me reiterate - some of the fixes for this issue do comply with even your interpretation of the Manual of Style, and yet you don't allow those either. Even if you don't think a userbase around 1% justifies any change to table formats, you're actively impeding another editor making a fix - comparable to changing a typo - that complies with even your interpretion of the MOS. Do you have any explanation for that? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, the /typo/ is anything other than the proper endash between years (or putting years in the *notes* column). Multiple people have reverted you and no one is leaping to support your view. Drop this and accept that trying to /support/ dead browsers is a Sisyphean effort. --168.122.165.145 (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The only people "reverting" me are you and your crew, and occasional editors who are unfamiliar with the issue. Once it is explained, they stop impeding the fixes. Only you and your crew actively impede improvement. Tell me clearly and unambiguously why you actively oppose any sort of fix whatsoever, even when you don't have to do anything? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Am I part of that crew? What about the people you have been fighting with about this for a year? Are they also part of that same crew? Nymf _hideliho! 17:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Nymf, can you give a clear, policy-based explanation for intentionally and actively impeding other editors fixing this technical issue? Gimmetoo (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

He must mean this kind of crew, where a coxswain gets everyone going in the correct direction. --168.122.165.145 (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not so much. I asked Nymf for a policy-based reason for reverting and actively impeding other editors on this issue. Nymf has conspicuously failed to do so, and as such the prima facie case is that there is none. If there is no policy-based reason, then is there any other reason but behavioural? You have claied to revert based on WP:DATESNO, but a clarification discussion is going against you. Unless that trend changes, it means that any further reverts you do on that basis will be inappropriate. Do you have any policy-based reason for your reverts? Anything at all? User:Gimmetoo|Gimmetoo]] (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's pathetic. I've explained that a plain endash is simply most appropriate at least a half dozen times, that supporting a dead browser is a fool's game. No one is supporting your position in that discussion; your merely asserting that it's going /your/ way is laughable. --168.122.165.145 (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You have appealed to MOS to undo anything but dashes. The discussion at MOS was not supporting your interpretation. Tony, however, has recently posted something that may support your position. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As a neutral editor, I would like to say:

• 168.122.165.145: Please don't be so insulting. It's not helpful.
• Gimmetoo: Please don't be so combative.
• Diannaa makes the most convincing argument here.
• Probably, in the future, all browsers will be fine with the dashes, so why bother now, just to help a few browsers with a short-term problem.
• Gimmeto: I'm not sure this campaign is worth your time. There are bigger fish to fry, and your good resources could be used elsewhere on the project.

• Wikilove and bunnies to you all ♥. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Discussion has been had at WT:MOSDATE, Comments from non-partisan editors so far agree that there is no MOS requirement for dashes. Editors here have also claimed they consider the problem here too trivial to fix; that may justify them not making the edits, but it does not justify them actively impeding other editors. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)