Talk:Dania Ramirez

Untitled

Why is this article categorized under American categories? If she is from the Dominican Repbublic then the categories should be Dominican Republic categories, not American. NorthernThunder 05:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Change tha pic

Dis pic dont do her justice shes a shitload mo caliente!TeePee-20.7 06:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Date of Birth

According to her MySpace page her date of birth is November 30, 1979. According to Yahoo her date of birth is November 30, 1980. I'm inclined to believe the MySpace page, thats why i changed it to November 30, 1979. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.30.94 (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation for the accent in her name.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone provide a citation for the accent in her name? It's redundant and looks silly to Spanish speaking people. Padillah (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The correct name is available and even redirects here. This is incorrect. This should be moved to the appropriate page. Padillah (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

All of the other Wikipedias refer to her as Dania Ramírez. This isn't a reliable source, especially since these may be based on the English article—I'm not really sure what influence the English Wikipedia has on others. Even the Spanish Wikipedia has her as es:Dania Ramírez though. Something to consider. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And I can appreciate that it's her name she can spell it any way she wants but the accent makes you pronounce her name the same way it's pronounced without it. In other words it's the English equivalent of spelling "through" as "thru", yes it's clearer, but it's pronounced the same way anyway (and technically misspelled). As for the Spanish Wiki, to be frank, it looks silly to the few Mexicans that I've shown it to. Not silly enough to be repulsive, just simply silly. The first question they asked was "Did a white person spell it"? But, only the Pink Unicorn knows how she spells her name or why so, I'm looking for a reference.

I changed it in some other articles that linked to this one a bit ago for continuity. Sorry if that was after this process already started, I should have looked at the talk page first. I googled, and I do see a lot of people marked online with the "Ramírez" form, so maybe it's not so uncommon. We'll need a definitive source to clear this up in her case. I do wonder though...if it's so bizarre and silly-looking and pointless, why do so many people seem to use that form? Anybody know? CallidoraBlack (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Trying to be as correct as possible. My father was the first Latino commissioner of a major city in Michigan and every time someone would mention him they would try as hard as they could to pronounce our last name correctly. Well, if you know anything about the "ll" character in Spanish it has a very distinct pronunciation. some say it's like "y" but it's not really, it has an accent that people try to get right... and fail miserably. But that doesn't keep them from trying. I think that's what this is, people trying to be correct and not realizing that they aren't. The rule in Spanish is to place the accent on the second-to-the-last syllable (in-vees-EE-blay) but, since her name only has three syllables and the "i" falls in the second to the last syllable they are making a distinction that doesn't matter. Ramirez->(ra-MEE-rez). Ramírez->(ra-MEE-rez). Same thing. Padillah (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Her "official website" (officialdaniaramirez.com) doesn't use the accent. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, now we have confirmation. :-) Also, I knew where the stress falls, I was just wondering why so many people use the "Ramírez" form considering that it's redundant. I thought somebody might be able to shed a little light on that.CallidoraBlack (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

The Sopranos is not a film

Thus, it shouldn't be in the filmography. Rosenbluh (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, I agree. But looking at other actors' pages, it is common to list both TV and film appearances under "Filmography". Is there a better title for this section? (NB there are other TV things listed here, too, alongside Sopranos.) 81.98.251.134 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In deference to having a Filmography, Televisionography, musicography, commercialography and the hundreds of other sections this line of thinking would give rise to. We can check with WikiProject:Film but I'm pretty sure this is widely accepted except in trade or specialty publications (like IMDB). What would you suggest we list it as? It should be listed, a show like The Sopranos is notable enough that it should be listed. Besides, she currently has a role in the TV how Heroes and it's not a film either so we're gonna need to know where to list these if not under Filmography. Padillah (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed other actors with similarly distorted filmographies; I suspect the convention started by folks starting to ad TV roles to actual filmographies and it just stuck. The term filmography is just a buzzword. In the context of this article, and others like it, a phrase like Notable acting roles would be clearer (because it is not a buzzword or Portmanteau) and more accurate (because the expected meaning would match up with its actual meaning). This discussion reminds me of a David Pogue piece that was published yesterday. Rosenbluh (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but both the outlook above and the article mentioned are being pedantic. If this were confusing people that'd be one thing. There isn't a single reason to differentiate film from TV acting. The productions end up transitioning from one to the other quite frequently, blurring the line even more. Do you honestly think someone watching The Hulk on HBO will mistake it for a TV show from the 70's? Or, given the complete lack of a Soprano's movie, we are confusing people into thinking there's a Soprano's movie they have missed? I don't see it happening. I'm a programmer by trade, I appreciate trying to be as specific as possible. This is too far. Padillah (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying that TV and film roles need to be separated. I don't know how I can prove that a significant percentage of readers would be confused, but I don't see how you can show otherwise. But, I can say this: if you are looking through a filmography you would assume all of the items were films, unless you specifically recognized one as a TV show. I understand that arguing over word choice may seem trivial, however, it just seems that you're using (or defending) poor usage of jargon where normal English words would be clearer. Why would a phrase like Notable acting roles be inferior than filmography? Rosenbluh (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dania Ramirez. 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/20130713153412/http://a to http://a
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140624024247/http://www.imagen.org:80/news/imagen-awards/2014/06/nominees-29th-annual-imagen-awards-announced to http://www.imagen.org/news/imagen-awards/2014/06/nominees-29th-annual-imagen-awards-announced

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dania Ramirez. 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/20130928064850/http://www.lipstickalley.com/f15/dania-ramirez-marries-director-john-beverly-amos-land-478455/ to http://www.lipstickalley.com/f15/dania-ramirez-marries-director-john-beverly-amos-land-478455/

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) 00:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)