Talk:Francia Raisa

Requested move

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.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Francia Almendárez → Francia Raisa — Francia Raisa is the name this actress is commonly known by, but it redirects here. Only her first few roles were credited as Almendarez. She is listed in IMDb as Francia Raisa. Logical Fuzz (talk) 12:35, 24 March 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.

Francia Photo (blue dress)

"Adam Hendershott" <adam@adamhendershott.com>, will send an email expressing permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

Sunset6525 (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francia Raisa. 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/20110815163609/http://www.americancheerleader.com/2011/06/francia-raisa%E2%80%99s-not-so-secret-life/ to http://www.americancheerleader.com/2011/06/francia-raisa%E2%80%99s-not-so-secret-life/

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) 11:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

FamilySearch as citation

This page has so many more issues — and needs significant work. And I don’t want to get into an edit war here. But I am concerned at the lack of understanding about how FamilySearch is a legitimate established and free genealogical resource that is acceptable to use as a solid citation — especially compared to the other citation on this page, which is not. I am writing this to be constructive and am really trying to help. There is zero need to tag FamilySearch as needing further citation. It _is_ the appropriate citation for supporting California births, deaths, marriages, etc. I don’t know how else to explain the very clear difference between the citations. If I have time I will clean up this page but I hesitate to do this as I don’t want this type of conflict, which seems to be based in a misunderstanding of what constitutes a legit citation. — BrillLyle (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: You don't seem to understand – everything at FamilySearch are primary sources. This isn't about "reliability". These kinds of sources are government/public records (e.g. birth record indexes, etc.), exactly what we are told not to use at WP:BLPPRIMARY, because, among other reasons, there are WP:BLPPRIVACY issues in using them. Bio info at WP:BLPs should in fact only be included in Wikipedia articles if they are widely reported in secondary (e.g. news media) sources. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Actually I believe you misunderstand this concept. The use of vital records to support facts on Wikipedia is acceptable. These are public vital records so they do not violate privacy. If the US Public Records were used that would be problematic. But these are published by the state. I am concerned that someone with your high edit count doesn't understand this. I am really trying to help here. I think this is an opportunity for you to learn here. I don't need the explanation. I understand how to curate citations. -- BrillLyle (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: You state The use of vital records to support facts on Wikipedia is acceptable, WP:BLPPRIVACY states Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. You seem to be saying the vital records are not public documents. I disagree. Discussions at WP:RSN seem to conclude FamilySearch is not a reliable secondary source for a lot of reasons but their pure extracts of public data are likely accurate. Their extracting data from a public record and republishing it is just another path to the same public record source. One level of redirect does not change that it is still a primary source. Also you seem to be saying that California public records are acceptable but US Federal ones are not? I can't see any possible reason to make that distinction. We can use public records to support secondary sources but we can't use them as the sole source of information particularly birth information. The article has her age published in a dated reliable source. That is the only source that is acceptable for that info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY also says Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source (emphasis mine), it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. But there is no evidence in this case that Raisa has ever discussed her DOB in a secondary source (e.g. an interview). If she's mentioned her DOB on her own social media, then something like Family Search can be used to supplement the social media source. But primary records like this cannot be used on their own to verify bio info like DOB's, according to both WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY. Which is why adding a {{better source needed}} tag is entirely appropriate in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Actually it's not that complicated. I think you don't understand what is a pretty basic concept about citations. You can use FamilySearch vital records to support data. It's completely acceptable. Again, I'm not sure why you don't understand and embrace this. It is pretty basic. If you want I don't need to edit this page or clean it up and update it so it is better. Feel free to do what you need to do. I am only trying to be helpful here. But I can go edit elsewhere. -- BrillLyle (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The combination of the patronizing attitude, and the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, is not helping here. Suffice it to say, I've said all I intend to on this, and the guidelines back Geraldo Perez and myself up on this. If you want another opinion, I'd try a long-time Admin, like User:Drmies, to see if you get a different answer. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

And of course that is not the issue here, it is whether or not it can be used as the sole source, it can't. It can be used to support an existing secondary source or a direct statement by the article subject but should not be used by itself as the only reference as it is a primary sourced extract from a public record giving private info. The info is plausible and likely not objected to by Raisa so tag is reasonable for now but a better source should be found to at least supplement it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Selena Gomez template

Considering Selena Gomez will now spend the rest of her life with a human organ courtesy of Francia Raisa, stands to reason that category and [[template DO belong.--67.86.58.36 (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Selena Gomez is Selena Gomez, and Francia Raisa is Francia Raisa – there absolutely should not be a Selena Gomez template or category here. And you're edit warring and being disruptive about it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If Carlos Alomar gets the David Bowie template and category for writing with him, then Francia Raisa has every right to the Selena Gomez treatment. Seems only YOU disagree.--67.86.58.36 (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)