Wikipedia

Talk:Julia Stiles/Archive 1

< Talk:Julia Stiles
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Dates, Links,References, NPOV

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The discussions here concern Wikipedia issues rather than discussions of the article's substance. Please put questions about factual issues in new sections below.

User:PedanticallySpeaking explains

I rolled back changes today because they deleted a lot of material. Critical quotes gave this piece life, unlike many Hollywood biographies here which are pro forma lists of IMDB credits. I'll certainly admit I could phrase a couple things better, but why remove all this stuff? PedanticallySpeaking 16:20, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

User:Zen-master questions his reversions

Your revert was entirely unjustified but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just misguided about this article's quality. Here are but some of the reasons for the changes I made:

  1. The critic review quotations are super POV violations and unnecessary in a biography (wikipedia isn't rottentomatoes.com), especially the fact they were all in the very first paragraph.
  2. Too many wiki links (poor readibility)
  3. Too many red wiki links (poor readibility)
  4. The article's tone is more like a six degrees of separation game than a succinct biography
    1. Related: no need to list every person involved with every play and every movie she's ever been in, for example "David Mamet" as the person behind "Oleanna" is not only non note worthy on multiple levels, overall such referencing detracts from article quality.
  5. "Acclaim" for film Wicked at sundance is perhaps not only an overstated POV violation, but also uncited. Do we mention plot details for each non noteworthy movie an actor or actress has starred in?
  6. Which is better POV wise "The role that made her a star was" Vs "Her first major role was"?
    1. And "Her first major role was" Vs "Her next film was" (original version inconsistent)
  7. Dates not in the first paragraph or directly related to an article should not be wiki linked in my opinion.
zen master T 16:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Violetriga on wikilinked dates

  • Let me just correct that last one - all dates should be wikilinked. violet/riga (t) 16:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Zen-master replies to her

  • I disagree, extra wiki links that no one is likely to click on detract from article quality and also slow wikipedia down. For a celebrity's birthday it is conveivable that someone would want to find out other stuff that happened that day etc, but for random information it detracts from article quality. How hard is it for someone to type "April 4" into the search box? What do you think of my other concerns listed above violetriga? wikilinking should only be applied to "for further information" sort of links, the majority of dates in articles do not fit this criteria. zen master T 17:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Violetriga replies again

  • All dates should be linked so that they show up as per the preference of the users - for me (and many others) it's horrible to see the day after the month. Linking the dates allows the wiki software to switch it to the style the user has chosen. It's noted at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). As for the other points, yes I do agree that there is a lot of POV text, unrequired namechecks and red links. violet/riga (t) 17:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Zen-master responds

  • Ok, should I revert Pedantically's revert then? How should I go about perhaps changing wikipedia policy regarding dates? I consider it common sense to keep wiki linking down to just the core essence of an article. The more things that are wikilinked the more it leads to chaos in my opinion. zen master T 17:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The quotes from critics are in line with the policy at NPOV#A_simple_formulation, which says that if opinions are attributed they are usable. As for the dates, it was my understanding that all dates should be in wiki form so users settings will display them in the form they desire, as Violetriga states. I do cite co-stars, directors, writers of films because that tells me something. The one you noted, that the play was by David Mamet, tells me something about the work and if she's doing his stuff she must be well regarded. The sentence about "made her a star" is there because it was not her first lead and it was indeed the first role that was widely seen. Now, I will go consult my commonplace books for some cites for this material, including the Sundance reference. PedanticallySpeaking 17:48, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

User:Zen-master questions neutrality of the article

You are ignoring the criticism of massive POV in the article? I do not believe the paragraph the quotations is contained in is inline with wikipedia policy, the POV is outside the quoted text. For example "Hailed" etc etc. violetriga seems to disagree with you above? I consider the clean up changes I made to be obvious. Are you a fan of Julia Stiles or something? zen master T 17:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • "despite her youth" is POV. She is 24. If you are trying to say she won a lot of awards at a young age why not just say it like this? Though "a lot" is a tad relative/POV. I contend that the changes I made are a better starting point for further clean ups than what your initial "inuse" clean ups seem to be producing. You still have not adequately justified your revert of my changes? The obviousness of my changes subsequently being reverted is frustrating (though I admit my stance on date wiki linking is perhaps not mainstream). All those wiki link references can't be notable can they? I think you are a Julia Stiles fan now :-) me too but NPOV is important. zen master T 18:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm about to get kicked off this computer at the library so I'm afraid I'll have to reply another day. PedanticallySpeaking 18:15, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, however, since you did not previously justify your revert of my changes, and in some ways your changes have made the article worse (continues the POV more subtley), I am going to go ahead and edit the article again, though this time I will try not to delete as much information. If you have any problems with my changes the talk page is always open (first). zen master T 18:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:PedanticallySpeaking doesn't understand the objection

  • I asked and was given some more time. First, what POV? I've looked through it several times and I don't see what you mean. Second, I am looking for our policy re links but haven't found it. Further, I don't understand the objection to linking other articles and the number of red links is small. Third, "despite her youth" is because I don't know of many other young actresses who have garnered the praise she has. Fourth, by the by and fyi the table of films I had no hand in creating. Fifth, I don't understand the objection to mentioning plot details. There are so many movies out there, often with un-memorable titles (e.g. Down to You), that a few words of plot is helpful. Many of the James Bond movie titles are soundalikes to me and I need a bit of explanation, say "'You Only Live Twice' has Donald Pleasance snatching spacecraft from his volcano lair". Now if we were writing for Katz's "Film Encyclopedia" for economy's sake we wouldn't do this, but since there aren't space constraints, what's the harm? Her later films I glossed over, I'll admit, because I got to working on other things and while intending to come back to it, I forgot to return, to be honest. PedanticallySpeaking 18:35, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I did errantly delete her parents names in my original edit, that was a mistake, sorry. By lead you mean the first sentence or first paragraph? Her birthplace currently resides in the second sentence. There are numerous other celebrity bio or other articles on wikipedia that violate the manual of style rule(s) you cite yet those articles are actually much more pleasant to read (because they don't contain as many unnecessary wiki links, red or otherwise). A rule should never force someone to violate common sense. See the Natalie Portman article for an example of a high but sane number of wikilinks and a much more pleasant reading experience, though that article admittedly contains less information (which is part of the problem here). Check the most recent changes I made to the article for POV issues, words like "acclaim" instead of "buzz" etc. zen master T 19:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Zen-master questions the bibliography

  • Pedantically, this is a biographical article, there shouldn't be much need to cite things? If you include that many positive citations then we should probably include some negative ones as well, right? Why do you include the date for each citation, is that really necessary? What you are doing is completely non-standard when compared with other celebrity bio-graphical articles, in my opinion it adds woefully unnecessary verbosity to the article.
    Anyway, what did you think of the changes I made yesterday? zen master T 15:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey Pedantically, I removed your References section because they weren't actually references to any sort of opinion style arguments, they were merely just quotations and reviews, I can help you put some of that stuff into wikiquote if you want me to help? Some can be moved to the Awards and reviews section, albeit less verbosely (no need to add that many wikilinks). Also, you weren't actually citing sources for those statements, you were wikilinking to other (many non-existant) articles within wikipedia. References should cite to specific sources, generally that are arguing for some sort of position -- critical reviews and quotations are something all together different. Please let me know what you think about my change. zen master T 17:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:PedanticallySpeaking replies on the reference section

  • I can't win with you. Yesterday you complained I didn't cite things and then when I go and draw up a bibliography you complain about too many cites and then delete the entire thing. A precise citation, including dates of articles, is called for in Wikipedia:Cite your sources, which gives examples in APA style (I used MLA style, however). I don't understand why you deleted all my cites. So what if other biographies don't have bibliographies? When I submitted another biography to WP:FAC I was criticized then for not having references.


*In your edit summary you said I "wandered off". The Wikipedia crashed this morning in the midst of my responding to your earlier criticism and never came back up. I was going to do some rewriting but the server troubles prevented that.
As for your changes, I do not approve because they fracture the chronological order of the article. And "buzz" is not a better word than "acclaim". PedanticallySpeaking 19:27, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

User:Zen-master says references weren't proper cites

  • Pedant, you weren't actually citing to actual quotations or to the actual sources of what someone said, for example, your references to a quote or review allegedly from a magazine only contained just a wiki link to that magazine's article on wikipedia, which doesn't count as a reference. A reference section is different than what you put together, you should link to the article quotation or review, the Awards and reviews section also has this problem, we should fix that but it's small enough to where it isn't a big deal, is it? If you want me to I can look for good examples of reference sections on wikipedia? What do you think of putting some Julia Stiles quotations in wikiquote? Also, on a higer level, celebrity articles don't generally need a reference section, there is nothing under dispute in the article is there, so no need to cite anything, unless you are saying there is something under dispute? If so, what is it? If I said you weren't citing anything then I take that back, there is no need to cite much of anything in a non controversial biographical article. Do you agree that we have improved this article's quality over the last few days? zen master T 19:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:PedanticallySpeaking replies at length to User:Zen-master

Zen-master,
I am trying to comprehend the basis for your claims but do still not understand. I have cited the Wikipedia guideline pages that address the points you raise and do so again below. Please read them.

  • You write that a bibliography is not needed because the material is not disputed. The instructions on Wikipedia:Cite your sources read: "you should actively search for authoritative references to cite . . . . This applies even when the information is currently undisputed — even if there's no dispute right now, someone might come along in five years and want to dispute, verify, or learn more about a topic."
  • You write that "celebrity articles don't generally need a reference section" but I have read through Wikipedia:Cite your sources and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) and see nothing about who is or is not worthy of a bibliography. The criteria at Wikipedia:What is a featured article (the idea being that all articles aspire to "featured" status) say to give references and some of my nominees at WP:FAC were shot down for lacking references.
  • You write that citing print publications' articles are is not proper references because there is not a URL link to the article. Again, on Wikipedia:Cite your sources, there are numerous citations to printed materials.
  • You object to quotations in an article as violating the NPOV guidelines notwithstanding the instruction at NPOV#A simple formulation, which states: "Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts and only facts. Where we might want to state opinions, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, 'The Beatles was the greatest band', we can say, 'Most Americans believe that the Beatles was the greatest band,' which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or 'The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100,' which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we 'convert' that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It's important to note this formulation is substantially different from the 'some people believe ...' formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and subjectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name." I had your comments in mind in reading Arthur Miller's obituary in the New York Times on February 12, 2005. I counted twelve quotations from the deceased (plus several lines from his plays) an quotations from seven others, four of them critics. Critical opinions do have a place in biographies. (If you want to create a page for her on Wikiquote, I do not object.)
  • As I explained, troubles with Wikipedia's computers interrupted my work. I had typed up the bibliography and was going to revamp the article when the server crashed. The bibliography included not merely entries of reviews but reference books and profiles of the actress. Each entry had a remark noting what was in the cited work that I used.
  • I do not agree that your changes have improved the article. You have scrambled the chronology, created an unnecessary list (lists being another bugaboo to WP:FAC candidacies), and drained any life out of the article. I will concede there is merit in separate sections for her stage and film careers, but I do not believe your edits are improvements.

PedanticallySpeaking 18:54, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC) (P.S. I will be away a few days after today.)

User:Sketchee comments

  • I mostly agree with PS on the above points: NPOV doesn't mean having no point of view displayed in Wikipedia articles, only that various points of view should be discussed. Any point of view given should be attributed to the author from a publication. If it is a fact that some people love Julia Stiles and some people dislike her work, both views should be represented allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions. The organization or use of such information could be POV, but it's inclusion is not only allowed but somewhat encouraged. A link isn't needed for information solely in print publications.
    All information should be cited in a references section (this is not currently the case with most articles but we're actively trying to cahnge this). An external links section is not a reference section and if a link is used as a reference it can appear in both. The date format isn't going to change anytime soon for the both practical and technical reasons already given. Try avoiding reverts as much as possible. Instead use them and keep this as a collaborative effort; a compromise between both view points can hopefully be reached here. :) --Sketchee 21:29, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:Zen-master comments

  • First, I think what PedanticallySpeaking added to the article, even though it was labeled as a Reference section, was the farthest thing from actually being a reference section. Pedantically did not link directly to the source of any quotation or reference, not once, all links in that section were to within wikipedia. It seemed as if Pedantically was just trying to create hundreds of extra wiki links in an article seemingly for no other reason than to damage the quality of an article with unnecessary length.
  • Second, can Pedantically please state concisely what he thinks I am claiming? Because there seems to be a large disconnect between what he says I am claiming and what I am actually claiming. The original version of this article had POV issues, I cleaned them up. If you disagree we can go through them one at a time. It is completely non-standard to put 3 positive review quotations in the *intro* paragraph of a biographical article so I created the awards and reviews section. I also removed a sentence from the article that stated Julia is an "MTV darling", in the checkin comments I said we can and perhaps should add that back with a citation.
  • Third, I disagree that the article is worse now quality wise, I think most anyone would agree it is better, especially if they actually take a look at the edits I made, and don't believe how Pedantically is trying to mis-characterize them. If anyone truly believes this article is worse now than before I'd be happy to go through the RFC or arbitration process so we get more eyes on this article.
  • Fourth, other than the obvious POV problems that I corrected, I did remove or down play some of the other positive POV quotes/reviews because the article was completely unbalanced, there were no negative reviews and I don't want to have to go out and add that to achieve any semblence of balance, better to just not be totally overboard on the positive side of POV. Pedantically, once you start adding too much positive POV people will come along and demand lengthy negative POV sections, I did not want that to happen here. zen master T 00:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Zen-master: "Recent changes good, but there's a little POV now"

  • Hey Pedantically, your recent changes are very good but I think there is a little fan POV in the article now. The sentence that discusses Stiles' "admirers" and compares her to other actresses is fraught with POV and such comparisons are generally not a good idea, don't you think? Also, mentioning author diversity in the intro paragraph is a little much, how many people have performed in a play written by Shakespear? Maybe we should move that info to the stage or film sections? I don't think we should mention specific movies in the intro section either. The way the "critical success" sentence is worded seems slightly POV. Why are you putting critical review quotations in the film career section, those should go in a separate section perhaps (how about bringing back the awards and reviews section)? Do bio-graphical articles for actors/actress often include this many review quotations?
  • My personal preference would be not to wiki link dates and years that are not in the intro paragraph and that aren't important to the essence of the article but I won't change those for now at least. The same year certainly shouldn't be wikilinked more than once in an article. Though, wiki links to something like the 1950s would be much more relevant and note worthy than a link to the specific year 1953 since that is relevant to the movie she was in, don't you think? Is it note-worthy Stiles played a Wisconsin co-ed as opposed to just a co-ed? Why wikilink both Dubya and Jenna Bush? If someone doesn't know who Jenna Bush is they can click on the wiki link for her, it's redundant to include both and wiki link both.

T*here are a lot of red links we should either unwikify or create stub articles for? zen master T 18:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:PedanticallySpeaking on his style, linking

Zen-master,
Many of my articles' leads were just one sentence, something like "Julia Stiles (born March 18, 1981) is an American film and stage actress". When I submitted articles for Peer Review and FAC, my leads were criticized for not being full enough. See the featured article of the day on the main page and you'll see the lead is pretty long. I wanted to briefly summarize the whole article in a couple sentences, which is why there appears to be repetitous material. It gives readers a couple credits so they know who she is in case they don't want to read the whole thing. I don't see any problem with who her admirers compare her to and each of those references is cited in the body of the article.
I looked through the list of featured articles and I didn't see any actors so it's hard to say what the ideal is. Critical quotations are important because they give flavor and show the person's standing. Witness the obituary of Arthur Miller I referenced above.
I don't have the citation at hand, but I thought it was our SOP to wiki all dates. For most of them in the article, you'll note they are not merely year links, e.g. 1999, but rather 1999 in film.
The fact she is from Wisconsin is relevant to the film. Paige is a farm girl from Wisconsin, a different breed than a co-ed from the Southland or Gotham.
And I believe our policy on links is to be inclusive, especially when there's already an article, e.g. George W. Bush and it is relevant to the context. Are many people looking at this article likely to click on his link? Probably not. But what if someone wondered if there was material on Bush's parodists, such as Will Ferrell, or his place in comedy? Then you could do one click and see. It is certainly relevant to mention him because I don't know that the name Jenna Bush is universally recognized and it's good form to give a couple words about who she is so people don't have to go to another article. That's also my explanation for mentioning co-stars and directors, so people can place the material without resort to other article.
FYI, I've posted this article on peer review and I hope the community will be able to help us out too.
Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 19:10, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC) P.S. Thank you for your praise of my changes


Zen-master: "Intro is increasingly POV"

  • hailed as "the thinking teenagers' movie goddess" by a film critic writing for The New York Times. I know all us fanboi's love Ms. Stiles but I don't think that sentence is appropriate for this article, certainly not in the intro nor written like that, and what is with wiki links to the generic publication like the New York Times but *not* a link to the actual citation? If it isn't a link to the actual citation it shouldn't be wiki linked in my opinion. zen master T 05:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Staxringold's issues with the article

  • There is next to inline citation, and the entire "Film Career" section is reference free (despite some direct quotes in the early paragraphs). I don't know how many of the inline citations reference these, but they should be converted to inline citation or removed, as if they reference something directly they should be inline and if they don't they shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Staxringold 00:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Linking dates

This discussion concerns whether all dates should be linked, even ones that were inconsequential, e.g. those in citations to newspaper and magazine articles. The discussion was also conducted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Excessive wikilinking dates?. Please post comments on questions of the substance of the article in a new section at the bottom of the page.

Niteowlneils states the MoS policy

Zen-master reiterates his view

  • I have stated many times previously that dates should not be wikilinked when they are completely irrelevant to the article. How does wikilinking June 5 inside the *references* section help users find out more info about Julia Stiles? I have proposed on a manual of style talk page that dates should not be wiki linked as often as they seem to be, how should I go about fixing wikipedia policy on this issue? Also, it is rather silly for a biographical article to have a references section, perhaps it should be removed and/or turned into a citations sections that contains direct citations to the quotations and criticisms of reviewers and magazines used in the article? zen master T 22:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cburnett disagrees with Zen-master

  • 1) I disagree with your opinion on the MoS of dates.
  • 1b) Your disagreement about the Mos does not constitute others' edits as "vandalism"
  • 2) I see no valid reason to remove references. Considering the number of quotes, they are extremely important. If anything, I think they need to be directly linked into the text for better referencing.
--Cburnett 22:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master explains his de-linking

  • Sorry, I considered it vandalism because the editor tried to justify the date wikilinks as somehow helpful to the refences in question which is simply not true. How do *ANY* of those date wikilinks help the quality of the article? Is there any Julia Stiles info on the June 5 article? I do not support the removal of date wiki links for things like a celebrity's birthday or other similarly important dates related to an articl, but dates inside a reference section does not qualify. I agree that a reference section should primarily contain links to the external sources cited in the article. zen master T 23:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cburnett: "Do you pay attention"

  • "The editor"? Do you pay any attention to what you're doing? You are talking to "the editor". Cburnett 23:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master apologizes for "vandalism" charge

  • I did realize that (I was posting so third parties understand the situation and I wanted to move on after apologizing to you for accusing you of traditional vandalism). Are you going to use this as an excuse to ignore my points now? zen master T 23:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RickK suggests this isn't proper forum for debate

  • If you have a problem with linking dates, take it up at the MoS Talk page. Until then, please follow policy. Linking dates allows a User's Preferences to go into effect so as to display the date in the method they prefer. RickK 23:34, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Notice the discussion moved elsewhere

Zen-master says there isn't a policy re linking years

  • It seems there is no wikipedia policy that states years must be wikilinked, Cburnett (or others) would you support the removal of some/all year wikilinks inside the references section? Perhaps we should refer people to the specific issue number for a particular magazine, not their date (or link the reference directly to the citation)? Also, as far as wikilinking dates for international formatting reasons goes it actually makes more sense not to wikilink dates in this case I believe. For example, if there is a reference to say the October 28th version of a U.S. magazine then it would be incorrect for the wikipedia date preference formatting to change that to 28 October, wouldn't it? zen master T 00:58, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Violetriga says all dates should be linked

  • It's OK to remove years that are not part of a date, but otherwise they should be linked. And no, it does not make more sense to force a date style because of the origin of the magazine. violet/riga (t) 08:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cburnett reports on MoS disccussion

  • You've all but "lost" the discussion on the MoS talk page so now you're asking me (the vandal) and others to agree to removing them. If I ever would have agreed to remove links, I wouldn't have gotten into this. Cburnett 16:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I've pretty much lost the date format battle for now it seems, sorry again for accusing you of vandalism in my checkin comment. zen master T 17:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rewriting or removing references

A proposal by Zen-master

Would people support rewritting or even removing the references section in this article so excessive wikilinking because of date formating is no longer an issue? (we really ought to use citations, not a traditional print reference section anyway) What do people think? zen master T 16:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PedanticallySpeaking opposes it

I am adamantly against removing the reference section. All articles, especially ones which are WP:FA such as this need references. If you can find these materials on the web, then by all means add the citation to the print one. But because of the ephermal quality of everything on the internet and the frequency that links go dead, it is vital to have references to printed materials which will continue to be available. See the Manual of Style for many examples of citations to printed sources. PedanticallySpeaking 16:44, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master asks about formatting

Ok, I suppose a biographical article can have a reference section and you make a good case for the need for permanent off-line sources. What about the idea of rewriting the reference section so that date formatting (and excessive wikilinking) is no longer an issue? zen master T 17:09, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PedanticallySpeaking says it is MLA

The citations are in proper MLA style, which I try to use for its lucid format. Rewriting would not serve any purpose. Again, the linking is not excessive because the MoS states that when the context warrants it, articles should be wiki-linked. PedanticallySpeaking 17:27, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Proper Forum?

To the editors:

I must admit I'm a little baffled by how Wikipedia works, so maybe you can help.

Most immediately, I would like to publish commentary on the work of Julia Stiles (whom I believe to be one of our very few truly important actors--those whose work will fundamentally change the art form), but of other performers, directors and films as well, many of which have received little or, in my opinion, wrong-headed attention. My comments might be classifiable as a hybrid of art history and film criticism, and I would welcome discussion of anything I might write.

For the record, I have no connection with Ms. Stiles or her publicity people.

I'm intrigued by Wikipedia, but if it isn't the appropriate venue for what I propose, could you suggest other sites? Any direction you might offer would be greatly appreciated.

Marshall Fallwell, Jr.

PS replies

Salve, Marshall! What you propose sounds inappropriate here. We are trying to compile factual, encyclopedia articles on Stiles et alia. Now, if you propose is to write up factual articles with critical opinions from others (film critics, fellow actors) as I've tried to do here and at Katie Holmes, then that's great. Welcome. But if you are thinking of writing your own commentary, a blog would be a bettter fit. Look here for how to get a free blog. Ave! User:PedanticallySpeaking.

Phoe6 Asks This

Featured Article, as Wikipedia says, is an example of community work. I searched for how Julia Stiles featured in this category and I did not find a mass appeal for a featured article request. I had only heard of Julia Stiles, but never knew about her talents, importance etc. But knowing a comperory actress through Wikipedia Featured article is kind of intruging. Is she so great? Then why is she not celebrated all over the world? What is reason for chosing Julia stiles for Featured Article? Is someone working on Julia Roberts for Featured Article as well? ---- Phoe6 (sig added by Cburnett)

Cburnett Explains

Note: please sign your posts with ~~~~ so we know who wrote it.

It's not a matter of saying Julia Stiles is amongst the best, but that the article about her is amongst the best. Cburnett 07:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Niteowlneils Explains

To expand on that, the article gained featured status because an editor happened to choose it as a target for expansion, and with the help of over two dozen other more minor editors, managed to get it to meet the Featured Article criteria, per the judgement of the people who voted at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Julia Stiles, after it was nominated as a Featured Article Candidate. The editor's choice of article to try to develop into Featured Article status doesn't reflect any judgement as to the importance/fame/notability/etc. of the subject--pretty much any article, about any subject, regardless of import, is eligible to become featured, as long as it meets the criteria. Ideally, over time, most, if not all, Wikipedia articles will meet the Featured Article criteria. Niteowlneils 10:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Phoe6 Replies

Thanks for your comments. I understand now better the requirements of FA 143.166.255.16 16:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)|Phoe6

My question: who's idea was it to feature this article? We follow up the Soviet Military, Yellowstone, and a dangerous virus with this? Excuse me, but I doubt that many people are interested in such an inconsequential actor. ---- 68.100.255.152 (sig added by Cburnett)

Cburnett Answers

Note: please sign your posts with ~~~~ so we know who wrote it, even if you want to be an anonymous.

Your reply is borderline trollish and I almost just reverted the page since you can't seem to post in the correct location. Cburnett 23:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another Reply by Niteowlneils

In addition to my comments in the section immediately above:

  1. Choosing featured articles based on relative importance would violate Wikipedia's 'neutral point of view' policy
  2. Similarly, your comments reflect your personal preference. For example, I would prefer to read about an up-and-coming actor, rather than an article about pet skunks, but others would disagree.
  3. Wikipedia's mission is NOT to cover 'important' human knowledge, but ALL human knowledge. Niteowlneils 00:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Filmography ordering

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Are we all agreed the most recent movie should be at the top? I've been noticing that someone has been changing some other actor/actress bio pages to reverse the filmography section to have most recent at the bottom. Can we make it a wikipedia standard that the most recent movie should be at the top? zen master T 02:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Seems more natural to have the most recent at the top. Cburnett 04:29, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

no. wikipolicy is clear, for lists of works, recent goes at bottom. dont use imdb as a style guide, it has commercial interests dictating its style. the filmography is upside down on this article, should be in chronological order (see all the style guides). please reverse it, or this article will be removed from FA list. Zzzzz 11:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I use newest first since that's the first entry you see and their most recently done. It's basic web design theory at work here: put the most sought info towards the top. I don't want to have to scroll to the bottom of the page to find what movies they did that will be coming out soon. As you said, there's no policy on this but that's what makes sense to me. If you want oldest first just to be different from IMDB, well that's just dumb, IMHO.
And even as is it is still in chronological order. I hate to ask, but I assume you know what that means, right?
And where does it state that it has to be newest last to be a FA? It's still in chronological order and that sounds like a threat. Cburnett 13:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a fanpage so "basic web design theory" means nothing. there *is* clear wikipolicy, see Wikipedia:Filmographies or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). recent goes at bottom. end of story. Zzzzz 13:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Who said web page design theory applies to fanpages and not encyclopedias? Do you even know what I'm talking about?
There is no clear policy:
This Wikipedia article or category is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest.
on both pages you link. Aside from understanding web page theory, it also appears you need to understand the differences between "policy" and "guideline" as well as "inactive". It is most certainly not end of story. Cburnett 03:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A further note. Zzzzz changed the Wikipedia:Filmographies to fit his argument so he could use it as an authoritative source (despite it being inactive). I've started discussion on Wikipedia talk:Filmographies#Chronological ordering to address this since Zzzzz is scattering discussion on many articles' talk page. Please continue this discussion there. Cburnett 03:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Julia Stiles/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs inline citations and lead should conform to WP:LEAD --plange 21:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Archive

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Discussions before July 1, 2006 can be found at Talk:Julia Stiles/Archive 1.

I archived the older discussion on this page because most of it related to issues long ago and had little currency to today. PedanticallySpeaking 17:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to criticise...

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think that for a FA, the prose's flow is a little underwhelming. Some sections, especially "Personal life", are comprised of list-like short paragraphs, which need improving to keep in line with the high quality of the rest of the article. Seegoon 12:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

...moreover, Talk:Julia Stiles/Comments has some more points to address... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

References, notes

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article seems to have a sizable References section as well as a sizable notes section. What is the difference? --GargoyleMT 03:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL -- Cafeteria Workers? (re: article)

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I attended Columbia at the time this happened (*and* was working at the Dining Hall at the time). In fact, I typed a transcript of her appearance which I circulated the day after her interview aired. Despite all that, even *I* don't think this sort of minor nonsense is worthy of inclusion into an article that aspires to be encyclopedic. I mean, really. 76.89.181.133 (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC) -- Interested Observer

Birthplace

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I thought she was born in Point Pleasant, NJ? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JuliaStiles101.jpg

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Image:JuliaStiles101.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

First Film?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would not Wide Awake (1998 film) technically be her first film (1995) even though it was not released for 3 years (1998)? As far as first film to be released in which she appeared in, the 1996 film given in the article would be accurate, though. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Julia Stiles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Made (2001 film) + Julia Stiles ?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In Made (2001 film) there were several "Club Girl (uncredited)" roles (such as Drea de Matteo and Jennifer Esposito) during the first nightlounge scenes from around 0:51:40 to around 0:58:40, and I was wondering if it was Julia Stiles in the blue turtle neck and blonde braids under a dark bandana who was grooving around (in front and behind (poor continuity to fill the first club)) or by the main characters. Any lines she may have had were cut. Julia Stiles was not unknown in 2001 and actually starred in Save the Last Dance that same year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonCarswell (talk • contribs) 02:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Julia Stiles. 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:

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) 04:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Julia Stiles. 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:

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) 13:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julia_Stiles/Archive_1&oldid=1108385085"