Talk:Katherine McNamara/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notable?

This article is an unsourced BLP and fails WP:ENT. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Correction: This article is a very, very poorly sourced BLP and fails WP:ENT. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Katherine McNamara. 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/20160722214501/http://hellogiggles.com/embrace-your-brains/ to http://hellogiggles.com/embrace-your-brains/

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) 04:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Katherine McNamara.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Non-Notable Awards

I think the TV Scoop Awards should be removed from the awards section, because I don't think they would meet Wikipedia's nobility standards -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

No objection. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Early Career

Um, IJBall, her acting career did not start with the Broadway revival of A Little Night Music. She had other prior experience, including local theater with the Kansas City Repertory Theatre. Both the Filmography here and on IMDB list credits that pre-date A Little Night Music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, the Variety "source" is really bad. It's just a photo caption that doesn't give any specifics with regards to when she was actually on Broadway in A Little Night Music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I added the NPR source, which mentioned the Kansas City musical experience, and added that to the article. So what's the issue?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins masters program

In July 2017, she said that she was working on an MA in literature. Since then, she hasn't said anything about graduating. She probably never completed the program, either in Literature or economics. I think we should remove references to it in her bio.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uTTmnct0sg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

It should not be removed. It is sourced, and was true at the time. Rewording it is acceptable, especially if a consensus on the rewording is reached. But it should not just be "removed". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Well at the least her field of study should be changed to Literature since the 2017 interview is the most recent info available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

By the way, here's an interview published in March 2016 that contradicts the previous text and reference about her being in school in 2015. She was still looking at schools at the time: https://tvserieshub.tv/2016/03/13/katherinemcnamara/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I was reading through some of the references I added for McNamara's songs and came across this interview from May 2016: http://www.radiofree.com/profiles/katherine_mcnamara/interview03.shtml. So, the Teen Vogue article was definitely wrong, even though it's a reputable publication.70.112.229.80 (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

So, I did some digging, and the Teen Vogue article was added in Jan 2016. This error was live for four years! SMH.70.112.229.80 (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Uncredited appearances in TV shows

So, IJBall, you don't trust your eyes?

Here she is in 30 Rock: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z-odO1ZJvXw/Xh_JPVWUw5I/AAAAAAAARvk/YvuIouDOc4AcxsrMnTbvmKnh1AhB9RuSwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Rock1.jpg

Here she is in Grinder: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BguG019n60c/Xh_SkeeOluI/AAAAAAAARwI/xspup895BAkxdGuxpyYGcbp3iDt6F3N5wCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Grinder3.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

That's called WP:OR, sport. WP:V requires actual sourcing, either primary source credits, or secondary source reporting. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Screencaps are often more accurate than published text. If you search for her education, you'll find lots of "articles" that state that she's studying for a master's in economics. Guess what? They more than likely got their info from Wikipedia, which has been inaccurate since whenever that Teen Vogue article (from 2015) was added to this page. If you don't trust your eyes, you might as well be blind (not an insult but seriously questioning your judgment). Plus a motion picture in and of itself is a publication.

Not acceptable: Who took the screencaps? Have they been altered? You can't just take anything off the internet, or off YouTube – It has to come from a reputable, established source. And, once again, only film/TV credits count as WP:primary sources for this. If you don't like that, Wikipedia is not for you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Might as well delete those appearances altogether, then. They are, after all, "unsourced". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't do that either. If there is consensus to remove them, we'll do it then. In the meantime, listed in the table, but tagged, is appropriate – at some point, there's likely to be a secondary source that mentions those appearances, and we can source them then. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Btw, "official" credits can be wrong, too. Did you know that McNamara is credited as "Homeless Lady in Mission" for Last Ounce of Courage? She wasn't even in that scene!

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nuQgUA9dcEg/XlhvHn5V-EI/AAAAAAAASL8/reiPnmRBAXIib5I5TJOey7YnpR9XGV9dQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Couragecredits.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Re: Grinder -- wow, your source is another photo. Bravo, IJBall, lmao. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a photo from Fox, not some rando off the internet. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

What does that matter if you won't accept the actual episode as proof that she appears in it? Again, a motion picture in and of itself is a publication.

Evan McNamara

IJBall, do you think this might be her father?

http://www.evanmcnamara.info/home — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It's basically not relevant to Katherine McNamara's article. If another WP:RS mentions that her father is a writer, then it can be added to the article. But it's not relevant if not covered in WP:RSs. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know, which is why I mentioned the information here instead. Nothing really worth adding to the main article yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Charitable works

I was researching the sentence about the MS Society and Lollipop Theater Network (because it's poorly written and sourced). Aside from the awkward verbiage, the only "reference" is a picture of her attending an event in 2014. A lot of showbiz people attend numerous events without actually "supporting" anything. They go for the same reason as everyone else, to attend a party/watch a movie and have fun. The "reference" doesn't even have anything to do with the MS Society.

Having written that...on the Lollipop Theater Network's Facebook page, there is a picture of McNamara actively participating in a charity event in 2017. I know secondary sources are preferred, and obviously social media posts are iffy most of the time, but can we at least use the National Lollipop Day page on the official website, where McNamara is wearing one of their t-shirts? https://lollipoptheater.org/national-lollipop-day/ https://lollipoptheater.org/celebrity-supporters/ https://www.facebook.com/LollipopTheater/posts/10154122007592657:0

I'm gonna remove the reference to the MS Society. We can add it back if she has done something substantive with that organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Further condensed the Charitable works section. I hope that contributors stop using sources that mention McNamara attending events without describing her actually doing something substantive. Random people appear at events all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

New Year's Eve

Okay, I see that someone tried to describe McNamara's appearance in this movie as "Segment" -- again! "Mother & Daughter" is a storyline within the larger narrative, NOT a segment. The multiple storylines unfold simultaneously, not in chunks.70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Are the different storylines given unique "title cards" within the film? If they are, then they can accurately be described as individual "segments" within the larger movie. If they aren't given unique title cards, then, yeah, the film doesn't have "segments". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

They're not. Again, the movie is not broken into chunks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't ask if the movie was "broken into chunks" – I asked if the individual stories were set up with title cards. Again, if they weren't then even including "Mother & Daughter Story" is WP:OR and should be removed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

IJBall, it actually says "Mother & Daughter" in the credits. I really wish you would watch her movies and TV shows instead of keyboard warrioring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. Many editors have no specific knowledge of the articles they edit – they don't need to (and are not required to), as long they follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (As it happens, I do know quite a bit about McNamara's career, but it's ridiculous to expect every editor to an actor's page to have necessarily seen everything they've been in.) And, to be clear my questions have hardly been out of line, and no one editing Wikipedia has any special requirement to WP:SATISFY you. My only interest is maintaining or improving article quality, which includes making sure content is accurate and free from WP:OR, and free from excessive WP:PROMO content (which is a particular issue at many WP:BLPs. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's a screenshot from the New Year's Eve credits: https://i.postimg.cc/WVnJ9nQ8/newyearseve.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Based on this, calling it "segment" or "story" is a distinction without a difference. But it should be "Mother & Daughter" story, or "Mother & Daughter" segment in the table. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Based on your comment, you fail at several things: 1) knowledge of McNamara's career; 2) the ability to research basic information, such as watching film credits; 3) basic comprehension of language and artistic (narrative/storytelling) conventions. No, you don't have to be an expert on McNamara, but you could've easily looked at the film credits for New Year's Eve and Indiscretion before commenting on or overriding other people's edits.

You act like it's always easy to look up credits – it's not always. And you're not helping when you change names without leaving a clear edit summary explaining why in the first place (this basically falls under WP:BURDEN), so please don't act like I did anything wrong. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

By the way, one more time for the stubborn -- the stories are not presented in chunks. THERE ARE NO TITLE CARDS SEPARATING THE STORIES.

And whether those are called "segments" or "stories" is a matter of editorial judgment and consensus. Now, I don't particularly care one way or the other. But if a bunch of editors show up here, and think it should be called a "segment" rather than a "story", then that's the consensus. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

IJBall -- Pulp Fiction is a movie that unfolds in segments. The stories are presented as individual chunks. New Year's Eve is similar to movies like Crash and Syriana, where multiple stories unfold simultaneously. This is not a matter of "editorial judgment" or "consensus" but actually fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

IJBall, if you are unable to look at a movie or TV show's credits at a particular moment in time, maybe you should hold off on commenting or reversing other people's edits until you can? I shouldn't have to be doing your work for you all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Indiscretion film credits

IJBall, her character's name is indeed Lizzy Simon, not just Lizzy, in the film credits.

https://i.postimg.cc/8CD1n2Tn/Indiscretion.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for checking. But as per WP:TVCAST and WP:FILMOGRAPHY, we are obliged to repeat exactly what is in a TV show's or film's credits for character (and actor) names... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Which is what the other editor did -- and you reversed the edit without checking.70.112.229.80 (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Image changes on 5 September

IJBall, I don't want to get into an undo battle with you, but I do like the image that the other person used. Her hair doesn't obscure as much of her face as the current image does. I would prefer something more recent, though. 2014 was six years ago.70.112.229.80 (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The proper way to approach this is to post the current image, and whichever other images you think should replace it, and then solicit the opinions of other editors in order to come to a consensus. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

For examples of this process best plays out, see: Talk:Sofia Carson#Infobox image RFC and Talk:Sabrina Carpenter#Profile Pictures. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Current photo, dated November 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Katherine_McNamara_-_November_2014_(cropped).jpg

Other photo proposed by another editor, also dated 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Katherine_McNamara_2014_(cropped).jpg

As I mentioned, the proposed photo shows more of McNamara's face.70.112.229.80 (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

No, like this:

Two possible portrait images for Katherine McNamara

• 
  Current image
• 
  Newly proposed

FTR, I prefer the current image as a better composition for an infobox portrait picture (i.e. a tighter head shot, with a less goofy smile). I would have no objections to adding the newly proposed one elsewhere in the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Biographical information

It appears that some people are determined to erase any mention of her father's side of the family. It may be that she is estranged from them, but that doesn't change facts/reality. Please stop vandalizing the page. Rather, if she is estranged from her father, add supporting documentation attesting to this.70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

People keep vandalizing the Biographical section. Should we implement page protection?70.112.229.80 (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

If it persists, possibly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

TV Filmography

Joeyconnick, it was largely ordered by airdate. Why would you change the order to alphabetical? Makes no sense.70.112.229.80 (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Because "airdate" is not a value in the table, and having a table initially sorted by a value that's not present in that table is nonsensical. No layperson could look at the table and understand, let alone easily verify, what the order was based on or whether it was correct. So we sort on the values that are present, and that anyone can look at and figure out, namely year followed by title. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Why didn't you add an airdate column, then? Alpha order is even more nonsensical since we already have a year column.70.112.229.80 (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Joeyconnick, alpha order makes no sense whatsoever because you're basically forcing the Crisis on Infinite Earths crossover episodes to be listed out of order. See here: https://i.postimg.cc/yx5vNkgF/alphaorder.jpg70.112.229.80 (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

FTR, it makes no difference if the order is chronological, or alphabetical within a year. Nobody really cares. That is not an excuse to load up a Filmography table in a non-standard way with extraneous info. Pinging Joeyconnick back here, in case they want to weigh in. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Both the Film and TV credits were largely chronological before Joeyconnick changed the TV (but not the Film?) section to alpha. He did it without any consultations with the Wiki community and has blithely ignored my attempts to solicit a reasonable response from him. Furthermore, alpha order places the Supergirl episode of Crisis on Infinite Earths behind the other credits. WTF?70.112.229.80 (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I waited two bloody weeks for Joeyconnick or anyone else to post about the matter. It appeared that no one, including you IJBall, cared.70.112.229.80 (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't care on chronological vs. alphabetical-within-a-year – that is completely irrelevant. If others want it chronological, great (don't care!). I do care about you loading up the Filmography table with a bunch of extraneous crap – please remove your additions. Let's see if you truly capable of acting in a collaborative manner – leave the table in chrono order, but remove your additions, please. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I will pause adding airdates for the moment, stopping at 2014. However, I don't want this to be reverted back to alpha order, especially since it places the first Crisis on Infinite Earths episode AFTER episodes 2 and 3. It looks completely idiotic.70.112.229.80 (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, don't care one way or the other. But your additions to the 'Notes' column need to be removed, ASAP. You don't need to wait to do that – please just do it now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that in this one particular case, ordering by year and then series title – which in general is the only sensible way to do it because, again, it makes zero sense to order a table by a value that isn't present – is a little problematic. This is only because, unlike nearly all TV episode titles across different television series, the Crisis episode titles are shared between series, and so the Supergirl entry comes before Batwoman in terms of the episode titles. If I had my way, I would deal with that by just not mentioning the episode titles in that case and sticking to year, title. However, in the spirit of compromise, I think it's fine to list those (and only those) series out of alphabetical order given the shared episode titles.

As to your very WP:UNCIVIL tone, 70.112.229.80, first off, I'm only dealing with the busiest my actual job (you know, the one that pays my bills?) has ever been, thanks to the pandemic. I don't owe you (or any other editor) a lightning fast or even moderately fast response here—this is volunteer work, so maybe back off? As for not having properly ordered the filmography table, you mean in my dozens of edits each month I didn't make an article 100% consistent? It's way better to improve part of an article than to have one that is consistent but in a less sensible way. The nonsensical notion that people can't improve part of an article, or one article out of a series of related articles, simply because they didn't improve the entire article (or related collection) remains as silly now as it always has been: if that were the case, then no changes could ever be made to any Wikipedia articles. And as IJBall said, it's not my edits to this article that are completely out of touch with our tv series standards. "Selected [f]ilmography"? (please consult MOS:HEAD and MOS:TV) Airdates in the filmography tables? Pretty sure episode titles being "out of order" is the least of our worries here. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, wow, now we're going with the "my real job is important" line? Hate to break it to you, but others have important real jobs, too. As for film/tv credits and even vitas or resumes in general, people list their accomplishments in chronological order, not year/alpha. If anyone's being "non-standard", it's you by insisting on double sorting by year/alpha (when year already establishes chrono order).70.112.229.80 (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Joeyconnick, let's pretend you had three jobs in 2020. You were a police officer in January, a firefighter in May, and a nurse in September. You would list your jobs as 2020 -- police officer, 2020 -- firefighter, 2020 -- nurse, NOT 2020 -- firefighter, 2020 -- nurse, 2020 -- police officer. Please stop being obtuse.136.49.157.251 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

FTR, neither approach is "right" or "wrong" – either can be used. Joey's point is that 'by year' dating doesn't actually distinguish chronology (within the year) is valid. Your point that it should be listed "chronologically" anyway is also valid. On my end, it doesn't matter to me either way. But I would like to avoid an edit war over this. Also, 36.49.157.251, your labeling of Joey's edit as "vandalism" is completely over-the-line, and is pretty explicitly a personal attack – do that again, and you'll be getting a user warning message at your Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

IJBall, why is it okay for Joeyconnick to ignore this discussion, but when other people ignore the Talk page, you get all hot and bothered?136.49.157.251 (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

He hasn't "ignored" the Talk page – he posted to this very thread. Right now, it's you vs. Joey. IOW, there's no consensus either way on this particular issue. Regardless, Joey's edit was not remotely "vandalism", and calling it such is a personal attack. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It is vandalism because he is introducing disorder to lists that aren't disordered right now. He wants to switch to year and alpha-within-year, which is actually double sorting for no good reason. On top of that, he wants to keep the Crisis on Infinite Earths episodes in chrono order, which is carving out an exception that introduces a third sorting. This is highly disruptive, whereas if we simply kept the lists as-they-are, they're perfectly fine.136.49.157.251 (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Relevance of fictional characters parents names

Two issues with the reversion of my recent edits, thus two headlines:
First: Why is it necessary or relevant to mention the names of the parents of McNamara's Role on Arrow? In my opinion this doesn't add anything. The important Information are the show and perhaps the Role, the parents of that role are not important, especially not in the introduction. All the weight the information has that Mia Smoak is the daughter of Oliver Queen (and Felicity Smoak) only comes into play, if one knows that Oliver Queen is the main character of Arrow. If one does not know this, the information is useless. Imagine the sentence being "McNamara play character A on Show B, the daughter of character C and character D." You have to know who character C and character D are to understand the importance of the circumstance, that character A is their daughter. If in turn the article would say "In 2018, McNamara joined the cast of Arrow for its seventh season, playing Mia Smoak, the main character's daughter". This gives everyone, whether they know Oliver Queen or not, everything they need to know. Although I believe that "In 2018, McNamara joined the cast of Arrow for its seventh season, playing Mia Smoak." would suffice.

For comparison, the article for Joseph David-Jones doesn't mention the relationship of his character(s) to any other character. Ben Lewis' Article does mention his characters relation in the chapter career, but not in the introduction, although it doesn't use the characters civil name but it's superhero alter ego.

Actually the more I think about it, shouldn't the introduction be as compact as possible anyway? So wouldn't it be better to pack McNamara's most notable roles in one sentence? Like this: "She is known for her roles as Clary Fray on Shadowhunters and as Mia Smoak on Arrow." --92.192.2.143 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The characters are linked so there is no need to remove them from the article, which you did – the links are right there if somebody wants more information. I don't really have an opinion on shortening the lede, but they certainly do not need to be removed from the body of the article as it establishes why her character was particularly important on Arrow. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)