Jump to content

Talk:Daria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daria Database

[edit]

I found that there is an official book written about Daria by MTV: http://books.google.com/books?id=rNNOnsiUj1YC&pg=PT102&dq=%22Daria+Morgendorffer%22#v=onepage&q=%22Daria%20Morgendorffer%22&f=false

This might be a great source for the series of articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately neither The Daria Database nor The Daria Diaries contain the kind of information that can back up most of the content lacking citation in this article. Both are just the kind of additional miscellany that can add to the fan enjoyment of a series such as the menu for the one notable restaurant on the series and childhood "photos" of characters. 71.244.137.234 (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


reference is behind pay-wall

[edit]

i want to add a ref , but its behind a paywall. for the daria day 99 marathon in the related media section. here is the relevent google link which has excerpts from the pay articles: [[1]] --Compn (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Judge

[edit]

There is no mention of Mike Judge, creator of Beavis and Butt-head, in the article. Shouldn't there be? Surely he had some influence (Mike Judge @ DariaWiki). —Preceding unsigned comment added by HMFS (talk • contribs) 03:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Judge created Daria as a mere background character for Beavis & Butt-head. He did not take part in the "Daria" animated series, which takes basically nothing from that other series (not even the appearence of the character). Cambalachero (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jane's Addiction

[edit]

Just a small point, the episode named Jane's Addition was actually originally called Jane's Addiction, just like the band. Some clown thought it gave a negative drug message or something though, so it was changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.91.183 (talk)

Got sourcing? Doniago (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Setting" section

[edit]

Why on earth is this called the 'Setting' sub-heading when the 'full article' link below is for EPISODES of Daria? If its a setting synposis then there should be no full article link (unless someone wants to make a page for Lawndale, which is not gonna happen), AND the bit at the end about how 'dynamics change' in Season 4 has to be deleted, cuz it has nothing to do with the preceding three paragraphs. If it's NOT a setting synopsis then it needs to be called something like 'Plot', and it needs to be almost entirely rewritten.

If any one has objections, voice them, or I'll just go ahead and do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.137.188 (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A note on one Anita Gates article

[edit]

In regards to:

It has also been posted to

So that means you do not have to request the latter, as it is the same article as the former. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music Licensing

[edit]

How much would it have cost them if they licensed all the music for the DVDs? Jigen III (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lawndale can´t be DC suburb

[edit]
In the Fizz Ed episode, the first one of season 5 Jodie said they have to buy newspapers to travel to Washington DC, if Lawndale were a DC suburb this could't be possible because been DC as near to Lawndale they just had to drive a few miles to gen into there, there are many possibilities about where it is located Lawndale, but definitelly it is not in the DC Area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.73.189.175 (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Daria. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 12:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Daria. 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 12:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daria. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 08:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Lewis Lynn

[edit]

I am removing the hotlink on Susie Lewis Lynn's name, as it is redirected to this same page and thus is confusing and of no value. I very much wish Wikipedia could have an article on the co-creator of such a seminal show, but as stands currently this link is serving no purpose but to imply (wrongly) that this topic is better-covered on Wikipedia than it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkersam (talk • contribs) 06:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello. Have you ever watched Daria long enough for them to put together that they are sisters?

Good Question?

Any related topics or information about these three girls who go to high school together...?

And is Daria a California native? She speaks in second person.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Daria. 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) 06:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daria. 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) 21:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. TRL (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I love this series, I think Tracy Grandstaff should be redirected here because she doesn't appear to be notable outside of the series (I previously redirected it but it was reverted). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 20:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just up and revert like that, you have to have a consensus. If the consensus is to merge, then you merge. Until then, the Grandstaff article should remain.Dpm12 (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to be honest, I wasn't aware that you couldn't revert while the matter was being discussed, but I apologize. Dpm12 (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2002 end date

[edit]

While it is true that the last half-hour episode was broadcast in 2001, the TV movie finale Is It College Yet? aired on January 21, 2002. This can be found easily not only here, but a Google search on the topic will also bring up articles from the time: https://www.google.com/search?q=Daria+January+21%2C+2002&rlz=1CAKSOU_enUS839&oq=Daria+January+21%2C+2002&aqs=chrome..69i57.4106j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Dpm12 (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dpm12: movies and specials are not part of the main series. As I stated in the edit summery, almost all sources and major film/television websites set "Boxing Daria", which aired on June 25, 2001, as the series finale. Just as Beavis and Butt-Head Do America is not part of the main Beavis and Butt-Head series, Is it Fall Yet? and Is It College Yet? aren't part of the main Daria series. Also, how is Decider, a website operated by the New York Post, not reliable but a google search is? Other than Decider, Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB, NBC News, Independent record, and Paste magazine, amongst numerous others, cite this date. Musicfan122 (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And many others also cite the January 2002 date. The TV movie finale was still the finale and the show still ended in 2002. Like I said, I could pull just as many sources that say January 21, 2002, like: this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this. We could both go on. Oh, and here's am interesting one: MTV's 'Daria' Ends Five-Year Run Tonight from January 21, 2002:
" MTVs animated Daria series ends its five year run tonight with a movie titled Daria: Is It College Yet? The animated Daria movie airs tonight at 8PM. MTV is now working on a Daria marathon to highlight the best episodes over the show's five year history.
MTV has also announced that it will soon begin airing three new animated series in 2002: Spider-Man, The Freshman, and Clone High."
Also, Beavis and Butt-Head Do America was a theatrical film, not a TV movie, and when it was released, the show was still in production.
Dpm12 (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And there's nothing on Wikipedia that says TV movie dates don't count. The Ed, Edd n Eddy article lists November 8, 2009 as its end date because that's the date the TV movie finale Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show aired.
Dpm12 (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Out of all the sources you cited, only the first, Slate, seems to be reliable. However, it doesn't state Is It College Yet? as the series finale, just the "finale", which could mean the finale of the whole Daria franchise. Another thing to keep in mind is that a lot of these "sources" may have found those dates on Wikipedia and propagated them. Also, did you really just cite the Rotten Tomatoes page of Is It Collage Yet? ("this" #4) against the main series page? I think we need opinions from other editors, pinging @Erpert:, @Onel5969: and @Eagleash:. Musicfan122 (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Really? "Finale" doesn't mean "finale" to you? The show ended in 2002, but fine, go ahead and get other opinions. There are still many reliable sources that cite the premiere of Is It Fall Yet? in January 2002, such as The New York Times. Dpm12 (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is from the Slate article, by the way:
"It’s remarkable to have a TV show end on such an ambiguous, even downbeat, note. But then, that’s always been Daria’s strength: undercutting social fairy tales. Granted, plenty of cultural products send the message that it’s OK to be a confused, mercurial, rebellious, disaffected, lonely teen, be they indies like Ghost World or mainstream fare like She’s All That. But Daria aired on the station that teen-agers watch, right alongside, and in stark contrast to, Britney’s crop-tops. Like all the best fairy godmothers, Daria was in the right place at the right time. It’s a shame that this year’s crop of freshmen won’t have her bitter wit to guide them through high-school orientation." Repeat: "...[R]emarkable to have a TV show end on such an ambiguous, even downbeat, note." Dpm12 (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2002 sounds fine to me. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 16:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My super cool friend Daria

[edit]

Daria is one of my two friends (before you ask, yes I only have two). She is a great friend with a really sassy personality. You DONT want to have an argument with her because she is gonna destroy you!! I have no clue what her favorite food is but she likes sushi and papaya. She LOVES the novel Gone with the wind and she supports me with my One Direction obsession. All in all she is a great friend and this is her appreciation post :) Daria if you see this you are AMAZAYN (see what I did there? ;)) -Valerie Harryishot (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding

[edit]

In this edit on September 23, 2022, the name of the actress who plays Daria was bolded for some reason (no edit summary was given) in the introductory paragraph. As of today, the most recent two edits to the article both remove this bolding, and both edits were reverted, citing MOS:BOLD which, as far as I can tell, doesn't say anything about bolding actors names. Its certainly not a practice I've seen utilised in Wikipedia articles about other shows. In order to not enter into a revert war, can we get some consensus on why this person's name is being bolded, and if its neccessary? Personally, I think its not and it should be unbolded. -Gohst (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Her name is in bold because searching for her name redirects to this article. DonIago (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can point to where in the Wikipedia Manual of Style it says that redirects should be bolded, then her name should be bolded. Otherwise it should be reverted to a non-bold styling. -Gohst (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:BOLD - "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead section. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not..." DonIago (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so it should be unbolded because the actress' name who plays Daria is not a synonym for the title of the show. I don't read what you quoted as applying to literally any redirect that points to the article. If you think it does, you'll need to supply examples. -Gohst (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example, citing this exact article, "Lawndale (Daria)" "Sick, Sad World" and "The Fashion Club" all redirect to Daria, but no instance of their use in the article has been bolded. The actresses' name should not be bolded, also. -Gohst (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The text says that the bolded terms are commonly synonyms; it doesn't state that they must be synonyms. That other terms aren't bolded doesn't mean anything other than that they aren't bolded. Perhaps they should be.
I admit I'm unable at this time to find a similar redirect, but that doesn't preclude the existence of them. I don't need to provide examples. Wikipedia works based on consensus, so what's needed if two editors can't find common ground on how to approach a dispute is additional opinions. DonIago (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absent quotes

[edit]

I clicked on Wikiquote for Daria and there are none, just an episode list. Am I missing something? Manytexts (talk) 07:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to click through to a particular season or episode in order to see the quotes. -Gohst (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Grandstaff

[edit]

"Tracy Grandstaff" is not another name for the show. She voiced Daria. Her name shouldn't be bolded in the article's intro. —theMainLogan (t•c) 18:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was already discussed in a thread two sections above this one. DonIago (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And it looks like you're being outvoted, DonIago. It shouldn't be bolded. -Gohst (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia discussions aren't votes. I've linked to the relevant guideline in the above discussion. DonIago (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have, but you haven't proven that this is current practice on Wikipedia. The actresses name is the actresses name, not an alternative name for the show and her name, which is just the same as any other name in the article, should not be bolded. To quote yourself in that earlier discussion: "Wikipedia works based on consensus, so what's needed if two editors can't find common ground on how to approach a dispute is additional opinions." You have now been given a second opinion on the matter. I don't know why you are so obsessed with the idea of bolding this actress' name in this article, but it shouldn't be done.
You quoted a section of MOS:BOLD earlier, which ran like so: "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead section. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not..."
To address each of those points:
"The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead section." The first occurrence of the article's TITLE ie, the word "Daria" is bolded. "Tracy Grandstaff" is NOT the title of the article, nor does her name have anything to do with the title of the show. Her name is not a synonym for Daria, her name is just her name only and should not be bolded.
This is also done at the first occurrence of a term that redirects to the article" OK, so Tracy Grandstaff redirects to this article. HOWEVER, the part in brackets reads "commonly a synonym in the lead". It bears repeating that "Tracy Grandstaff" is NOT a synonym for the title of this show, nor is it a synonym for the title of this article. Again, Tracy Grandstaff is an actress' name and nothing more and should not be bolded.
During the earlier discussion, you were asked to find examples of a similar nature to this one, but could not. Therefore the conclusion must be reached that this occurrence is an outlier and is not common practice on Wikipedia, plus the consensus of two independent editors are against you. You haven't given any explanation as to why her name should be bolded except that it is a term which redirects to this article. However, per the section you yourself quoted, her name is not a synonym for the title of the show or the article and therefore should not be bolded.
If you choose to continue to argue this point, please back it up with evidence that you are absolutely correct, otherwise it should be reverted to unbolded. If you REALLY feel like you are in the right, I'm sure there is some arbitration process you can enter into in order to gain wider input from the general editing community to settle this matter once and for all. -Gohst (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, as an involved party in this discussion, you don't get to argue that the discussion should be closed in your preferred manner when you haven't garnered a consensus. Wikipedia discussions aren't votes.
The only point in your above post that I find pertinent is: This is also done at the first occurrence of a term that redirects to the article" OK, so Tracy Grandstaff redirects to this article. HOWEVER, the part in brackets reads "commonly a synonym in the lead". It bears repeating that "Tracy Grandstaff" is NOT a synonym for the title of this show, nor is it a synonym for the title of this article. Again, Tracy Grandstaff is an actress' name and nothing more and should not be bolded." The text at MOS:BOLD very explicitly states, bolded for emphasis, "commonly a synonym in the lead". I see this wording as explicitly stating that there are instances where it's appropriate to boldface terms that are not synonyms for the lead.
If you're going to ask me to find examples of non-synonyms being placed in boldface, then I will in turn ask you: how would you like me to do so? The fact that I can't readily find examples of such on a website that has millions of articles hardly demonstrates anything conclusive. You're essentially trying to send me on a fishing expedition.
In my opinion, the most appropriate option would be to request additional opinions at the talk page for MOS:BOLD, which I will do shortly. If editors who are more familiar with the intent of that guideline also feel that it is inappropriate to bold Grandstaff's name in the lead, I will drop my resistance to unbolding Grandstaff's name. DonIago (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have unbolded the name per the discussion above, particularly the points raised by Gohst. — Manticore 05:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was highly inappropriate for you to change the status quo while the while the discussion is still in progress, per WP:STATUSQUO. Please revert your edit. DonIago (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Gohst is provably wrong; see below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where in this discussion this information should go, but checking the MOS:LEAD article about the formatting of the opening paragraphs, leads us to this section: MOS:BOLDALTNAMES which is titled "Bolding of title and alternative names." The first sentence of that section and its relevant example, I will quote below (existing emphasis - not mine is included):

Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative names (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold:
Mumbai, also known as Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra. (Mumbai)

There are other examples within that section about when to bold and not bold, but for brevity's sake, I'll leave them out. It bears repeating that "Tracy Grandstaff" is not a "significant alternative name" for the TV series Daria. -Gohst (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is claiming that Tracy Grandstaff is an alternative name for Daria. See the comment below. DonIago (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the formatting of an introductory section, the Manual of Style states quite clearly: "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative names are placed in bold." -Gohst (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[MOS] states quite clearly: "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative names are placed in bold — while your statement is true, consider the context. You have quoted from MOS:BOLDALTNAMES, a section named "Bolding of title and alternative names" (not "all usages of bold format") so one could reasonably assume that the scope of "only" here is limited to "title and alternative names" (ie, "only the first occurrence of words covered by this subsection of MOS are placed in bold"), not "all things that redirect here". Mitch Ames (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mitch Ames is entirely correct. MOS:BOLD: Boldface is often applied ... at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article. "Commonly" does not and cannot mean "only". MOS:BOLDSYN's "Bolding of title and alternative names" does not and cannot cover material that is not the title or an alternative name; and the section is not about what is permissible to boldface (that's defined by MOS:BOLD), but about not re-boldfacing later what has already been boldfaced in the lead as the title or alternative name. Next, WP:RASTONISH: It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term, though insignificant or minor redirects can skip this. Nothing to do with leads or alternative names in particular. See also WP:WIKILAWYER about quoting WP:P&G material out of context to try to make it seem to mean something it does not. PS: BOLDSYN's "only the first" instruction actually applies to all bolding of redirects, and that should be imported into the wording at WP:RASTONISH for clarity. Will take care of that in a moment.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gohst here. This use of bold contravenes widespread practice in articles and the consensus interpretation of MOS:BOLD. Consensus on this talk page also appears to reject this use of bold. — Goszei (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions from editors at MOS:BOLD

[edit]

Per my above suggestion that we solicit additional opinions from editors who may be more familiar with the appropriate application of the MOS:BOLD guideline, I am creating this section to faciliate said editors offering their opinions. DonIago (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting MOS:BOLD

Boldface is often applied ... also at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article

Note that "commonly a synonym" is parenthetical, which to me means that it is not a requirement (eg that Tracy Grandstaff be a synonym of Daria), merely an example.
Also WP:RPLA suggests that bold format is reasonable here:

... all "inbound redirects" ... are mentioned ... It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term.

To paraphrase RPLA "Hang on... I wanted to read about Tracy Grandstaff. Why has the link taken me to Daria?". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Often" is the key word in the above guideline material, and as with most everything to do with style questions, apply common sense. There is no requirement to boldface everything that is an incoming redirect, and in many topics doing so would be unhelpful and outright visually disruptive (e.g. various plants have dozens of common/vernacular names, and dozens of technical terms might redirect to an article on the subject to which the terms refer, etc.). What matters here is utility to the reader. This TV show article is, at least for now, doubling as the Tracy Grandstaff bio (and this is common when a work is notable but a person best known for it is not). Her name should be boldfaced here because this is "her" article, too, and readers are apt to be at least momentarily confused by being redirected here from her name if it isn't made immediately obvious in the lead section (or the section to which the redirect goes, if not to the lead). If some minor character name redirects to this article, boldfacing it would not be terribly useful, since any reader is apt to understand already that it's a character from this show. Even so, some editors might boldface the character names in the list anyway, and in a list that wouldn't be terrible; using a MOS:DLIST format would do that automatically, in fact.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Tracy Grandstaff" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Tracy Grandstaff has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 27 § Tracy Grandstaff until a consensus is reached. — Goszei (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daria&oldid=1259087874"