Talk:Eve Harlow

Categories

Note that Category:Film actresses and Category:Television actresses are both container-only categories, meaning that they're only allowed to contain subcategories, and are not allowed to directly contain any actresses at all. There is never an acceptable argument for decontainerizing any actress out of a subcategory and back into the container — if you dispute the nationality of an actress, your choices are either (a) find the correct other nationality and laterally move her from Country-X film/television actresses to Country-Y film/television actresses, or (b) suck it up and move on — your options do not include unsubbing her back up into the nationally-undifferentiated container category, because the container category is not allowed to have articles in it. There is absolutely no acceptable argument to the contrary, and I will brook no clapback on that. Get her out of the container categories, and into an appropriate national subcategory, immediately. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm largely unconcerned with the rules of Category:film actresses and Category:television actresses, but without additional sources, there aren't any subcategories which apply. If you would rather we remove those categories whole-cloth, I don't really object. Let me know! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

And I'm entirely unconcerned about what you are or aren't concerned about, because "container-only categories must be kept absolutely empty of individual articles at all times" is an absolute rule that there is never any acceptable grounds for breaking. So because my thing is an actual absolute rule and yours isn't, my lack of concern about your issue trumps your lack of concern about mine. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I've made only a single edit to this article's categories, in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability, while still maintaining some occupational-based categorization. I'll also note that category:television actresses wasn't declared a "container category" until you changed that page by editorial fiat immediately before coming here to rail about it. However, if you need me to bend to your rules after you add them to pages, and since you didn't object to my suggestion, I've made this edit for you. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope. If she's been an actress in film, then she must be found somewhere under that tree, and if she's been an actress in television, then she must be found under that tree, and removing either category entirely is not acceptable. The only acceptable solution here is figure out the correct nationality and move her into the correct subcategories, and there will be no removal of any categories absent their replacement with the correct national subcategories. But there also won't be any just walking away and leaving her in the containers either: the only acceptable solution is figure the correct nationality out, and figure the correct nationality out now. Bearcat (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You're italically demanding opposite outcomes, and you can't have it both ways. Either the container category is not allowed to have articles in it or she must be found somewhere under that tree. Category:Film actresses has subcategories for receiving awards, speaking languages, nationalities, being a child, performing in pornography, performing in film serials, performing in silent films, and performing in Westerns; nothing in the article supports any of those subcategories. So by your personal intransigent demands, the three options are either removing the occupational categories, categorizing simply as [medium] actresses, or finding reliable sources that explicitly support her nationality. Since I can't reconcile your contrary demands, I can't help you and am leaving it as-is. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

There's no contradiction whatsoever. She can't stay in container categories, but she must be found in appropriate and relevant subcategories of said containers, and those things aren't in contradiction with each other at all. I already said, and this is an exact quote from my post above, the only acceptable solution is figure the correct nationality out, and figure the correct nationality out now — and that remains the only acceptable solution.

This is also, I should add, not the first time I've seen you take issue with the state of sourcing for an actress's nationality, and then assert ownership of the article in order to veto any source that anybody ever added to support it on the grounds that nothing was ever good enough. So please also clarify exactly what kind of sourcing would even be enough to satisfy you in the first place, because it isn't my job to fix the problem if I have no way of knowing what would satisfy you if even sources that explicitly label her as a Canadian-Israeli or Israeli-Canadian actress still aren't good enough. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This is also, I should add, not the first time I've seen you take issue with the state of sourcing for an actress's nationality […] I often take issue with unsourced and original research in any article where I find it; we have clear policies all about that. […] and then assert ownership of the article in order to veto any source that anybody ever added Upon my first edit to this article on 3 March 2024 at 18:21 UTC, I did remove several sources for cause, though how that constitutes ownership of content I don't know since nobody has objected or complained about my removal of IMDB and fan-site sourcing. So please also clarify exactly what kind of sourcing would even be enough to satisfy you in the first place You may be looking for these pages:

• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

— Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason why there couldn't exist a notable actor whose nationality cannot be verified in reliable sources. It doesn't seem like your recipe gives us any course of action in this case. Do we just close our eyes and throw a dart at a world map and choose whichever country it lands on? Colin M (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: I disagree that film actresses should be a container category. Container categories aren't for categories that just have a lot of entries; that's what {{category diffuse}} is for. Container categories are categories that by definition will only contain subcategories, e.g. Category:Film actresses by nationality. Ideally, we come up with a new subcategory somewhere to put her in, but I don't have any ideas, and it seems neither of you do either, so what are we supposed to do?

NB Bearcat, you're being unnecessarily aggressive. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 01:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on this, do you think we need to keep the {{improve categories}} tag? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

April 2024 tagging

The tag, {{more citations needed}}, was added to this article on 26 April 2024 at 21:31 UTC, but everything in the article is cited, and no explanation was given. Does anybody know what unsourced material is in the article to which that tag is referring?

The tag, {{unreliable sources}}, was also added to this article on 26 April 2024 at 21:38 UTC. There was no explanation for which source(s) are suggested to be unreliable, including the Gemini Awards, the Leo Awards, the National Screen Institute, the Toronto Star, United Press International, and especially Digital Spy, Rotten Tomatoes, Screen Rant, and TV Guide. I suppose the lone citation to TV Fanatic could be the culprit for the tagging, but I'd've thought it would be addressed specifically and not with a page-wide tagging (and I, as well as this noticeboard discussion find its interview sufficiently reliable to simply source that this actress played a character in the seasons noted).

If anybody else here has ideas, I'd like to resolve the current state of tagging ambiguity. Thanks, all, — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is not a reliable or notability-supporting source; its pages are just directory entries, not analytical coverage. The National Screen Institute is an organization that was directly affiliated with the film it's sourcing, not a media outlet, so it does not constitute a notability-building source as it isn't independent of the film. Awards only count as notability claims if you can source them to media coverage that treats the awards as news, and not if you have to source them to the award's own self-published content about itself due to a lack of evidence that the award would pass WP:GNG on media coverage about it, so the Leo Awards' own website does not count as a reliable or notability-supporting source. (I've been able to replace it with a proper media source, but that only solves one footnote out of many that are still problematic.) Screen Rant and Digital Spy are marginally acceptable for additional verification of facts after GNG has already been passed by stronger sources, but are not in and of themselves bringers of any GNG points if GNG has not already been passed by stronger sources. So 16 (now 15, following my replacement of the Leo source) of 22 footnotes here are not reliable or notability-supporting at all, and four more are marginal – only three are genuinely solid, and that's not enough to constitute a GNG pass all by itself if all the rest of the sourcing is primary or unreliable or marginal.

The only acceptable GNG-building sources are real media of record doing journalism, and/or published books. Nothing else that isn't one of those two things ever counts as GNG-building sourcing. Any movie or TV show she was in only contributes to building notability if you can source it to media coverage or books, any award she did or didn't win only contributes to building notability if you can source it to media coverage or books, and on and so forth — we're not looking for simple verification that acting roles were had, we're looking for verification that acting roles got her third-party media attention, so nothing counts as a notability claim until it's sourced to evidence of third-party media attention.

The Gemini Award nomination is enough of a notability claim that I didn't take her to AFD — and incidentally, you don't need to separately primary-source her loss of the award, because the fact that there's just a source for the nomination and not for a win already covers off the fact that she didn't win it all by itself — but conversely, the Leo is only a regional award, not a national one, so it doesn't secure notability by itself at all. So the Gemini nomination is a reason why it got tagged for improvement rather than taken to AFD, but the overall article still has to be based on better sourcing than this before it's well-sourced enough to not need tagging for improvement. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, you're confusing acceptability/reliability of sources with whether the source confers notability as understood on the English Wikipedia. You instead added templates that effectively say 'the sources here are unacceptable to use' and 'there is unverified material that needs sources'. Since neither of those are true, you actually meant to say 'this article may not meet our notability requirement', with which I don't necessarily disagree. I've fixed that tagging for you.

incidentally, you don't need to separately primary-source her loss of the award, because the fact that there's just a source for the nomination and not for a win already covers off the fact that she didn't win it all by itself So you're suggesting we leave it with only the one source so that readers are left uncertain as to whether (a) she lost, or (b) nobody's updated the article since the nomination. The source for nomination verifies that Harlow was nominated, and nothing more. The later primary source is serving as verification that she lost; while I would prefer a secondary source, the primary one will suffice to source the actual loss for the time being. Similarly, only the primary source for the Leo Awards gives us the detailed name of that award, but the other is a good find! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Primary sourcing never suffices for anything. A nomination only needs a source for the nomination itself, and does not need a separate primary source to verify her failure to win; an as yet unknown possible future award that hasn't been updated yet is coded as {{pending}}, not as {{nominated}}, so the fact that the award is already coded as red/"nominated" and not yellow/"pending" already communicates that she didn't win. If you really think that a second source is actually necessary to verify that she wasn't the final winner, then you find and cite a media article that reported the actual winner as news, not the award's own self-published website.

And no, I'm not confusing anything at all, either. The Gemini Award nomination specifically is a valid notability claim, such that the article does have to be given a chance at improvement on that basis — it can still potentially be taken to AFD in the future if other reliable GNG-worthy sourcing really can't be found at all, but a Gemini nomination is enough of a notability claim that tagging it for notability, rather than for sourcing problems, wouldn't be the correct first step. The sources here largely aren't appropriate for use, I'm neither wrong about that nor confusing anything — a source has to be GNG-worthy media coverage to support notability, and cannot support notability if it isn't GNG-worthy media coverage, but she has enough of a notability claim that the article has to be given a chance at getting its sourcing improved before deletion becomes an option. Bearcat (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Primary sourcing never suffices for anything. Our policy on no original research says that "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia", and that "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The primary sources are acceptable.

The sources here largely aren't appropriate for use They are. Some patently so, I've already linked to WP:RSP for those less obvious, and argued in favor of the single source for which there isn't explicitly-codified consensus on using. a source has to be GNG-worthy media coverage to support notability, and cannot support notability if it isn't GNG-worthy media coverage. I'm not discussing notability, though. Whether or not you think Harlow is notable isn't the discussion at hand; she may not be. If a source and its prose doesn't support notabilty, that doesn't mean its unreliable or inappropriate. {{More citations needed}} is to be used when an "article needs additional inline citations. This template should be used only for articles where there are some, but insufficient, inline citations to support the material currently in the article." There is no mention of notability at that template, and I will remove it duly momentarily. {{Unreliable sources}} is to be used when "[s]ome of this article's listed sources may not be reliable." There is no mention of notability at that template and I will remove it duly momentarily.

None of this is to mention that you not only inexplicably removed source formatting, but that your whole edit summary said merely nope. Per my explanations here and the templates' explanations themselves, I have now replaced the Leo source and removed the inapplicable templates; I've also replaced the Province formatting and replaced the Times-Herald source (which I tried to verify, but couldn't) with a fuller Star sourcing. If you feel compelled to continue edit warring, I'd ask you save our time and just continue this discussion here, first/instead. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The only acceptable use of primary sourcing is for uncontroversial factual statements about the publisher of said source. For instance, you can use a company's own website as sourcing for the address of that company's own head office, and you can use the fact that a person openly self-identifies as LGBTQ on their own social media profile as sourcing for a statement that they're LGBTQ — but you cannot use a primary source to reference anything that source says about somebody or something else besides themselves. So you cannot use third-party directories like IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes as sourcing for an appearance in a TV show or film that you've sourced to IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes instead of to a critic-written review of said film or TV show, because IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes do not represent her own statements about herself.

Our biographies of actors don't even require a footnote for every individual film or television show in their filmographies anyway. The rule is not that a filmography has to contain a dedicated footnote for each individual title, such that you would need to use IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes as "footnoting" for minor roles that didn't get singled out in reviews — her IMDb profile being present at the bottom of the article as an external link is entirely sufficient for that purpose, and it is not necessary to cite a passel of primary sources to individually reverify each individual credit.

And again, when it comes to award notability you do not need to dual-source both the nomination and the final win-or-loss status — a person obviously can't win an award they weren't even nominated for, so if she wins an award you only need to source the fact that she won it and do not need to provide a second source to reverify that she had been nominated for it in the first place, and if she doesn't win an award then you only need to source her original nomination and do not need to provide a second source to reverify that she wasn't the final winner. And awards always have to be sourced to third-party media coverage that treats the award as news, and cannot be sourced to the award's own self-published content about itself — an award isn't notable at all if it doesn't get media coverage to establish its notability, so an award claim always has to be sourced to third-party media coverage in order to demonstrate that the award is notable enough to even be listed in the awards table in the first place. So the Leo Awards' own website about themselves is not appropriate for use at all, especially since you don't even need a second primary source to redundantly reverify that she was nominated for an award that she's already been properly media-sourced as winning, because the fact that she won it already proves that she was a nominee.

I'm not the one who's "edit-warring" here — I'm the one who's correct about what the current problems with this article are. It's not a notability issue — like I already said, the Gemini Award nomination (a top-level national acting award) is enough of a notability claim that the article has to be given an opportunity for improvement — but as the article stands right now, its current state of sourcing is not fine as is. So there isn't a notability issue here, but there is a "quality of sourcing" issue here. You're the one claiming that she isn't notable at all here, not me — all I said is that the article isn't properly sourced in its current state, and I'm correct about that, but she does have a legitimate notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

you cannot use third-party directories like IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes as sourcing for an appearance in a TV show or film Firstly, the IMDb "is user-generated, and the site is considered [generally] unreliable by a majority of editors." Secondly, Rotten Tomatoes is actually considered "generally reliable" aside from its subjective content (i.e. blog, critical, user-generated).

Our biographies of actors don't even require a footnote for every individual film or television show in their filmographies anyway. Wikipedia:Verifiability says, "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

And again, when it comes to award notability I'm still not discussing nor arguing about notability; I really don't understand why you keep bringing it up. a person obviously can't win an award they weren't even nominated for, so if she wins an award you only need to source the fact that she won it and do not need to provide a second source to reverify that she had been nominated for it in the first place Yes? You're correct, that makes sense? However, as I've said above, that's not why I've kept the Leo Awards primary source in the article; it's there to provide the full and accurate name of the award ("Best Supporting Performance by a Female in a Dramatic Series") as opposed to The Province ("best supporting actress"). if she doesn't win an award then you only need to source her original nomination and do not need to provide a second source to reverify that she wasn't the final winner. I also addressed this above, though: because the article only says "Nominated" (and not e.g. "Nominated and lost"), without that secondary source, the article doesn't even indirectly verify the loss to the satisfaction of both policy and the reader. Fortunately, the current Toronto Star source handily serves our purpose.

And awards always have to be sourced to third-party media coverage that treats the award as news, and cannot be sourced to the award's own self-published content about itself — an award isn't notable at all if it doesn't get media coverage to establish its notability, so an award claim always has to be sourced to third-party media coverage in order to demonstrate that the award is notable enough to even be listed in the awards table in the first place. First of all, this is moot because both awards are sourced to secondary sources. However, to address your claims anyway: from where are you deriving that only secondarily-sourced awards (as opposed to primarily-sourced) can belong in an article? You haven't linked to anything, and though you keep using the word "notability", Wikipedia:Notability specifically says "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article."

I'm the one who's correct about what the current problems with this article are. Okie-dokie. In that case, I look forward to your reply and answers here, soon. (In which you may be receiving assistance.) — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: I agree with everything Fourthords has said. Not every source needs to be one that qualifies for contribution to notability. One other thing: I'm not the one who's "edit-warring" here — I'm the one who's correct about what the current problems with this article are. And being correct is not sufficient for editing to be exempt from edit-warring. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 01:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

References