Talk:Ginnifer Goodwin

message: I wasn't aware she was Jewish... A great big Mazel Tov to her, she's such a good actress! The Amazing Turnip 18:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither was I but I suspected it based on her last name, and now that I read her school history, I added her to the Category:Jewish American actors. And I agree with you on the Mazel Tov to her, she's terrific. Cheers!--RobNS 20:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 06:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: As it turns out, Goodwin and Dallas' representative did not release the name to mainstream media, and in fact the cited source here gives no name. If the parents announce it, it's an encyclopedic fact. If not, we don't source to tabloids. I've removed the uncited name here and will do so at Josh Dallas. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing name of child

message: Per consensus at the BLP noticeboard (here:), all identifying information on the article subject's infant child have been removed.  -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  19:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus + removal of content

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ginnifer Goodwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://faithinmemphis.com/2013/05/ginnifer-goodwin-comes-home-to-jewish-faith/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Opening up discussion here per WP:BRD for those who want to discuss recent changes, reversions, edit warring over stage name and legal name.  I have no dog in this fight other than I believe the lede should stay the same as it has been for months, years.  Further, at least one source used as a reference regarding the name was unreliable, so we need something better to support that she has legally changed her name.  As well, anything in the lede needs to be in the body of the article.  If she has, indeed, changed her name legally to Ginnifer, then there should be something on that -- reliably sourced, of course -- probably in the personal life section.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  01:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you reverted to the wrong version, because until recently it read "Jennifer Michelle Goodwin (born May 22, 1978), known professionally as Ginnifer Goodwin...". Anyway, you should know that 2600:100E:B107:E54E:F4CA:8466:8BA0:2C93 is an IPsock of User:Who R U?. I admit TVguide is my best source for the legal name change, but if that is unreliable then I agree the older lede should remain. Sro23 (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in reality, neither version is the "right" version until a consensus has formed.  Looking back to the end of 2015, however, you are correct that it read as you noted above, .  How about we leave it be for now and try to form consensus here regarding which version would most closely reflect MOS policy and guidelines.  TV Guide is not a horrible source, however, it's not quite reliable enough for something as important as an encyclopedia article claiming there was a legal name change in a specific year.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  01:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the older lead. The current lede is "Jennifer Michelle "Ginnifer" Goodwin...". However, "Ginnifer" is neither a nickname nor a shortened version of the name "Jennifer", it is in fact her professional name, which is why in my opinion the older lead reads better (and it has remained stable throughout the years). Sro23 (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

text: I just reverted back to the older lede. It has remained stable for many years so consensus can be assumed. There has been no consensus for this new lede, so I reverted to the version before any edit warring. We can still keep discussing the issue, but I don't think it should be changed until consensus is reached. Sro23 (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't revert to your preferred version while there is a consensus seeking discussion still open.  Best to wait and see if others will comment.  There's no rush, and Wikipedia has no deadline.  Personally, I now prefer the newer version, so, no -- there is no clear consensus for either version yet.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  01:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I was trying to restore the long stable version, before any block evasion/edit warring. This here is actually my preferred version, but I won't be changing it anymore. Sro23 (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

text: And you have been blocked for edit-warring. So the mic appears to have been dropped on you. When you get back, perhaps you'll discuss this without the 'my way or the highway' attitude. Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 18:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for focusing on the contributor and not content. It's been 24 hours and still no one has said why we shouldn't make it clear Ginnifer is a stage name, not a nickname. So the longstanding text will be reinserted. 107.77.192.118 (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop trying to own this article. I'm not exactly happy with the lead as it currently stands either, but edit warring is not the way to resolve disputes. I truly don't know if it's a stage name, nickname, legal name change or whatever, but right now there isn't clear consensus for what the lead should be so the wisest decision is to just leave the text alone until consensus is established. No more undiscussed changes.Sro23 (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Now that the article has been protected for a while, I'm sure we can have a reasoned discussion about the lede without all the edit-warring. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 07:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help if we could find some reliable source about the name change. The ref used is a David Letterman interview. Can anyone find that? Though I wonder how much she said. I doubt she said it was a 'legal name change' in a casual late night show format. Sro, you said you had a TV Guide ref? That would help. I'd lean towards the 'known professionally as Ginnifer Goodwin' wording unless other info is unearthed. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 07:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Never mind, I see the TV Guide refs. It does appear she changed her name legally to Ginnifer. So would it be "Ginnifer Goodwin, born Jennifer Michelle Goodwin"? --‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 07:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. There are some issues with the TV guide ref: it is a little old, published before she supposedly changed her name, and it also mentions non-reliable source TMZ. Sro23 (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to find a reliable source, published after the date of change, that says she has legally changed her name. In my searches yesterday, though, I couldn't find one. —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you search for the case number BS131041 in the court's records , the case summary pops up. The petition was granted on 13 May 2011. Document images are available, which would presumably confirm the name (I haven't tried as registration is required). This would be a primary source sure but that's OK for establishing a fact. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it? WP:BLPPRIMARY is pretty adamant about that: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." That why I've been looking for a secondary source. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

text: So far, I can only find references to the name change as a future event and all in online Hollywood gossip rags.  No reliable secondary sources to be found to verify.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  19:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit warring re: legal name in lede 

message: Shortly after the expiration of page protection. No consensus was arrived at to alter the lede, so it should likely stay the same. And perhaps the page should be put under pending changes protection? --‖ Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 07:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede change resumed 

message: An editor today was correct in removing the name of minor children that did not appear in the cited source and which the parents and their representatives themselves did not name publicly. 
To avoid confusion, it should be noted that per this RfC, names and dates for children of high-profile public individuals are both encyclopedic and permitted when given by the parents or their representatives themselves in RS publications. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as well as this consensus-supported removal of the same content,  and the preceding discussion - all from almost exactly two years ago.  Pinging .  If you'd like, I can also ping Jehochman. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  23:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay. Anyone can write essays advocating anything. The "consensus-supported removal of the same content" simply says what I said right above: "An editor today was correct in removing the name of minor children that did not appear in the cited source and which the parents and their representatives themselves did not name publicly." It doesn't have anything to do with the much more recent RfC — you're comparing apples and oranges. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus on this was not on your side in the discussion noted above.  Nor was it on your side in a very similar discussion here .  There was another discussion at a noticeboard or project talk page where the same thing was concluded: names of non-notable minor children and their birth dates should not be included in articles.  I take it from you continuing to respond to me that you don't want me to ping Jehochman? -- WV ● ✉ ✓  14:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That 2014 discussion was not an RfC and did not end in any consensus for anything.  This September 2015 RfC, however, reached absolute consensus that the relevant policies allow for names and dates for children of high-profile public individuals to be given when given by the parents or their representatives themselves in RS publications. It's settled. There's nothing to discuss unless you want to open a new RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If that RfC had taken place at this article and about this article, then I would buy what you're selling.  The comments I've referred to regarding the same topic of discussion were about both Ginnifer Goodwin and her husband, Josh Dallas and their children.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  20:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Read carefully what I wrote at the top of this section. I wrote that I was agreeing with you about this article. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that now, since you've pointed it out after more than a week of back and forth arguing about the issue. I guess I missed it because, when you've approached or mentioned me in regard to anything, it's always been because you disagree with me.  When that's the history, it's easy to assume the worst.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  21:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP issue

message: Again, to avoid confusion: While the removal of non-notable children's names in this article is correct, the edit summary for it is not. 
The edit summary read: "No names or other identifying information in BLPs on non-notable minor children per WP:BLPNAME and WP:DOB." That is true only when neither the parents nor their representatives have announced or confirmed this information. According to policy clarified by this September 2015 RfC, names and birthdates for children of high-profile public individuals may be stated when announced by the parents or their representatives themselves in RS publications. These parents did not do so, so no names or birthdates are given in this particular article.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion you mention is not, and never has been, the only or final word on BLPNAME and DOB regarding minor non-notable children of article subjects. Further, you continue to engage me, after being told not to do so any further.  Would you like me to ping Jehochman on this to help? -- WV ● ✉ ✓  18:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't engage you. You wrote a blatantly inaccurate edit summary. I would have written a correction no matter who it was. And yes, contact him: I'd love to discuss how you refuse to honor clear RfC consensus in order to push your own POV. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioning me without mentioning my username is engagement. Repeatedly mentioning me (without mentioning my username) on the same subject is engagement as well as a form of bludgeoning and pointiness.  Since you seem to be on friendly terms with Jehochman (based on the notes you have left on his talk page in the past), I'll leave it to you to contact him and let him know of your repeated engagement here and at a noticeboard or two in the last few months.  It will probably be taken differently by him coming from you than if it were to come from me (based on what seems to be a familiarity between the two of you, anyway).  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  19:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Children and BLP

message: Good idea editing that! From now on, Ginnifer Goodwin will always be remembered as Judy Hopps in Zootopia!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zootopia prevalent idea 

message: Ginnifer Goodwin/Judy Hopps won Best Animated Female, tied with Moana.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best Animated Female 

message: Hi, this is 172.250.87.105. I am sorry for any confusion I might have caused, but I think it does not cause any harm to add an upcoming project to an actor's page, and a theatre run isn't all that different. I wasn't trying to promote anything at all, I'm not affiliated with Ginny so it was kind of blunt and surprising when others made it that way. I was just adding another production she participates in onto her page alongside her other projects. Please state why the edit doesn't belong on the page. Thank you! - rosmaries19  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosemaries19 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A single cited sentence mentioning that she was announced for a project is fine. All the additional heaped-on stuff made it promotional. As a gesture of goodwill and in appreciation of your taking the time to discuss rather than edit-war, I'm inserting such a sentence now. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I see now that a very longtime, experienced editor has an objection as well and wants to wait until the project has actually taken place. As there is no deadline, I would go along with that editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constellations  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ginnifer Goodwin. 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/20091129063557/http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/080619-ginnifer-goodwin-wins-maxmara-award.aspx to http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/080619-ginnifer-goodwin-wins-maxmara-award.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224100724/http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20496321,00.htm to http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20496321,00.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified