Talk:Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen/Archive 1

message: Didn't they do a DtV series called the Trenchcoat Twins at one point?
:Actually, the "Trenchcoat Twins" was one of the lines used for Adventures of Mary-Kate and Ashley.
Look and feel?  'Sophisticated & classic' and 'Sport'?  What are we, in grade two?  Anyone object if I remove most of that pointless and shallow table?  --Yamla 20:59, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
:That would be great.  I started that table with just a couple of physical distinctions (ok, I had nothing better to do at the time and so I took the easy way: contributing with something that demands as little thinking as possible), but then I guess the hardcore fans went overboard and stuffed it with all sorts of pointless "data" (and I use this term loosely).  I didn't revert it though, since I was lacking the patience for a potential revert war with whoever it was that did that, but by all means do clean up that table.  Regards, Redux 00:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc 

message: Hi.  I don't really know that much about them, but I seriously doubt that they make 200 million (or 160 million, as it said before) a year.  If I'm not mistaken, each one of them is "worth" 250 million, but that's the combined amount that they have earned throughout their careers (which is basically as long as they are old), not their yearly income.  If they made 200 million a year, their personal fortunes would be much, much larger by now, isn't it?  Besides, who makes 200 million in a year?  Maybe Bill Gates, but still I don't believe he gets that much money in his savings account at the end of every year (it's mostly bonds from Microsoft).  It's not about guessing some new figure though, so unless someone can come up with an accurate figure, based on some non-imaginary source, I'll remove that passage altogether (maybe replace it with something like: "(...) has become a very profitable industry, with their likeness (...)", or something else?).  Regards, Redux 01:56, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is pretty peculiar that this article now makes no mention of how rich they are, given that seems to be the main point of interest surrounding them. Pcb21| Pete 12:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much money 

message: See also #Two articles above.
See also #WHO CARES?????? below.
I re-propose that they have seperate articles.  I understand that there will be some duplicate content, and that other couples have singla pages.  The difference between a couple and a sibling, is most likely the couple will be together for life, whereas siblings grow apart or pass on.  These two have already began starting seperate careers, there will still be joint performances, so we maintain the joint page with less content.  At some point this joint article will grow to be very large.  I have setup proposed pages for each. Please take the time to look (they are rough drafts): User:Who/Ashley,  User:Who/Mary-Kate, & User:Who/Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen. <> Who 02:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pages moved to User:Who subpages.  <>Who?¿? 23:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't believe this is warranted for the time being.  Neither of the twins have done [separatelly] anything worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.  As said before in this discussion, their encyclopedic data is virtually the same and does not merit separate articles.  It's not that they are siblings, it's that everything that they have done that is worthy of note they have done together — and most importantly, because they were together (they are, afterall, the "Olsen twins", and, by their own admission, this is their main asset).  Wikipedia has the virtue of always being updated.  If and when the two have each done individual,  encyclopedic deeds, we may separate the articles.  But as it stands right now, I'm in complete agreement with what was said before in this discussion (for keeping one single article).  Regards, Redux 03:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree keeping them as one article for now seems reasonable. If it grows too dificult to maintain this way, then we can split them off. This link is Broken 16:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text:  Agree completely with Redux. Noel (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose merge again

message: Redux suggested that we make a temp version of the article so that the anon and others will be able to correct any perceived factual errors while the article remains protected. This way thoughtless edit wars will be useless because the main page will not change. Then when we agree on a version the temp page will replace the main page and the main article will be unprotected. I have/will set this article up at Talk:Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen/Scratchpad (temp was taken). In addition, I encourage the anon to get a user account so that it will be easier to talk with him/her, I yet again warn him/her not to change other user's comments and to sign his/her comments by using 4 tildes (~). This link is Broken 16:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Temp page

message: I was considering adding all of their filmography and splitting it. Although some of the links will be red. I also abbrv. the longer titles, to fit better.  Its up on the Scratchpad page. Any thoughts on keeping it or changing it? <>Who?¿? 21:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the abbreviated titles become somewhat confusing, unless one already knows to a certain extent their filmography.  I, for one, didn't quite get all of the abbreviations.  I could see that if the titles are written in full some will be too long for the list to be split as Who has done.  I would suggest that the titles are written without any abbreviations though, and that we might try to split the list by categorizing as "theatrical", "made for tv" (as it was before), and, maybe an extra category, "direct to video".  Since the longer titles are probably all in the same category (made for tv or direct to video — I wouldn't know which), we could list this one first or last and the other two categories could go side by side.  I don't think that'd be too important though, if the list is too long, the system will generate a menu (if not, we can do it ourselves).  It all comes down to the layout and the "readability" of the article.  Regards, Redux 17:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, actually the abbrv. titles were even confusing for me, and I did them. Just trying to think of a way to fit all of an actors work w/o making the page very long. Redux makes some good suggestions that could help with this, if anyone wants to give it a shot.  <>Who?¿? 19:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: filmography layout

message: Alternate versions of an article should not be in the main article space (the only time /Temp pages are in the article space is for copyright violations, in which case they are the only real version of the article available). If people want to develop other versions to consider as alternatives, they belong either in user space or the talk namespace.
There seems to be quite a hodgepodge of versions in-progress here. I've moved them all to suitable subpages of this talk page, as follows:
*/Temp Moved to User:Who/Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen - <>Who?¿? 23:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Those can be deleted.  I wasn't even aware, up until a while back, that there was a "Temp" page.  It's probably an old setup that is no longer applicable.  The same with the two "twin-specific" pages.  The only exception would be the Scratchpad.  We had set it up so that we could still work on the article during the time it remains protected.  The anon we've been trying to talk to has shown no interest in working with us there, which was one of the main reasons for setting it up, but Who has made valid suggestions for changes in the filmography section, and he has used the Scratchpad to post it.  Since the Scrathpath is a copy of the present article (except for a few small changes that have been made after its creation), maybe we could keep it for the duration of the protection.  The other three should, indeed, go.  Regards, Redux 22:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't see a need to delete them necessarily; as long as they don't look like they're part of the current encyclopedia, they're not doing much harm. The twin-specific ones could actually be quite useful in case it's determined that separate pages are more appropriate. --Michael Snow 22:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, sorry. When I checked the pages it all came back to me. Those other three pages were setup by Who, as part of his suggestion to break the article in two (or rather, three). There's been a discussion on the topic, which is actually still open, but since it seems that we're not splitting the article for the time being (as per said discussion), I do believe they could be deleted. If we were to delete them, however, I'd like to get Who's input before going ahead with it, out of curtesy. Regards, Redux 22:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: You can delete the temp pages and redirects, as I will edit the talk pages to point to the locations. To delete Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen/Temp, Talk:Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen/Temp, Talk:Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen/Mary-Kate, Mary-Kate Olsen/Temp, Ashley Olsen/Temp, Talk:Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen/Ashley. Or if you prefer, I can put speedy on the pages, and request removal.  - <>Who?¿? 23:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've deleted and delinked all the redirects. That should keep things a little cleaner. --Michael Snow 23:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collection of alternate versions 

message: Did the anon make any claims that the 400 figure was untrue, not widespread enough, etc?  That would be a first, and I saw no evidence for it (as usual, no edit summary, no comment on the talk page, which he now blanks daily, etc.).  He simply altered the text, got reverted (not by me at first, incidentally) and, as usual, just went ahead and redid again.  I was, however, the one who wrote that passage (one of my few direct contributions).  I collected that thing during that laughable frenzy brought about by the twins' turning 18 a while ago.  It was a piece from People's magazine, if memory serves me well.  The story stated that "less than 400 hundred know (...)", apparently reflecting one of those "insider info".  I, however, inserted the disclaimer, so to speak, that it was a popular allegation amidst fans but had no scientific confirmation, so that the article wouldn't affirm peremptorily that "less than 400 people can tell them apart".  It's not essential to the understanding of the board, but I thought it was an interesting touch, since it does seem to circulate that suprisingly few people can tell them apart.  That much appears to be an empirical truth.  Using the magazine's article, I was able to provide a figure, even if without definitive scientific confirmation behind it (duely acknowledged as such).  We are after all dealing with the Olsen twins.  There will not be a prestigious research accounting for how many people can tell them apart — a story from a renown magazine is the best one can do.  I feel that we can use this, as long as we make it clear that this is not "sanctioned by the FDA" or anything ;), which I believe I did.  In closing, I must say that, in light of all that has happened here, the anon's deleting of the passage is no indication that it may be indeed wrong, or not widespread enough, but rather that he didn't feel like having that in the article.  Regards, Redux 06:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that People magazine was joking and wasn't actually serious. Of course more than 400 people can tell them apart. There is no way to conduct such a survey with any reasonable level of certainty (people could lie and then guess). If you want to readd and clarify that it is silly or joking then that seems fine. Assume best intent by the annon. I personally disliked that section because it sounded untrue and silly. This link is Broken 21:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I realize all these things about this number.  I've been thinking back to this a bit, since it was brought up.  Perhaps I should elaborate on something I mentioned (you'll have to excuse me if I can't remember everything at once, that's almost an year ago and the subject isn't that...relevant, let's put it this way): As I said, the magazine was giving an "insider info", I meant that it was informing of something that's widespread in the fandom.  As I [just] recall, I gathered that from the context, so even though the magazine stated "400 hundred know", given the context I wrote a popular allegation among fans, thus making it perfectly clear that it was indeed a common perception among those who are part of the twins' fandom.  To be further in the safe side, I also spelled out what would be obvious, by saying albeit without reliable scientific confirmation — naturally that would go without saying, since, as you said it, this could never be accuratelly or trustworthily calculated, but I thought I'd leave no room for any doubts.  Now, if the anon means to claim (presumably) that the magazine was in fact wrong and the fan world does not consider that "less than 400 people can tell them apart" (which I personally think is an intentional hyperbole to indicate that not many people can tell them apart — can't write that in though, since it's my view and I have no source to confirm that the "400" is indeed regarded by the fans as such, and not as a direct allegation), I'm afraid we'd have to require some sort of source/reference/indication.  He will not provide that, so I don't see why we should eliminate the passage I reseached (if you can call it that) a year ago in a legitimate source (at least at first, this would not preclude that the magazine could be wrong, but we'd need some sort of confirmation of that) on his "say" so.  I can't revert the passage back myself though, the article is protected again (through the anon's own fault, btw).  Regards, Redux 23:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 400's 

message: See also #Propose merge again above.
Dudes, you all need to get a life. Quite obviosley, they only get one article, because you always here about "MaryKate and Ashley" never Just MaryKate or Just Ashley. note, the only time they have ever appeared not together was in Full House which is the only thing they were ever in that is any good. Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 12:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well evidentally, someone must, otherwise they wouldn't have read the talk page and responded. :)  It's ok, we appreciate your opinion on that matter.  They are heading towards different careers, and will eventually have to have seperate articles.  It's not necessarily for "us", it's an encylopedia, its for the benefit of knowledge.  <>Who?¿? 12:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHO CARES?????? 

message: Well, as you can all see, the Talk: page is back, complete with history, after the recent round of edit wars over blanking it. It's about 54K long, so it's not necessary to archive yet, and this way new editors (who are joining us all the time, in a steady stream) can easily see the past discussions which resulted in the page being the way it is. Noel (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page blanking

message: This should be two seprate articles.  They are two individual people.  They have different lives and histories and shouldn't be converted into one article.  --~~~~  --Tom Baker Fan (t)  00:52, 2005 Aug 6 (EST)
:There are some other sets of twins, like Tia and Tamera Mowry, who are also in a combined article.  It's a pretty natural thing to do as long as the two of them have done most of their notable activity together rather than separately; less so if one or both of them has done things without their twin that are worthy of being written up here. *Dan* 13:08, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
::Please refer to the pertinet sections above for the ongoing discussion about this.  So far, support has primarily gone to maintaining the present one-article-for-the-two status.  Regards, Redux 21:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for doing as the de.wikipedia has, and making separate articles for both actresses and then a combined one for work they've done together. I feel that having them both pushed into the same article suggests they're clones of one another. If they weren't twins but still regularly worked together you wouldn't see them fit into a single article, but as it is the title suggests that there differences between them are so minute that both can be contained within a single article. Having a shared article for their careers makes sense to me, since they work together and regarded together so frequently, but actual personal bios should be moved into separate articles so as to symbolically acknowledge that they are in fact two different individuals. Sarge Baldy 21:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree on two articles 

message: Substituted at 21:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment