Talk:Sara Jean Underwood

message: An anon IP keeps removing the following paragraph from the article:
:On June 7, 2007 a group of Oregon State University students taking a Women's Studies Course created a poster celebrating Underwood's accomplishment. This poster was hung outside Bexel Hall for a few hours before being taken down by Oregon State University staff. The poster was mirrored after "Achievement" posters that line Campus Way at the university. The poster read, "Sara Jean First OSU Beaver Playmate of the Year Playboy June '07 OSU CENTERFOLD People, Ideas, Innovation"   It should be noted that the first Beavers playmate of the year was actually Jodi Ann Paterson, in 2000.
In an effort to come to some sort of amicable solution, I've created this section on the talk page and put a comment into the article text asking that this be worked out here before we continue this revert war.  I've also removed the names of those involved from the main article and commented out the names of the people involved from the above copy.
So, what is the issue with this paragraph?  She has been closely associated with the school from a reader's point of view due to her bodypaint cover and the numerous mentions in the text of any issue she's been in.  She became PMOY and three of her fellow students chose to put up this banner.  The paragraph helps point out the impact she's had within the student body.  It's not an Oscar or Emmy, but it is some recognition by the students and an indication as to just how much of an association with the school that this woman has.  I don't see the issue here.  Can you please explain why this paragraph needs to be removed?  Dismas|(talk) 13:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph should stay, it is reliably sourced and a somewhat notable event worthy of a mention.  Revert the anon as vandalism and warn appropriately if they keep removing sourced content without explaining why. VegaDark (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OSU banner 

message: I want to add more structure to the article by including section headings, to keep it nice and tidy. I'd like to separate out her Playboy work, my first thought was to create a section labelled "Playboy" as a lot of her work ties in very directly to Playboy.  Then I thought a more generic heading such as "Modelling" might work well for this purpose and be more 'encyclopedic'. There isn't much biographical or early life material in the article, separating playboy and post playboy work would be the main thing. Any thoughts anyone? -- Horkana (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Modeling would be better, IMO.  That way if she has any other modeling credits, we don't have to shoe horn it in somewhere else.  Dismas|(talk) 01:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: There is conflicting information on her height. The uchicago source says  and the website listing the Playboy datasheet says . I looked up the datasheet from July 2006 and it says 5'3 so it is best to stick with that, it would seem more likely the mistake occurred on the later website and not the print edition. -- Horkana (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height 

message: An editor is deleting properly sourced material. The material is well sourced and the text carefully understates what article says and provides a quote of the article text for good measure. It is not a transcript of the radio show but the editor simply assert the source wasn't credible.  
The editor also repeatedly removed a category, asserting that it is inappropriate without explaining the deletion and ignoring that this Category is used on many other similar articles for Playboy Playmates. A link to a discussion showing some consensus for this category deletion would be preferable but at the very least the edit summary should justify the deletion and not simply assert that it is correct without any effort to explain. 
The category removal might have some basis but it was not explained, the other edit of sourced material is not justifiable at all. -- Horkana (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sourcing is fine for what the material is, I oppose deletion of it.--Milowent (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions of sourced material 

message: Isn't she more commonly known as just Sara Underwood now? --TheTruthiness (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can show that it is what she is known by, then go for it.  See WP:COMMONNAME.  Dismas|(talk) 02:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Some editors seem to misunderstand the difference between an episode citatation (with a link to IMDB) and a reference that is using using IMDB as a source, only the latter is discouraged. (On top of that Wikipedia is full of BoxOfficeMojo/IMDB/Amazon links, it isn't a blanket ban, it is just discouraged in favor of other better sources. Most IMDB content comes from press releases anyhow.) -- 109.77.179.58 (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorten Article Name?