Talk:Stana Katic

message: The previous photo of Stana was too dark. Her face was barely showing. :( I tried uploading this jpg file but I somehow messed it up along the way. Could someone please add the image file to her page? Thank youLena.martinovic (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to upload it to commons with a proper license. Unless you are able to license it properly, we can not use it. Nice image though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  22:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Replace the Photo

message: I'm once again going to remove the [ recently added information] in the opening sentence of the article, listing Стана Катић (Serbian Cyrillic alphabet) and Stana Katić (Serbo-Croatian Latin alphabet) as Serbian forms of Stana Katic's name.
The reason I'm doing this (again) is that no one has been able to produce any reliable sources (in English) demonstrating that Stana Katic uses, or ever has used, a Serbo-Croatian form of her name.  WP:UEIA (a subsection of the WP:ENGLISH naming convention guideline) says that we "should list all frequently used names by which [the subject of an article] is widely known".
Note that it is undisputed that Stana Katic's parents or grandparents used Катић and/or Katić — but that fact  does not matter here.  The only thing that matters here is whether Stana Katic herself has used ancestral forms of her name — and there doesn't appear to be any evidence that she ever has done this.  Since Stana Katic was born in Canada, grew up in Canada and the USA, and is known to pronounce her last name in an Anglicized fashion (/ˈkætɨk/), the burden of proof (IMO) is on those who want to say she also goes by Стана Катић or Stana Katić to substantiate this claim via reference to reliable sources.
As I indicated last fall (see the "Include Serbian Cyrillic version of her name??" section above in this same talk page), I am not trying to wage any sort of campaign against the Serbian / Croatian / Serbo-Croatian language.  Neither am I even slightly sympathetic to the (IMO way-over-the-top) position of some people who want to remove all diacritical marks from all Wikipedia articles (on the grounds, so they say, that this is the English Wikipedia and we don't use diacritics when writing English).  And I am also not disputing in the least the fact that Стана Катић and Stana Katić are accurate ancestral forms of Stana Katic's name.  I am simply saying that a showcasing of these ancestral forms of her name does not satisfy the WP:UEIA guideline in the absence of reliable sources (so far never produced) confirming that Stana Katic herself (not her parents or grandparents, but Stana herself) has been known by these names during her life.
Someone will no doubt end up reverting my deletion and putting this information back into the article.  Before you do so, however, I would ask you to please re-read the talk page discussion (above) from last October, as well as the shorter discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yugoslavia/Archive 3#Stana Katic.  If we cannot reach any sort of agreement now, then I will propose to list this dispute at WP:RFC in hopes of getting fresh outside input.  Finally, I would remind everyone that edit warring is prohibited on Wikipedia, and that even if you are sure you are right and others are wrong, that is still not an acceptable excuse for edit warring.  — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stana Katić, Стана Катић  — again 

message: Nothing informative there.  Just delete it.--76.92.127.203 (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal section is a joke 

message: I'm requesting outside opinions as to whether or not this article should include Serbian / Croatian forms of Stana Katic's name (i.e., using the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, and/or using the modified Latin alphabet with diacritics specifically used for this language).  In particular, should such forms of her name be included in the opening sentence of the lead section?
Read the rest of this talk page for discussion / arguments about this issue going way back.  Thanks in advance for any new, fresh input on this divisive subject.  — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't see any reason to accomodate anonymous unexplained (+unreferenced) additions with an RFC - these kinds of bits of meaningless advocacy don't have any value, rather they're proscribed by WP:ARBMAC. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put the pronunciation of Katić over there. It's not very common to see surnames linked, but I don't see a problem in mentioning it. That's actually how it was the last time I had left it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that the answer might be different here, depending on whether Serbian/Croatian forms of the name are in the lead section vs. elsewhere in the article — as well as depending on whether we're talking about including Serbian/Croatian forms of Stana's own name vs. her parents' names.  — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Should article include Serbo-Croatian forms of Stana Katic's name? 

message: It would be good to remove languages Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian and to add Serbo-Croatian from personal life section. --MisterBean (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, and you can check this in the article Serbo-Croatian, they are not considered separate languages. They are a set of four fully mutually intelligibly, well, the article calls them "varieties". Language fluency refers to the spoken language; the principal difference in terms of language between Croatia and Serbia is the alphabet used (Cyrillic in Serbia, Latin in Croatia) to write it down. The term BCMS is also sometimes used, to indicate that Bosnian and Montenegrin are part of this set of four varieties. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:3C02:AC77:448B:5732 (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fluently languages she speakes 

message: I have removed the Discretionary Sanctions notice from this talk page.  As I understand the current process, a notice that a page is subject to Discretionary Sanctions is recognized only if the notice is posted on an individual editor's talk page — a notice posted on an article talk page does not satisfy the current requirements for alerting an editor before sanctioning him/her for violations of an Arbitration Committee ruling authorizing discretionary sanctions.
I wish to make it clear that I still believe that disruptive editing dealing with Stana Katic's ethnicity or the proper way to describe which languages/dialects she speaks is potentially subject to Discretionary Sanctions per the 2007 WP:ARBMAC ruling.  Even though the WP:ARBMAC case dealt specifically with Macedonia, the Arbitration Committee ruled that the remedies in the case would be applicable to "the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted."  Thus, I would find it very appropriate to leave a DS alert notice on an editor's talk page if they were to engage in potentially disruptive editing of this article along the above lines.  — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discretionary Sanctions notice (removed) 

message: I have applied indefinite "pending changes" protection to this article.  Almost all of the edits to this article over the past several months have involved IP's or new users changing Stana Katic's ethnic background, the list of languages she speaks, the correct way to write her last name, etc.  These issues have been discussed ad nauseam on the article's talk page, but these new users have failed or refused to discuss the points at all — whether because they are unaware of talk pages or simply do not care, it's impossible to tell.
Although these edits do not (IMO) fall under our narrow definition of vandalism, they are disruptive to an article subject to the BLP policy, and on that basis I consider it acceptable and appropriate to impose pending changes protection.  I would actually prefer to use semi-protection instead, but the rate of disruptive editing events (i.e., number of disruptive edits per unit of time) is probably not sufficient to support semi-protection at this time.  — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Tabercil (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pending Changes protection 

message: Does anyone know how to research a possible uncredited appearance of an actor/actress ? I was watching the movie Shade (2003) and about 7 minutes into the movie the nightclub owner enters his club, greets people, walks down a greenish hallway and enters a backroom area. At the end of that greenish hallway there is a guy & girl kissing and I could swear that the girl is Katic. 172.88.146.9 (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB which is not a reliable source for Wikipedia but usually lists uncredited appearance has no record of her appearing.  --NeilN talk to me 15:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible uncredited appearance in Shade (2003)? 

message: WP:PRIMARY allows for limited and careful use of Primary sources. I think the uses that have been recently reverted fall within the limited scope of that Policy.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Quoting from my Talk page what I said to the relatively new editor who introduced the charitable section in the article: "As I recall, only [one] of the charitable endeavors mentioned by you was sourced to a secondary source (Variety, I think), whereas the others were cited to the organization Katic did somthing for. For non-work-related material to be noteworthy, particularly in a celebrity article, you have to use a reliable source other than the organization itself. Lots of celebrities, even just plain old wealthy people, give to charities. We wouldn't want to include all that in every article - it would just be bloat."--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What policy or guideline says "For non-work-related material to be noteworthy, particularly in a celebrity article, you have to use a reliable source other than the organization itself." or is that your own opinion?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  PRIMARY sources 

message: As I explained here: The category points to the Serbs of Croatia article which has: "The Serbs of Croatia (Serbo-Croatian: Srbi u Hrvatskoj, Serbian Cyrillic: Срби у Хрватској) or Croatian Serbs (Хрватски Срби/Hrvatski Srbi) constitute the largest national minority in Croatia." (emphasis mine) Katic has never resided in Croatia. --NeilN talk to me 20:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New category 

message: It's a lie - there are sources - just apparently no one who is diligent enough to look for them, the person who put it that neat little note about a "lack of sources" was too lazy to look right on Wikipedia itself and further up the page for sources. MissParker (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Dearest Miss Parker, you made a bit of a mess of the referencing, presumably because you haven't read the guidelines. It's fine to be new, and to get things wrong; it's not fine to write offensive and misleading edit summaries. Deb (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: unsourced section 

message: What is next? 2603:7000:473F:A204:E504:4FC:BF69:81E2 (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  With Polyglot talents and Strong Good Looks,