Talk:Sharon Tate

message: There seems to be an article that is an exact copy of this one with the name Sharon replaced by the name Jennifer. Should that article even exist? Pawnnolonger (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, I restored the article, --Nuujinn (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Jennifer Tate?

message: People keep adding to her bio information that she had 1 child.  She was pregnant, but did not give birth.  Saying that she had 1 child is a POV by people who are trying to confer status to unborn babies.
:Thats right. It's corrected. It's not only POV, it's vandalism. --Knickiknacki (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Unborn baby

message: From The Beatles Forever by Nicholas Schaffner, page 129: "...Charlie Manson, who made the Beatles his rationale for murdering the wife of Roman Polanski.  The famed director's diabolical Rosemary's Baby was filmed in the New York apartment building presently inhabited by John Lennon".  Mind you, the book was written in 1977.  Could this be notable for inclusion?  If so, could someone please add it in where they see fit?  It might also be worth noting on some other articles, such as Roman Polanski, Charles Manson, etc. Bossanoven (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting info that may be worth noting 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sharon Tate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121027081424/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article547335.ece?print=yes&randnum=1254102174470 to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article547335.ece?print=yes&randnum=1254102174470
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Opening a section for discussion.  I have reverted the infobox image back to the longstanding photo.  Those put in to replace it were of low quality and not up to infobox standards.  Fine for the body of the article, but not for the infobox.  We can do better, and should do better, for readers - many of which may only read the lead and look at the info box. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  11:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy, you're really on a roll, following all my edits, trying to delete every improved image added, challenging their PD status, etc.
1: Clearly a better image for the lead, IMO. The b/w one is already in the body.--Light show (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Except "2" is also a screenshot, just as blurry, but in b/w, horizontally formatted so it doesn't fit well, and is only 1/3 the pixel size. --Light show (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as blurry?  I think not.  It's not obviously a screenshot, whereas the two photos you have put into the infobox in the last 24 hours are obviously so, not to mention badly done.  Blurry, color is off.  Mind you, my comments here are only about the photos themselves - I get the feeling you are taking this personally, and wish you would not.  I just care that the best image representation of the article subject is in the infobox.  I've had this article on my watchlist for quite some time and seeing the photo change to what was put in was a shock, to say the least.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  20:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean you have me on your watchlist. Just because it seems someone is shadowing my edits and  trying to undermine them elsewhere, is no reason to think I take it personally. Likely just a coincidence. --Light show (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You really need to cut the victim bullshit.  No, I don't have you on my watchlist.  I am not interested in your edits.  I'm interested in the integrity of articles and their accompanying images.  Have been for years.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  21:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Except just over the last few you've been blocked for disruptive editing 14 times! And that's just under your current User name. --Light show (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ^^^This^^^ has nothing to do with the discussion or the RfC.  Drop the personal attacks (that you have been bringing to discussions with me at other talk pages in order to WP:WIN, or possibly get me to stop discussing).  Please discuss the editing/content dispute, not you feeling as if you are being followed (you're not), not my block log (I'm not bringing yours up), and not trying to imply I have been here under another account (I haven't).  Can we please just discuss peacefully?  I'd really like that.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  21:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only made a handful of edits beginning 2010, but it's obviously been on my watchlist. Your first edit to the article was just a few hours ago, right after I added a new photo, and it was to delete it! If you're willing to edit peacefully, so am I. --Light show (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Pinging  as he was also involved in the uploading ban discussion.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  00:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Clear copyright violation even checking the source given. Light show needs to be topic banned from anything dealing with images, as this shows no competence in understanding copyright checking we rigorously require. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image

message: There is a dispute over content in the lede of this article (diff here). The concern was in regard to the suitability of the content per WP:LEDE. The content was removed but later reinstated (with citations); the reinstating editor states the content has existed for an extended period of time. The discussion (diff here) has not been productive and could benefit from more opinions. 
The specific question is: Should this content be added to the lede?. Please respond in the following manner:
*Support, keep in lede
*Oppose, remove from lede
*Other: any other solution including rephrasing
When you respond, please use the "Survey" section below and the "Discussion" section for any threaded discussions. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  20:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this looks like a great improvement, .  The RfC, I would say, has died on the vine and can be closed shortly as it was needed only because a new account, which turned out to be a sock from a now-prolific sockmaster, insisted on the Welles content being in the lede and edit warring on it.  The "problem" no longer exists, therefore, neither does the content dispute.  I can put your content change suggestion into the lede, or you may.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  01:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

text: If you don't run into opposition in the way of a reversion by , I will be surprised.  His edit warring over the mention of Welles, in addition to refusing to understand that it is trivia and does not belong in the lede, is exactly why this RfC was started.  If he agrees with your changes and says nothing more, that will present an interesting scenario, indeed, as well as cause me to wonder what his agenda truly is.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  04:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The mention of Welles was tivial, but your deletions included everything about her last film. You don't need a chainsaw to trim a bush. --Light show (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The mention of Welles was what the dispute entailed, why this RfC was created. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  09:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Welles wasn't mentioned in the RFC or in any of the rationales for the edits. How would anyone know? --Light show (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The history is available for anyone to look through. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  10:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: *Oppose; remove from lede.  Content is not necessary in the lede and amounts to over detail per WP:LEDE.  Having the content regarding Orson Welles in the body of the article will be sufficient.  That the content has been in the lede for a while does not make it appropriate for that section of the article.  Adding references to the content in the lede does not make it more sustainable in that section.  The content is good to have in the article, just not in the lede.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  20:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this looks like a great improvement, .  The RfC, I would say, has died on the vine and can be closed shortly as it was needed only because a new account, which turned out to be a sock from a now-prolific sockmaster, insisted on the Welles content being in the lede and edit warring on it.  The "problem" no longer exists, therefore, neither does the content dispute.  I can put your content change suggestion into the lede, or you may.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  01:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The lead's been tightened. Mentioning Welles in the lead wasn't really needed. All the details about the Manson case, which are overly-covered in the body, has also been tightened from the lead. I'm not sure an RfC for trivia is really needed. --Light show (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't run into opposition in the way of a reversion by , I will be surprised.  His edit warring over the mention of Welles, in addition to refusing to understand that it is trivia and does not belong in the lede, is exactly why this RfC was started.  If he agrees with your changes and says nothing more, that will present an interesting scenario, indeed, as well as cause me to wonder what his agenda truly is.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  04:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The mention of Welles was tivial, but your deletions included everything about her last film. You don't need a chainsaw to trim a bush. --Light show (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The mention of Welles was what the dispute entailed, why this RfC was created. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  09:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Welles wasn't mentioned in the RFC or in any of the rationales for the edits. How would anyone know? --Light show (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The history is available for anyone to look through. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  10:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This section should be split up. It is 15 paragraphs and just looks like a wall of text. Splitting it up into sections makes it look cleaner. The length of her career being "only a few years" is not a valid reason for having that be one section when a lot happened in those years.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.188.12 (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film career 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sharon Tate. 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://archive.is/20120524205629/http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/member/30188 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/member/30188
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) 06:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've tagged the sentence that includes the phrase that Polanski "wanted to be married to a hippie, not as housewife" as needed an online citation, as it's presented as a direct quote. Matuko (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hippie Not a Housewife" 

message: Her info box had a partners section. It has been deleted. Jay Sebring her former love/boyfriend has a partner section. With Sharon added to it. In his info box. If he has a partner section. Can this section. Please be added back. To her page? 2601:245:4102:DB80:0:0:0:1D9F (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her partners section in her info box  

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Sharon Tate Valley of the Dolls 1967 - Restoration.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for January 24, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-01-24. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 18:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD 

message: Who, exactly, says that Debra Tate asked if she could come by and pick up a saddle on August 8, 1969?  I suspect the person who says that is Debra Tate and only Debra Tate.  Food for thought:  She takes liberties with the truth in order to inflate the role she played in her sister's life and death. 2600:6C5D:5A00:B1D:8D48:212A:A8E8:155F (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debra Tate/Saddle  

message: I tried to add it, but someone deleted it. Why? She was a mother, 8 and a half months pregnant with a son. Even if there are disagreements on how to list it, surely putting "Children 1" is not unreasonable!? His name is Paul Richard Polanski and he was buried in her arms!😔 I can't for even one second, think she would NOT want him listed in her main information section or leave out the part of her being a Mother! I hope someone will do something to make it right. Thank you.  -Amanda 24Mango24 (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no section listing her children as 1? Her son, who was even named, was almost 9 months (full term) and was buried in her arms!