Talk:Lyndsy Fonseca

message: Just altered the tables to seperate the TV work and Film work as they were both mashed up, still had trouble cause for some reason an extra column kept appearing, ended up copying the method for the table used on her "Kick-Ass" co-star's table to no avail, not too good at Wiki-ing yet, my first real alteration. (Cerebriac (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Work In Film

message: Does anyone else think she looks like Bethany Joy Galeotti?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.48.152 (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Where's a picture of Bethany? . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No answer?  I did my own Google-search , and yes, they are both young and beautiful. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question(s) 

message: The Article needs more action pictures now that Lyndsy Forseca is big on "Nikita" the TV series. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to someone who added another great portrait-photo! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more action pictures 

message: Removed the bit about her "alias" being Alexandra Undinov in Nikita, because a) that is a spoiler, and b) it is not her alias but her real identity  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.246.245 (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Edit 

message: citation 10 from Instagram.com for her engagement announcement to Noah Bean is no good, need a better source. Govvy (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation for her engagement  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lyndsy Fonseca. 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/20100813180816/http://www.maxim.com/girls/articles/90539/2010-hot-100.html to http://www.maxim.com/girls/articles/90539/2010-hot-100.html
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) 07:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: User:IJBall was reverted after an edit that was contrary to an RfC close. I am asking that editor, per WP:BRD, to discuss the issue here and seek consensus from other editors. As the close at  Brian Austin Green#RfC: Names and DOB's of children in a BLP  stated as regards overall policy: "The policy on biographies of living persons clearly leaves the inclusion of details of family members up to the discretion of the article's editors, as long as the information is well-sourced." When that information comes from the parents or their representatives themselves, it is well-sourced. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly object to this. You are misreprenting that RfC close. The close says,  IOW, it's saying you should have a discussion about it before you contravene WP:BLPNAMES and WP:BLPPRIVACY. What is the compelling interest here to publish the name and, worse, the exact DOB of a non-notable minor child on Wikipedia? Oh, wait, that's right, there isn't one. In addition to these two important guidelines, WP:ONUS also applies – just because some news outlet publishes this doesn't mean we at Wikipedia do. There is zero reason to include the exact details here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Editorial consensus at the RfC says differently. People having children is a major biographical event. When the parents or their representatives do not make a public announcement to the entire world, we don't give children's names, birth date or even gender. When the parents or their representatives do make a public announcement to the entire world, it is whitewashing to act as if the world does not know the names and birth dates of, say, Kim Kardashian's children. If you'd like to start the same RfC here, you're entitled to. Keep the statement neutral, like the other did.--Tenebrae (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm not going to start and RfC on this – that's a network timewaster. The thing I most object to is publishing the exact DOB – that should pretty much never be done in the case of non-notable for a whole host of reasons. Why is that necessary in this case? Why can't we just say "born in February 2018"? And what part of "...up to the discretion of the article's editors..." is lost on you? There is absolutely no strong consensus indicate here to include all of this. You don't to get to decide this on your own. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus was decided, at the RfC about this very issue. The parents not only don't have an issue with this, they want the world to know the birth date. If the parents are in favor of this biographical information being broadcast to the world, who are you to say you know better than the parents and won't respect their wishes? --Tenebrae (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Also, I don't know where you are, but it's about 1:30 a.m. where I am. If it's alright with you, may we continue this tomorrow? --Tenebrae (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the consensus at the RfC was that including info like this or not was "...up to the discretion of the article's editors..." not that "Wikipedia should include this in the article if it's published somewhere by the parents' publicist". Which, incidentally, is in line with WP:BLPNAMES and WP:BLPPRIVACY, the former of which says  And this is one editor that is objecting to including the specific details on a minor child, as including it does nothing to enhance the readers' "complete understanding of" Lyndsy Fonseca... As for me, I'm also off to bed, and I doubt I'm going to comment further unless another editor comments here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

text: This is all interesting, but under Data Protection Act for the underage is quite clear in law, under US and UK law wikipedia can violate DPAs by including the full DOB with full name without being given permission by celebrity parents regardless of annoucements on social media and Tabloid, so to er on the side of caution it's wise to exclude day and surnames. Govvy (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. That's all I'm saying – I don't think we should ever include anything more than the month of birth for non-notable minor children (regardless of what press and media outlets do – we're not them, and have a different purpose and function...). On names, we should also generally not include – never middle names, and rarely even first names. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's contrary to Wikipedia policy, which says nothing about the Data Protection Act or needing written permission from the subjects and contrary to the RfC. Nothing at WP:BLP in any way gives a blanket gag rule of this type. I am restoring the consensus version and calling for an RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, you may want to comment at Talk:Coco Austin, where I'm in fact arguing to not include an exact birth date since the parents did not announce one. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus should be derived from Project pages, not independant article pages, WT:FILMBIO if you will, don't ever decided to put a general consensus on any independant pages that would consist a standard for other articles. These conensus that you are running wont be recognised by me or by many people if you continue to perform this way. Also, WP:BLPPRIVACY is quite clear "widely published by reliable sources" widely published, means there must be multiple sourcing, that isn't PRIMARY and NOT TABLOID. Govvy (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Except in this case, the topic of the RfC is exactly the same. And needing birth date is not tabloidy: I'm a journalist, and when I or the Associated Press or any responsible journalist is giving the ages of, say, a movie star's children in a story about the star and his family, birth dates are the only way to accurately give ages as of the date of publication. Not giving accurate ages is unprofessional and irresponsible.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC close

message: Can the article include the name and birth date of the subject's child, which the subject has made public? --17:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The admin didn't misread the policy: Per WP:DOB: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources...." --Tenebrae (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And the section goes on to say  which applies to the child in this case. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A TV star is not "borderline" notable, and WP:DOB states citing be "by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." The subject in this article's case clearly and absolutely does not object to providing the day that she herself gave birth — a huge milestone in her or anyone's life. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Her child definitely is borderline notable and that is the issue. Her child is a separate person. If her child met GNG and had an article, here for example, then we should include the child's full birthdate in that article. This issue is about what we report about the child. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Even if one doesn't believe me, or if one somehow believes journalistic and scholarly / academic accuracy isn't important, the birth of a child is one of the most significant dates of a subject's life — at least if not more important than the date of marriage, and I don't see anyone advocating to remove marriage dates from Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Birth is significant to the mother but not generally to the world at large, except in rare cases of royalty, other than how the pregnancy and child rearing might effect her notable activities. We can and should use editorial discretion about how much information is needed for an article which is mostly about the notable achievements of an individual with personal life details strongly summarized already. The fact she has a child and birth year seems sufficient for this article. Further details that might be a chapter in a comprehensive biography such as which hospital, how long in labor, the exact time of birth, weight, medical complications of birth, whether or not it was natural or cesarean, who the godparents ended up being are judgment calls of whether or not it matters in the balance of what else is presented about the subject. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a smokescreen — not one person here has even suggested "exact time of birth, weight, medical complications of birth," etc. Let's please stick to what we're actually discussing: a date. And, once again, this information given publicly by the parents is a basic fact necessary for accuracy, as I have discussed as a journalist and biographer. Giving birth is a huge milestone in any subject's life, and — presuming their parents and their advisers have made the decision to release the information to media — being deliberately inexact and vague for no reason is the opposite of what an encyclopedia should do.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We are giving accurate, well referenced information if we list the year and list the correct year. We don't need to give the exact instance of birth date and time and can choose what we present as long as it is well-referenced. We don't need to report everything and have editorial discretion of what we do report and can choose to truncate to what is the key important details. Year is sufficient for a non-notable person. Article is about Fonseca, not her kid. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, giving birth is a major milestone in the life of the subject. But look, I know you're an editor of good faith. Let me ask, since I'm genuinely unclear on this and I sincerely want to understand: I've stated that as a newspaper journalist who often writes on tight deadline about entertainers, I — and many, many other professionals like me — often are required to say in a biographical article something like: "Jane Doe, 30, and John Doe, 31, have two children, Bob, 9, and Susan, 7." This can't accurately be done without knowing the birth date, since the year alone would only allow a range of, for example, "Bob, 8 or 9" (since we wouldn't know when the birth date would be relative to publication date). I really am trying to understand why, in an era when it's fashionable to criticize press accuracy, anyone would want us to say "Bob, 8 or 9" rather than being scrupulously accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

text: I'd argue that exact marriage date doesn't matter either in most articles along with who was in the wedding party, were the marriage was held and a whole bunch of other details that might go in a full biography but don't really matter for the level of detail wikipedia is presenting about personal life. Year and to whom is sufficient as it is a life transition. But, like details about birth info for children, that is an article consensus decision about what to include for a subject. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

text:  We're writing about the BLP subject not the child ....., Marriage is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguement which should be avoided, Consensus for the most part is to NOT include so I would kindly suggest you admit defeat on this and move on. –Davey2010Talk 19:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a matter of "winning" and "defeat" — it's a matter of thoroughly airing out all arguments pro and con. And given that an admin in a previous RfC exactly like this found consensus to include the dates, I find your preemptive comment to be not in good faith at all.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

text:  No, we haven't "established" that, at all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If their parents, their representative and (presumably) their legal advisers have no issue with making the birth date public to media, then, no, privacy is not an issue according to the parents. Even a number of those in this discussion who are against including the public birth date are saying privacy is not an issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

text: As I've explained, it is encyclopedic content in that it's necessary, when writing a biographical article about a celebrity, in order to accurately provide ages. A year alone leads to vagueness and inaccuracies, which is the opposite of what an encyclopedia should do. This is aside from the fact that a subject having a child is one of the most important timeline milestones of a subject's life, and falsely equating that with "the name of the dog" is smokescreening.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Lyndsey Fonseca announced it on her verified Instagram page at https://www.instagram.com/p/Be6wqvEnLTE/. She's got 172,000 followers, and the news was picked up by People (approx. 72 million unique visitors a month) which ran the Instagram post and linked to it. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tenebrae – you seem to be operating with the belief that we at Wikipedia are obliged to do what everyone else does. We are not. Our role is different. We're not social media. We're no up-to-the-minute entertainment news. We're a "historical encyclopedia" that is supposed to record truly notable events and people. The point here is that the exact details of Fonseca's child are simply not notable either in terms of her biography, or in their own right. Or, at least, that seems to be the rough consensus here. Are there cases where this kind of exact info might be notable enough to include? Yes, sure. In most cases, are these exact details notable enough to include in an article such as this one? Nope. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And again, I respectfully disagree, and I take exception to your suggestion that I somehow believe this encyclopedia — to which I've volunteered responsibly for nearly 13 years — is "social media" or news. I speak as a professional who does biographical research for a living and has contributed professionally to published motion picture reference annuals when I say that the birth dates of a subject's children are not only absolutely notable and major pieces of timeline information, but, indeed, are pro forma. To be perfectly honest, I've always been astonished that editors who are not academics or professional writers/researchers would argue that it is not — just as I would never suggest to a doctor what's notable in a Wikipedia medical article. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Actually, another editor quite responsibly beat me to it: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Lyndsy Fonseca#Request for comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm reviewing now and will close shortly. GiantSnowman 14:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment

message: ...so I'll go the admin board for RfCs and ask someone to formally close this.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, another editor quite responsibly beat me to it: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Lyndsy Fonseca#Request for comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm reviewing now and will close shortly. GiantSnowman 14:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: It's been more than 30 days...