Talk:Claudia Cardinale

message: Why "Tunisian"? Just because she was born there? Her mother was French, father was Italian (Sicilian). Cardinale is widely considered Italian actress. (Nothing personal, I am just for accuracy).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty kerner (talk • contribs) 17:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, the way most people understand a person's nationality is first of all their citizenship. The fact that Cardinale was born in Tunisia and has memories of her upbringing in the Italian community there, does not mean she is a Tunisian. Otherwise anybody with a similar biography, but a different citizenship at birth or later in their lives would be mistaken for a national of the country where they were born. This obviously applies to millions of people, who are correctly attributed only to their citizenship. (See the categories on Wikimedia, for example.)  So I am going to change this false citizenship as long as their is no RS to the contrary. Munfarid1 (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: "Tunisian actress"

message: Birthname is given as Cardin in article. Is there any supporting evidence for this, or is it an error? Orbicle 09:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cardin

message: says the article: "Her son Patrick was born out of wedlock to a mysterious Frenchman when the actress was only 17" - it is known (and written in her book) that she was raped when she was 17 ! 84.227.134.78 07:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  son Patrick 

message: The following sentence regarding her voice will have to be sourced, please revert it then.
"Despite her very feminine appearance, she had a deep voice (for a woman) from an early age, and in her early films she had her voice dubbed by someone else, but very soon her unique voice gained huge popularity and added to her success."
KungFuMonkey 22:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal comment about her voice 

message: The image :File:La ragazza di Bube1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      File:Once-upon-a-time-in-the-west-charles-bronson-henry-fonda.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is taken from the voice La ragazza di Bube (film) and it is: 1) allowed for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents on the English-language Wikipedia, 2)hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. The same explanations are valid for File:Once-upon-a-time-in-the-west-charles-bronson-henry-fonda.jpg--Sabanglana (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:La ragazza di Bube1.jpg

message: Claudia did NOT appear in FALCON CREST.. That was Gina Lollobrigida in a few episodes....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  mistake in biography   Claudia NOT in Falcon Crest.... 

message: Currently leaving the 1939 birthdate in - seems to be supported by BFI and Allmovie, arguably more reliable than IMDB which indicates 1938. Filmreference also claims 1938. Additional sources would be welcome here, especially Italian sites which meet WP:RS. Dl2000 (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless we find some official records it will be hard to know for sure (Is there an Italian birth index available?). Although her official site does say 1938. Crisso (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth date 

message: She was in The Pink Panther and not A Shot in the Dark.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmeskill (talk • contribs) 04:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography 

message: Oppose.  I see no reason for one.  The lead does an excellent job of summerising the key facts in a much more educational compared to a load of trivial old bullet points contained within the  infobox. CassiantoTalk 11:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Much more attractive without it, such a nice image too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is in my Sandbox
--SlimJimTalk 09:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

text: That box is the most god awful fucking eyesore I have ever seen. You cannot be serious in thinking that that is a benefit to anyone? CassiantoTalk 13:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

text: So SlimJim, nothing relating to the guidelines or policies as to why an IB should be included, just your personal preference for consistency? If the "casual reader" wants to find a fact, it can probably be found in the lead, where it is presented in its proper context, and not with nuance stripped out. It's not too much to ask that when people visit a text-based encyclopaedia, they might actually have to read some of the text there. - SchroCat (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We're all different. You and I look up information in different ways and differently depending on any number of variables. Sometimes I read entire articles. Sometimes I am just looking for a quick answer and don't want to wade through the well thought-out lead. It appears that this article has some ownership issues. If there's nothing in any guideline or policy as to why it should be included, I'm guessing that there is also nothing in there about why it should be excluded.  --SlimJimTalk 11:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be so obnoxious as to throw around mindless insults like ownership allegations. I have never edited the article, so it's utterly churlish to throw around such accusations just because someone has a differing opinion to yours; your approach also fails WP:CIVILITY. - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Then maybe Wikipedia isn't for you . If you want quick and easy factoids go and buy this. CassiantoTalk 14:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Oh, Lord! Another case of "if you oppose an info-box it's WP:OWN". How wearisome! Tangentially, I happen to be a carer for someone who has severe OCD, and I am comprehensively unimpressed by the suggestion that that condition has any relevance to IBs and the homogeneity of WP articles. I have a crippling phobic terror of heights, but I do not object to the use on WP of images taken from high buildings. Tim riley talk  14:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I have absolutely no objection to alternative opinions: I do have an objection to people idiotically throwing OWNership allegations out (as you did) just because someone disagreed with your opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite; , to whom you are referring when you speak of incivility? Or is that like your flawed OWN accusation and just another cliche thing the supporter's in infobox discussions say when the going gets tough?   CassiantoTalk 16:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Nope, no offence taken .  In discussions like this, my computer keypad is so used to typing  and  blah, blah, blah, that the lines are on auto complete.  Info boxes are great on certain articles and I rely on them when looking at film, political, sports, royal, and science articles.  But they simply don't work in biographies on persons within the arts, classical music, medical, and historical stories and events.  Everything and I mean everything within an infobox in these articles can be found in the lede, quite often within the first line or paragraph.  It is that kind of repetition which we must try and avoid. It really annoys me to think that people just assume articles like this must have an infobox simply because they believe that it is a consistency on Wikipedia as a whole.  Yes, that consistency is a sad reality at the moment, but it is completely wrong and hopefully one day, that'll change.  CassiantoTalk 14:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

text: For which there is still no consensus. – SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

text: There was no need to come to the WP page.  Just a simple google search would provide you with that information on the results page. As that is obvious, and because I see this is your one and only edit, I suspect you have an ulterior motive. CassiantoTalk 20:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear, quite the amateur detective. This kind of thing reminds me why I don't edit more. It was my one and only edit from here, yes, because I'm not at home. I don't edit much, but this is my first port of call for information, not Google. I don't really see why that should suggest I have an ulterior motive. I see your attitude is that if someone doesn't find what they want on Wikipedia, they should just jog off and find it somewhere else. Well done, you. 2.219.97.182 (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're a sock? CassiantoTalk 21:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A what? 2.219.97.182 (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Oh, I see. You think I'm someone from the above discussion who's now pretending to be someone else in order to be disruptive. Wow. She's 77, so I gather. I thought it might be easy to get that from a so-called encyclopedia but apparently I was engaging in subterfuge and covert disruption. Seriously, you folk are weird. 2.219.97.182 (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Claudia Cardinale. 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/20141008114358/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/1188/year/1984.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/1188/year/1984.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110822165413/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/409/year/1987.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/409/year/1987.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141022150439/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/3167635/year/2002.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/3167635/year/2002.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Claudia Cardinale. 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/20150712010611/http://www.artfilmfest.sk/en/press/press-releases/press/claudia-cardinale-ive-lived-141-lives/7739c9afaa75edfc00030e0482a3ee6d/ to http://www.artfilmfest.sk/en/press/press-releases/press/claudia-cardinale-ive-lived-141-lives/7739c9afaa75edfc00030e0482a3ee6d/
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) 02:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: @SchroCat, could you please get the bio information to display Cardinale's age based on her birth date?
I added the InfoBox so the age would be displayed with her bio information. I was not aware the InfoBox was being endlessly debated here.
I'm not asking you re-add the InfoBox. Just show her current age with her bio information, like birthdate.
Thanks. Jeffrey Walton  (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing age 

message: I have reverted the recent addition of an infobox by an IP. I am doing this simply because there was previously consensus not to include a box, the primary contributors to the box did not want one, and while editors do not own articles and people should just be bold and do stuff, I can't help thinking that the purpose of this edit was not entirely based on an intrinsic desire to improve the article. If you're going to take bold actions, I'd like you to log in and be accountable for them. If you're worried about being personally attacked for simply adding an infobox, you have my sympathies - email me and we can discuss things.
I also want to make it clear that I have no objection to any editor in good standing re-adding the infobox back in, and my actions here are because of the way things have been done, not what. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox, again