Talk:Julia Stiles/Archive 1

message: Your revert was entirely unjustified but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just misguided about this article's quality.  Here are but some of the reasons for the changes I made:
:# The critic review quotations are super POV violations and unnecessary in a biography (wikipedia isn't rottentomatoes.com), especially the fact they were all in the very first paragraph. 
:# Too many wiki links (poor readibility)
:# Too many red wiki links (poor readibility) 
:# The article's tone is more like a six degrees of separation game than a succinct biography
:## Related: no need to list every person involved with every play and every movie she's ever been in, for example "David Mamet" as the person behind "Oleanna" is not only non note worthy on multiple levels, overall such referencing detracts from article quality.
:# "Acclaim" for film Wicked at sundance is perhaps not only an overstated POV violation, but also uncited.  Do we mention plot details for each non noteworthy movie an actor or actress has starred in?
:# Which is better POV wise "The role that made her a star was" Vs "Her first major role was"?
:## And "Her first major role was" Vs "Her next film was" (original version inconsistent)
:# Dates not in the first paragraph or directly related to an article should not be wiki linked in my opinion.
::zen master    T  16:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Zen-master]] questions his reversions

message: *Let me just correct that last one - all dates should be wikilinked. violet/riga (t) 16:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Violetriga]] on wikilinked dates

message: *I disagree, extra wiki links that no one is likely to click on detract from article quality and also slow wikipedia down.  For a celebrity's birthday it is conveivable that someone would want to find out other stuff that happened that day etc, but for random information it detracts from article quality.  How hard is it for someone to type "April 4" into the search box?  What do you think of my other concerns listed above violetriga?  wikilinking should only be applied to "for further information" sort of links, the majority of dates in articles do not fit this criteria. zen master    T  17:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Zen-master]] replies to her

message: *All dates should be linked so that they show up as per the preference of the users - for me (and many others) it's horrible to see the day after the month.  Linking the dates allows the wiki software to switch it to the style the user has chosen.  It's noted at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).  As for the other points, yes I do agree that there is a lot of POV text, unrequired namechecks and red links. violet/riga (t) 17:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Violetriga]] replies again

message: *Ok, should I revert Pedantically's revert then?  How should I go about perhaps changing wikipedia policy regarding dates?  I consider it common sense to keep wiki linking down to just the core essence of an article.  The more things that are wikilinked the more it leads to chaos in my opinion. zen master    T  17:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Zen-master]] responds

message: *I did errantly delete her parents names in my original edit, that was a mistake, sorry. By lead you mean the first sentence or first paragraph?  Her birthplace currently resides in the second sentence.  There are numerous other celebrity bio or other articles on wikipedia that violate the manual of style rule(s) you cite yet those articles are actually much more pleasant to read (because they don't contain as many unnecessary wiki links, red or otherwise).  A rule should never force someone to violate common sense.  See the Natalie Portman article for an example of a high but sane number of wikilinks and a much more pleasant reading experience, though that article admittedly contains less information (which is part of the problem here).   Check the most recent changes I made to the article for POV issues, words like "acclaim" instead of "buzz" etc. zen master    T  19:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Zen-master]] replies on deletions and links

message: *Pedantically, this is a biographical article, there shouldn't be much need to cite things?  If you include that many positive citations then we should probably include some negative ones as well, right?  Why do you include the date for each citation, is that really necessary?  What you are doing is completely non-standard when compared with other celebrity bio-graphical articles, in my opinion it adds woefully unnecessary verbosity to the article.  Anyway, what did you think of the changes I made yesterday?  zen master    T  15:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Zen-master]] questions the bibliography

message: *Pedant, you weren't actually citing to actual quotations or to the actual sources of what someone said, for example, your references to a quote or review allegedly from a magazine only contained just a wiki link to that magazine's article on wikipedia, which doesn't count as a reference.  A reference section is different than what you put together, you should link to the article quotation or review, the Awards and reviews section also has this problem, we should fix that but it's small enough to where it isn't a big deal, is it?  If you want me to I can look for good examples of reference sections on wikipedia?  What do you think of putting some Julia Stiles quotations in wikiquote?  Also, on a higer level, celebrity articles don't generally need a reference section, there is nothing under dispute in the article is there, so no need to cite anything, unless you are saying there is something under dispute?  If so, what is it?  If I said you weren't citing anything then I take that back, there is no need to cite much of anything in a non controversial biographical article.  Do you agree that we have improved this article's quality over the last few days? zen master    T  19:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Zen-master]] says references weren't proper cites

message: *First, I think what PedanticallySpeaking added to the article, even though it was labeled as a Reference section, was the farthest thing from actually being a reference section.  Pedantically did not link directly to the source of any quotation or reference, not once, all links in that section were to within wikipedia.  It seemed as if Pedantically was just trying to create hundreds of extra wiki links in an article seemingly for no other reason than to damage the quality of an article with unnecessary length.  
*Second, can Pedantically please state concisely what he thinks I am claiming?  Because there seems to be a large disconnect between what he says I am claiming and what I am actually claiming.  The original version of this article had POV issues, I cleaned them up.  If you disagree we can go through them one at a time.  It is completely non-standard to put 3 positive review quotations in the *intro* paragraph of a biographical article so I created the awards and reviews section.  I also removed a sentence from the article that stated Julia is an "MTV darling", in the checkin comments I said we can and perhaps should add that back with a citation. 
*Third, I disagree that the article is worse now quality wise, I think most anyone would agree it is better, especially if they actually take a look at the edits I made, and don't believe how Pedantically is trying to mis-characterize them.  If anyone truly believes this article is worse now than before I'd be happy to go through the RFC or arbitration process so we get more eyes on this article.  
*Fourth, other than the obvious POV problems that I corrected, I did remove or down play some of the other positive POV quotes/reviews because the article was completely unbalanced, there were no negative reviews and I don't want to have to go out and add that to achieve any semblence of balance, better to just not be totally overboard on the positive side of POV.  Pedantically, once you start adding too much positive POV people will come along and demand lengthy negative POV sections, I did not want that to happen here. zen master    T  00:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Zen-master]] comments

message: *Hey Pedantically, your recent changes are very good but I think there is a little fan POV in the article now.  The sentence that discusses Stiles' "admirers" and compares her to other actresses is fraught with POV and such comparisons are generally not a good idea, don't you think?  Also, mentioning author diversity in the intro paragraph is a little much, how many people have performed in a play written by Shakespear?  Maybe we should move that info to the stage or film sections?  I don't think we should mention specific movies in the intro section either.  The way the "critical success" sentence is worded seems slightly POV.  Why are you putting critical review quotations in the film career section, those should go in a separate section perhaps (how about bringing back the awards and reviews section)?   Do bio-graphical articles for actors/actress often include this many review quotations?
*My personal preference would be not to wiki link dates and years that are not in the intro paragraph and that aren't important to the essence of the article but I won't change those for now at least.  The same year certainly shouldn't be wikilinked more than once in an article.  Though, wiki links to something like the 1950s would be much more relevant and note worthy than a link to the specific year 1953 since that is relevant to the movie she was in, don't you think?  Is it note-worthy Stiles played a Wisconsin co-ed as opposed to just a co-ed?  Why wikilink both Dubya and Jenna Bush?  If someone doesn't know who Jenna Bush is they can click on the wiki link for her, it's redundant to include both and wiki link both.
T*here are a lot of red links we should either unwikify or create stub articles for?  zen master    T  18:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Zen-master]]: "Recent changes good, but there's a little POV now" 

message: *hailed as "the thinking teenagers' movie goddess" by a film critic writing for The New York Times.  I know all us fanboi's love Ms. Stiles but I don't think that sentence is appropriate for this article, certainly not in the intro nor written like that, and what is with wiki links to the generic publication like the New York Times but *not* a link to the actual citation?  If it isn't a link to the actual citation it shouldn't be wiki linked in my opinion. zen master    T  05:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zen-master: "Intro is increasingly POV" 

message: *There is next to inline citation, and the entire "Film Career" section is reference free (despite some direct quotes in the early paragraphs). I don't know how many of the inline citations reference these, but they should be converted to inline citation or removed, as if they reference something directly they should be inline and if  they don't they shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Staxringold 00:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Staxringold|Staxringold]]'s issues with the article

message: *Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Dates, dates should always be linked so they are formatted according to users' preferences. Niteowlneils 22:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Niteowlneils states the MoS policy

message: *I have stated many times previously that dates should not be wikilinked when they are completely irrelevant to the article.  How does wikilinking June 5 inside the *references* section help users find out more info about Julia Stiles?  I have proposed on a manual of style talk page that dates should not be wiki linked as often as they seem to be, how should I go about fixing wikipedia policy on this issue?  Also, it is rather silly for a biographical article to have a references section, perhaps it should be removed and/or turned into a citations sections that contains direct citations to the quotations and criticisms of reviewers and magazines used in the article? zen master    T  22:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zen-master reiterates his view

message: *1) I disagree with your opinion on the MoS of dates.
:*1b) Your disagreement about the Mos does not constitute others' edits as "vandalism"
*2) I see no valid reason to remove references.  Considering the number of quotes, they are extremely important.  If anything, I think they need to be directly linked into the text for better referencing.
::--Cburnett 22:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cburnett disagrees with Zen-master

message: *Sorry, I considered it vandalism because the editor tried to justify the date wikilinks as somehow helpful to the refences in question which is simply not true.  How do *ANY* of those date wikilinks help the quality of the article?  Is there any Julia Stiles info on the June 5 article?  I do not support the removal of date wiki links for things like a celebrity's birthday or other similarly important dates related to an articl, but dates inside a reference section does not qualify. I agree that a reference section should primarily contain links to the external sources cited in the article. zen master    T  23:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zen-master explains his de-linking

message: *"The editor"?  Do you pay any attention to what you're doing?  You are talking to "the editor". Cburnett 23:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cburnett: "Do you pay attention"

message: *I did realize that (I was posting so third parties understand the situation and I wanted to move on after apologizing to you for accusing you of traditional vandalism).  Are you going to use this as an excuse to ignore my points now? zen master    T  23:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zen-master apologizes for "vandalism" charge

message: *Note that the discussion has moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Excessive wikilinking dates? as per zen-master's actions of posting it there.  Don't see the point in arguing here until the argument on the MoS talk page is resolved. Cburnett 23:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice the discussion moved elsewhere

message: *It seems there is no wikipedia policy that states years must be wikilinked, Cburnett (or others) would you support the removal of some/all year wikilinks inside the references section?  Perhaps we should refer people to the specific issue number for a particular magazine, not their date (or link the reference directly to the citation)?  Also, as far as wikilinking dates for international formatting reasons goes it actually makes more sense not to wikilink dates in this case I believe.  For example, if there is a reference to say the October 28th version of a U.S. magazine then it would be incorrect for the wikipedia date preference formatting to change that to 28 October, wouldn't it? zen master    T  00:58, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zen-master says there isn't a policy re linking years

message: *It's OK to remove years that are not part of a date, but otherwise they should be linked.  And no, it does not make more sense to force a date style because of the origin of the magazine. violet/riga (t) 08:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Violetriga says all dates should be linked

message: *You've all but "lost" the discussion on the MoS talk page so now you're asking me (the vandal) and others to agree to removing them.  If I ever would have agreed to remove links, I wouldn't have gotten into this. Cburnett 16:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've pretty much lost the date format battle for now it seems, sorry again for accusing you of vandalism in my checkin comment. zen master    T  17:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cburnett reports on MoS disccussion

message: ===A proposal by Zen-master===
Would people support rewritting or even removing the references section in this article so excessive wikilinking because of date formating is no longer an issue? (we really ought to use citations, not a traditional print reference section anyway)  What do people think? zen master    T  16:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewriting or removing references

message: Would people support rewritting or even removing the references section in this article so excessive wikilinking because of date formating is no longer an issue? (we really ought to use citations, not a traditional print reference section anyway)  What do people think? zen master    T  16:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A proposal by Zen-master

message: Ok, I suppose a biographical article can have a reference section and you make a good case for the need for permanent off-line sources.  What about the idea of rewriting the reference section so that date formatting (and excessive wikilinking) is no longer an issue?  zen master    T  17:09, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zen-master asks about formatting

message: ===Phoe6 Asks This===
Featured Article, as Wikipedia says, is an example of community work. I searched for how Julia Stiles featured in this category and I did not find a mass appeal for a featured article request. 
I had only heard of Julia Stiles, but never knew about her talents, importance etc. But knowing a comperory actress through Wikipedia Featured article is kind of intruging. Is she so great? Then why is she not celebrated all over the world?
What is reason for chosing Julia stiles for Featured Article? Is someone working on Julia Roberts for Featured Article as well? ---- Phoe6 (sig added by Cburnett)
===Cburnett Explains===
Note: please sign your posts with ~~~~ so we know who wrote it.
It's not a matter of saying Julia Stiles is amongst the best, but that the article about her is amongst the best. Cburnett 07:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Is This A Featured Article?

message: Note: please sign your posts with ~~~~ so we know who wrote it.
It's not a matter of saying Julia Stiles is amongst the best, but that the article about her is amongst the best. Cburnett 07:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cburnett Explains

message: To expand on that, the article gained featured status because an editor happened to choose it as a target for expansion, and with the help of over two dozen other more minor editors, managed to get it to meet the Featured Article criteria, per the judgement of the people who voted at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Julia Stiles, after it was nominated as a Featured Article Candidate. The editor's choice of article to try to develop into Featured Article status doesn't reflect any judgement as to the importance/fame/notability/etc. of the subject--pretty much any article, about any subject, regardless of import, is eligible to become featured, as long as it meets the criteria. Ideally, over time, most, if not all, Wikipedia articles will meet the Featured Article criteria. Niteowlneils 10:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Niteowlneils Explains

message: Thanks for your comments. I understand now better the requirements of FA 143.166.255.16 16:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Phoe6 Replies

message: Note: please sign your posts with ~~~~ so we know who wrote it, even if you want to be an anonymous.
Your reply is borderline trollish and I almost just reverted the page since you can't seem to post in the correct location.  Cburnett 23:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cburnett Answers

message: In addition to my comments in the section immediately above:
#Choosing featured articles based on relative importance would violate Wikipedia's 'neutral point of view' policy
#Similarly, your comments reflect your personal preference. For example, I would prefer to read about an up-and-coming actor, rather than an article about pet skunks, but others would disagree.
#Wikipedia's mission is NOT to cover 'important' human knowledge, but ALL human knowledge. Niteowlneils 00:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Reply by Niteowlneils

message: Substituted at 15:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Discussions before July 1, 2006 can be found at Talk:Julia Stiles/Archive 1.
I archived the older discussion on this page because most of it related to issues long ago and had little currency to today.  PedanticallySpeaking 17:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: I think that for a FA, the prose's flow is a little underwhelming. Some sections, especially "Personal life", are comprised of list-like short paragraphs, which need improving to keep in line with the high quality of the rest of the article. Seegoon 12:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not to criticise... 

message: The article seems to have a sizable References section as well as a sizable notes section.  What is the difference?  --GargoyleMT 03:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References, notes 

message: I attended Columbia at the time this happened (*and* was working at the Dining Hall at the time).
In fact, I typed a transcript of her appearance which I circulated the day after her interview aired.  Despite all that, even *I* don't think this sort of minor nonsense is worthy of inclusion into an article that aspires to be encyclopedic.  I mean, really. 76.89.181.133 (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOL -- Cafeteria Workers? (re: article) 

message: I thought she was born in Point Pleasant, NJ? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace 

message: :Image:JuliaStiles101.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:JuliaStiles101.jpg

message: Would not Wide Awake (1998 film) technically be her first film (1995) even though it was not released for 3 years (1998)? As far as first film to be released in which she appeared in, the 1996 film given in the article would be accurate, though. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Film? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Julia Stiles. 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/20080103042140/http://www.oscars.org:80/73academyawards/presenters.html to http://www.oscars.org/73academyawards/presenters.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100611075323/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/news/e3i691fbb5b4fe8721f64da0ea795324b5e to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i691fbb5b4fe8721f64da0ea795324b5e
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 15:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In Made (2001 film) there were several "Club Girl (uncredited)" roles (such as Drea de Matteo and Jennifer Esposito) during the first nightlounge scenes from around 0:51:40 to around 0:58:40, and I was wondering if it was Julia Stiles in the blue turtle neck and blonde braids under a dark bandana who was grooving around (in front and behind (poor continuity to fill the first club)) or by the main characters.  Any lines she may have had were cut.  Julia Stiles was not unknown in 2001 and actually starred in Save the Last Dance that same year.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonCarswell (talk • contribs) 02:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Made (2001 film)]] + [[Julia Stiles]] ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Julia Stiles. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/julia-stiles-thatll-sound-slutty-642622.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050329143515/http://www.amnestyusa.org/artistsforamnesty/feb2004.html to http://www.amnestyusa.org/artistsforamnesty/feb2004.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050329143456/http://www.amnestyusa.org/artistsforamnesty/july2004.html to http://www.amnestyusa.org/artistsforamnesty/july2004.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://corporate.hallmark.com/News-From-Hallmark/Hallmark-Hall-of-Fame-Presents-The-Makeover
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) 04:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Julia Stiles. 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/20140310073156/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/54350-Reuben-Stiles-and-Testa-Join-OBs-Monologues-July-25-Aug-6 to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/54350-Reuben-Stiles-and-Testa-Join-OBs-Monologues-July-25-Aug-6
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140310071118/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/84628-Stiles-Eckhart-Oleanna-to-Play-Londons-Garrick-Theatre-in-April to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/84628-Stiles-Eckhart-Oleanna-to-Play-Londons-Garrick-Theatre-in-April
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140308133144/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/146337-Julia-Stiles-Will-Join-Dane-Cook-and-Josh-Hamilton-for-Broadways-Fat-Pig-at-the-Belasco to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/146337-Julia-Stiles-Will-Join-Dane-Cook-and-Josh-Hamilton-for-Broadways-Fat-Pig-at-the-Belasco
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071106040957/http://www.elle.com/featurefullstory/11049/creative-intelligence-julia-stiles.html to http://www.elle.com/featurefullstory/11049/creative-intelligence-julia-stiles.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140310065716/http://www.habitat.org/newsroom/2000archive/insitedoc004229.aspx to http://www.habitat.org/newsroom/2000archive/insitedoc004229.aspx
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) 13:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified