Talk:Famke Janssen

message: There are rumors that she portrays Lara Lor-Van in Superman Returns. Leader Vladimir — Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is she in "Superman Returns"? 

message: Because there is no reliable sourcing provided for Janssen's date-of-birth (sorry, but the two sources don't cut it), and because there's actually a discrepancy in terms of the DOB in the Yahoo source, I've gone ahead and removed an exact DOB, and am now quoting just a year-of-birth (1964), as there seems to be some sourcing support for at least that. 
I would note that under WP:BLPPRIVACY (note the  part...), an exact DOB should probably not be added back unless Janssen publicizes one (e.g. in an interview) herself. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Film Review lists her birthdate as November 5, 1965 in their 2001 issue on page 389. This 'is' a reliable source, so I am going to change the "circa" to the date according to the journal. --Drown Soda (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   I strongly advise against doing that, for the reasons I've already outlined. We now have multiple sources giving multiple different birth dates. Because there are multiple conflicting sources, I don't think we can just "pick out one source" and declare that one the "correct" one. Further, based on WP:BLPPRIVACY, it's pretty clear that Janssen doesn't want her DOB widely disseminated. Based on all of this, I think the best call is to leave the "c.1964" birthdate as the most appropriate choice here, weighing all the factors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a two to one consensus on allowing Film Review (me and Drown Soda) as valid DOB. I'll go ahead and up date this now. Valoem talk contrib 13:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pay attention  – Drown Soda self-reverted their edit after my message above. Aside from that, you have ignored the points that there are multiple sources (none of them particularly reliable) with conflicting DOB's reported, so how do you pick one source over the others? And none of this obviates the clear WP:BLPPRIVACY policy – Janssen is pretty clearly not interested in publicizing her DOB, therefore it should not be reported. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  TV Guide, this source also confirms that DOB, Drown Soda's source is also reliable, can you provide reliable examples of conflicting DOBs? Valoem talk contrib 16:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   Please see the recent post from Tabercil upthread – bottom line: there are conflicting sources on Jannsen's DOB, and as she has not widely publicized it, under WP:BLPPRIVACY an exact DOB should be left out. , care to comment any further on this?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  No ''reliable'' sourcing for DOB 

message: Where is the example of conflicting birth dates? I haven't seen that there should be any other dates than November 5 in question. I provided a reliable source for the birthdate. DrKilleMoff (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Without an exact DOB, it's is generally accepted practice to use -year rather than just the year. But, as I said, there is a decent source cited up-thread that specifically cites Nov. 5, 1965 as her DOB. So that's another issue... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Considering that it's one (non-English language?) interview – no, I think that would be considered somewhat "thin". If there were multiple interviews with her where she said "1964", that might be a different matter... In any case, nothing is preventing anyone from taking this to WP:BLP/N and seeing if a better solution can be crafted. But my guess is that whatever is come up with there will be similar to what's being done at this article now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

text: OK, great. At one point, this article used a Dutch-language interview. But none of that changes my overall point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, That goes against what you said in August 2015.  "would note that under WP:BLPPRIVACY (note the "widely published" part...), an exact DOB should probably not be added back unless Janssen publicizes one (e.g. in an interview) herself. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "widely published" part applies to Jannsen herself as well – one interview isn't "widely": a half-a-dozen interviews would probably be considered "widely". Though when I wrote that, I was thinking about the full DOB – I dunno how any of this affects a year of birth. Again, checking with WP:BLP/N may be the best course of action here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisiting – July 2017 

message: Hi,  - I've found an interview with Famke, for a website named "Directconversations". It's run by Tim Lammers, a film and television critic and member of the Critics Choice Association. He has conducted interviews with celebrities and did one with Famke in January 2015. In it, he describes Famke as having turned 50 years old back in November [2014], when Famke was asked about a younger actress taking her place in future X-Men films. Quote: “Of course, I’d love to be back, but I think, realistically, with the way ‘Days of Future Past’ ends, is that it’s going back to the 1980s and there will be a much younger Jean Grey,” said Janssen, 50 ... As for this casting a younger Jean Grey business, I told Janssen not to sell herself short about the filmmakers finding somebody 20-30 years junior taking over the role. Despite hitting the milestone birthday in November ..." United Press International has listed her as a notable 5 November birthday as well. And the now defunct Yahoo! Movies profile also mentions a 5 November birthday, but a different birth year as already mentioned.
Granted, the interview with Tim Lammers does not specify 5 November. But at the very least, could we at least narrow down her birth date to circa November 1964? Clear Looking Glass (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I'd use that for more than an "age as of date" cite (esp. as it's a WP:YOUTUBE source). IOW, I would advise getting something stronger, esp. considering the WP:BLPPRIVACY issues, because I'm not sure it's justifiable to string together 2 or 3 difference sources just to get a WP:SYNTH date of birth. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

text: You're right – UPI is generally considered acceptable. But the issue here is still one of WP:BLPPRIVACY – it seems that the subject is not interested in having her WP:DOB widely disseminated, and Wikipedia doesn't elevate its editors desire to publish information over a subject's desire for privacy. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Actually, no: what WP:BLPPRIVACY says is , not just "published"... In general, I dislike WP:RfCs for all but really important stuff – but at this point, a decently attended WP:RfC is probably the only thing that will allow for a consensus to be reached on this question. (But such an RfC will have to go through the entire history of this issue, IMO, for it to allow for a genuine consensus to be reached – incl. the conflicting DOBs from various sources, and the lack of publicity from the subject herself on the DOB). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Also, WP:ONUS always applies – just because somebody publishes something does not "require" Wikipedia to add that to its articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  November Birthday 

message: Actually I'm pretty sure it's standard to use rowspan for the year for these types of filmography tables. I'm the first person to take out unnecessary or confusing rowspan but I think this version is fine. Would you consider reverting yourself on this edit? —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Rowspan should only be used when there is some value in using it. There is some value in 'rowspan' in some Awards tables (for various reasons that aren't worth getting into here). There is IMO no value in using rowspan in Filmography tables. It's certainly not "standard" format, not is its use "encouraged" in them. This article has been doing fine without rowspan for a long time. There's no reason to change it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  rowspan for filmography table 

message: Support. I don't understand the rowspan is "unnecessary". No guideline forbids its inclusion. And judging from the 2017 discussion above titled "rowspan for filmography table", no consensus was reached regarding its inclusion or exclusion. In that same discussion,  (who undid my edit, see here) states "There is IMO no value in using rowspan in Filmography tables". So my edit was undone based on their opinion alone rather than citing a violation. This violates WP:OWN: "If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so." My edit did not violate any guidelines. IJBall simply doesn't like it. That's not good enough to remove the rowspan. It's value is that it makes the table look cleaner and organized. Without it, it's a jumbled mess. Armegon (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose: use of 'rowspan' is a pure WP:ILIKEIT edit – "the table look cleaner" is a pure subjective opinion on an WP:ILIKEIT basis. It's one editor's opinion. But for every editor that "likes it" there is another editor who "doesn't" like it – indeed, many in WP:FILMOGRAPHY oppose use of 'rowspan' (it's not just me), and for years the guideline was clear that it shouldn't be used at all. Now it is "allowed" for the 'Year' column, but is certainly not required. So you need to demonstrate clear consensus for the changes you want to make. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:FILMOGRAPHY clearly states "Use of rowspan formatting in 'Year' columns is acceptable". Having you remove the rowspan is also WP:IDL. There's even an example titiled "Delete: No need", which mirrors your "Also unnecessary. No need to rowspan these" claim. I don't see anything on WP: FILMOGRAPHY that supports your "many oppose use of rowspan" claim, just your own opposition found here. Armegon (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  No – my removing it is WP:STATUSQUO. It's clear – demonstrate consensus for this change, and 'rowspan' will be used in the 'Year' column, as you want; fail to demonstrate consensus for the change, and it should stay the way it is. And it's not my fault you didn't look through the Filmography Talk page and archives more. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

text: The rowspan doesn't affect screenreaders. In terms of sorting, all a rowspan does is sort individual columns into a single unified column. Would you like for me to share examples? Armegon (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

text: The first issues are practical: The first is that adding rowspan makes the table code more complicated which newbie IP editors don't understand and often mess up when trying to add new entries (why make table code more complicated than it needs to be?). The second is that 'rowspan' at least "used to" mess up text-to-speech screen readers, so it effectively discriminated against a portion of our readership. Now the latest discussion on this at WT:ACCESS seemed to indicate that this is now less of a concern though I will point out that even this discussion one commenter says , so even this discussion acknowledges that overuse of rowspan is still a bad thing (and not just for screen readers – overuse of rowspan makes tables difficult to read for everybody!) Ultimately, it seems MOS:ACCESS is offering no firm guidance on this topic anymore, and doesn't bother to define the circumstances of "multiple different rowspans crossing different columns". Luckily, this isn't what Armegon is proposing, as Armegon's proposal is simply to rowspan the 'Year' column, which doesn't cause problems for screen readers, and is "allowed" (though not required, certainly) under MOS:FILMOGRAPHY. So, the other issue is purely aesthetic – do you like 'rowspan' use in tables, or don't you? Some editors like Armegon like it a lot; other editors such as myself generally don't like it, and feel use of rowspan should be generally minimized. So it's a purely subjective thing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I don't want to add rowspan to every single column. WP:FILMOGRAPHY clearly states to restrict it only to the year-columns (which was my original intentions with my edits) and I'm assuming the reason why is for what IJBall said above. And even IJBall said adding rowspan to the year-column does not affect screen readers. So I don't understand what the problem is in adding it other than IJBall not liking it. Again, which violates WP:OWN and WP:IDL. I don't want to add rowspan because I like it. I want to add it because it's useful and beneficial to the wikitable.  Armegon (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your last point is your opinion – it is not "a fact(™)". Adding 'rowspan' to the 'Year' column is neither prohibited nor required. IOW, as there is neither a prohibition nor a requirement for it, whether it gets added to a Filmography table needs to be determined by consensus at the article. You boldly added it, I objected, so now we determine consensus one way or the other. That's how the process works. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rowspan issue 

message: There's something wonky with the syntax of the news item linked to support the claim that Janssen won the Susan B. Anthony "Failure Is Impossible" Award in 2006. I suspect another award got conflated in there. The Festival's own website (now the High Falls Women's Film Festival) lists only Agnieszka Holland as the 2006 awardee.  Powers T 22:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: When in doubt, remove the award from the table. If it's proven to be correct, it can always be added back later... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought about it, but it appears there's been some intense editing over that section of the article and I didn't want to overrevert or otherwise interfere.  Powers T 14:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure Is Impossible Award