Talk:Diablo Cody

message: If someone wants to add links to her book on amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/Candy-Girl-Year-Unlikely-Stripper/dp/1592401821
and on Barnes & Noble:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Candy-Girl/Diablo-Cody/e/9780641891557/?itm=1
I read the book before Juno, not that it matters, just to mention that I'm not a fanboy. It's ok; easy to read, entertaining, definately adult.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.96.185 (talk) 23:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to "Candy Girl"

message: This just reeks of the self-adulation that typifies self-created (or acquaintance-created)  Wikipedia entries, both of which are against Wikipedia guidelines. Moreover, for a one-time screenwriter, this entry is WAY too long. Far too many plaudits and details for someone with relatively few achievements.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.255.146 (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there, 69.14.255.14! Looks like you're from Michigan. Cool! But it appears you're just another internet coward, and one sickeningly jealous of those doing better than themselves. Wow. But you know what? I guess Brook showed YOU, didn't she? You must feel really stupid now. I would. And I do hope her many MONSTER success have pained you (and her other detractors) tremendously. Have you lost sleep, biting and scratching yourself in utter jealousy? LOL! So, 69.14.255.14: How's it feel to  be nothing more than a nay-saying, spineless sniper? Waste of life, much? LOL! Kisses! JealousMuchQMark (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Subject-Created Entry, Much?

message: :Image:Alllitup-3.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 insure 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) 06:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the photo of her at the Academy Awards copyrighted? I am going to attempt to remove it. --anon. 70.23.158.96 (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Alllitup-3.jpg

message: She's sold scripts to studios, and she wrote a pilot for a sitcom. Why mention these things? Scripts are sold all the time, and pilots are churned out with alarming regularity. Nine times out of ten, these scripts and pilots never go anywhere. It's worthless to put in the article. There's no way to know those projects will ever succeed, and listing them is frankly just silly, and shameless promotion to make this flavor-of-the-month blogger/fledgling screenwriter seem like a force to be reckoned with. Howa0082 (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Howa0082: Guess ol' Brook showed YOU, didn't she?! LOL! I love it! JealousMuchQMark (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I fail to see how this is "silly, shameless promotion".  She has only produced one screenplay that was made into a film and it is not uncommon to note future works.  These projects are cited and are therefore verifiable; it is not like they are rumors.  Besides, this "flavor-of-the-month blogger/fledgling screenwriter" has been nominated for and might possibly win an Academy Award.  I agree with their being mentioned as notable. María (habla conmigo) 12:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not notable. Screenwriters sell scripts everyday. Very few ever get made. I think if those scripts she sold go into production, then it's appropriate to mention them. But just to say she sold some scripts to some studios is a worthless, misleading statement. Here's an improvement; wikify to Jennifer's Body, mentioning that it's in production starting this month. Retitle that section, perhaps, from "screenwriting" to something more appropriate and less misleading. The other two scripts she either wrote or rewrote are not in pre-production. They're not even listed on IMDB. There's no references for Burlesque or Girly Style, so all intents and purposes, they do not exist. Howa0082 (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a couple additional sources to the article, thanks.  The problem with beginning articles based on films that have not begun production is that it's seen as violating WP:CRYSTAL.  There is nothing wrong with mentioning written scripts as they pertain to the author, however, especially since Cody's work is receiving so much press notice since the success of Juno.  If the films are not made, then the article can be updated to include this fact, or omit any mention of them at all.  That's the thing about an online encyclopedia; it's a fluid thing.  I stick to my opinion that these are noteworthy, however; the press certainly seems to think so. María (habla conmigo) 20:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This is explained in the article; her manager, Novick, suggested after she wrote her memoir that she try a screenplay.  I'm guessing that her manager was the one who was able to bring the script to Hollywood, which is how it usually works. María (habla conmigo) 13:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scripts? 

message: Thoughts on adding something about the Oscar shoes? 165.189.169.190 (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oscar Shoes

message: I found three references (and counting) on her MySpace blog to her divorce from Jonny Hunt. (I submitted an edit to this talk page with links but it was wiped out by the spam filter... GRRRRR!) I say it's time to indicate that her real name is just Brook Busey.For what it's worth, here is a Daily Mail article that mentions her divorce. --anon. 70.23.164.117 (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A good thing to look into, though we should remember that not all women change their names once they're divorced.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.142.216 (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Recent articles about her do give her real name as just Brook Busey, however. I included the URL of one in my Edit summary when I changed the birth name listed for her in the infobox. --anon. 70.23.176.56 (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current marital status 

message: In an entry on her MySpace blog dated January 16, 2008, she quotes her ex-husband explaining that Diablo was inspired by the song "El Diablo" by Arcadia. --anon. 70.23.164.117 (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choice of pen name 

message: Is it a good idea to link diablocody on Twitter? --TIB (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twitter? 

message: Is Diablo Cody actually Catholic? The citation suggests her Catholic roots but she could have very well left the faith. It's not very specific. Should this be re-phrased? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic

message: Regarding this edit. I'd rather have the "classic" image in the infobox, and the more recent one in the bottom section. That way, readers are introduced to Cody as she is visually best known, and as they read forward chronologically in her biography, see the more recent development.  Skomorokh  08:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image placement 

message: I noticed that someone interjected (out of place) two recent statements (90210 from 2008, and about her pregnancy) into the 'Early History' section (!).  I also discovered that apparently she is no longer with Entertainment Weekly (a "former EW columnist" []) and it seems to me that a section is needed to collect the latest well-sourced news for these three things at least.  Any recommendations?  Xblkx (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the In popular culture section was recently removed by an IP. But, yes, the article needs restructuring. We currently have an Early life and career section, and then the individual Stripping and journalism and Screenwriting sections, as though they are not a part of her career. On top of that, her personal life information is currently at the end of the Early life and career section. I'll probably tweak all that later, if no one else beats me to it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also, some restructuring needed 

message: Are we sure that the two photograph's used are of the same person? They look like two completely different people imo.... Pinner458 (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are her - she just managed to really change her look in the course of the one year. You can prove that by looking at the various images of her found on WireImage. Tabercil (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Today's NYT called her "Diablo Cody", then "Ms. Diablo", then "Ms. Cody" in the same article -- abt her new (post-Juno) film. Presumbly a bizarre one-time slip of the pen, but we could need a Ms. Diablo Rdr.--Jerzy•t 20:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ms. Diablo" 

message: Person before me wrote, "This just reeks of the self-adulation that typifies self-created (or acquaintance-created)  Wikipedia entries, both of which are against Wikipedia guidelines. Moreover, for a one-time screenwriter, this entry is WAY too long. Far too many plaudits and details for someone with relatively few achievements."
:I completely agree. She has not done anything meriting her such a large wiki page. Most Screenwriters barely have wiki pages at all and her's is giant. I definitely believe that she wrote her page herself. On top of all that every single thing she has worked on, has her being credited on the first line. For example in the Wikipedia page for Juno the first sentence is "Juno is a 2007 comedy-drama film directed by Jason Reitman and written by Diablo Cody. " It is like that for everything other thing she has written too. The Social Network which was written by Aaron Sorkin, who I would say is much more famous, doesn't even get a name mention till the second paragraph on the wikipedia page. I think that all mentions of her name on other pages should be checked to see if it is in fact Diablo Cody crediting herself and making sure that all accreditation is worth the credit - user averyrobot  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averyrobot (talk • contribs) 03:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, Averyrobot, did you check the calendar of late? It's 2011, right? Hell, it's almost 2012! And you're coming here NOW with this nonsense?! Are you one truly pathetic son-of-a-bitch, or what?! Really? A constantly working, Oscar®-wining screenwriter (first script, by the way) with a completely unprecedented life story doesn't merit a slightly more detailed than normal Wiki page? Really? Jesus, asshole, go back to the IMDb message boards where you belong, you self-loathing, esteem-challenged piece of dogshit. God, how I hate useless cocksuckers like yourself, with nothing better to do than hate the world due to your own sickeningly inadequate life journey. Wow. A shame good people in show biz have to deal with cowardly shit-stains such as yourself. Blind1broke1 (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing wrong with this article; nor is it too big, and nor did Cody write it herself. Most other screenwriters have not won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay, and have not had the type of success she has had. We are not going to downsize this article, which, at the moment, isn't that big anyway, just to have it at the level of lesser-known screenwriters and all just to satisfy you Cody detractors. Take your hate for her somewhere else. This is a talk page, meant to improve this article, based on guidelines and policies, not personal feelings. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Are we really accusing an Oscar-winning screenwriter of ghostwriting her own Wikipedia article? Seriously?--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

text: This person hasn't even edited the article and at this point Diablo Cody has gotten so much flack from people ever since Juno that she wouldn't be bothered by someone badmouthing her on a Wikipedia talk page.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The lady has a life! She surely doesn't waste her time on wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.86.234 (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Subject-Created Entry, Much? (Part 2)

message: This article is plagued with excessive use of the subjects first name. It's an encyclopedia entry, not a diary page. This should be fixed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Certain (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Cody' is the last name of the subject of this article.  I'll re-read it and consider changing some to a pronoun or rewording, but as indicated by the article title, "Diablo Cody", 'Diablo' is the first name, 'Cody' is the last name (stage name = subject of article).  Xblkx (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive use of "Cody" 

message: I think that according to what she says in this article, she isnt a Catholic anymore but she still believes in God: 81.193.79.57 (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Catholic Anymore 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Diablo Cody. 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/20080202080812/http://articles.citypages.com/2007-12-26/feature/running-with-diablo/ to http://articles.citypages.com/2007-12-26/feature/running-with-diablo/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090915180948/http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/11/diablo_cody/index.html to http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/11/diablo_cody/index.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) 21:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Diablo Cody. 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/20080116224306/http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/life/features/lifestyle/article_1032959.php to http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/life/features/lifestyle/article_1032959.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080209163008/http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/movies/12219916.html to http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/movies/12219916.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) 00:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think this should be updated.  It says she is "an American writer, producer, stripper and exotic dancer".  My understanding is Ms. Cody WAS a stripper for roughly a year way back in 2007.  Not suggesting we removed mention of the stripping thing, but does it really belong in the lede?  She is a prolific writer and has not stripped in a LONG time.  Any thoughts? Starcader (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: @Starcader: Fair point. I've removed it from the first sentence to focus on what she's best known for. I did leave the sentence in that she first gained noticed for her blog and memoir; I left the title of the book in, since it has an article, but pulled the name of the blog. Good compromise? —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure man.  I don't have a dog in the fight one way or another.  I don't even particularly like her movies.  I was bored and came across her page and found it to be outdated.  I decided to improve (although I guess this is a relative term) the page and suddenly found myself being accused of being friends with her or something.  All I did was email her agency and asked for a free use image.  I was shocked when her assistant replied with one.  In any event, I doubt we would get along in real life and can assure you Diablo Cody is not a topic I have any real interest in.  I was literally fooling around and it grew into this weird thing.  I'm just confused. Starcader (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for fixing the article by the way.  It was simply outdated. I appreciate your help.  Lets just forget about the image thing.Starcader (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede sentence 

message: I was thinking of updating the photos as they are out of date, and frankly neither one of them are terribly flattering.  I realize wp isn't Glamour Shots, but is it unreasonable to have photos of a subject that are at the very least current and reasonably attractive?  Would appreciate any advice on this.  I know that "attractive" is subjective, but you can find many public use images online and see what I am talking about. Starcader (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: @Starcader: Be very sure the images are under a free license. Just because you find them on the internet doesn't mean they're free to use. —C.Fred (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Question, what's the best way to go about finding free use images?  Starcader (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: User:C.Fred I made the change before reaching out to her representative, and I mmade the change not because I am a fan of Ms. Cody but because the information was outdated.  I discussed the changes at talk as well.  I only reached out to her representation in an effort to get a free use inmage.  You had told me in the comment above how important this was. Starcader (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: I noticed that an IP had changed her first name from "Brook" to "Brooke".  This is incorrect and there are multiple sources establishing this.  Where is the source stating that her first name has an "e"??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.35.129 (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First name 

message: It appears Ms. Cody goes by "Brook Maurio" not Brook Busey-Maurio".  Source: https://www.vulture.com/2019/11/diablo-cody-jagged-little-pill-musical.html#_ga=2.29718463.121646660.1579807082-1338747813.1579807082.  I am going to change this if there are no objections. 99.48.35.129 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last name 

message: Both photos are more than 10 years old.  Would it be appropriate to change them to more recent free use images?  99.48.35.129 (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone assist? 2600:1012:B012:835A:85D3:43C1:840B:B713 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What free photos do you have in mind? —C.Fred (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photos (again)