Jump to content

Talk:Christina Ricci

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christina Ricci. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on if separation from spouse should be noted in infobox

[edit]

Christina Ricci has filed for divorce from her husband. Should the 'spouse' parameter in the infobox say they are separated? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, "An infobox is ... that summarizes key features of the page's subject." I would not consider someone's intermediary relationship info to be a "key feature" about a person. Normal Op (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The information is already in the body of the article where it can be found by any reader. Also, California divorces have a 6 month waiting period, so even if everything is decided upon, they're separated, etc. a divorce won't come final for six months. And you may not get a news release about it because that's just a rubber stamp by the court after the six month period. Therefore, the information in the wiki article could easily remain in "separated" status long after the divorce is final. No, don't put anything in the infobox. Normal Op (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But, following that reasoning, if you don't note the separation there then the infobox would state that they are still married long after the divorce is final. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm Oh geez, really? You remove any "married" marker (which was never in Ricci's infobox anyway). It's not a required infobox parameter. Normal Op (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC) Added: Just remove the spouse information. Normal Op (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: Nowhere in the article is it stated (much less sourced) that Ricci and husband are "separated". "Filed for divorce" and "separated" have different meanings in English. To conclude that "filed for divorce" means "separated" is a synthesized conclusion that is not in the sources; see WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (bold added) Wikipedia is not a newspaper; we can wait for a reliable source or wait until the divorce is finalized. And it is absurd to argue that "the infobox would state that they are still married long after the divorce is final"; that is obvious nonsense. Whey they officially divorce, then "divorce" can go in the infobox. Sundayclose (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an absurd argument. Normal Op suggested that putting separated in the infobox would mean the article could continue to say separated long after the divorce was final. My comment followed their logic. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude - if there is a legal separation my answer would perhaps be different. But as noted, she filed for divorce - the effect is not a legal separation - there is some legal effect to filing for divorce, but until it is finalized, it does not have the same effect as a legal separation. We can assume they are not seeing each other, but that is not the same as a legal separation, and we can't base content on assumptions. Ultimately, an infobox provides a quick glance at the facts - it is not meant to discuss nuances such as de facto separations and divorce filings. Once the divorce is official and attested to in reliable sources, that can be added. There's ultimately no rush to have up-to-the-minute info on Ricci's love life. Right now it shows they married in 2013 - which is true. A divorce does not change that fact. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 18:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Unless the article describes the situation as such. Otherwise it is complete WP:OR. Lorstaking 15:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude They are married, that's what the infobox should say, and does. A divorce has been applied for, that's what the article body should say (with source of course), and does. If a reliable source says they have separated then the body of the article can say that too, but not without a reliable source. When the divorce is finalized tehn we can change the infobox.. Meters (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why was an RFC called on this issue without first attempting to discuss it on the talk page? Meters (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It had already been discussed in edit summaries, and I knew that moving the conversation to the talk page would have just been a rehash of the same conversation because Sundayclose just kept reiterating the same argument, so I sought other opinions. WP:DR says that talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all resolutions, but RfCs only generally require them. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify with actual facts, my first edit summary was that the conclusion of "separated" is WP:SYNTHESIS. My other edit summary was a request for talk page discussion. I didn't "reiterate" or "rehash" anything, and there was no further discussion by anyone prior to creating this RfC. Sundayclose (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those "actual facts" show that you cited synthesis as the reason for your reversions in both edit summaries, so yes you did. It seemed clear to me that you would just repeat synthesis on the talk page, and thus I sought other opinions. I did not see it as synthesis as I had taken a divorce filing to mean they are no longer together and have thus separated, while I now assume that you were referring specifically to legal separation. (You never specified, and you even tried to argue that they may have privately reconciled, which was completely pulled out of nowhere and thus I took as bad faith.) Plenty of other articles note a separation when one of the parties files for divorce, so I did not see the issue. The other users here have voted to exclude it anyway. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I cited WP:SYNTHESIS, and I asked for talk page discussion, so there was no "rehashing" and there was no further discussion on this talk page. The issue was never whether it was a "legal separation", since neither legal nor de facto (without legal standing) separation was sourced, so there was no need for me to "specify". I did not "argue" that they might have reconciled; I offered it as a hypothetical possibility. If I had said "they reconciled" that certainly would have been "pulled out of nowhere", but that's not the case. If it was "clear to you" that I "would just repeat synthesis", I think we can safely assume that you could not read my mind to determine whether I had any additional discussion that was not included in my edit summaries. Sundayclose (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And this is a good example of why edit summaries are not a replacement for talk page discussions. Don't call an RFC based on assumptions about what other people think or intend based on nothing but edit summaries. Discuss the topic on the talk page first so that there are no misunderstandings, and so that other editors may participate and help reach consensus. This was a simple case that did not require an RFC. No-one has supported including the unsourced claim of "separated" in the infobox other than the RFC opener. user:Abbyjjjj96, you have already tried to close this. Again, would you please just withdraw your RFC so that we can move on? Meters (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per the policy I linked to above, a talk page discussion is not compulsory. They cited a policy (with their own speculation), and when I disagreed with it they cited the same policy with no elaboration of it. Sometimes I have asked things on talk pages only for no one to respond – hence the RfC to invite a discussion. It is now even more apparent that Sundayclose and I are not in agreement, so a dispute resolution would have been requested either way. Saying it didn't require an RfC because no one agreed is ridiculous; I couldn't know that no one would agree without asking for input. Whether or not separation should be noted in the marriage template is brought up a few times on Template:Marriage's archive without a consensus given. And acting like separated is an unsourced claim is contestable – it depends on which definition of the word separated you are following. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:DR. An RfC with no attempt at discussion is not the next step after a couple of edit summaries. Again you are assuming you know what others are thinking or what would happen in the future. Even if we didn't come to an agreement, you don't know what would have resulted from talk page discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read it when I linked to it upthread; maybe you should take another look? "Requests for Comment generally require that at least an effort be made to discuss the matter in question before making the request." Generally does not mean always. So, for the third time, RfCs do not mandate a prior talk page discussion. And we've established that we are still not in agreement, so I can very firmly state that I would have sought a dispute resolution anyway. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never doubted that you would seek dispute resolution, but there are several steps to dispute resolution before an RfC. As two of us have now said, it should have gone to talk page discussion before an RfC. Sundayclose (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment user:Abbyjjjj96 since you self-closed the RFC as exclude [1], but then reopened on procedural grounds (and no-one has since appeared to support it) why don't you just withdraw your RFC rather than waiting for it to die or for someone to close it? Meters (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All, I found this discussion from a post to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous). Not sure if that counts as canvasing or not. @Abbyjjjj96:, you seem to be the only one advocating for the changes in this RFC. If you won't agree that consensus is against you, then I recommend you follow the suggestion at WP:DR to walk away from this topic for awhile. There are more than 6 million articles at Wikipedia, so find something else to work on, and come back to this one in the future. RudolfRed (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed: You're allowed to publicize RfCs per WP:RFC#Publicizing an RfC. I agree that consensus is against me; I closed the RfC after it had been open for a week given that everyone had voted no, however I was told by Sundayclose and Meters that I wasn't allowed to close it myself and thus it was reopened. I publicized it hoping for more input or for another user to close it. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Publicizing it is not the way to get it closed. There are two ways to bring this to a conclusion. The RfC can be withdrawn, but that suggestion seems to be falling on deaf ears; or closure can be requested at WP:ANRFC. Sundayclose (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't tell Abbyjjjj96 that she couldn't close her own RFC. I said it was a bad idea. As I've already said two or three times, she can just withdraw the RFC. Meters (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What!?
🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀😱😱😱😱😱😱🙀🙀🙀🙀😱😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱😱🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀😱🙀😱😱😱😱🙀🙀😱🙀🙀😱😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱😱🙀🙀😱😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀😱😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀😱🙀🙀😱😱😱😱😱😱😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀😱🙀🙀😱😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀😱🙀😱🙀🙀😱!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????? 174.212.164.98 (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are tattoos really notable in a Personal section?

[edit]

I really doubt if the following section meets the criteria for an encyclopedia entry:

"Ricci has eight tattoos on her body: a lion on her right shoulder blade ..."

Is this what Wikipedia wants to be known for? I would think it is not. Cheers. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that!!!!!!!
🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱 174.212.164.98 (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like her.

[edit]

👩‍💼😻😻😻😻😻😻😻😻🎥👻💗💗💗💗💗💗💗!!!!! She is like a good actress who played Kat on Casper the movie I love that movie!!! 174.212.164.98 (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Black snake moan

[edit]

She starred in the movie Black Snake Moan with Samuel L Jackson 2601:183:4681:3230:E8B5:7AFD:9B1A:BFAD (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christina_Ricci&oldid=1235100103"