This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Katherine Langford article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
It is so absurd to conclude that the actress will leave the series by a source that is based only on rumors. Clearly the same source says " Netflix has yet to announce whether there will be third season of 13 Reasons Why, but if there is, it will be without Katherine Langford (Hannah Baker).". So how can you conclude if the series ended forever or if Langford will return for season 3?, from my point of view it is best to wait a certain time, until Netflix talks about the matter. I will not revert more because the user Nyanchoka is a user very conflicts and always prefers to fall in editions wars. I expect answers from other users.-- Philip J Fry Talk 00:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Regarding citation edits yesterday involving Biography.com:
Wikipedia editors have held discussions on italicizing the names of dotcoms, such as Amazon.com and Biography.com, in footnotes. One editor says dotcoms must be italicized, no matter the WP:COMMONNAME, real-world usage, because Template:Cite web says "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website)."
However, that is only template documentation, which is superseded by the Manual of Style. MOS:TITLE#Italics says, "Website titles may or may not be italicized [emphasis added] depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis." [emphasis added]
Biography.com is not italicized in any WP:COMMONNAME usage, no more so than Amazon.com or Priceline.com. Italicizing it is WP:FRINGE. The automatically italicized "website" field in Template:Cite web can be overridden as per "case-by-case basis." Secondly, we're not required to use cite templates, and in this case, we can, on a case-by-case basis, choose to cite without using that template.
Eccentricities that do no follow WP:COMMONNAME, real-world usage does not help Wikipedia's credibility. In this instance, I believe we should not use the template and instead cite Biography.com in a normal rather than weird, eccentric fashion — as allowed by "case-by-case basis". -- Tenebrae ( talk) 14:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Biography.com is a useful website if you need details of public figures' dates of birth.In that case, I agree... automatically italicizing it would be debatable and could go either way, although in this case I would argue it's functioning as an encyclopedia, which—as per above—should actually be italicized. Also, WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable here... it refers to what we call things (i.e. what words are used), not how those words are styled. There's no similar guideline or policy that specifies we must adopt the most common formatting for a term... in fact, we specifically don't ape the various special marketing-esque styles various companies adopt simply because that's how either the company always reproduces its name or even that most publications follow suit. We have a house style and we stick to that, and our house style doesn't say, one way or another, that Biography.com must or must not be italicized. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 02:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
|work=
or |website=
shouldn't be rendered in italics in certain cases in the {{
cite web}} template... but that appears unlikely to happen. *sigh* Oh Wikipedia!![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace image with preferred publicity image of Katherine Langford at Australians in Film Awards.
Bibliogrok ( talk) 14:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Katherine Langford article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
It is so absurd to conclude that the actress will leave the series by a source that is based only on rumors. Clearly the same source says " Netflix has yet to announce whether there will be third season of 13 Reasons Why, but if there is, it will be without Katherine Langford (Hannah Baker).". So how can you conclude if the series ended forever or if Langford will return for season 3?, from my point of view it is best to wait a certain time, until Netflix talks about the matter. I will not revert more because the user Nyanchoka is a user very conflicts and always prefers to fall in editions wars. I expect answers from other users.-- Philip J Fry Talk 00:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Regarding citation edits yesterday involving Biography.com:
Wikipedia editors have held discussions on italicizing the names of dotcoms, such as Amazon.com and Biography.com, in footnotes. One editor says dotcoms must be italicized, no matter the WP:COMMONNAME, real-world usage, because Template:Cite web says "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website)."
However, that is only template documentation, which is superseded by the Manual of Style. MOS:TITLE#Italics says, "Website titles may or may not be italicized [emphasis added] depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis." [emphasis added]
Biography.com is not italicized in any WP:COMMONNAME usage, no more so than Amazon.com or Priceline.com. Italicizing it is WP:FRINGE. The automatically italicized "website" field in Template:Cite web can be overridden as per "case-by-case basis." Secondly, we're not required to use cite templates, and in this case, we can, on a case-by-case basis, choose to cite without using that template.
Eccentricities that do no follow WP:COMMONNAME, real-world usage does not help Wikipedia's credibility. In this instance, I believe we should not use the template and instead cite Biography.com in a normal rather than weird, eccentric fashion — as allowed by "case-by-case basis". -- Tenebrae ( talk) 14:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Biography.com is a useful website if you need details of public figures' dates of birth.In that case, I agree... automatically italicizing it would be debatable and could go either way, although in this case I would argue it's functioning as an encyclopedia, which—as per above—should actually be italicized. Also, WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable here... it refers to what we call things (i.e. what words are used), not how those words are styled. There's no similar guideline or policy that specifies we must adopt the most common formatting for a term... in fact, we specifically don't ape the various special marketing-esque styles various companies adopt simply because that's how either the company always reproduces its name or even that most publications follow suit. We have a house style and we stick to that, and our house style doesn't say, one way or another, that Biography.com must or must not be italicized. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 02:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
|work=
or |website=
shouldn't be rendered in italics in certain cases in the {{
cite web}} template... but that appears unlikely to happen. *sigh* Oh Wikipedia!![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace image with preferred publicity image of Katherine Langford at Australians in Film Awards.
Bibliogrok ( talk) 14:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)