Talk:Katharine Isabelle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.


Contents

[edit] Guidelines

A word or two on guidelines. They are, as the word implies, "guidelines", not rules set in stone. Indeed it says as much in the guideline pages. With particular reference to the WP:MOSBIO guidelines, It says emphatically that "adherence is not required". As FCYTravis, who is an Admin here has recently seen the page as it exists now, and hasn't a problem with it, then I suggest that it is acceptable without any tampering. Lost Girls Diary 20:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


All Hallow's Raith, you may or may not be well-intentioned, but the layout is acceptable to regular users, and to an Admin, whose only problem was with the image - which we argued over, but agreed to disagree. The page does not have to look like any other. Though, as a matter of fact, it does actually look like a good number I have seen, but have nothing to do with the editing of.

Please do not revert to your layout as it is unnecessary. The page does NOT have to conform; the WP:MOSBIO page says so!

Lost Girls Diary 19:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

The image in use has been there since time immemorial. Regular users of the page know this, including Bacteria, none of whom have said a word, nor have tried to remove the image before. Now a newbie - two days on Wiki and knows it all - comes along and suddenly you are all experts who want the image removed. Why?! don't give me the rules nonsense, because none of you have done anything about this before. This smacks of conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lost Girls Diary (talk • contribs) 21:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Does a publicity photo of Ms. Isabelle exist? If so, we can request that it be released under a free license and then used here. Or, does someone already have a photo of her on Flickr under a suitable Creative Commons license ? Or... someone can attend one of her public appearances and get a photo then. FCYTravis 22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Publicity photos do exist, but are owned by the agency, and they most emphatically will not release them. No other photos exist out of copyright. As I said on your talk page, Katie doesn't do public appearances. I know this sounds improbable, but is absolutely true. Lost Girls Diary 23:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Then... it seems as if we're just going to have to do without a photo. FCYTravis 23:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

New meat for the slaughter here, but would a picture such as the one found at [1] be suitable for use on this page? As technically it's not from a movie, but a public appearance (sorry Lost Girls Diary) - Rahma - 15:57, 6 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.51.80.155 (talk)

No, it cannot be used. it derives from Katie arriving at the TIFF a number of years ago with the guys she was in theatre with in Toronto. It would hardly be counted as a public appearance as she stayed a grand total of five minutes. Anyway, back to the point, the photos are copyright and the owners will not release them.

If we are to be pedantic over 'public appearances', Katie has made a grand total of four in total: 1. A poster signing session in a store in Vancouver in 2001; Katie stayed a grand total of thirty minutes before getting bored and leaving - no photos exist. 2. TIFF 2003, when others in the film Falling Angels won an award. Three pictures exist, are copyright and unavailable. 3. TIFF 2004 - as previously mentioned. 4. An awards ceremony where Katie presented an award - the only reason she turned up was because they were supporting fund raising for an equestrian centre for disabled children; two pictures exist, are copyright to the photographer and are unavailable. To be wholly pedantic you could include turning up at the premiere of Ginger Snaps, or Turning Paige in two cities - but no photographs exist to even prove it happened:)

Hardly what would be described as a publicity hungry lady. Quite apart from that, Katie doesn't view such things as 'public appearances' but simply as a matter of duty, and she's prepared to toe that line very infrequently.

I should point out that all the photos of Katie anyone could ever want (and Katie blanches at the idea of anyone wanting even just one), can be found online free to use on a not-for-profit basis. Unfortunately that isn't good enough for the unbending pedants at Wiki who think they invented the idea of copyright, etc. But, it is true to say that the vast majority of copyright holders work on that basis; whilst the remainder would do no more than contact anyone using a photo and ask for it to be removed if they disapproved of it being used. Sadly, dolts like Travis and his ilk can't see wood for trees. Lost Girls Diary 15:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got a question for Travis then. Seeing as any and all pictures taken of Katie are apparently under Copyright from the respective photographers, where's the proof of copyright? I see no "(C)" mark on any of the pictures, and the sites from which the originated back in time imemorial have also dissapeared. I'm not looking to start a mud-slinging fight, but could you show me a page that forbids the use of practically all pictures taken of Katie? - Rahma - 14:51, 6 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.51.80.158 (talk)

Excellent point, Rahma. You see, in the first place, no copyright holder is going to surrender their copyright to Wikipedia or any other place for that matter - which is pretty logical, as I'm sure you will agree. Nor are they liable to issue a licence for something such as this, as they view it, as I said before, as free-to-use, not-for-profit use, and therefore no licence is required, nor issued. It is very rare in general use for photographs to carry the copyright mark, and it is usually assumed the photos are copyright to the photographer, movie company, agency, whatever. Similarly, it is assumed that pictures, unless specifically marked otherwise, are available for "not-for-profit" use; otherwise, there is hardly a website that would be in existence. You obviously understand this, Rahma; how I wish common sense would prevail elsewhere.

Travis's avowed sticking to the rule that allows screencaps only to illustrate a film, doesn't hang with everything he's said, as the picture we had previously, and any other that may be used thus, carried a caption: "Katharine Isabelle in Ginger Snaps". In law that can be construed to be "illustrating a film, or a person in a particular film". Thus Travis is well out of order, and out of his depth, I'm afraid. That said, I have people adding to my discussion page telling me point blank that it is "inappropriate" to tell people they are "vandals" when they vandalize, nor am I to tell them to "get a life". I am supposed to behave like an "adult", which, it would appear, means burying my head in the sand and letting all and sundry kick my ass. Ah well . . . Lost Girls Diary 20:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

What I don't seem to understand fully Travis, is that if the copyright licenses of the photographs we, the users, submit are indeed only assumptions, what harm arises from linking a picture of a character the person in question was playing in a movie? As technically and quite realistically speaking, there is no written proof of a copyright holding, and as a result, an infringement on Wiki's part. If indeed a photographer wished his picture removed, it'd be an easy fix after deliberation with one of you Sysops. As for the potential falsification of a portrait photograph taken from a movie, it'd be an easily fixed problem with a caption, as Lost Girls Diary suggested, reading "<Whoever> playing <Character> in the movie <Name>." - Rahma - 00:41, 7 October 2007


Sadly, Rahma, I think we are talking to ourselves. At least until someone makes a move, adds a picture and Travis, or one of the other rules nazis sees it and the you know what hits the fan. I suspect they know what you and I are saying is true, which indeed it is (that there isn't a realistic problem in using a picture), but are simply hidebound by the rulebook. We could, indeed, have a picure up, or a whole gallery and the chance of a problem arising is virtually zero. How the hell do they think fansites amass their photo collections, and keep them online and intact? it's certainly not by searching archives for photographers names, or copyright holders and begging for the copyright release. It's done on trust, as I previously mentioned, and which is pretty obvious anyway. Lost Girls Diary 18:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Filmography

As all regular users know, I started the filmography some time ago, and am considering adding both the role name and place in the final credits for each appearance. Anyone have any views on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lost Girls Diary (talk • contribs) 14:55, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your building the tables, Bacteria( I couldn't find the relative info when I started building the filmography).

Please bear in mind that I built the filmography in the first place, from scratch! Also, please lets's not have a war over this. It is all good, useful, and correct information relative to Katie's appearances onscreen. After all I have contributed to this page, I really don't want to see it disintegrating under a plethora of dissent and misunderstanding. I hope we can all pull together, and in the same direction on this matter, and get in all the relevant information we can. Lost Girls Diary 17:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have spent a little time reshaping the tables (Bacteria did mention they weren't perfect, and still aren't), and will get the info back in ASAP. Please bear with me on this :) Lost Girls Diary 18:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


To begin at the beginning, Bacteria, we were not born to be sheep, we were born human beings, with the power of individual thought and creative action. Just bcause you cannot find another page on wiki which includes credit placing doesn't mean it shouldn't be there, or that it is trivial. Innovation is not a bad thing. I can point to many things on wiki which are trivial; from a good number of the 'guidelines' to pieces of, or complete articles - yet they still exist, and are often supported by the 'powers that be'.

Encyclopaedic knowledge is supposed to be all-encompassing, not a matter of cherry-picking; that's the way an encyclopaedia works. Dragging up wiki info pages is really no defence; especially given that wiki exists without rules, despite what the likes of Travis and his ilk would have you believe. Wikipedia has 'guidelines', and those guidelines are supposed to be flexible, and may often be ingnored. It tells you that when you sign up. In the case of images, which we have covered previously at length, and which I know you have had your own tribulations over, it tells all and sundry in black and white: 'use common sense' and that the guideline may 'sometimes be ignored'. In law, which is the important point here, there is no problem whatsoever using an image online without prior consent, be it a portrait or screencap unless it is tagged with an owner's name/logo. If an owner finds their pictures being used online (and they don't want them there) they simply ask for them to be removed. Only if one refuses to remove them is there ever a threat of legal action. I have a certain amount of practical experience in this field, so I know what I'm saying is correct.

We could in effect use a screencap, agency or promo photo with or without a qualifying tag (as the previous screencap clearly had - which incidentally IS valid for use according to the wiki criteria which says you can use a screencap to illustrate a film. The 'cap tag said: "Katharine Isabelle in Ginger Snaps", which does exactly what is asked. There, as ever in this matter, Travis and his folowers are hoist by their own petard, I'm afraid), without recourse to legal action by any owner. Whilst on this subject, the wiki guidelines go on to say, in effect that if the commuity at large are happy with an item as it appears, then, irrespective of whether it meets the guidelines, it should remain thus. By looking back at the number of people who attempted to revert to a page with the photo, one can see 4 people, whilst only Travis persisted with blocking the reversion. That is against the wiki guidelines!

Credits listing:

Listing credits is useful as a guide to A: The relative importance of an actor/actress in an individual piece, and similarly. B: The relative importance of a character in said piece. For example, coming to the page bereft of prior knowledge, to read: Katharine Isabelle appeared in Supernatural episodes Hunted and All Hell Breaks Loose, Part 1, as Ava Wilson, we provide only the most basic information. For all anyone unfamiliar with the series knows, Katharine Isabelle/Ava Wilson could have been the mainstay of the episodes. But, if we go on to say that Katharine/Ava appeared as 3rd Guest, 6th overall in Hunted, and 7th Guest, 9th overall, we illustrate clearly the relative importance of the character (and actress, for that matter) to the piece in question. It's the sort of detail industry professionals thrive on.

Series/Episode numbers:

Similarly, if we ignore the opportunity to list series and episode numbers, the uninitiated have no idea at what point the episode/s in question took place. Applying chronological order to them means a reader unfamiliar to the series in question allows them to go ahead and find the episode easily.

In any and all regards, an encyclopaedia be it online or in hard copy form should assume the reader knows nothing of the subject presented to them, and, as such, said encyclopaedia should aim to provide all relative information necessary to put the subject properly into context.

Lost Girls Diary 20:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Hey, I'm a bright shining star in the individual category. So, okay, bollocks to the example route, then. I only bring them up because they are good examples; obviously not hardcore prototype. Rules are definitely made to be broken, or at least bent, but some are in line for good cause, and I firmly believe in the one about indiscriminate information. I can only reiterate that I still find the credit placing as trivial. I don't see its point, and I honestly don't really ever give a shit about where an actor is placed in the credits. It's only of importance to me if I'm trying to fill out a movie/series guide and want to try and put credits in order. I'd do that in someplace like TVRage, but serves only a purpose of minor importance (and I hold that in high esteem only because I'm anal). The only related thing that can be informative is specifying whether she is listed as a regular guest star, a co-guest star, or special guest star. As for the episode numbers - yes, we have to assume no one is familar with the subject, but the subject is Katharine Isabelle, not the film/television she's been in. If anyone takes a lick of curiousity to what episode she's in, they can go to the series article and if there's not an internal link to an episode guide, then there's bound to be an external one. Again, our purpose in this article is get Katie's details, not make a side-by-side guide. If you want that all prettied up, I suggest you tweak the article's in question. As an aside about the image - I can understand why we don't use such images for biographical purposes. A person "in-character" is not really an accurate portrayal of the person in question. --Bacteria 10:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


Love the humour creeping in there, Bacteria; not to mention the sarcasm :)

I realize we are at odds over this, but please lets not have the back and forth - I'm sure we're both heartily sick and tired of the nonsense; especially when the admins get involved and it all escalates to a ridiculous degree. I do think it is important to keep the ep numbers and the credits details as it does help define Katie's place in a series/episode without need to cross-reference. In essence, you half-concede the point by accepting the idea of including Guest Lead, Special Guest Star, etc., which all amounts to the same thing anyway, as they are Katie's details relative to the work she has done. Q.E.D.

If I had the time available to pretty up all relative articles, I would. Sadly, time is lacking for all that - I'm sure you know the feeling.

As for the filmography year details. They are and have been since inception, in year of production, and in the order they are listed, in the correct month order too. That goes for the Films, TV movies, and TV episodes - I haven't worked on year alone for the tv eps as they often span two years - as with Supernatural 2006-07. So I have always gone with the relative episodes production schedules. In the case of Katie's Supernatural episodes, for example, the first was produced in October 2006, the second in February 2007. I built the filmography accordingly. I'll give you chapter and verse on the dates, if you want (which I kind of doubt); just don't ask what craft services were serving for lunch because that's really pushing it :)

Lost Girls Diary 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of birth

The date is actually incorrect as well; it is really November 3rd, and the year is 1980. The IMDB source was a fan who got totally messed up, and persisted in the fiction of 1982 - itself invented by a fan! Access Katie's brother for verification. n.b Katie has also referred to herself as being Double Scorpio in interview, (Interviewer: "You're double scorpio, what does that make you?" Katie: "Majorly fucked up!", which adds weight to her brother's statement. Further to this end, it is a recorded fact that Katie was 7 years old when she appeared in Cousins, which was filmed in spring 1988. Katie was also asked in interview how old she was when that movie was filmed, and she confirmed she was 7 years old. As well as this, Ben Browder of Stargate SG-1 in the commentary for the episode Katie appeared in stated her age as 25, when she was allegedly 23! Lost Girls Diary

IMDb lists her date of birth March 10, 1982 and this wikipedia article March 10, 1980. Does anyone know the correct date? Ik.pas.aan 18:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As we don't have a reliable source for her birthday (IMDb is user-submitted and hence not reliable at all), I've removed it. FCYTravis 21:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Travis, at long last we agree on something! I do know Katharine's date of birth for a fact, but cannot get it verified for the obvious reason that word of mouth, no matter who it comes from is not good enough. Lost Girls Diary 21:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

See, that's another policy that I try to make sure stuff complies with ;) FCYTravis 21:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)