Talk:Nancy Cartwright
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
Archive 1 |
Contents |
[edit] Disambiguation
I'd like to move the Nancy Cartwright (actor) page back here. Is there anyone who opposes this? -- Scorpion 06:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would. A quick google search shows both Cartwrights on the first page of results, with multiple hits for both. Although this is not definitive reasoning, I think it makes more sense to use a disambig page for both than a mere disambig link referencing one from the other's page. Besides, the disambig page as is makes it clear which is which quite adequately. — Eric Herboso 05:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I always thought that convention was to only use disambiguation pages for more than 2 and then link two the second page from the one that was created first (in this case, the Simpsons voice Nancy). -- Scorpion 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page." (Emphasis added.) So the issue is not the number of articles, but whether or not one meaning is clearly dominant over the other.
-
-
-
- Although I hadn't heard of either before today, my initial google search seemed to show that both their pages are high on google's pagerank. Keep in mind that IMDB and Wikipedia hits on google can't count for as much with regard to prominence, since they'll always be near the top due to massive irrelevant overlinking on the 'net. So google hit one is the actor's page, while the second relevant link is the philosopher's. In my opinion, this makes it (at the least) unclear as to whether use of the actor's name is dominant over the other.
-
-
-
- The flip side of this is that while Nancy Cartwright (philosopher) has 19 pages linked to it, Nancy Cartwright (actress) has over 50. But I do not feel that this constitutes a meaning that is "much more used" and is "clearly dominant". Of course, this is just my initial opinion; I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary. — Eric Herboso 05:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Alright then, but what are naming conventions for actors/actresses, because Nancy Cartwright is an actress. -- Scorpion 05:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- The flip side of this is that while Nancy Cartwright (philosopher) has 19 pages linked to it, Nancy Cartwright (actress) has over 50. But I do not feel that this constitutes a meaning that is "much more used" and is "clearly dominant". Of course, this is just my initial opinion; I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary. — Eric Herboso 05:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- A user on Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen suggested moving the article to her full name to avoid the parenthetical. That solves the "actress" problem, but it doesn't seem like the most natural solution (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)). The current title is not bad, I think. There seems to be some dispute about whether we should use "actress" as a parenthetical (examples: Savannah (actress), Grace Park (actress), Jane Seymour (actress), Kate Walsh (actor), Jane Kennedy (actor), Anne Lockhart (actor)) I can't tell which is the majority, but this seems like something that our conventions should address. Should probably raise this issue on the talk page of naming conventions for people; I think it ought to be a guidline. The modern trend seems to favors "actor". Cool Hand Luke 01:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I personaly feel that this page should be for the actress because she is much more notable than the philosopher.--Joebengo 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Clearly, that depends on the context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.202.239 (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
IMHO the When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other clause doesn't cover biographies. Nobody is hurt by having a disambig here. --Pjacobi 22:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody is helped either. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the searches for "Nancy Cartwright" are divided evenly between people thinking of the actress and people thinking of the philosopher. If we were to move one of the two articles to Nancy Cartwright, 50% of searchers would immediately reach the intended page. The other 50% would need to follow an additional link (placed at the top of the page). Under the current setup, 100% of people searching for "Nancy Cartwright" must follow an additional link. Moving one of the two articles to Nancy Cartwright would improve the article's accessibility for 50% of searchers (while leaving the other 50% unaffected). This is why two-article disambiguation pages usually are counterproductive. —David Levy 22:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- There is longstanding consensus against two-article disambiguation pages, and I'd be interested to read an argument as to how they provide any substantial benefits. —David Levy 02:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Vandalism
Not sure why Actress Cartwright's credits were vandalized on the main page to indicate that she's best known for voicing 'Ronald McDonald', as well as 'Nelson Muntz and other regular characters on The Wiggles,' but I've corrected the information (as well as the misspelling of 'actor' as 'acter' that broke the actual link to Cartwright's page. Not sure why someone would want to vandalize a pretty obscure page like this, but it's fixed for now. Future attempts will be reverted; attempts at trolling me into a 3RR violation will fail.
- There's some oddities too - Cartwright was born in 1957, not 1982. [1] Orderinchaos 18:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] $10M Scientology donations
- Staff. "Nancy Cartwright, Scientology Fat Cat: 'Simpsons' Voice Donates $10M", HuffingtonPost.com, Inc., January 30, 2008, pp. Page Six. Retrieved on 2008-01-30.
- This part is interesting: "Surprisingly, Nancy, 50, forked over twice as much as the Scientology's most prominent member, Tom Cruise, who only gave $5 million in an installment plan." Cirt (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Better source, same info
- Associated Press. "Scientologists' big donations", ABC Action News, Scripps TV Station Group, January 30, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-01-30.
- Li, David K.. "THE CHURCH OF $IMPSONTOLOGY", New York Post, NYP Holdings, Inc., January 31, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-01-31.
[edit] BLP issues
Unsourced material was removed from this article by the publicist for this actor, and in OTRS ticket#2008022110001593 the publicist said this was because they were inaccuracies/incorrect. As a result, this information is to be considered to be contentious, and must not be added back to the article unless it can be supported by good references, in accordance with the biographies of living persons policy. Come on, it can't be that difficult to get references for which characters she played on a couple of shows/games. - Mark 12:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- BLP doesn't apply to fictional characters. Part of the info you are removing is plot information from 24, which I re-added. I have left off the unsourced credit, although I believe the credit is listed in the game material. --SmashvilleBONK! 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. - Mark 02:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- There are several inaccuracies on the page (I removed one of them), but part of the reason is that it is the target of a vandal who comes back sporatically and changes things, and I guess it wasn't caught. However, some of the stuff the publicist removed was related to Cartwright being a scientologist, and that is the only section of the article that is well sourced. -- Scorpion0422 03:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. - Mark 02:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Query
Can someone give examples of specifically what is objected to or what is claimed to be factually inaccurate that was removed? Especially if things that were removed were already sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, not sure why they were removed. Cirt (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have received word back from the publicist, and here are the problems she raises with the article as it currently stands (with the unreferenced material removed):
- Cartwright is no longer a member of Women in Animation, World Literacy Crusade or Women in Film. I've also noticed that the stuff that says that in the article is referenced to a Fox publicity article, and actually seems halfway to being a copyvio because the text is substantially similar.
- The article makes no mention of Cartwright winning the "Wish Icon Award", apparently the highest honour of the Make-A-Wish Foundation. The publicist gives this link as a reference for that.
- The article makes no mention of Cartwright's support of the Devonshire PALS (Police Activity League Supporters) which she apparently holds annual fundraisers for at her house called "Monte Carlo nights". Here is the reference the publicist gives.
I had asked the publicist to address the problems with the old version of the article, but she appears to have misunderstood me... - Mark 02:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pinky and the Brain
Does Cartwright play someone on the separate, narrowly-defined Pinky and the Brain series? Or does the article refer to her role in "In the Garden of Mindy" in Animaniacs, and/or her role as Rudy Mookich on Pinky, Elmyra & the Brain? --Kletta (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, now I've remembered that Mindy was also in "Star Warners", the last episode of Pinky and the Brain. I just don't know if Nancy Cartwright has voiced anyone else on P&tB, and I also think Rudy might play a larger role in PE&tB than Mindy in P&tB. --Kletta (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)