Talk:Natalia Tena

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spain Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
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.

Contents

[edit] removed info

Why did you remove information from the article. Perl 23:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh nevermind. /me hits head. Perl 23:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking to me? Because i removed the last line, with the information about Bedales, because it duplicates info in the first line: "Natalia Tena (born in 1984) is a British actress of Spanish descent. She was educated at Bedales School, the same school as Minnie Driver, and Daniel Day-Lewis."

Amo 15:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English/ spanish sources

The fact that she's going to be in HP6 is sourced with a link to a Spanish article. Having read Wikipedia:Verifiability, i think we should add an English language source if anyone has one - especially as it's such a significant piece of info. Amo 18:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] casualty

i sourced that casualty comment, cos i can't find a source anywhere else for it on the web. I half suspect someone got confused writing the article, and put casualty instead of Doctors, but maybe we'll find out when OotP is released...Amo 01:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need help adding a picture

So there's now a pic of NT in her harry potter costume which will be of massive interest to fans. Does anyone know how to properly format pictures for wikipedia? So far as i know, linking to an external site, isn't really the done thing. the pic is here: (A photo of her in costume can be seen here [1] Amo 21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] external links

Desertsky85451 seems to find some sort of issue with fansites and other external links, I learned, after paying a visit to their talk page. I believe they are what some people might call a "troll". Someone who goes to different sites with the sole purpose of causing anger and discord. I have read the WP:EL, and it does not say only one fansite per article. Here is an exact quoation:

"On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such."

On articles about TOPICS with MANY fansites. This can mean two things, either there are many fansites for which the topic discusses, or there are many fansites listed on the page for that topic. 2 is hardly a very large number. 10 is too many. 5 is perhaps too many. But hardly 2. Second, the guidelines say "including a link to one major fansite and marking the link as such". Based on the facts already established from the first part of that sentence, we can conclude that this next part does not apply to Natalia Tena's page. Natalia Tena is hardly well known, and both fansites (Natalia Tena Net started in early May, and Naturally Natalia started in early June) can be called "major". Until Natalia becomes a hit, neither site will be exceptionally gifted in visits either. Both are perfectly fine and both contain slightly different, and slightly more information than Wikipedia. There is no reason that either should continue to remain on the page. I know there is no reasoning with trolls, and our dear Desertsky85451 will probably not read this, however, I felt it an important addition to this page. Ayashe 18 September 2006 (UTC)

furthermore, it is now "vandalized" from trying to put up two fansites, and only one of them is visible. This is just not fair, both are great sources for Natalia, there is no reason only to have one! -- anonymous

I agree (with Alexx, I assume). And now, during my compain for equality, I have been accused of "link-spam" lol. Ayashe 26 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL states that one of many fansites may be included as an external link, not many of the fansites. If you can justify why these two fansites each offer different, non-trival, referenced, factual information that isn't included in the article and for some reason cannot be included in the article, than please do so. If not, having two is a violation of wikipedia policy. Desertsky85451 20:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me Desertsky. I do not disagree that the WP:EL does state that one of many fansites may be included. However, there are not many fansites for this particular actress, so it is not a violation of Wikipedia policy to include two. I really feel that you are going after the wrong people. Why waste your time on such trivial matters when there are pages for celebrities at Wikipedia that have upwards of 7 fansites (which, in fact, DOES go against the Wikipedia policy "one of many"). Ayashe 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I go after every actor/actress/musician biographical page I can think of or find where there is more than one fansite. Check my contributions page, half the time I spend on wikipedia is deleting fansite links. This isn't a witch-hunt, this is me applying WP:EL to every one equally. Just because there are few fansites for Natalia Tena doesn't mean she should have the rule bent for her. All I am pushing for is that all actors/actresss/musicians get one fansite link in their EL section. Desertsky85451 02:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but still you fail to understand!

"On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included."

Read this: On articles about topics with MANY fansites... Natalia Tena is not a topic with many fansites, therefore the one link to a major fansite does not apply to that particular article. Articles that DO have many fansites, it does apply to. What you are doing would be good if you were going about it in the correct way. Ayashe 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am interpreting that as guidance as to how to deal with Britney Spear's many fansites, and that the implication is that when you've got few fansites to choose from for a less well known actor/actress/whatever, to me the obvious solution is including, just like for Britney, one link. You're choosing to interpret the rule differently than I, which is your choice. We can appeal to a higher power here for guidance as to what it means, instead of engaging in a pointless edit war. Does that sound like an option to you? Desertsky85451 02:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone interprets the guidelines, that's whay they're guidelines, and not clear, well defined rules. Unfortunately, that is one of the problems with Wikipedia. I see no point in taking this to an adminstrator because they don't know exactly what the policy on external links is either. But I think I've found a way to make everyone happy, at least until the 5th Harry Potter movie comes out when we will finally have the answer as to which site belongs on the page. Ayashe 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NT in 9 Songs?

I removed the following as it was a controversial film, and a significant thing for her to be associated with: "*9 Songs (body double for Margo Stilley during certain scenes) (2005)" Does anyone have a source for it? Amo 20:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Does anyone have a written/ online copy of the credits that mention NT? Googling doesn't turn up anything for me. 17:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • This is a bit delayed of a followup, but just for the record the only online sources I could find making this statement is a "data page" that probably took this information from WP [2] and, more troubling, a late-October 2007 Belfast Telegraph article that might indeed have also taken this information from the WP article. [3] I have this movie and I have seen this movie, and there is no body double for Margot Stilley in that film -- there's no point in doubling anyone, as anyone who has seen the film can attest. The information that was added (and, rightfully, removed) was vandelism (unless someone can come back with a rock-solid source that predates the information being added to WP). The fact at least one media outlet has picked up this information worries me and illustrates the importance of WP:BLP and sticking to it closely. 23skidoo (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)