Talk:Elisha Cuthbert

Elisha Cuthbert was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 17, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
May 18, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
June 7, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 14, 2010	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance).

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pictures added to Commons, en-wiki file needs renaming

Hi, there seems to already be english wiki based image of the actress, but I uploaded properly the original Flickr images to Wikipedia commons (found [[1]] and [[2]]. I need someone with the access of renaming english wiki media files to remove the local version and uploading the commons version. It should be noted that current version is ok and I recommend that you upload it as improved version of elisha cuthberg2.jpg and replace it as new image file. Thanks. Fileri (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

Due to a number of issues causing long-term revert wars, and nonconstructive editing, this article was recently fully protected. Please jump to the section that lists the current issues needing to be worked out, and discuss them in a civil manner so the protection can be lifted, and the improvement of the article can proceed in a cooperative manner. Thanks ^Ariel♥Gold 11:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I think a better picture should be added. She looks awful on that one

True that. 76.66.190.37 (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed she is one fine specimen and the picture looks like a mugshot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.19.244 (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely deserves more flattering pictures. She's so much better looking--drop dead gorgeous, actually--than these pictures show. I mean, think House of Wax, Girl Next Door, and Maxim (even though Maxim won't ever make Wikipedia). These have to be the worst pictures I've seen of her.

I wish i could merry her...:'( Khan Mohammad Mridul (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbies

I have deleted this:

hobbies and favorites:

Mexican food Painting Drawing Snowboarding “King of the Hill” Strawberry kiwi Gatorade Hip-hop/rock Hanging out with friends and “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” Information provided by http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile.php?id=458

--Biohazard 03:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blonde?

Is she really a natural blonde? You can see brown hair where her roots start.

She's dyed her hair red and brown. As of now, the sites with her vital statistics I've researched have listed her as a natural blonde. She was a blonde when I first saw her in Popular Mechanics for Kids and Are You Afraid of the Dark? if I recall correctly. --Antrophica 23:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

While in the process of adding a new high-res picture, I had some page layout problems with the film poster. I think the placement should be changed so maybe someone can try different combinations.

Good Article

I promoted this article's nomination (which for some reason wasn't listed here on the talk page), and I couldn't be happier to do it (Cuthbert is #2 on my personal list of most beautiful celebrities). A couple of style notes, however. The "Other roles" section should be rolled up into the later career (it doesn't warrant it's own header), and the personal life section should hopefully be expanded? Maybe she's been politically active? I know she's given at least one interview in FHM/Maxim/one of the 2895030 other men's magazines she's appeared in, certainly you can find more info for that area of the article. Staxringold 14:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think she's much of a politically active person, for better or worse. I don't think I've ever even come across anything controversial from her lips. She's quite bubbly in interviews, but careful so far. --Antrophica 15:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing controversial? You didn't see the scene she made in Montréal because she didn't want to meet the press for unknown reasons... My boss went to the same school than Cuthbert, she seems to be a real b**** in her personal life (these were her words and it was 6 or 7 years ago... but still) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.37.186.73 (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

That sounds absolutely possible, I just feel like the more content outside of what's expected/assumed (film history for a film actress, eg) can make an article more interesting. If she's just bubbly without much notable private life to mention, oh well. Staxringold 15:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when she starts dating men worthier of note, we'll have something to write about. --Antrophica 16:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this article need a picture of Kim Bauer? (Though not the bondage one.) —wwoods 20:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, no bondage? Heh, I didn't dig around for a Kim Bauer pic because she doesn't look all that different as Kim, but I'll add the lead image from Kim Bauer to the 24 section and amend the fair use rationale (she does have longer, straighter hair with an outfit and ID badges she would never normally wear). Staxringold 20:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On closer review, the sourcing on that image really stinks. Rather than risk some craziness with that image, I've uploaded a normal screenshot from Season 1 which helps out the Kim article and fits better here. Staxringold 20:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love Actually

I dont think Cuthbert stars in Love Actually....this article has to be validated by some one Ref [3]

Actually, IMDB says she did. In addition, I'm not sure what your referencing, because even if Wikipedia was a WP:RS for itself, that article states she was in it as well. --Kevin Walter 01:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry About that...as i saw the starcast of Love Actually in wikipedia ...i didnt see her name thats why but now as i hve seen the movie....she definitely is in the movie

No problem, thanks for posting on the talk page instead of just removing the info from the article. --Kevin Walter 04:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I just updated some of the citation links.

One dead link updated.
One link to a general fansite page, which provided none of the info it was supposed to, removed.
One citation (about her previous work and who she worked with) was unnecessary and therefore removed.
The Spiderman citation needs to be resourced. A fansite page isn't a good way to citate something, anyone can make up that stuff, it's no different to uncited material on Wikipedia. So if an interview can be found, it needs to be added ASAP. I can't find any interview or reliable source with that info, so I haven't updated the citation. I'll remove the Spiderman info within a few days if a reliable source can't be found. —B33R^{(talk • contribs)} 22:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image for infobox

It seems too good to be true, but supposedly this image has the correct licensing for wikipedia use. - Peregrine Fisher 19:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia deletions

I've removed some information from the article because it is non-encyclopedic, non-notable trivia:
"Cuthbert's role as host of Popular Mechanics sometimes required her to act as a foreign correspondent, and she was required to fly around the world despite her aversion to plane travel.^[1] "
"Cuthbert had given herself a deadline of six months to make something of her trip and was about to return home when she was offered the part during the last week."^{[citation needed]}
"Her break up with Trace Ayala had been the inspiration to the hit song What goes around comes around by Justin Timberlake."[4]
Please let me know if you disgree.--Vbd (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Wilson, Staci Layne. "House of Wax Interview: Elisha Cuthbert" Horror.com, April 29, 2005, retrieved May 13, 2006.

Filmography: Believe

This movie was done in 1998, not 1999 nor 2000 as it's incorrectly listed on IMDB. I just saw it on TV March 25th, 2007. She's quite obviously only 16 in the film, not 17 or 18. The copyright date in the credits is 1998.

No mention of Sean Avery in personal section?

It's no secret that the two are dating/have dated???

http://www.popdirt.com/article55777.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.248.186.244 (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

WP isn't a gossip column; it is an encyclopedia. So you need to ask, "Is it noteworthy or relevant that they are dating (or have dated)?" If so, then you need to provide a reliable and credible source to support any statement about it. I confess that I have not yet checked out "popdirt.com" but I doubt it would be considered reliable (read this).--Vbd (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Image for infobox

Think we can finally get one up with the correct licensing? --Jtres21

Woo hoo! Wikipedian 12:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Tale

Cat Tale has been cancelled. It's page was deleted due to that fact. I'm not an expert, but it should possibly be removed from the Recent career and Filmography. A couple of references to the film's cancellation: [5] [6]--Adam aka. Cho03 03:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to wiki but I had to say this. Guns has already come out. I saw both parts at my friend's house [omg and Elisha gets shot to death! XD XD Don't worry though, it was near the end though! ;) ]. It still says it's in post production which doesn't make sense.

kk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.251.106 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prononciation

Is the name pronounced Like the Bible Elisha or is it pronouced (E-LEE-SHA)Jesusinmysock 19:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-LEE-SHA. Wikipedian 13:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this? — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 15:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does the "Bible Elisha" pronoun as¿ Wikipedian 09:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El-eye-sha. Known from how Hebrew is pronounced. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 11:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your question, no, I don't have a source for this but ya can hear how they call her in interviews, etc. Wikipedian 11:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image size

why is this being changed? the default 220px is big enough, and if people want to see it larger, they can click through to the image page. Unfortunately, as Wiikipedian is not leaving edit summaries, I have no idea what his thought process is.— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 05:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest leaving images at, or less than, the default thumbnail size, per the manual of style, which reminds editors: "Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult.", Changing images to display larger, can create unwanted effects for those who use larger text size, or lower screen resolution. If they wish to see the image larger, they can simply click on it to go to the full size image. Additionally, per Wikipedia's picture tutorial, Because different people work to different screen resolutions, your preferred size of thumbnails can be set in special:preferences under "files". If someone wants to have images larger, they can set their own personal preferences to do so, instead of forcing the image to be sized larger than standard, which has the result of respecting ohers, and providing larger images for the user who wishes to see them that way. ^Ariel♥Gold 03:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do ya think we need a {{Flagicon}} on the infobox¿ Wikipedian 03:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see what's wrong with it. I know some people say it's like "decorating" the page but many articles have it. I think it fits well under where it says her birthday and age. Jtres21

There is precedence for having the flag of the country/state a notable person was born in (or is from), see Kirsten Dunst, Lyle Lovett, Cliff Robertson, Rosemary Harris, just to start. Removing the image does not improve the article; the small image does nothing harmful (and in fact, provides quick visual information regarding Elisha's place of birth). While there is no hard and fast policy about flags in infoboxes, they are often used for people, places, teams, companies, etc. Since Wikipedia is visual as well as text, I would think that this tiny little flag would be of no concern. I'm confused as to why you'd like to remove it? ^Ariel♥Gold 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A precedence does not necessarily mean it is a good thing. There are several good arguments as to why the flagicon should not be used in this situation at Wikipedia:Use of flags in articles and its talk page (note that this page is currently an essay and is not yet policy). JYi 04:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I neither have a preference for it, nor against it, and I understand the proposed guideline you mentioned. I was just pointing out that it is currently done quite often, and that in general, does not harm the article by its addition. Those editors who work on this article should work out the issue here, though, rather than simply entering into continued revert wars. But thanks for bringing another side to the issue! ^Ariel♥Gold 04:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Ariel. Jtres21 06:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I remove the {{Flagicon}} is if ya add {{Flagicon|Canada}} (), someone might add {{Flagicon|Calgary}} () and {{Flagicon|Alberta}} (), which makes the infobox looks like

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Wikipedian 12:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then again, they might not. There's a reasonably good argument for having a nationality flag there, because in most cases, nationality flags are well known and easily recognised worldwide. That argument drops off dramatically when you go to state/province and municipality flags. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 13:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone would add all of those flags. I'm just going to put it back for now. Seems like only one person has a problem with it being up. It's presence isn't hurting the article, and when it's removed it's not really improving the article at all. Just let it be. Jtres21 22:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons are pretty useless when you have the city, state, and country spelt out for you. It serves a purely decorative purpose. It's not like a flag is going to make the words "Canada" more understandable if it's spelt out. Flags can serve a useful purpose such as album release dates (e.g. Shock Value). But in this case, if the country is spelt out, then the flag is totally redundant. I like the comment in WP:FLAG about emphasis. For example, with the flag icon, Paul McCartney is emphatically English/British. Without the flag, he's a singer-songwriter and guitarist who just happens to be English. The music points are more important than his "Englishness". Also, you'll be surprised how many people use state flags. Spellcast 02:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally someone's with me. Wikipedian 12:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

I still had this on my watchlist, so before I removed it, I cleaned up the refs to put them into citation template format, for standardization. I have hidden one invalid URL reference, if someone wishes to find another to replace it, and I've added a {{fact}} tag to engagement statement, as that sort of thing should be cited per WP:BLP. Also, IMDB is not considered a reliable source so I removed the references that used IMDB. The IMDB link for her is in external links, so no information was lost. ^Ariel♥Gold 21:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just got a reference for the engagement statement, check it out. I have a lot of edits but I'm still fairly new at this. It's been well known for a while that Elisha and Ayala split and ended the engagement, but half the sites that you find it on would be against the rules here for references. So it's tough to find a decent site, but I tried. Jtres21 22:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is the problem, but per the very important WP:BLP policy, these things can't be just ignored, even if it is "widely known", unless it is reported by a reliable source, it is always best to err on the side of leaving the information out. The NY Rangers site is a valid WP:RS and that's a good find! ^Ariel♥Gold 23:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: flag icons in biography infoboxes

{{RFCbio }} There is an ongoing dispute as to whether or not adding a country flag icon is useful at-a-glance information, or if it is merely decoration Timotab 18:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note: The page that is referred to in support of not adding flags, Wikipedia:Use of flags in articles, is not a policy or guideline yet. It is a proposed guideline, with no consensus yet reached to make it a set guideline. Again, I would like to just note that I have really no idea who this person is, and I have no preference for, or against, having flags in infoboxes. I can see how they are useful and immediately helpful visually, while being quite small and unobtrusive, but I can also see how they could be seen as unnecessary, as well. That being said, Wiikipedian and Jtres21, I would again like to encourage the two of you to come discuss the issue here, arive at a consensus and agreement, because this daily revert war that's going on is not productive. The edit summaries of "I won't stop" and "neither will I" are not helping, as they seem to only serve to fuel this further. So I encourage both of you, and anyone else who is involved in this article, to discuss the issue here, and come to an agreement between yourselves, because this is truly a very small thing to revert over, and it is possibly preventing harmonious editing. Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 00:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit war

This has to be one of wikipedia's saddest edit wars ever. I am calling on User:Wiikipedian and User:Jtres21 to stop this immediatly. You can dicuss and debate the issue all you want on the talk page, and when a concensus of more users than just the two of you is reached, then that concensus can be acted on. Both of you are editing disruptively and leaving abusive edit summaries, and it has to stop please.

For now, we will leave the flag off until concensus is reached. This does not mean that the user who has been removing the flag has won, so he or she still has to discuss the issue. If the edit war continues I will slap a protection on this page, and then it will be only the admins who can edit it. Please discuss it and lets stop this daft edit war. SGGH ^speak! 11:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This kid is ruining the article and it's sickening. There is absolutely no need to have "born Elisha Ann Cuthbert" in beginning paragraphs when it already states that it's her birth name. The years active is unnecessary, it states it in the article and the filmography. And this kid just despises the flag icon which is not a big deal and I'm sure thousands of articles have it. And to be honest SGGH, I wouldn't care if you did what you had to do. At least it would stop this little kid from ruining the damn page.

I'm going to at least TRY and attempt to be fair in the edits. If it doesn't please this kid, and he continues to ruin the article then I rest my case.

Jtres21 16:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::"born Elisha...whatever" is how it is done in 90% of the biographical articles, so yes it would be a good idea to have it in this one too.~~ I don't know about the years of activity to be honest. I have reverted your edit because you removed my warning note, but I will re-add your changes in a second. Remember, "this kid" has just as good a right to state his points as you do. SGGH ^speak! 19:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I owe you an apology Jtres21, as her birth name is her given name also, it is MoS to have "born..." when the birth name is different from the given name, but in this case it is just a short middle name, so in fact I agree with you, and apologise on that point. Again, I don't know about this years of activity thing either. You and Wikiipedian can discuss it here if you want. Just as long as there is no more edit warring. SGGH ^speak! 20:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Wikiipedia has continued to be disruptive with his reversions, reverting to previous forms despite being instructed not to, therefore I have fully protected this article and given him a final warning. SGGH ^speak! 10:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert it¡ Wikipedian 13:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Wiikipedian, it was not technically a "revert" but that's just semantics. You still made the edit that effectively reverted to the version you wanted, without discussing it here, as had been requested. And Jtres21, I'd please request that you stop referring to Wiikipedian as a "kid", there are many extremely wonderful editors under the age of 18 on Wikipedia, and the way you're using the term is not especially helpful. Thank you. ^Ariel♥Gold 14:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Ariel¡ Wikipedian 14:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, you changed the critically warred-over-sections to the previous version, which is for all purposes a revert. Ariel is right to curtail name-calling also. Being just 19 myself, I can tell you that being a young person doesn't impact on your editing. SGGH ^speak! 15:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions: Current issues needing to be worked out

I have no opinions, so I will simply lay out the issues that have become the source of contention, cite current policies or guidelines if and where relevant, explain manual of style usage, and then I hope discussion on each sub-topic can start the ball rolling to get this article's issues worked out. ^Ariel♥Gold 11:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good plan from Ariel, help to sort out the issues on the talk page. Then the decisions can be implemented with no more edit warring. SGGH ^speak! 15:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icon

Use of flags in articles is not a guideline, or a policy yet. Therefore, consensus needs to be reached and whatever the decision is, should remain. Discuss here.

I have no strong opinion on this, but lean slight in favour of having having a national flag there. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 14:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think if ya add {{Flagicon|Canada}} (

), someone might add {{Flagicon|Calgary}} (

) and {{Flagicon|Alberta}} (

), which makes the infobox looks like

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Wikipedian 15:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That could be solved by discussions here detailing that only the National flag is relevant, as well as hidden comments inside the page pointing users to this discussion, and explaining not to add more than one flag. I personally have never come across a page where someone has done something like that, I doubt it would be a problem. The flag of Canada is an instantly recognizable symbol to almost everyone, so I think the reasons people want it added is for quick reference to where this person was born, without having to read. Again, I don't have an opinion, but I do see how it is helpful for some "skimming" editors. ^Ariel♥Gold 15:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with this. I've never seen additional flags on article pages. I'd suggest crossing that bridge when we come to it. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 15:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiikipedian and Jtres21, please can you both either agree to this, or present further arguments as to why you disagree. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 15:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still in favor of it, but I don't care as much as before. People will still consider it to be a "decorative" for the article, but it provides a quick glance and visual to see what country she is originally from. Jtres21 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons are pretty useless when you have the city, state, and country spelt out for you. It serves a purely decorative purpose. It's not like a flag is going to make the words "Canada" more understandable if it's spelt out. Flags can serve a useful purpose such as album release dates (e.g. Shock Value). But in this case, if the country is spelt out, then the flag is totally redundant. I like the comment in WP:FLAG about emphasis. For example, with the flag icon, Paul McCartney is emphatically English/British. Without the flag, he's a singer-songwriter and guitarist who just happens to be English. The music points are more important than his "Englishness". Also, you'll be surprised how many people use state flags. Wikipedian 01:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They say imitation's a form of flattery (or something like that) :). Now Wiikipedian has invited me to comment here. Jtres21 said he does not care as much about the icon than before and Wiikipedian seems to not favour it. Maybe I'm sensing a common denominator here? Spellcast 16:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about it, Jtres21? Wiikipedian feels strongly that it should go, you were feeling less strongly that it should be there. How strongly are you feeling about it now? — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 22:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still would like it there, but I know mostly everyone here is against it, so. Jtres21 21:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure it's that simple. Personally, I like having the flag. I'm not so desperate to see it there that if you and Wiikipedian agree not to have it that I'd overly object. On the other hand, I don't want you to feel railroaded into a decision you're really unhappy about. I don't think it represents emphasis, but easy identification. Perhaps we can get some other input from people who have edited this article. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 21:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be more fair, some other input on it. Then we could just see where that takes us. Jtres21 23:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of "Birth name" to infobox

This is something you have to work out between yourselves. However, if you put her birth name in the infobox, it seems redundant to repeat it in the opening sentence. Generally, when the birth name is different, according to the manual of style:Names: for people who have changed their name, the following usage is the proper wording: William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946) This is not the case here, and this is simply a matter of deciding not to argue about silly things. Either have her full birth name with "Ann" in the infobox, and leave it out of the opening sentence, or have it in the opening sentence, and leave it out of the infobox.

This should not be in the infobox. It's not a birth name that's different from her current name, it's just that in common, every day use, she doesn't use her middle name, just the same as millions of people in the Western hemisphere who use the same naming convention. To put it in as her birth name implies that she changed her name legally to drop the "Ann", which I can't find any evidence for. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 14:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree¡ Wikipedian 15:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. It's better off in the opening sentence and not in the infobox. Jtres21 21:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y we have consensus — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 22:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full name listed in infobox and opening sentence

Per Wikipedia's manual of style:Names:

While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known.

That seems clear from the WP:MOS — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 14:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree¡ Wikipedian 15:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jtres21, please can you either agree to this, or if you disagree, present your arguments against it. Thanks ^Ariel♥Gold 15:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y implied agreement from removing birthname from infobox — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 16:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of "Born" to opening sentence

Per Wikipedia's manual of style:Dates of birth and death: At the start of an article on a person, his or her dates of birth and death are provided: For a person still living: "Serena Williams (born September 26, 1981) ...", not "(September 26, 1981–) ...". That is clearly laid down by guideline in the MoS.

However, the name is not repeated, as this article has been doing, again that's for someone whose name has been changed, as explained above.

According to the MoS, the proper introductory sentence would be:

Elisha Ann Cuthbert (born November 30, 1982) is a Canadian actress.

That also seems clear from the WP:MOS — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 14:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree¡ Wikipedian 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elisha Ann Cuthbert (born November 30, 1982) is a Canadian actress.

This variation is the best I believe, so please revert it back to this whenever. Jtres21 19:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I go with MoS. Wikipedian 11:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y Agreed by both parties involved. Full first sentence syntax is given below, and will be re-instated. ^Ariel♥Gold 11:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of place of birth to parenthesis denoting birth date

This is not done per the manual of style. It is added to the opening sentence, but not inside the parentheses of birth date.

How it has been (incorrectly) written in some revisions of the article:

Elisha Cuthbert (born Elisha Ann Cuthbert on November 30, 1982 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada) is an actress.

According to the MoS, the proper introductory sentence would be:

Elisha Ann Cuthbert (born November 30, 1982) is a Canadian actress. Born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Cuthbert is known as the former co-host of the Canadian children's television series, Popular Mechanics for Kids, and for her role as Kim Bauer in the American action-thriller television series 24.

The WP:MOS seems pretty clear on that too. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 14:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree¡ Wikipedian 11:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, go for the second one would be my vote, that is what I reverted it to before protection and seems to be the most common variant. SGGH ^speak! 15:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the MoS introductory is best. Jtres21 19:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I go with MoS. Wikipedian 11:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y This seems solved by both parties as well. ^Ariel♥Gold 11:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full first introductory sentence that needs to be placed into the article:

Elisha Ann Cuthbert (born November 30, 1982) is a Canadian actress. Born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Cuthbert is known as the former co-host of the Canadian children's television series, Popular Mechanics for Kids, and for her role as Kim Bauer in the American action-thriller television series 24. She had her first lead role in the 2004 feature film The Girl Next Door.

(Consequently, the first sentence that begins below the table of contents, will not need to include her place of birth, so should read:)

Cuthbert's parents are Patricia, a homemaker and Kevin Cuthbert, an automotive design engineer.

Have to add something else to keep SineBot from signing the above sentence, so I'm adding this. ^Ariel♥Gold 11:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resizing images to non-standard

manual of style, reminds editors: "Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult.", Changing images to display larger, can create unwanted effects for those who use larger text size, or lower screen resolution. If they wish to see the image larger, they can click on it to go to the full size image. Additionally, per Wikipedia's picture tutorial, Because different people work to different screen resolutions, your preferred size of thumbnails can be set in special:preferences under "files". If someone wants to have images larger, they can set their own personal preferences to do so, instead of forcing the image to be sized larger than standard, which has the result of respecting others, and providing larger images for the user who wishes to see them that way. (This has been discussed previously, and I think the issue is resolved, but listing it here just in case it wasn't resolved.)

This one seems to have been taken care of and agreed to — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 14:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I stopped. Wikipedian 11:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of "Years active" to infobox

Discuss. No policy or guideline covers this that I could find.

I actually really like it here. Yes, may be it is mentioned in the article, but the point of an infobox is that it's at-a-glance information. Otherwise one could argue to remove the date of birth, place of birth, heck, even the name from the infobox (which is silly). So, "that information is already in the article" is not a good reason for leaving it out of the info box. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 14:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One point is that is it found in other infoboxes on similar articles? SGGH ^speak! 15:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precedences: Kirsten Dunst, Lyle Lovett, Cliff Robertson, Randy Newman, Richard Gere, Meg Ryan, the list goes on and on. It seems to be a very common thing to add to infoboxes.^Ariel♥Gold 15:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree¡ Wikipedian 11:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jtres21, please can you either agree to this, or if you disagree, present your arguments against it. Thanks — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 15:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure. I see some articles with it and without it, so I don't really know what to think. I mean, does it really make the article better? I don't know. I don't really mind what you guys do, but I'm not so sure that it's really improving the article, you know? Just seems like another add-on or "filler", so to speak. Jtres21 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something to consider is that "years active" is a parameter in the infobox template, which implies there's fair agreement that it should be used (otherwise, it would have been removed) — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 17:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was put in place originally, I believe, to denote those actors who have retired, such as Jamie Lee Curtis, who no longer acts, or to other artists who changed careers, etc. It seems implied, especially when mentioning "upcoming" movies, but it also seems to be an often used practice. ^Ariel♥Gold 18:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but it does also show, at a glance, a) when she started, and b) that she is current. I personally like it. Any further comment, Jtres? — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 21:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok I guess. Not much else to say about it really. Jtres21 21:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y We have consensus. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 21:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early life opening sentence

Originally agreed upon the following:

"Cuthbert's parents are Patricia, a homemaker, and Kevin Cuthbert, an automotive design engineer.",

However, User:Wiikipedian has suggested the following:

"Cuthbert was born to Patricia, a homemaker and Kevin Cuthbert, an automotive design engineer."

So I will move it here for discussion.

Alternate ways to state this:

"Cuthbert's parents are Patricia, a homemaker, and Kevin Cuthbert, an automotive design engineer.".

My opinion is that unless the subject of the biography is adopted, saying they were "born to" is redundant and unnecessary. Comments? ^Ariel♥Gold 09:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kevin is enough instead of Kevin Cuthbert. Comments¿ Wikipedian 10:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'd say that's fine, but I'm changing the original back, add new suggestions below instead, okay? It just helps keep track of what has been suggested and rejected. I'll add your suggestion below. ^Ariel♥Gold 10:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiikipedian suggested:

"Cuthbert was born to Patricia, a homemaker and Kevin, an automotive design engineer."

We already have "born" twice in in the lead. All people are born to their parents, unless adopted. A combination of these two things makes me feel that the "Cuthbert's parents are..." version is the better one. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 15:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, (fixed Wiikipedian's unsigned edit as he is right) but as I said, that's redundant to state someone was "born" to their parents, unless you are specifically stating that a person was adopted. The "born" statement is already in the lead sentence. ^Ariel♥Gold 15:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiikipedian and Jres21, please can we have your further comments on this, which version you prefer including your reasoning, and perhaps which version(s) you'd find acceptable even if it's not your first choice. Thanks. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 15:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Cuthbert's parents are Patricia, a homemaker, and Kevin Cuthbert, an automotive design engineer."

I believe this is the best option. I don't think you need to have "born" in that sentence when we already know it's her parents. Jtres21 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer parents are than born to after Timotab's explanation but can we not have a serial comma after "and" and Cuthbert after "Kevin"¿ Wikipedian 02:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, there was no comma after the word "homemaker", which is a valid option, but so is the use of serial comma. Both ways are technically correct, however, since Cuthbert is not American, and the use of serial comma is more prevalent with American English, perhaps that is a valid reason not to use it. Decision now is whether Jtres is alright with dropping the father's name, and removing the comma or not. ^Ariel♥Gold 04:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good with me. Jtres21 05:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, no, that's not a serial comma. If it were a serial comma, that would be three things that are her parents. (1) Patricia, (2) a home maker, (3) Kevin. "a homemaker" is a parenthetical clause, describing who Patricia is, and so the comma needs to stay. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 05:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be okay:

"Cuthbert's parents are Patricia, a homemaker, and Kevin, an automotive design engineer."

Wikipedian 05:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that. Jtres is likely to be, I think, just need confirmation. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 22:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fine with me. Jtres21 21:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y we have consensus — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 21:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Issues

List any additional current issues below. I encourage everyone to work together, and remember the goal is to improve the encyclopedia, and not to argue about little things that ultimately neither harm, nor add to the article. I hope you all can work these out quickly! ^Ariel♥Gold 11:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some things we've reached consensus on

{{editprotected}} The lead should read:

Elisha Ann Cuthbert (born November 30, 1982) is a Canadian actress. Born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Cuthbert is known as the former co-host of the Canadian children's television series, Popular Mechanics for Kids, and for her role as Kim Bauer in the American action-thriller television series 24. She had her first lead role in the 2004 feature film The Girl Next Door.

Please edit this into the article so we can get a better feel for how it looks. Thanks. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 07:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorted SGGH ^speak! 14:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Remove "birthname" parameter from infobox. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 15:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be wrong, just redundant. It seems like something that can wait until the page is unprotected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Years active is acceptable to leave in the infobox — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early life opening sentence to read "Cuthbert's parents are Patricia, a homemaker, and Kevin, an automotive design engineer." — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

We're down to three outstanding issues. I've put "info" icons to make them stand out a little, and I'll remove those icons once we've reached consensus on those items. Keep up the good work and discussion! — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 15:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four issues, the full name in infobox and opening paragraph issue is yet to be agreed upon by all. ^Ariel♥Gold 15:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, Jtres agreed that the birthname was better in the lead sentence alone. No one has ever tried putting the full name in the title of the infobox (which is the only other place it would be mentioned) — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 15:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, well feel free to nuke my addition of that item then dear, sorry. ^Ariel♥Gold 16:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We now just have the flag icon issue. Unless anyone really objects, I'm going to invite other people who have worked on this article to express opinions with reasons, on whether or not it should be included. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 21:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no plans on editing this article aside from vandalism patrol, and I really don't have any strong feelings about the flag, but I like it as an instant, visual clue of what country the person is from, without having to read a word of the article. Stipulations that only the country flag is added, and I honestly see no valid reason why it can't be included. It is unobtrusive, it is not distracting, and it doesn't take anything away from the article's value. I understand the issues about people "identifying" people with that country, but that's the fact: She's Canadian, that's part of her identity, something to be proud of. I won't care either way, but if this were a vote, I'd vote to put the flag in just because I personally like them in articles so I don't have to read where someone is from. (Call me lazy, lol) ~*Shrug*~ (Feel free to discount my opinion, however, if it means this ends in some non-consensus issue, I really truly don't care one way or the other.) ^Ariel♥Gold 22:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also like the nationality flag, but not the others. International flags are quite notable as opposed to state and municipality flags. And they provide quick identification as to where the person is from. In addition since Wikipedia caters to international audience, it is much more relevant what country someone is from. Unless the reader comes from the subject's country, it is not too important what state, province etc. the subject is from. For instance, if a subject is from the US, for a typical person outside US it makes little difference if he is from Texas, California, Florida, New York, Oregon, Ohio etc.; he is simply American. Kudret abi^Talk 22:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally dislike the usage of any flags in Infobox actor, mainly on the premise that they only serve a decorative purpose and flags are not always easily recognizable (i.e. will the average reader outside of the United States and Canada recognize the Canadian flag?). But since it has caused an edit war, I have no problem with leaving the flag in there. – JYi 02:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"will the average reader outside of the United States and Canada recognize the Canadian flag?" - I should hope so! :D but yes personally I don't the flag is needed in this case. It is used for infoboxes in battles by WP:MILHIST because of coalitions and things where commanders are of different nationalities, and so on, but with the birth place in the line above I don't think that it is needed here, in my own opinion. SGGH ^speak! 16:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note Wiikipedian has not been on in several days (fairly unusual for him), so I have attempted to contact him through his myspace page (unable to email him directly within WP). — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archiving

As this talk page has reached such a large size, I'm planning on setting up automatic archiving by Miszabot, unless anyone objects. To that end, I'm going to try and check sections that are missing datestampts and put {{unsigned}} tags on them so that Miszabot knows to archive them appropriate. If anyone has any comments about this, please make them. Thank you — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 15:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful, as always Timothy. ^Ariel♥Gold 15:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, it's a bit of a mess. What I'll most likely do is wait until October, manually archive everything prior to 1 September, and then put the auto archiving in place. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 18:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Protection expires tomorrow, let me know on my talk page if additional protection is needed until concensus met. SGGH ^speak! 22:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has expired, but I think Ariel's discussion prompting has averted the resumption on an edit war. I'll keep watching but disruption appears to have been avoided. SGGH ^speak! 10:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As protection has expired, I've updated the article to reflect consensus on those items that were resolved. Please can someone double check to make sure I'm right and haven't either misunderstood something, or missed something. Thanks. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 19:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that we can move on...

Wiikipedian has been inactive for over a week, which is unusual. I've attempted to contact him outside of Wikipedia (via his myspace page), but he's not been on there for a week, either.

So, let's sum up the Flag-in-the-userbox issues from those who have contributed.

Jtres21 wants it, though at some point felt he was losing the battle.
ArielGold can see how it can be useful for those who just glance over an article.
Timotab is leaning in favour of it.
Kudret abi likes having it.

JYi is against it, and cites WP:FLAG which is a proposed guideline.
SGGH thinks it's not necessary.
Wiikipedian, last we heard, was against it, but his main argument seemed to be largely that if a National Flag were put in, that people would be tempted to add regional (province/state) and municipal (city) flags too.

So that we can move on, and get things done, I'm proposing the following:

For the Elisha Cuthbert article, until such time as there is a guideline or policy concerning flag icons in articles, the National Flag of Canada shall be placed in the info box, but no province or city flags will be permitted

Please indicate your preference below. Note that this is not a vote, but an attempt to get consensus. I really want this to be done! :) I'll be contacting all people who have already expressed a preference. Anyone else watching can of course express one too. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For - I think that it is useful for people just glancing, National flags are well recognised, and it provides an instant visual for that information. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For As mentioned previously, I've got no real preference either way with relation to actor's biographies, but I do find national flags to be a nice, instant, visual clue that quickly identifies place of birth. There are a great many biographical articles that contain these flags, and I think they are helpful. However, if consensus is divided, I truly have no preference. ^Ariel♥Gold 19:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For As I stated earlier, I think a Canada flag could provide quick visual identification of where the subject is from. This flag is recognizable to most people, even those outside Canada (e.g. myself). The other flags however, I have never seen in my life, and neither have others outside Canada probably, so these should stay out. --Kudret abi^Talk 20:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For As everyone knows I do like having it there, mainly for the same reasons as you guys. It does no harm to the article, and if anything it provides a neat and easy way to notice what country the certain person originated from. I also agree with Kudret, I think the province or city flags aren't needed, but just the National Flag of Canada for this particular article would be fine. Jtres21 20:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For sorry I haven't been about, started uni. I do think it is unecessary, however I am keen to keep the harmony going to I will vote with concensus. SGGH ^speak! 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y We have consensus (note that JYi has been on several times since I left the message, and Wiikipedian has been on and blanked his talk page, indicating he's seen the messages I left there. If neither of them had been here despite being specifically asked to, I don't think it's unreasonable to think they don't object strongly enough to make their objections known).

Birth place

I can't fathom if this was decided above or not, but birth place usually does not belong in the opening paragraph (nothing in WP:MOSBIO would indicate that it does) so I moved it to early life. All Hallow's Wraith 20:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in WP:MOSBIO says it doesn't either, and we had reached consensus for the opening sentences in both the lead and the Early life section. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 20:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:MOSBIO clearly states five things that need to be in the opening; it's fairly obvious that birth place is not one of them, as seen in the examples given after the guidelines. The opening paragraph is supposed to summarize the article; a birth place does not summarize anything. Where is the discussion above where placing birth place in header is explicitly agreed on? I can see it was included in a version that was agreed on, but the topic of birth place in opening itself does not seem to have been discussed. All Hallow's Wraith 20:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't discussed because it wasn't considered controversial. WP:MOSBIO does clearly state that five things need to be in the lead. It doesn't say that all else is forbidden. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 20:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't discussed and it wasn't considered controversial, then why are you reverting my edits? Aren't you saying that it doesn't matter to anyone above, anyway? All Hallow's Wraith 20:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it seem safe to assume that the discussion above indicates that there have been some disputes recently over the minutia of this article, particularly over the Early life section? Seems to me it would have been prudent to discuss the change here before making it. Though, admittedly, I also assume that your edit was made in nothing but the best of faith and I might not have peeked at the talk page first, either. Just to be abundantly clear, I don't mean that sarcastically. Cheers and happy editing, Into The Fray ^T/C 21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, I didn't mean to come off as abrasive. What I meant by "not controversial" is not that we didn't care whether it went in the lead or the Early life section, but that we were happy with where it was. I was perhaps a little frustrated that we'd taken a lot of time to get those sentences in particular to be agreed upon, and then someone comes along and changes it. Not that I think you did so out of any concern other than to improve the article, of course! As for reverting, I was taking using the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to the next stage. I reverted because I didn't agree (especially after the pain of getting to where we were) with the change to consensus-agreed wording. That said, I recognise that we did not specifically address the issue of whether or not the place of birth should be included in the lead or if it's better placed in the Early life section, and therefore I'm willing to discuss this so that we can, once again, reach consensus. I would like to at least invite everyone who was involved in the last cycle of reaching consensus to participate in the discussion, particularly as the change you are proposing directly changes two sentences that had been explicitly discussed and agreed upon. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 22:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then, shall we discuss it? As far as I can figure out according to MOSBIO, the opening paragraph should have a person's name and birth (and death) dates, and then go on to summarize why that person is important and the article in general. That's why I think it should be moved to early life. All Hallow's Wraith 05:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited the other editors who took part in the above consensus building effort to comment. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 22:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timothy, hello again All Hallows Wraith. This is one of those questions I don't really have a firm opinion about. Quite apart from the ambiguity of WP:MOSBIO, however, in order to form some sort of opinion I visited featured articles and good articles. I reviewed ten biographies at random: Henry Moore includes the birthplace in the lead, Salvador Dali does as well, Paul Kane does not, Daniel Boone does not, Samantha Smith does not, Henry Rollins does not, Alan Moore does not, Neil Aspinall does, John Martin Scripps does not and Roy Welensky does. Not exactly a scientific approach. That's four that do, six that don't if my fingers are still in the right place, so . . . yeah, I still don't really have a firm opinion on style. Absent that, page consensus seems to have been with the version of Early life that currently exists, so that's what I'd say should be the case. Apologies, Into The Fray ^T/C 22:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to chime in here, and hello Hallow's Wraith, I'd like to point out that just because something isn't in a policy, doesn't mean that it is forbidden because it isn't specified. So just because WP:MOSBIO gives a listing of things that should be in an introductory section, doesn't mean it is wrong for the place of birth to also be in the introduction, or other information for that matter. As shown above, some articles use it, and some do not, and neither is wrong or right. There are featured articles and good articles that do both, and this is not a source of contention. The addition does not hinder the article, and not having it does not hinder the article. Now, please don't think that I'm against you or that I'm being negative, as truly, I'm not, so let me just say that while I do not really understand why it matters whether it is included or not, I'd be interested in knowing the reasons why you seem to feel strongly about not having the place of birth in the introduction. (And, for the record, I have no opinion either way.) I have created a number of articles, and a quick review of the most recent four biographical articles I created, I don't put the place of birth in the intro. That's just me, though. Neither right, nor wrong. All of that being said, this article had a history of some wording/phrasing issues becoming issues, as you can see above, and as such, items like this will get the attention of editors who monitor the article, which is why Timotab has requested your understanding regarding the change. ^Ariel♥Gold 03:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I think everyone agrees that MoS states what is mandatory in the lead and birth place is not one of them. Since the lead establishes major points as to who the person is and why she is famous, I think only points of major importance should go into the lead. In this particular case, it is already stated that she is Canadian, and by default Canadians are born in Canada; there are of course exceptions but this person is not one and in the lack of information to the contrary anyone seeing the word Canadian will correctly assume she was born in Canada. The Alberta, Calgary part is not a big deal as it is neither a major part of her identity nor her notability so I would lean towards deferring this info until the biography section. I am sort of busy at the moment and just wanted to put down my thoughts quickly so I hope I made some sense. Best, Kudret abi^Talk 17:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kudret abi. Anyone else? All Hallow's Wraith 08:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, can I remove the birthplace from the opening? (and move it to early life). It seems that no one but me cares about this issue anyway, so... All Hallow's Wraith 08:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spider-man 4

nothing is told, but i think that if kirsten dunst does not return for spider-man 4, Elisha should be mary jane because they look the same194.210.67.136 (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they change Kirsten Dunst, they might as well re-cast the whole thing. 76.66.190.37 (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

friendship w Paris Hilton

Why doesn't this article mention her well publicized friendship with Paris Hilton —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoverD (talk • contribs) 09:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links section

Has anyone confirmed the authenticity of the MySpace page? It seems rather un-official to me, and furthermore really just reiterates most of the information we have here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.19.187 (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

idea for new (and better image)

This image: http://flickr.com/photos/newtron/42458442/ (with a little cropping and rotation) would do the article more justice. If anyone feels inspired to ask the flickr user to adjust the license for us... --Stephantom (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elisha's NHL Blog

In the event that anyone (other than Nar Matteru) thinks that characterizing the nature of her commitment to her blog is irrelevant or some sort of slander, here follows the first sentence of of her last blog post, which followed a three-week absence from blogging: "I just want to start by apologizing to everyone, my fifth blog is long over due." That post was on December 15. She then failed to post again. I don't think it's hard to believe that her own feelings about the frequency of her blog posts would be described as inadequate.

I like Elisha's work. I wish she had posted more to her blog, but understand that she is a busy young woman and may have been making a movie or engaged in other activities which limited her ability to post. However, I think merely stating that she "maintained a blog" for the NHL unnecessarily misleads some readers of the article by its omission of frequency. I have rectified that. Jersey City Riot (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really feel that way, then remove it entirely, as it is not notable. But by saying "spottily updated", you are presenting POV as there is no set rule on how often a blog should be updated. Nar Matteru (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography, Films

2009, Mockingbird, Kim Bauer

I don't find any references of this movie... and it's strange that she's interpreting a 24 role in another movie.

I'm starting to think that 2009 Mockingbird movie doesn't exists... Anyone has a reference for it? --Wolf7 (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I can't locate anything either. I'll pull it unless/until someone comes up with a concrete source. Tabercil (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Elisha Cuthbert/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

The article went through an FA review in June 2006, and some of the issues that failed it still remain. The prose is clunky, and the lead is too short. There is also a tendency for information to simply be listed, without contributing context or significance.

Lead - apart from being too short, 24 needs to go in the first sentence, since this is what she is primarily known for. It is not logical to have it come at the end.
Early life - Too few refs, particularly as WP:BLP issues come into play here.
Early career - The paragraph on 24 simply lists her appearances. It should mention the significance to her career, critical reception etc.
2003-2005: Commercial success - The two first paragraphs are single-sentence, and there's a "citation missing" tag. Te rest goes into more depth, the 24 section should have been the same.
2006-2007: Career transition - The Quiet: how did it do?
2008-present: Current and future projects - Just a listing of current and future projects, no context.
Personal life - The second paragraph is mostly a listing of various men's magazine rankings. This is unneccassary; a couple of examples would do.
External links - Is the Russian site really "official"? Lampman (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment: 24 should not go in the first sentence. WP:ACTOR is working hard to remove all instances of "So-and-so is an actor best known for playing X in Y" since it is quite often hard to objectively prove (especially for currently-working actors) and more often than not is original research, recentist, and is not neutral. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a few seconds to find a reliable source to support it (The Hollywood Reporter), though self-evident facts like that don't really need sourcing. Surely it should be possible to assess this on a case-to-case basis? In any case, this was not the major problem. No significant changes has been made (except her father being called a pedophile for a short while, and people still resent flagged revisions...), so I will now delist it. Lampman (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

birthdate?

Is there something not clear in her birthdate since it is marked with [citation needed]? I doubt it, but the tag is there. And it seems it was put in this March. 82.141.65.143 (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The birthday is clear but doesn't have a credible reference. In attempting to find a source for Elisha's birthday I found many celebrity sites with the birthday, but they likely copied the date from Wikipedia without any attempt at verification. The one credible refence I found was on IMDB (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0193846/bio). However, it would be preferable to find an interview with the actress or another credible reference. Waarmstr (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Elisha Cuthbert. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Elisha Cuthbert. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.cinemas-online.co.uk/website/interview.phtml?uid=60
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008023521/http://www.dailycal.org/article/21125/_the_quiet_has_no_cruel_intentions_but_it_s_still_ to http://www.dailycal.org/article/21125/_the_quiet_has_no_cruel_intentions_but_it_s_still_
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/tickermaster/listing.cfm?TMID=2561
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.monstersandcritics.com/movies/news/article_7643.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.askmen.com/specials/2007_top_99/index_archive.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhl.com/blogcentral/cuthbert_dec.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhl.com/blogcentral/cuthbert_nov.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wafca.com/awards/2003.htm

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) 12:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Release date of Friday Afternoon in the Universe

Does anyone know when Friday Afternoon in the Universe will be released? The movie (staring Elisha Cuthbert) was supposed to be released in January 2022, but it's now July 2022 and I can't find any news about the delay. Waarmstr (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Horror.com-1] Wilson, Staci Layne. "House of Wax Interview: Elisha Cuthbert" Horror.com, April 29, 2005, retrieved May 13, 2006.

[1]