Jump to content

Talk:Judy Ann Santos/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

This sure seems like a copyright violation from here, unless someone shows otherwise I'm going to stub it. The source doesn't look like it came from Wikipedia. Rx StrangeLove 04:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed pasted from that site. I already reverted it the last non-copyvio, non-vandalized version. What's next is getting the facts about the subject from that website. --bluemask (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Added NPOV marker. Removed excessive capitals in headings. Derby Dave 06:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed a bunch of capitals, and assuming they were the titles of a movie or tv show i put them in italics. Fixed a few spelling errors here and there.

What language are all these movies in? I know it uses a latin alphabet, but thats about it.

Bearingbreaker92 14:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Could be Tagalog... Monni 04:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Still too many capitalized/all-caps words and people are adding more. Monni 17:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sectioning

The article's sections need some serious sorting out. I reckon it could go something like:

  • Biography
(early life etc)
  • Acting career
  • Film (inc. award nominations)
  • Television (inc. 'Komiks' which according to history of this article is "a tv sitcom aired in TFC every Sunday night with Ryan Agoncilio.award nominations".)
  • Musical career
  • Discography (inc. award nominations)
  • Romantic life (if appropriate)
  • Endorsements

Anyone want to give it a shot? IT IS NEARLY 4AM HERE otherwise i would do it myself KZF 03:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I started cleaning up the sectioning, but it still needs a lot of work. Monni 11:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Some good work tidying. Much of the material in the lists could be ditched, though, to be honest; there's more there than in the articles on most major artists. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I was 50-50 to remove all nominations, because I think only wins are enough encyclopedic to merit own section. Monni 13:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree (that's what I've done on other articles). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, can I get in on this? The page is in an awful state right now, and I'm here to help. I'm a new member of the Wikipedia:Cleanup_Taskforce, and I picked this article out of the list of those needing help. Sorry it took so long. I'll get started on some sorting and grammar problems ASAP. Just don't ask me to verify facts. That's up to youse guys.
Reverend Lee 13:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Taskforce

Let's start fresh. Does anyone have ANY sources for any of the info on this page? I mean, YIKES!

Reverend Lee 13:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the page has been cleaned up significantly. The fact are up to you guys. But the format is there. I'll be looking back in from time to time, but for now you are on your own.
If there are no objections, I'll pull the Cleanup ticket. -- Reverend Lee 07:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this table format appropriate for this type of article? Most actor biographies on wikipedia do not use this sort of table format for listing movies. It seems a bit excessive and messy looking to me. See Ed Harris and Rob Lowe for examples on how the tradional actor filmography is presented. Also, is it really necessary to list every movie she's ever been in? Surely her major roles would be enough with a link to IMDB? That's what IMDB is there for after all. --Lendorien 16:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a bit too much too... Monni 16:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It may be too much, but as for the format itself, it is a legitimate layout for actors. See Audrey Hepburn, Salma Hayek. Consider doing a Selected Filmography section and then linking to a complete listing. See James_Stewart_filmography, Henry_Fonda_filmography, Clint_Eastwood_filmography, or Humphrey_Bogart_filmography for examples.

See also Wikipedia:Cleanup_Taskforce/Judy_Ann_Santos for more information. — Reverend Lee 03:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Descriptions of films

First, "romance-comedy" isn't English — the phrase is "romantic comedy". Secondly, most (all?) romantic comedies contain dramatic and other elements; there's no need to add the terms. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Juday graces Yes! magazine

Juddy Ann covers Yes!

--Florentino floro 13:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

hi gud pm po, im the avid fan of judy ann santos, medyo naguluhan lamang po ako.... dahil kanina napanood ko ung interview nilang tatlo with her mother and kuya sa moms of Qtv, nabanggit ni judy an na may anak na sya... toto po bang meron n syang anak? parang di ko kc nabalitaan yun, this is gen of caloocan City thanks and more power... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.168 (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Johann is their adopted daughter. --Florentino floro (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Engagement

I added this since this is the greatest moment of her life: On May , 2008, Judy Ann Santos, 30, and Ryan Agoncillo were officially engaged, as Ryan proposed, while Judai tearfully accepted the diamond engagement ring. They were on vacation in Visayas with adopted daughter Yohann, and a wedding date is yet to be announced.Inquirer.net, Judy Ann Santos, Ryan Agoncillo officially engaged--source--Florentino floro (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Santos and Ryan Agoncillo had finally confirmed their engagement on June 19, 2008. "It's official, Judy Ann and Ryan are engaged!" shouts the cover of YES! Magazine's July 2008 issue.GMA NEWS.TV, Judy Ann, Ryan confirm their engagement--Florentino floro (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge:

Please unify filmography and awards onto the subject's main page.--Tznkai (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why was this done? The lists are long enough for separate articles. --NeilN talk to me 23:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice to Wiki Admin due to Acts of User Active Banana

Such user is always deleting the proclaimed title of Judy Ann Santos claiming that it was WP:PEACOCK. Source/s to support such title, though, is not necessary since it was acclaimed by all media practitioners (i.e. people in the showbiz industry). Though reference was provided by 125.60.204.82, it can't be inserted since it was her certified title.

Plus, it is evident that user: Active Banana is a fan of Claudine Barretto who is considered by others to be Santos's rival. Several edits were apparent in Barretto's page by Active Banana who just inserted redundant notes/awards which are already mentioned in the latter part of the page. Said page was being edited previously, but again was revised in fan/s viewpoint to bulk up the page. Demipeach (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide these reliable, third party sources unrelated to the subject of the article that have made these claims- not a publicity article by the studio the actor works for in which the subject of the article herself is stating that she has been called some title or other. We need to be able to verify content in articles, particularly articles about living people: "material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"
And please remember to assume good faith about your fellow editors and be civil and not make unfounded claims about other editors motives. Active Banana (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Young Superstar

It's sad to reckon that Wikipedia, though an online encyclopedia system can be modified/edited by anyone and what's annoying are the actions of some who consider themselves as authorized entity, setting their own interpretations of Wikipedia rules. Following are the example issues to support my claim: - Deleting the title "Young Superstar" due to according to him/her it was a WP:PEACOCK, always looking of sources proving the title. Question: are the other titles (Superstar, Star for all Seasons, Megastar, Diamond Star) were declared or given by a special authorized body? Those are exaltations coming from people in the showbiz industry that have been adopted and recognized by all media practitioners, and the masses. No official statement/document can be presented since they're all widespread label that everybody adopts. And the title "Young Superstar" is not a fan-based titular provision, because, like the others, it came from all media practitioners which can be read or heard or seen anywhere. - Maybe Active Banana has his/her own standards or way of interpreting the title Young Superstar? Maybe Judy Ann's achievements are not enough for her/him to prove her worth in her field? - Lastly, are you an authorized person to decide on important things such as this? No wonder why in the future, Wikipedia can be considered as unreliable source of information for concealing that facts and letting these incidents to occur.125.60.204.82 (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read our policies and guidelines including: WP:V / WP:NPOV / WP:PEACOCK / WP:PROMOTION / WP:NOTMYSPACE / Wikipedia:MOS#Titles_of_people etc etc. We are not here to publicize or promote any individual. Promotional titles are completely unacceptable. What is truly unfortunate is that we must spend hours and hours and hours of time to keep WP:FANCRUFT and WP:TRIVIA from overloading truly encyclopedia content. Active Banana (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

I think it is better to bring/move this article back into Judy Ann Santos. It is her name as an actress and even though she is already married to an Agoncillo, i think it is still not right to include her husband's surname on the title. Please present a valid source stating that Ms. Santos will start using Judy Ann Santos-Agoncillo as her screen name. If there is no valid source, then this article must be moved back to its original title. jmarkfrancia (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Images

Anyone who can upload free-image for Judy Ann Santos that we can use in the article content? The image in the infobox is okay, but we need more to put in the article body. jmarkfrancia (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Too long

The article is too long. Awards and Filmography should be separated from the main page. jmarkfrancia (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC) 

bakit tinawag ka na entrepreneur ??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.146.201.254 (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Youngest with most

Source says "She was the youngest actress to be featured in ABS-CBN's anthology before they featured other young stars. To this day, Juday holds the distinction of being the only young star who was featured three times (four episodes each) in STAR DRAMA THEATER PRESENTS."

It is noted that this was written "before 2008".

So she was youngest, until she wasn't, and she was "featured" more times than any other "young" (whatever that means) star - up to some unknown date, before 2008.

I don't think this stands up "having held the distinction of being the youngest artist with the most number of appearances in the series, starring in twelve" which is in any event meaningless - and will remove that sentence.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC).

Copyedit request

Hey Pseud 14, some questions:

  • [...] and Manuel Dayrit Santos, a businessman and proprietor of the defunct Victoria Supermarket and complex in Tanay, Rizal. Is the supermarket separate from the complex? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The supermarket is part/within the complex.
  • Santos's second love triangle film was the drama Kahit Isang Saglit (2000), in which she played an architect who opens a firm with her college friends (played by Leandro Muñoz and Piolo Pascual). Wikilinks removed, emphasis in original. Is there anything special about this film other than that it's her "second love triangle film"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I think since you've removed the mention of the first love triangle film, we can take it out as well and call it a romantic drama. This would have been her first film with Pascual, who eventually becomes a perennial screen partner.
  • Santos regarded it as a "welcome change", and said that her character is "strong and dedicated ... who always lives by the book". References removed. Her description of the character doesn't seem to be relevant on this article, but "welcome change" could be expanded on here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree on this one. It's inclusion isn't necessary.
  • She considered the role to be a "childhood dream fulfilled", and trained in martial arts and Muay Thai to prepare. References and wikilinks removed. Muay Thai isn't a martial art? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Ahhh, Muay Thai is in fact a form of martial arts. Thanks for catching.
  • The film premiered at the 8th Cinemalaya Independent Film Festival and was jointly awarded the Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress awards for the ensemble cast. I think this is supposed to mean she was awarded two awards, maybe at the same time? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes - All four actresses (including Santos) were awarded with Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress awards
  • Will add the sources from the main body
  • Named as a portmanteau of "angry adobo", an argument between Santos and her husband, Ryan Agoncillo, inadvertently led to the development of the restaurant's signature cuisine, a reinvention of the Filipino dish. I'm trying to parse what's being said here: the two had an argument that brought up the topic of "angry adobo", which became the inspiration for the dish's name? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • "AngryDobo" is also the name of the dish served. It is a reinvented version of the Philippine dish called "adobo". Couple had a fight, Santos then blew off steam by cooking adobo, and because she was mad/furious while doing it, that's how they ended up naming the end product as "AngryDobo". Hope that made sense :)
  • She is also noted for her ability to "cry on cue", often specifically asking directors in certain scenes which side they require it to be shed. References removed. Does "side" refer to a side of her face? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes. The actual quote is in Tagalog, so I tried to translate best I could. Basically she said she would ask these directors for camera angle intent and purposes, where they needed her to shed a tear: left or right side of the face, inner eye, etc. :)
  • After a one-year absence [...] This entire paragraph could be reduced. Some things of note:

    • Rito Asilo of the Philippine Daily Inquirer wrote that "Santos deftly demonstrates how much she's grown as an actress on point of versatility—by leaps and bounds! She is believable as a tough career woman. And she is also as hilarious as she is endearing in comic scenes". Butch Francisco of The Philippine Star asserted that "more than the romance and this wonderful lecture on life ... it is her [Santos] acting discipline that helps make this film succeed as a light romantic drama".

      Emphasis in original. Might be better in the article about the film. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The first review, def discusses her performance. The second one is more about the film, so that can be taken out I guess or just leave the one that talks about Santos.
  • question mark Suggestion: My concern with the excerpt from the first review is that while the tone can remain as it's not in Wikipedia's voice, it looks like it's promotional, partly because of the length. Maybe paraphrase it, something like Rito Asilo [...] wrote about Santos's growth in acting versatility and comedy? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree with the suggestion.
    • Will add source.
  • Santos said that the character is tougher, describing her as oppressed but knows how to stand her ground. Not really a copyedit issue, but is this relevant for an article about the actress instead of an article about the TV series or the character? It seems to be peppered sporadically in this article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I would say this one is, since it explains how she's trying to break away from being typecast from these roles.
  • Definitely reads better. Thanks  :)
  • She has enjoyed the variety of starring in both low-budget independent films and major film studio productions. Sounds a little promotional; is it needed? Not sure I'm seeing the relevance here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I would think it could use less of the peacock/puffery statement. My intent was to describe her as an actress who can transition between independent films and big-budget studio films, and receive accolades for these performances too (and some criticisms). Since not every Filipino actor(s) has had that kind of career.
  • question mark Suggestion: It seems that this source only mentions one indie film that received awards. I don't think we can make the jump to say she is able to transition. This one focuses on how she finds indie filmmaking more liberating than mainstream, but this source could probably be added to the section on Mga Mumunting Lihim. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree, it could probably be reworded/tweaked to not sound assumptive about her crossover. Also, the second source is actually already used in the Mga Mumumunting Lihim section that states the quote.

Looking forward to your responses! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: Addressed some points, would like some further response on the ones not done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: Thanks for the clarification, have provided my responses on your suggestions. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@Pseud 14: Alright, I think that's everything! I'll go over it one last time tomorrow. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
@Pseud 14: I think that's everything! Best of luck with your FAN. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: thanks very much! Much appreciate your copyedits and thorough review as well. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

BLPNAME

@Pseud 14: The names of low-profile/non-notable individuals being published isn't the deciding factor for BLPNAME, it's whether they're relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. There's no apparent need to distinguish between the children (eg. Bob did this, John did that, and Jack did this and that) and we don't need to know their names to know they were born; the parents don't appear to be notable and we don't need to know their names to know they're her parents; and unless the nanny's surname is McPhee or Poppins, I see no reason whatsoever to include her name. Is there something I'm missing that makes the names relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject (additional context elsewhere in the article)?– 2.O.Boxing 14:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: Not to pull a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST but its usage is also frequent in many other FA-class biographies, whether American or non-American. e.g. Oscar Issac who is the TFA, Amy Adams, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Shah Rukh Khan to name a few. If the guideline is strictly imposed, wouldn't it have been brought up/addressed before any of these were promoted. Would we have to apply all these to our current Media and Music FA-class biographies? --Pseud 14 (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to say yes, unless there's a reason other than 'the names have been published in RS', then names of low-profile/non-notable individuals should be removed from all of the articles you mentioned. I don't think the inclusion of such names in FA articles is an indication that the policy should be ignored. I see it as more of an indication that the reviewers haven't considered or were unaware of said policy. Before I knew of the policy I would often include such names in articles simply because they were covered in multiple RS (which a considerable amount of editors believe is the only requirement, understandably).

From my experience with BLPNAME, it always boils down to whether or not the names are relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. – 2.O.Boxing 15:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: As you're intent on the inclusion, and you've demonstrated they're not exactly low-profile (which is the main purpose of BLPNAME), I'll leave the children's names. Have the parents, siblings and nanny also appeared in multiple advertisements and marketing campaigns? If not, then they still need to go.

And to note, the consensus for these edits are BLPNAME (policy). There is no precedence to ignore any aspect of WP:BLP on FA-class articles, quite the opposite. And what happens with this article has no impact on any other article, regardless of genre or quality. – 2.O.Boxing 19:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: Both her mother and nanny do not appear in commercials/campaign, but are relevant to the readers comprehension of the subject. They have had media coverage alongside the subject since her career began. They have also been covered in articles and have made television appearances/interviews, which includes her nanny's death having substantial media attention. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. So I would say it's inclusion is significant to the subject, given that it is reliably sourced in the article. Santos's siblings (brother Jefferey is an actor and politician) are notable within the Philippine entertainment and I don't think it is a breach of privacy. The policy states that it's inclusion is permitted as long as reliable sourced. I would argue that what happens in this article impacts other FA-class BLP too. Should we remove Oscar Isaac's parents and siblings then? or Brad Pitt's even though we barely hear of them being covered by the media? It would be going down a rabbit hole if we overhauled every media FAs to apply such. Why is this the only isolated case for an FA when before it's promotion it was deemed acceptable by coords/reviewers? I don't think it should solely rely at the discretion of one editor. --Pseud 14 (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm beginning to see that I may have jumped the gun on this one. Apologies for wasting your time. Silver lining: I'll remember to give FA articles (and the evidently-more-experienced nominators and reviewers) more consideration when I see such names in the future. – 2.O.Boxing 21:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
@Squared.Circle.Boxing: No apologies needed. There is mutual learning to be had on both sides and nothing that a civil exchange can’t resolve. FWIW, it’s a good consideration perhaps for future reviewers in the FAC or GA space. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Judy_Ann_Santos/Archive_1&oldid=1265011977"