Talk:Sadie Calvano

Included in the external links section of this article are links to Instagram and Twitter. This is contrary to WP:ELNO#EL10 which says that links to {{tq|Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists}} should normally be avoided. This seems fairly clear so I removed these links citing WP:ELNO#EL10, but they were restored by {{u|Erpert}}, who cited WP:ELOFFICIAL. However, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, which immediately follows WP:ELOFFICIAL in the MOS, says {{tq|Normally, only one official link is included.}} It further says {{tq|more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances ... More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three}}. This almost seems to have been specifically written for this article since the subject's blog and Twitter feed are both linked from the official website. The Instagram page is not listed, but the Instagram page does not {{tq|provide the reader with significant unique content}}. Therefore, the Instagram and Twitter feeds should not be linked in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

:So, then the point of {{tl|Facebook}} and {{tl|Twitter}} are...? (In addition, the article isn't finished; anyone else is welcome to expand it.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

::Your question is irrelevant to this discussion. I've cited the relevant parts of the MOS explaining why these links should be removed. However, the instructions for {{tl|Facebook}} include the following warning:

{{warning|The external links guideline recommends avoiding links to Facebook unless the profile is an official account, "controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article" and when the links to Facebook "provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites". Wikipedia is not a directory for helping Facebook users find pages on Facebook.}}

::and {{tl|Twitter}} includes the following:

{{warning|The external links guideline recommends avoiding links to Twitter. Only include links to social media if it is not easily linked from another link included in the article (i.e. if the individual's homepage is linked and that has a prominent link to a Twitter feed, delete the Twitter link here) and when the Twitter link provides the reader with significant unique content. Wikipedia is not a comprehensive directory of a subject's web presence. Only link to official accounts "controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article". Legitimate Twitter accounts are usually named in reliable sources or linked by other subject-controlled sources; or marked "Verified" by Twitter.}}

::WP:FACEBOOK and WP:Twitter-EL also say not to include either as external links. The official website is all we need. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

:::Her Facebook and Twitter accounts are listed on her official website, which prove that they are indeed official accounts (rather than, say, fan pages). And to be fair, WP:FACEBOOK and WP:Twitter-EL are both essays, not guidelines—actually, they're from the same essay. In addition, simply calling my question irrelevant (which it isn't) kind of suggests that you just don't know how to answer it. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

::::"Her Facebook and Twitter accounts are listed on her official website" - Per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, as I quoted above, {{tq|Normally, only one official link is included ... For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three}}

::::"And to be fair, WP:FACEBOOK and WP:Twitter-EL are both essays" - Nevertheless, they support the MOS.

::::"simply calling my question irrelevant (which it isn't) kind of suggests that you just don't know how to answer it" - Not at all. It was simply a statement of fact, but if you look at my response you'll see I've quoted from both templates. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

{{U|Erpert}} – I'm just wondering what your personal take is on Sadie Calvano and whether/how she clears WP:NACTOR? She clearly has one "significant role" to date (Mom). But I'm not really seeing multiple "significant" roles here. From my perspective, I think this one's a borderline case – I wouldn't take it to WP:AfD myself, but if I had created this article myself I think I would have done so in Draft space first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

:The only reason you don't see significant roles is because I was about to add a filmography section but then I got busy. As I stated before, anyone else is welcome to do it. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

::The list at IMDB doesn't show significant roles other than this one. What other roles are there? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

::: Yes, that's what I was getting at – Calvano's resume is similar to Draft:Peyton Meyer's (except hers has more guest roles than Meyer's): she effectively has one main (supporting) TV series role (Mom) in her resume, and then one (memorable) recurring role on another TV series (Melissa & Joey). But, outside of those, she has no "significant" roles. She's like Meyer – one good movie role would allow her to clear WP:NACTOR easily. But she's not there yet, IMHO... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

::::Where in NACTOR does it state that the subject has to have more than one starring role? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

:::::NACTOR says "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". "Significant roles" (note that "roles" and "multiple" are plural) are generally taken to be starring roles, or in some circumstances, ongoing recurring roles. Appearance in only 3 episodes of a 104-episode series is not a significant recurring role. That being the case she has has 1 significant role in 1 notable television show, not multiple as required by NACTOR. -AussieLegend (✉) 07:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

{{od|5}} Followup: Unlike other TV actors I've edited, Calvano has gotten enough "independent coverage" (e.g. one-on-one interviews in places like Teen Vogue and Backstage) that I now believe she (narrowly) clears notability. But this may be the "Stubbiest" article for a "notable" subject that I've ever seen, and seems to be really hard to flesh out the text much further... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

{{u|AussieLegend}}, would you please provide proof that filmography sections of IMDb are user-generated? (It's obvious that trivia sections, forums and reviews are, but...) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

:The much wider answer about IMDb's lack of suitability as a source may be found at Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb, where there are a number of links regarding IMDb, including one to WP:RS/IMDb. There is also a template that can be used on articles that cite IMDb - see {{tl|BLP IMDB refimprove}}. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sadie Calvano on Dulce Osuna.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)