Talk:Katherine Langford

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Katherine Langford article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers 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 articles This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). Australia: Television Low‑importance Katherine Langford is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened: April 9 to 15, 2017 (9th) April 16 to 22, 2017 (15th) April 23 to 29, 2017 (25th)

It is so absurd to conclude that the actress will leave the series by a source that is based only on rumors. Clearly the same source says "Netflix has yet to announce whether there will be third season of 13 Reasons Why, but if there is, it will be without Katherine Langford (Hannah Baker).". So how can you conclude if the series ended forever or if Langford will return for season 3?, from my point of view it is best to wait a certain time, until Netflix talks about the matter. I will not revert more because the user Nyanchoka is a user very conflicts and always prefers to fall in editions wars. I expect answers from other users.--

From what I've been able to read, despite the fact that the show isn't renewed yet, it sounds like Katherine is done with Hannah's story. In the article, she talks about saying goodbye to her, and letting Hannah go, finally, in the Season 2 finale, and Katherine posted a very "goodbye" sounding post on her instagram where she essentially bid farewell to Hannah, thanked the cast and crew, etc., (here). It sounds like Katherine has no plans on coming back as Hannah because her story is now finished, even if 13 Reasons Why isn't, whether it gets renewed or not. However, if you want tot wait for more official confirmation (like from Netflix), I'm fine with that too, however, I think Katherine is finished with 13 Reasons Why.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this point, but it has happened before with other actors who always say the same thing and end up coming back. From my point of view, we must wait for a certain time until there is official information.--

Talk 12:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, many editors have held multiple discussions and there's been zero consensus. What is clear, though, is that semantically "publisher" is the wrong label for the information (aka Biography.com) and we shouldn't be picking style (italics or not) over substance (what type of information the value "Biography.com" actually is) just to render the value in a particular way. It's certainly not "fringe" to italicize the name of a publication when (as other editors have pointed out numerous times in the past debates) you are citing it, as opposed to just talking about it as an entity. When it's being used as a source, the website Biography.com is functioning as a publication. This is different from if we were just talking about the website itself, like Biography.com is a useful website if you need details of public figures' dates of birth. In that case, I agree... automatically italicizing it would be debatable and could go either way, although in this case I would argue it's functioning as an encyclopedia, which—as per above—should actually be italicized. Also,

WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable here... it refers to what we call things (i.e. what words are used), not how those words are styled. There's no similar guideline or policy that specifies we must adopt the most common formatting for a term... in fact, we specifically don't ape the various special marketing-esque styles various companies adopt simply because that's how either the company always reproduces its name or even that most publications follow suit. We have a house style and we stick to that, and our house style doesn't say, one way or another, that Biography.com must or must not be italicized. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, that's so (as noted at

MOS:ITALICTITLE

, which says "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites" as well as encyclopedias and dictionaries, are italcizied, while "Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis"), which is why we're discussing it here. And I'm glad to say we're both discussing this maturely and collegially as we have in the past.

This discussion seems a variant on the WikiProject Film discussion archived here, in which User:Betty Logan made what I think of as a salient point: "I sympathise with Joeyconnick's point that Fandango could be considered the "publisher" in this case, but I would say this is only true if Fandango execute a level of control over the content. If this is the case then I agree that Rotten Tomatoes should be considered a "work" and italicised; hoever; if Rotten Tomatoes operates autonomously then I would consider RT self-publishing and Fandango simply the "owner" rather than the publisher, in which case the title should not be italicised."

The TV channel FYI and its owner in turn, A&E Networks, are not publishers in the sense of The New York Times Company, which sets broad goals, is the hiring entity, and exerts control over The New York Times. As we saw from an RS discussion about Biography.com, the site is owned by A&E Networks, but A&E Networks is not a publisher in the accepted meaning of the term.

However... I think I see a middle ground, which perhaps you and I might take up together, since it would serve the community-wide benefit of settling the issue and bringing consistency. The part that in my mind seems fringe is italicizing anything that ends in ".com". We don't cite "Amazon.com" but simply "Amazon"; we don't cite "RottenTomatoes.com" but "Rotten Tomatoes". What would you say to going to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and, following these examples, we suggest that rather than "Biography.com", we cite "Biography", italicized. That treats it as an encyclopedia, as you advocate, and it reflects a more common, real-world format, as I advocate.

I was involved in such a discussion that resulted in "Deadline.com" being standardized in citations as Deadline Hollywood. And while I advocated for the former, I am absolutely delighted that consensus was reached for something consistent. What do you say? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate our civil discussion, too. I think my stand is pretty clear: I don't really care one way or the other whether a publication, a website name, or a domain name is italicized or not, but I do care if we label something that contains information or an article (traditionally a book, magazine, or journal; increasingly now, websites) a "publisher". All respect to Betty but I would have to disagree that we should be asking editors to somehow determine whether the corporate owner is editorially involved in the website or not as a way of determining whether a website may qualify as a (self-)publisher; I would have no idea where to start to reliably and consistently source that information, so it seems to me it leads straight to

WP:OR

and opens up just as much possibility for back-and-forth battles as our current situation. I would much rather we focus on what the "container" is (the work) and who owns it (the publisher). It seems to me it is far easier to determine the (generally corporate) owner of a work than whether a website qualifies somehow as a publisher because it may or may not have editorial/operational independence.

It sounds to me as if your reluctance to italicize website names stems mainly from whether something is listed as a domain name (.com, .net, .org, etc.) or not, which I get as a historical holdover from when websites were in their infancy but which feels (again, to me, probably not everyone) increasingly like a pointless distinction as the web and the digital realm in general function more and more as repositories of our sources. For instance, we even have venerable print-first newspapers and other publications moving to completely digital operations. Given that ongoing migration, I don't, myself, understand the reluctance to italicize Amazon.com or RottenTomatoes.com when they are serving the same role/purpose as The New York Times or Variety, in that they are "where" the article or information we are citing "resides".

Still, I get that's where you are coming from and I understand your rationale, even if I don't feel the same way. I actually would be fine if they added some way to specify that |work= or |website= shouldn't be rendered in italics in certain cases in the {{cite web}} template... but that appears unlikely to happen. *sigh* Oh Wikipedia!

However, your middle ground sounds like a great solution to me, certainly for this case and probably for many others, so if you want to go ahead and make that edit, I am all for it. Thank you again for the good discussion. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I have to head out soon, but I'll whip up something in the next couple of days to suggest at that MOS talk page, and run it by you on your talk page for tweaks, suggestions, etc. Nice working with you ... and an interesting analysis you wrote, by the way.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Replace image with preferred publicity image of Katherine Langford at Australians in Film Awards.

Bibliogrok (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Blatant

copyright violation. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Katherine Langford arrives to attend the DIOR fashion show.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]