Talk:Katharine Isabelle

Biography

Returned the bio entries to contain place in credits order and the name under which Katharine appeared - and she has had many aliases. This is entirely encyclopaedic, and meaningful. It is, as someone said here before, useful in placing the importance of Katharine's role in the given productions. Going back over the previous edits here I have found no-one before who has removed any of this detail, and a good number are very experienced editors, and Admins as well. So it must be good enough, right and also acceptable by the majority of users. I also suspect Mdsummermsw is a sockpuppet of JaimeAnnaMoore. as they appear to be working in tandem to edit/remove things. 81.102.115.191 (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see your comment up here before I added my entry at the bottom, as is the custom. Should you wish to respond on this topic, please do so there. Should you wish to discuss whether anyone here is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of anyone else, this is not the place. This talk page is for discussing the article. If you wish to follow through on the sockpuppet issue, please go to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add text to a comment that has already been replied to, as you did here. It makes it look like I was replying to comments that you had not yet made.

Again, if you believe I am a sockpuppet (one person using multiple user names) or meatpupper (one user having their edits made by more than one person), this is not the place to discuss that accusation. This talk page is for discussing the article. If you wish to follow through on the sockpuppet issue, please go to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Another Cinderella Story

As this film was never intended for theatrical release, and was never released thus, it cannot seriously be placed in the movies category. The only sensible place to put it is in TV Movies. Granted, it has not SO FAR been shown on TV, but it will be in due course. Whereas it will never be show in a commercial theatre/cinema. You may look upon it as premature to put it in TV Movies, but it is the only sensible place to put it.81.102.115.191 (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Credits

I have just seen the minor dispute over "1st" and "lead" as to which is correct. I should like ot say that the correct term in the business is "LEAD". If one is first in the credits, you are indeed "In the lead", One gets the "Leading Role" in a film, one is never "First in the cast", one instead "Takes the lead" in a film, etc. It's not a matter of semantics, it is simply the correct term to use. Lost Girls Diary 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure who added this particular comment. The manually entered signature (above) says User:Lost Girls Diary, but it was entered by an IP. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are accusing me of stealing someone's identity. I assure you I haven't done that, and would not dare. 81.102.115.191 (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of anything. The first edit in this section was added by you, User:81.102.115.191. However, it included a signature, manually entered, as "User:Lost Girls Diary". On your talk page, I asked if you could explain this. You responded by deleting the section. What's the story? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No it does not show I added the section you claim. It in no way identifies me as the author. I did not add the first part fo this article. You are treading on thin ice. 81.102.115.191 (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines

A word or two on guidelines. They are, as the word implies, "guidelines", not rules set in stone. Indeed it says as much in the guideline pages. With particular reference to the WP:MOSBIO guidelines, It says emphatically that "adherence is not required". As FCYTravis, who is an Admin here has recently seen the page as it exists now, and hasn't a problem with it, then I suggest that it is acceptable without any tampering. Lost Girls Diary 20:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

All Hallow's Raith, you may or may not be well-intentioned, but the layout is acceptable to regular users, and to an Admin, whose only problem was with the image - which we argued over, but agreed to disagree. The page does not have to look like any other. Though, as a matter of fact, it does actually look like a good number I have seen, but have nothing to do with the editing of.

Please do not revert to your layout as it is unnecessary. The page does NOT have to conform; the WP:MOSBIO page says so!

Lost Girls Diary 19:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image

The image in use has been there since time immemorial. Regular users of the page know this, including Bacteria, none of whom have said a word, nor have tried to remove the image before. Now a newbie - two days on Wiki and knows it all - comes along and suddenly you are all experts who want the image removed. Why?! don't give me the rules nonsense, because none of you have done anything about this before. This smacks of conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lost Girls Diary (talk • contribs) 21:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Does a publicity photo of Ms. Isabelle exist? If so, we can request that it be released under a free license and then used here. Or, does someone already have a photo of her on Flickr under a suitable Creative Commons license ? Or... someone can attend one of her public appearances and get a photo then. FCYTravis 22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Publicity photos do exist, but are owned by the agency, and they most emphatically will not release them. No other photos exist out of copyright. As I said on your talk page, Katie doesn't do public appearances. I know this sounds improbable, but is absolutely true. Lost Girls Diary 23:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Then... it seems as if we're just going to have to do without a photo. FCYTravis 23:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

New meat for the slaughter here, but would a picture such as the one found at [1] be suitable for use on this page? As technically it's not from a movie, but a public appearance (sorry Lost Girls Diary) - Rahma - 15:57, 6 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.51.80.155 (talk)

No, it cannot be used. it derives from Katie arriving at the TIFF a number of years ago with the guys she was in theatre with in Toronto. It would hardly be counted as a public appearance as she stayed a grand total of five minutes. Anyway, back to the point, the photos are copyright and the owners will not release them.

If we are to be pedantic over 'public appearances', Katie has made a grand total of four in total: 1. A poster signing session in a store in Vancouver in 2001; Katie stayed a grand total of thirty minutes before getting bored and leaving - no photos exist. 2. TIFF 2003, when others in the film Falling Angels won an award. Three pictures exist, are copyright and unavailable. 3. TIFF 2004 - as previously mentioned. 4. An awards ceremony where Katie presented an award - the only reason she turned up was because they were supporting fund raising for an equestrian centre for disabled children; two pictures exist, are copyright to the photographer and are unavailable. To be wholly pedantic you could include turning up at the premiere of Ginger Snaps, or Turning Paige in two cities - but no photographs exist to even prove it happened:)

Hardly what would be described as a publicity hungry lady. Quite apart from that, Katie doesn't view such things as 'public appearances' but simply as a matter of duty, and she's prepared to toe that line very infrequently.

I should point out that all the photos of Katie anyone could ever want (and Katie blanches at the idea of anyone wanting even just one), can be found online free to use on a not-for-profit basis. Unfortunately that isn't good enough for the unbending pedants at Wiki who think they invented the idea of copyright, etc. But, it is true to say that the vast majority of copyright holders work on that basis; whilst the remainder would do no more than contact anyone using a photo and ask for it to be removed if they disapproved of it being used. Sadly, dolts like Travis and his ilk can't see wood for trees. Lost Girls Diary 15:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got a question for Travis then. Seeing as any and all pictures taken of Katie are apparently under Copyright from the respective photographers, where's the proof of copyright? I see no "(C)" mark on any of the pictures, and the sites from which the originated back in time imemorial have also dissapeared. I'm not looking to start a mud-slinging fight, but could you show me a page that forbids the use of practically all pictures taken of Katie? - Rahma - 14:51, 6 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.51.80.158 (talk)

Excellent point, Rahma. You see, in the first place, no copyright holder is going to surrender their copyright to Wikipedia or any other place for that matter - which is pretty logical, as I'm sure you will agree. Nor are they liable to issue a licence for something such as this, as they view it, as I said before, as free-to-use, not-for-profit use, and therefore no licence is required, nor issued. It is very rare in general use for photographs to carry the copyright mark, and it is usually assumed the photos are copyright to the photographer, movie company, agency, whatever. Similarly, it is assumed that pictures, unless specifically marked otherwise, are available for "not-for-profit" use; otherwise, there is hardly a website that would be in existence. You obviously understand this, Rahma; how I wish common sense would prevail elsewhere.

Travis's avowed sticking to the rule that allows screencaps only to illustrate a film, doesn't hang with everything he's said, as the picture we had previously, and any other that may be used thus, carried a caption: "Katharine Isabelle in Ginger Snaps". In law that can be construed to be "illustrating a film, or a person in a particular film". Thus Travis is well out of order, and out of his depth, I'm afraid. That said, I have people adding to my discussion page telling me point blank that it is "inappropriate" to tell people they are "vandals" when they vandalize, nor am I to tell them to "get a life". I am supposed to behave like an "adult", which, it would appear, means burying my head in the sand and letting all and sundry kick my ass. Ah well . . . Lost Girls Diary 20:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

What I don't seem to understand fully Travis, is that if the copyright licenses of the photographs we, the users, submit are indeed only assumptions, what harm arises from linking a picture of a character the person in question was playing in a movie? As technically and quite realistically speaking, there is no written proof of a copyright holding, and as a result, an infringement on Wiki's part. If indeed a photographer wished his picture removed, it'd be an easy fix after deliberation with one of you Sysops. As for the potential falsification of a portrait photograph taken from a movie, it'd be an easily fixed problem with a caption, as Lost Girls Diary suggested, reading "<Whoever> playing <Character> in the movie <Name>." - Rahma - 00:41, 7 October 2007

Sadly, Rahma, I think we are talking to ourselves. At least until someone makes a move, adds a picture and Travis, or one of the other rules nazis sees it and the you know what hits the fan. I suspect they know what you and I are saying is true, which indeed it is (that there isn't a realistic problem in using a picture), but are simply hidebound by the rulebook. We could, indeed, have a picure up, or a whole gallery and the chance of a problem arising is virtually zero. How the hell do they think fansites amass their photo collections, and keep them online and intact? it's certainly not by searching archives for photographers names, or copyright holders and begging for the copyright release. It's done on trust, as I previously mentioned, and which is pretty obvious anyway. Lost Girls Diary 18:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Filmography

As all regular users know, I started the filmography some time ago, and am considering adding both the role name and place in the final credits for each appearance. Anyone have any views on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lost Girls Diary (talk • contribs) 14:55, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your building the tables, Bacteria( I couldn't find the relative info when I started building the filmography).

Please bear in mind that I built the filmography in the first place, from scratch! Also, please lets's not have a war over this. It is all good, useful, and correct information relative to Katie's appearances onscreen. After all I have contributed to this page, I really don't want to see it disintegrating under a plethora of dissent and misunderstanding. I hope we can all pull together, and in the same direction on this matter, and get in all the relevant information we can. Lost Girls Diary 17:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have spent a little time reshaping the tables (Bacteria did mention they weren't perfect, and still aren't), and will get the info back in ASAP. Please bear with me on this :) Lost Girls Diary 18:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To begin at the beginning, Bacteria, we were not born to be sheep, we were born human beings, with the power of individual thought and creative action. Just bcause you cannot find another page on wiki which includes credit placing doesn't mean it shouldn't be there, or that it is trivial. Innovation is not a bad thing. I can point to many things on wiki which are trivial; from a good number of the 'guidelines' to pieces of, or complete articles - yet they still exist, and are often supported by the 'powers that be'.

Encyclopaedic knowledge is supposed to be all-encompassing, not a matter of cherry-picking; that's the way an encyclopaedia works. Dragging up wiki info pages is really no defence; especially given that wiki exists without rules, despite what the likes of Travis and his ilk would have you believe. Wikipedia has 'guidelines', and those guidelines are supposed to be flexible, and may often be ingnored. It tells you that when you sign up. In the case of images, which we have covered previously at length, and which I know you have had your own tribulations over, it tells all and sundry in black and white: 'use common sense' and that the guideline may 'sometimes be ignored'. In law, which is the important point here, there is no problem whatsoever using an image online without prior consent, be it a portrait or screencap unless it is tagged with an owner's name/logo. If an owner finds their pictures being used online (and they don't want them there) they simply ask for them to be removed. Only if one refuses to remove them is there ever a threat of legal action. I have a certain amount of practical experience in this field, so I know what I'm saying is correct.

We could in effect use a screencap, agency or promo photo with or without a qualifying tag (as the previous screencap clearly had - which incidentally IS valid for use according to the wiki criteria which says you can use a screencap to illustrate a film. The 'cap tag said: "Katharine Isabelle in Ginger Snaps", which does exactly what is asked. There, as ever in this matter, Travis and his folowers are hoist by their own petard, I'm afraid), without recourse to legal action by any owner. Whilst on this subject, the wiki guidelines go on to say, in effect that if the commuity at large are happy with an item as it appears, then, irrespective of whether it meets the guidelines, it should remain thus. By looking back at the number of people who attempted to revert to a page with the photo, one can see 4 people, whilst only Travis persisted with blocking the reversion. That is against the wiki guidelines!

Credits listing:

Listing credits is useful as a guide to A: The relative importance of an actor/actress in an individual piece, and similarly. B: The relative importance of a character in said piece. For example, coming to the page bereft of prior knowledge, to read: Katharine Isabelle appeared in Supernatural episodes Hunted and All Hell Breaks Loose, Part 1, as Ava Wilson, we provide only the most basic information. For all anyone unfamiliar with the series knows, Katharine Isabelle/Ava Wilson could have been the mainstay of the episodes. But, if we go on to say that Katharine/Ava appeared as 3rd Guest, 6th overall in Hunted, and 7th Guest, 9th overall, we illustrate clearly the relative importance of the character (and actress, for that matter) to the piece in question. It's the sort of detail industry professionals thrive on.

Series/Episode numbers:

Similarly, if we ignore the opportunity to list series and episode numbers, the uninitiated have no idea at what point the episode/s in question took place. Applying chronological order to them means a reader unfamiliar to the series in question allows them to go ahead and find the episode easily.

In any and all regards, an encyclopaedia be it online or in hard copy form should assume the reader knows nothing of the subject presented to them, and, as such, said encyclopaedia should aim to provide all relative information necessary to put the subject properly into context.

Lost Girls Diary 20:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a bright shining star in the individual category. So, okay, bollocks to the example route, then. I only bring them up because they are good examples; obviously not hardcore prototype. Rules are definitely made to be broken, or at least bent, but some are in line for good cause, and I firmly believe in the one about indiscriminate information. I can only reiterate that I still find the credit placing as trivial. I don't see its point, and I honestly don't really ever give a shit about where an actor is placed in the credits. It's only of importance to me if I'm trying to fill out a movie/series guide and want to try and put credits in order. I'd do that in someplace like TVRage, but serves only a purpose of minor importance (and I hold that in high esteem only because I'm anal). The only related thing that can be informative is specifying whether she is listed as a regular guest star, a co-guest star, or special guest star. As for the episode numbers - yes, we have to assume no one is familar with the subject, but the subject is Katharine Isabelle, not the film/television she's been in. If anyone takes a lick of curiousity to what episode she's in, they can go to the series article and if there's not an internal link to an episode guide, then there's bound to be an external one. Again, our purpose in this article is get Katie's details, not make a side-by-side guide. If you want that all prettied up, I suggest you tweak the article's in question. As an aside about the image - I can understand why we don't use such images for biographical purposes. A person "in-character" is not really an accurate portrayal of the person in question. --Bacteria 10:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Love the humour creeping in there, Bacteria; not to mention the sarcasm :)

I realize we are at odds over this, but please lets not have the back and forth - I'm sure we're both heartily sick and tired of the nonsense; especially when the admins get involved and it all escalates to a ridiculous degree. I do think it is important to keep the ep numbers and the credits details as it does help define Katie's place in a series/episode without need to cross-reference. In essence, you half-concede the point by accepting the idea of including Guest Lead, Special Guest Star, etc., which all amounts to the same thing anyway, as they are Katie's details relative to the work she has done. Q.E.D.

If I had the time available to pretty up all relative articles, I would. Sadly, time is lacking for all that - I'm sure you know the feeling.

As for the filmography year details. They are and have been since inception, in year of production, and in the order they are listed, in the correct month order too. That goes for the Films, TV movies, and TV episodes - I haven't worked on year alone for the tv eps as they often span two years - as with Supernatural 2006-07. So I have always gone with the relative episodes production schedules. In the case of Katie's Supernatural episodes, for example, the first was produced in October 2006, the second in February 2007. I built the filmography accordingly. I'll give you chapter and verse on the dates, if you want (which I kind of doubt); just don't ask what craft services were serving for lunch because that's really pushing it :)

Lost Girls Diary 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Date of birth

The date is actually incorrect as well; it is really November 10th, and the year is 1980. The IMDB source was a fan who got totally messed up, and persisted in the fiction of 1982 - itself invented by a fan! Access Katie's brother for verification. n.b Katie has also referred to herself as being Double Scorpio in interview, (Interviewer: "You're double scorpio, what does that make you?" Katie: "Majorly fucked up!", which adds weight to her brother's statement. Further to this end, it is a recorded fact that Katie was 7 years old when she appeared in Cousins, which was filmed in spring 1988. Katie was also asked in interview how old she was when that movie was filmed, and she confirmed she was 7 years old. As well as this, Ben Browder of Stargate SG-1 in the commentary for the episode Katie appeared in stated her age as 25, when she was allegedly 23! Lost Girls Diary

IMDb lists her date of birth March 10, 1982 and this wikipedia article March 10, 1980. Does anyone know the correct date? Ik.pas.aan 18:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As we don't have a reliable source for her birthday (IMDb is user-submitted and hence not reliable at all), I've removed it. FCYTravis 21:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Travis, at long last we agree on something! I do know Katharine's date of birth for a fact, but cannot get it verified for the obvious reason that word of mouth, no matter who it comes from is not good enough. Lost Girls Diary 21:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

See, that's another policy that I try to make sure stuff complies with ;) FCYTravis 21:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Users, let's not argue for between the 3 year of births, so I finally found it's real date of birth from another website to be sourced. I already made comments at WP:BLPN and the user already removed it and move it's archive. Also IMDb is not the source for it's information. I will put it's real date of birth from another website to be sourced soon. Steam5 (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

An unofficial fansite is not a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Place in credits

As restored by this edit, "Place in credits" is trivial. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Only in your opinion. I don't see anyone else souting to thr rooftops to have it removed! 81.102.115.191 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone else shouting from the rooftops to have it included in this article or any of thousands of similar articles. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, someone somewhere said my removing it was vandalism. They are simply wrong. Content disputes are not vandalism.Wikipedia:VandalismMdsummermsw (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In the real world a dispute is an argument, removing an article or any section of an article simply because one or two people disagree with it, is vandalism. The [Nazi] party had the same approach to things they didn't like or approve of! 81.102.115.191 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, content disputes are not vandalism, per Wikipedia:Vandalism. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, 9 bazillion admins said it was great. I don't know who "they" are so I can't ask them and I won't take your word for it. Admins do not have more of a say on content than anyone else, so I don't know what those admins would have meant. Wikipedia:AdministratorsMdsummermsw (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Admins who quite obviously don't disagree with the article including "place in credits" are actually amongst those who have edited the article. So you don't have to take my word for it, just use your common sense 81.102.115.191 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"The Admins" does not tell us who you believe supports the inclusion of this trivia. That anyone edited any portion of the article, of course, does not mean that they necessarily approve of any text they did not specifically object to. And again, on Wikipedia, admins do not have additional say on content, nor do they "approve" content, per, WP:NBD. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, you believe that wikipedia should be a repository of every possible piece of information in the universe. You are mistaken. Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information

Different movies list casts in the order they do for different reasons. Some list the principle stars first, some do not. The rest of the cast (or the whole cast) may be listed in varying ways: alphabetically, in order of appearance, by number of lines, through contractual agreement, etc. The order that a particular website, such as imdb, follows may be the same as the film or their own invention. As such, the "Place" in credits is a meaningless bit of trivia.Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

True in the first, but in the movie business the format is well known, there are "Opening Credits", which is really only for the leading actor's benefit, especially if their name is above the title - which means they "carry" the movie. There are "Final Credits", shown as the movie closes, this is the true account of your worth as an actor: i.e. 1 = Great, 21 = journeyman; unless they are "Alphabetical", or "In Order of Appearance", there is also the use of "And" and "With" which denotes a fleeting or "special" appearance usually (but not always) by someone once well regarded, but now their career is on the wane. No-one ever gets listed by the number of lines they speak! The point here is that the article used the term "Final Credits" which should be self-explanatory, and certainly should be now. It is far from trivial to an actor, their agent, manager, or casting agents; and to many fans who bemoan their idol's name being so far down the cast list, etc. 81.102.115.191 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, discussion of this section at WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers has not turned up any reason for this section or anyone who thinks it's a good idea. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the [IMDB], barring intial cast lists (when a movie is in the pre-prod/prod stages) they only ever accept "Final Credits", or "In Alphabetical Order", they do not accept inventions, not make up their own. If you really knew how the IMDB worked you may have more regard for it. 81.102.115.191 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, we have discussed imdb before and decided it isn't a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I will wait for reasoned discussion before removing this trivia again. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The above note was not assurance that I would not remove them again until there as reasoned discussion, merely that I would wait before I removed them again. I waited two days, then, as there was no reasoned discussion, I removed them again.

I have been told here and on the IP's talk page that no one has ever contested the inclusion of this before. That is simply not true.[2] Even if no one had contested it before, I am contesting it now. It is trivial information of no apparent meaning. Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If two people contest a section of an article, amongst the mass fo people viewing any given article, then the two are a very small minority, and their views while important to them, are not to be taken as a majority view, and do not constitute a reason to remove, nor change any article. This is not a dictatorship! 81.102.115.191 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. However, Wikipedia is ruled by consensous. If you would like, we can take this issue through dispute resolution to determine the community feeling on the issue. I am fairly certain you will find that the existing concensous (to not include this) is clearly demonstrated and will hold. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying that admins "approved" a version is not true (as admins can do no such thing) and, again, meaningless. Admins have as much/as little weight in such issues as anyone else.Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What you clearly fail to understand about Wiki is that the Admins DO to all intents and purposes run the site. What they say goes in the final analysis. 81.102.115.191 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Admins on Wikipedia do not work the way you seem to believe they do. Again, if you would like, dispute resolution can clear this up. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The question remains: on what basis is this trivial information included? Order of credits varies from production to production. If "Alan Aardvark" were in 5 films that all listed credits alphabetically, does "1st in final credits" have meaning? If, in his sixth film, he's 9th in the credits because they are in order of appearance, does this tell us something about Alan? There has been no meaningful explanation provided as to why this info is in the article. I will wait briefly before removing it again. If there is no discussion, I'll yank it. If there is discussion, I'll listen before I edit it again. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of this section at WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers has not turned up any reason for this section or anyone who thinks it's a good idea. If there is no more discussion here, I will remove this trivia later today. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No reply? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Mdsummersw

Congratulations, you have successfully hacked to page to pieces. Removing TV episode details alone is tantamount to vandalism. But, frankly, I have not the patience to continue the to-ing and fro-ing with you. It seems you have no idea what is and is not useful, or to whom - casting directors, for instance live and breath on the details you have removed. Yet you see fit to add triva. Incredible! 81.102.115.191 (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, content disputes are not vandalism. If you believe they are, you are simply wrong. Please do not continue to make this charge.[3][4][5]

Any "casting directors" using wikipedia for the information they "live and breath on" are fools. Wikipedia is not all things for all people. If, for example, someone wants every minor detail on Isabelle's career, Wikipedia is not what they are looking for.

I have not added trivia. Quite the opposite: I removed a considerable quantity of unsourced trivia that you have been defending.[6][7][8][9][10] You've repeatedly insisted that no sources are needed or promised to provide sources, but have not.[11][12] Wikipedia, on the other hand, demands that any information which is challenged or is likely to be challenged be sourced to reliable, verifiable sources.

I assume you have given up on your charge that I am a sock puppet/meat puppet of another user or two.

You never did explain your signing of another user's name, one with an interesting past. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The user with the "interesting past" has nothing to do with me, and I did NOT and have NOT signed any article with anyone else's title. You have no right whatsoever to accuse me of that. In my opinion the editor in question showed more care for the subject than you or the many hopeless editors who have wrecked the main article, and clearly know little to nothing about the subject and care even less. The fact that you cannot differentiate between trivia and useful info only goes to strengthen this. I do believe sincerely that you are using several different IDs to push through your edits; but as I have a very full life away from this site, I cannot be troubld to pursue the matter.

As for your snide commentary regarding what Wiki is and is not, you, like so mnay others, some admins and wannabe admins especially, do not understand what an encyclopedia is supposed to be, online or in printed format. Unless described as "concise" it SHOULD include the kind of detail you thrive on removing unnecessarily. Sadly your brand of editing is what has brough Wiki into disrepute in the wider world for its unreliability and clannish nature, and means that it becomes more and more trivial in nature as time goes by 81.102.115.191 (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So, to sum up:

1) You don't care what Wikipedia is or is not, only what you feel it should be.

2) You want trivia in this article, despite Wikipedia's policies against including trivia.

3) You have given up on your claim that I am a sockpuppet/meatpuppet, but wish to continue the personal attack of the bare claim that it is true.

4) You wish to continue to deny signing another user's name, despite your doing so being easily verified here.

Thanks for explaining.

SummerPhD (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how you twist facts or statements to your own ends, another Nazi/neo-fascist trick!

For your information, the link you highlighted shows quite clearly that I wrote about Another Cinderella Story, undeniably, as I included the four tildes to sign it. I did not however, write the later, following section, nor sign it Lost Girls Diary, which does NOT show my IP, despite your insistence! 81.102.115.191 (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, if you review the page I have repeatedly pointed to, it clearly shows that you added "==Credits== I have just seen the minor dispute over "1st" and "lead" as to which is correct. The correct term in the business is "LEAD". One gets the "Leading Role", one "Takes the lead" in a film, etc. [[User:Lost Girls Diary|Lost Girls Diary]] 01:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)" at 00:55, 7 October 2008. Do you believe I somehow have the power to change Wikipedia's records of past edits? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have NOT signed another user's name, and there is NO evidence whatsoever that I have, this is entirely in your imagination 81.102.115.191 (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole topic is tiresome. The edit is question is here. It is quite clear. You added a "Credits" section with an indication that it was by "Lost Girls Diary". You dated it a full month after you made the edit. If you have something to indicate that the database is wrong is this regard, please present it. Otherwise, I consider the issue closed. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

?!Katharine Isabelle Birth Date !?

Who am i suppose to believe? Wikipedia; november 10, 1980 IMDB; november 10, 1981 Her Websites, March 10, 1982 Or "Talent Magazine"interviews , Double sign Scorpio ???

When people put informations on the Web, they should check their sources before edited it. And put the wrong one just for make fun of other people are not even better.

So hope to find a trusted source soon to know on wich day, month and year she was born! David leblanc biron (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A view of the WP history major edits...

Initial page was...

Katharine Murray is a Canadian actress, born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada on March 10th, 1982. She has appeared in various Canadian and American movies and television series.

13th Nov 2003 - Page Created as above

28th Aug 2008 - Changed to Nov 10 1982 - citing IMDB

28th Sep 2008 - change to 1981 "year of birth corrected to 81 as elsewhere"

19th Nov 2008 - dob removed

then reverted back to Nov 10th 1981

2nd Dec 2008 - removed "unsourced birthdate (imdb is not a reliable source)"

24th Mar 2009 - Birth date added, citing IMDB

One could note that the original WP page does agree with her web sites, and IMDB is notably bad on dates of birth  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a lot simpler than that. What Wikipedia said originally or at any other time is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. What IMDb says is irrelevant. IMDb is not a reliable source (other than for some writing credits). We need a date that cites a reliable source. Nothing more, nothing less. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Claims that Isabelle clarified the issue at some convention somewhere with video "forthcoming" does not make it. Wikipedia needs a citation to a verifiable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

SUMMER PHD:

KATHARINE ISABELLE STATED TO HER FANS AT MONSTER-MANIA, NEW JERSEY THAT HER BIRTHDAY IS NOVEMBER 2, 1981. IF YOU ARE SO UNSURE, WHY WERE YOU NOT THERE TO ASK! I WAS NOT ON LSD WHEN SHE GAVE THIS INFORMATION. A VIDEO OF HER PRONOUNCEMENT WILL BE PROVIDED SOON. I HIGHLY SUGGEST THAT YOU ACCEPT "EARLY NOVEMBER" 1981 AS A "HAPPY MEDIIUM" FOR NOW. BTY, THIS "BIOGRAPHY" THAT YOU ARE "TAKING CARE OF" IS ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC AND DOES NO JUSTICE TO ONE OF THE GREATEST ACTRESSES OF OUR TIME!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.213.128 (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The video you claim you will "provide" "soon" is a moot point. Wikipedia is not a place for you to post your home movies of "ONE OF THE GREATEST ACTRESSES OF OUR TIME". Wikipedia cites verifiable information from reliable sources. Your video is neither a reliable source, nor is it verifiable. Until such time as a reliable source bothers to document this basic piece of biographical data on "ONE OF THE GREATEST ACTRESSES OF OUR TIME", the world will have to wait with baited breath for it. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

THANKS FOR YOUR USUAL POMPOUS ASS ARROGANT REPLY! IT'S A SHAME THAT KATHARINE ISABELLE HAS TO RELY ON ANAL RETENTIVE DIMWITS LIKE YOU TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO HER FANS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.62.36 (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Assistants

Katharine played Paulette Rubin (Ruby?) on The Assistants. No mention on IMDB. 65.95.113.233 (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Role of Rogue and Trivia section

I am removing the Trivia section as this is a BLP without relocating it's one remaining statement; "She was the original choice for the role of Rogue in X-Men". I can't find a reliable source, and all others repeat the claim word for word and I think are quoting this page. The wikipedia page x-men(film) contradicts the claim saying she was "considered" for the role among a list of a dozen others but this has no citation either and again I can't find a good source. I suggest if anyone finds a source to either claim and inserts it they place it in the existing general biography section rather than recreate a trivia section.--Skirrid (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Mistaken Reference?

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but reference #3 listed as retrieved in 2007 links to a 2007 article in USA Today. <https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-04-26-scream-queens_N.htm#?POE>.

1. This WP article links to "Katherine" with an E (rather than "Katharine" with an A).

2. This USA Today reference article does NOT include Ms. Isabelle (spelled in any way) as one of the past examples or 6 featured Scream Queens. In other words, irrelevant reference for her WP article.

The problems are solved if this sentence/reference is removed. Gprobins (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)