Talk:Xenia Goodwin

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xenia Goodwin. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xenia Goodwin. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xenia Goodwin's inspiration in the article[edit]

 – --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your reversal of my edit on her page. I'm not totally familiar with the specific editing rules and looking at the individual pages somewhat confused me, so would you be able to explain your decision? PokeFan10025 (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think my edit summary for the reversion is pretty clear: 1) Don't use WP:YOUTUBE as a "reference" – if "real" independent secondary source(s) don't refer to an event or claim, it likely isn't worth mentioning. 2) What was added was almost certainly WP:UNDUE in whole and in part anyway – for an article this short, mentioning a film that may have "inspired" the subject to dance is pretty darn thin, and the extra stuff about Tara Morice is almost certainly extraneous at an article about Goodwin. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So even if I find a non-YouTube source, it's still irrelevant? She said what I wrote herself, and she is mostly, if not only, known for dancing and for being an actress on Dance Academy. I've found an article too mentioning what I wrote; https://dancemagazine.com.au/2010/12/living-her-dream-dance-academy%E2%80%99s-xenia-goodwin/. PokeFan10025 (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to mention that I've found another article from the Sydney Morning Herald that corroborates what I wrote if 'dancemagazine.com.au' isn't real enough. PokeFan10025 (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying for an article this short, it's pretty trivial content. But if you want to add a single sentence of something along the lines of "Tara Morice's role in Strictly Ballroom inspired Goodwin to take up dancing." sourced to these two sources, I will no longer object. But it needs to be short and sweet. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know you wrote that it needs to be short and sweet, but I ignored it because I did not feel like what I wrote was long by any means. Is this 'short and sweet' just your own personal preference? If so, I believe I'm in the right to revert to how I written it while keeping your reference fix. I can try and shorten it a little, but I feel outright changing it isn't necessary.
Also, she never stated Tara herself inspired her - it was the film, hence why I mentioned Tara afterwards as they would later become co-cast members. PokeFan10025 (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Who has been an inspiration to you in your dance career? – Funnily enough, Tara Morice in the movie Strictly Ballroom..." It's right there in the Dance Magazine article. And, no, don't revert to your preferred preference – that's pure WP:DE. Wikipedia is a collaborate process.
If this is kept in at all, it needs to be very short, so as not to give it WP:UNDUE prominence in the article. And the version needs to be either just the film inspired her to take up dance, or that Morice in the film did, not both... But it's either it stays darn short, or it stays out entirely. Which would you prefer?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand on how I wrote it gives it undue weight? Looking at the article, all I'm getting is that if it's a minority viewpoint - namely it's not mentioned anywhere else in a secondary source - it shouldn't be added at all. If it's concerning 'balancing aspect', the content in question is related and relevant in every way to her and the article: 1) dance, 2), acting, 3) her only major role and probably the reason why she even has a Wikipedia page.
Again, I can make it shorter if need be but I don't know why it needs to be 'darn short'. And apologies for missing her stating Tara was her idol. PokeFan10025 (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an already short article (it's literally a WP:STUB, though for some reason the article page isn't stub-tagged) on a subject of possibly questionable notability (FTR, I think she is notable, but just barely) – you don't load an article like this up with a bunch of "personal facts" that are on the trivial side. IOW, you don't load up a previously six sentence article with two sentences on what her "inspiration" was – that's not substantive content. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that her page is short, I agree that she is notable, but I disagree with the rest. I'm not adding that her favourite colour is pink or that she likes shopping, I'm adding something that is very much substantive as it again, links to her article and herself (as a dancer and actress), and the only notable thing that she has done (being on DC). It is on the trivial side but that doesn't mean it needs to be 'darn short'. I'm still unsure how cutting what I wrote down by half no longer gives it undue weight other than the fact that I originally cited a YouTube video which I obviously have corrected now with the two sources. PokeFan10025 (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You feel it's "important". I don't. We've come up with a compromise. I don't know what else can be said. I will not support adding two sentences on this, and I think what's in the article now is probably about as much as needs to be said. I won't object if you edit the sentence to say the film "inspired" her rather than Morice. But, beyond that, I think the current situation is acceptable, and I'll oppose any attempt to expand this content beyond what is already in the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without citing any rules/guidelines/etc., as to why what I wrote cannot remain, I fail to understand why I'm not allowed to reinstate what I wrote. I think we've both agreed now that it no longer violates UNDUE, so what's left? I've purposely avoided mentioning this until I am absolutely clear whether I am in the 'right or wrong', but I think it's relevant to mention it now.
I do believe that you are exercising WP:OWN in that you are dictating how something should be written based off personal preference. I specifically refer to the line from 'Examples of ownership behaviour' where it states: 'An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version'. This whole thing started because I used YouTube as a source. I accepted that that's not allowed and found two independent sources to support my claim. You then mentioned how it's giving unnecessary prominence to the trivia in contrast to the article when it's not - notwithstanding the length of what I've written which is only a single line, it is relevant to the article and the actress entirely. Thirdly, you said it's not substantial which I've already addressed in previous replies.
As I've said, I am fully prepared to cut down what I've written but I disagree with the notion that it's either "your way or the highway". PokeFan10025 (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"My way" would probably be to not include it at all, so that's a strawman. I've compromised. You seem unwilling to do that. I've explained my position, which is based on guidelines and policies – Wikipedia articles on WP:BLPs primarily exist to explain why/how a subject is notable, and what you want to add does not seem to further that. In any case, I've done my job. WP:OWN works both ways, and it sounds like to me that you think you should get your way regardless of reasonable objections. I've stated my position – you can reword the single sentence added, but if we wanders too far afield into trivial or extraneous content, I'm going to remove it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mention 'my way' because you have dictated this entire thread. "(either it's gone or my version stays), which would you prefer?", "I think the current situation is acceptable ...", "I think what's in the article is ...", etc. You've made changes to what I wrote with UNDUE as the initial reasoning. That has been addressed but you've remained steadfast in keeping it written how you intend. I am absolutely willing to compromise, that is why I said I am willing to cut it down and/or make changes. I disagree that I'm in violation of OWN as you've been the one reverting my edits and arguing against my edit for seemingly no other reason than personal preference. If what I wrote isn't of violation of anything, what am I claiming ownership over? The fact that if it's okay, it shouldn't be changed?
Your objections are still rooted in how you wanted to write it - which of itself is baseless. Yes, the primarily reason for Wikipedia articles is to explain why someone/something is notable, but that doesn't mean I cannot add relevant trivia like what inspired someone to pursue an occupation that they performed in. I don't want to hammer the same point over again but I have said multiple times how what I have written is reasonable and doesn't violate any rules or guidelines that I know of, and that you have brought up.
It's clear we're both nowhere near a compromise so I'm going to get a third party to have their opinion via mediation for dispute resolutions. PokeFan10025 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xenia_Goodwin&oldid=1207329883"