Talk:Kit Connor
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kit Connor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days ![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) 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. |
Filmography
edit@Joeyconnick: I disagree with the removal of references from the filmography. If the filmography is ever separated into another article, it will take a lot of work to reference everything again.See Aviator006's notice here. Theys York (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Filmographies do not need referencing for works that have been released. Once released, the work itself provides the reference for people's credits per WP:PRIMARY, except, again, if the role is uncredited or the scenes were cut. The fact some filmographies have reference columns does not mean all filmographies must, and given the existence of literally hundreds of filmography tables without them AND in the absence of any guideline specifying that we must reference people's roles beyond WP:PRIMARY, it is fine to leave them out. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, in no universe whatsoever should most people's filmographies be in a separate article. That is completely overkill and definitely 100% not something we need to worry about for someone whose career is in its infancy. And even if there were somehow a WP:SPLIT justification for moving Connor's filmography to a separate article, the same rationale for not sourcing his roles in released works would hold. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I also disagree with the unilateral decision to remove references from the article without consensus for its removal:
- (1) Considering that filmography tables that appeared in Featured Lists required sourcing to establish WP:VERIFY, therefore, it is inherited that filmography tables in any articles can be fully referenced.
- (2) Just because the work have been released, it does not mean the work listed in the actor's article is true and correct since Wikipedia can be updated by anyone, false information can be included if there are no reference to support such content.
- (3) Additional referencing will not harm the content of the article but only add an extra layer of credibility of the content. Aviator006 (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would argue a consensus was needed to have added the references, to be honest, but whatever. I'd also argue that sometimes some editors hew just a little too closely to what is done in featured lists/articles, as if every article must match those conventions exactly, with no room for variation.
- With reference to (2), that is not really any kind of real problem or else, again, hundreds of filmographies would have issues. I'm not saying all filmographies are perfect, but they are definitely no more in danger of being incorrect than any other section of actors' articles, regardless of sourcing.
- (3) There's always the possibility of overkill... for instance, I sometimes see Wikipedia statements with 4 or more separate citations, which is clearly unnecessary. References for filmographies fall into the same category. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- My preference is no reference column, but putting a reference in the table when the film doesn't have an article. It's not a strong preference, but I am concerned that if we keep the reference column, entries that are clearly correct may be deleted as "unsourced".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- In response to @Joeyconnick: ‘s comment “sometimes some editors hew just a little too closely to what is done in featured lists/articles, as if every article must match those conventions exactly”, I would suggest that emulating feature articles is *exactly* what we should be striving for. Feature articles represent the best we have and reflect the broadest condenses we as a community have as to what articles should look like. *Should* entries require references? I am not sure, nothing here has really convinced me either way. My biggest thing is, why-oh-why would we ever *delete* references that someone has spent the time adding (assuming they are valid). Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2022
editThis edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= oder |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under 'Personal Life' it says he came out in October, but it was already November in the United Kingdom when he tweeted it. 142.181.85.87 (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Not done: unless I'm calculating the dates wrong, it seems to be still 23:02 in the UK when he posted it since it happened after they shifted clocks back an hour. 💜 melecie talk - 01:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Rearrangement of the first paragraph
editHeartstopper should be the second sentence because when one googles him they get only the first two sentences from this article, and it just shows irrelevant info compared to what he won and Emmy for. Erin Galindo Almendares (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
‘One Of Us’ and Royal Television Society Programme Award
editCan someone add the movie he's headlining? ‘Heartstopper’ Star Kit Connor To Lead Cast In Horror ‘One Of Us’, Filming To Begin This Month In Northern Ireland [1]
Would also like to suggest that his Royal Television Society Programme Award win be added in the first paragraph, specifically in this sentence:
He gained recognition for his starring role as Nick Nelson in the Netflix teen series Heartstopper (2022), for which he won the Children's and Family Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Performance in 2022. 2600:1700:6F10:35C0:B566:A880:F97B:E95E (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)