Talk:Sharon Tate

Jennifer Tate?

There seems to be an article that is an exact copy of this one with the name Sharon replaced by the name Jennifer. Should that article even exist? Pawnnolonger (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, I restored the article, --Nuujinn (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Unborn baby

People keep adding to her bio information that she had 1 child. She was pregnant, but did not give birth. Saying that she had 1 child is a POV by people who are trying to confer status to unborn babies.

Manson Family Template removed

Sharon's wiki page focuses on her as an actress and not so much on her as a victim. The "Manson Family" template has been removed from the "External Links" because there is already a section on her death in the article which links to the various Manson family articles.

Interesting info that may be worth noting

From The Beatles Forever by Nicholas Schaffner, page 129: "...Charlie Manson, who made the Beatles his rationale for murdering the wife of Roman Polanski. The famed director's diabolical Rosemary's Baby was filmed in the New York apartment building presently inhabited by John Lennon". Mind you, the book was written in 1977. Could this be notable for inclusion? If so, could someone please add it in where they see fit? It might also be worth noting on some other articles, such as Roman Polanski, Charles Manson, etc. Bossanoven (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sharon Tate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121027081424/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article547335.ece?print=yes&randnum=1254102174470 to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article547335.ece?print=yes&randnum=1254102174470

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The "Manson Family" template is not necessary for this article. The "Manson Family" is already linked within the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.206.237.191 (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Infobox image

Opening a section for discussion. I have reverted the infobox image back to the longstanding photo. Those put in to replace it were of low quality and not up to infobox standards. Fine for the body of the article, but not for the infobox. We can do better, and should do better, for readers - many of which may only read the lead and look at the info box. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Boy, you're really on a roll, following all my edits, trying to delete every improved image added, challenging their PD status, etc.

Lead photo options

• Option 1
  Option 1
• 
  Option 2

1: Clearly a better image for the lead, IMO. The b/w one is already in the body.--Light show (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• 2 Number one is blurry, a screenshot, and not suitable for the infobox. Nothing wrong with #2 as the long-standing infobox photo - it's far superior to the two the above editor has put in there within the last 24 hours. Fine for the body of the article, not the infobox. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Except "2" is also a screenshot, just as blurry, but in b/w, horizontally formatted so it doesn't fit well, and is only 1/3 the pixel size. --Light show (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Just as blurry? I think not. It's not obviously a screenshot, whereas the two photos you have put into the infobox in the last 24 hours are obviously so, not to mention badly done. Blurry, color is off. Mind you, my comments here are only about the photos themselves - I get the feeling you are taking this personally, and wish you would not. I just care that the best image representation of the article subject is in the infobox. I've had this article on my watchlist for quite some time and seeing the photo change to what was put in was a shock, to say the least. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You mean you have me on your watchlist. Just because it seems someone is shadowing my edits and trying to undermine them elsewhere, is no reason to think I take it personally. Likely just a coincidence. --Light show (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You really need to cut the victim bullshit. No, I don't have you on my watchlist. I am not interested in your edits. I'm interested in the integrity of articles and their accompanying images. Have been for years. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Except just over the last few you've been blocked for disruptive editing 14 times! And that's just under your current User name. --Light show (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

^^^This^^^ has nothing to do with the discussion or the RfC. Drop the personal attacks (that you have been bringing to discussions with me at other talk pages in order to WP:WIN, or possibly get me to stop discussing). Please discuss the editing/content dispute, not you feeling as if you are being followed (you're not), not my block log (I'm not bringing yours up), and not trying to imply I have been here under another account (I haven't). Can we please just discuss peacefully? I'd really like that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I've only made a handful of edits beginning 2010, but it's obviously been on my watchlist. Your first edit to the article was just a few hours ago, right after I added a new photo, and it was to delete it! If you're willing to edit peacefully, so am I. --Light show (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, now we've got a problem. After some looking around, I've been able to determine that both of the screenshots from Valley of the Dolls movie trailers that you uploaded (one of which is now the infobox image) are copyrighted. The trailer can be seen here at Rotten Tomatoes: [1]. At 1:18 into the trailer, the copyright notice comes up as "Copyright ("c" in circle) MCMLXVII by Red Lion Productions, Inc". Then, at imdb [2], the trailer is longer, but the same copyright notice comes up at 3:22 into it as "Copyright ("c" in circle) MCMLXVII by Red Lion Productions, Inc." and 20th Century Fox Film Corporation." This is two trailers with copyright notices. This proves the screenshots you have uploaded are copyright violations.

At Commons, when you uploaded these screen shots, you notated that they were not copyrighted. This is untrue. The image needs to be removed from the article infobox immediately, and administrators at Commons as well as here need to be notified immediately. You've previously been banned from uploading images at Commons because of extensive copyright vios. All of this needs to be looked into, especially in light of your problems in the same vein previously. I'm pinging the following administrators who were involved in discussion for your previous ban from uploading images: Calliopejen1, Diannaa, Masem, Laser brain, Moonriddengirl. Copyvios are, as I'm sure you're aware, very serious. Since this is a major holiday weekend, I figured it would be best to notify several admins to get this dealt with ASAP. I will also be notifying administrators at Commons in the same manner. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Drmies as he was also involved in the uploading ban discussion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Clear copyright violation even checking the source given. Light show needs to be topic banned from anything dealing with images, as this shows no competence in understanding copyright checking we rigorously require. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Am archiving this talk page section as there is no need for further discussion - the image(s) in question have been deleted at Commons due to a copyright violation (see here and here). Further discussion regarding the uploading of the now-deleted photo suggested for the infobox can be found here and here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Top Billing

Should this statement remain in the lede especially since it has three references now. Winkelvi totally removed it. I did some research and found 3 references. "Tate's last completed film, 12+1 was released in 1969 after her death, with the actress receiving top billing over co-star Orson Welles." Winkelvi reverted removing the statement and the refs saying in edit summary not suited for the lede. Opinions? Pauciloquence (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

First of all, referenced content is generally reserved for the body of an article and is not placed in the lede. Secondly, that she received top-billing over another actor is more trivia than lede-worthy content and really isn't necessary for the lede. Is it even in the body of the article? (haven't looked yet for myself). The lede is more for notable moments summarized rather than tidbits of information. My suggestion is that you read WP:LEDE to get a better understanding as to why the additions you're now edit warring over are unnecessary for the lede in this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging admins familiar with your attacking and feuding behaviors on wikipedia. Nyttend Floquenbeam I put the information in the lede with three references to show how notable and important the information is. Getting top billing over Orson Welles is a big deal, and certainly not trivia or a minor tidbit. It is quite an accomplishment. There was already a reference there for another statement. You just removed the top billing one and three references. You are at 4-5 reverts in the less than the last 24 hours. I made one revert then asked for talk page discussion. You are edit warring, just like you did at the Zsa Zsa article. Why can't you work in a collaborative manner rather than try to take ownership of these article and edit war trying to get your way every time? I will wait for some other editors opinions on the statement and references you removed from the article. Pauciloquence (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here: improving the article or getting me into hot water? Pinging administrators makes no sense because I've done nothing that requires administrator attention. Your use of the word "feuding", however, is interesting (as it's a familiar phrase from my past with Floquenbeam - which raises some suspicion in my mind). Regardless, "feuding" is not what's happening here on my end of things. You do now seem to be following me and seeking out my past and past edits (editing the Laura Ingalls Wilder article is out of your typical topic set). Regardless, all this has nothing to do with the Tate article. If you have a specific issue you think needs administrator attention regarding my editing and activity in Wikipedia, that's best left for other venues. Just so you know, I'm not going to engage in a back and forth argument with you here on the above; I have no desire to spar with you. Indeed, it's time to move on and away from where you're trying to take things.

Back to the topic of this discussion section: we should be discussing improving the article within policy, guidelines, and common sense as well as what's best for the article and its readers. I maintain that according to WP:LEDE (which, above, I asked you to read), the placement of several references and the mention of her billing above Orson Welles is inappropriate for the lede of this article. It does nothing for the reader to give them that much in the lede (something that's also addressed in the article on lede composition). If it's mentioned in the body of the article, that is sufficient and the appropriate place for such content, along with the references supporting it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I am trying get some help from an administrator, so I chose two that are familiar with you and used the language I saw at your block log. I found those two names on your block log. You have been continuously edit warring over several articles against me and other editors. That needs some admin help or attention. It looks to be a pattern. You are also wrong in trying to create a diversion by claiming I am following? And you are wrong about Laura Ingalls Wilder. Following? I have been working from the clean up list for the children's lit project. I had no idea you had ever even edited it. The list is here: [3] I have been editing many authors, books, and things on the list. The diversion you are trying to create holds no water hot or otherwise.

Stop edit warring and your bullying me towards me just because I recently started here. I have had enough. Pauciloquence (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Pauciloquence, do you have anything to say in relation to why you think the content along with the references belong in the lede of the article? Did you read WP:LEDE and perhaps have something to say about that in relation to this article? So far, you've really not established any kind of cogent argument regarding the content being in the lede. As with the other issue I attempted to discuss with you a few days ago (and went to DRN in order to get you to discuss rather than edit war), you aren't really talking about anything other than what you think about me. It would be great if we could actually discuss content and edits this time and come to an agreement based on a productive discussion. Wanna give it a try? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like another friendly gesture you made about the photos: "Can we please just discuss peacefully? I'd really like that."--Light show (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Good! I'm glad it sounds that way. Because this, as well as the same I extended to you, is friendly and an attempt to work things out collegially, peacefully, and productively. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

However, actions speak louder than words, since you immediately proceeded on your search and destroy mission:

The image needs to be removed from the article infobox immediately, and administrators at Commons as well as here need to be notified immediately. You've previously been banned from uploading images at Commons because of extensive copyright vios. All of this needs to be looked into, especially in light of your problems in the same vein previously. I'm pinging the following administrators who were involved in discussion for your previous ban from uploading images: Calliopejen1, Diannaa, Masem, Laser brain, Moonriddengirl. Copyvios are, as I'm sure you're aware, very serious. Since this is a major holiday weekend, I figured it would be best to notify several admins to get this dealt with ASAP. I will also be notifying administrators at Commons in the same manner.

Happy holiday to you too. --Light show (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

But so you'll know there are no hard feelings, I want to compliment you on your amazing editing skills. Just a few days after first editing WP, you were able to contribute with some very impressive editing skills for newbie! --Light show (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It's abundantly clear you are now attempting to goad me into a fight. Not interested. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC

There is a dispute over content in the lede of this article (diff here). The concern was in regard to the suitability of the content per WP:LEDE. The content was removed but later reinstated (with citations); the reinstating editor states the content has existed for an extended period of time. The discussion (diff here) has not been productive and could benefit from more opinions.

The specific question is: Should this content be added to the lede?. Please respond in the following manner:

• Support, keep in lede
• Oppose, remove from lede
• Other: any other solution including rephrasing

When you respond, please use the "Survey" section below and the "Discussion" section for any threaded discussions. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose; remove from lede. Content is not necessary in the lede and amounts to over detail per WP:LEDE. Having the content regarding Orson Welles in the body of the article will be sufficient. That the content has been in the lede for a while does not make it appropriate for that section of the article. Adding references to the content in the lede does not make it more sustainable in that section. The content is good to have in the article, just not in the lede. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• Other. I came here from the RfC notice, and otherwise have had no involvement with the page. I agree with the comment above, that the information about Welles and billing is not really needed in the lead, but is appropriate for the main text. I've looked for a way to tighten it up, and I'd like to suggest this: Shorten the sentence to "Tate's last completed film, 12+1, was released in 1969 after her death." (Note that I added a comma after the film title.) I would then make that sentence the last sentence of the current paragraph in the lead, that starts "On August 9, 1969...". That way, it would provide a sort of ending or resolution to the lead paragraph about the murder, and I think that would actually improve the flow. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this looks like a great improvement, Tryptofish. The RfC, I would say, has died on the vine and can be closed shortly as it was needed only because a new account, which turned out to be a sock from a now-prolific sockmaster, insisted on the Welles content being in the lede and edit warring on it. The "problem" no longer exists, therefore, neither does the content dispute. I can put your content change suggestion into the lede, or you may. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

The lead's been tightened. Mentioning Welles in the lead wasn't really needed. All the details about the Manson case, which are overly-covered in the body, has also been tightened from the lead. I'm not sure an RfC for trivia is really needed. --Light show (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

If you don't run into opposition in the way of a reversion by Pauciloquence, I will be surprised. His edit warring over the mention of Welles, in addition to refusing to understand that it is trivia and does not belong in the lede, is exactly why this RfC was started. If he agrees with your changes and says nothing more, that will present an interesting scenario, indeed, as well as cause me to wonder what his agenda truly is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The mention of Welles was tivial, but your deletions included everything about her last film. You don't need a chainsaw to trim a bush. --Light show (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The mention of Welles was what the dispute entailed, why this RfC was created. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 09:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Welles wasn't mentioned in the RFC or in any of the rationales for the edits. How would anyone know? --Light show (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The history is available for anyone to look through. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Film career

This section should be split up. It is 15 paragraphs and just looks like a wall of text. Splitting it up into sections makes it look cleaner. The length of her career being "only a few years" is not a valid reason for having that be one section when a lot happened in those years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.188.12 (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)