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 of all this, it has nothing to do with this article. If you have a specific issue you think need 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. Time to move on.

Back to the topic of this discussion section: we should be discussing improving the article within policy and guidelines. I maintain that according to WP:LEDE (which I asked above that you read), the placement of several references and the mention of her billing above Orson Welles is inappropriate for the lede of this article. If it's mentioned in the body of the article, that is sufficient and the appropriate place for that kind of content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)