Talk:Stana Katic

Include Serbian Cyrillic version of her name??

A new editor has added the Serbian version of Stana Katic's name (in both Cyrillic and Latin alphabets) to the opening sentence of the article.

I consider this inappropriate for several reasons. Katic is North American-born and raised; we have no sources saying she has ever used a native Serbian (Cyrillic) or Croatian (with the ć diacritic) form of her name; and (as substantiated by a reliable source) Katic pronounces her surname in an anglicized fashion (/ˈkætɨk/).

I reverted this change, but the editor reinstated it, and I'm not inclined to get into an edit war — especially since, as I suggested a while ago, disputes over Katic's ethnicity are probably subject to the WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions covering "topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted".

What do others think about whether this piece of info does, or does not, belong in the article? — Richwales 05:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I wrote that because that's how you'd write her name in Serbian. In this video (around the 0:40) you can see her mother talking. Her last name is written with the diacritic. Stana uses the anglicized version, probably because it sounds better and is easier to pronounce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lena.martinovic (talk • contribs) 13:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the fact that this is how her name is written in Serbian. I am questioning whether this fact is relevant to the article. Unless we can identify specific reliable sources which establish that this piece of information is meaningful in a discussion of Stana Katic's life, it doesn't belong here. — Richwales 14:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a biography about her life. It belongs here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lena.martinovic (talk • contribs) 16:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, this piece of information belongs in the article only if reliable sources can be identified demonstrating that Katic has actually used the native Serbian form of her name. There are, to my knowledge, no such sources — and given what we do know about her (she was born in Canada, she grew up in Canada and the US, her primary language is English, she has never lived in the former Yugoslavia, and she pronounces her name in an anglicized fashion), the presumption needs to be that she does not write her name in Serbian (Cyrillic or Latin alphabet), unless we can cite reliable sources to the contrary.

If this were a biographical article about Stana Katic's parents, that would be a very different matter — but it's not.

One major reason why we need to be strict about what does or doesn't go into this article is that we've had a lot of bickering and edit-warring here in the past over whether Stana Katic's ancestry should be called Serbian, Croatian, Serbo-Croatian, Yugoslavian, or something else (and, similarly, which of these names should be used for one of the several languages she reportedly can speak). Again, we need to stick to reporting what the reliable sources say — Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy demands this — and if this sometimes means a true fact needs to be left out because there is no source available to confirm that it is worthy of mention, then so be it.

Also, please remember to sign your talk-page postings, by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your comments. This should not be done in the body of an article, BTW — only on talk pages. — Richwales 16:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Jesus. I have given you a youtube video showing how her last name is written. She stated on her WEBSITE that her parents are Serbs from Croatia. Both sources are reliable. (The youtube video is extremely reliable since it's written with ć and not -ch, meaning that people that produced the video VERIFIED the information) And her mother tongue is Serbocroatian. Just because you don't hear her talking in it 24/7 that doesn't mean that she doesn't speak it! The only reason why she pronounces her last name is Katic (with a k) is for career purpose. The same way I shortened my last name from Martinovic to Martin for easier pronunciation. Just for PROFESSIONAL purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lena.martinovic (talk • contribs) 18:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I have posted a request for outside comment at the Third Opinion noticeboard. I am not disputing that Катић / Katić is the native Serbian version of her name. What I'm saying is that we have no substantiated evidence that this fact is relevant to Stana Katic's life. — Richwales 19:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Hey, people, I'm here from the 3O board. Lena, your points are individually fine, but there's a missing link in your argument: we need sources that explicitly show her (or otherse) using this form of her name to refer to herself. Take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), specifically the section called "Include alternatives": the first sentence reads: "The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all frequently used names by which its subject is widely known" (emphasis mine). We need sources that say that the Serbian form is frequently used and that Stana Katic is widely known by it. It's not enough to show that that is the correct translation; we also need to know that it's commonplace. So, I'm agreeing with Richwales for the moment. However, if you can find good sources where she is referred to by her Serbian name, then it might be a different story; I'd encourage you to find and show us these sources. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.blic.rs/Zabava/Vesti/329994/Stana-Katic-kao-Odri-Hepbern http://www.rts.rs/page/rts/ci/rts+predstavlja/Filmski+program/story/541/Ускоро/1128536/Касл.html --Lena.martinovic (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not quite what I mean: I mean English-language sources that use the Serbian name. Y'see, most articles are probably going to use the translated equivalent of their subjects' names, since it matches the rest of the article; that doesn't mean that the name is widely-used. Otherwise, we would have a lot more alternate names in globally-famous people's articles! I mean, we wouldn't advocate putting "Odri Hepbern" as an alternative name into the Audrey Hepburn article, even though your first source uses this as an alternative name for her. We need something that indicates a conscious choice to use the Serbian name over the English name, rather than just following the language of the article. You see what I mean? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, the quest you provide can't be fulfilled, as there are many people from ex-Yugoslavia in Canada and US, and there is a consistent rule to strip diacritics from their names. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, then in cases like this, perhaps we should follow suit? If she herself had a preference for the diacritics, then she might've made a statement to that effect, but if she doesn't, why should we? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think her opinion is important at all. Nearly every surname in North America may be traced to the original surname in Europe, and quite a lot of these were spelled differently in respective native languages. Still, we don't normally provide Irish variants of American celebrities with Irish ancestry. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to go so far as to suggest that no Canadian or American should have an "old country" version of their name included in their article. There are cases where this would be justified — just not this case. As was mentioned earlier, the naming conventions guideline says that an article "should list all frequently used names by which its subject is widely known" (see WP:UEIA). We have not yet seen sufficient evidence, via reliable sources, to establish that Stana Katic is "widely known" as Стана Катић (or even Stana Katić), so this version of her name — even though indisputably factual — does not currently merit inclusion in the article. — Richwales 04:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lena, these sources are not in English. FWIW, she is born in Canada and thus her surname is not "Katić"/"Катић", but simply "Katic". That is written in her birth certificate, insurance, driver license. This is the way she is credited in her performance. The fact that the localization of her name is reversed in sources in Serbo-Croatian doesn't change things in any ways, as well as the fact that in Russian sources she is referred to as "Катич", or that Japanese sources describe her as "スタナ・カティック". She is just no longer Serbian by nationality, and here ethnicity is irrelevant to the alternative spellings in the lede. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Her last name is Katić otherwise the video with her mom would have the name written Katic and they would write her brother's name "Dushan" and not "Dusan" yet she still pronounces it "Dushan" --Lena.martinovic (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

References to plain English text? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, we need to be careful not to commit the sins of "original research" or "synthesis", by drawing our own "obvious", "common-sense" inferences from source material to come up with claims that are not actually stated in any of the sources. — Richwales 21:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Lena, if you are still mystified as to why everyone else is disagreeing with you, and still convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong, there are dispute resolution procedures available to escalate the matter. I would suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yugoslavia as one possibly good forum for discussing this question (both specifically w/r/t Stana Katic, and generally w/r/t other people of Yugoslav descent who were born and raised outside the former Yugoslavia). However, it appears at the moment that there is a consensus not to include the Serbian form of Katic's name in this article, and I would strongly advise you to accept this fact until such time as the consensus changes. — Richwales 04:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you have against me writing her name in her native language? Why can't you accept that her professional last name is Katic but her legal surname is Katić? I will not engage any further just something for you to think about.--Lena.martinovic (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Find a reliable source which substantiates your belief that her legal surname is Katić (with the diacritic), and we'll have a basis for discussing this further. Mere personal, common-sense knowledge that this was the original rendition of the name is not sufficient here — there are too many other factors (such as whether the relevant Canadian government offices would be prepared to handle a name containing a diacritic that isn't used in either of Canada's official languages) — and we're not allowed to make educated guesses (a.k.a. original research) about this sort of stuff. — Richwales 23:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No, Richwales, there is one important this you missed. Stana Katic is writen the same way in Serbia also, but Serbia letter have two official letters, Latin and Cyrillic. Therefor, we do not need any source about this, but only about usage of her name in Serbian, and we do have that. If we use Serbian, we must use both letters. Also, i dont see any reason not to include that. Country and language of origin are obviously very important for this article. I never saw discusion like this, we have thousands of Lang- templates all over wiki, and we do not need sources for each and every one of them. WP:SKYISBLUE.--WhiteWriter^speaks 22:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole point is that we're not using Serbian. Nobody's contesting the Serbian spelling of her name. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Per Croatian? Use that too, why not? That is only improvement of the article. --WhiteWriter^speaks

Read the entire section, where we explain why we think we shouldn't in depth. TL;DR version: per WP:UEIA. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

TL;DR version: her nationality is Canadian, not Serbian. In other words she has no significant ties to Serbia. Yes, ethnicity is not a significant tie. See WP:OPENPARA for further details. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that may be right in this case, only question left is how he can know for sure that her origin is not relevant to the subject's notability? --WhiteWriter^speaks 23:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Find one or more reliable sources that demonstrate that her origin is relevant to her notability. If no one can come up with such sources, then we must assume by default that her origin is not relevant. — Richwales 23:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is a straightforward WP:BURDEN issue: we assume that her origin is not relevant to her notability in the lack of sources supporting the claim. As you already know, I'll be first to return the Serbian spelling once there'll be a proper reason to do so. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i must agree on that. It is a bit strange, but inclusion may be unneeded per guidelines in this case. I will search for some source anyway, but that's it for now... I am "always more" and "why not" person, so, you will understand me... :) --WhiteWriter^speaks 23:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I, too, have an initial impulse to add anything to an article that might be interesting and useful. However, we need to be careful to stay on topic. Also, this article has been the subject of Serbian-vs.-Croatian edit wars in the past, which I think is all the more reason not to include material along these lines unless it can be firmly verified through reliable sources. — Richwales 22:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I reverted an addition of Katić to the article. The reason given for this addition was that because there is a redirect here from Stana Katić, the latter form should be mentioned in the article text per WP:R#PLA and the "principle of least astonishment". However, IMO, this part of the redirect guideline doesn't apply in the present case — anyone who might try looking for "Stana Katić" is already going to be at least somewhat aware of Serbo-Croatian orthography and is not going to be at all astonished to be redirected to a diacritic-free version of the name. Again, in the absence of any material from reliable sources showing that an ancestral version of the subject's name is relevant to her notability, it doesn't belong in the article text. — Richwales 14:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Rancic--Lena.martinovic (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There is, IMO, even less justification for including the Croatian form of Bill Rancic's name in his article than there is for including such information here for Stana Katic. To be included in this article, the information must stand on its own merits as being relevant to this subject — a standard which no one, so far, has been able to meet through reliable sources. — Richwales 18:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You erased Bill's name pronunciation in Croatian? What is your problem, seriously? Okay, I get it if their name pronunciations aren't relevant to be at the top of the page, but it's perfectly normal and okay to put it in the "Early life". Besides, if you remove her name, I'll just keep on re-adding her surname until you grow bored. And by the way, I still don't understand what you're doing here. Your didn't write on your glorious page about your interest in actors and your *cough* obvious dislike for Serbo-Croatian language *cough*--Lena.martinovic (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but i try to be practical. Lets compromise. We will not put it in the article lede, but if editor finds it important, i am for usage of that in early life section. It is not that much important, and it is not error, so i would agree now on usage, but only in this section. WP:UEIA can support this, as it is not in the article lede, and, at the very end, it is only question of WP:DIACRITICS. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The general question here — namely, whether the mere fact that a notable North-American-born-and-raised person has some particular ancestry is enough to automatically support inclusion of an ancestral form of their name anywhere in their biography — is probably better handled at a higher level than this individual article's talk page. You (Lena) have presumably already noticed that I've made a contribution to the WikiProject discussion (others reading this may wish to go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yugoslavia#Stana Katic and her last name), and I suppose it's possible the general issue may end up getting discussed elsewhere.

I'm not going to take the material in question out of this (Stana Katic) article anymore for now, because it's clear that we are dealing with an entrenched content dispute, and waging an edit war is not an acceptable way to deal with a content dispute, even if an editor is convinced that he/she is in the right and everyone else is in the wrong. I've given that same counsel to many people in my time here, and even though I believe I have a strong case here (several other people have agreed with me that the material at issue doesn't belong), I'm not going to persist in behaviour which would either make me appear to be edit-warring or which would clearly encourage someone else to do so. Lena, please note that by your comment above, you have basically thrown down the gauntlet and threatened a serious violation of Wikipedia policy (namely, stating an intent to wage an edit war in defiance of a clear consensus) in order to get your way. I would strongly advise you to read (or re-read) the edit-warring policy (WP:EW) and consider revising your position.

As for my motivations — no, I do not have any particular dislike for the Serbo-Croatian language (or group of closely related languages or dialects, however one may prefer to characterize it). I have friends who immigrated to the US or Canada from the former Yugoslavia, and I have a general interest in Eastern Europe and the Cold War. For what little it's really worth, I wound up looking at the Stana Katic article because my wife and I are fans of Castle. I believe the points I've raised here are generally applicable to many other articles (and involving people of other ancestries), and although I'm not planning by any means to wage a Wikipedia-wide crusade against unjustified inclusion of non-English ancestral names in biographies (that sort of thing has not ended well for others — see this recent Arbritration Committee case), I may very possibly bring up the same issue on other articles as I come across it. In general, BTW, our comments here are supposed to be directed at content, and not at other editors, and challenging someone whose editing positions you disagree with to justify their reasons for caring to paying attention to an article is not normally appropriate (see WP:WIAPA, a subsection of the No Personal Attacks policy). — Richwales 20:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Rich, in reply to your reverting my edit - I think that action is at least as much over the top as would be the converse addition of Cyrillic to the lead section :) It's wrong to assume that all the people pointed here through the Katić form will necessarily understand the correlation, it doesn't hurt to explicate that this is a foreign name. And concerning the notion that the original surname has to have a specific relevance of the biography in order to merit inclusion: that argument is a red herring - having to prove the relevance of saying that Katic comes from Katić in the section talking about her parents who were named Katić is like having to prove the sky is blue. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I see someone added Cyrillic back in. That's over the top because the specific people (her parents) did not originate in Serbia where Serbian Cyrillic is used, rather in Croatia, where it's not, so their names were by and large spelled in Serbian Latin. Based on that, 'tagging' the daughter with Cyrillic seems like a bit of excessive advocacy. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

How does my latest edit seem? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for dragging this, but you wanted sources. An interview she did with Prima TV (I believe it's a Czech website) has her mentioning that the original pronunciation was Katić (Katich). --Lena.martinovic (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, nobody is disputing the original spelling/pronunciation of her ancestral name. The relevant question here is whether she (i.e., Stana, not her parents or grandparents) has ever had noteworthy recognition via the original spelling/pronunciation of her ancestral name. But in any case, the Czech-language article you cited has Stana Katic saying that her parents changed the pronunciation of their name when they left the former Yugoslavia and came to North America. So I really don't agree that this source is sufficient to justify including the original spelling/pronunciation in the article. — Richwales 01:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Noooo. It says that they changed the pronunciation because everyone was pronouncing it the wrong way. --Lena.martinovic (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Your ability with Czech is undoubtedly better than mine (or Google Translate's). However, even if Stana's parents felt they had no choice but to change the way they pronounced their name because all the English speakers in their new country insisted on saying it wrong, that still wouldn't allow a reasonable reader to conclude that Stana herself prefers the original pronunciation, or that she herself has ever tried to get people to pronounce her name in the original, ancestral manner. And in any case, that sort of conclusion or inference is prohibited here (see Wikipedia's policies on original research and synthesis).

If you can find any reliable sources in English which refer to Stana as Stana Katić, there would presumably be a valid reason (per the "Use English" naming convention guideline) to include that as an additional documented form of her name in the article. But as I understand the naming convention guideline (especially the "Include alternatives" paragraph, WP:UEIA), this would require evidence that Stana herself (not her parents or her grandparents, but she herself) is or has ever been widely known by the name Katić — and as best I can tell, there does not appear to be any such evidence — and as I've said numerous times, evidence of the form her family name originally took back in the "old country" is not sufficient by itself to meet the standard set by WP:UEIA or any other Wikipedia policy or guideline I am aware of.

If you still believe I am misinterpreting the naming convention guideline — or that the naming convention guideline is simply wrong and ought to be revised so as to allow what you are advocating — then I would suggest you bring up the issue on the guideline's talk page (WT:ENGLISH) and see if a consensus can be formed for making the sort of clarification or change you want. If you do this, I recommend you do whatever you can to distinguish your position from the very different stance of earlier commentators who were trying to argue that names with diacritics do not have any rightful place in the English Wikipedia at all (a view which, by the way, I consider to be extremist and do not agree with). — Richwales 16:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Replace the Photo

The previous photo of Stana was too dark. Her face was barely showing. :( I tried uploading this jpg file but I somehow messed it up along the way. Could someone please add the image file to her page? Thank youLena.martinovic (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You have to upload it to commons with a proper license. Unless you are able to license it properly, we can not use it. Nice image though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Stana Katić, Стана Катић — again

I'm once again going to remove the recently added information in the opening sentence of the article, listing Стана Катић (Serbian Cyrillic alphabet) and Stana Katić (Serbo-Croatian Latin alphabet) as Serbian forms of Stana Katic's name.

The reason I'm doing this (again) is that no one has been able to produce any reliable sources (in English) demonstrating that Stana Katic uses, or ever has used, a Serbo-Croatian form of her name. WP:UEIA (a subsection of the WP:ENGLISH naming convention guideline) says that we "should list all frequently used names by which [the subject of an article] is widely known".

Note that it is undisputed that Stana Katic's parents or grandparents used Катић and/or Katić — but that fact does not matter here. The only thing that matters here is whether Stana Katic herself has used ancestral forms of her name — and there doesn't appear to be any evidence that she ever has done this. Since Stana Katic was born in Canada, grew up in Canada and the USA, and is known to pronounce her last name in an Anglicized fashion (/ˈkætɨk/), the burden of proof (IMO) is on those who want to say she also goes by Стана Катић or Stana Katić to substantiate this claim via reference to reliable sources.

As I indicated last fall (see the "Include Serbian Cyrillic version of her name??" section above in this same talk page), I am not trying to wage any sort of campaign against the Serbian / Croatian / Serbo-Croatian language. Neither am I even slightly sympathetic to the (IMO way-over-the-top) position of some people who want to remove all diacritical marks from all Wikipedia articles (on the grounds, so they say, that this is the English Wikipedia and we don't use diacritics when writing English). And I am also not disputing in the least the fact that Стана Катић and Stana Katić are accurate ancestral forms of Stana Katic's name. I am simply saying that a showcasing of these ancestral forms of her name does not satisfy the WP:UEIA guideline in the absence of reliable sources (so far never produced) confirming that Stana Katic herself (not her parents or grandparents, but Stana herself) has been known by these names during her life.

Someone will no doubt end up reverting my deletion and putting this information back into the article. Before you do so, however, I would ask you to please re-read the talk page discussion (above) from last October, as well as the shorter discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yugoslavia/Archive 3#Stana Katic. If we cannot reach any sort of agreement now, then I will propose to list this dispute at WP:RFC in hopes of getting fresh outside input. Finally, I would remind everyone that edit warring is prohibited on Wikipedia, and that even if you are sure you are right and others are wrong, that is still not an acceptable excuse for edit warring. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal section is a joke

Nothing informative there. Just delete it.--76.92.127.203 (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Should article include Serbo-Croatian forms of Stana Katic's name?

I'm requesting outside opinions as to whether or not this article should include Serbian / Croatian forms of Stana Katic's name (i.e., using the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, and/or using the modified Latin alphabet with diacritics specifically used for this language). In particular, should such forms of her name be included in the opening sentence of the lead section?

Read the rest of this talk page for discussion / arguments about this issue going way back. Thanks in advance for any new, fresh input on this divisive subject. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't see any reason to accomodate anonymous unexplained (+unreferenced) additions with an RFC - these kinds of bits of meaningless advocacy don't have any value, rather they're proscribed by WP:ARBMAC. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I've always been annoyed at how Serbian and Croatian immigrants often use "-ic" to end their surnames, when there is an alternative spelling that will not make people mispronounce your original surname for the rest of your family's history (e.g. John Malkovich isn't "John Malkovic"). The letter "ć" is not pronounced as a "c" in any way (neither in English nor Serbo-Croatian), but rather as a "ch" sound, as in "Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin". And others also probably want to make it clear how "wrong" it is to call this woman "Stana Katick" (as opposed to "Stana Katich"). However, having said I understand why people are pushing this, I have to say it is indeed unjustified to enter a version of the name she does not use. Indeed, if this woman's name is Stana Katic - then its up to the Serbian/Croatian side to modify their position and refer to her as "Stana Katik". Agree with Richwales. -- Director (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Rich that it does not deserve a place in the lead sentence; however, I'd stick it in "Early life" section with her parents' names, along the lines of ...to Serbian parents named Petar and Rada, originally Katić pronounced [ka:titɕ], [...]. Compare Joe Sakic#Early life No such user (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I put the pronunciation of Katić over there. It's not very common to see surnames linked, but I don't see a problem in mentioning it. That's actually how it was the last time I had left it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the answer might be different here, depending on whether Serbian/Croatian forms of the name are in the lead section vs. elsewhere in the article — as well as depending on whether we're talking about including Serbian/Croatian forms of Stana's own name vs. her parents' names. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm Croatian and consider this is a waste of time. Please find a more important article to devote your time and efforts. Rich is correct. Do nothing and leave it as is. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment We should use the form of name that Katic uses professionally. However she chooses to spell her name is the correct spelling for her name. It might very well be different for others with this name. But we respect individuals right to name themselves. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Full agreement with Richwales. If Katic was not referred to by these other ancestral forms in reliable sources, there is absolutely no reason to include them in the article. This is a factual encyclopedia, not a compendium of what-ifs. Factchecker25 (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Richwales and Factchecker25. RELIABLE SOURCES. Verifiabilty, not Truth. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• No. If there's no indication she's ever used those particular spellings of her name there's no reason why we should include them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Closure - since it has been 17 days and all the comments in the RFC are in alignment that if she doesn't use that spelling in reliable sources it should not be included in the article, I am going to close this RFC and remove the tag. Thank you to everyone for your participation and now go find some reliable source references for other BLP articles.  :) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Fluently languages she speakes

It would be good to remove languages Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian and to add Serbo-Croatian from personal life section. --MisterBean (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Why?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Because, and you can check this in the article Serbo-Croatian, they are not considered separate languages. They are a set of four fully mutually intelligibly, well, the article calls them "varieties". Language fluency refers to the spoken language; the principal difference in terms of language between Croatia and Serbia is the alphabet used (Cyrillic in Serbia, Latin in Croatia) to write it down. The term BCMS is also sometimes used, to indicate that Bosnian and Montenegrin are part of this set of four varieties. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:3C02:AC77:448B:5732 (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions notice (removed)

I have removed the Discretionary Sanctions notice from this talk page. As I understand the current process, a notice that a page is subject to Discretionary Sanctions is recognized only if the notice is posted on an individual editor's talk page — a notice posted on an article talk page does not satisfy the current requirements for alerting an editor before sanctioning him/her for violations of an Arbitration Committee ruling authorizing discretionary sanctions.

I wish to make it clear that I still believe that disruptive editing dealing with Stana Katic's ethnicity or the proper way to describe which languages/dialects she speaks is potentially subject to Discretionary Sanctions per the 2007 WP:ARBMAC ruling. Even though the WP:ARBMAC case dealt specifically with Macedonia, the Arbitration Committee ruled that the remedies in the case would be applicable to "the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted." Thus, I would find it very appropriate to leave a DS alert notice on an editor's talk page if they were to engage in potentially disruptive editing of this article along the above lines. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 00:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Pending Changes protection

I have applied indefinite "pending changes" protection to this article. Almost all of the edits to this article over the past several months have involved IP's or new users changing Stana Katic's ethnic background, the list of languages she speaks, the correct way to write her last name, etc. These issues have been discussed ad nauseam on the article's talk page, but these new users have failed or refused to discuss the points at all — whether because they are unaware of talk pages or simply do not care, it's impossible to tell.

Although these edits do not (IMO) fall under our narrow definition of vandalism, they are disruptive to an article subject to the BLP policy, and on that basis I consider it acceptable and appropriate to impose pending changes protection. I would actually prefer to use semi-protection instead, but the rate of disruptive editing events (i.e., number of disruptive edits per unit of time) is probably not sufficient to support semi-protection at this time. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I've also applied indefinite move protection to this article. Since some of the edit warring has involved disputes over the proper way to write Stana Katic's name, it is (IMO) not unreasonable to act preemptively to forestall rogue renaming of the article. Note, FWIW, that a redirect from Stana Katić (with a diacritic) to Stana Katic has existed since 2008. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Tabercil (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible uncredited appearance in Shade (2003)?

Does anyone know how to research a possible uncredited appearance of an actor/actress ? I was watching the movie Shade (2003) and about 7 minutes into the movie the nightclub owner enters his club, greets people, walks down a greenish hallway and enters a backroom area. At the end of that greenish hallway there is a guy & girl kissing and I could swear that the girl is Katic. 172.88.146.9 (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

IMDB which is not a reliable source for Wikipedia but usually lists uncredited appearance has no record of her appearing. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

PRIMARY sources

WP:PRIMARY allows for limited and careful use of Primary sources. I think the uses that have been recently reverted fall within the limited scope of that Policy.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Why? Quoting from my Talk page what I said to the relatively new editor who introduced the charitable section in the article: "As I recall, only [one] of the charitable endeavors mentioned by you was sourced to a secondary source (Variety, I think), whereas the others were cited to the organization Katic did somthing for. For non-work-related material to be noteworthy, particularly in a celebrity article, you have to use a reliable source other than the organization itself. Lots of celebrities, even just plain old wealthy people, give to charities. We wouldn't want to include all that in every article - it would just be bloat."--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

What policy or guideline says "For non-work-related material to be noteworthy, particularly in a celebrity article, you have to use a reliable source other than the organization itself." or is that your own opinion?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

An organization founded by a single specific person, which strongly emphasizes that person on its home page, and which appears non-notable in itself, is an SPS for that person being connected to that organization. Also, lists of charities supported by a person, unless the connections are notable in itself, is trivia, and, when contested, needs a positive consensus for inclusion. Bbb23 is correct here. Collect (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

New category

As I explained here: The category points to the Serbs of Croatia article which has: "The Serbs of Croatia (Serbo-Croatian: Srbi u Hrvatskoj, Serbian Cyrillic: Срби у Хрватској) or Croatian Serbs (Хрватски Срби/Hrvatski Srbi) constitute the largest national minority in Croatia." (emphasis mine) Katic has never resided in Croatia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: unsourced section

It's a lie - there are sources - just apparently no one who is diligent enough to look for them, the person who put it that neat little note about a "lack of sources" was too lazy to look right on Wikipedia itself and further up the page for sources. MissParker (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. My name is not Miss Parker anymore, that name was unceremoniously taken from me ...

Dearest Miss Parker, you made a bit of a mess of the referencing, presumably because you haven't read the guidelines. It's fine to be new, and to get things wrong; it's not fine to write offensive and misleading edit summaries. Deb (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

With Polyglot talents and Strong Good Looks,

What is next? 2603:7000:473F:A204:E504:4FC:BF69:81E2 (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)