Talk:Yvonne Strahovski

Untitled

Yvonne was born in 1982. What needs to be done to make this a permanent change on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.49.131 (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

On mobile I had to expand the personal life section to see the Film and TV shows she has been in. That doesn't seem like a correct placement. Either there should be a separate section for appearances or a link to a separate page with her appearances. Jmckey (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Fluent Polish?

I don't know if she really speaks Polish so fluent. I'm from Poland and I can hardly understand what she had said(I think she had said sth about mother). Polish is not as easy as for example English ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.162.136 (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Something about mother? Mini Anden says something like I toss the keys, don't drop them!. Interesting answer... /Plastifarc (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't understand her either but it's probably because she was speaking very quickly. In this interview she mentions that she speaks Polish at home: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-adgzllJStQ&feature=related Kasnie (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Here: http://yvonnestrahovski.net/?p=36 she admits that Polish was actually her first language and she's fluent in both speaking and writing. And as far as I remember she really said something about mommy ;).--84.10.183.231 (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

in Polish “Tylko jak rzucisz jak twoja mamusia” in English “Only If you throw like your mom”. DFS (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Fansites

I realize that there are rules relating to spam on wikipedia (as well there should be), but I noticed fansites keep getting taken off as spam. Is that really spam? People coming to wikipedia are looking for more information about an actress, and a fansite may be one of the best sources they can get. Far more in-depth than random articles imo. It seems to me that any fansites should be welcome on the page of actors/actresses as long as it is legit. --66.165.191.253 (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:EL, BLP:EL and WP:SPAM. This isn't the appropriate page to discuss wikipedia policy, and wikipedia isn't a collection of links. Especially note what it says in BLP: "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles." tedder (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't interpret any of that in a way that indicates fansites are not appropriate. But since 'judged by a stricter standard' is completely subjective, I guess I lose. A sizeable fansite with a sizeable community about a given person seems like it would be a welcome link. Thanks for the response though. --66.165.191.253 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The relevant bit is WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided: "11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That may be so, but this page is pretty weak. I'm sure anyone looking for more information on this actress would welcome a link to a fansite. I really wish people would learn when it's appropriate to bend the guidelines so as to honor the spirit of the law rather than the letter. Could you actually describe what would be bad about linking this site without linking to a WP policy page to back up your unconvincing and weakly articulated argument? I would have so much more sympathy if this WP article was more than a few paragraphs of fluff when the actor in question deserves much more. 69.181.230.108 (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really qualify as a stub

I've removed the designation since the article really no longer qualifies as a stub. The reason for the shortness of the article isn't because it is in desperate need of expansion, but because Strahovski is a young actress and there's little encyclopedic information of note to add. —AlanK (talk • contribs) 18:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sortable table

The two tables in the section Filmography should be sortable, as it is desirable to give our readers the opportunity to have information presented to them in whichever way they choose. Gimmetoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has continually removed the sortability, with the edit summaries "(undo sortable then, incompatible with dashes)", "(two weeks, no response, still not fixed)" and "(it's not fixed)", although he has refused to state what needs to be fixed, and has declined an invitation to discuss it on this talk page. As I find it distasteful to engage in edit-warring, I'd request other editors to examine whether or not these two tables should be sortable. --RexxS (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sortability makes the table more flexible and allows individual users to display the information according to their preference or requirement. To remove that option without explanation is not constructive. If Gimmetoo sees a problem with it, he should explain what he considers the problem to be and he should be heard. Perhaps he sees a problem that is so far eluding everyone else. Despite being asked to explain what the problem is, (also on his talk page) no explanation has been provided. To ask for an explanation is more than reasonable. To avoid providing one is not. Other editors shouldn't have to guess what the problem might be. I also feel that edit-warring is pointless and unproductive, but this needs to be discussed openly and clearly. I would like something more persuasive than "because Gimmetoo says so". Rossrs (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not "refused to state what needs to be fixed". Indeed, I fixed it once (using IAR over a MOS guideline, to make the sorting work), and explained the symptoms of the sorting not working. For that, RexxS chastised me for not bringing up technical issues with Merridew [1] - in a thread I started about this on Merridew's talk page - while dismissing my description of the symptoms. I was not asked for further explanation. On the contrary, I received more condescending response sarcastically saying I have no idea what I'm talking about [2], with denials there is a problem, and reversions without discussion [3] [4] to restore a broken table. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually tried sorting the table since I fixed the problem with non-numeric data in the first column? The simple fact is that it works, as anybody can see by trying it at the version you removed.

You are mistaken in claiming that you "fixed it once", and it has been explained to you on your talk page:

• "You're being very unfair to Ross by misinforming him about the issue of date ranges and sorting. Your statement above "year ranges with hyphens do not have that particular incompatibility" is patently untrue. You only have to try sorting the table with hyphens dif-hyphen and with en dashes dif-dash to see that the sorting behaviour is identical. I've checked that in Firefox and IE8. With both dif-hyphen and dif-dash, the descending sort on 'Year' wrongly places the '2007' row first. If there's some other sort of incompatibility that you meant, you're not making a very good job of communicating it. As far as I can see, I fixed the problem that you seemed to be implying. What more do you want?"

You are mistaken in believing that date ranges with hyphens sort any differently from date ranges with dashes, as you could see from the two diffs provided to you above. The fix for non-numeric data is to use a sort key, which is the fix I implemented.

You are mistaken in claiming that you "explained the symptoms of the sorting not working". Where's the diff where you explained the symptoms?

You are mistaken in claiming that "I was not asked for further explanation." On 16 September, you were asked by Rossrs "to say what's bothering you" and by me "if there's anything I'd missed"; and again on 17 September by Rossrs "If you have something to say, please say it" and by me "You may have found a problem with changing hyphens to dashes in date ranges that nobody else on the wiki is aware of; in which case, please enlighten us."

You are mistaken in claiming that the table is "broken". It is not, and your pointless edit-warring does not improve the article; it unnecessarily removes a functionality that enjoys a strong consensus throughout Wikipedia. You should now revert yourself and restore that functionality. --RexxS (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken, and it appears you intend to stay mistaken. I said the sortability was incompatible with dashes. You've seen that diff, since you mention it above. If you wish to continue to ignore what I tell you, then you are currently not teachable. As I said above, your statement ("You may have found a problem with changing hyphens to dashes in date ranges that nobody else on the wiki is aware of; in which case, please enlighten us") reads as condescending sarcasm. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the Television table with hyphens: dif-hyphen; a descending sort on Year incorrectly puts "2007" before "2007-Present". That's the problem and it is exactly the same with dashes, dif-dash. You must have realised by now that you don't fix the problem by changing dashes to hyphens against MOS. You fix it by using a sort key: the version you are edit-warring against. Don't play with words: numeric sortability is "incompatible" with any non-numeric character – and that's why we have sort keys. I'll leave aside your personal attack and ask you to concentrate on the edits. Do you still think that your "fix" of changing dashes to hyphens makes the sorting work? --RexxS (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Gimmetoo, if the version you've reverted is "not fixed" what exactly is not fixed? It sorts correctly. Why is it a problem to use a sort key? Rossrs (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It does not sort correctly in some versions of some browsers. I suppose you're viewing the page with Firefox? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Which browsers? Rossrs (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Name the browser. I've checked that version with Firefox on Windows7, XP, Ubuntu, and Win2000; with IE8, Opera and Chrome on Windows7 and XP; even with IE6 on Win2000. Please don't tell me that it's "broken" with javascript turned off, as no sorting happens with javascript turned off, so there's nothing to break, and no amount of changing dashes to hyphen (your so-called "fix") will alter that. And please explain why it's taken you over fourteen days to eventually mention the problem you claim to have perceived on 15 September, despite multiple requests to say what you mean. Finally, please explain why you have repeatedly removed the sortability from the Films table in this article. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Note this issue has got as far as Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RexxS_behaviour. One editor (User:Baseball Bugs) cannot find any issue with the sortable table, and neither can I.

Looking above all I can see is argumental behaviour. Unless someone can state clearly what the problem is I see no reason not to have the table. (so readded see [5] ) I assume the issue is not a stylistic dislike of sortable tables?

NB I have no background on this issue so please clearly restate the problem. Including the conditions required to replicate it, and the effect seen. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your removal of the HTML breaks in the 'Year column', and I also hope it is not seen as contentious. I agree that we should not try too much to override a browser's display for many reasons. Those using a screen-reader will thank you as well, since the 'br' tag can introduce an annoying pause for them (mimicking a new line). I'm sorry I can't cast any further light on what the problem might be. I believe I fixed it two weeks ago with the sort key. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The technical issue is apparently resolved. Interesting. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I updated the article to include a sort key in each cell of the column, following Ucucha's comments. Hopefully that should minimise problems with different browsers as each cell is now processed in the same manner by the javascript sorting. It still won't fix very old Safari browsers' inability to sort on anything other than the first column, though. Since Apple offers an automatic update weekly by default, the percentage of browsers using such very old versions of Safari seems to have dropped below 0.1%. Although it is a key goal of Wikipedia to be usable by anybody, I'm not sure we could find anyone willing to put in the time required to test and patch the site-wide javascript. --RexxS (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo

I think the other photo in the infobox was perfectly acceptable. It did not partially obscure her face? Shall we keep it in the article somehow? Personally I would like to see the WonderCon photo restored to the infobox and the Comic-Con photo used elsewhere down by "Career". Elizium23 (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you guys should get a new photo, this one in the wikipedia doesn't looks so nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.40.125.213 (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the Wondercon photo more than the TIFF photo as it's a more familiar look. --99.225.107.203 (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI: the current photos under evaluation are: File:Yvonne Strahovski TIFF 2011.jpg and File:Yvonne strahovski (cropped).jpg. Frankly, I have no objection to keeping both in the article, but I think the more recent one should be in the infobox, as she is currently active and it will more accurately describe her look. Elizium23 (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The TIFF photo is for Killer Elite (2011) and the Wondercon photo is for Chuck (2012) but that's a minor quibble. I've added the Chuck photo beside the Chuck paragraph. --99.225.107.203 (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the 2011 Toronto photo discussed above over the proposed Comicon 2012 photo, because in the Comicon photo, her face is obscured by a microphone, and it's a less flattering shot. I have preserved the Comicon photo in the article space. Elizium23 (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)