Talk:Dana Tyler

Question about Dana Tyler's ethnicity

The Infobox states that Dana Tyler's ethnicity is African American, but she appears to be Caucasian on the newscast. If she is of African American descent, she fooled me and a lot of other people.

Anthony22 (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is the Phil Collins relationship relevant?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Dana Tyler's relationship with Phil Collins should not be mentioned in each of the articles due to the notability and the articles being BLPs. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Should the subject's relationship with Phil Collins be mentioned in this BLP? Dayewalker (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Just so you are aware - Kumkwat actually started a discussion to this effect at Talk:Phil_Collins that he let fizzle when he saw it wasn't going his way, yet continued reverting and restoring. I wouldn't expect much different here. Srobak (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Honestly it looks pretty clear to me, but we should always run things through policy first. I removed it because this is a BLP, we'll see if there's support to put it back. Dayewalker (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really a fair comment on Kumkwat. The discussion you link to was not started by them, it was about them saying in the article that the relationship was current. Clearly we should never say anything is current. Rich Farmbrough, 11:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC).

• No - While there are three reliable sources for it, they all barely mention it in passing. Trivial in the Phil Collins article, beyond trivial here. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• No - Agree with the concerns by SummerPhD, this relationship is too trivial to be included in this and the Phil Collins article. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, probably. I will freely admit to not having worked on many "include/exclude a relationship" decisions before, however I can't see that a four or five year "relationship" is trivial. There are many more sources available for example and this (if the weird url works), both of which picture Collins and Tyler. The sources cover an extended period from at least 2006 to 2010 (Rolling Stone), and probably 2011, so we are not documenting a fling or one night stand or tabloid style guesses form seeing the two in a coffee shop. So this seems significant in both people's lives, and in the public domain. I'm also not sure why mentioning the relationship "in passing" is relevant (at least one of the cited articles gives it more coverage than we do) - since we are not trying to establish notability for an article called "Collins and Tyler", but verifiability for the existence of a relationship. Rich Farmbrough, 10:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC).
  
• Comment - this is a difficult one. Is there a concern here that the subject's privacy is being violated, or is it simply that some editors feel that it's not relevant or interesting to the reader? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I can't speak for anyone else but my reasoning is based on the fact that all of the references to the relationship are bare mentions in articles about Collins (though Tyler is also a quasi-public figure). I do not see a substantial privacy issue, however, because of the number of solid sources referring to it and Tyler's status as a quasi-public figure. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Yes - with condition - I say "yes" only because it was apparently newsworthy at one point - as indicated by the refs. That being said - I think any wording other than something along the lines of "In 2006 they were dating" (see my attempt to neutralize) would be excessive mentioning - unless of course something else has/does develop (engagement, marriage etc). If those stipulations were not met - then I would change my input to NO. Srobak (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• No, unless there's a source that mentions it in a little more detail. This is largely down to my personal preference, though, and Rich Farmbrough and Srobak do give good reasons. I think this is a close call, and ultimately comes down to taste (and I like my encyclopaedias to be serious, dammit!). — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
• No for multiple reasons: Lack of notability; this being a BLP, where extra discretion is to be applied; lack of reliable sources. It's very close to open-and-shut as cases go.-The Gnome (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• No. It's OK to mention in Collins's article I guess. Collins is pretty notable, so we're interested in more detail about him and in things that affect his trajectory through life. Tyler's not. To the extent that she's notable at all, only her public career is notable. Beyond a mere overview of vital facts her personal life is not notable. If it was a marriage it'd be OK to mention it. That there are or may be BLP and privacy concerns seals the deal. Herostratus (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2011 (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.

Edits to include additional inline citations

Hi. I just completed a series of significant edits to this page in order to address the inline citation issues indicated in the template. Please take a look and, if everything looks ok, please remove the template.ThePhantom65 (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)