Talk:Halston Sage

This article needs references

Some places to look:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

--Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez:  Done! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Twitter account

The twitter account that was originally listed, https://twitter.com/halstonsage, is not a verified account according to Twitter. An example of a verified account is https://twitter.com/victoriajustice. Note the blue circle with the white check mark. If the account is really Sage's there needs to be some other way to prove it. Being followed by someone with a verified twitter account who is a coworker or employer would do. Too many posers to just take a self declaration by someone that this is their account. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You make great points. However, if she really was a poser, would she have this photo gallery up: [1]. In addition, she follows Cymphonique Miller's Twitter page, which is a verified account. Cymphonique is indeed a co-worker, so I am convinced that this is Halston's real page. Tinton5 (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What I would like to see is her twitter being followed by someone with a verified account who would know her personally, not who she follows. https://twitter.com/#!/Cymphonique/following and https://twitter.com/#!/NickelodeonTV/following do not list https://twitter.com/halstonsage and I would expect they would if it were a valid, particularly the official Nick one. I don't trust galleries - fan posers do a great job finding stuff to make their pages look real and I have been fooled before. https://twitter.com/halstonsage is very likely her twitter but we should find a good straight forward way to make certain before we use it as a reference. It would be best, of course, if she got her account verified.

The info that reference supported is good to know, but isn't really necessary to have in a good article, there are other much more important issues that need to be addressed - that isn't one of them. WP:BLPPRIVACY talks a bit about this type of info as well. What this article really needs is good reliable third party sources to meet basic WP:GNG guidelines. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Her account is verified Cupcakekisses (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Production company in text

It seems unnecessary to explicitly state the production company in the text for a minor Netflix movie in the text, but it feels like my good faith edit is not even being considered. I will be asking for a 3rd opinion. -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

At least you're now going to the Talk page – bravo! The production company is actually mentioned twice – both for Before I Fall and You Get Me. It is directly from the source (esp. in the second case), and I don't think it's WP:UNDUE, but WP:ONUS may apply here, so I'm happy to see what other editors have to say about this. If the prod. company is removed from the text, the second one needs to be replaced by a "the", which wasn't done in either of the IP's (different IP's, same editor) edits. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This seems like such an inconsequential change I'm amazed it was ever reverted, I'm still not sure why you think this extra detail is worth keeping. I am baffled as to why you are forcing a discussion on this at all, or that you think it is appropriate to say unhelpful things like "Then you weren't paying attention." or "bravo!" in your comments. My edit clearly wasn't vandalism and I had expected it would be taken in good faith and maybe then improved with a minor tweak, if you thought the word "the" should have been included then by all means add it. More detail in your edit summaries or a suggestion to try a different wording would have been more helpful.

It is weird how heavily the Variety article emphasizes the studio but even so that doesn't mean this biographical article in an encyclopedia should do the same. Variety is an industry publication, that is rephrasing a casting press release, and the article from before the movie even started filming.

Is there a particular reason to emphasize the production company here is in this article? The article You Get Me (film) only mentions the production company in the Infobox, so no emphasis there, but it would be less strange to have it the film article than to have it here. As I said it seems unusual to emphasize the production company, I might have expected emphasis of it as a Netflix film (emphasizing the studio) I would have still thought it a little strange to bother mentioning it but less strange than.

For example I can understand saying Ready Player One (film) is a Stephen Spielberg film, or Warner Bros film, but this feels like emphasizing Amblin Entertainment Ready Player One for no apparent reason. I can understand how you might want to use a qualifier or emphasize something if there were two different films called "You Get Me" but there's no need for that here.

Is there some special reason that the production company name should mentioned at all? -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. You were WP:BOLD. You were reverted. It was then actually up to you to start the discussion. Also, I don't see anywhere where IJBall accused you of vandalism. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: What do you think on the merits of the issue? We clearly need a third opinion here to break the logjam... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's get a couple more opinions – pinging Geraldo Perez and Ebyabe: the question is – should "Awesomeness Films" be removed from before both Before I Fall and You Get Me in the article prose (note: both sources explicitly mention this, esp. the second one, so it's "sourced"); in the second case, that will require replacing the removal with a "the". See also my early comments above, as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think mentioning the production company is all that important. Jace Norman portrays Henry Hart/Kid Danger on Henry Danger is probably better than Jace Norman portrays Henry Hart/Kid Danger on Schneider's Bakery's and Nickelodeon Productions' Henry Danger If people want more information, they can just visit the series' pages. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

None of the other films in the section mention their production company. I'd say remove them. --Ebyabe (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The production company is basically name dropping and serves no purpose mentioning than to either bump up the perceived notability of the subject by stating they are in some prestigious production or to disambiguate films of the same name. The film article is linked, the focus of the article is the bio subject, not passing details not about the subject in the projects she works in. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Both removed this time, and grammatically correctly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Horseton Schrage

Let me rephrase. Google lists her as "Horseton Schrage", yet there is no mention of this alias here. What is the veracity and history of this alternative name, and should it be included in this article? CapnZapp (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: The current "source" used to support the claim that her birth name is "Halston Jean Schrage" has been tagged with a {{better source needed}} tag for over two years – based on that, I believe it is legitimate to remove this claim from the article until a proper Reliable source can be produced to verify it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. However, I don't see the connection; you're talking about a different name than I. CapnZapp (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Google likely has it wrong. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)