James26

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Sydney Andrews

Hey, sorry for the late reply. If you want I can upload a better quality screenshot? -- Detroitpiston (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Gossip Girl

Thanks for answering :) Someone963852 (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Breakout character

I've finally found a source for the other part of the definition and retained your edits (as well as, prompted by your edit summary, purging all unsourced entries from the list).

Sorry to have aggravated you, but you may (blissfully perhaps) be unaware of the history behind this article. It came out of this AfD, where we all sort of agreed the phenomenon was encylopedic but the name was not. So when the article was started (and wasn't officially a list), the idea was to focus on characters like Fonzie, Urkel or Alex Keaton who had actually displaced their shows' intended main characters, or one of them. The secondary definition was characters like Stewie Griffin who became fan favorites and went from minor characters to major ones. I put it on my watchlist and it has been there ever since.

It has since occurred to me that the term also seems to be used by TV critics and fans to mean a character who emerges from an ensemble cast to become virtually identical with the show, such as Spock. Blair certainly qualifies, although I'd also like to see the entry note that she is the main character of the books (and being billed second in the show doesn't necessarily mean you're not the main character; SAG rules usually specify everyone gets credited alphabetically after the show's star, unless the producers and the actor agree otherwise (as Henry Winkler did by going second after Ron Howard).

Actually, just looking at the articles on the characters ... you'd have a strong case under the original "Fonzie" definition for Blair in the (currently-deleted) books section based on this source: "'Originally my heroine was Serena,' Cecily says. 'But she's so beautiful and nice and everybody loves her that she's just boring. She doesn't have all the flaws and complexities that Blair has, so later on in the books she just took over and became the main character." For the TV section, given that she's the main character of the books, do we have something by the producers or someone saying that they intended it to be more of an ensemble show?

I'm thinking of perhaps breaking the article up so that the section heds distinguish between characters who took over their narrative from another one and characters who just emerged from the field. That might prevent more future edit wars like the one we just had. Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I see you were busy while I was typing this. Good ... this is just what we need. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sequel

User:Drolz09 and I have been revert warring over your addition of Blair to the list, with discussions on our respective talk pages (my comments to him here, and his responses here). Since you had been as passionate about her meeting the definition as he seems to be about her not, perhaps you can weigh in? You also probably know more about the subject than I do. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Naomi Clark

There seems to be a lot going on there. I personally hate protecting pages but maybe requesting a short one is a possibility? You're more involved in the situation so I'll leave that thought with you. Cheers, RaseaC (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Children's Literature Project banner and assessment

Thanks for your requests for review. I or another project member will review your pages shortly. For new articles one way you can help is by inserting the project banner on the discussion page by inserting {{Children'sLiteratureWikiProject}} . This will automatically alert us, when the bot next runs, that there is a page in the project with-out an assessment. I look forward to reading your articles. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

No problem! :) --SilentAria ^talk 00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, no problem! I just realized that I may have been too hasty since I was rifling through a lot of Unassessed articles, so I backtracked a bit and figured I gave the Need (novel series) article a wrong assessment. :) --SilentAria ^talk 00:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Carrie Jones

If you haven't planned to do so already, consider nominating the article for DYK. The nomination page is at Template talk:Did you know. Abecedare (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Carrie Jones

Hello! Your submission of Carrie Jones at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Carrie Jones

Have you considered submitting something from the article to Did you know? You have done a lot of work in a short time. Barkeep49 (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So I looked up the DYK nomination. Basically the problem was that what you put in the statement (hook) didn't have an explicit source in the article. I attempted a new hook which has in-line citation. We'll see how that goes. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK appears on the main page (en.wikipedia.org). On the left side there is a Featured Article and right beneath that there are DYK facts meant to entice people to find out more about a newer or newly revised article. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Carrie Jones

On February 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carrie Jones, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on this! Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for everything you did. -- James26 (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your peer review of Pilot (Parks and Recreaton). I'm going to give it one more proofread myself and incorporate your changes, then hopefully in the few days nominate it for FAC. If you wouldn't mind, I'd appreciate it if you'd make some comments there and voice your support when and if the time comes. My last FAC failed despite having passed a GA and a peer review in the past, so I'd hate to see it happen again. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 03:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Naomi Clark

At a glance, it appears to be in very good shape. I haven't read through it for any prose or grammatical issues, but if it's gone through a peer review, that's already more than can be said for many articles that are nominated for GA (including most of my own). The external links for all the sources seem to be OK. Most importantly, it avoids two problems I've seen with character articles in the past: it's not written in a primarily in-universe way, and it doesn't rely on primary sources (meaning cited episodes). All of your sources appear to be reliable secondary sources, which is really important. I'd have to take a closer look to see if the structure is right for this episode, but WP:TVMOS allows for a lot of flexibility when it comes to the structure of character articles. So, in other words, yeah, looks good! lol. If you nominate it, let me know, maybe I can give it a review. I've been trying to cut down the TV/movies/theatre-related GAN backlog the bit in recent weeks, although it keeps growing and growing. (Which is a good thing! lol) — Hunter Kahn 14:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I'm pretty sure anybody could assess it. According to WP:Assessment, anybody can rate an article as long as they don't rate it GA or FA, which obviously has to be done through those review processes. If there was a dispute with the rating (some other user felt it should be rated lower), they could change it, and then it might have to go to a WikiProject or something to be resolved. But I'm pretty sure any user at all, even you, could be bold and add an assessment rating and it's no problem. If you want, I could take another more careful look at it and assess it myself. Or you yourself could look at the quality scale and give it the grade you feel is warranted. — Hunter Kahn 23:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: I think to give it an A grade, you need to have somebody independent of the article review it. But a B grade or lower I think anyone can do... — Hunter Kahn 23:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Jackson Pearce

Thanks for cleaning up the article. Are you a fan of Jackson Pearce? UncoolJohn (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Kelly Taylor

Please discuss things before you revert, so avoid edit warring. First of all, your latest edit, I've added too as she was mentioned in last nights episode so I think that's good to have. The only reason I added the note in the first place was because it's weird how she was quite a big character then not written out, so it should be noted, but I'm willing to wait until the end of the season, just incase. Also, please don't remove the latest piece of info. Jayy008 (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Got it, I'm happy to wait until the end of the season, when it comes around the source I'll use for "her being mentioned" is a link to the episode video itself n the CW website. Jayy008 (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Urban fantasy Page

^^;; Some of the examples seem to be Paranormal fantasy in the category, can you please clean this up so it is focused on Urban fantasy and its definition? i.e. Instead of saying Vampires are featured, mention the life of the city, etc. I noticed you made the recent additions, so I thought I would notify you. A lot of the examples list things like "going to an Academy" but that's not Urban Fantasy... unless it's Kids in an Inner City going to school and dealing with say magic and going to the school. It is OK to mention that in recent times that Paranormal and Urban fantasy have been paired more often, but I think the definitions should be kept distinct... Thank you.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Example:

Kim Harrison's Rachel Morgan novels, taking place in an alternate history setting, feature a bounty-hunting witch who battles numerous supernatural foes.[9]

This example is cited, but it doesn't mention the CITY or the CITY problems that that the book features. Rather, it talks about the paranormal elements, which is a witch. This may give a false impression that Paranormal Fantasy and Urban Fantasy are the same thing... but for it to count, it has to have Fantasy and Urban... Urban is a WHERE part of the who-what-where-when how. So which city did it take place in? I hope that clarifies. I'm not disputing they are Urban fantasy, I'm disputing that the way the example is given is misleading. Thanks. I hope that's not too harsh. ^^;; Don't mean it to be.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you make sure to give an example of the city or city problems for each of the examples listed in the article? Many of them focus on the paranormal, etc, but then fail to mention where its set... Something like It's set in Chicago, as in the Definition section. Or it deals with an inner city social worker who is dealing with the Homeless and finds out they are Witches. Beyond that point it can clarify the plot, say Teen Urban Fantasy tends to also use Paranormal Romance and set up love triangles (Give an example, that uses a city and paranormal), but it should mention the city used in each of the examples... I think that will clarify the page a bit better. Thanks. I'd do the clean up, but I'm not familiar with the examples and I thought it would be better for you to do it since you invested time into it. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What I'm afraid of is without the mentioning of the city, the genre definition doesn't look like it matches the article. There is too much emphasis on Paranormal, the romance angles, etc. But that's not really Urban Fantasy. Urban Fantasy CAN be paired with other subgenres and isn't mutually exclusive, but without the city mentioned as a major feature of the story in the genre, it really doesn't count as Urban Fantasy. I'll give this as an example, the Country Fantasy of Smallville is set in Smallville, which is a major element in the story. Without Smallville, the story falls apart. You can't mention Smallville without the fact its a small town that has a disaster happen to it and the Clark Kent who discovers he has strange powers is trying to solve the problems in Smallville. You *could* describe it as Smallville is a story of how Clark Kent became Superman, but then if you are defining Country Fantasy, and are trying to find the definition and clarification for the definition and the range that its currently and in the past paired with, it really is confusing. In another words, is the definition of Urban Fantasy mean that it is automatically werewolves, Vampires, and so on with romance triangles? Or is it the city... it would seem to clash. You have to take it from the POV of someone who NEVER read the books and is trying to find out what Urban Fantasy is. You can list various trends in a new section like what Urban Fantasy's history and what other subgenres its paired with... but that should be separate.

What sets Urban fantasy as a definition is that it focuses on the setting of the city as a major character in the book. The city's ups and downs, and does it in the context of Fantasy. Yes, the examples can be varied, but without mentioning the city involved and how it relates to the definition, it really doesn't seem to hold the article together. I'll give an off-hand example of how this can be done from a book I know is Urban Fantasy. While many Urban fantasy may pair up with Paranormal, Spellbinder by Melanie Rawn, which is set in Manhattan, focuses on witches and the sex lives of the individuals that live there. The focus of the book is on the witches, not on the vampires.

And so on... Let's put it this way, if you define a dog as a canine, are you going to introduce that cats also wear collars? It really doesn't have to do with the definition of what a dog is that they wear a collar. I believe in variety, but as the article stands without mentioning the city in the examples, it makes the definition look like its confused with the given examples. There is a way to mention the city and also the various trends, but to make the example work, you really need to mention the city. You can't define a definition and then fail to give examples related to that definition. This isn't for the "List all the Urban Fantasy for readers" But to clarify what Urban Fantasy is by giving examples that fall into the definition and give them in a way that makes it clear to the reader who doesn't know about the genre at all nor has read those books.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Naomi (90210)

I just wanted to drop by and say nice work on the article; however, I also have a few suggestions:

• The lead is quite short, and should be expanded. The lead should basically serve as an introduction and summarize the main information of the article, like at Alexander Mahone.
• The image in the infobox is a little fuzzy. I think the image at The CW looks a lot better.
• The format of the subheadings is different to most other character articles, but that isn't necessarily bad. Have a look at this revision for an alternate format.

-- Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 10:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not an expert on images, but I thought that screenshots are just as copyrighted as promo pics, ie. using that pictures from the CW would create no more copyright infringement than the current sreenshot has already, if that makes sense. Most characters articles use promo shots so I would encourage it. I have no preference over the format, it's just that the alternate version I proposed is how most character articles are presented. Seeking consensus would be a good idea. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well the hard work certainly paid off; the lead looks great now! I think the promo pic looks a lot better, but whatever you decide. Also, is the Tonight Show image really warranted? I'm not sure the GA reviewer will be happy with three non-free images. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol, well it really comes down to the GA reviewer. Most reviewers are quite strict and that article would never get past FAC; plus, I notice that the review is being questioned so... ;) Are you planning to expand any more character articles? I did a bit on Adrianna Tate-Duncan a while ago, and if you're interested in writing episode articles you could use "We're Not in Kansas Anymore" as a template, which I got to GA a while ago. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 15:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Well good luck with everything! Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Pilot (Community)

Thanks for your help! I'm certainly not perfect when it comes to the dashes, I'll have a look. Thanks again! Lampman (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

One Tree Hill

Hello. I agree with your redirects of all characters of One Tree Hill because none of them have any third party coverage. However, you've done it very sloppy. One a "list of..." page there needs to be a brief description of the character. The page didn't have these because they had a direct link to their main articles for all the information you'd need. But you simply deleted the pages without adding any descriptions. Jayy008 (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, James26. I would say I have to disagree with your redirecting any of the original main teenage (now adult, depending on what season a person is watching) characters. I restored the Lucas Scott and Peyton Sawyer articles, because I will fix those up soon. I only ask that you give me some time, maybe a month to finish up both. Sometimes I can move fast when I plan to fix up an article; others time I do not, due to being busy or whatever else. So that is why I say give me at least a month in this case; it does not mean that it will actually take a month, though. As for the others, such as Brooke Davis and Nathan Scott, I will worry about those later. I like that you have not yet redirected them, though, and instead put a notability tag on them. Likewise, I suggest you put a notability tag on Lucas and Peyton's articles...in the meantime.

One thing is certain to be done very soon... I will be fixing up the One Tree Hill (TV series) article in quite a little bit. Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That's okay, I only meant that when I delete things, I always make sure everything that I'm going to affect is changed too. Also with 90210 I think only Naomi should have her own article because she's the only one with a lot of media coverage, thanks for keeping an eye, I like what you've done with her page too. As above I think we should leave the main 5, Lucas, Nathan, Peyton, Haley and Brooke with their only if we can find references with reception to the characters etc. As Flyer22 said, he wants a month. I think that's a good enough time frame, I'll try do the same to the pages within this month too. After a month if we judge the pages and see if there if enough references etc, we can revist the deletion issue of those? Jayy008 (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, glad to have you helping out, Jayy. I'm female by the way, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, I'll personally delete them in one month if they're not sourced enough. And oh, I'm sorry LOL. Jayy008 (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

James, I replied again on my talk page, but you probably already know that I will most likely respond there (seeing as the tag on my talk page even says so). But I just wanted to let you know, just in case. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Becky McDonald

Thankyou for reading over that section, I made the correct changes to the issues you had found. I should have made it more clear, that in 2006 she became a permanent cast member, then she later signed a 12 month contact, after that she signed a contract that would keep her with the series until 2011, then she signed a brand new contract, forgetting the old one, with a brand new producer.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 17:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for looking at the article, I think I'll leave it until the actual review now though. I've lost interest in it tbh, It's been number 1 waiting for ages now, but reviewers are carrying out favours for friends and reviewing number 30 and so on. Thankyou though, you made good points.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 15:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Naomi Clark

Hi, yes you're right I didn't read it. I always put sources after full stops but it does flow better as one sentence. The other thing I don't agree with, it looks tidyer to have to source in the lead, it's not like I've used the source twice, when something is used twice in an article, the ref name field is what should be used, that's what it's there for. Jayy008 (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol yes, I do think that part does need all those citations, it shows the majority of people that consider it. so you don't have an objection to the ref name method? If you don't I'll add it, just for preference. Jayy008 (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I think having everything sourced in the lead makes the article better, but I'll use ref name instead. I'm going to leave the article to you after that though, I was going to watch list it but there's no point as you're a good editor and always make sure the article is perfect. I'll focus on something that needs the work. Jayy008 (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I have made a few changes to the page, despite my earlier withdrawal. I have changed the infobox image to one of her from season 2 as usually the infobox is what the character looks like most recently (Unless they make a dramatic change). I've also added a image of the season 2 finale of her and Cannon w/source in the image caption about character direction. Take a look and let me know any objections. Jayy008 (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a mistake on my part, I thought the Tonight Show image was off Wikipedia Commons. I would never have uploaded the third image if I knew, I agree though, I think the tonight show image should stay. Jayy008 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree for normal citations. But that's what these ref names are for, what's the point in having them otherwise? As for asking someone else, I don't know anybody else who extends their editing of television shows the characters. Jayy008 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No no, I know it's not just for TV. The ref name I just think should be used anywhere in the article that uses the information from the source, because it's not repeating the ref. Also I don't understand, I remember a while back with the Kelly article (I just took a look at it, that's why I'm bringing it up) about the thing you wanted sourced or you'd keep removing it. Which, I did. However above that in the Melrose Place section there's the same type of info about a different story yet you haven't removed it or sourced it in the whole time I've been editing Kelly Taylor article? So I'm wondering why it's just the 90210 bit you keep an eye on. Also about the image, there's no difference about the licensing about the lead image, most tv shows on here that are edited frequently use a recent image of the character, why should Clark be different? Jayy008 (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand now. I think I will bring the image up for discussion, even though I know your opinion is different, I still think you should get involved with the discussion. By the way, I'm temporarily deleting your discussion off my page, something has happened to all my stuff :S. I'm not being rude! Jayy008 (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• In response to your comment on my talk, yes after a GA is passed the assessments change to GA-class. Usually I change them but missed that one. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Community pilot

Thanks for your help with Pilot (Community) (finally got around to looking at it.) I think I got the dashes under control now; I really don't use m-dashes normally. They were just in the "Cast and characters" section because I had imported the format by cut-and-paste from somewhere else, but now it's n-dashes throughout. Lampman (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, I've tried to address your issues. Lampman (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Characters.

Hello, just to keep you updated. I have done some work on Lucas Scott and Peyton Sawyer to which Flyer22 is taking over. I will be doing the other 3 gradually but they are a lot of work so bare with me. Any websites you can think of to get reception of characters? Jayy008 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I also think Naomi Clark should be nominated for GA. Do you know how to do it? Jayy008 (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Jayy008 (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As I stated to Jayy, I am just letting you know that I will probably be cutting it very close to improving the Peyton Sawyer article. I need to get to a library. The deal about that is currently stated on my talk page. As for the other articles, the Lucas Scott article is pretty much fine, though I will be adding more to it when I can. The other three articles may be redirected by you before I get to them, but make no mistake that I will significantly fix them up (either way). Flyer22 (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Adrianna

Hey, James. I'm not really planning on expanding the article or anything, but I did have a quick look online and added some stuff to the article. There's a lot more out there, and once the next season starts I'll sure there will be a lot more. I think the article is notable enough to be kept. (PS - I've noticed that the Naomi article has been on top of the GAN list for a while. No luck with reviewers?) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol - well I've been "semi-retired" for a while now, but I still haven't been able to quit completely for long periods of time. Here's hoping to one day ;) Good luck with your future endeavors, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha, well good luck with the review! Oh and you can find lots of templates at Wikipedia:Wikibreak if you're interested. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Naming

The character is billed as "Silver" by the CW. No "Erin" about the matter, she's hardly ever been called Erin on the show. Isn't there another rule about what's been used to most? For example in One Tree Hill Haley James changed to Haley James Scott from Season 2 onwards and should be called Haley James Scott. Jayy008 (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my god. I've seen it, and it's annoying. Very annoying! As for the naming thing, I'm not saying I know better, I just always go by what the network names her. In the press release it says Jessica Stroup as Silver. So what do you think? I'll await your reply before making any more changes. Jayy008 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Blake's 7 LOBC removal

Whatever. I just generally prefer to give the user a hint that way, especially since he went to the trouble of reverting your removal. Maybe we could leave a note on the IP talk page? (And, I also prefer to do those removals from the list in bulk every few months. But maybe it's time for one of them anyway). Daniel Case (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

90210

It wasn't a prediction. Jennie Garth has confirmed she won't return. Tori Spelling left the show because they wouldn't pay her enough, was supposed to be return but plans were scrapped because of Rebecca Sinclair. Shannen Doherty is signed on for two more episodes but those plans have also been scrapped thanks to Sinclair. Do you need sources? Jayy008 (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could say: "However, after the conclusion of second season, there are no plans for them to return."

Brooke Davis

Woops, if they specified in their edit summary, I wouldn't have reverted. I think I jump to conclusions regarding IP's. And great, I'll take a look at what you've done, I'm trying to get around to that article, but if you're working on it, I'll move on to Nathan Scott? Jayy008 (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean you're coming out of retirement? :) Jayy008 (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'll keep you updated with how they're coming along. Jayy008 (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Julia Görges

The problem with establishing the case for the common name is that it needs to be established early in the discussion. If that is done, then oppose opinions will need to show that it is not the common name. The first discussion presented a weak case and in my opinion that caused the no consensus. I know nothing about the person so I base my close on the arguments presented. I'd let the discussion you started on the talk page run for a while and see what opposition shows up. If none, then a renomination would be the way to go. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but better if a consensus can be developed before the nomination. There really is no right or wrong. Consensus can change. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I left some of my feedback on her name, as you requested. Hopefully this time around, the change is successful! --Aandalib90 (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)