This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

References 4,5,6 are nonsense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.170.86 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"Of Dalmatian origin?" Goddamn it, she's not a dog. She's either Croatian, Serbian or whatever... Baks (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"Her parents are both Serbian, and she was born in Canada. Thus she is Canadian of Serbian origin. Thats why they ran away from Croatia. I know the condition, because I am one of those people. I also know someone that knows her family, and they go to Serbian church. BTW, although I am Serbian, I have cousins who are Croatian. I also have Greek cousins. I have Irish cousins. One of my cousins got married to a Croatian. Another to a Greek. Sister to Irishman. So, how hard is that to comprehend? Not at all. Her cousin can be Swahili for all we care, but her parents are Serbian. Her kids could be Jewish, German, Black, Indian, Hispanic. Who cares. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alser (talk • contribs) 17:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Stana Katic is NOT of croation decent. Both of her parent are Serbs, born in Dalmacia. I live in Hamilton, Ontario where Stana was born. Her cousin told me she is pure Serb. (unsigned comment by 24.213.84.51 on 21 September 2009.)

This phrase makes zero sense: "born in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada to Croatian parents in Croatia, who emigrated from Croatia." I don't know the facts, so I can't fix it, but this sounds ridiculous.--75.27.35.230 (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's actually kind of funny, though. -Lisa (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

here is says that she is Croatian, and her parents are cousins to a popular Croatian actor who is a Croat: link. The line "Stana Katić rođena je u Kanadi, ali je hrvatskog podrijetla - roditelji su joj iz Dalmacije i rođaci su splitskog glumca Sime Katića" means "Stana Katić is born in Canada, but she is of Croatian origin - her parents are from Dalmatia and are cousins to the Split actor Šime Katić.

I know this doesn't necessarily confirm her ethnic group, but one thing that all sources have in common is this: her parents came from Croatia (i.e. Dalmatia). So how about, instead of saying she is either Croatian or Serbian, we just say that her parents came from Croatia? This is the most efficient, factually accurate, and verifiable way of saying it. --OettingerCroat (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Those links after statement that her mother is Croatian are really not realible- couple of links from croatian tabloid press where they state she's "our girl" just because her parents were born in Dalmatia-so are Serbs and Italians, so are they also by this definition Croatian?! Those articles are so stupid it causes nausea. I'm not disputing that her mother could be Croatian, the important thing would be to state her oppinion because I know lots of people from former Yugoslavia who come from mixed heritage- and are completely one side oriented and sometimes more "Serbian" and "Croatian" than others. Jarovid (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I Agree. The links that were added are nothing more than cheap tabloids. One of them even claims that her parents allegedly emigrated from Croatia, LOL:). I think that it is best if that sources are not included at all. At least until some reliable source is found, preferably from an interview with her (in English) where she answers the questions by her self.Ratipok (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

On her IMDB profile it says she was born in 1978, not 1980. Which is correct? She looks 30 to me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.93.142.68 (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much look difference between 29 and 31, so "about 30" is right either way! MVillani1985 (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Stana Katic's middle name is not Jacqueline. It's unclear where this rumor started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.161.68 (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The reference to her name also does not seem to mention any middle name. Should be removed by someone who can edit.86.182.185.106 (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit that takes her middle name out of the lead. Some consensus will have to be reached as to how her name should be listed, i.e., whether she was born with the middle name Jacqueline, etc. I at first thought that the editor who removed the middle name put in the reference about the DVD and her saying her name. I was wrong about that. My assumptiion - but it's unclear and should be clarified - is that someone heard her say the name Jacqueline and put in the reference in support. Don't know, but we're going to have to be clearer about this if it's being challenged. If we can't find good enough references for the middle name, then it should be taken out, but it must be taken out everywhere, not just in one spot (it's also in the infobox).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The reference made to her middle name should be taken out, it's been confirmed by Stana (via her official, verified Twitter account) that her middle name is indeed not Jacqueline. http://twitter.com/#!/Stana_Katic/status/41689463708979200 99.82.245.98 (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition to English, she speaks Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, Slovene, French and Italian. I thought Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian are essentially a same language called Serbocroatian. Meaning that those are only dialects. 85.217.50.138 (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a neverending pissing contest between lingual fascist in the Balkans that argue there are differences between those 'languages' significant enough to mark them as languages, and Yugoslav-nostalgics who stick to the idea that there is validity in calling the common language of southern Slavs the 'Serbocroatian' -- i.e. by the name of two most numerous ethnicities using it. Ironycally, it was actually 'Ilyrian/Serbo-Croatian-Unity' champions in the 19th century who made it possible to now claim that there are actual differences by using phonetic transcription for the differentiating Slavic 'yata' and 'shta' instead of a common grapheme for each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.250.108.155 (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

oh god you're ignorant...american? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.228.201 (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed the lead to indicate that she's an American actress because she gained notability as an actress in America. Another editor reverted my change saying in the edit summary that "her nationality is still Canadian regardless of where she becomes famous." First, to the extent it even matters, Katic has dual citizenship (it's what she says in her resume on her website). Second, She may be Canadian by birth, but what we're describing is what kind of actress she is, and she's gained her notability as an actress in the US. WP:MOSBIO alludes to this, but it's directive is open to some interpretation:

The opening paragraph should have: ... 3. Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity); 1. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national (according to each nationality law of the countries), or was a citizen when the person became notable.

My view is that the key is not the citizenship of the person when she became notable, but the country, particularly, as here, the person has done all of her acting in the US. If someone were a French citizen and went to England when she was nine years old and remained in England the rest of her life (but also remained a French citizen), would she really be considered a French actress? What if she was one day old when she moved to England?

If no consensus can be reached, one way around the problem is to change the opening sentence to read: "Stana Jacqueline Katic (born April 26, 1978) is a film and television actress." Then, let the body of the article explain her background.

Comments?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No one has responded, even the editor who reverted my changes. Therefore, as a compromise, I'm going to change the article to be neutral on the issue of nationality in the lead. Please do NOT revert without first coming here to discuss.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

just to add that sources referred that her mother is Cro are write about something alse none said that her mum is Croat..It said that her parents are from Dalmacija not that mum is Croatian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkvindak (talk • contribs) 14:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Revised the intro. She's Canadian of Serbian and Croatian descent. She's popular in the U.S. for her role as Beckett, but that does not define her as solely American when she clearly holds citizenship in both. Added the note of her dual citizenship. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

An WP:SPS is not a great source for anything in a bio article, but it is somewhat acceptable for nationality. However, please use a permanent archive of that page because an official website is not a permanent thing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

((edit semi-protected)) Her name is only Stana Katic without the "Jacqueline" according to her self.

The source is her tweet from 3:41 AM Feb 27th "Stana Jaqueline Katic? Never heard of her. It's Stana Katic. No Jaqueline." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.145.126 (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

HZ64 (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Baseball Watcher 23:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have made the change and removed 'Jacqueline' as her middle name. Baseball Watcher, it's kind of hard to provide a reference to prove a negative. The change was requested because she does not have a middle name (1 2)! I don't know why 'Jacqueline' is listed as her middle name on this page, but she has confirmed via Twitter that it's just Stana Katic (3). Also, see the discussion on this very page under middle name.

I'm completely in awe that despite our policies espousing 'accuracy above all else' for WP:BLP issues, we still cannot get something as simple as a name right. Especially when it has been pointed out as wrong by four people on this page alone, not to mention the subject of the article. The issue is further muddied by the fact that many sites take their information from Wikipedia, so many mirrors still list the middle name. If anyone has a reason to re-add the middle name despite the actress stating that it does not exist, please post your reasons on this talk page. DubiousIrony ^yell 06:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The edit adding her middle name was made about a year ago by Dgarq here. Another edit was made by Dgarq adding Katic's fan website as the source here. The fan website still says her middle name is Jacqueline. User:Dgarq was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet shortly after on May 3, 2010. Several editors tried to undo the middle name addition because a fan website is not a reliable source. However, another editor added it back in without the fan website source, and for some reason, no one touched it. There was far more controversy at the time about her ancestry than about her middle name, so it appears to have just slipped back in.

At this point, I'm in favor of leaving her middle name out, but not because of the tweet. I, like others, am uncomfortable relying on Twitter for information. However, because the only source for her middle name (other than Wikipedia and its many mirrors) is the fan website, there's no reliable source that her middle name is Jacqueline. It can be reinserted if someone finds a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, Bbb23. I removed the name in the spirit of WP:BRD, as an uninvolved editor. I agree that a tweet is hardly the ideal source (being OR and, well, Twitter) but I think it really clarifies the issue for the editors here who might otherwise be on the fence. It's interesting that it was added by a blocked editor. I checked her 'official' site (stanakatic.com) and there's no mention of a middle name. I wonder how many websites quote her name incorrectly because of Wikipedia? This is a great example of WP:CIRCULAR. DubiousIrony ^yell 01:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Just as an aside, since when is an unofficial fansite a reliable source? Especially in the face of all the more reliable websites that do not quote a middle name. We really should hold BLP all articles to a higher standard. DubiousIrony ^yell 01:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Should the article include that her role "Corinne" in Quantum Of Solace is a Canadian Secret Service Agent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.111.91 (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, it's a pretty minor role, why do you think it's important?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If I understand how this works, anyone online can vote who's the most glamorous actress among several candidates. This strikes me as frivolous. Are there any controls? Even assuming readers of the website matter, is there any scientific accuracy to this "poll"? As a courtesy to Tony, I'm not reverting, but why does this belong in the article? Am I missing something?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't know if it is 100% online vote or part vote and part selection committee/jury. Secondly, there are many people's choice awards that are considered notable. Third, I believe when the ceremony is held on June 10, she will actually win some sort of award for this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with your reasons, but unless someone else objects, I won't argue that the material should be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Main images

13:17, 24 February 2010 – 19:52, 27 February 2010

19:52, 27 February 2010 – 18:55, 10 December 2010

18:55, 10 December 2010 – present

How about using this flickr image as the main image?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

How come it says below the picture that (19 months ago) it was being used in the article?

Because I spent some time chasing thru Flickr trying to get images of Stana. The left two are ones which I sourced and uploaded. Tabercil (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to using the picture. It certainly looks more like her on the TV show than the current one, although I don't know what she looks like off the TV show.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, File:Stana Katic.jpg is the optimal main image. Not sure why the current one is in there. I will check the article history to sort out some past usages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's go back to the one in the middle.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the one in the middle or the one on the left. Either is "better" than the one on the right.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the one in the middle is the best option. The one on the right is too "fake" (i.e. it's clearly a professional shot) imho and the one on the left is only the face and hair - I think infobox pictures should show both face and upper body. Note: Tony notified me about this discussion at my talk page. Regards SoWhy 21:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think the status quo is fine - my preference is to always use the most professional and accurate-looking image as the lead one. Maybe the only change I'd say to do is swap the bottom image for the cropped version. Tabercil (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is the right one more "professional" or more "accurate"?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I don't know too many professionals who don't know how to adjust their lighting and I don't think the effect looks so hot (not a statement on the subject).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I don't much like the picture on the right, either. Looks mannered to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is it more professional? Well maybe because it was taken by a professional? Photographer's name is Tyler Parker, and there is a website for him at tylerwilliamparker.com. As for the accurate part, that's in case you get an image which is dramatically divergent from what she looks like, such as gold-painted ala the woman in Goldfinger. Tabercil (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh. It may have been taken by a professional, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. :-) After all, a "professional" photographer is someone who makes money off his work, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's better than a skilled amateur. Do you think the middle picture, which a few of us prefer, is akin to the Goldfinger woman picture?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No, all three are (to me) visible accurate. It's just that some people get photos of themselves taken when wildly made up. I mean, imagine the lead image of David Lee Roth being a free use version of the cover of Eat 'Em and Smile? <G> Tabercil (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a consensus to change to the one in the middle.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think the splash page picture should be used (the one on the right). It's the image used on her official site and the more recent photo of her. The Winter Olympics photo is two years old. She hasn't worn her hair like that on Castle since season 2, and besides, this is Stana Katic's page, not Kate Beckett. She might star in Castle, but she's in films as well. Keep the photo accurate to the actress, not to a single character she portrays. Katrak (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You are free to open a new discussion on this matter, but the better thing might be to find a new current photo.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

She is older than the state of Croatia, so she could never be a croatian actress. Republic Croatia exists for 20 years or so.

She is not of croatian ethnic origin, but of serb one ( Reference here http://www.superiorpics.com/stana_katic/ ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.82.140.185 (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:StanaKaticPhotoshoot.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

With all this talk of ethnic culture, should this article have any of the following tags: ((WikiProject Serbia)), ((WikiProject Croatia)), ((WikiProject Cultural Heritage of Serbia))?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. To me, it's all a side show as I don't see how her heritage, whatever it is, has much to do with her notability. However, perhaps you could ask the projects themselves if this kind of article interests them.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

And since her Yugoslavian heritage really has nothing to do with her notability, I don't see any real point in including the Serbian or Croatian forms of her name. Note, FWIW, that she pronounces her last name in an anglicized fashion. I would favour taking out the Serbian and Croatian name info from the opening sentence. — Richwales (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, but my guess is you'll get pushback (not in the form of discussion but through edits).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Where it is known that an individual is of foreign extraction, local names are provided - suffice it to say that the raw Stana Katic form is merely a modification. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It is actually a difficult call. Serbian requires a primary Cyrillic form followed by its Latinic transliteration when different from the title - in this case, it is a diacritic. As the Croatian alphabet (Latinic based) is the very same as the Serbian Latinic transliteration (known as the Gaj script), it was far simpler to just have Serbian Cyrillic and Croatian as separate entity. For subjects with only one of the two backgrounds, only one local form is needed (see German-born Australian tennis player Bernard Tomic). That said, I too agree that the background does not affect the notability but then in showbusiness it never does. At the moment, the article is short. Over time, as it expands, I will be happy to have the local forms moved down onto next paragraph (focusing on background and early life). So it's not all about "pushback". Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your change is an improvement, but I still think even the reduced version is unnecessary to the article. In my view, it's an academic point that isn't worth making. Thanks for the heads up on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. To use a cliché, it's the thin end of the wedge! I know it does little here and is an academic point, we both do. The problem is the wider picture, if it doesn't sit here then sooner or later editors with POV-motives (in their removals of such forms) may use this article as an example to have the disagreeable presentation wiped off the system. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Her photo on her bio looks really bad. The one where her has long hair looks better. I tried to change it but then this person changed it back saying that they has sustainable evidence that the once of her at the winter olympics?? What is that supposed to mean? Change it people!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.208.97 (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a bad looking photo of Miss Katic. However, see Talk:Stana_Katic#Proposed_main_image_swap regarding this topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whom I'm quoting, Tony, but, "It's funny because it's true."--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We need to go with whatever the cited source says — regardless of our personal knowledge, understanding, or biases about the relationship between the "Serbian" and "Croatian" languages or dialects. Unfortunately, the source in this case (an article from a small local newspaper) does not appear to be freely available online. I found a copy on HighBeam Research's site, but it requires a paid subscription or "free trial" to read the full article.

Does anyone out there have a HighBeam subscription? If so, can you look up this news story and tell us exactly what it says — including enough context so we can see if the writer was quoting Katic herself (i.e., did Katic say she speaks these languages?) or if the writer was simply saying what languages Katic speaks without sourcing this bit of info? If the source is explicitly quoting or reporting a statement by Katic, then we should attribute the list of languages accordingly (e.g., "In a 2008 interview, Katic said she speaks ...."). And in this case, we would go with whatever Katic herself said, even though some of us will surely disagree with it.

If the newspaper reporter said what languages Katic speaks without saying how the reporter got this information, then I would still go with what the newspaper article says. Some people might still argue over whether this reporter (or even Katic herself) is a reliable source regarding the relationship between the "Serbian" and "Croatian" languages or dialects, but (IMO) it is unreasonable and inappropriate to drag this dispute into every individual Wikipedia article about every notable person who speaks this language / these languages.

I would point out, FWIW, that the existing Wikipedia articles on Serbian and Croatian currently identify each of these as "a form of the Serbo-Croatian language", with several sources cited in support of this statement — and although we are not to use Wikipedia as a source for itself, I would argue that these articles entitle references to "Serbo-Croatian" here (and elsewhere in WP) to a default assumption of neutrality, and that any general arguments over this issue belong at Serbo-Croatian and not here. If all else fails, it might be reasonable to add a footnote saying that Serbian and Croatian are considered forms of the Serbo-Croatian language, and citing the same outside sources here as are currently cited in those other articles — though I would personally consider this overkill and/or unreasonable divergence from the topic at hand (i.e., this article is primarily about Stana Katic, not her ancestry).

Finally, I would propose that continued edit warring over Katic's ethnicity, or which languages she speaks, would fall under existing Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions relating to the Balkans (see here, and note that although the ArbCom case in question was about Macedonia, the cited sanctions refer to "topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted" and not exclusively to Macedonia). — Richwales 17:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I found a full copy of the newspaper story. Unfortunately, the source probably isn't freely available; however, I can tell everyone that the article says the following regarding the languages Stana Katic speaks: "The 1996 West High graduate can speak several languages, including Italian, French and Croatian."

The story does not explicitly attribute the above piece of info. It appears that the reporter interviewed Katic's mother, but it also mentions material from "her TV Guide biography". I assume the reporter didn't get this factoid directly from Stana Katic, or else the story would surely have said as much. In any case, there is nothing in this source to support our current claim that Katic speaks Serbian and Slovene.

I would propose at this point to change the text so it says she speaks "several languages, including Italian, French and Croatian" (per the source). If other editors are unwilling to have our text say only "Croatian" (and not also Serbian, or Serbo-Croatian), I would do what I suggested earlier — namely, add a footnote saying that Croatian is a form of Serbo-Croatian, and copying the three sources for that claim from the Serbo-Croatian article. Comments? — Richwales 19:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A gentle reminder — especially to the IP editor (who, since he/she is using multiple IP addresses, might or might not notice comments posted to user talk pages) — that edit warring is not considered acceptable as a way of handling a content dispute on Wikipedia, even if you are convinced that you are right and others are wrong. Persistent edit warring by multiple IP addresses is likely to lead to semi-protection of this article. — Richwales 21:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure everyone will necessarily agree with my solution, but I've removed the sentence about what languages she speaks. It's not terrible important to the article, and it has in the past - and would no doubt do so in the future - created needless disscussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That may be one solution. The main problem I foresee is that omitting this info is sure to tempt someone to try to add it back in — and we would be back where we started. Of course, if someone does propose to add something about Katic's language abilities, we can (and should) insist on proper sourcing for the new material. — Richwales 02:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing and relevance. We permit too much unimportant background material about BLPs, but, in particular, entertainers.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Main image choices

New main image effective 06:35, 21 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Main image from 16:25, 11 April 2012‎ – 06:35, 21 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Alternate option

I have taken the liberty of swapping the main image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 21 July 2012‎

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)