Talk:Janet Ågren

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. We appear to have consensus that sources writing "Janet Agren" instead of "Ågren" are simply eschewing the diacritic, not using a different stage name. As either form is used in English sources, and there's no pressing policy reason to avoid it, the majority opinion among participants to retain it prevails. Cúchullain t/c 18:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Janet ÅgrenJanet Agren – Janet Agren is subject's stage name, not her birth name (otherwise the article should be titled Janet Ågren Maietto); none of her on-screen billings or professional listings use diacritics; about 100% of book sources [1] and news articles about her use the non-ringed "A" form in the surname. Hard to find even Google hits in which she is referred as "Ågren" [2]. Cavarrone 09:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Please see WP:RS on sources "reliable for the statement being made" - html with 52 letter ASCII type fonts is not a reliable source for spelling of a Swedish suname such as Ågren. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Borstahustjejen som blev filmstjärna i Italien 12 August 2007 "Janet Ågren är i dag 58 år gammal och jobbar som inredningsarkitekt i Miami. " - that is her birth name, she married it:Carlo Maietto. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi:, I hardly understand what your comment should mean. I said in the opening message that Ågren is her birth name, while Agren is her stage name. The link to Google Books I posted in the request is full of sources "reliable for the statement being made". As you are too lazy to click there, this a little extempt of the books there listed: Italian Crime Filmography by Roberto Curti, Perverse Titillation: The Exploitation Cinema of Italy by Danny Shipka, The Encyclopedia of Martial Arts Movies by Bill and ‎Karen Palmer, Dizionario del cinema italiano by Chiti-Poppi, Le straniere del nostro cinema by Enrico Lancia and ‎Fabio Melelli, Latsploitation, Latin America, and Exploitation Cinema by Victoria Ruetalo and ‎Dolores Tierney, Italian Horror Film Directors by Louis Paul, Bellissima: Feminine Beauty and the Idea of Italy by Stephen Gundle, Eaten alive!: Italian cannibal and zombie movies by Jay Slater, VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever by Jim Craddock, VideoHound's independent film guide by Monica Sullivan, Variety's Film Reviews: 1975-1977, The Psychotronic Video Guide by Michael Weldon, Film Review by F. Maurice Speed, The Motion Picture Guide. Furtermore, Rotten Tomatoes page, AllMovie, MSN Movies, Los Angeles Times, MyMovies, La Repubblica, New York Times, Variety, The Illustrated Weekly of India, Billboard, obviously IMDB. Now, if you stopped your procedural stonewalling abount non-existing html problems, you are welcome to explain why we should keep the current spelling in face of an overflowing use of the spelling Agren (which is the official spelling she used in all her film credits). My best, Cavarrone 12:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see above. We spell Swedish peoples names correctly here, what can I tell you. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So WP:COMMONNAME (Although a subject's official, scientific, birth, or original name is often used as an article title, Wikipedia does not necessarily prefer that; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources) does not apply for Swedish people? Cavarrone 12:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as above, please see WP:RS, and please see the French example included in WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:MOSPN. This applied not just to people called Ågren, not just Swedish bios, but all WP:BLPs. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi:, could me explain why you keep to point WP:RS, exactly? Are you arguing the dozens of sources I posted above are not reliable? About "the French example included in WP:COMMONNAME", how the example "François Mitterrand (not: François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand)" is relevant with the current discussion? (Zero relevance, I would say). Your cryptic and vague statements do not make the discussion easy. And again, why WP:COMMONNAME should be not applicable here? We are talking, differently from other Swedish people, of someone who was always officially credited in her works as Agren (probably because she was based in Italy and never acted in any Swedish production). Cavarrone 13:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your questions:
(1) As above WP:RS on sources "reliable for the statement being made" - sources with 52 letter ASCII type fonts are not a reliable source for spelling of a Swedish suname such as Ågren.
(2) As above WP:COMMONNAME has François with "ç" even though the Daily Express has Fran"c"ois. So WP:COMMONNAME is not WP:COMMON FONT or WP:ASCII NAME.
(3) We do not normally change names unless the person changes nationality. Since Ågren no longer lives in Italy and is still a Swedish citizen readers would expect a name in accordance with the most recent in depth source - which happens to be the Swedish newspaper interview. This helps readers recognise a Swedish WP:BLP rather than an Italian BLP. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as per WP:COMMONNAME. I found 13 results from various languages, including English, that had both the proposed title and the character "é" in running text. Took me, what, two minutes? [3] So it seems this isn't an ASCII issue, and I see no sources that disagree. It also seems like she goes by the non-diacritic version personally, at least in English-speaking circles. Red Slash 03:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Red Slash, I ask you to please consider whether you really want to support this. Yes you've conducted a search one step up from basic ASCII by including é, but é appears in font sets which don't include Å, so you've conducted a search which isn't much better than Cavarrone's. Anyone who searches in sources which don't have fonts for ø æ å will get results which don't have fonts for ø æ å, so what?
I don't believe that you are saying "this Ågren is mainly mentioned in font-restricted sources, so we should give her a font-restricted name, but other Ågrens are mentioned in full-font sources so we spell them correctly." (you're not suggesting that, correct?) so I'm assuming/guessing that you are against Swedish names for Swedish people per se. Do you want a blanket ban on Swedish names on Wikipedia, that all Swedish names must be simplified to ø æ å-less fonts? Is that what you're arguing? Then why not Poles, Czechs, Lithuanians? Because the same argument against Swedish fonts would apply to most other European names. This means 100,000s of articles - all of which are spelled correctly at the moment. This would be violently disruptive and is exactly the same war that we have been through 2 years ago - which ended with several of the most persistent anti-diacritic warriors getting themselves banned. "Ågren" gets 1330 results in English Google Books why single out this Ågren for misspelling? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, because reliable sources don't refer to her as Janet Ågren. Who in the world are you to tell someone that she's misspelling her own name? You assert that all the sources cited above are irrelevant because they don't have the typeset capable of producing the word "Ågren"--where do you find the factual basis for this assertion? This woman's an adult. If everyone in the media were constantly misspelling her name, she's perfectly capable of reminding everyone, hey, make sure you write "Ågren" instead of "Agren". She (apparently) has not elected to do so. (And stop referring to "Ågren" as the "correct" name. You're begging the question {in the classical sense}.)
Anyway, does your birth culture not have nicknames? This is not meant as any sort of joke and I don't mean to mock. I'm dead serious. Do you know what a nickname is? Or a stage name? And do you know that we generally prefer them for article titles when that's the predominant form in reliable sources? (Okay, that last question was a bit less serious. I know you know WP:COMMONNAME enough for that.) Would you support moving Matt Damon to Matthew Damon because that's his birth name? Would you support moving Johnny Depp to John Depp? Of course not, right? In spite of their well-attested birth names, at Wikipedia, we have to follow the form that reliable sources use and that the subjects prefer. It's best when those two are the same (or else we get huge debates like at Chelsea Manning) but here it seems all we have are secondary sources; nobody has shown a primary source from her showing how she likes her name written in languages other than her native one (or better yet, specifically in English). Your suggestion that I may have some sort of anti-Swedish-name agenda is not appreciated. My agenda is for articles to be titled under the name that the subject of the article is most commonly called in reliable English-language sources. Red Slash 05:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Red Slash, please provide evidence that a source with no Swedish fonts is more reliable for spelling Swedish names than a source with Swedish fonts. (her own name given "Janet Ågren" in her own interview 2007). In ictu oculi (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:In ictu oculi, please provide evidence that a Swedish newspaper article is a better indicator of a subject's common name in the English language than English-language sources familiar with the subject. And I asked you a question or eight and would kind of appreciate your answers, please, if you'd be kind enough to provide them. Red Slash 05:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And do not remove people's comments from article talk pages [4], and then change your comment to make it look like you had put a source in all along. [5] Wow. (And unless I'm misreading, I don't think she herself is showing what she prefers her name to be written as. But in any case, what on earth is going on? Did you delete my comment because you didn't like it? What is wrong? I'm actually kind of upset at you for playing a dirty trick this way. Please, please tell me that you did this in good faith. I'm trying here.) Red Slash 06:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is NO anti-diacritic warriors in this discussion. And, above all, this is NOT a font-restricted search. Try to check the well known Swedish actor Alexander Skarsgård in the same sources, Rotten Tomatoes, Allmovie, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, MSN Movies,IMDB, and you will find the "å" correctly spelled. Ågren is different from other Swedish actors because she was credited, from the first to the last film, as "Agren". Cavarrone 05:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there is history here. The (1st) argument you, Cavarrone, are advancing - low-MOS names from low-MOS sources for low-MOS people is exactly the argument advanced by those who advocate 52 character simplified names for foreign sportspeople.
The problem with the (2nd) argument, that this one Swede is different from 1000s of other Swedes on Wikipedia is that your sources are not comparing like-with-like: Alexander Skarsgård is an HBO actor now in 2014 in an era where (like Wikipedia) LA Times spells European names correctly. But Ågren appeared in films in the 1960s, an era when no one fully spelled French names, let alone Scandinavian ones. All www.latimesmagazine.com shows is that if Ågren appeared in a HBO series with Skarsgård in 2014 then Ågren would be spelled fully like Skarsgård. Wikipedia spells living peoples' names correctly. If you don't agree with WP:MOSPN then you need to start a RfC to move 100,000s of articles, not just select this 1. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that word ("correctly"). But you must first prove that something is correct before you can expect people to believe it. "All www.latimesmagazine.com shows is that if Ågren appeared in a HBO series with Skarsgård in 2014 then Ågren would be spelled fully like Skarsgård." You say that like it's a fact. Where did you find the justification behind that sentence? Red Slash 06:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:In ictu oculi, I have no interest in moving 100,000s of articles, I just select this one because is different by others. The difference is that other Swedish people have or use names with diacritics which are sometimes semplified by some sources in forms without diacritics, while Janet Ågren officially and knowingly used only the surname Agren during her whole career. And about your second argument, I have no difficulties in finding English book sources which spell Pia Lindström, who is older than Agren, with "ö". I have not even difficulties in finding English book sources which spell Hilda Borgström or Carl-Gunnar Wingård, who were Swedish silent film actors, with diacritics. We cannot find English book sources which spell Janet Ågren because she was worldwide known as Agren. So much, she is listed as Agren even in Swedish cinema websites. [6], [7], [8], [9]. Cavarrone 06:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way[edit]

Props to Cavarrone for also noticing that In ictu oculi deleted what I had said. I noticed because I had written it smile but not many editors are sharp enough to notice that happening to a third party. Great eyes. Red Slash 06:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to WP:AGF? I'm out of here. I find the accusation that I deliberately removed a portion of someone's text grossly offensive, insulting and pretty much in the line of the stream of unpleasantness above from both editors. I had a simple edit conflict from the two of you posting at the same time and lost one of you in an edit conflict. It happens. Particularly with bad connectivity like today. Have being having to submit every post 3-4 times to catch. Better things to do. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - Given inaccuracies in the RM proposal and the oddity of making this Ågren the only non-Scandinavian font Scandinavian BLP in en.wikipedia the RM should really be relisted after 7 days with the following inaccurate claims struck In ictu oculi (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Agren is subject's stage name, not her birth name (otherwise the article should be titled Janet Ågren Maietto); none of her on-screen billings or professional listings use diacritics; about 100% of book sources [1] and news articles about her use the non-ringed "A" form in the surname. Hard to find even Google hits in which she is referred as "Ågren" [2]. Cavarrone 09:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, and possibly causing misreading British Film Institute | Film & TV Database | ÅGREN, Janet seems to have a display issue with some browsers, corrupting ÅGREN to Å[]GREN in Explorer 6.0, nevertheless encoding on the BFI database is clearly Å, as when viewed via Google. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. So, procedural stonewalling apart, In ictu oculi incidentally admits that all her on-screen billings and about 100% of book sources refer to the subject with her stage name Janet Agren. Let's add "about 90% of news articles about her use Agren" (100% of English or non-Swedish news articles) and a very little argument to avoid moving the page remains. About databases, it is obviously more significant per WP:COMMONNAME that a bunch of Swedish websites list her as Agren than the two or three databases that list her as Ågren. What remains? "the oddity of making this Ågren the only non-Scandinavian font Scandinavian BLP". First, there is also the French-Swedish model Sigrid Agren (why do not start a move request based on this Swedish article that refers to her as Ågren?). Second, maybe it will not be because, differently from the other people named Ågren, "all her on-screen billings, about 90% of news articles and about 100% of book sources refer to the subject with her stage name Janet Agren"? Cavarrone 06:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cavarrone. Three questions:
1. What is Janet Ågren's nationality?
2. What is Janet Ågren's birth and current legal name?
3. How does the British Film Institute spell Janet Ågren's name in your browser? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 Swedish. 2 we don't choose titles for birth or legal name, and especially in cases of stage names we usually choose them. Read WP:COMMONNAME and related examples (Bill Clinton and not William Jefferson Clinton, Lady Gaga and not Stefani Germanotta). 3 Ågren without any problem. As well as 99,9% of other and most complete databases list her as Agren. Then...? The aim of the discussion is not to prove that, fairly hidden, several websites here and there refer to a subject in someone's favorite spelling, but "determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used" (quote from WP:COMMONNAME). Cavarrone 13:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cavarrone
Thank you. Then from your answers on the questions I asked it seems we are agreed:
1. Janet Ågren is Swedish
2. Janet Ågren's birth and current legal name is Janet Ågren
3. Janet Ågren is listed by the British Film Institute as Janet Ågren.
In ictu oculi (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, we surely agreed the subject is a Swedish actress whose birth and legal name is Janet Ågren and who used the stage name Janet Agren during her career. Never thought otherwise. Next step,
1.quoting WP:COMMONNAME, do you agree that we choose as title not necessarily the subject's birth name but the most frequently used to refer to the subject in reliable sources (eg, stage names)?
2.And do you agree that in this case a large majority of reliable sources refers to her as Agren? Cavarrone 15:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, the Italian sources are not reliable. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: Even ignoring these dubious assertions about Italian sources (eg, the most complete and significant biographical source about Agren is the book Le straniere del nostro cinema by Enrico Lancia and Fabio Melelli, and I would be curious to know why it should be "not reliable"), I am primarily (and obviously) referring to the English sources. Cavarrone 18:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As explained four times already above, the Italian sources and other non-British Film Institute sources are not "reliable for the statement being made" per the definition of "reliable for the statement being made" in WP:IDENTIFYING RELIABLE SOURCES. Please compare with every other European BLP on en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wikipedia isn't "diacritically challenged" as some older sources are, so we can use her actual name. No evidence that she used a "stage name", she only played in countries which didn't know how to write an "å". There's a difference, so to me this is a simple WP:RS issue. Tomas e (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which "older sources" are you referring? I listed above a bunch of publications of 2000s and 2010s, even of 2013, are you arguing all these books refer to her as Agren just because their authors still don't know how to write an "å"? How is possible that anyone could find at least one or two books which refer to her as Ågren? The same with websites: Rotten Tomatoes, Allmovie, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, MSN, TV Guide, Blockbuster, Getty Images, Hollywood.com know perfectly well how to write an "å", a "ç" or other diacritical signs. Actual reliable sources says she is actually better known with her screen name spelling, no evidence they are all unreliable and the only reliable sources are the three posted by User:InIctuOculi. Cavarrone 20:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The suggestion is that there's an actor named "Janet Ågren" whose stage name is "Janet Agren" is rather silly, and I won't believe it without a statement from a reliable source saying just that (i.e., "Ågren chose to anglicize her surname as 'Agren' for professional uses."). Until then, let's use the subject's actual name and not shy away from diacritics just because other sources don't bother with them. --BDD (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ågren to Agren?. Makes no sense at the moment.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Janet Ågren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]