Misplaced Pages

Talk:Nita Negrita: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:24, 26 March 2018 editHotwiki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users142,042 edits Added template← Previous edit Revision as of 19:33, 26 March 2018 edit undo124.106.139.19 (talk) →blackfaceNext edit →
Line 18: Line 18:
:::: So, are you saying that with only one media source, it isn't really suitable for this article? ] (]) 19:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC) :::: So, are you saying that with only one media source, it isn't really suitable for this article? ] (]) 19:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
:::::Its not a High profiled controversy. No need to mention every nitpick or criticism from the netizens. Also, your controversy section wasn't even written well in the first place.] (]) 19:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC) :::::Its not a High profiled controversy. No need to mention every nitpick or criticism from the netizens. Also, your controversy section wasn't even written well in the first place.] (]) 19:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
:: I understand, as the only source I supplied was not enough to give weight to the content and the fact that it wasn't written well, you removed the content. So, based on what you're saying, if I manage somehow to find enough sources to support the content and write it a little better, then the controversy content is acceptable.
:: And I'm a little interested why there isn't a controversy section on this article. There was one previously, but I don't see any consensus regarding its removal.
:: Anyway, if you don't have any objections I'm going to see if I can find some more sources, and thanks a lot for the advice MrHotWiki, you've been a lot of help. ] (]) 19:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:33, 26 March 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nita Negrita article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
WikiProject iconSoap Operas Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Controversies

These are valid criticisms of the show, if you have any complaints, please contribute to the discussion instead of directly editing the article. I know some of you work for GMA. 24.182.41.227 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

USA-centric?

The article describes the lead character as "Filipino/black girl named Nita (Barbie Forteza). Her mother is Filipina and her father is black Filipino" though the controversies section mentions "Filipino/African-American child". I know that some Americans refer to all black people (regardless of nationality) as African-American, so is this character black Filipino or African-American? sheridan (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

blackface

I have restored the section on the blackface controversy and replaced one source with a more reliable one. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Please contribute towards this discussion, rather than just reverting edits. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The controversy you are referring isn't that controversial. Its just 1 article that brought up the subject but it really doesn't carry a lot of weight to be even featured in this article.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
So, are you saying that with only one media source, it isn't really suitable for this article? 124.106.139.19 (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Its not a High profiled controversy. No need to mention every nitpick or criticism from the netizens. Also, your controversy section wasn't even written well in the first place.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I understand, as the only source I supplied was not enough to give weight to the content and the fact that it wasn't written well, you removed the content. So, based on what you're saying, if I manage somehow to find enough sources to support the content and write it a little better, then the controversy content is acceptable.
And I'm a little interested why there isn't a controversy section on this article. There was one previously, but I don't see any consensus regarding its removal.
Anyway, if you don't have any objections I'm going to see if I can find some more sources, and thanks a lot for the advice MrHotWiki, you've been a lot of help. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Categories: