Talk:E. G. Daily

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

Pardon[edit]

Pardon me, but among people in general, despite the fact that E. G. Daily did indeed do the voice of "Buttercup" from "Powerpuff Girls", it is by far the most relevant that she is credited with doing the voice of "Tommy Pickles" from "Rugrats" alone. And in addition, I don't think "Powerpuff Girls", which was indeed at first two short clips on Cartoon Network's world premiere toons, never got the same attention as "Rugrats" got. Any questions? --65.73.0.137 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus2 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 15 May 2004‎

I don't see why we should remove info just because someone says its obscure. This is an encyclopedia, it's supposed to educate people. I'm going to reinstate a mention of this rule. --Morwen 19:43, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
You are most completely a logical person, and I admit it. I understand your cause. Now how's about one of us or another user do research of other voice talents this actress has provided. What do you say? --65.73.0.137 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus2 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 15 May 2004
And re '' - yes, it was intended to be italics. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) Morwen 19:54, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Cherry Busters[edit]

Can somebody tell me why her bio on IMDB brings up the film cherry busters? I'm not familiar with the wiki system, but surely someone can help change that, in respect to the actress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.36.185.214 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 6 September 2005

Birthdate[edit]

What source(s) say(s) that E. G. Daily was born in 1961? Marcus2 03:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CABI. --Fallout boy 03:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
E.G. Daily was officially born in 1961, although some people say she was born in 1962. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.56.136 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 25 June 2006

Official site[edit]

If you click on the "News" link on the official site, one of the news items is the National Lampoon movie Pledge This!. Considering this is a movie that's in production, I'd say that makes the site current enough to justify being included in the article. As for vanity, what exactly is objectionable (or unexpected) about celebrity's official site involving vanity? If celebrities weren't at least a little vain they probably wouldn't be half as interesting. And what are you talking about with "website imperialism"? I want to put the link back in the article, but I'm afraid Marcus2 might spam me again. Anyone else wanna bite the bullet? - Ugliness Man 09:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind, I'm going to restore the link, mainly because of this:
Wikipedia:External links#What_should_be_linked_to
The first item says "Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one." So, Marcus2, if you wish to continue being an asshat about this, I humbly request that you do three things. First, explain how a site that discusses a movie currently in production is "defunct". Second, explain why vanity on a celebrity site is in opposition to Wikipedia's guidelines. And third, link to something in the wiki guides or manuals that explains what the notion of "website imperialism" is. - Ugliness Man 09:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She is not a celebrity. She isn't even in the World Almanac . Marcus2 15:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're about one degree away from being a troll. I don't know where you obtained your self-righteous definition of the term "celebrity", but she is in a National Lampoon movie that's coming out soon, she's done voice work in a handful of popular animated series, and she had a hit song. And I noticed your latest justification for removing the official site again was that "it's a mess"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? You can't find a real reason to keep acting like this, so you come up with something vague and impossible to define? Let's get one thing perfectly straight here, since you obviously haven't figured it out: including the official site among the external links is specifically within Wikipedia's guidelines. So far, you haven't been able to justify in any way shape or form that your removal of the link complies with any of Wikipedia's guidelines. Since you obviously missed it the first time, I'll repeat, articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one. Note that the guideline doesn't say "celebrity", so your latest excuse is bunk. Or would you like to now claim that she isn't a person? - Ugliness Man 15:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are just plain wrong about my ice getting thinner and about me being close to being a troll. Anyway the site is a mess. It's stupid, and, in addition it isn't accurate. Rugrats was not the highest rated Nickelodeon show in its eleventh year, according to the site. She may also be a one-hit wonder, if she had any hits at all. I'm on a mission to change that stupid guideline. Stay out of this, and get a life. Marcus2 17:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ugliness Man, there is no reason not to link to that site. - SimonP 17:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
What in the world is "not accurate" about linking to someone's official site on their article? The page itself might contain inaccuracies (according to you), but it's still the official site. I'm sure any official George W Bush site would contain inaccuracies, but relevant Wikipedia articles should still link to them. And you're on a crusade to change Wikipedia to bend down and submit to your version of "accurate" or "relevant"? Your opinion of the quality of an official site should dictate whether or not it gets linked to? "Get a life" is a pretty lame retort to someone who's just telling you how it is. I dare you to "report" me to an admin; get them to tell me that I should stop expecting that articles actually follow the guidelines, and conform to your standards, since you obviously know better than them. This is, after all, what you're telling me. Maybe you need to start up your own wiki.
Besides, if you think that she's so insignificant, if you think she's not actually a celebrity, and you think that her music was inconsequential, and all this stuff... why are you so passionate about protecting the "accuracy" of her article? Think of the energy you're using trying to not allow the official site to be included in her article, yet you tell me to "get a life"? If she's so useless, ignore her article and piss off, we'll both be a lot happier. - Ugliness Man
I think it's clear that there's no reason the site shouldn't be linked here. And if he removes it again, there's no reason he shouldn't be tagged for vandalism. Crumbsucker 12:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's going to tag me for vandalism. And besides, who cares what you say? ("...there's no reason he shouldn't be tagged for vandalism.") You are apparently disabled, young man. Do you want people to think you're disabled? If not, then don't post comments that are filled with untruths or insults. I am NOT a vandal. However, I agree with you that the site should be kept. Marcus2 02:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, you've now resorted to name-calling. Second, I doubt you know this person's age or gender, so you're also being presumptuous. And third, why do you suddenly agree? What part of your previous argument has changed?
The vandalism issue is apparently a matter of opinion. Repeatedly removing an official link, thereby defying Wikipedia's standards, with justifications you seemed to make up yourself as opposed to citing anything having anything to do with Wikipedia standards... at the very least it resembles vandalism. If you can make up fake reasons for defying Wikipedia standards, then others should be allowed to stretch the definition of vandalism. Myself, I think your actions more closely resembled trolling, which is equally deplorable. - Ugliness Man 13:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"However, I agree with you that the site should be kept." Thank you for wasting our time. Crumbsucker 00:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Name[edit]

Is it Ann or Anne? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.56.136 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 26 June 2006

Better Off Dead Soundtrack[edit]

the music section does not say anything about her and her contributions to the Better Off Dead Soundtrack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.180.149 (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live Acting[edit]

Besides doing voice overs, EG played Sandy Burns on the PBS show The Righteous Apples from 1980 to 1981. She also appeared on such shows as Laverne & Shirley, Chips and Fame. She was also in the Rod Stewart video Young Turks as one of the runaway teens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidRavenMoon (talk • contribs) 23:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cover versions[edit]

Is there ANY album by E.G. Daily that does not have any covers at ALL? I seriously thought "Please Send Me Someone to Love" was an original song, not a cover. Edward Roussac (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas and Ferb[edit]

She's credited as doing voices for this show in 2007. Do we know who added that? More detail like where this is from, what episode(s), etc would be helpful. Ranze (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed 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 consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Daily → E.G. Daily – Per her official website --Relisted. Andrewa (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC) Unreal7 (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If moved it should be to E. G. Daily obviously, per our usual naming style. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No not obviously, that's not how she's credited. Unreal7 (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, obviously. Spaces between initials vary according to house styles and our house style is to use them. She will be listed according to the house style of the publication or website in which she is listed. Note that even her own website and Facebook page refer to her at various points as E.G. Daily, E.G.Daily and EG Daily! -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but relisting. Are there any valid arguments for the move in terms of WP:AT (and if so, to which name)? The rationale above is completely and explicitly in violation of our article naming policy. Andrewa (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My rationale or Necrothesp's? Unreal7 (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The rationale given in proposing the move... I don't want to personalise it. See WP:official names for an essay explicitly intended to help in understanding this aspect of WP:AT. Andrewa (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not compulsory to follow those exact rules. Not everyone known by letters has spaces between them - see J.R. Rotem and L.A. Reid for examples. Unreal7 (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Andrewa is asking for evidence that "Elizabeth Daily" is not the WP:COMMONNAME, not for evidence of a particular spacing. Noting that one name is "official" is not a valid reason to change the title of an article, per policy. Dekimasuよ! 18:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes. But first nom and others should read WP:AT as many, many notices have urged them to do before raising or commenting on a Requested Move. Until and unless they do that, there is little point in discussing anything with them. Sorry if that's harsh. Andrewa (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just thought it was worthwhile in this case as the message was clearly being misinterpreted (by a user with as many edits as both of us combined). Dekimasuよ! 16:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Not as notable as JK Rowling, a well-known (I hope) female. "Elizabeth" can spell things out better, regardless of sources. Speaking of sources, official sources should not be the only sources to determine commonality. And official names are not very common. --George Ho (talk) 06:27, 28 October 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.

Fire Emblem Fates[edit]

What is the source for her voicing characters in this game? I seem to recall there was no credit given for Hinoka in the game itself (not sure about Selkie), and there is no reference to the game on her IMDB page. Hiyoguy (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth Daily. 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) 15:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 August 2018[edit]

The following is a closed 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: Not moved TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


E. G. Daily → E.G. Daily – There is no consensus for ALWAYS using spaces (nor for never using them) and she doesn't use them. Unreal7 (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"An initial is capitalized and is followed by a full point (period) and a space (e.g. J. R. R. Tolkien), unless:
the person demonstrably has a different, consistently preferred style for his or her own name; and
an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that variant style for that person." Unreal7 (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which they don't in 3rd party reliable sources. Self-published sources and web cruft don't count. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They do. See 59.149.124.29's evidence below. Unreal7 (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Google site searches on the top US 15 newspapers by circulation show that only the NYT consistently uses "E. G." (and even they have exceptions [1]), the WSJ is inconsistent, and two other papers don't mention her at all. The other dozen nearly-consistently use "E.G." (with scattered usage of "EG"). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence
Rank Newspaper Search Result count Comments
1 Wall Street Journal site:wsj.com "e g daily" 2 One spaced, one unspaced (both blog posts)
2 The New York Times site:nytimes.com "e g daily" 20+ Mostly spaced
3 USA Today site:usatoday.com "e g daily" 3 All unspaced and dotted
4 Los Angeles Times site:latimes.com "e g daily" 30+ All but one [2] unspaced and dotted
5 The Mercury News site:mercurynews.com "e g daily" 3 All unspaced, all but one dotted
6 New York Daily News site:nydailynews.com "e g daily" 6 All unspaced and dotted
7 New York Post site:nypost.com "e g daily" 7 All unspaced, all but one dotted
8 The Washington Post site:washingtonpost.com "e g daily" 10+ All unspaced and dotted
9 Chicago Sun-Times site:suntimes.com "e g daily" 1 Spaced
10 The Denver Post site:denverpost.com "e g daily" 3 All unspaced and dotted
11 Chicago Tribune site:chicagotribune.com "e g daily" 20+ All unspaced and dotted
12 Dallas News site:dallasnews.com "e g daily" 0 No results
13 Newsday site:newsday.com "e g daily" 10+ All unspaced and dotted
14 Houston Chronicle site:houstonchronicle.com "e g daily" 0 No results
15 Orange County Register site:ocregister.com "e g daily" 3 All unspaced and dotted
  • Oppose. This is merely a stylistic issue and our preferred style is to use the spaces. Other publications and websites have different styles. Most have no set style at all. Consistency is the best policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is consistency. See 59.149.124.29's evidence above. Unreal7 (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dekimasu, In ictu oculi, Necrothesp and numerous examples at List of literary initials. In the wild, discrepancies abound, but on Wikipedia consistency matters.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: On matters of styling, Wikipedia shouldn't just count popularity in sources – it should follow its own style guide (MOS:SPACEINITS) unless there is a good reason not to. I don't see a good reason not to. As far as I know, the person herself has not expressed a preference, and there are some reliable independent sources that include the space (at least one consistently, and others some of the time). —BarrelProof (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:E._G._Daily&oldid=1196132912"