Talk:Kelly Monaco

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

Height[edit]

Kelly has stated on her official website board that she is 5'1" I think she knows how tall she is.

See http://abc.go.com/primetime/dancing/bios/kelly_monaco.html Playboy measurements are often inflated. Here is the most recent listing of her height. PS Cant we get a better picture here?

Do you have any evidence to support your statement that Playboy “inflates” their height measurements? And in any case why would Playboy want to do that? If you can find a better picture please do change it, but it is difficult to find images which are free from copyright. Screenshots are not the best solution but they are fair use. Jester2001 19:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just what I've heard. Why, you ask? Because many of the girls are so short in statute that their measurements don't ofetn fall in the mid-30s like most men equate with being the ideal size. Also, see the link I provided and you will see the most recent listing of her height. Didn't know it was that difficult to get pics, sorry.
Doing a quick search for “Kelly Monaco height” on Google produced the following links which all give a height of 5' 3":
And the official datasheet from Playboy also says 5' 3" so I think we should stick with this figure as there is more evidence that it is correct. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way! But you might want to create a proper account though, so we can welcome you properly... :-) Jester2001 19:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Who am I to doubt Hef?
I'm reminded of what one comical writer said about Mary Lou Retton, the shrimp of a gymnast who won Olympic Gold for the U.S. a couple of decades ago: "Her life-size photo now appears on boxes of Wheaties". Nonetheless, Kelly's a cutie, even she did win the dance contest questionably. Let's see a show of hands of everyone who would gladly stuff her "ballot box". >:)

Appropriateness[edit]

Does anyone else think this article should focus more on her post Playboy Work ? I don't see any playmate template on Pamela Anderson's page. Perhaps a screencap from the opening of General Hospital would be better than a playboy screenshot ? Dowew 04:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I think any information about Kelly Monaco, whether it be related to Playboy, General Hospital, or anything else should be included as long as it is relevant or interesting. A screenshot from General Hospital would be great if you could find or take one. Jester2001 20:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sure Kelly would rather this site focused on her current acting career. Kelly's modeling days were many years ago and since then she has went on to be a very successful actress.

  • The site is suppose to be informative, not designed to make Kelly Happy. Please return the links to the Plamates and references to Playboy.
  • I agree. Although she's moved on, an encyclopedia of this scale, IMO, should contain the information of her entire career. I'll work around similar to what's on Pamela Anderson (Playmate template, and draft a little bit of information back into the article--wasn't there Playboy referencing in the article previously?). Mike Tigas 05:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. Returned a lot of information from previous edits. Now, to save face, I'm considering a paragraph at the end of the "Modeling" section such as something mentioning her distancing herself from Playboy and her appearances (intentionally or unintentionally. A source (such as her site or an interview) would be great. I think this would strike a good enough compromise (include the Playboy information but also note her distancing self from it) if we could get a source for it. Mike Tigas 05:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures and Text[edit]

I just made a change because the way the pics were set up, theer was only about 3-4 words per line in her bio. I thought it was difficult to read so I moved the pics, one under the other. Now we are faced with the issue of the PLayboy text box which leaves a huge gap between paragraphs in her bio. Should we remove the Playboy text box? AriGold 14:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other picture[edit]

Next month when I get back to school, I'll make sure to get a General Hospital screenshot that shows "what she looks like," so the bra and panties cover can go. Mike H (Talking is hot) 15:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

My opinion on the "bra and panties cover": She started her career as a model. She still models, as evidenced by the FHM cover. She is an actress on a soap opera, a medium known most for it's pretty faces. The cover of FHM shows her basically for what she is. There is a reason her costumes on Dancing With the Stars were the most revealing of any female dancers. She is known for her looks. Let's not try to peg her as the next Meryl Streep or something, there is nothing wrong with the FHM cover, it's a part of her career. It's a good picture of her. I looked long and hard to find something that did her justice and if you find a screenshot that is not as clear or does not do her as much justice as the FHM cover, I will revert it (I am only being honest). AriGold 13:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thirding the above. She's every bit as known to what's looking like one set of her fans as the other; it seems silly to pretend that her nude or lingerie modelling never happened when it's such an integral part of her career. Of course, Playboy fans are likewise thrilled that she's found mainstream success on GH and I think we're glad to see it represented so well by this article. HipsterDad 21:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw that BlueStar removed the FHM pic and added two GH pics. I put the FHM pic back up, as it has been clear so far that the consensus likes that pic and agrees it should be up, and I removed 1 of the GH pics. Now there is one of her modeling, how she got her start and what she still does, and one of her on tv, the career she is currently pursuing. Decent compromise? AriGold 12:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with, and like, your change. AriGold 12:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Her website does not list her Playboy experience in her bio at all, which suggests that she at least partially regrets doing it, which suggests that the heavy visual emphasis on it in this article (the box, the stupid listing of every time her photo ran in some Playboy compilation) is misplaced. I vote for minimizing the Playboy info, putting a GH picture at the top, and making the FHM picture smaller and further down. If you keep the Playboy special issue list, you should also add a list of every episode of Port Charles and GH that she appeared in, as that's more notable! Wasted Time R 02:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her website does not list her Playboy experience in her bio at all, which suggests that she at least partially regrets doing it" That's a pretty bold assumption. I say keep the FHM picture at the top. It's the best picture of a woman who is a MODEL/actress. AriGold 12:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding to what AriGold said, it is beside the point whether Kelly has any regrets about posing in Playboy. The aim of an encyclopaedia is to be unbiased and factual. Jester2001 18:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not objecting to the mention of Playboy but rather than the emphasis given to it. Between the text line, the box, and the special issues list, it takes up at least half of the non-image space in the article. Doesn't that seem out of proportion given her other accomplishments? I surrender on the FHM cover, you guys are clearly wedded to it. Wasted Time R 19:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


shez a baybe no doubt but shez no D, whered u get that from ? look at the pix. C on a good day. where r the playm8 pix? those are the 1s to uze heh

Decide for yourself (NSFW)

http://www.tuttotope.net/Immagini_big/Kelly%20Monaco/12.jpg http://www.tuttotope.net/Immagini_big/Kelly%20Monaco/03.jpg http://www.tuttotope.net/Immagini_big/Kelly%20Monaco/18.jpg

dunno wha happend but she dont look like that no more heh

Infobox[edit]

Get off the playboy emphasis if this site wants to have any credibility then it should focus on her career as an actress not juvenille boys dreams

I think the infobox should be kept so that the article is consistent with the other Playmate articles. Jester2001 19:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I discussed why I made the changes above ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kelly_Monaco#Pictures_and_Text ) but I think it looks fine now. AriGold 19:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article is probably the best article about Kelly Monaco on the web at the moment! Jester2001 19:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have to agree with you. Though reverting the pictures every two or three days because some people, despite popular opinion here, don't like her FHM pic is getting tiresome. AriGold 14:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By my count there are three editors in favor of the prominent FHM photo-and-infobox (AriGold, Jester2001, HipsterDad) and four editors against it (Dowew, Mike Halterman, Blue Star, Wasted Time R). So what kind of consensus is that? Wasted Time R 16:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't care if the infobox is there. I don't think that FHM cover should be so prominent. She is an actress now. Not so much jackoff fodder. Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:15, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with making the FHM cover prominent. The reason I support the FHM cover is that it is the best quality picture which we have at the moment and which can be used fairly. The problem with the screenshots (other than the one which is already in the article) is that they are very dark and low in resolution. AriGold and BlueStar both went to a lot of trouble to find the images which are in the article now and I think they are the best we have so far.
Remember also that Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy#Wikipedia_is_not_a_majoritarian_democracy, voting is only one means to reaching a consensus but the primary means of reaching a decision is through discussion. Jester2001 19:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If photo quality is really the issue, then crop the FHM image down to a head-and-shoulders shot and use that. Wasted Time R 20:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is your problem with showing a MODEL/actress'es body? It's a part of who she is. Being on the cover of a magazine, and in it, is a large part of her career. There is no reason to hide that. AriGold 20:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, she is primarily an actress, secondarily a reality TV star, and only third a model. Having the large FHM photo start off the article is therefore unrepresentative. Having it be smaller and later in the article would be OK with me. Same argument applies to the Playboy infobox - it doesn't belong at the top, but rather as an "appendix", meaning a section at the end. I don't think the list of subsequent Playboy appearances belongs at all, unless you're also willing to exhaustively list every TV appearance she's ever had. Wasted Time R 20:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
She still models, that is a fact. In the entertainment world, it's not like having one job title or pay grade, you can be a model and actress (see Will Smith for another example of an entertainer in two prominent fields). Modeling was first put her in the spotlight, she still does it today. Therefore having a modeling picture that shows off her best assets (if you disagree you didnt see any of her costumes on Dancing with the Stars) is perfectly representative of Ms. Monaco. It's the best pictire of her, and it shows a LARGE aspect of her career. AriGold 20:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how about we swap the positions of the pictures, like now? Jester2001 20:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I went back to your earlier version, Jester. I can't see making the picture where her face is half-lit and you can see only about a third of her, into the most prominent picture. If you disagree, Jester, I will bow out at this point, you had a good thing going here and I started to help, but now the bickering is annoying, so I will go with whatever you think, but I wanted to toss my two cents in first. AriGold 20:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that you posted this image about a month ago but we decided not to use it. What we could do is upload the image and mark it as fair use since it seems legitimate to do so. We could also write an email to the people at [1] and ask if can we use the image in Wikipedia. Do you think it's worth a shot? Does anybody have any objections? Jester2001 21:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, as there seem to be no objections, I've uploaded the above image with some minor modifications and tagged it as fair use. I've also moved the FHM cover down a little bit, made it slightly smaller and changed the position of the General Hospital picture. I hope this will satisfy everybody. Jester2001 21:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures all look cool, I just don't like the whole having three words per line effect we get by putting a pic on both sides of the screen, you know? What if we ditch the Dancing pic and put the GH pic where it was? AriGold 21:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Four pictures are probably too much anyway. Jester2001 21:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what, 13 colons are certainly enough, ha. I made a couple of changes. I put the FHM with the PLayboy stuff, since it's all modeling, changed the size of the pic to about the size of the Playboy section. Then moved the GH pic right under the stats. Opinions? AriGold 21:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How many colons until the comments look Chinese? I like the new pics much better, the FHM cover is not flattering. She's mighty diminutive, too. She is, as Groucho Marx used to say, well over 4 feet tall. Wahkeenah 21:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, 15 colons! I'm glad we finally got the pictures sorted out. :-) Jester2001 18:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You could lose the FHM cover. She looks much cuter in the other photos. Wahkeenah 23:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I actually just noticed that the FHM cover is advertising a girls of daytime TV feature. I'm not sure why, but I'm amused that Playmate Nikki Schieler Ziering was in the same pictorial and had her own cover that month. Would anybody, he asked with a giggle, like to upload that to Nikki's Wiki page and see if her soap opera fans object? HipsterDad 00:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki didn't do a soap opera. She was a "Barker's Beauty" on The Price is Right, and was that last line about the soap fans a snide dig? Mike H (Talking is hot) 19:20, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
The 2001 lingerie special features "25 pages of daytime TV hotties", including 4 collectors edition covers featuring Kelly Monaco ("Port Charles"), Nikki Ziering ("The Price is Right"), Sharon Case ("Young and the Restless"), and Adriana Catano ("Secreto de Amor"). AriGold 20:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tone[edit]

Some of this, especially the beginning, sounds like it was written by kelly's publicist.

Cleanup[edit]

Please stop putting all the Playboy emphasis on Kelly in her article here. She is an Emmy nominated actress and has long since left her modeling days behind. If you are a fan of hers please let her article focus on her acting career.

Kelly did not authorize Playboy to run any photos after her DWTS appearances. The photos were old pictures that Playboy ran when Kelly refused to pose for them again.

The article needs to be rewritten objectively and authoritatively, and it needs to be properly wikified with headings, links, and other standards. P Cooper-McCann 05:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were looking at a rather crappy version, which some new accounts insist on putting in. It's basically a carbon copy of some interview she did. I reverted back to a better version. Mike H. That's hot 08:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AllKellyMonaco said: "Please stop putting all the Playboy emphasis on Kelly in her article here."

She began her career as a PLayboy Playmate, there is no emphasis on that, it is just a fact.

AllKellyMonaco said: "She is an Emmy nominated actress and has long since left her modeling days behind."

No, she hasn't, she just appeared in Maxim in September of '05.

AllKellyMonaco said: "If you are a fan of hers please let her article focus on her acting career."

This isn't a fan site, it's wikipedia, it's an encyclopedia and many people have worked long and hard on this article to get the FACTS straight. AriGold 15:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have my facts straight but your article Mr Gold is not accurate. You are focusing on Kelly's career several years ago and not on her current successes. I understand perhaps the Playboy aspect titilates some people but to say this article you keep reposting is accurate and suitable for any reference source is ridiculous. Reference material is suppose to be up to date and this article is not. You had nothing about her recent Daytime Emmy Nomination for Lead Actress in it nor her work on the History Channel's Boys and Their Toys series. Most of this article was copied from Playboy's database. Kelly posed for Maxim as a celebrity not a model. Kelly also turned down Playboy's offer to pose after DWTS and they instead chose to print old photos of Kelly they already had. If you want anyone who has a clue about Kelly's career to take this article seriously then someone who has knowledge of her whole career should be writing it not someone who is stuck on her former modeling career. This type of article is why Wikipedia has lost alot of it's credibility.

Understood, and please, call me Ari.  ;-) You make some very compelling points, but your version removed all references to what began her career in the entertainment industry, her modeling, specificaly her posing in Playboy. So, whereas you claim that others are not being objective, it appears, on its face, that you are guilty of the same actions by tryig to slant it entirely away from the fact that she was, and still is, a model. You had her biography go straight from her childhood to her being on Baywatch. You missed a pretty big milestone in her career there. The same one that has made many a girl a "celebrity". I could see getting rid of the bibliography-type section that details every magazine she has been in, but removing everything that has to do with Playboy is extreme. AriGold 22:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS Sign your messages here with ~~~~ (it will automatically enter your time and name) so people know who wrote what and when. AriGold 22:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Kelly Monaco Says is it possible to lose the long Playboy Edition section and replace it with a filmography for Kelly. A filmography would be much better in a referece source than a playboy section. Alot of Kelly's career is not cited here like her Days as a Hard Copy and MTV corespondent, the fact she appeared in two music videos and her guest role on Spin City. If you want this article to really be a good reference source and it be taken seriously then it has to include someone researching her whole career. Seeing as even though this is an open source document some of you have appointed yourselves as editors one of you should take some time and write a really good article on Kelly and her career. Thank you for making some of the changes already to the article it is appreciated.

Again, just sign your messages with ~~~~, it will sign it automatically for you. I would say don't lose the Playboy bibliography section, as many other playmates have it, and it's a good source of info. I just added a filography and tv works section. AriGold 14:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ari I am adding two links to sites for Kelly that are considered good sites for info and photos and news about Kelly right after her Official page. These two sites All Kelly Monaco and Kelly Monaco Web Site have both been around for years now and both have very good info on Kelly and her career. Both of these sites are considered to be the two top sites after Kelly's Official Page. Please do not remove them. Thanks and Thanks for making the adjustments to the article.

Good stuff, I took off the official discussion board link, as you can get to it through a the link already provided, her official site link. And I took down the celebrity"something".com link, as it looks like they just mirrored our articles text and the pictures on that site can be found at the other pages we have listed. Thanks for helping out. (Again, sign your messages with ~~~~, it will sign your messages automatically for you, just trying tp help you out.) AriGold 16:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that hope I get it right this time. Thanks for the updates ~~~~

Ha, close! Just use the ~ symbol four times in a row, you dont need the stuff around it. I just did that so you could read it. AriGold 16:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of two copyrighted sections[edit]

Hello editors, I've removed two sections from the article, "Early life" and "Modeling". The content within those sections has been taken directly from [2]. The content of that site has not been released under the GNU Free Documentation License, and therefore, cannot be used on Wikipedia.

You may re-write the sections, but please do not take content directly from other websites. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me via email, or on my talk page. Cheers. --lightdarkness (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Playboy sections[edit]

24.50.117.13 has removed mentions of Playboy, with the description "removing pornographic links". The sections removed in the latest edit are not even links, but rather simply a filmography and bibliography. I believe these sections are valid, as per other articles featuring Playmates (former or current). Any convincing argument as to why this information should not be included would be nice. IMO, this is an encyclopedia and therefore the fact that she distances herself from prior work does not count as a valid reason to remove information. Mike Tigas 22:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference materials do not include pornography. This is the type of thing that makes Wikipedia a joke in the academic world. There is no need to list these in the article as Ms. Monaco's body of work as an actress outweighs this short period of her career. It is not pertinant. It would be most appreciated if you would stop putting them in her article. User:MonacoInfo
The bottom line is that Monaco did appear in Playboy, and her career would not be where it is today without it. We shouldn't "whitewash" factual information in biographical articles in order to make them more favorable to the subjects. -- MisterHand 17:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her Name[edit]

It's interesting that her name is sort of a double tribute to another actress from Philadelphia. Particularly since it's her real, original name. -- Cranston Lamont 23:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

I deleted the copyrighted playboy picture

Fair use rationale for Image:Kelly monaco 13.jpg[edit]

Image:Kelly monaco 13.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Official DATE OF Birth[edit]

I went to High School with Kelly and we both graudated in 1993 not 1994. I was born in April of 1975 and she was born in May. In most cases, a lot of Actors say that there a year younger to appeal more. When Kelly did a interview with CW Radio last month, she confirmed that she was 32. According to IMDB, she was born in 1975. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.198.63 (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian?[edit]

Discussion please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.107.36 (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Kelly Monaco Image from Sam_McCall[edit]

Last night I included an image on this page that has been in use for quite some time on this article: Sam_McCall. The file is Sam_McCall. As best I can tell, there have been a number of debates regarding image inclusion since at least 2005 regarding issues ranging from using a Monaco picture from General Hospital vs. a Maxim cover photo to fair use of a number of images. This morning, my change was reverted by Dismas with a note placed on my talk page saying the change I made violated fair use rationale. While the image in question may in fact violate fair use, I did not upload the image so I do not know if that is the case. If it does, then we should likely remove it from both Sam_McCall and Kelly_Monaco. If we are in violation of fair use by using the image for the actress, its doubtful that the fair use rationale works for the character and for the same reasons that Dismas brings up below - we could use an image from a press conference or convention appearance because the actress is alive and the show still in production, etc. At the very least, the editors previously involved with this discussion should be provided with an opportunity to respond, because this has been an ongoing issue for almost a decade, and for some reason that I do not find noted here, prior to my change last night there were no images on this page. I am reproducing the conversation with Dismas below from my talk page. Thanks. Jay Dubya (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edit to the Kelly Monaco article. Non-free files, such as pictures of actors playing parts in television shows and movies, can only be used if no free images are available or could be made. See WP:NFCC#1. Since Monaco is still alive, a free file could still be found or made. Additionally, the image page must have a rationale for using that specific non-free file on each specific article in which it is used. Dismas|(talk) 13:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't upload the file you're referring to. Its already in use, and has been in use for roughly 9 years on both Kelly Monaco and Sam_McCall. See, for example, Talk:Kelly_Monaco#Infobox and Talk:Kelly_Monaco#Other_picture. Theres a long-standing convo and consensus about using this image. I am going to reinstate the photo one more time and ask that you request consensus from the community before removing it again, because in order for your argument to make sense you need to remove the image from both articles. What I'm saying is you my in fact be right, but this image has been in place on Wikipedia for almost a decade and its inclusion involved a larger discussion that other editors deserve an opportunity to involve themselves in. Jay Dubya (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE I have contacted these users for input on the issue, AFAICT they were involved with if not original attribution and approval, very close to it and might have more information than I do.

User:Dbiel
User:AriGold
User:Mike_Halterman
User:Jester2001
Jay Dubya (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note. Most of those editors haven't made an edit since 2013. One not since 2006. Dismas|(talk) 18:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the image once more. I was going to include an edit summary but hit the wrong button and it went through without one. What I would have said though is that I know I am right in that we cannot use that image on this article and was reverting for that reason and also WP:BRD.
The image can be used on the Sam McCall article because A) the photo is of that character and B) the image page has a fair use rationale for using it on that article. It cannot be used here because of the reasons I stated. If we could simply use an image of an actor/actress from one of their numerous roles on the actor's article, every single actor's article would have an image. As you can see, that is not the case.
If you would like to gain consensus, that's fine. But we should do so without the image on the page. For convenience sake, here is a link to the image in question: File:Kelly Monaco as Sam.png.
It should also be noted that while the image for the page has been discussed since as far back as 2005, the guidelines and policies here at Wikipedia have been changing since before that. The current rules are what we need to heed at this time. Dismas|(talk) 18:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Dismas indicates, guidelines & policies are have been in flux ever since Wikipedia was founded but we have to go by what they are now. Per NFCC1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (emphasis in there mine) We are dealing with two very different figures here: Sam McCall the fictional character, and Kelly Monaco the living person. Can we reasonably expect a free-use image to be made of Sam McCall? No, because she is fictional and copyrighted with the copyright likely held by Selmur Productions. In fact any photo created illustrating the character Sam McCall might well be a violation of Selmur's copyrights. So by definition, any image of Sam McCall has to be fair-use.
Now, compare that the Kelly Monaco the living person. Could a free-use image to be made of her? In this case it is possible though one has not yet been created that we know of. As a result, we can only use free-use images on her article. Tabercil (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Kelly Monaco. 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) 00:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kelly Monaco. 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) 04:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kelly Monaco. 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) 02:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kelly_Monaco&oldid=1209132153"