Talk:Tara Strong

Include Childrens' names?

@SNUGGUMS: and all, starting a conversation to find a consensus about including the kids' names in this article.

The standard in the WP:BLPNAME policy is "The names of any immediate... family members... may be part of an article... [if] relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject" and (in the footnote 'e') "Notability is not presumed or inherited".

These kids are not notable in their own right, and their names are not necessary to understand the article. Therefore, I see no justification for keeping these names, and a strong policy direction for removal. Dbsseven (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

One's children are certainly relevant parts of a person's life and to not name them makes the page feel incomplete. She openly has identified them and that renders any privacy concerns moot. By your own admission, the policy says they may be included, so please don't pretend the inclusions are invalid or somehow not worth adding. We shouldn't blindly assume that "not notable" always means "must be left out" or "should be left out" as you're implying. To be blunt, that's just a cop-out for deleting text you simply don't like seeing. If there was no good sourcing on the matter or parents tried to conceal identities, then omissions would make more sense, but that's not the case here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:44, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS:. I am not pretending anything: They are not notable in their own right, and including their names does not change the understanding of the article. (Your response provides no evidence for these points.) Therefore, WP:BLPNAME clearly states "presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members". I still see no reason/evidence to override this default. Can you provide any direct evidence to these points? The policy's requirements for non-notability or "otherwise low-profile persons" are not moot simply because their names are mentioned in a social media post. "Feelings" about article completeness are secondary to policy, and after that the text still needs to find consensus among all editors. Dbsseven (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The fact that she openly identifies them means there's no privacy breach by doing the same. I don't see any point in adding the "direct" part to describe evidence when one cannot have "indirect" evidence of anything, but it's more than just social media; they also get named in her website and probably some interviews too. Either way, blindly treating WP:BLPNAME as an absolute restriction against giving names of those not warranting articles is oversimplifying things and unreasonably limiting, so don't continue to do that. The page also shouldn't be used as a euphemism for wanting to take out things one dislikes seeing. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. WP policies cannot be disregarded simply because any editor finds them "unreasonably limiting". In fact, WP:BLPNAME gives lots of room to justify inclusion (but this is not simply that their names have been revealed). This reasoning is exactly what I have asked us to discuss, but so far in our conversation, none has been provided except to disregard the policy. And, even if the policy question is settled, inclusion/exclusion of all content in the article is subject to WP:consensus. Your opinion that these names should be included is no more/less valid than mine that these are trivia and not encyclopedic. This must be discussed and consensus language agreed upon by all editors. Dbsseven (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

UTC)

I actually wasn't disregarding policy. You openly dismissing them as "trivia and not encyclopedic" is dubious and proves me right in suspecting that you wish to remove text you dislike seeing. Trying to invoke WP:BLPNME is just an excuse used as a cover-up for that motive. Don't downplay the importance of one's children in a person's life. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Please AGF In fact, I believe these names are both a violation of WP policy AND not encyclopedic. There has never been an excuse or cover up. I am not questioning if the children are important to this person. But that does not make their names encyclopedic or consistent with WP:BLPNAME.Dbsseven (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

RfC including children's names

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus not to include the childrens' names; concerns include WP:BLPNAME and notability issues. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 01:26, 26 April 2026 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Should the names of Tara Strong's children be included in her article? Is this allowed under WP:BLPNAME? 15:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC) Dbsseven (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• No. Including their names is a violation of WP:BLPNAME. There is no justification under the policy's exceptions, as they are not notable on their own, and removing their names does not hinder understanding of the article. Publication of their names on social media is insufficient alone to justify an exception. Even without the WP:BLP policy, these names would still be trivia and not encyclopedic. Dbsseven (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• No. (Summoned by bot) WP:BLPNAME is unambiguous about this; this information is only worthy of inclusion if it is well sourced and subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. The names do not, on their own, establish notability and do not significantly aid in understanding the subject of this article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Yes they're allowed and definitely encyclopedic. Both boys are a major aspect of her life, whether other folks admit it or not. The article would look incomplete without any mention at all. I'm not going to pretend WP:BLPNAME is actually as restrictive as Dbsseven or Smallangryplanet treat it. There's quality sourcing (beyond just her social media), no parental attempts to conceal their identities (in fact at least one has a public Instagram for what it's worth), and trying to downplaying their worth as "trivia and not encyclopedic" is hard to take seriously. That comes off as a euphemism for "I don't like seeing this text". Furthermore, starting up an RFC is frankly a needless time sink when the above thread was a sufficient place for addressing the matter. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• No. As a note, I have removed it as a clear-cut and unambiguous BLP issue (it was cited to a personal website, which is utterly unacceptable; WP:ABOUTSELF does not allow for statements about third parties.) With that sourcing it crossed a red line - there is absolutely no circumstance under which that source could ever be used for inclusion. But I'd oppose even if news sourcing that mentions them in passing could be found; for me, the threshold would be some indication of widespread secondary coverage about them specifically - either news coverage that focuses on more than just them existing as her children, or in-depth non-news coverage. BLPNAME has very strong consensus and is quite clear that The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons and this accurately reflects the broader push to privacy in WP:BLP; while of course we have some leeway, the argument that the mere mention of their existence is enough to include their names is absurd and makes a mockery of BLPNAME. The clear intent of the cautious in BLPNAME is that their names must have some significance for us to include them, ie. they must have some point of notability or coverage significant enough that we could expect that someone would search for them. We can note that she has sons without noting their name; I am skeptical that both boys are a major aspect of her life, alone, is sufficient (most people love their children and would say that they are a major part of their life; if that alone satisfied WP:BLPNAME then the warning about family members would have no meaning. And how does that make their names encyclopedic?), but if so, you demonstrate that with weighty secondary coverage focused on them. Basically, you need some argument for inclusion beyond just "secondary sources note they exist." But, again, current sourcing doesn't even support that; obviously we cannot include them based solely on a non-RS ABOUTSELF source written by their parents. So any more in-depth argument is premised on actual secondary coverage existing - the idea that their names could be included with no secondary coverage at all (as they were previously) is absurd. (As an aside, it occurs to me that in addition to a personal website not being usable for this in the first place, this website seems to have been taken down - while usually a source being dead wouldn't matter, it's reasonable to interpret this as a desire for privacy. I don't think pulling an old child pic album from 2004 out of archive.org and using it to put the names of living people in an article is at all appropriate.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

It's overly strict to suggest any mention would be bad without pieces focused on them specifically. I'd be more inclined to omit for cases where parents try to conceal identities or there's nothing credible at all saying who they were. Readers who see a tidbit about having kids that neglects to identify them would likely ask "What are their names?" upon noticing such omissions. We're not really helping anyone by trying to suppress something that has public confirmation. When one's famous parent publicly gives out such names willingly, it renders any concerns about privacy moot, especially when both sons are adults who don't exactly try to avoid the spotlight or being identified in the first place. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I was summoned by the bot so I don't really have a major hat in this ring so to speak but would a reader routinely ask what their names are? We don't follow this pattern universally. Unless these kids are notable in their own right, I'm not sure I understand the urgency of keeping them in the article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

You might be surprised how curious some folks become to learn more about vague statements they read, especially if they aren't very familiar with an article subject already. I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility they could wish to obtain specifics. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but I checked some of her co-stars' pages (i.e. the people she worked with on The Powerpuff Girls) and we don't include those people's kids' names. We just say such and such has X children. So what I'm not sure about is why Tara Strong's kids are so notable that they must be included, but not Cathy Cavadini's kid or Tom Kane's 9 children. I know other stuff exists (or does not exist) is not necessarily a solid argument, but I'm still not seeing how this information is notable in a way that it isn't on other pages about famous people with kids. If anything, it seems like something we almost never do unless the kids themselves are notable in their own right (i.e. Tom Hanks' kids).

I guess what I'm asking here is are these kids notable enough to be added even absent the possibility that someone might be idly curious about their names? Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Given the fact that these two make no efforts to hide themselves or kinships from the public eye, adding it could help show they're not intended to be concealed from society or anything. While I don't have the time, energy, or patience to explore the specifics of every single Wikipedia page of someone with any kids, I will say the overzealous mentality of "we must remove and keep out and every name of children without their own articles" is exaggerating policy limits and ignores the nuances that allow it when adequately referenced. It at best is misguided to hold such an oversimplified stance against naming them. Some other folks might not give names due to a lack of good sources existing or cases of parents attempting to hide it from the public. That's not what we have here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:58, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to Wiki. My understanding is that regardless of how public the subject is about their kids, we don't add their names unless the kids are notable. I think otherwise, it becomes difficult to have a cut-off of when we mention it - can people put names if they're seen on socials, in the subjects blogpost or mentioned in an interview with them?

Even if the kids (adult or not) say they're OK with it, the subject could potentially have backlash about it if they don't want it on their biography. Honestly, I don't think that'd be the case here; but if we start allowing it, it won't be long before someone that posted their kid's name takes it down from the primary source and then comes after Wikipedia next. Ultimately, the tradeoff of having their names doesn't seem worth it. If people want to know their names, there're many places besides here they can get it.

If adding kids' names is something we wanna do, it should be thought out (potentially with a legal team) to have clear rules (e.g. kids above 18, etc.) and updated into a Wikipedia rule so the project as a whole knows what it's getting into when complaints or take-down notices come in. Theo wiki user (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

You're demonstrating the oversimplified stance against naming that I just mentioned. When somebody does identify their kids in interviews or public posts, for what it's worth, that's a clear sign they don't mind others knowing about the child names. Such a backlash/complaint scenario therefore doesn't sound likely unless a child requests not to be identified through such things or a parent wants to keep that secret. Neither of those have happened. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

To be clear my objection is just that - given the RfC's question about WP:BLPNAME - I don't see how they're relevant to a complete understanding of the subject here, other than that some people might theoretically be curious about them. BLPNAME says that notability is not presumed or inherited, and I don't think it's a too-narrow reading of the policy to want to know what makes these kids notable in and of themselves. Smallangryplanet (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• No per Aquillion. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
• No because the children names are not necessary for understanding Tara Strong. Also per WP:BLPNAME, privacy for family members should be considered. NicoR8 (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
• No - The names should only be included if they're notable. I don't object to a mention that she has kids, but naming them is completely unnecessary. Nemov (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• No per Aquillion and Nemov.— Isaidnoway (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

References

Website dead

the website tarastrong.com is listed as her official website, but it leads to a dead domain. ~2026-24203-54 (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I boldly went ahead and removed that altogether. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:30, 22 April 2026 (UTC)