Jump to content

Talk:Emma Watson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleEmma Watson is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 15, 2009.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 30, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
September 10, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 23, 2007Good article nomineeListed
September 30, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 26, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 15, 2018, April 15, 2023, and April 15, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2023

[edit]

In the "External links" section, add the official fansite https://www.emmawatson.net Calvin Bullard (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See WP:NOBLOGS. Tollens (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Model

[edit]

Recently, I've observed an ongoing debate among editors regarding the inclusion of the word "model" in the lead sentence and infobox when describing Watson. Some editors have been adding "model," while others have consistently reverted these edits, removing "model" from these specific sections. The editors advocating for the inclusion of "model" find themselves puzzled and seek an explanation for this discrepancy.

On the other hand, editors opposing the use of "model" argue that previous revisions should be consulted for the rationale, as they have already explained their stance in the past. --Bibliophile Dragon (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modeling isn't (per ROLEBIO) what made her notable, regardless of how many magazines mention her modeling. Seasider53 (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason Watson is notable is for being an actress. Model and activist shouldn't be included per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE which states the first sentence of a biography should list the main reason the person is notable. The first sentence should read Emma Charlotte Duerre Watson (born 15 April 1990) is an English actress. Nemov (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing that link. I believe "activist" should stay, I have nothing to say further. Bibliophile Dragon (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She is known as an activist even less than she is a model, so no. Seasider53 (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you say that? Can you provide any evidence that she is known as an activist even less than she is a model? Bibliophile Dragon (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on the person who would like to add content to show she is as well known as an activist as an actress. It is not up to others to prove a negative. MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bibliophile Dragon A better question would be can you provide any evidence that being an activist is the main reason she's notable? Nemov (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Activism may not be what brought her fame but it still is one of her professions. And I've seen many famous magazines like Vogue (magazine), Elle (magazine) etc. address her as an actress and activist. So even if it can't be mentioned in the first line of the article, shouldn't it be mentioned in the introductory paragraph? Otherwise it may seem like her profession as an activist is being neglected. I know there is a part in the article dedicated to her activism but many others celebrities' like Ariana Grande also have a section like that and even though Ariana is very outspoken about many topics, her main job isn't activism and she is not a professional activist. That's why I think "activism" should be mentioned at least in the introductory paragraph if not in the first sentence of the paragraph. Idk nothing so just (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Idk nothing so just it's mentioned with due weight in the lead. The main first paragraph should be dedicated to why she is notable in the first place. Nemov (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say she is well known for her modelling. Kimand299 (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watson's relationships

[edit]

There is no reason for this article's Personal life section to include an enumeration of 10(!) past boyfriends. In what way is that of "historical, societal, scientific, intellectualic significance"? I suggest deleting that part.

I would like to know everyone's opinion on this matter: Should any of Watson's past relationships be mentioned in the personal life section of her Wikipedia article? Or should none of them be included, considering that Wikipedia is not a gossip site, and the mention of her marriage, if it were to happen, would be the only relevant information regarding her relationships in the personal life section? Bibliophile Dragon (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemov, @Seasider53, @MrOllie I would love to know your thoughts on this matter. Is that okay? I would like to reach a consensus on this matter if that's alright with you. Bibliophile Dragon (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like a consensus you can start by restoring the article back to the status quo until you have support. Nemov (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simply blanking reliably sourced material entirely is not acceptible. MrOllie (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is if the information is trivial, which it was. Seasider53 (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's to be determined via discussion. Please restore the status quo. Nemov (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a listing of past short-term romantic relationships is the purview of a gossip site and is not relevant for this article. CapitalSasha ~ talk 12:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We create biographies on wikipedia, not a gossip column like you have in People magazine, Seasider and Bibliophile Dragon in my opinion have done the right thing in removing the relationship stuff. I only think it's worth mentioning, when one gets married or has children within a relationship. Govvy (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any consensus agreed upon to remove the information from the page, so I am reverting it to how it was originally, with the information back in, and ensuring all sources are RS. Proper procedure, ie removing the information with consensus, was not followed here, so I'm restoring the information until consensus decides it should be removed, following discussion. IN any case, bio pages typically include relationship information, there is no wikipedia policy that says it needs to be removed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

[edit]

The article says that Watson is English. It should say that she is French-English or French-British, like that of Tara Strong which says she is Canadian-American (actually it says Canadian and American). 174.94.54.119 (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't. Seasider53 (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed previously; one instance can be found here: Talk:Emma_Watson/Archive_7#Why_does_the_article_start_by_describing_her_as_English?. Lectonar (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, can you hyperlink Paris, France in the infobox? Several articles on celebrities have the name of the city they were born in hyperlinked, but this one doesn't? 174.94.54.119 (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common terms should not be linked. Seasider53 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I misspoke. I meant to say can you hyperlink Paris?174.94.54.119 (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERLINK. Seasider53 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Rupert Grint Has the name of his birth city hyperlinked. So why shouldn't this one be hyperlinked? Would you care to explain? 174.94.54.119 (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because Harlow is a lot less known than Paris is. Seasider53 (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2024

[edit]
2405:201:5007:9887:ECF9:F5D5:8211:C2E8 (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Emma is Ishani not Taylor.[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Picture

[edit]

talk for editing the picture Adry9509 (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Current picture is from 2013, and irrelevant , a newer picture would be better as from the simple wikipedia Adry9509 (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the picture from 2013. Courtesy link Talk:Emma Watson/Archive 8. For the moment, there is consensus for the picture from 2013. Furthermore, the license for the picture you used isn't confirmed yet, so it shouldn't be used for the time being. Lectonar (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Picture is from the simple wiki page, under cc by 3.0 by an interview from the vogue magazine taiwan. Adry9509 (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original talk was from 2021, Emma Watson's appearance is now drastically different from the 2013 picture, as she has grown older. Adry9509 (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to me, it would be best to update to a more recent picture, until there is any opposition to the edit. Adry9509 (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2024

[edit]

emma Watson is not rhea. 2402:8100:2274:2D86:E996:6654:F4E8:A55A (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]