Talk:Anne Hathaway/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

This page is an Archive of the discussions from Anne Hathaway (actress) talk page (Discussion page). (January 2010 - December 2010) - Please Do not edit!

Unambiguous article title

"Anne Hathaway (actress)" is an unambiguous article title; Shakespeare's wife was not an actress, and there are no other uses of "Anne Hathaway" that could be confused with "Anne Hathaway (actress)". So the article should not be hatnoted, per WP:NAMB.--ShelfSkewed Talk 21:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, she wasn't an actress, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that people may be confused by 'Anne Hathaway the actress' and 'Anne Hathaway the wife of a famous playwright'. The hatnote does no harm at all, and WP:Abundance_and_redundancy supports keeping it in. --hippo43 (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty far stretch, and I don't think Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy applies to this situation at all. But, yes, the hatnote does no harm and I'm not inclined to make an issue of it.--ShelfSkewed Talk 03:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Early life and career

Clearing up Hathaway's spiritual philosophies. When reading the article, the wiki quote seemed out of place and strangely abrupt, so I checked original source, and sure enough it was taken out of context. The wiki quote states her religious beliefs as "nothing", but the original source states no such thing. The article states that her move to the Episcopalian denomination didn't take, with Hathaway responding, "I'm nothing...fuck it, I'm forming. I'm a work in progress." She is not describing her beliefs as nonexistent here, just her denomination and/or affiliation. She had previously identified herself as a "non-denominational" Christian, so this is in line with that earlier statement. In the spirit of her original intent and quote, the reference to this article should be reworded as Hathaway states her religious beliefs are a "work in progress." That is her last word on the topic via the original source and is obviously much more indicative of the intent of her statement. My hope is that the constant re-editing of this more accurate contribution isn't an example of Wiki-bullying or some goofy atheistic bias or quote mining. --Biaspo (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Follieri Section

Here's the statement: "Court papers state that Hathaway was an unwitting beneficiary of the stolen money, which had in large part paid for Follieri's opulent lifestyle of jet-setting, shopping sprees, and fine dining." There used to be a CNN link that supposedly supported this statement. It no longer works, so I inserted a dead link tag. That tag was replaced by a reference to the Los Angeles Times. However, the Times article, which is just a very short blurb underneath a photo, doesn't support any of the statement. It doesn't reference court papers. It doesn't say that Hathaway was an unwitting beneficiary. It doesn't say anything about the money paying for Follieri's "opulent lifestyle." It just repeats that Follieri was arrested for fraud and money laundering and an "amusing" quip by Hathaway. Unless the statement can be supported by a verifiable source, it should be removed.

Another problem with the section is the statement: "Hathaway was never implicated in wrongdoing." That clause, plus the clause that precedes it, are supposedly backed up by a Fox News article, which coupled with a link to another article, have far more information than the Times article. However, the closest the articles come to saying that Hathaway did nothing wrong is the assertion that Hathaway was "charged with no crime," a much narrower statement than the very broad (and vague) statement that she was not "implicated" in anything "wrong." I'm not saying Hathaway was a suspect or a person of interest or that the FBI or any other agency decided after investigation that she was innocent, but without a verifiable source, the best the article can say is that she was not charged with any crime.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I see it, the text of the section and the accompanying inline refs are in a state of confusion. Having investigated the situation, the reason is clear. The editors of this article should read the linked web pages correctly, and attribute the statements in the Wikipedia to the correct websites. Finally, because this is a BLP, if consensus cannot be reached 100% for the accurate sourcing of information as contentious as possible criminal proceedings against people who have a reputation to lose, then the maxim is: If you can't find out, cut it out. (see: WP:BLP)--Kudpung (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to evaluate your comments unless you identify which statements aren't supported by which sources. The most "contentious" paragraph is the second one about Follieri's arrest and what happened or didn't happen to Hathaway. The first statement is: "Follieri was arrested in June 2008 on fraud charges for allegedly fleecing investors out of millions of dollars in a scheme in which Follieri posed as the Vatican's point man on real estate investing." That statement is sourced by two articles. The first (#59) says Follieri was arrested for "bilking investors" (fraud) out of $6M. It also says he posed as an agent of the Vatican and a "pointman" on real estate investing. Without even looking at the second source, the first source is clearly adequate.

The second statement is: "It was reported that the FBI confiscated Hathaway's private journals from Follieri's New York City apartment as part of their ongoing investigation into Follieri's activities; however, Hathaway was not charged with any crime." That statement has one source (#61), which says that Hathaway's private journals were seized by the FBI from Follieri's apartment. The continuation (you have to click on a link to read more) says that the FBI raided the apartment to "bolster their casse against" Follieri. It also says that Hathaway "has been charged with no crime."

The final statement in that paragraph says: "On October 23, 2008, after earlier pleading guilty, Follieri was sentenced to four and a half years in prison." That statement is backed up by two sources. The first (#62) notes the sentence. The second (#63) notes the earlier guilty plea.

So, what exactly is not supported by the sources connected to each statement? There were problems before, but as far as I can tell, the problems have been fixed. Indeed, the main dispute was between me and another editor, and the fact the other editor didn't respond to my latest comments or revert my changes probably means they are satisfied with the result.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Slight majority opposing move; certainly no consensus to move at this time Black Kite (t) (c) 14:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Anne Hathaway (actress) → Anne Hathaway — Clearly the primary topic, with it being the top #619 article on WP with 238 000 hits in 201008, versus Shakespeare's fairly unknown (as per the article itself) wife having 21 000 hits in 201008. Link-wise, the actress also has more than twice the incoming links than the Shakespeare related article. Nymf _hideliho! 19:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• oppose I would have thought the Wife of the Bard would be the primary topic than, not a flash in the pan actress, who I suspect will be of little or no interest in a century or four, perhaps thats why we have a disambiguation page Fasach Nua (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In 400 years, we can move the articles back, then. Powers ^T 21:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I dare say it will be less than 400 years and this move wreaks of Wikipedia:Recentism Fasach Nua (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That essay applies to article content not article naming. Article naming is guided by WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Powers ^T 22:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - clear primary topic here - for each person looking for Shakespeare's wife, eleven are looking for this article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Disambiguation pages are your friend. Corvus cornix_talk 22:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• • For only two articles, hatnotes are more than sufficient. Parsecboy (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Both individuals are very famous, so a disambiguation page is the correct option. The Celestial City (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - at Google Books, I get 600 hits for the actress and 28,000 for Shakespeare's wife. Even though more people are currently searching for the former, the latter has the edge in terms of academic attention being paid to her, even in contemporary works. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems likely most of those hits are for books about Shakespeare that mention Hathaway only in passing, don't you think? Powers ^T 14:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Go with the disambig page idea. --BwB (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose There may not be very much known about Shakespeare's wife, but a lot of people have still heard of her, if anything I would regard her as the primary meaning. If you do do this move, you will have to move "Anne Hathaway" to "Anne Hathaway (disambiguation)". PatGallacher (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • A: |Primary topics aren't decided by which was named first, but by which are more frequently being searched out. The actress's article is one of the most popular of our 3.5 million articles; the Bard's wife isn't. B: There's no need for a disambiguation page at all. With but two articles, hatnotes are more than sufficient (and faster than forcing people looking for Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare). Think of it this way: right now, 100% of all people typing in Anne Hathaway have to make a second click to find the article they're searching for. If we make the move, only 8% will still have to make a second click, whereas 92% will be exactly where they're trying to go. Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
    • At the risk of digressing slightly, in order to do that we would first have to delete Anne Hathaway (poem) as non-notable. PatGallacher (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM and WP:BIAS. — AjaxSmack 01:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

How exactly is this WP:RECENTISM? Do you know any other issue that is dealt with in a 400 year perspective? People were claiming "recentism" when it was first moved two years ago, but look at it now - the person/article is still relevant. Besides, as Powers already stated, that essay refers to content only. Article naming is governed by WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If anything, claiming is that it is "recentism" is biased, as you somehow demean Anne Hathaway (actress), implying that her fame is a fad. Do you have any real facts to back up your claims? Nymf _hideliho! 02:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per opposers. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. By all the suggested objective criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this Anne Hathaway is the one a large majority of readers are searching for or linking to. Why send them to a dab page where they do not wish to be? It doesn't help the minority looking for Shakespeare's wife, who have to click through whether through a dab page or through a hatnote. And this Anne Hathaway is even more sought now than she was two years ago when people brought up recentism at Talk:Anne Hathaway. How many more years must hers be the much more sought article before it's no longer "recentism"? Putting her article at Anne Hathaway does not suggest she's better or more important than Shakespeare's wife; it only recognizes the reality that most readers typing Anne Hathaway in the search box expect to land on this article. Station1 (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Good points, Station. I might reconsider my vote based on these points. --BwB (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The above argument presupposes that she is the much more sought after article. But is she? I sense a degree of US-centrism here, I have not heard of most of the films or TV progammes she appeared in, her career is still a relatively short one, one Oscar nomination does not make you a household name. Germaine Greer did write a book on Shakespeare's wife fairly recently. We might re-consider the situation in a few years, if the actress e.g. wins an Oscar. PatGallacher (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Is she? Take a look at the statistics, in the last month Anne Hathaway has been visited 16458 times, Anne Hathaway (actress) 202658 times, Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare) 30272 times and Anne Hathaway (poem) 819 times. Making for a total of 250207 page-views, this article making up 81% of the page-views. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • How about if she were to co-host the Oscar telecast, as has been announced today[1]? - Station1 (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - page view statistics tell a clear story, and no-one who's looking for Shakespeare's wife will be inconvenienced by going to her article from a hatnote rather than a dab page. One feels that academic snobbery is the only reason for any resistance (though perhaps we should be glad that Wikipedia still has some academic snobbery...)--Kotniski (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - let's wait until the year 2397 and see which one is still a household name. The actress? Never heard of her, came here thinking there was a big hullabaloo about a wench from Stratford.--Kudpung (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Never heard of her? Unlike the woman who isn't notable if not for being someones wife… _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Kotniski. We don't determine primary topic by guessing which topic will be the most recognizable in the future, what readers are looking for now is all that matters. If the situation changes by 2397, nothing's stopping us from moving the pages then. Jafeluv (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Station1, Kotniski and Jafeluv. What matters per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is likelihood of search, and page view counts are clear on this. Arguments based on WP:RECENTISM (including suggestions to wait until 2397, etc.) are moot as that essay applies to content, not titles, and should be weighted accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support per all of the above. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. This has already been voted on. Do we really have to have another vote whenever some bright spark comes up with a "new" idea? The only thing that's changed is the previous move.Pingku (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That was over two years ago. Consensus can change. Jafeluv (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I suggest opposition exclusively based on the position that consensus was to oppose two years ago needs to be given no weight in deciding what is consensus today, per WP:JDLI##Title_discussions: "Consensus is determined not by the percentage of the participants in support or opposed to a given position, but by the quality of the arguments posted, evaluated in terms of how well they are based in policy, guidelines and conventions.". --Born2cycle (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm... "Over two years ago" = almost exactly two years, for what that matters. I honestly didn't think it was think it was that long ago. Please excuse my knee-jerk reaction. In any case, the arguments don't seem to have changed. If anything, the actress-centric side has become more focused on the idea of structuring Wikipedia so that people (or at least most people) will find just what they are looking for and will not be distracted by 'irrelevant' facts. My contention was and remains that this sort of tunnel vision is not what an encyclopedia should be about. Education by serendipitous discovery should be encouraged. Anyway, that's my bit. Pingku (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Now, that's a much better reason to oppose the move. In fact, I suggest that wording, "Education by serendipitous discovery should be encouraged", succinctly captures exactly what countless others have tried to say in myriads of similar discussions. I don't think we should compromise other goals in order to achieve this one; I think it happens naturally and we shouldn't name things precisely in order to encourage this, especially when doing so contradicts other goals of Wikipedia, like helping readers get to their intended destination with fewer clicks. If we were serious about encouraging "education by serendipitous discovery", we could periodically and unexpectedly send readers somewhere via SPECIAL:RANDOM regardless of what they clicked on, LOL. Of course, that would not be a reasonable thing to do, and what you're essentially suggesting here is merely a more modest version of such a mechanism. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    • "…structuring Wikipedia so that people (or at least most people) will find just what they are looking for…" is exactly what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says should happen. I don't believe "serendipitous discovery" is what an encyclopedia is about, it's about finding what you're looking for. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 21:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Combining Simpsons episodes in one row

I object to combining two credits into one Simpsons row. Usage of 'rowspan' is specifically discouraged by Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography tables because it breaks sorting and is an accessibility issue. Please keep the tables free of issues like this. Nothing is gained by combining the entries. Elizium23 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup, ↑↑↑ See also: that-was-me. Jack Merridew 03:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was editing in response to a question by User:Bbb23 at WP:VPT#Table_Help. I was not aware of the rowspan issues, very interesting, thanks for the link. --Mepolypse (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted Mepolypse's well-intentioned change that inserted rowspan. I went to a lot of trouble to combine them in such a way that it's very readable. And to say that nothing is gained is not true. These aren't separate movies. They are separate episodes in one TV show, and combining them is logical and easier to follow for the reader - so there is some gain. Anyway, having removed rowspan, doesn't it now look reasonable combined?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

They are separate episodes, separate seasons, and separate characters, and sorting is still broken. Elizium23 (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that if this is to be a list of films, as opposed to a list of roles, then it should ideally list as many rows as there are films (a smaller number). If it is a list of roles it should ideally list as many rows as there are roles (a larger number). That just seems most intuitive. (edit conflict) Update: Oh, I see now that they're TV episodes, the question then is if these are separate "films" or not. --Mepolypse (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Elizium, it's true that sortability is broken on the Role column, but not in the usual way, only to the extent that it sorts on Jenny, not on Princess Penelope. Because rowspan is not involved, I don't see how it affects the accessibility issue. Finally, I still think, on balance, it's better for the reader than making the entries separate, but if a consensus of editors agree with you, I'll let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Combining disparate data into single cells is always inappropriate. Please, all, drop it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Such a categorical statement - and a command as well. Still, one for Elizium, and although hardly a consensus, I'll defer to a majority in a very small sample. I do intend to put the two rows next to each other rather than being separated as they are now by another film. Hopefully, no one will object to that.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You have a source for such a change? It seems to me that the base order of this table is chronological and thus we should be presenting them in that order. What order did these roles occur in? Jack Merridew 03:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Also; this table has {{sortname}} on some of the character names... but some are simply first names, and this is resulting in sorts that are a mix of first and last names. Given that there likely *is* no last name for many characters, it is inappropriate to use sortname of character names. Jack Merridew 03:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't the editor who added the additional episode of The Simpsons to the table. It was done by an IP here. All I did subsequent to that was to combine the two episodes into one row. I kept the IP's addition the same (or at least tried to), and it was the IP who used sortname (frankly, I am/was not even aware of what it does/did). You're welcome to fix that - or any other part of the table that uses the template improperly. As to the order, I have zero idea as to whether the second Simpsons episode was released after PoliWood. Nor do I have any idea whether the IP intentionally put it in that spot because the IP investigated such a piece of trivia. Nor have I ever looked at any of the filmographies strewn throughout Wikipedia to see if each film in the same year is listed in precisely the correct order by month and by day. Nor do I want to. Give me a break.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the second Simpsons episode, as it was released in 2010 not 2009, and ensured that at least the first four items in 2010 are now in chronological order by release date. This means the two Simpsons episodes are no longer next to each other. I hope this is acceptable for all. --Mepolypse (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. I'm glad you noticed it was 2010. Too bad I didn't (it would have saved all of us a lot of grief), but, as I said, I didn't add it in the first place, so I wasn't focusing on its accuracy.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I was focused on issues such as accuracy as well as appropriate table structure. The base order of such tables should be chronological to the best of our knowledge. 'Merging' of table cells is usually inappropriate as it will outright break the table's sortablility (rowspan) or prevent keying off the 'second' item (two-in-one-cell). Regards, Jack Merridew 06:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Typo in opening paragraph

it says "starredin" Becoming Jane. Nandor1 (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)