Talk:Russell Crowe

South Park

I think that we should acknowledged his apperence in south park, it seems soo reliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlxeMsatain (talk • contribs) 04:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Unreference information about marriage

I removed the unreferenced information about Russel Crowe's marriage. Does anyone have any sources which say that this is his current wife? Please note that I am about to add referenced information on his current marriage which contradicts what was up on the article. So please do hold on for a few minutes! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I take that back. Sources please! Otherwise please keep it out per BLP policy and OTRS ticket 2011111910043841. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

[1] Reliable, yes? SkyMachine (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup, absolutely fine by me. For OTRS agents please now see 2011112010040501 for more information. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Reference on Russell Crowe and Danielle Spencer still being married in 2011 dailytelegraph.com.au, Oct 23, 2011; see also Crowe´s Twitter page entry Dec 17, 2011 "russellcrowe Russell Crowe My beautiful wife @spencerdanielle performs at Carols in the Domain,it must be time to say Merry Christmas villagers,best wishes to you all 17 Dez " Ignazwrobel (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC) see also zimbio.com Russell Crowe is married to Danielle Spencer retrieved 06 January 2012Ignazwrobel (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Filmography

It appears there is a disagreement about whether to add his upcoming films. My view is, if a date is changed, CHANGE THE DATE. If a film is cancelled, REMOVE THE FILM. I asked Bidgee three times to discuss the matter here, but i guess he chose to ignore my edit summaries and pursue reverting. I appreciate WP:FUTURE, but i believe filmography isn't subjected to it. RAP (talk) 22:10 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If we apply WP:NFF to this, the ones where filming has begun is perfectly fine. Les Misérables should not be listed though, as it is still in pre-production, and casting is not even done yet. Nymf _hideliho! 22:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I suspect Bidgee would too, given his edit summaries. I told Rusted AutoParts on his talk page that I agreed Bidgee was correct when I warned him about breaching 3RR. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And i told Bidgee the very first time to take the matter to the talk page, which he chose to ignore. So i'm here scratching my head, wondering why he gets a pat on the back and I'M the one getting scolded. He breached the WP:3RR first. If Les Miserables is the problem REMOVE THAT. Man of Steel, Broken City and that episode of Republic of Doyle are filming or already finished filming. RAP (talk) 14:50 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As I told you on your talk page,[2] Bidgee did not breach 3RR. In any case, it doesn't matter who breached 3RR first, it shouldn't be breached at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, he did. see [3], at 8:33 on December 19 was his first, at 2:33 on December 20 was his second and at 3:41 the same day was his third, ALL within a 24-hour window. So, rather than pin me down as the culprit, stop thinking Bidgee is a victim. He shouldn't be allowed to strip info based solely on a guideline. RAP (talk) 17:38 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And in any case, you are making this whole thing to be a 3RR issue, whilst it is a content dispute. WP:FUTURE applies to future events that have not been confirmed to happen. As stated above, if Les Miserables is the issue, REMOVE it, do not blank out the two films that are filming and the tv show that is due to air in 2 weeks. RAP (talk) 17:43 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Also as I told you on your talk page, a 3RR breach requires 4 reverts in 24 hours, not 3. By the time you warned him, Bidgee had only made 2 reverts in the preceding 24 hours. "In any case, you are making this whole thing to be a 3RR issue" - I mentioned 3RR once. You're the one who keeps on about it, continuing to argue that another editor has breached 3RR, despite me going to the trouble of explaining on your talk page why he hadn't,[4] specifically so it wouldn't be necessary to raise it here. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's return to the problem at hand. Broken City and Man of Steel are filming right now. The episode of Republic of Doyle airs January 11. Les Miserables enters production in January (don't quote me on that). If WP:FUTURE is being forced here, how come it isn't for every other actor/actress? Why is it that, when i constructively add to his filmography, it's UNconstructively deleted? FUTURE has never been applied to an actor's filmography. And nor should it. I've waited a good 6 days for a response. It's going back in. If you don't want something on the article and don't argue WHY, then there's no argument. RAP (talk) 4:55 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite simply, an actor can't have been in a film that hasn't been filmed. It's WP:CRYSTAL to include a film that doesn't exist in an actor's filmography. You should NOT continue being disruptive by adding this film until such time as there is consensus to add it and, based on the responses to date and the number of times it's been deleted, that doesn't look like it's going to happen at this point. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So even though i requested in my edit summary you leave it alone until an outside voiuce is heard, you still choose to ignore it? And you wait until i re-add it to fuel interest in this particular problem. Simply you have ignorantly forgot that that part of future also states "if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Since both Broken City and Man of Steel are filming, i can say they are sure to happen. And the episode of Republic of Doyle airs in two weeks, so that can go in too. RAP (talk) 15:21 28 December 2011 (UTC

Including those looks fine to me. Nymf _hideliho! 17:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way and you know that. As the editor adding the content, the burden is on you to justify inclusion, not on others to justify removal. In any case, both Nymf and I are outside voices and we've both said that Les Misérables shouldn't be included. If you look at the thread, you'll see that I was the last to reply, on 22 December, before you chose to restore the content yesterday. I was waiting for you to reply. You can't simply wait a few days and sneak your edits back in, hoping that nobody will notice. At best that's being disruptive. There is no real issue here with films that are filming; Nymf has indicated that above. I've made no comment on them because my concern was with Les Misérables, which shouldn't be included. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:FUTURE is a policy, adding something that isn't yet a movie or aired program is purely crystal balling. If you don't like the policy, then go to the talk page and discuss to have it changed. Also if they are "filming", were is the reliable source? Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No one has applied WP:FUTURE to actor filmog's. It's because people tend to do it the way i mentioned in my first comment. And reliable sources? Read the articles, they have when they began filming on the two films. Rusted AutoParts 15:19 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? Just because it may not have applied by other contributors doesn't mean it is ok to add it. Sorry but it has to be cited in this article not in the TV program or the movie articles and it must be a reliable source stating that the movie has began filming and that Rowe is part of the movie. Bidgee (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)