Talk:Emma Watson

Template:LOCEcomplete

page description

There seems to be some kind of war going on as to whether the disambiguation link should say "the actress Emma Watson" or "the Harry Potter actress". It seems to me that "actress" is perfectly unambiguous, since Equity rules prevent more than one actor from using the same name. It also seems somehow disrespectful to call her "the Harry Potter actress" given that she did not play the title role. Samatarou 00:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

GAC preparations

I just archived the talk page and rewrote the page from scratch to make it a good article candidate. Feel free to improve. —Onomatopoeia 15:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

GA review

I have currently put this article on hold for GAC. My comments:

• Emma Watson was born in Paris, France to Jacqueline Luesby and Chris Watson, two English lawyers.
  This should be cited.
• In 2000, casting began for the film Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone—titled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States, the film adaptation of the bestselling book Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by British fantasy author J. K. Rowling.
  This should be cited.
• She gives an on-screen hug to co-star Daniel Radcliffe and steals the limelight in a magical school dance wearing a sleeveless pink evening dress.
  This seems POV—who said she "steals the limelight"? And is the on-screen hug and the specific dress she wore in one scene really notable?
• In 2006, Watson also played Hermione in The Queen's Handbag, a special mini-episode of Harry Potter in celebration of Queen Elizabeth II's 80th birthday.
  This should be cited.
• Watson herself acknowledged that she will never have to work again for money, but she has declined quitting school and becoming a full-time actress because "learning keeps me motivated".
  The quote is in first person—it should be "learning keeps [her] motivated".
• Emma Watson is the eldest daugther of divorced English lawyers Jacqueline Luesby and Chris Watson.
  This should be cited.
• Watson is an avid sports player and as of 2005, her musical interests include singing, hip hop, blues, and classic rock, including Eminem, Eric Clapton, U2, Nelly Furtado, Joss Stone, Amy Winehouse, and Norah Jones.
  This should be cited; and updated if possible, since it's accurate as of two years past.

Cliff smith 04:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Did all the cleanup just now, hope it passes. —Onomatopoeia 12:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Since all of my comments have been addressed and I believe that this article meets the GA criteria, I promoted this article to GA status. Keep up the good work! Cliff smith 23:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Emma Watson's hair is naturally blonde and straight, she has said so in interviews, and Jo the webmistress of Emma's official site and friend of Emma also said her hair is naturally blonde and straight and it's on Emma's official site, and it's obvious that it is naturally blonde and straight, so it is a fact and since it is, I believe it should be posted on the page.--User:Ems Watson

Yoohoo! Thanks for the green plus and your constructive criticism above. —Onomatopoeia 07:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

After their divorce, her biological mother and father have between them born and sired five children, making her half-sister to five younger half-siblings. In this article from You magazine (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/you/article.html?in_article_id=466631&in_page_id=1908) Emma says about her siblings "There is Alex and then my mother's partner has two sons younger than me who regularly stay with us, and my father and his new wife have two-year-old identical twin girls and a three-year-old son." - kslchen 14:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice find, I'll incorporate that ASAP. —Onomatopoeia 07:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The article states that she has two half-brothers from her mothers second marriage. But she said that her mothers partner has two sons that regularly stay with them. Now, considering she lives with her mother, why would her half-brothers (her mothers children) not live with them all of the time? I think someone needs to change 'half-brothers' to 'step-brothers'. Iffybug 09:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

relations

I know that Emma "politley" refused to say anything on dating Tom Ducker but wasn't it obvious she was. And now I hear she is not. I'll site the source as soon as I find it again, but I don't have a name here, and don't really got time to register so I think someone should add in about her being single again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.44.86.44 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC).

Until there is a reliable source regarding Emma's relationship status, nothing can be added to the article. --Kevin Walter 06:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed it since Jo, the webmistress from Emma's official site, confirmed it was false on one of the Emma forums a while back. The Showster 20:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I know we can't use it in the actual article, but could you provide a link to where Jo refuted it? Tabercil 21:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

She confirmed it in a topic on the forums about this a couple of months ago when it came out, so the topic no longer exists sadly. However, she said something to the extent of:

"I have been informed that the so called "quote" in parade magazine is very false as Emma never talks about her private life"

If you can find a way to contact Jo, she will tell you the same thing.The Showster 22:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey what about Rupert Grint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Projectrunway102 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

-->Peer review --> FAC?

I can see no reason why this, generally excellent, article can't be sent along the road towards WP:FAC. I've requested a peer review from the Biography WikiProject, to make sure that it meets all their requirements. Does anyone have any comments before it goes to the full Wikipedia:peer review? Happy-melon 13:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's ready. Definitely send it to WP:PR, even perhaps straightaway to FAC. Onomat has done a wonderful job. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As the main editor of the article, I think it is not a bad idea at all, and I saw you already did the correct thing, namely putting it up on WP:BIOPR. Use it as a base for a real thorough spit-and-polish-action, and then FAC will be realistic. I'll stay tuned in any case. —Onomatopoeia 10:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Copied from my talk page Happy-melon 19:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's gone to peer review - the backlog is such that we'll be able to deal with any WP:BIO specific problems in good time. In fact, I'd be happy to hear anything from WP:BIOPR!! Happy-melon 17:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not send it to A-class review? It would be a good stepping stone to FA. -Duribald 06:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Because I honestly think the WikiProject Biography has gone on a summer vacation! I havent' heard anything from them on WP:BIOPR, let alone A-class review. WP:BIO is such a massive project, things just seem to get lost in their bureacracy. Happy-melon 10:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Extra images

A perusal of other featured actors and actresses reveals that the addition of extra images would be appropriate. Fair use images may be used in moderation to support the analysis of the subject's work in the appropriate film. For this article, I would say that the inclusion of one fair use image from one or other film would be appropriate to liven up the "Harry Potter years" section.

We have posters from all the films bar the first to choose from:

• Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - Image:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets movie.jpg
• Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - Image:Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban poster.jpg
• Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - Image:Harrypotterandthegobletoffireposter.jpg
• Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - Image:HP1.jpg

The only actual in-film clip that I think would be appropriate is from PoA, when Hermione hits Draco. As this is actively discussed in the text I think that an image of this would be highly appropriate. I can get a high-fidelity still from this scene if we need to. So, which image is it to be? Happy-melon 14:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'll agree with you on the film clip still from PoA, but I'd be concerned about it being a "high quality" one. That might cause the image to fall afoul of clause 3b of WP:FU: "Resolution/fidelity. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used (especially where the original is of such high resolution/fidelity that it could be used for piracy). This rule includes the copy in the Image: namespace." For that, figure out how big of a thumbnail the end picture will likely be on the page and make the still just that big. Tabercil 22:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No dissention, so I have added the still from PoA. When I said "fidelity", I meant that it didn't look like someone had taken a photo of a frozen DVD, which is the case for some of the HP images!! The size of the new image is 372x207, which is plenty small enough. Happy-melon 20:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Nice, but while it's from the scene where Hermione hits Draco, it doesn't show her hitting. Can you get an image that more clearly shows the punch? Tabercil 14:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I ran through the whole scene frame by frame, but that's the only decent frame I could get. She's just about to turn away towards Ron and Harry, then the camera cuts to a shot between their heads of her grimacing, and turning back and hitting Draco in the face. Essentially it's a stage punch which doesn't connect, but because the angle is directly away from the camera you can't really tell (unless you freeze-frame it). So it's not possible to get a frame which has both Watson's face and her hitting Draco. unfortunately. Happy-melon 19:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

German source

I have requested assistance from the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board to check the references from the german source in this article, which is here. In particular, we need to check the validity of the quotes that are drawn from the source, which are found in this paragraph:

In an interview with German broadsheet newspaper Die Welt (2007), Watson addressed how awkward she felt having to kiss Grint's character in the seventh film. Despite being a Hermione-Ron shipper herself, she said she "would rather not think about it now", adding that while Grint was "very nice" and "many girls like him", he was definitely not her type. Commenting on Radcliffe's widely publicised nude scenes in the theatre piece Equus, she not did categorically rule out nude scenes herself, but immediately added that "you will never see me naked without any reason".

Assistance with confirming the validity of the references would be greatly appreciated, as well as alternative translations for the final quote, as it jars rather with the rest of the paragraph. Is "you will never see me naked without any reason" the correct translation? Is "you won't see me naked..." an acceptable alternative? Happy-melon 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I just added German translations of the relevant passages, I hope it clears things up. The part is (1)Aber (2)Sie (3)werden (4)mich (5)nie (6)grundlos (7)nackt (8)sehen which translates literally to "(1)but (2)you (3)will (5)never (8)see (4)me (7)naked (6)without (6)reason". —Onomatopoeia 08:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say "without good reason" be the way it would have been expressed in English Agathoclea 18:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's a nice interview in English where she talks about 'disrobing' and her surprise at Radcliffe doing it onstage. The relevant lines are - "If I feel that nudity is essential to the story I'll do it," says Watson. "But I'm not going to get my kit off for something that I don't really believe in." - Was she surprised by Radcliffe's disrobing? "Yes of course! I just sort of went, 'You're mad, absolutely mad'. But when I went to see it I was blown away." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.71.137.18 (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the German and the English interviews are different. They're so similar that it seems one is a translation of the other. Can someone check this?

Who is she currently dating

Can someone checkup if emma watson is currently dating tom felton......?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.53.35 (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Last I heard she was dating some rugby or soccer player but she tends to play coy and not confirm rumors so i wouldn't put it in the article.

She was seen with Daniel Radcliffe in Valentine's day snogging each other.Miley Cyrus fan (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have heard NOTHING about the "snogging" part of the rumors, and there is no evidence and it is pure gossip part anyways. I am getting annoyed with these dating rumors being discussed. Until the day she publicly announces it, no mention of any rumors should be mentioned in the article. This site isn't a tabloid.--The Showster (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Cabin crew seats for takeoff?

Does anyone have any final things to do to this article before I hit WP:FAC with it? Speak now or forever hold your peace, etc etc.

I have two things that I'm doing/going to do:

• I have written to the copyright holders of the images in this article, as a boilerplate request for rights release under a creative commons license. If they say yes, one or more will be a fantastic addition to this article. If not, well, you won't get what you don't ask for.
• Ten minutes before I open the FAC nom, I'll go through the whole article with a red pen and be utterly ruthless in copyediting it. Happy-melon 18:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Just source the awards, and maybe add 1 sentence to the lead (2nd paragraph looks a bit short; possibly add straight-A stuff or how she identifies with Hermione Granger), and then get ready for liftoff. You really did anything you could, WP:BIOPR, copyediting ad nauseam etc etc. —Onomatopoeia 09:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

EMMA WATSON DATED TOM FELTON (FOR A MONTH) AFTER TOM DUCKER. SHE AND TOM FELTON JSS BROKE UP LIKE 2 WEEKS AGO OR SO, N NOW SHES DATING JAMES PHELPS THE BROTHER OF OLIVER (THE TWINS). AND THE CALL EACH OTHE: EMZY-POO & JAMEZY_POO (I NOE....YOU WANNA PUKE TOO). BUT THATS NOT ALL, SHE IS ALSO INSULTING TOM FELTON WITH ALL BAD WORDS U HAVE EVER HEARD (LOOKS LIKE SHE WUSNT THE "LADY" SHE APPEARED TO BE). SHAME FOR JAMES, HE IS LIKE 21....I TOHUGHT HE WOULD BE SMARTER AND DONT DATE HER, BECAUSE TRULY, EMMA WATSON SPEAKS (OR WRITES) LIKE A 10 YEAR OL...ARGUING WITH FRIENDS FROM COMMENTS AND MAKING QUIZZES LIKES: WUD U FUK ME? IF U HAD ME 45 30 MINUTES WHAT WUD U DO TO ME? CALL ME WITH A NICKNAME AND TELL ME WHY. AND LOOOTS OF STUPID CHILDISH STUFF LIKE THAT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.67.38 (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting

I'll finish copyediting later today, but I'm wondering what this part means: "Watson has a younger brother Alexander, who is three years her junior." Is this some British English I don't understand or just a mistake? – Basar (talk · contribs) 23:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm now guessing that it means "three years younger", is that right? – Basar (talk · contribs) 02:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is exactly what it means. Happy-melon 08:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I like most of your copyedits up to 08:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC). I have made a few changes to them - almost entirely for minor british english differences. I'm afraid I like spaced ndashes over unspaced mdashes, and as both are acceptable, we stick to the oldest style in the article - spaced ndashes are also something of a british caveat so it may be appropriate. Otherwise, excellent modifications! Happy-melon 08:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I like most of your copyedits up to 08:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC). I have made a few changes to them - almost entirely for minor british english differences. I'm afraid I like spaced ndashes over unspaced mdashes, and as both are acceptable, we stick to the oldest style in the article - spaced ndashes are also something of a british caveat so it may be appropriate. Otherwise, excellent modifications! Happy-melon 08:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the dashes; it is an acceptable "stylistic alternative", but most people just go with em dashes per WP:DASH, but I'll leave that up to you. I don't get why British English has an a/an difference and the complex sentence "As of 2007, Watson is the eldest of an extended family of seven children including, besides her full-brother Alex, two half-brothers by her mother who "regularly stay with [her]", and two-year-old identical twin girls and a three-year-old boy from her father's new marriage" seems to need to loose the comma after [her] if you want it with that sentence structure, but I think it is slightly confusing without adding additional punctuation to clarify how elements in the sentence are connected. – Basar (talk · contribs) 08:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, in formal british english, a noun or adjective beginning with a vowel always takes the indefinite article an, no matter what gets in the way. In this case, the modified noun "unique support structure" is taking the article, so we'd use "an". Ignore the fact that it's almost impossible to pronounce that phrase correctly with the "an" in place!!

I really like that sentence, actually. Perhaps it would make more sense if I replace the punctuation by explanations in angle brackets:

As of 2007<comma> Watson is the eldest of an extended family of seven children including<parenthesis> besides her full-brother Alex<close parenthesis> two half-brothers by her mother who "regularly stay with [her]"<serial comma> and two-year-old identical twin girls and a three-year-old boy from her father's new marriage.

The serial comma is in fact vital in this sentence as the last list clause (two year old twins and a three year old boy) is a conjoined clause (ie it contains an "and"). It's three different uses of a comma which, in fact, is a rather nice phrasing. Happy-melon 15:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that it makes any difference to me, but three years her junior is not a British English thing. But whatever, they both mean the same thing. :) faithless (^speak) 10:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, well I can't say it is only British thing, but I have never heard it in California before. My point with the a/an thing is that, at least in A.E., it depends on which sound the word after makes which is almost always the same as which letter comes next, but in this case, the word "unique" is making a consonant sound. The same exception applies in reverse to "hour". See [1]. My point with the complex sentence is that I don't think we can have a serial comma there because I only see two items in the list when three are needed: <including ... two half-brothers by her mother who "regularly stay with [her]"> and <two-year-old identical twin girls and a three-year-old boy from her father's new marriage>. And because of this, it is difficult to tell which parts are conjoined and which parent had twin girls. This is rather fun and unique, discussing grammar like this:) – Basar (talk · contribs) 17:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I definitely have heard it in California before. But no worries, both versions are good. I'm certainly not arguing that it ought to be changed back, just throwing in my two cents. :) faithless (^speak) 18:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I see it in the American Heritage Dictionary. You can't tell me you hear it commonly though, right? I'm going to say it to a few people and see if they get it. – Basar (talk · contribs) 20:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm not saying it's common or anything. I think it's a bit old-fashioned, like saying yesteryear, something along those lines. And I think it's used a lot more in writing than in actual speech, as it's sort of a "proper" figure of speech. faithless (^speak) 20:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In American English, and indeed in vernacular British English, the distinction according to spelling has almost disappeared (along with the letter U in AE!!). However formal BE is actually supposed to be pronounced that way, as well as spelt. The spoken version of this article should in principle be pronounced "AN YOU-neek SER-port". Words beginning with H are even more obscure, as they vary between those which begin with vowel sounds (ie the H is silent) and those which pronounce the H, making them consonants. Hence in some cases using 'an' before 'H' is "right" and some times "wrong"!

With regards to the serial comma, I think that the serial comma makes it easier to differentiate between which children belong to which parents. Removing all the extraneous clauses: "...Watson is the eldest of an extended family of seven children including... two half-brothers by her mother...<serial comma> and two-year-old identical twin girls and a three-year-old boy from her father's new marriage.". Without the serial comma, the allegience of the two year old girls is ambiguous: if the imaginary serial comma is placed where it currently is, they belong to the father, but if the imaginary comma is mentally placed before the three-year old boy, then the twins suddenly belong to the mother in a rather awkward clause which would do with swapping around. The comma is in fact vital to prevent ambiguity! And yes, I too love discussing grammar! I don't know how it is in America, but here in Britain the art of being able to construct a coherent multi-clausal sentence without the words "and", "also" or "but" is becoming increasingly rare. Happy-melon 18:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any websites that say you do it differently than us, but I'll take your word for it. On the serial comma, that is exactly my point that without the serial comma it is ambiguous, but I'm also saying that you can't use a serial comma because there are only two elements in the list and you need three or more to use the serial comma, hence why some alternative punctuation is needed. – Basar (talk · contribs) 20:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point. What do you propose as a rephrasal? Happy-melon 20:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Throwing in my two cents worth, I think if you change the order of the wording, you can avoid any ambiguity. asyndeton 09:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As of 2007<comma> Watson is the eldest of an extended family of seven children including<parenthesis> besides her full-brother Alex<close parenthesis> two-year-old identical twin girls and a three-year-old boy from her father's new marriage and two half-brothers by her mother who "regularly stay with [her]".

Very nice. – Basar (talk · contribs) 10:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I like that. Go with it! Happy-melon 12:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My nickle? All youse youts who've never heard somebody called "her junior" are too junior. 8] Joe Falcone 10:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Exam results?

this news report makes me want to double check her A level subjects and grades once I get to a computer that's not behind a firewall which blocks the flash on her site. Happy‑melon 11:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, T Rex | talk 04:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop press - FHM #98??

Ok, here comes a shocker. I hereby accuse the Daily Telegraph of factual inaccuracy (gulp!). The current reference given for the "FHM 98th Sexiest Woman in the world = Emma Watson" claim does not currently lead to an FHM page actually listing the results. this appears to be just such a page. And at number 98... Denise Richards!! This is, of course, impossible to factually reconcile with the reference given for Watson's reaction, a Daily Telegraph article which says fairly inequivocally: "Emma gives a good-natured groan when I mention the fact that she came 98th in the FHM 100 Sexiest Women list for 2007." However, the simple fact seems to be that 98th place in the FHM poll didn't go to Watson, whatever the Telegraph said. I would not be surprised to learn that the Telegraph journalist skimmed Watson's wikipedia page for juicy pre-interview tips, and saw that as a potential soundbite. Watson, not being an avid FHM reader, assumed it to be true and commented appropriately. The journalist, reassured by Watson's response, quoted it as fact. If I'm missing something here, please let me know. Incidentally, I have tracked the addition of this 'fact' to an edit by Cls14 dated May 21, 2007 (this one). The reference given did not include a URL and, intriguingly, appears to have been made before the publication of the relevant FHM edition. Can anyone shed any more light on this? If not, we're left with a very tricky situation: which do we trust, common sense and primary sources, or a pair of secondary sources including the article subject? Comments please - for the moment, as per WP:BLP, I have commented out the notes in the article. Happy‑melon 19:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. How confusing. After spending a few minutes searching, I found several reputable sources giving the full 2007 FHM list; none match up with the link you provided at FHM's own website and all listed Watson as #98. Here are two:

• MSN Entertainment UK
• Daily Mail

In addition, the MSN article says last year's winner was Keira Knightley, while that FHM page says it was Scarlett Johansson. All of the sites I could find with the complete list were based in the UK, which leads me to wonder if perhaps FHM distributes different lists to different regions (though not making this at all clear)? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This is, as you say, extremely confusing. However I suspect that you are correct, and that FHM tweaks the results either according to regional voting patterns, or to deliberately place familar faces at the top of the list in specific regions! How, I wonder, are we going to clarify this? Happy‑melon 20:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

These "lad mags" usually have different editions for the US and UK. Perhaps this explains it? faithless (^speak) 21:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, they have done the 2 separate magazines and 2 separate lists for years. Used to be that fhm.com was the UK site and fhmus.com was the US site. It looks like they have combined into one. Probably just need to mention she was #98 in the UK version of the list. BostonRed 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There's actually another 3 I know of (Australia, Germany and France) so there's a lot of chances for mismapping here. --linca^linca 02:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Vogueing?

OK, Emma was the juniorest (see above) ever. How old was she, exactly? 14 or 15? Mr. Chips 10:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

British?/English?

If you wanted to tell what country she's from, you would call her a "British" actress. Calling her an "English" actress only tells what constituent country she's from. --PJ Pete —Preceding comment was added at 06:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Is she a British actress, or English? Or is there really a difference? 'Cause I've always heard she's a British actress. Anakinjmt 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We need to use British here, as that is her legal nationality. Saying that she's English tells us her ethnicity, which is inappropriate for the opening of the article. faithless (^speak) 17:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the archives. This topic has been discussed. If you can provide a link to somewhere on wikipedia that says it's "inappropriate" to open an article that way, please link to it here, and then change the article. Amo 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I read the archives, and you were the only one to think English was to be used instead of British. Everyone else thought British. Anakinjmt 19:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(editconflict)I am well aware that this subject has been discussed before; that doesn't mean they got it right. The guideline is quite clear: nationality should be given in the opening of an article, not ethnicity. Watson is ethnically English, but there is no longer any such thing as English nationality (see British nationality law). Her nationality is British, and the article should reflect that. faithless (^speak) 19:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick question faithless, but why do it [[United Kingdom|British]]? Why not just [[British]]? Anakinjmt 19:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Faitheless didn't I did. Just out of ease.Amo 19:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the Spanish version describes her as "inglesa", whereas J.K. Rowling is described as "británica". Presumably this shuld be consistent as well. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I Need

Unblock this page , i need Copy Something For page in spanish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.249.22.67 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So make an account. That way the locks won't affect you. Anakinjmt 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Current rumours about dating

Is it worth including current rumours that she might be dating that guy of the HBO/BBC show "Rome?"Wizlop (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, if you can find a reliable source which discusses the matter. But honestly, even then probably not. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. We don't record every minute detail of a person's life. Furthermore, rumors very, very rarely are suitable for inclusion. Occasionally something which is only a rumor gets very well documented and becomes noteworthy in itself, for instance rumors of Catherine the Great engaging in bestiality. Completely unfounded, but notable nonetheless. But as you can see, that's a completely different case, and Emma Watson ain't no Catherine the Great. Short answer, no, never include rumors, even if sourced. If you ever find yourself questioning whether something belongs or not, it almost certainly doesn't especially in the case of biographies of living persons. faithless (^speak) 07:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no source to this rumor. Not only that, but apparently Wizlop had some run-ins with the mods according to his talk page, so to answer your question Wizlop, we do not post false information on here.--The Showster (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Old Dragon?

Why is Emma added to that category? That sounds ridiculous! Vicco Lizcano (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC) ^{(Hey! Listen!)}

Because she attended the Dragon School. Old Dragons are alumni of the school. What's so ridiculous about that? faithless (^speak) 22:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Grrr you beat me to it Faithless, but yes, check out the category header:

Former pupils of the Dragon School, Oxford, England are known as Old Dragons. The abbreviation OD is used to identify this. Ex pupils under the age of 18 are commonly referred to as JODs (Junior Old Dragons). A pupil currently at the school is known as a Dragon and the name of the school is often abbreviated to The Dragon.

Happy‑melon 22:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha Oops! I never checked the category header... my bad!Vicco Lizcano (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC) ^{(Hey! Listen!)}

Protection label needed

I notice that this article is locked down, as non-registered (and non-logged in) editors can't make changes. Shouldn't there be a banner on the page indicating that the article is currently under protection? 68.146.41.232 (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The protection is noted by the small silver padlock in the top-right corner of the page. If the page were fully protected, the padlock would be gold. It is semi-protected, meaning that only logged-in users can make changes. Happy‑melon 11:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

ballet shoes

I was looking at the critical reception for ballet shoes and i think the statement that it was poorly reviewed is an unsourced generalization —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.60.220 (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I read reviews from the Times, the Telegraph, the Guardian and a couple of others - all criticised the pace and flow, although the cast got credit for good acting. Happy‑melon 11:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I read the reviews and I dont think they are overwhelmingly negative- many of them were quite positive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.94.210 (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Further Comment

Sorry to be away for a time, I have been occupied with real lfe. Anyway, I agree on further reflection that I do not need to impose my own organizational scheme on the article, though I think some parts could possibly flow better, though I do not have an example right now. There is one more sentence I find objectionable: there is no need for Watson's opinion of her new co-stars in the latest movie, that does not really add anything. I will have to take another careful look tomorrow, but I think that may be the last sentence I have a serious objection to. I am close to being able to support. Indrian (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you will like the edit I did! I reincorporated a few things from your version. --Melty girl (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal life section

I wonder if it's worth referencing (with sources, of course) that Watson has repeatedly denied press rumors that she has anything more than a close friendship with Radcliffe and Grint? This is becoming a more frequent topic of discussion given the expected romantic content of the next two films. I know the current issue of "Movie Magic" contains an interview with her in which she addresses the issue directly (stating that Grint is "not her type"). If these rumors were just NetGossip, it wouldn't be notable, but since we've seen major broadcasters such as E! trying to get a rise out of Watson by seeking her opinion of Radcliffe in Equuis, etc., etc., it might be worth noting. And now that the actors are reaching (or have reached) the 18 mark, I'd expect this sort of coverage to increase, not decrease. 23skidoo (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because gossip and rumors are discussed in the news doesn't mean they should be covered in Wikipedia biographies -- particularly non-events like this where there's the typical gossipy speculation about co-stars and it's being denied. There is no event or fact to report on except that people like to imagine attractive co-stars getting together. Just because it is true that people are speculating and it's verifiable that Watson answers questions about this speculation doesn't make it appropriate content for this encyclopedia. Just because people discuss something in the news doesn't make it encyclopedic: please see WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP for why this type of content is inappropriate. This article is probably on its way to FA status right now -- adding back gossip and trivia would send it down to the road to WP:FARC. --Melty girl (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

disambig

The Telegraph needs disambig. Randomblue (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What link do you mean? This is vague. Maybe you could just fix whatever the problem is yourself...? --Melty girl (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Randomblue was referring to a link to The Telegraph, which is a disambig page. The paper intended is The Daily Telegraph. I unlinked it; it was already linked earlier in the article. Mike Christie (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Why is there only one picture in this article where Emma Watson isn't even recognizable? I seem to remember that there used to be sensible images in here a while ago? Where did they go??? --Krawunsel (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

They weren't free. -Duribald (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It turned out a large number of the photos which that user had posted to Wikipedia were copyright violations, so for safety's sakes, all of the photos they uploaded were deleted. Tabercil (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Ducker

I know an IP wrote something about that in all caps, but anyone aware of this. I could eventually add this up in the Watson article, while someone may think of adding an article on Mr. Ducker. I've first noticed indications of the relationship on an article related to the split of Radcliffe and Laura O'Toole. Apparently an article said that he is a rugby star.--JForget 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We're well aware of those rumours. There are also rumours about them splitting up. It's all to insecure info to be covered i na featured article, and the source you refer to is a wiki, by the looks of it, and cannot be used as a reference on Wikipedia. -Duribald (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the same article mentioning that Radcliffe and O'Toole have split also shows that Watson and Ducker have split - see the link in my first comment above.--JForget 17:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually see this instead.--JForget 17:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be little more than a gossip internet page. Furthermore the only claimed source is an anonymous alleged friend of ms Watson's. That doesn't exactly qualify as hard evidence. This is a featured article, so I don't think we should risk the status of the article by including gossip. Relationships should be referenced with published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy or they should be left out. - Duribald (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Help

Would it be legal to tell somebody her email address? If so, could somebody please tell me? I need to ask her some questions. - Elephant Lad (talk) 3:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think we have it? :) Tabercil (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Easy! I was just curious. If you feel offended or anything by my urgency, I apologize. And be polite, please. - Elephant Lad (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he was, hence the smiley after the comment. As he said, however, we are no more likely to know Ms Watson's personal e-mail than anyone else in the world, and I would not be surprised to hear that she does not, in fact, have a personal e-mail account. The best I can suggest is her official website, of which I can see only one e-mail address listed: info@emmawatsonofficial.com - I doubt that anything sent there gets any closer to her than her PR's clerk's assistant's tea-lady's in-tray, but it might still be worth a try. Happy‑melon 18:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I guess I overlooked the smiley. I'm really sorry for the disturbance.However, I wasn't speaking to anybody in particular. The question was directed to anybody who happened to know. - Elephant Lad (Talk) 5:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Rumors have been flying around in the past few days regarind Emma Watson and Johnny Borrell dating. Those rumors have been confirmed false, by Emma's webmistress Jo(on forums of a site previously owned by Jo), and by Emma herself on her official website. So anything regarding these rumors should not be included on the page, as they are false. The Showster (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2008)

Yeah, and now the rumors are that she and Dan are dating. It looks like they were spotted at a pub on Valentine's Day, but we should be cautious about people going "OMG LIKZ EMA N DAN ZEY ARE DATING ITZ REEL LIFE HARY/HERMINY!" Especially when, considering how many times they've said they think of each other as brother and sister, I put a lot of doubt into this idea that they're dating, even if TV Guide.com and Fox News and the Mirror post it. Besides, all the other sites are going off this Mirror post, and I think the Mirror is not seen as a very reliable source. Anakinjmt (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In terms of Wikipedia policy, the Mirror is as reliable as the Times. A claim referenced to the Mirror is suitably cited. In terms of common sense, of course, we should take everything the mirror says with a large tablespoon of salt. Happy‑melon 13:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers suchs as the Mirror hardly ever tell the exact truth. They aren't a very reliable reference. --Jammy (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi. I was just about to manually fix some vandalism that was on here earlier and in the midst of doing that someone seems to have reverted the article. I'm just wondering how that was done and whether anyone can do it or only certain people. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can edit this page. -Duribald (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

All users can undo, only certain users can revert or rollback, which undoes all the consecutive edits by the same user Grsz11 (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You can revert to a previous version of an article by opening that version, clicking the 'edit' tab at the top of the page and saving it without making any changes. You might also find a tool like WP:TWINKLE handy. faithless (^speak) 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dating rumours

I'd like to explain in more detail than an edit summary why, exactly, the Watson-Radcliffe-dating rumours do not belong in this article. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - we deal only in confirmed, verifiable facts. As such, we could, if we wanted to, put in a sentence saying that Ms Watson walked into a bar on February 14 with Daniel Radcliffe. That is verifiable. Any claim of romantic engagement, sourced or not; or even a note that there is no confirmed claim, falls foul of WP:OR, WP:BLP, maybe a bit of WP:CRYSTAL, etc. And without that claim, this piece of information is quite simply boring. Where did she go on February 13? What about February 15?? The only reason that her whereabouts on St Valentine's day is notable is if it has a confirmed, reliably-sourced romantic connection, which of course it doesn't. Hence, it's trivia, and so it gets the chop. Happy‑melon 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi Protection

Due to what looks like some WP:SPA activity I have semi protected until tommorow at 12:00. This is a short protection to save established editors having to revert dubious unsourced entries. If problems persit please use WP:RFPP. If regular editors of this page feel this is in error please use my talk. Pedro :  Chat  22:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Siblings

The Wikipedia article states she has two half-brothers from her mothers new marriage. In the article where it is first mentioned that Emma has siblings other than Alex, Emma actually says:

"There is Alex and then my mother's partner has two sons younger than me who regularly stay with us, and my father and his new wife have two-year-old identical twin girls and a three-year-old son." (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/you/article.html?in_article_id=466631&in_page_id=1908)

I've just noticed this, thought it was a bit off, and I request someone who can edit this article, to change 'half-brothers' to 'step-brothers'. Thanks.

220.101.129.116 (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to refer to her mother's and her mother's "partner" (a somewhat cumbersome phrase!) as per the article above.

You should feel free, btw, to make such edits yourself!

—Wikiscient— 08:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Is her mother actually married? Because that's what would qualify her partner's offspring as Emma's step-siblings. The use of 'partner' and 'step-brothers' is incorrect, but I don't know which part, as I have no information into her mother's relationships. 86.152.174.122 (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Emma has only used the term 'partner' (to my knowledge) to refer to her mother's, well, partner. In any case, the two 'step-brothers' (previously referred to in this article as 'half-brothers'- incorrect) should be considered as related to Emma, otherwise Emma would not be the 'eldest of seven siblings' at all. If new information arises that states her mother is indeed not married, then we'll have to fix the whole sibling bit- including the 'eldest of seven' fact. Perhaps Emma's mother's partner is her de facto partner, and Emma considers the partner's sons de facto siblings? Tricky business. 220.101.129.116 (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Production has been confirmed, it's not a rumor anymore. I got most of the information in, but can someone fix the citation please? I'm horrible at those. Drew (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tabercil for fixing the ref. =D Drew (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)