Talk:Taylor Lautner

Minor corrections

"He owns a BMW 5 series, which have tinted windows for obscurity." Should say "has" tinted windows for obscurity

"The actor also stated that he enjoys the small-town feel in Valencia, which is a planned community of Santa Clarita, California, in Los Angeles County, where Mitchel Musso, and Ashley Tisdale also reside." (This is a run-on sentence and after "Mitchel Musso" there should not be a comma.

Lukemags (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Luke M.

{{editsemiprotected}}

Lautner at the VMAs

Video on AOL

Video summary - Lautner said he was at the VMAs when Taylor Swift got interupted by Kanye West. He then says "this is what I wanted to do." and does karate moves on a Kanye cutout.

Just thought I would throw this out there. Might would be a funny thing to add to the article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because it's amusing, doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. Also, he did not have a large enough role in VMA incident ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 03:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, however it may be worth noting that he presented one of the awards with Shakira, or that he also presented the New Moon official trailer there with his co-stars.--WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Taylor at Fabiano's Karate

{{editsemiprotected}}

Lautner is an accomplished martial artist, having studied karate from the age of six to thirteen. He began studying martial arts atFabiano's Karate School in Holland,_mi.

True, according to http://www.tv.com/taylor-lautner/person/303126/summary.html (further at Google). Will be added shortly ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 00:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Lautner was an accomplished martial artist. On his last appearance on The Tonight Show, he admitted that he hasn't practiced martial arts for several years. KarateFighter1 (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2010

Filmography

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please add in the 2010 section of Taylor Daniel Lautner's filmography the following as these films have been certified according to Summit Entertainment. In 2010 Lautner will also be in the film adaption of animated childrens stories 'Max Steel' where he will play the leading role, and also a film called 'Cancun' which will begin shooting in june 2010, he also plays the lead role in this. Breaking dawn is set to come out soon and taylo lautner is set to be in it and if a new one is madde after he will surley bew in it http://www.clevvertv.com/taylor-lautner/9142/taylor-lautners-new-movie-cancun.html <Cancun http://www.clevvertv.com/twilight-saga/8628/taylor-lautners-new-action-role-max-steel.html <Max Steel (eveidence and sources)

Do you have a source? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 13:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources, but I will add Max Steel as the his entry at IMDb seems to agree. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source, as you can see, we have this information at the bottom of the "Career" section with this source. We have not included it in the filmography as the year is not verified at the link above. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 02:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it isn't reliable (sometimes I just use it for a quick check). The Max Steel article is confirming this, but it is using a blog for a source. I guess we should wait until an RS. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There's also Variety ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 02:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's good. We could add it with a TBA in the year. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

this isnt in the tagged Max Steel article, at least as far as i can see. it says "max steel" is voiced by Christian Campbell. which is right?? *dream on*dance on* 19:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor Lane (talk • contribs)

No, that is the article for the television series for which the movie is based on. An article doesn't exist for the film yet nor should one be created. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 01:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Director Robert Rodriguez's name is improperly listed as Adam Rodriguez (an actor) when talking about Shark Boy and Lava Girl. - Shawn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slealos (talk • contribs) 00:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

razzie nominated

can you put that on his resume... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.227.146 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a source for it.--大輔 泉 (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

lautner will star in a new movie abduction filmed at hampton highschool in allison park Pennsylvania call Abduction —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.197.124 (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

i do have a source....

in the 2010 nominATIons list of the razzies he is nominated for worst supporting actor along with his co star robert pattison —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.227.146 (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

.

Josemrdj (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A "Personal life" section doesn't exist because no one has created one yet. However, if one is created, it must contain NO rumors or speculation. All content in the section must be true and easily verifiable (see WP:SOURCES), as the rest of the article is. Content in biographies of living persons are handled stricter than other articles. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~

he was going out with swift tho wasn't he?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Taylor presenting awards

Taylor Lautner presented an award for best pop video/music video (which one?) with Shakira, which was won by Taylor Swift. Id like to add the fact that he presented an award at the MTV VMAs 2009 in his career section. But was it best music video?--WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I would usually, but recently ive had this history of adding and being told its been deleted because i didn't discuss it first. Not taking my chances anymore. --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Lautner"

Should we add a pronunciation key next to Lautner's name in the intro? Taylor and John Bon Jovi (in Taylor's presence) pronounce it laʊtnɜr in this SNL promo. I think it's important to note because everyone says it as lɔːtnɜr ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 19:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Great idea! Go right ahead! :-) -Duribald (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to add it. If someone doesn't like it they can always come here. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 21:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

His ethnic background

What is his background? If Taylor he travels to Brazil, no one would believe he is American. People would swear he is a native from the South American country. He also looks a bit South East Asian, and there are many people from the old Dutch Colonies in South East Asia who say they are Dutch. Perhaps, this is the Dutch ancestry in his biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.93.16 (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Commenting on ethnic backgrounds is risky...get it wrong and its more than a mistake. It doesnt matter what he looks like, unless you can provide some fool-proof absolutely certain sources, we cant add anything. Racist would be the wrong word but something along those lines. --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Would a paragraph about the controversy ove his supposed Native American heritage be out of place? There is huge interest - I got 119 MILLION hits in Google for "Taylor Lautner Native American Heritage". A number of NA's think it was awfully convenient that he discovered he was part NA, during the outcry to cast a real NA in the Jacob Black part . Tedpack (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if there is controversey, it is just speculation and cant be used in the article because its incredibly offensive to comment on a rumoured lie if its not a lie. Also, everything used in the article needs to be certified and although 119 million hits is impressive, each one is just saying what they suspect. No one KNOWS, since he hasnt said it himself. Like i said, saying someone comes from or doesnt come from something is just too risky without proof. --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not about offensiveness, it just the simple fact of adding something that isn't true or isn't backed up with proper sources. If you can find some reliable sources that verify he has native American heritage, feel free to add it. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 20:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The article already states that Lautner claims American Indian heritage. Tedpack wants to add a line implying it's a lie. --SchutteGod (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It cannot be proved as a lie, if it were a lie it would not be in the article, therefore i think it is fine as it is. --Stripy Socks (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So I know that you can easily just ignore this argument because anyone could say this on the internet, but I do know some of his relatives and they have always said he is 100% white. 207.118.252.183 (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Anon 207, you're right, we can easily (and should) ignore your argument. In the anonymity of the internet, everyone knows a celebrity or someone who knows a celebrity. Cresix (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It was not unusual for the French to marry Native Americans. Ottawa and Potawatomi live in areas where there were many French, so his claim seems highly credible. Although I do not know if this is the explanation.Ideportal (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I clearly see African soul brother in him or at the very least Asian. This guys screams black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.104.4 (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Much of his paternal grandfather's ancestry is documented here and here (whose parents were LaVern Lautner and Maxine Draper). Some of the other branches are harder to trace. There's an obituary of the mother of Lautner's paternal grandmother here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

nomination missing

his worst actor nomination is missing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.160.54 (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No it isnt, its in the filmography table with the New Moon entry. --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

youre wrong

nope only one nomination is there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.227.40 (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It may have been removed or never added because the source for the razzie nomination that is there doesnt mention a second nomination. --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Teenager

True. I was thinking of child actor. Cheers –Scarce ✉ 17:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Taylor lautner in the future

Taylor will be playing in an upcoming movie that will be out in 2012. He will be playing as Stretch Armstrong a Famouse Action figure in the 80's ,but he will also be filming in Breaking dawn the last book of the Twilight saga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.139.234 (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That will be added closer to filmography closer to the time, seeming as its only 2010...--WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Starter

{{editsemiprotected}} In the starter paragraph, it says 'His roles include the family films The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D, Cheaper by the Dozen 2, and his most esteemed role of Jacob Black in the Twilight film series.' could someone change this to 'His roles include the family films The adventures of sharkboy and lavagirl in 3-D, cheaper by the dozen 2. He also plays the role of Jacob Black in the Twilight Saga film series.' please, as it is too POV currently, and Twilight is not a family film series, or basically undo the last edit to this paragraph.--Stripy Socks (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 Partly done:changed to:"His roles include the family films The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D, Cheaper by the Dozen 2, and as Jacob Black in the Twilight film series." Spitfire19 (Talk) 20:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What bout the rest of it...twilight isnt a family saga, and right now its being abbreviated as one.--Stripy Socks (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Iza pulgitas, 9 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Iza pulgitas (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —fetch·comms 03:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Character's name in Valentines Day film.

The character 'Tyler Harrinton' is actually Willy Harrington. A simple web search to a majority of sites confirms this. The citation source #15 has no mention of the characters name, only commenting on the "hottness" of Lautner as a track star. senior noodles 05:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaniebrunette (talk • contribs)

Edit request from 78.146.203.121, 12 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

78.146.203.121 (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I"m sorry, what did you want to change? {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 10:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking?

Minor query: Usually "an American actor" will link to the United States article. Is it considered overlinking now to do so? --70.181.171.159 (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I see it linked, but I can't say that it is linked most of the time. Some people might object that "American" can refer to anyone living in North or South America. But I don't know if that is a reason it might not be linked, because articles almost always describe a person from the United States as an "American". In fact, some of my Canadian friends always refer to people of the United States as Americans. If you add the link, use a pipe link like this: [[United States|American]]. Just linking "American" goes to a disambiguation page. Cresix (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Taylor Lautner height

I would like something to be changed on the Taylor Lautner page. On the page it says that he is 5 ft 10 in. However,I have been told that this was what his height was before and that currently he is either 5.11 or 5.11.5 On further exploration, i have been able to satisfy myself that I am correct. Gauri Sindhu (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

On a quick note, he is not 5 ft 10 or 11. He happens to be shorter than 5 ft 9 Taylor Swift in flats. So no. He's at best 5 ft 8.5-5 ft 9.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Taylor's early beginnings.

Wasn't Taylor on a episode of Scooby Doo and Duck Dodgers?

Just wondering why this isn't listed on his "films made"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inahurry2learn (talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Taylor Lautner's cars

he happens to own a BMW 5series,a Porsche 911 turbo and an Audi R8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauri Sindhu (talk • contribs) 12:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight in image section

Major WP:UNDUE concern here. There are a whopping four paragraphs dedicated to his "sex symbol" status (on a sidenote, how many reliable sources refer to him as one?), when his physique has only been notable since around the time of the New Moon movie (according to the article), which would be around 2009, no? This needs to be addressed ASAP especially since this is a good article nominee; it's highly inappropriate to dedicate a whole section (that's essentially all the Image section is) to an aspect of Lautner's career that has only been relevant in the media for one year(?) - it could probably even border on WP:RECENTISM as well.

Furthermore, while I'm here, I would like to discuss the use of File:Taylorlautnerrollingstone.jpg. The purpose of use reads, "To illustrate portions of the article's text, specifically as they relate to Lautner's appearance on the cover, and the controversy surrounding it, and Lautner's sex symbol image." Only one comment on the cover is given so there doesn't seem to be a controversy. All that is said about the cover itself is "In December 2009, Lautner appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone in a wet t-shirt." Easily described in the text, thus no need for the picture. On top of the fact that the article fails to explain the cover's relevance and significance to Lautner and his career that the purpose of use on the file page implies. As much as I'm sure many of the Twilight fans reading this article would enjoy seeing a picture him in a wet t-shirt here, that's not reason enough for its inclusion. We're only supposed to use non-free content when absolutely necessary. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

After 2009, its been almost a year and a half (or more) since this all went down so I doubt this will fall under WP:RECENTISM. Secondly, the whole "whopping four paragraphs" is not all just about his ab transformation. Just to name one reliable source for sex symbol People Magazine, just to name one All of this did not happen just after New Moon in 2009, as he appeared on two lists by Glamour and People for 2010. I believe the section benefits of the image, but if any one else insists on its removal, I won't object, although not only does it cover the sex symbol status, but it also the controversy surrounding the segment, and Lautner's age at the time of the interview. Candyo32 03:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The majority of the section is about his physical figure. RECENTISM would apply as this is just recently starting to gain notability - you have to think about the career as a whole, not just about right now. And of course UNDUE as it applies almost as much weight to his career and his figure... surely the career is much more notable? And as for the image, the article does not speak of any "controversy". There is one opinion given on the cover. A true "controversy" would require multiple, differing opinions. Therefore the "purpose of use" is still invalid as there is no controversy to highlight. And we certainly don't need the cover just for identification; as I said, it's easy to describe someone wearing a wet t-shirt. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I said if someone else also insists on the removal of the cover I'll concede although I think it passes NFCC, but recenticsm should not be a reason to call the section undue or if it is only containing his physical figure (which it does not it also gives other personal information). Saying that this is undue per WP:RECENT is like saying the cultural impact of "Whip_My_Hair#Cultural_impact" concerning its mashup and effect on black girls should be removed just because the song came out recently. As a matter of fact, in a similar situation on the WMH article where an editor said that positive reception was redundant and should be because there was no negative reception. Here, just because all the image attention been given has been toward his physical appearance (although that is not the only thing as it talks about other personal information and reception and miscellaneous), it is no need to remove due to that basis. Candyo32 22:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I Agree with Candy on this one. First off, maybe your not 16-23 but we are and let me tell you, he is everything that the article states. He is on the cover of muscles, image and various other magazines and is very well known for his body and martial arts. I don't see an issue also with using the Rolling Stone picture either, I mean it gives us an example of what kind of cover and impact he has had. This should in no way hinder the GA nomination.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The statement about recentism is rubbish. The article gives decent detail about his childhood and early career. There may be more written about the Twilight movies but that is because they are his only major acting roles. In terms of the magazine cover, I'm not really opinionated either way. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about the major focus on Twilight, that is to be expected as those films are his most notable works. This discussion is about the focus on his physical figure, which I believe is discussed in too much detail in respect to all aspects of Lautner - his life, career, and overall image. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't dispute that a portion of his notability comes from his physical figure. However, having a whole section on it is a little much. I stand by my RECENTISM comments because this article is supposed to be an overall summary of his 18 years and we have a fairly lengthy section which deals almost entirely with an aspect of his career that has only been relevant for one year. And whatever impact the Rolling Stone cover had is not discussed in the article, thus the "purpose of use" is still invalid. This probably will be mentioned in the GA review and would undoubtedly be mentioned if this were a FA candidate. I'm not saying to rid of the image section entirely, but rather to incorporate more information about other aspects of his image and cut back on the excessive (and somewhat repetitive) content about his abs, his sex symbol status, etc. Perhaps an undue-section tag was more appropriate and I will change that accordingly. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(→ Trolling through) Having read all the discussions and scrutinizing the section in question, I find the RECENTISM claims as vestigeal. Lautner's claim to fame post-Twilight the film has been his rapid change in his physique and his Jacob black persona. That has been in the last 1.5 years, its not Recentism if supported by valid sources. I don't question the authority of the reliable sources commenting on them, what I feel is that a restructure of the section, minor pruning, removing snake-like sentences and an accordance to the authors is needed. For example, sentences like "Lautner is considered a sex symbol" etc, needs to address who is calling him a sex symbol. If a number of publications are calling it, then list them, referencing following. Another instance "The use of Lautner's physique in films has been compared to Megan Fox in her work." Who is comparing, why? There is an unfinished connotation added. I do agree with one thing, that the RS cover is redundant and fails NFCC badly. Similar to it is the additions and the listy details of which magazines he covered. Celebrities appear on the cover of a lot of magazines, unless there is some hoopla around it, I find no reason to include such sentences. Another issue I think needs to be addressed is the fancrufty additions going on in the section. Instance like "According to Lautner, he is also drug and alcohol free." What is the importance of this line in context with an encyclopedia? Its du'hh that celebrities will always claim they are alscohol and drug free at an early stage. I'm willing to work on the section, if its fine by the concerned editors. Thats just my two cents ( or rather 10 cents, lol). — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed some fancrufty content, the image, and added sources for some critics on who said what. Any more suggestions you would suggest? Candyo32 23:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Much much better. There are still some small issues I see, would you mind if I take a look? And don't paste talkback in my page, I have the article watchlisted. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, great! & Sure. Candyo32 12:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

In the section awards and nominations, it's written that he was nominated at the 2010 teen choice award in those categories: "Male Hottie", "Red Carpet Fashion Icon - Male", "Choice Smile", "Choice Movie Actor: Fantasy", "Choice Movie: Liplock" and "Choice Movie: Chemistry" but he was also nominated in the category "Summer Movie Star - Male". Also, he won in four categories : "Male Hottie", "Red Carpet Fashion Icon - Male", "Choice Smile" and "Choice Movie Actor: Fantasy". here's a source : http://www.teenchoiceawards.com/pdf/TC10-Winners.pdf --Lilaslilas2 (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Image

Why don't you change the first picture to "Taylor Lautner Paris.jpg"? This one is newer - it is taken in Paris, France, in November 2009 on promotion of The Twilight Saga: New Moon and the other one is taken in July 2009 on San Diego Comic-Con. Pages of Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart has a picture from promotion of The Twilight Saga: New Moon.--Renesemee (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but the Paris image makes Lautner look like Eddie Munster cross-bred with a chipmunk. Personally, the one we have up now looks fine. Natural smile, more candid shot, brightly lit, as opposed to the other image's lighting, which makes it seem as though Lautner just emerged from his vampiric crypt. Also keep in mind that the Paris image is an awkward and not very flattering crop of an image of the full cast, whereas the San Diego image is an actual head-and-shoulders portrait of Lautner himself. --SchutteGod (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, it is neither here nor there if an image is "newer"; both images are over a year old and relatively speaking, neither is really more up-to-date than the other. If I could produce a blurred, badly angled, embarrassingly amateur image and can demonstrate it was taken just yesterday, would it be given more weight than the professional images from 2009? I doubt it. --SchutteGod (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to write the same thing about the Comic-Con image. The lighting in the Comic-Con image is extremely inferior to the Paris image, as there is hardly any shadow in the Paris image. The Comic-Con image is also an edit of File:Taylor Lautner.jpg, which features a very odd perspective that was "corrected" in the edit. Also, the angle is uncommon whereas in the Paris image, he is staring towards the direction of the camera. "More candid shot"? Isn't a less candid shot more ideal? Also, I think a full photo from waist up is better and less awkward than shoulder up. As for his appearance in the image, that's merely subjective, as one (such as myself) could argue that he looks better in the Paris image. ►Scarce◄ 10:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the Comic-Con is photographically inferior. I see no poor lighting or uncommon angle; good photography doesn't always require the subject to look directly into the camera. As for "waist up" vs. "shoulder up": No, facial shots are preferred (and the norm when available) for infoboxes. Waist-up shots should go elsewhere in the article. Cresix (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Cresix, obviously. The fact remains that the infobox already had a perfectly good, professional-looking image, and there was/is no need to replace it with a slightly newer professional-looking image from a slightly different angle. --SchutteGod (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Awards That He's Won

{{edit semi-protected}}

I watched the teen choice 2010 awards and he won all these "Male Hottie" "Red Carpet Fashion Icon - Male" "Choice Smile" "Choice Movie Actor: Fantasy" so can u change where it says nominated to won thanks

Also, I watched the teen choice 2009 awards and he won "Choice Fresh Face - Male" so can u change that from nominated to won as well thanks again :P

Here's the source: http://www.teenchoiceawards.com/vote-movies.php

70.71.121.39 (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83 chat 16:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mike Chat

{{edit semi-protected}} In the interest of clarity, "Mike Chat" should be changed to Michael Chaturantabut and properly linked (and all references to "Chat" to "Chaturantabut"). I would have changed it myself, but unfortunately the article is semi-protected. 134.169.106.141 (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Requesting. Right now it says "he met Mike Chat, the founder of extreme martial arts." --68.161.165.100 (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Stickee (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Taylor Lautner/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: demize (t · c) 22:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Initial impressions

Well formatted, well source in most cases, although the list of TV shows and films he has appeared in is sourced solely to Yahoo! Movies. As well, the article seems stable, but upon investigation of the Protection log it appears this is because it is indefinitely semi-protected. demize (t · c) 23:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Some minor issues with phrasing and the focus on Taylor Swift and issues with the referencing, but it should be easy to fix and the article should pass afterwards.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Some statements (such as "the film ... had the second biggest opening for a romantic comedy film.") are ambiguous: second biggest opening where? As well, there is possibly a little too much focus on his relationship with Taylor Swift throughout the article and in the personal life section. These two issues, however, are rather minor.

I fixed that statement, and most of the focus in the PL section on Swift is due to Lautner being the subject of her song, "Back to December" and the coverage behind that. If you still think some needs to be removed, do you have any specifics? Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 15:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I see the purpose behind it, and I don't see much of a problem with it, so it's fine. demize (t · c) 17:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Some statements (such as those about how much films made) are unsoured, although this is not a major issue. Other statements are sourced, but the source does not confirm the statement. Two that I noticed are "By the age of eleven, Lautner was ranked number one in his category by the American Sports Karate Association." and those supported by reference 36, other than where they are talking about nominations. Furthermore, the entirety of the Filmography section is sourced only to Yahoo! Movies - if possible, more references for this section should be found.

Ooops, I used the wrong source of the number one ranking. Could you explain what you mean by ref 36. And I'll search for another filmography link. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 15:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference 36 talks about nominations for awards rather than winning awards, but some statements about awards being won are sourced to ref 36. Also, ref 36 has now become ref 37, so here's a convenience link: [1]. It appears that there's only one point sourced to it in the table though, so another source should not be hard to find. demize (t · c) 17:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 22:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Under indefinite semi-protection due to BLP violations, but this makes it more stable.

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:   

   On hold pending fixes to issues mentioned above.

   Issues mentioned above fixed. I removed the statement about Lautner being the number one in his category, as I could not find any reliable sources for it. As such, the article passes. Good job. demize (t · c) 23:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

taylor lautner

he started at about 11 years old, and 8 years later is still here, and acting.he has many loving fans, but this is just my opinion, i think he is very hot (he he!) from "my wife and kids, to the hit series, "twighlight", he is an amazing actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicfailzofjello (talk • contribs) 02:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What about his fans?

Hey, i was wondering. What about Taylor's fans? I mean you have no addresses, websites or anything where you can 'contact him' as such. Obviosly i'm not exspecting his direct home address, but you have nowhere, where fans can send fan mail, or you don't have any external links sending them to a twitter or facebook page where you can 'follow' Taylor. Is this because Taylor does not want the fan mail, or is it he just literally doesn't have anywhere for it to be sent? Surely there is a studio or some place where he or his agent works where the letters may be sent. Anyhow i was just curiose of this as I myself am a big Taylor Lautner fan, i think his work is amazing and his emotions and body language when acting is exsquisite, yet as much as i serched in the past two days i have not found one place where i could send a letter or a email/ message to congratulate him. Yet i have managed to find what high school he went to and what hotels he has stayed in.

I have searched many different sources yet still not found anything of this sort. I was wondering if you could help me and possibly many other Taylor Fans.

Anyway thank you for your time and i hope this is answered soon. 82.34.192.8 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not a fan site. Andrea (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Encyclopedic content only! Nadanon (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Spelling and Grammar

Current: ...Twilight Saga: Eclipse (2010), and is set to appear in the last two films for the series, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn.

Should be: ...Twilight Saga: Eclipse (2010), and is set to appear in the last two films of the series, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 and The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2

Current: The late 2000s saw Lautner become a teen idol and rise as a sex symbol...

Could be: In the late 2000s Lautner rose to the status of teen idol and sex symbol...

50.43.33.114 (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Current: Spelling and Grammer

Should be: Spelling and Grammar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.152.8 (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

        Taylor Lautner won Teen Choice Award 2011 Movie Actor Sci-Fi/Fantasy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.166.48.199 (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC) 

Correction: Taylor Lautner is not dead

The wiki article on Taylor Lautner says he died on October 7, 2011. Seems like a terrible goof up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.116.45 (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Bold text

      You forgot update the awards, Taylor Lautner won Teen Choice Awards 2011 best Sci-Fi/ Fantasy Movie Actor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.166.48.199 (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC) 

Changing Picture!!!!

That is possibly the most unattractive picture I have ever seen of Taylor Lautner. Can we change it so that he isn't squinting in the sun, and so that the sun is not shining down on only one part of his face? Seriously, with all the beautiful pictures he's taken, we picked that one????!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKP12 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Is Taylor Lautner more famous for his karate kid skills or his acting career? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.92.38 (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

New films

taylor is in two more films which are coming out. they are called 'My Own Worst Enemy' and the other is 'Incarceron' thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.199.237 (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Real quotes from Taylor Lautner from Interview Ebook

For all fans and journalists who are interested in quotes from interviews conducted from 2008 to 2011 I want to refer to this e-book:

http://www.amazon.com/Pattinson-Kristen-Stewart-Lautner-ebook/dp/B0068QD1M4/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321881276&sr=8-1-fkmr0

Edit request on 9 January 2012

You need to add that he dated lily Collins while working on abduction. Then 6 weeks later they broke up...

TDL'Sbiggestfanever (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done - Please provide reliable sources to corroborate your claim. Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 09:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The award list is icomplete

Taylor Lautner won Teen Choice Award 2011 Movie Actor Sci-Fi/Fantasy you can cheking it looking "Winners List Teen Choice Awards 2011" in any search web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.220.186.111 (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Abduction a sleeper hit?

the wiki page for abduction only mentions it being a moderate box office success. Nowhere is sleeper hit mentioned and the movies' ratings are quite bad for it to be considered to be one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.64.96 (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No where has it ever been a sleeper hit. It was probably added by a twilight fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.253.69 (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2012

2012- Kids Choice Awards- Favorite But kicker~ Abduction & Breaking Dawn Part1~ Himself(Won) 142.68.207.174 (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 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.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Abduction was NOT a "sleeper hit" by any stretch of the imagination

 Done

I wanted to put a "citation needed" after that description of the movie in the second paragraph of the summary, but the article is locked. It just sounds like something his agent would have written.

According to the film's Wikipedia article: "After an unexpected weak opening, the film became a moderate box office success. Abduction only grossed $28 million domestically but did slightly better around the world with over $54 million to a total of $82 million worldwide." And here's the Wikipedia definition of sleeper hit: "a film...that gains a sudden and unexpected success or recognition."

Doing "slightly better" does not a sleeper hit make. Someone should remove that little bit of self-promotion for a completely forgettable movie that only earned its star a Golden Raspberry Award nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.222.142 (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there is no need for a tag. You are correct that there appears to be no basis for it to be called a sleeper hit. I have changed the wording. (marked done) Taroaldo (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 July 2012

Taylor Lautner won at the Teen Choice Awards 2012 in the category for Choice Movie Actor: Action for his role in “Abduction.” Here is the source if needed [2] Sodapops123 (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)User:Sodapops123 (User talk:talk) 14:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image

• 
  Medium
• 
  Cropped

Hi, I would like to say that if change, Infobox image, cropped the best manner. This is the opinion. I will change Infobox image and see better. Greetings to all. --M.Sunshine (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Awards and Nominations is incomplete!

 PLEASE, the List of Awards and Nomination should  be updated in 2011 and 2012 , missing some details below:

TAYLOR LAUTNER WON Teen Choice Awards 2011 Actor Sci-fi/Fantasy, source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Teen_Choice_Awards TAYLOR LAUTNER WAS NOMINATED Teen Choice Awards 2011 with Kristen Stewart for best LIPLOK for The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Teen_Choice_Awards TAYLOR LAUTNER WAS DOMINATED People's Choice Awards 2012 Favorite Actor Movie Star for Abduction, source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/38th_People's_Choice_Awards TAYLOR LAUTNER WAS DOMINATED Teen Choice Awards 2012 Actor Sci-fi/Fantasy for The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1, source http://teenchoiceawards.com/movies.aspx TAYLOR LAUTNER WON Teen Choice Awards 2012 Action Movie for Abduction source http://teenchoiceawards.com/movies.aspx TAYLOR LAUTNER WON Teen Choice Awards 2012 Actor Action for Abduction source http://teenchoiceawards.com/movies.aspx

Edit request on 8 December 2012

He is currently in a relationship with Justice Rooks. Allnavy (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

 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. Vacation^nine 06:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Taylor Lautner has wax statues in New York & in Germany Madam Tussauds Bloom Cheryl (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Bloom_Cheryl

• References for these: New York and Berlin. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Is that something that we generally note in articles? It doesn't seem terribly notable to me...many famous people have wax statues made of them, but we don't mention them. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur, this isn't really notable enough to mention in the article. Since it's been open for two weeks with no further discussion, closing the edit request. BryanG (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done This is not particularly useful information for a biographical article. Taroaldo ✉ 21:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)