Jump to content

Talk:Angelina Jolie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kukkuisthebest (talk | contribs) at 04:44, 24 June 2015 (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2015: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleAngelina Jolie is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 19, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 9, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 21, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Update Filmography Section

Suggestion: Can the filmography section title be updated to 'Selected Filmography' or 'Filmography Highlights' to reflect that her full Filmography is on a separate page and the listed films are not extensive. It is also not clear what the criteria is for the films that are listed. Kitty4777 (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I am curious as to the selection process as well. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My selection was based on box office success and major award recognition. The films listed are those that grossed over $150 million and/or received Oscar, Golden Globe, BAFTA, SAG and Emmy wins/nominations. Plus her first major film. Voice roles and sequels are excluded. Maybe others can think of better, more objective criteria. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think it would be more appropriate to include a link to Angelina Jolie filmography in "see also" and not have a section. It's very odd to arbitrarily list some of her work and not all of it. Even more odd to exclude films such as Kung Fu Panda that are clearly among her biggest roles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since people will be looking for the Filmography section when they come to this article, and might not think to look to the See also section for it, I think it would be better to write up a summary for the Filmography section while maintaining the link to the Angelina Jolie filmography article. This is per WP:Summary style. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't the "Career" sections essentially a prose summary of her filmography? That would be redundant. You do bring up a good point, though, that many people who come to this article are looking for her filmography not knowing she has a separate article for it. Would it be reasonable to list all of her film/TV credits, including non-acting roles, without details such as character, box office, and directors that are saved for the main article? An extended version of the bullet points already in the article. I realize that would be somewhat lengthy, but it makes more sense (to me, anyway) than only including a small portion of her roles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While typing my reply to you, I also thought about the fact that "the 'Career sections [are] essentially a prose summary of her filmography," but the way that the Filmography section is has bothered me for sometime and I see my suggestion as a better suggestion than including a selected list or locating the link in the See also section. For Wikipedia actor/actress articles, it's become standard practice to simply have the Filmography section consist of a link to the main filmography article, and I don't see a need to have this article do differently in that regard. Yes WP:Summary style and MOS:Paragraphs are clear about having an appropriate amount of material in a section. But WP:Ignore all rules is also clear. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was already reverted by Betty Logan, I'd like to invite her to this discussion and ask how the reverted edit constitutes WP:INDISCRIMINATE. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I do not support adding a full filmography as in this edit. It is completely unnecessary IMO and redundant when a dedicated filmography article already exists. The question remains as to what to do with the section? Personally I would be okay with completely removing the abridged filmography and just having a link to the main article, but I appreciate why some editors prefer to have a condensed list of her major films in this article. However, adding a full list of her film roles undermines the point of having a dedicated filmography article: we have a full list somewhere else so we don't need a full one here! There are several options as I see them: i) retain the status quo limiting the list to career highlights; ii) remove the abridged list completely; iii) merge the tables at Angelina Jolie filmography back into this article. The filmography article isn't so big as to make a merge prohibitive so editors need to decide what they want to do: is the topic best served by compartmentalising her biography and filmography, or would it be better to just have a single article covering everything? Betty Logan (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a bulleted list of all of her films doesn't fulfill the same purpose as the filmography article, though, as her roles (actress, producer, director) were not mentioned and the extra details from the tables there (director, box office, etc.) were not included. But I would not be opposed to merging the filmography article back here. The lead section largely repeats information from the "Career" sections here. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am struggling to see what purpose having two lists does fulfil. If people want a list of the films they can just click the filmography link. The same with the awards table too. Surely the whole point of creating sub-articles is so we don't have to include them here? There are two approaches to article writing: you can have a comprehensive article which has everying and is a one-stop shop, but if the tables/lists are large the article risks becoming unfocused. The other approach is to compartmentalise and create sub-articles for the lists and tables; with this approach what you gain in focus you lose in comprehensiveness, since readers may have to visit other articles to get the information they want. Both of them are valid approaches but I do think this article needs to fully commit to one or the other because it is somewhat silly to have a bit of a list or a bit of table here and the rest somewhere else. Personally I would just remove both the awards table and the filmography list since the sub-articles already exist but ultimately I am not a principal editor on this article so I defer to those who are. Betty Logan (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be missing the point that the edit you reverted does not contain all of the information found at Angelina Jolie filmography. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is the point. Why do we need a full list and a bit of a list? Either have a full list at a sub-article or have the full table in this article. We don't need two lists. Betty Logan (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2015

Skipper Roberts (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2015

Kindly give me the permission to edit the page ANGELINA JOLIE.

Yours sincerely Guido Gazpacho

Guido Gazpacho (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guido Gazpacho (talk · contribs), kindly give us a reason to take WP:Semi-protection from this page so that you can edit it. Either that, or propose here what you want added to the article or otherwise changed about the article. Or wait until you are WP:Autoconfirmed. Flyer22 (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that they are already autoconfirmed, but just don't like being reverted after adding unsourced claims to this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph2302, look at the editor's contributions. After making the "11:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)" post, Guido Gazpacho only had seven edits. By the time that Guido Gazpacho made this edit that you reverted, Guido Gazpacho had enough edits to be WP:Autoconfirmed. Flyer22 (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay. They still aren't going to get edits like that kept. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "sex in the limousine" aspect of what Guido Gazpacho added is true (I remember seeing Jolie noting that live on E! a little after it happened), but that content does not need to be in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an MTV video link to that matter, and it shows that it was actually Billy Bob noting it beside Jolie, and that it was rather an MTV exclusive (E! reported on it a lot). Flyer22 (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2015

Dear Wikipedia, Kindly give me the permission to edit the page Angelina Jolie. Please do it.

Yours Sincerely

Guido Gazpacho (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Betty Logan (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is not the place to request additional user rights, or request unprotection. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that they are already autoconfirmed, but just don't like being reverted after adding unsourced claims to this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See the section immediately above this one. Flyer22 (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Block evasion by Skipper Roberts [1]. Blocked. - NQ (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (I will remake this page with the name of Angelina Jolie Pitt) --Kaveri Krishnan Kukku (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveri Krishnan Kukku, unless you are talking about your blanking of the article and addition and removal of the deletion prod, I don't know what you are talking about. But I do know that you need to be indefinitely WP:Blocked from editing Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siloh< John

Is John identifies as male, we should list it as such. Misgendering is not okay just because he's a child.184.76.211.156 (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP; see Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 10#Changing "Shiloh Jolie-Pitt" name. Also consider reading the Gender identity disorder in children and Gender variance articles I pointed to in that discussion. Childhood gender nonconformity as well. We don't know if Shiloh is definitively transgender. Furthermore, it's not uncommon for a child to be gender nonconforming and "grow out of" wanting to be the opposite gender. Ruby Rose is a prime example of that (well, except for the fact that she identifies as genderfluid as an adult). Then again, if you are very familiar with these topics, you know that childhood gender nonconformity does not always mean that the child will always be gender nonconforming. Flyer22 (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2015

Dear WIKIPEDIA,

KINDLY GRANT ME THE PERMISSION TO EDIT THE PAGE "ANGELINA JOLIE".

YOURS SINCERELY Kukkuisthebest (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angelina_Jolie&oldid=668420291"