Talk:Nicholas Hoult

Age dispute?

Has the dispute on this page over Hoult's age been resolved? It's still listed on the Request for Comment list.--Daveswagon 22:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the dispute has been resolved - I didn't remove it from the RfC list because I assumed it would be deleted automatically. I've deleted it now - thanks for letting us know! --DearPrudence 01:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Daveswagon 01:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The debate is far from over. We still do not have reliable citations for his age; they are vastly out of date and derived from unreliable sources such as word of mouth, and school/college newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.196.238 (talk • contribs)

The articles from The Telegraph and The Gaurdian both meet Wikipedia's policy for reliable sources and are neither word of mouth nor are they school/college newspapers. Also regardless of whether they are out of date the rate at which a person ages does not change over time therefore if his age is known at any point in time it can easily be derived at any other point from the simeple use of mathematics, so this is a moot point. The bolg written by Hoult himself could be considered word of mouth however Wikipedia's policy states that the subject of an article may be used to verify facts about themselves such as date of birth. If you wish to change the date of birth in this article the burden is on you to find sources stating what you claim to be fact. There is no reason to continue debating this unless you can provide at least one reliable source for the birth date you claim. Stardust8212 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I do in fact have reliable sources of age confirmation, but contrary to your knowledge, a world exists outside of the internet, and it seems that you only deem online sources to be valuable. It's a silly approach and must be resolved soon by wikipedia, as you are literally ignoring a world full of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.196.238 (talk • contribs)

Actually you're statement is incorrect. Please read wikipedia's guidelines about reliable sources. It is not true that we use only online sources. The important word here is "reliable". We want material from sources that have reputations for checking and rechecking their facts. We also want sources that are easily available to the average reader. A friend of a friend does not count as a reliable source. Don't build up a strawman argument. The burden is still on you to produce a reliable source, onlinee or not.TheRingess (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Ringess, after a long and thorough read through the wikipedian guidelines, I have come to sympathize with the previous user's plight, despite initally condemning him/her. Wikipedia seems to only validate information if it can be proved online, and the majority of facts are derived from the real world. If you were in fact, an admin, I may heed your words, but wikipedia is for the people, by the people. We are the people, and we can create, or destroy this entire system if we wish to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantum Density (talk • contribs)

Quantum Density, please note that the above user has also refused to supply non-internet sources which may meet Wikipedia policies (such as books, newspaper or magazine articles) and continues to vandalize the page. We cannot just trust every random person's word that "I just know it's true ok so trust me" and that is why this site is run the way it is and just because there is a world outside the internet does not make the three published sources for age wrong. Stardust8212 14:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The information has been restored to its earlier - and justified - state. His age has been corrected (nineteen as opposed to seventeen), his ethnicity has been addressed, and his birthplace is accurate. I wish to thank you all for this discussion, but you did not assist us in the accurate distribution of information. Only an intervention from the man himself was deemed relevant and thus the information on the page is now correct.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.220.44 (talk • contribs)

Your changes have been reverted (not by me) because they were unreferenced. Just saying that "the man himself" intervened is not enough, as it is not verifiable. We already have references for the information on the page now (multiple references, in the case of his birthyear). Please do not add unverified information to the article. --DearPrudence 05:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The page is turning into a farce, why are you allowing this to happen? Leaving the content in a relevant state will suffice, I hope you learn this soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.186.129 (talk) 15:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

The page only turns into a "farce" when false information is added without any references to back it up. --DearPrudence 19:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tony main image.jpg

The image Image:Tony main image.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality

Just to preempt anyone who has seen the same video, Nick gave an interview ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opisjb5mMs4 ) where he alleged that he had had a four month relationship with co-star Joseph Dempsie. I can't find any reference to such a relationship other than that interview, and based on their banter on Soccer AM ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPK2M_-12xE ) I would presume the interview was a case of Nick trying to wind up Joseph. See also 4:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTQDZtx99n8 where the presenter in the first video says "I was looking for a story there James, you could have lied for us".

File:NicholasHoultX-Men FirstClass.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:NicholasHoultX-Men FirstClass.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Career

What does "The director noticed and suggested that he should try out for one" mean? "Try out" for one what?203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Production doesn't go in Filmography

Please note that it's the consensus at WP:FILM that films in pre-production should not be included in an actor's filmography. Doniago (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Request to edit September 8, 2013

Wikipedia has been going around a lot with edits and undo edits regarding Nicholas Hoult's personal life. I find it ironic that there have been many edits undone based on "conjecture" that Nicholas Hoult is dating Jennifer Lawrence again in 2013. This is ironic, because Wikipedia is using as a reference a Perez Hilton site to "factually" state that Nicholas Hoult and Jennifer Lawrence broke up early 2013 - how much more conjecture can that be, with no primary source (i.e., person) referenced? Currently, this is what Wikipedia says: Personal life Hoult dated American actress Jennifer Lawrence, whom he met on the set of the movie X-Men: First Class, since 2010. They split in early 2013.[18].

Would it be fair to simply state that "Hoult dated American actress Jennifer Lawrence, whom he met while making X-Men: First Class in 2010." Then we wouldn't have to get into the nit-picking of when this ended. Either that, or take it out all together. Jennifer has acknowledged that she dated him publicly, but neither she nor Hoult have publicly acknowledged that they have broken up. A reference to their dating can be found many places, one at http://www.entertainmentwise.com/photos/71629/1/PHOTOS-The-Hunger-Games-Fever-Hits-London-For-European-Premiere- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.68.255 (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources considered gossip?

Since WHEN did reliable sources start getting considered gossip? Yahoo, NY Daily News, Huffinton Post, People? This same situation happened recently on Bradley Coopers page where sockpuppeted accounts kept reverting perfectly good edits all claiming them to be "gossipy" when WP:BLPGOSSIP states "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true". 4 reliable sources are not gossip. IP users shouldn't be dictating guidelines if they understand them. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether the sources are reliable and whether Hoult dating Lawrence or or is not gossip notwithstanding, versions of this text have been in and out of the article so frequently over the past several...weeks?...months?...that it seemed the best course of action was to bring the matter here to reach a consensus. DonIago (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

With every other source involving a celebrity relationship, the stars themselves have confirmed the status. In this case, the two have not. This makes any source on the matter fishy at best, and until confirmation occurs, it should be treated as gossip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.18.32 (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you even read the sources I referenced? She calls him "my boyfriend", they are confirmed as a couple again. What about this is gossip again? LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

All speculation. Firstly, an anonymous source could be anyone; second, if they are really together, then why haven't they announced it? As I said, something fishy is going on, and we here on this site should use discretion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.18.32 (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

They don't HAVE to announce anything. It's their private life, if they decided to announce it, it's their choice, and so is not announcing to the world that they are back together. That's the point of having a reliable source is not needing to question the information they are posting. Perez Hilton, TMZ, Star, OK magazine - THAT is gossip, THAT is unreliable sources. Huffington Post, NY Daily News, People - is NOT gossip because they are reliable sources. Your reasoning makes no sense if you don't understand what gossip is and is not. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, People is mentioned on the Gossip Magazine page on this site. Secondly, while it is gossip, it's also speculation. Until they confirm it, all the so called "sources" can do is play up innocent events and turn them into something that they're not. When Liam Hemsworth broke up with Miley Cyrus, their people confirmed it in a day. The fact that neither of them have confirmed it after nearly six months of idle chatter does say something. All I'm asking is that we refrain from speculating until there is confirmation one way or the other; I don't think that's a difficult request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.18.32 (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

So by that logic, then nothing should be on Wikipedia except for the statements actually issued by the actual person of topic. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to issues like romantic lives or illnesses, yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.18.32 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

And that's according to who? You? LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Look, I just don't want people to play fast and loose. Let's all use some discretion. This site is about facts, not speculation. We can all be certain that this is speculation until a statement proves otherwise. 98.197.18.32US — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.18.32 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is speculation. Not every celebrity is going to give a 'breaking news' about there life. They don't need to because it's nobodies business but there own. But they were together for 2 years as a couple that much is true and now they are kissing and going to awards shows together with reliable sources saying they are back together. I'm gonna go with they are back together. Unless you can find a reliable source saying they aren't then I don't see why this cannot be in his personal life. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's speculation because they have not once said they are together. If you play fast and loose with everything you read, then it all becomes fair game. Until he or she gives a statement, which hasn't happened, we should just leave well enough alone. This is an encyclopedic site, not a dumping ground for suspect information.

Yes if they were together for two years with photographs all over the Internet it's not exactly gossip..♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That was between 2011-2012. Nothing like that now that isn't suspect or fishy. We can be sure they were together, but not that they got back together. Too many holes.

Where are you getting this whole "Until he or she gives a statement" thing? Where in guidelines does it say that other than this just being your own personal opinion which isn't how this works. You can't just disagree with reliable sourcing because you say so. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm on your side, Lady Lotus. I attempted to revert these edits several times, but gave up after awhile because it just didn't seem worth it. IP, reliable sources are reliable sources, but I see where you're coming from. A compromise could be rewriting as "according to (Huffpost, Yahoo!, etc.)", or even "according to some news outlets", instead of stating it as fact. Corvoe (speak to me) 01:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

All of this is moot now. They are not together, sources confirmed it, and I was right. So take that Lady Lotus, I'm vindicated at last! 98.196.47.193 (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really since they were really together...They JUST now broke up. It will stay in his personal life with reliable sourcing as it was a significant relationship. So I don't know what you consider vindication... LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Caradoc

Why say that "it was revealed that Hoult's middle name of Caradoc is pronounced /ka.rɑː'dɔk". That is not a revelation, this is the normal pronunciation of the word.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Let's discuss the prospects here, Tanbircdq. What do you think is so significant about the infobox that it needs to stay? Per WP:INFOBOXUSE, the "use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". And your claim that it needs no discussion isn't quite right as the same guidelines suggests "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article".

Now, my rationale for not using it is that it is not adding anything exclusive to the article. In fact, every detail is practically mentioned in the first couple of sentences and therefore it is just redundant information. I'd like you take a look at FAs including Deepika Padukone and Catherine Zeta-Jones as neither of those have an infobox. The idea has been discussed at their respective talk pages and we could always address whatever concerns anyone may have. VedantTalk 20:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the question that needs to be asked is what is your objection to this specific BLP article not having an infobox as opposed to the thousands that do? Rather than making the other stuff exists argument of Deepika Padukone where it appears a few editors have taken the decision a few years ago to not have one. Catherine Zeta-Jones's article appears to have an infobox by the way. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The argument to not have it is that it does not add anything to the article. What I meant by pointing (I might have been a little off point earlier) Padukone and ZJ's articles was that both did not have an infobox at one point and the discussions led to varying results, so it's not an other stuff exists argument (that seems to be your only argument in favour of it) but one that says that varying articles can have varying structures as permitted by the MoS. There isn't a single detail in the infobox that isn't covered in the opening two or three sentences. VedantTalk 11:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd say the content on the lead is excessive to WP:OPENPARA. I can't see why the following two sentences needs to be included in the lead; "Born in Wokingham, Berkshire, he was drawn to acting from a young age. Although Hoult initially wanted to study English, he pursued a career in acting and attended Sylvia Young Theatre School." The subject's birthplace or where he studied has no bearing on his notability. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, you don't seem to be interested in discussing before acting. You cannot go on deleting well substantiated information now? And, even if we eventually come up with a paragraph that sums up his notability (there really isn't any substance for that at this point, no awards, no generalisation as he's probably too young for that), the idea of him having acted as a child cannot come up with context of where and how he began acting, can it? Even in an alternate version of the lead, the second paragraph would have to open with his birth and prefrably his first acting stint, which itself was at the age of three. VedantTalk 20:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Other editors do seem to share the view of the info-box being of little value here. VedantTalk 20:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Well there appears to be WP:OWNERSHIP issues with this article if everytime a good faith edit is made, it's reverted. The body of the article it states "He said the change was difficult; his time there was short and he preferred attending a regular school. He still did not want to pursue acting as a profession and at fourteen he left Sylvia Young Theatre School in favour of Ranelagh School." This content about a performing arts school he attended for a year before leaving for a secondary adds very little to the lead and and doesn't necessary.

There's plenty of substance which sums up his notability otherwise he wouldn't have an article. A lot of BLPs of actors have "best known for playing..." (like Sean Pertwee or Zoe Saldana).

I'd say WP:IAR and allow the infoxbox on the article. Tanbircdq (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes the "best known for" bit is used widely but there isn't anything that he is particularly known for (a significant genre or a certain type of roles as such, nor has he won any significant award that can be mentioned in the opening paragraph, his films have had varied box office performances), not as of today. He mighy, eventually. I have worked on other articles and haven't removed info-boxes (just to make it clear), but really do not see the requirement here. However, we continue to differ on the infobox and do not seem to be heading towards a consensus, have RfC then ? VedantTalk 11:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Requesting additional comments

• FrB.TG, Aoba47, Krimuk2.0, and Ceranthor are some editors (that I know of), who have worked on BLPs. Their opinions might help. VedantTalk 11:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Infoboxes have always held a contentious space on Wikipedia. I understand the arguments for and against including infoboxes in BLP articles. This issue of the infobox for BLP articles really needs to be addressed on a broader level so that some sort of standard can be established. I do not have any particular preference either way. Since Numerounovedant has done most of the work on this particular article, I am partial to side with his preference for the article and just use the image rather than the infobox. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, my! Another infobox battle. If there's a vote then my preference is to do without one, and as Aoba said before me, the choice of Vendant, who expanded the article, should be respected. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way when it comes to infoboxes. Right now I think the infobox helps summarize otherwise easy-to-be-missed information, and I don't think it's crufty or too detailed. But I don't think it's absolutely necessary either. ceranthor 15:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Numerounovedant, this is no how to implement WP:RFC or WP:THIRDOPINION. You appear to have WP:CANVASSED four editors into commenting on here, what are your thoughts on this Fish and karate?

I don't believe the arguments made by Aoba47 and Krimuk2.0 that Numerounovedant doing most of the work on this particular article are valid arguments to side with his preference for the article to use the image rather than the infobox as per the WP:OWN observation I mentioned earlier nor is discussion a WP:VOTE.

The argument that "In fact, every detail is practically mentioned in the first couple of sentences and therefore it is just redundant information" not longer applies as the subject has a child which would be included if he had a infobox as well as his alma mater. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't override a general editing guideline. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tanbircdq: - I just closed the RFC. If you feel strongly that new information has come to light and that an infobox is now warranted, you can start a new RFC here, laying out your case for inclusion, but please bear in mind that infoboxes are one of the lamest things you can get dragged into arguing about on Wikipedia, and goodness knows there's a lot of competition. Fish+Karate 09:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: You "just closed the RfC" without appearing to consider how it's been incorrectly conducted.

Yeah so lame that an RfC was put forward to get the infobox removed, I was accused of edit warring in the process and editors were cancassed who just voted in favour of an editor's preference which led you to think that "the infobox is to be removed". Maybe you should consider not contributing to things you think are "lame." I'll open an RfC myself and hope that other editors can follow and respect the rules of consensus.

No, I feel strongly about Wikipedia consensus guidelines being contravened by clear canvassing and voting. As the closing administrator, you appear to not be concerned by this which is worrying but you're more than happy to call out debatable edit warring. However, you don't appear to have answered my question about the CANVASS and VOTE or do I need to take this to ANI? Tanbircdq (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• "He was drawn to acting from a young age and appeared in theatre productions as a child" - I'd tweak the structure of this sentence... "Drawn to acting from a young age, he appeared..." and I'd clarify whether it was local or national or regional theater productions
• "Hoult wanted to study English, but chose to pursue a career in acting and made his screen debut at the age of seven in the 1996 film Intimate Relations," - these content don't make much sense together; I doubt he knew he wanted to study English at age 7. I'd split these into two sentences that contain the same content you're trying to convey: ie. one about english/deciding to choose acting and one about when he made his debut
• "and appeared in the television programmes Magic Grandad and Waking the Dead. " - when?
• "Although dismissive of his character, his performance" - these don't match so the sentence's takeaway message gets lost and garbled
• "Hoult's continued associations with big-budget productions have yielded varying results" - what does "continued" add here?
• "He played Jack in the 2013 film Jack the Giant Slayer, which was a box office bomb, while the 2015 film Mad Max: Fury Road in which he played Nux was a blockbuster." - cut dow the verbiage here
• "Hoult is best-known for his supporting roles but he has turned to starring roles—mostly in independent films—including three of his 2017 roles; the romantic drama Newness and the biographical films Rebel in the Rye and The Current War, in which he played J. D. Salinger and Nikola Tesla, respectively. " - again, separate into multiple sentences
• " Outside film, he voiced Elliot in Lionhead Studios' 2010 action role-playing game Fable III, appeared in theatrical productions including the 2009 West End play New Boy, and is involved in philanthropy, supporting numerous charitable organisations." - I'd keep the first two in the same sentence and move his philanthropy to its own sentence and then specify some of the major organizations

Here are my comments on the lead alone. Overall, I think this needs a good amount of copyediting. I think a peer review would be a good move before an FAC. It's good, but definitely needs some fine-tuning. ceranthor 16:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Noted, Ceranthor. I'll start one soon. VedantTalk 05:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

The previous RfC wasn't done in accordance with WP:RFC or WP:THIRDOPINION as four editors were WP:CANVASSED into commenting of which invalid arguments were made that because Numerounovedant has done most of the work on this particular article the editors sided with his preference for the article to use the image rather than the infobox. This is also contrary to WP:OWN and a discussion isn't a WP:VOTE.

The argument that "In fact, every detail is practically mentioned in the first couple of sentences and therefore it is just redundant information" no longer applies as the subject now has a child which would be included if the article had an infobox as well as his alma mater. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't override a general editing guideline. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)