Talk:Anne Hathaway/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7
This page is an Archive of the discussions from Talk:Anne Hathaway.
(January 2012 - December 2012) - Please Do not edit!

Requested move (2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move. Consensus seems quite clear that most people believe that now, in 2012, most people searching for "Anne Hathaway" are looking for this person. Should that not be the case in 2013, when the 16th-century Hathaway becomes exalted for discovering Neptune before anyone else, or in 2029, when Anne Hathaway from Osaka, Japan, establishes a new microstate in her home city that controls 90% of the world's oil, this can be changed. But until then, this is the most appropriate setup, backed by the consensus below. -- tariqabjotu 02:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway (actress) → Anne Hathaway – I moved it yesterday not realizing that this was requested before. [See note below.–Noetica] I think Anne Hathaway (actress) should be the default redirect, as she is a more significant figure. Shakespeare's wife can still be searched through the "disambiguation" tag that is left above. This is evidenced by the amount of hits the page gets, that she is the prominent Anne Hathaway of today
[Note: The proposer has not described the situation correctly. In fact there was a confused rearrangement involving a redirect and and a DAB page. That situation was then rectified; and the current RM, which is not the first for this page, is under discussion assuming the status quo that has now been restored.–Noetica]
Marty2Hotty (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment, which has changed since this? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose disambiguation should be at primary location. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. If you google "anne hathaway" -wikipedia, the top 17 results refer to the actress. For page views in the last 90 days, the math is 849830 / (849830 + 122307 + 2192). So the article for the actress got 87 percent of relevant traffic. Shakespeare's wife will remain at the same lemma. A hat note will be added to actress' page, so she will remain one click away for a reader browsing the base lemma. There's no reason to expect this move to effect her article. Kauffner (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Meh. Supported last time, and IIRC the stats showed that the actress gets something like 20 times more page views than Shakespeare's wife. But since the last RM this criterion has been added to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Clearly Shakespeare's wife has greater long-term significance/educational value, so I guess leaving the dab page at simply Anne Hathaway would be acceptable per the guideline, even if it does disadvantage thousands of readers. Jenks24 (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
That guideline could support designating Shakespeare's wife as primary, but I don't see how it can interpreted to mean that the DAB should be primary. Kauffner (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but if the guideline has two basic criteria and they support two different articles being the primary topic, surely the best bet is to compromise and say neither is? Jenks24 (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy restoration of the status quo. The proposer admits he made a mistake. Should that accident be the occasion for drawn out wrangling to revisit the issue? No. Everything was in order, after previous RMs. A careless action like this one should not be allowed to dislodge an arrangement that had been decided by the community, through proper processes. If new moves are to be considered, let them be raised in the usual orderly way. It is increasingly difficult to sort out the tangled history of these pages. And Kauffner's pageview evidence (above) is meaningless, because the pageview facility jumbles the figures when there are redirects and moves. The history of each relevant page would have to be tracked accurately; and then the resulting numbers would have to be interpreted correctly – which, most regrettably, Kauffner's numbers rarely are. ☺ NoeticaTea? 06:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    [Retracted, after an explanation from Jenks, below and at WT:RM.–N]]
    • Take a look at where the pages are located, Noetica. You may wish to retract this comment as it is based on faulty assumptions. Jenks24 (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! ☺♪ NoeticaTea? 07:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose or speedily withdraw this proposal: We must wait for 15 or 50 years to decide whether either Shakespeare's wife or the actress must be the primary topic. Even one year after previous proposal is too soon for an actress to be primary of all "Anne Hathaway"s. Even the name is ambiguous as All That Jazz, Doctor Zhivago, Loving You, Lovin' You, and Firestarter. Even human names, such as David Isaacs and Christopher Knight, are ambiguous. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says that primary topic is not actually defined: in fact, "usage" and "long-term significance" are actually discussed commonly. Actress might have not had much of significance as Shakespeare's wife had, but actress is significant. The page views are too current or recent to conclude that the actress is the primary, yet actress meets "usage" criteria. There might be other criteria, but I think two criteria are enough to discuss. Nevertheless, two criteria are too vague to prove primacy status for either topic. --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    • After Powers' comment, I'll go for neutral at this time. Powers did not realize that Shakespeare's wife influenced other works based on her, such as history, poem, and such. However, I don't see, according to article, contributions made by her other than childbirthing children. The actress debuted in crappy Disney movies, starred in Devil Wears Prada, and appeared twice with Jake Gyllenhall. While the actress is popular and significant, the wife has been... significant due to impact and descendants. However, 600-1500 views per day for the wife is too big to be less significant, but... that's all I can say. --George Ho (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. After setting aside the confusion caused by an ambiguous statement in the preamble (what is "it" in "moved it"?), it is timely to consider the full set of relevant pageview statistics for the last 90 days:
And we should add this one, since early in those 90 days it has traffic also:
And these, which redirect to Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare)
And these, which redirect to Anne Hathaway (actress):
Just so we know we have things covered.
Now, what to make of all that? It is worthwhile making a rough amalgamation of pageview figures, showing percentages of the total of pageviews assembled here (=1033495):
  • Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare), or a poem about her, or her house, redirects included: 13%
  • Anne Hathaway (actress), redirects included: 82%
  • Anne Hathaway (DAB pages): 5%
Observations on the present arrangement, working accurately enough for present purposes (ignoring some quirks with the pageview facility):
  1. Only 5% of enquiries did not immediately find a content page with an indication of the precise topic in the title. (And some enquirers at the DAB page would be satisfied with the information they found there; some would be looking specifically for a conspectus of the meanings associated with "Anne Hathaway".)
  2. Even assuming that 85% of the enquirers who went through the DAB pages were interested in the actress, 95% percent of all such enquirers found their way to the right page without going through a DAB page first.
  3. Even assuming that only 10% of the enquirers who went through the DAB pages were interested in Shakespeare's wife, 96% percent of all such enquirers found their way to the right page without going through a DAB page first.
So my conclusions:
  1. About 95% of enquiries are immediately satisfied, by arriving directly at the desired page under the present arrangement.
  2. No more than (and probably significantly less than) 5% of enquiries are delayed by going through a DAB page under the present arrangement.
  3. Therefore, the present arrangement is working very satisfactorily.
  4. Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare) being a topic of enduring importance across the centuries, and fit for a major treatment without ephemeral distractions in any serious encyclopedia, we would need a very powerful argument indeed to upset an arrangement whereby her article is found without distraction or difficulty.
So I finish with this question:
Is there a sufficiently powerful argument against the present arrangement? An argument that respects as a first priority the need for an encyclopedia to serve its readers (rather than mechanically serving some algorithm or rules for determining titles)?
If there is, let's see it laid out in detail please, answering all of the detail that I have advanced. I may have made some errors along the way; if so, I look forward to them being pointed out.
☺
NoeticaTea? 09:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
what is "it" in "moved it"? The article whose move is being proposed; the article currently at Anne Hathaway (actress)... What else could "it" be? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I could find no record of either page having been moved since last year. Could you? The proposer did alter the second-mentioned page (Anne Hathaway), with this edit, changing it from a DAB page to a redirect page (redirecting to the first-mentioned page Anne Hathaway (actress)). There may be more details to add; but those are sufficient to show that the situation was badly described, and that the referent of "it" was unclear. Since it will remain unclear, I am now boldly amending the preamble to remove that confusion. ☺♫ NoeticaTea? 03:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, as before. No one has yet convinced me that Shakespeare's wife made any significant contributions to world history or culture; as far as I can tell, had she never married Shakespeare her name would be completely unknown today. How anyone can claim that simply by marrying the greatest writer the English language has ever known she gains "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" than an actress with significant contributions to modern popular culture is beyond me. Absent that "substantially greater ... value", we should direct searchers immediately to Anne Hathaway (actress), provide a hatnote directing students of literature to Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare), and put this debate to rest. Powers T 17:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's consider other criteria, as "usage" and "long-term significance" are not the only good criteria:

  • Familiarity criterion: Anne Hathaway meets this criteria at this time, but how long will she familiar? I didn't know who Shakespeare's wife was; I even thought Shakespeare is totally gay!
  • Impact: The actress is a current blockbuster? As a lead... she is international, but Devil Wears Prada was the only big blockbuster since Princess Diaries in the United States. However, she made supporting roles more lately, but her name would be used as blockbuster. The wife inspired a poem and history records.
  • Interests: Which topic is interesting? Sadly, I don't want to watch cheap, shallow, lousy romantic movies that actress is starring in. Also, I don't care for the wife, but I would like to interview the surviving descendant of Shakespeare. Even though this topic does not deserve to be primary under this criterion, I would rather learn more about the poem inspired by the wife instead.
  • Ambiguity: How ambiguous is this name? Shakespeare historians know "Anne Hathaway" as a wife, while many people before the actress were not familiar with this wife. Now "Anne Hathaway" is becoming more associated with the actress, this may be likely. However, would the Shakespeareans be offended by this proposal?

Each is strong for the actress except "Interests" for me. Am I missing more criteria? --George Ho (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. I made the move that sparked the previous discussion on the matter, and I still support it. We are not building an encyclopedia for the ages; we're building one for now. If, in 5 (or 50) years, it seems the actress really was just a flash in the pan, we can change it back. In the meantime, as she is far more than that, and our readers clearly are looking for her when they get here, she should be the primary hit. That Google makes it easier for searchers to land in the right place by default does not mean we should ignore the reality of the matter, that this page is (by a wide margin) the one readers are looking for. I make no representation that the actress is more important than the wife; I am saying it doesn't matter. Our readers are overwhelmingly looking for this page when they search out Anne Hathaway. Frank  |  talk  19:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if the stats in Noetica's oppose are to be believed, 85% of article traffic for Anne Hathaway is for the actress. People looking for Shakespeare's wife wouldn't be inconvenienced as they could still click the hatnote. Hot Stop 04:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the proposal which supports our readers, per Hot Stop. Ignore the relatively new "long-term significance" clause of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which is contrary to user interest, by definition, and should be removed. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
    • "Long-term significance" criterion is not a rule, and neither is "usage". "There is no single criterion" to define an actual primary topic. In fact, the guideline says that both criteria are commonly used as arguments in requested moves; cases may vary with either one, both, or none. Also, WP:IAR may not apply to misinterpretations. --George Ho (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it's obvious that most people who search for Anne Hathaway here are looking for the actress. By most I mean 276,000 views for the actress and 44,900 for Shakespeare's wife. INeverCry 06:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose This year people might be looking up the actress, but people have been interested in Anne Hathaway Shakespeare for centuries. Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

People have been interested in William Shakespeare for centuries; the interest in his wife is purly in her relation to him and his works. INeverCry 21:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I was the one that proposed the move, after it was suggested to me. By "it", I meant that I actually moved the Anne Hathaway article without checking the talk page earlier only to be told later that there were debates about it for a long time. As stated before, I think when people search on Wikipedia today for "Anne Hathaway", there is a high probability that they are looking for the actress. A note at the top that says "This article is for the actress, for Shakespeare's wife, click -here-", etc I think is sufficient. The amount of views per each page clearly shows the interest as well. If Shakespeare's wife ends up getting more views in the future, we can request a move back to her. Who knows? Maybe in decades when the actress may not be significant, this may be the case, but I doubt it. Therefore, I support the move. Marty2Hotty (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Marty, I remain mystified. Please show the diff of your move, from the record of your contributions. If you cannot do that, please show us the time (UTC time, right?) at which you made the move in question. NoeticaTea? 07:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Marty made a cut-and-paste move of Anne Hathaway to Anne Hathaway (disambiguation), which was quickly reverted (see the recent history of those two pages). He did not actually make a logged move. @Marty, please don't move pages by cut-and-paste; in future use the move tab/button (should be under the drop down arrow). If you are unable to use the move function, leave a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Technical requests so an admin can perform the move (or refer it to a full discussion if that would be more appropriate). Jenks24 (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

- Yeah, I didn't move it on purpose without knowing that there was a huge debate. Thought it was very minor. Also didn't know Anne was the name of Shakespeare's wife until now :) Marty2Hotty (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Reluctant support because would like wp to be highbrow, but yep. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The overwhelming majority of people are looking for the actress so this move makes sense. Tiller54 (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose On the grounds that it's disruptive to re-open a discussion which was chewed over at some length less than a year ago. PatGallacher (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The numbers presented by Noetica clearly show that the actress is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And while the current arrangement does do a pretty good job of getting people where they want to go, the proposed move should do an even better job of reducing unneeded visits to the dab page. Dohn joe (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edits (2012)

Please do not remove the information regarding Anne Hathaways short hair as it is perfectly valid and relible. Thanks Milkshake6789 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC).

Gossip sites are NOT, and will NEVER be reliable. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a collector of information. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The material has been added again, sourced to the same gossip site. Why is it still here? --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I just removed it as trivia.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo in infobox

Two problems with the proposed new photo for the infobox: (1) It was not discussed here on the talk page. Please achieve consensus to replace an infobox image rather than just adding an image to the article. (2) Copyright status is unclear. It appears that this image was taken from a website that retains copyright to it. Wikipedia prefers freely licensed images, especially for biographies. Please revert your change. Elizium23 (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

BIG Error in Anne Hathaway Article!!!

I know for a fact that the Filmography is missing a very significant movie Hathaway was in. She appeared in Elmo's Christmas Countdown in which she sang a featured song with Big Bird. I saw it myself in my sister's DVD. I would change it but I don't have a Wikipedia account, and even if I did, the article is locked. Someone please update.

24.170.94.134 (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Camila, on 7/31/2012

Done Elizium23 (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for a better and more recent profile picture for Anne Hathaway

The present profile picture is fairly small, non-descript and is 2 years out of date. This is a request for someone to upload a better, larger and more recent picture of Anne Hathaway, preferable one that portrays her the way she appeared in The Dark Knight Rises, as most users visiting this page do so on account of her performance in that film. 84.196.186.69 (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple. Wikipedia does not use copyrighted material, and any image from the Dark Knight would most likely be copyrighted. Also, it's silly to assume that most people only visit this article because of her role in that movie. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not silly at all. She rose to prominence with the public under her role as "catwoman". Secondly, the original reason for the request remains unaddressed: the present profile picture is too small, non-descript and is 2 years out of date. It's worth replacing with a better picture for the purpose of improving article quality. The request stands. 84.196.186.69 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing to request. If you can find a properly licensed picture that is more recent and better than the current one, we'll have something to discuss.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
That, or if someone else so inclined can find one. That is precisely why this request is being put out. It's puzzling how this current profile picture appears to be so aggressively guarded. 84.196.186.69 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
No one is stopping you from finding it a properly licensed image. I'm not sure why you think it's being "guarded", but properly licensed images aren't always easily found and the chances of finding one of her as Catwoman are next to none, which by the way, is far from her first prominent role. It might be the first one in which you became familiar with her, though. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
A picture of her as Catwoman would be inappropriate for the infobox anyways. This biography article is on Anne Hathaway, not Catwoman. You wouldn't even be able to see her face with the mask on. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hasty Puddings

Do we really need a full caption of "Hathaway in January 2010 after being named Hasty Pudding Woman of the Year" on a close-up of her face, instead of just "Hathaway in January 2010"? There's no background evidence of the event in the picture that would need explaining to the reader, and the obscurity of the event - it's an honorary student theatre award, and it's not mentioned anywhere in Hathaway's article - makes the caption seem unnecessarily odd. (I assumed it was vandalism until I clicked through.) --McGeddon (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be precedent for a full description in the caption in plenty of other BLP articles. Subjects are often captured at film festivals, awards ceremonies, and fan conventions, and this is always mentioned in the caption, even though those appearances are not notable in themselves and not mentioned in the article. Arguably, the Hasty Pudding award is itself notable, and should be (re-)added to the article. Here's a source to get started (BBC). Elizium23 (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anne_Hathaway/Archive_5&oldid=1142752453"