Talk:Kristen Stewart/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Personal Life

Again,people are adding lots of quotes and things from the articles which are clearly based on unamed sorces and rumors on Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart relationship here. It has to stop, wikipedia is not some fan page where you can add whatever you want. Wikipedia is not a forum, I hope everyone remember that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jockzain (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think everything that has to do with Pattinson in the Personal Life section should be deleted, you can leave the "media-Robsten" part but her so called "apology", where no proof exists that she has actually said that, should definately be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.191.174 (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

About Viva rock vegas

Kristen Stewart has a bit part as a ring-tossing girl at the carnival. However, she can only be seen "FROM THE BACK".That can't be a talent or a standart role playing.Can that?Why do you mention that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.116.75.212 (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

News for 2013

She's been nominated for this year's Nick Kid's Choice Awards as favorite movie actress for Breaking Dawn Part 2 and favorite butt-kicker for Snow White & The Huntsman. Also she has two new film projects, Focus, where she'll play the main female character and The Big Shoe, where she'll also play one of the main characters. Here are articles: About The Big Shoe: http://www.deadline.com/2013/02/kristen-stewart-elizabeth-banks-to-explore-fashion-fetishism-in-the-big-shoe/ About Focus: http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/blog/2012/12/kristen_stewart.html (Ben Affleck is now out of the project though) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.191.174 (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2013‎ (UTC)


She appears in the movie K-11, which her mother Jules Stewart directed, as Karen. The movie is coming out this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.78.203 (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2013‎ (UTC)

She is the new model/muse for Chanel's new collection. She was chosen for this by Karl Lagerfeld himself, who will photograph the campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.167.120 (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2014

please change X to Y Flourhalley (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

twilight

is twilight saga ended — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.37.227.177 (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2014

PLEASE CHANGE (Stewart officially acknowledged her relationship with Pattinson for the first time in July 2012, when Us Weekly published photos of Stewart having an affair with her Snow White and the Huntsman director, Rupert Sanders.[67] The day the photos were released, Stewart issued a public apology to Pattinson at "People Magazine", saying, "I'm deeply sorry for the hurt and embarrassment. I've caused to those close to me and everyone this has affected. This momentary indiscretion has jeopardized the most important thing in my life, the person I love and respect the most, Rob. I love him, I love him, I'm sorry.

AND PLEASE, ADD MORE INFORMATIONS ABOUT HER PERSONAL LIFE WITH THE REQUESTS BELOW:

She was a co-director on a video clip of the band "Sage and the Saints".

Nowadays, she has three dogs, called: Bear, Bernie and Cole. (The name of the last one is because of Kristen's character on Camp x-ray).

Aylla Carolina (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2015

I would like to request permission to add information about recent news of Kristen Stewart's filmography. Two new films, one that she has already started filming, a project with Kelly Reichardt, and a project with Woody Allen which is expected to be shot this summer.

Kristen Stewart Joins Untitled Kelly Reichardt Project

Jesse Eisenberg, Bruce Willis, Kristen Stewart To Star In Next Woody Allen Pic

Eyesonfireee (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2015

Friedreich’s ataxia 78.161.72.188 (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

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) 11:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2015

Personal Life: In June 2015, Stewart's Mother, Jules Stewart, has confirmed a relationship between Kristen and her personal assistant, Alicia Cargile, to The Sunday Mirror - which would be her coming out publicly as bisexual. Adamsd1783 (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. For starters, The Sunday Mirror is a tabloid; that makes it unreliable. Also, Kristen Stewart herself would have to confirm this for us to even consider editing the article. Nymf (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Kristen Stewart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

2013–present / minor spelling error

the last paragraph has a minor spelling error: "is" and "in" are changed. Ploetzlich (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ploetzlich: could you clarify exactly what sentence you are talking about? In § Awards and nominations, it appears now (and at the time of your message) as "Stewart has received a César Award, a Milano Film Festival award, a Young Artist Award and the BAFTA Rising Star Award. She won the National Society of Film Critics, New York Film Critics Circle, and Boston Society of Film Critics Award for Best Supporting Actress for her performance in Clouds of Sils Maria." I underlined the only occurance if "is" or "in", and it seems that this use is correct. DMacks (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Born in 1989 or 1990?

Stewart's age was given as 27 in a fairly recent article, which would put her as being born in 1989 and not 1990; can we check to find which one it is and update the birthday if needed? --100.4.218.20 (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the article you saw? This one [1] from February 4, 2007 has her as age 16, which means she would be 26 now (assuming the "April 10" birth day is correct). It also agrees with her own website [2]. DMacks (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

REQUESTS FOR COMMENT
Moved to a formal RfC, below, in order to gain consensus. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

Generally I am all for infobox, but in this case I am completely against adding it because (to repeat the obvious) all the information is right "beside" it in the lead. All it says is about her occupation and date of birth, which can be found in the very first lines of the lead so I don't think it's such a good idea to, as I explained in my edit summary which got reverted, "repeat the same info twice". FrB.TG (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of the infobox. However, an infobox adds clutter and additional words to the page, and, as anyone who recalls Strunk & White can tell you, words distract. An infobox is typically justified by its significant utility in summarizing key points for the casual reader who doesn't want to skim through the entire article. But, in this case, the infobox does nothing but repeat trivial information that is already given in the first two sentences of the article. Thus, it does not belong. Cf. Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes (essay). Rebbing 16:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Right! Can I also get input from @Cassianto:? He seems to have written a lot of biographies. FrB.TG (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove infoboxes without gaining consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

No, NinjaRobotPirate, that is not how it works. An infobox can be removed per WP:BRD. The remover was Bold, it's been Reverted, and now we shall Discuss. CassiantoTalk 20:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that the infobox here is pointless. I would remove it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove infobox -- This infobox is one of the most idiotic and pointless wastes of space I have seen in a long time. Everything in the current box can be found quite easily within the first line of the lead section. We are simply having an infobox for the sake of having an infobox, and that is not helpful.

Like FrB.TG, I am not generally against Infoboxes; I find them useful on political, sports, natural, and film articles, but on arts, such as this, they fail. Here is a list of reasons why I'm against infoboxes in biographies like this:

  • Undisciplined expansiveness: A maximum-inclusion approach to fields that leads editors to place repetitive, sometimes downright silly information in the box. (There needs to be clear, prominent advice about not using every single field in every circumstance, and rather the need to ration the information, shaping it to the context.)
  • Visual degradation: The way infoboxes squash the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.
  • Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel infoboxes give to articles: here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the boxes says it all.
  • Disconnected particles: Their domination of the very opening of an article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.)
  • Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)
  • Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see WP:Featured lists for what I mean.)

Infoboxes, such as this, seem to pander to the lowest concentration span. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Their inclusion would be derided in any culture that wasn't saturated with 30-second television ads and news broadcasts featuring 5- to 10-second grabs from politicians, PR consultants and disaster witnesses. Infoboxes like this are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text.

Infoboxes should be used only occasionally and with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles. CassiantoTalk 20:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove. Often pointless, that really is the case here. - SchroCat (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove entirely unnecessary infobox which is merely duplicating information. Jack1956 (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep - The infobox provides basic information about the actress and with the size of the picture you're not saving any space by removing it. Since the picture is right aligned and the infobox is right aligned, there is no screen real estate saved. See this link for the view of the infobox since it has already been removed. Offnfopt(talk) 02:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Mlpearc and Avashnirvana also tried adding the infobox so that would be two more that support it. So I would say there should be more time to gain a proper consensus. Offnfopt(talk) 02:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
In my browser, there's a significant difference in vertical space between the plain picture and the trivia-laden infobox (602 px vs. 1048 px, counting padding and borders). More importantly, it's visual clutter—useless noise. Per INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox exists to "summarize . . . key facts," which, even by fan site standards, Ms. Stewart's relatives' names are not. When the inappropriate fluff is removed, we have an infobox that only repeats the lede, and, as is covered above, that does our editors a disservice. Rebbing 02:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Well that is your opinion and you're entitled to it, just making my opinion heard that I believe it should stay. Offnfopt(talk) 04:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is a gif (371KB) that shows the difference in screen real estate (for me at least) between the three revisions. (1) image without the infobox, (2) image with the original infobox (3) image with the infobox that has the additional fields. The original argument to remove the infobox was regarding image #2 which you can see there is very little difference in screen real estate and image #3 only adds a little more to that. Wikipedia is supposed to be about compromise, so since the infobox has very little effect on screen real estate needed versus the image with just the image, I propose we at least restore one of the two infobox versions. Having the infobox there is having no negative effect towards the article and there are those who wish it to be present, so there is no reason to not include the infobox. Offnfopt(talk) 05:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that the article mentioned previously in the discussion, please make note of the notice at the top of that page Offnfopt(talk) 05:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

"This page is an essay, containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

.
‎Rebbing, in your revert comment you said

"Per talk page consensus. Additionally, the added fields are inappropriate per UNDUE and the {{infobox person}}'s docs ("include only if independently notable or particularly relevant")

How does WP:UNDUE have anything to do with this? UNDUE is about balanced point of views. There are not two point of views on factual statements like who the actress is related to and since the article is about a person, personal details such as immediate family is included. If there was a reason to not include the details of her family then not only should they be removed from the infobox, they should be removed from the whole article, but I don't see you doing that. Offnfopt(talk) 05:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. CassiantoTalk 06:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Please don't be disruptive. You can see there is a consensus, and you can see that others have been reverted too. Why do you think that your edit should override this? CassiantoTalk 06:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Just because a consensus has been made, does not mean a new consensus is not allowed. I'm allowed to make my arguments just as all of you have made yours. Offnfopt(talk) 06:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Others will come here over time and some may support the infobox and some may not, all are allowed to make their opinions heard, that is what the talk page is for. Offnfopt(talk) 06:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
So why did you, knowing that a consensus was in place, and seeing another editor get reverted last night, add an Infobox? You were being disruptive. CassiantoTalk 06:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Because the claim for the removal was that there was very little information included. So based on those claims, I expanded the information included in the infobox. That is not disruptive, that is making changes based on the opinions stated. Disruptive would be constantly adding the infobox, I only added the infobox once with some additional information added to it. Offnfopt(talk) 06:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
No, you can dress it up in a fluffy "I'm thinking of the poor reader" and "I'm only here to improve it, honestly guv" way if you like, but your intentions were clear for everyone to see. You knew the infobox discussion was on the talk page, you knew there was a consensus; you chose to stick two-fingers up to that and went ahead to add it anyway. This is illustrative as to why I posted a link to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please familiarise yourself with it and pull yourself together. CassiantoTalk 06:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Please try to actually have a discussion on the matter instead of changing the subject to focus on me. I have provided my arguments towards keeping the infobox and made some questions to some of the claims stated here. I'm here to have a discussion on the matter and not to be attacked for non-repetitive edit. So either provide your counter arguments to my statements regarding the infobox or please keep out of the discussion so others can make comments regarding the matter at hand. Offnfopt(talk) 06:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
So, you're refusing to answer my question then? Why did you add an infobox knowing that there was a consensus in place not to have one and knowing that another editor had been reverted with the consensus location added into their edit summary? Failure to answer these very simple questions will result in everyone here drawing an inference and determining that the only reason you did it was because you intended to be a disruptive arsehole. As far as this "discussion" goes, there's nothing to discuss: you've made your point, we've made ours, and others can have there's, should they wish. I'm tired of discussing this very boring subject over and over and over again. CassiantoTalk 06:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
See my reply above, the first time you asked the question, I directly addressed your question and answered. You're calling me disruptive, but you're the one putting words in my mouth and using uncivil language such as "disruptive arsehole" WP:CIVIL. Again lets get back to the matter at hand which is the discussion regarding the infobox. Offnfopt(talk) 07:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Putting words in your mouth? If anything, there are no words in your mouth as you have systematically refused to answer my questions. Inference drawn, I suspect. With regards to WP:CIVIL, there really is no need for a link. I have never read it and have no intention to do so in the future. I'm surprised you haven trotted out a bit of WP:OWN yet. CassiantoTalk 08:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Quotes have a meaning, when you used quotes you asserted that I made those statements, which I did not. Your quotes include "I'm thinking of the poor reader" and "I'm only here to improve it, honestly guv". You keep claiming I don't answer your question, let me quote the first instance of your question so you can re-read my reply.
So why did you, knowing that a consensus was in place, and seeing another editor get reverted last night, add an Infobox? You were being disruptive. Cassianto 06:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Because the claim for the removal was that there was very little information included. So based on those claims, I expanded the information included in the infobox. That is not disruptive, that is making changes based on the opinions stated. Disruptive would be constantly adding the infobox, I only added the infobox once with some additional information added to it. Offnfopt 06:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
For the last time, can we please change the discussion to focus on the infobox instead of you trying to focus the discussion on me, you're becoming disruptive. Offnfopt(talk) 08:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I asserted nothing. I wasn't quoting you, as you suggest. My use of "I'm thinking of the poor reader" and "I'm only here to improve it, honestly guv" are purely rhetorical, trotted out by people like you in situations like this. You have still not answered why you went against consensus to restore the infobox to your preferred version? You say: "That is not disruptive, that is making changes based on the opinions stated"...er, yes it is and no it's not. You were aware of the talk page discussion; the consensus to delete the infobox; and the indicator in my edit summary this morning pointing to the talk page. You chose to ignore all that and went ahead and added an infobox regardless, thus showing utter contempt at those who hold the consensus. That is disruptive. As I've indicated above, there is nothing to discuss that hasn't been said numerous times before. So I feel like you are wasting your time. There are millions of other articles out there which could use the time and effort you are wasting here. Go and review a GAN or something? CassiantoTalk 09:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The consensus was based on a different revision and the claims that there was not enough information in the infobox and that the infobox was wasting space. I addressed both of these concerns. I added more information to the infobox to remedy the not enough information claims. And the claim that the infobox wasted space, I addressed this in my above comment (the one where I linked to a gif, showing the screen space usage comparing the various revisions) which showed little additional screen space was used by including the infobox. Most of the space that was used was whitespace to begin with. My actions can be described perfectly by your own statement at the beginning of the section:
WP:BRD. The remover was Bold, it's been Reverted, and now we shall Discuss. Cassianto 20:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I made my edit, it was reverted, and now we discuss, at least that is what I'm trying to do, I don't know what you're attempting to accomplish. Offnfopt(talk) 09:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

No, wrong again. BRD is not per editor, but per situation. Otherwise everybody would be warring and citing BRD; please tell me you don't really think BRD applies to you? If you can be bothered to take the time to read the actual discussion that took place, you'll see that the consensus was to not have a box at all. Have you actually bothered to read anything? CassiantoTalk (unsigned comment, manually added signature)

You reference these articles when they suite your needs, but when they go against your current mindset you claim they don't fit the situation. There is no reason for you to continue this discussion because you are contributing zero to the discussion. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. You haven't made any counter points, all you can do is claim my intent was malice when I followed your own quoted practice of WP:BRD. I'll state this again, because you seem to not follow. I made my edit, it was reverted once and now I am attempting to have a discussion on the matter. If I was being "disruptive" I would have made the same edit, constantly, I did not, I added the changed infobox once and it was reverted. So you can claim malice, but it is obvious that is not true. Offnfopt(talk) 10:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Again, you are wrong. You seem to be indicative of someone who is either deliberately acting stupid or someone who has not read the discussion that precedes this one. Have you not seen my very detailed "counter points" way above? It's very simple: you were acting outside what BRD suggests as you think that the whole world would implode into a lot of grey matter and custard if an infobox didn't exist on all articles; again, BRD is NOT per editor but per discussion. I assure you, this discussion is the same discussion that was happening the last time someone acted outside BRD. You simply cannot disrupt an article, knowing that there is a consensus in place, contrary to your liking, and then hide behind an essay when you get caught out and reverted. Proof, if ever it was needed, that you damn well knew a consensus was in place and that it was either your way or the highway. A simple acknowledgement of error and an apology would move this thread on. CassiantoTalk 12:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Offnfopt: UNDUE says that "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to . . . prominence of placement." But I assume you're correct that UNDUE is about the weight given to viewpoints, not facts. However, INFOBOXPURPOSE (establishing that the infobox exists to "summarize . . . key facts that appear in the article"), the {{infobox person}} documentation (suggesting that |relatives= and |parents= should be "include[d] only if [] independently notable or particularly relevant"), and good editorial judgment strongly disfavor the additions you've made to the infobox. I also disagree with your suggestion that a fair compromise here would involve using the first infobox: it's not acceptable to stake out an extreme and unsupportable position—note that above you admitted you only added these fields to counter the arguments that the previous infobox wasn't informative—and then ask that others compromise by shifting towards your view. Rebbing 12:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Rebbing did you look at the gif I posted? It showed just how little additional space is used by the infobox. Due to the large thumbnail currently used, the addition of the infobox has little effect on the screen real estate. I even tested the browser set to mimic a resolution of 1024x768 and the results were the same, again due to the large size of the thumbnail. Anyone with a smaller resolution would likely be on a mobile device and would navigate via the mobile site. In those cases the infobox is on its own as the first thing you see on the page, then you scroll down and begin reading the article. So if the issue is not just the information in the infobox but the screen space then the current thumbnail should be made smaller, because the large thumbnail is causing one of the same issues that this discussion is claiming to want to avoid by removing the infobox. If a user wants to view a larger image they can always click on the image to see a higher resolution picture. I would also like to request you take a look at this post and input your thoughts. Offnfopt(talk) 13:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I did. Did you? In your GIF, the plain infobox is 43% taller (519 vs. 362 px) than the photograph, and your overfluffed infobox (670 px) is 85% taller. Forty-three percent is not a "little additional space." Moreover, my argument and most of the arguments above have little to do with real estate and much to do with distraction being adequately balanced by utility. I'm assuming you're not actually arguing for your version of the infobox, so I won't address it; as for the small infobox: it adds nothing that isn't discussed in the first four sentences of the lede. I submit that that is the height of redundancy.
Your comments about the thumbnail being too large miss the mark and are rebutted by IMGSIZE (policy) ("Except with very good reason, do not use px . . . [to force] a fixed image width." (emphasis removed)) and the {{infobox person}} documentation. Rebbing 15:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Did I look at my own gif I created? I would say yes I did. The space being used by the infobox was whitespace. The original argument was regarding the second frame in the image which used only white space in the article which was not in use to begin with. The point about the image size, is that one of the reaons to remove the infobox used was "The way infoboxes squash the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.". I'm making the point that the infobox has little effect in that regards because the image itself is nearly the size of the infobox to begin with. Ok so you've just said the issue isn't about screen space (which was used as one of the reasons to remove), you say the infobox distracts from the article, except the infobox is only present in the summary, past that (when you're reading the main article) the infobox can be scrolled up so it isn't even visible to the user. Your quote from IMGSIZE is not the full information, that quote is regarding not using a hard set px and instead using the upright parameter, which is a different matter that we don't need to side track towards. It is clear that the whole reasoning for removing the infobox is not any actual valid points, but just the fact that you don't like the infobox. No valid points, just you don't like it, so vote to remove it and force everyone else to accept your view. But the fact is, there are people who like it and including it has no negative effect on the article, only towards your own personal preferences. You could easily use one line of CSS on your Special:Mypage/skin.css page to hide the infobox from your own person view so you'd never see another infobox again. You at least have the option to hide the infobox from your personal view, I don't have the option to easily generate a infobox for my personal view. For me to generate a infobox, would require using various JS frameworks and tapping into the wikidata API and hoping all the relevant information is present, but there would be a delay in generating the information and there would be no caching, so the whole experience would be degraded and foolhardy. It is clear with your current mindset nothing will change, so I'll just have to wait for more editors to come along and create a new consensus. Offnfopt(talk) 07:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I lost interest after the first sentence, I'm afraid. CassiantoTalk 09:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I reverted someone who put the infobox back in against the consensus here but I think of it afterwards. The readers (well this reader anyways) like to see the info at a glance even if it's a repetition of the lede. SlightSmile 14:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
While I thank you for reverting the infobox, I question your preference of having things repeated directly next to each other? I find the fact you enjoy having "info at a glance even if it's a repetition of the lede" particularly disturbing. CassiantoTalk 20:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Just giving my two cents. I agree that this article looks better without an infobox, but I strongly suggest it is kept because Kristen Stewart is a high-profile actress and this article gets a lot of exposure, and thus it is bound that removing the infobox will create incessant edit warring and endless talk page discussions. I think it's a similar case to the consensus in the Meryl Streep article, where I also think it would benefit of not having an IB, but it was just better (more peaceful, I mean) to keep it. κατάσταση 00:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Well hell, if we're gonna remove it from her article, then let's remove it from all the articles. I mean, what makes her more special than say Michael Jackson, etc.? Nothing!!! (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 15:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, now you suggest it, I'd say the removal of {{Infobox person}} Is a very good idea. CassiantoTalk 18:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that you go away and grow up. CassiantoTalk 15:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Kristen Stewart
Stewart at the 2014 Cannes Film Festival
Born
Kristen Jaymes Stewart

(1990-04-09) April 9, 1990 (age 34)
Los Angeles, California, U.S.
OccupationActress
Years active1999–present
Oh, ouch, stop you hurt my feelings.</sarcasm> I stand by my statement, literally, every article has an infobox with some of the same information beside it in the lede. What in the hell makes Kristen Stewart so much more special than Michael Jackson, Meryl Streep, Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hanks, etc.? Nothing, that's what. Those articles also have the same "problem" you people are whining about. It's pathetic. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 15:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The fact most articles have one, doesn't make this one right. You're the only one who's being pathetic. CassiantoTalk 16:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Pathetic? Really, I come here and make a legitimate claim, and you insult me. So, yeah I'm pathetic. lmfao. Now, how about you shut up with the name calling and answer my question. What makes Kristen Stewart so special that she doesn't need her own infobox? Hmm...??? (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 17:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm getting tired of you now, but what I will say is "Infoboxes are with required nor prohibited". I'd say we are on an equal footing. Trouble is, you don't have a consensus. CassiantoTalk 17:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I've just looked at the hideous infobox you made earlier and I'm posting it here ^ for illustrative purposes. Are you seriously suggesting that this is an improvement? It's fucking atrocious. CassiantoTalk 20:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, for one, there are additional fields you can fill out, the fact you failed to mention that...sad. Secondly, the language. Watch it or else you could get blocked. I've seen people get blocked for using that word once. Just an fyi. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 20:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, as you can see, I've never much cared about being blocked so why should I start now? This website needs me more than I need it, so why should I care? Secondly, and with regards to "additional fields", do you mean the "other names" and "partner" fields? Why do you think this would be of benefit to anyone looking in on this article? Tell me, what is Kristen's other name? And if you can keep up with who she's with quicker than she can, then I take my hat off to you. It's open to errors and abuse. CassiantoTalk 20:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Please be careful with your comments, no reason to fail WP:CIVIL. Cheers, - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Nowhere in WP:CIVIL does it discourage incivility towards infoboxes. So please take your warning and go and bother someone else with it. Thanks. CassiantoTalk 20:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Nowhere in WP:CIVIL does it discourage incivility towards infoboxes what kind of rational is that ? I'm just suggesting that you cool down and be civil. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Rather than issue stupid warnings, analyse my comment a little more closely. I called the infobox "fucking atrocious", not an editor, not the subject, the infobox. You may suggest I "cool it down" but you might also advise others to "cool it down" in terms of their comments too. Nobody here was "whining" before Crash Underride came along. CassiantoTalk 21:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Cassianto: they are referring to you saying "It's f*cking atrocious." That kind of language is uncivil. Also, in regards to additonal fields please see Template:Infobox person for a full list. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 08:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The feelings around the use of such a word is entirely subjective. Now kindly go away. CassiantoTalk 09:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Trust me I know how the feeling is. I use it, daily. lol. However, would you kindly answer my question already??? I've asked it at least twice, but I'll ask it again. What makes Kristen Stewart so special that she doesn't need an infobox as compared to George Clooney, Leonardo DiCaprio, Meryl Streep, Lucile Ball, etc.? (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 10:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe it would be better to open an RfC here to decide on the infobox like in Stanley Kubrick? There doesn't seem to actually be a consensus here yet for not having one. κατάσταση 02:57, 18 January 2017 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2017

needs to say about her life with donald trump 198.52.13.15 (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2017 (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. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should an infobox be added to Kristen Stewart

SNOW close, consensus to add an infobox. As a side note, I re-added an infobox on 6 February 2017, without knowledge of this discussion Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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.

Background: Editors that revert the addition of an infobox comment on this page comment on the "consensus" reached at this talk page, however, IMO I cannot see one. Consensus can of course change as seen directly above, hence it would be beneficial to establish if there is any consensus for the addition of an infobox so that users trying to add/remove one can be directed to a formal discussion. This page formerly had an infobox until its removal by FrB.TG in June 2016, leading to the discussion held above.

Question: Should an infobox be added to Kristen Stewart?

Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose Some biographies, especially those related to the liberal arts field, do not benefit from having infoboxes. The infobox in this case emphasises unimportant factoids and undermines the lead. It also obstructs the presentation and looks far more attractive as a standalone image. I disagree with including an infobox in this article because the most important points in it are already discussed in the lead (albeit in the first paragraph), or adequately discussed in the body of the article. The infobox is also redundant because it doesn't add any value and hampers the layout. The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. See WP:DISINFOBOX. JAGUAR  21:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose No compelling reason to include one as the information is given in the first lines; biographies of this type are not well served by IBs as it oversimplifies details better given in text. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, I'd wish we could ask the readers, - readers with impaired vision will read the infobox more easily than prose, for example. It may not add value to you, but how about others? Redundancy is intended. No compelling reason has been given why this actress should not appear like Audrey Hepburn and Marilyn Monroe (FA). I would design a short(er) one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support if for no other reason than the two other actresses mentioned in Kristen's lead, Jodie Foster and Juliette Binoche, have infoboxes of their own. Seems only consistent to add one to this actress's article too.Pistongrinder (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support As a reader and occasional editor, infoboxes seem like an obvious improvement to me, even having read DISINFOBOX. Simple, important information like birth dates, quick links to any possible notable relatives, etc are very useful, and have never precluded me from reading the article prose when I find I need more context. As a sidenote, I read DISINFOBOX in its entirety before voting, and while I understand and empathize with its point, I have to say as a fresh reader it comes off rather aggressive, especially with that quote at the top about "the marginally literate reader", which I assume is not the intention, but that is neither here nor there. Parabolist (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: I don't think the infobox is particularly useful in this article, but keeping it would probably be a better idea to avoid edit warring in the future (as it has happened already), since Stewart is a popular actress. Also, it has quick facts that some users find helpful, and so I believe it creates more benefits than disadvantages. κατάσταση 05:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: most actor articles have infoboxes...?Fireflyfanboy (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is dumb. Infoboxes help summarize article contents. It struck me as incredibly odd to see this article without an infobox. We have them. We use them. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: There's no reason for this article to not have an inbox, since so many other actresses do. I don't see a disadvantage to its inclusion. TVlover19 (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: It is idiotic not to include an infobox on every page. Not everyone is looking to read through the article to find basic information such as her nationality or age. It's why Wikipedia is such a widely used source. HDH122298 (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: While I'm aware that it's not absolutely necessary to insert an infobox to every single article, what's wrong with making it even more easier for those who like to skim? -- ChamithN (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Like the points above me, I don't see a reason to not include one. Kristen has a sort of daunting intro if someone just wants to skim, as said above. Most other actors have one as well, I see not reason for her to not have one. --TheHiddenDemons (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: For any person whose article isn't a stub, I find an infobox to be the quickest and easiest way for me to locate the basic biographical data that is often exactly what I'm looking for in visiting the article. --DavidK93 (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, especially as it appears there is an infobox and it seems to be getting the job done. Why wouldn't you want an info box on a BLP? Of course the infobox material repeats what is in the article. They all do. Even with articles with little written, an infobox gives immediate info to the reader and usually offers a photo. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2017 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2017

SHE WAS NEVER ENGAGED TO PATTINSON, THEY DATED 2009-2013, PLEASE REMOVE and becoming engaged to Robert Pattinson,


PLEASE REMOVE "AND HER MANAGER", SHE WAS NEVER HER MANAGER - including on-again off-again time with digital effects specialist and her manager Alicia Cargile,[1][2]


SHE NEVER DATED GUNN, EVER. REMOVE THIS LINE PLEASE. lead singer and guitarist of the rock band PVRIS, Lyndsey "Lynn Gunn" Gunnelfsen,

THESE FALSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TRUE AND UNCITED. Rljae (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

ans=no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rljae (talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea about Gunn (nor do I really care), but not mentioning at all her relationship with Pattison seems a bit ridiculous to me. The fact that they dated is very notable. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Already done – Train2104 (t • c) 17:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "ICON OF CHANGE! KRISTEN STEWART'S ELLE UK SEPTEMBER COVER IS FINALLY HERE". Elle UK. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
  2. ^ Jeffs, Lotte. "A new light: Kristen Stewart's most open interview yet". Elle UK.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kristen Stewart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Rupert Sanders

Why was her affair with Rupert Sanders removed from the Personal life section? I would have though it was notable enough to be included on her page as it was quite a big scandal at the time. It is still mentioned in his article. —Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kristen Stewart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kristen Stewart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Association With Fashion Brands

Hello just wondering if it should be changed that she was once the "face" of Balenciaga's "Florabotanica" perfume back in 2014, but it seems that she is no longer connected to the brand and is currently involved more with Chanel.Annacapcourse (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2018

please change

She later dated visual effects producer Alicia Cargile,[1] French singer Soko,[2][3] and musician Anne Clark, better known by her stage name St. Vincent.[4] Since late 2016, she has been dating British Victoria's Secret angel model, Stella Maxwell.[5]

to

In late 2014, she started dating visual effects producer Alicia Cargile. In early 2016, she was romantically linked with French singer SoKo (Stéphanie Sokolinski) and later in the year with musician Anne Clark, better known by her stage name St. Vincent. Since late 2016, she has been dating british Victoria's Secret angel model Stella Maxwell.[6] Saskia lou (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "ICON OF CHANGE! KRISTEN STEWART'S ELLE UK SEPTEMBER COVER IS FINALLY HERE". Elle UK. July 27, 2016. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
  2. ^ French, Megan (May 5, 2016). "Kristen Stewart Splits With Girlfriend Soko". Us Weekly. Retrieved December 9, 2017.
  3. ^ "Soko n'arrive pas à oublier Kristen Stewar". Paris Match.
  4. ^ Carrie Battan (September 20, 2017). "St. Vincent on Her High-Profile Romances and Her Confessional New Album". Vogue. Retrieved February 22, 2018.
  5. ^ Marquina, Sierra. "Kristen Stewart and Stella Maxwell Hold Hands, Go on Theme Park Date — See the Pic". Usmagazine.
  6. ^ Marquina, Sierra. "Kristen Stewart and Stella Maxwell Hold Hands, Go on Theme Park Date — See the Pic". Usmagazine.
 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Waddie96 (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2018

please change

Stewart lives in Los Angeles. She previously dated her Speak co-star Michael Angarano.[1] She then dated her Twilight co-star Robert Pattinson,[2] but they broke up in July 2012 after she was photographed in intimate embrace with her Snow White and the Huntsman director Rupert Sanders.[3] Sanders, who was 19 years older than Stewart and married at the time, issued a public apology for the affair, as did Stewart.[4]

to

Stewart lives in Los Angeles. She previously dated her Speak co-star Michael Angarano.[5] In summer 2009, Stewart became romantically linked to Twilight co-star Robert Pattinson. For a long time, the two did not explicitly confirm a relationship, but photographs and eyewitnesses drove intense fan speculation and media attention. However, Stewart officially acknowledged her relationship with Pattinson for the first time in July 2012, when Us Weekly published paparazzi photos of Stewart seen cheating on Pattinson by having an affair with the married Snow White and the Huntsman director Rupert Sanders. The day that the photos were released, Stewart issued a public apology to Pattinson per People Magazine, saying, "I'm deeply sorry for the hurt and embarrassment I've caused to those close to me and everyone this has affected. This momentary indiscretion has jeopardized the most important thing in my life, the person I love and respect the most, Rob. I love him, I love him, I'm so sorry." The couple reconciled in October 2012, but broke up in May 2013, when Pattinson was seen removing personal items from Stewart's home. Saskia lou (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Q&A: Twilight's Kristen Stewart". Vanity Fair. November 5, 2008. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ Duncan, Amy. "Spotted! Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart spark fresh dating rumours". Metro. Retrieved March 9, 2012.
  3. ^ Eggenberger, Nicole (July 17, 2013). "Kristen Stewart's Cheating Scandal One Year Later: A Timeline of Events". Us Weekly. Retrieved December 9, 2017.
  4. ^ "Kristen Stewart, Rupert Sanders apologize for affair". CBCNews. July 26, 2012. Retrieved August 17, 2012.
  5. ^ "Q&A: Twilight's Kristen Stewart". Vanity Fair. November 5, 2008. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Waddie96 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2018

Add she was in a music video, Ride 'em on down by the Rolling stones Cali090517 (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 00:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2019

Please change United States actress to American actress. It just sounds kinda weird. I recommend you to change it now. It just doesn't make sense. 47.151.27.25 (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

article translation error?

I think the caption under the Oliver Mark b/w portrait in the middle of the article should read something like "Stewart portrait by..." instead of "portrayed." This might be a technically correct usage in art circles (?), but that usage of 'portray' generally means that one person is dressed and made up to look like someone else. In other words, the current caption reads as if Oliver Mark is impersonating her. 2605:6000:FFC0:79:7CE9:FE4B:5D26:5C48 (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

21:06, 8 March 2020‎

@MarnetteD: "you know the policy you re violating because you tried to remove it"

where is the policy you are referring to?

Diametakomisi (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@DMacks: Diametakomisi (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Treybien, Cinemacriterion, Jockzain, Nymf, and LuK3:

please refer to Talk:Filmography, there really shouldn't be any cause for disagreement on the matter identified << Filmography is film, does not include video-games, screen or theatre >>; c.f. a similarly ensuing disagreement @ << Emilia Clarke >> (- LuK3) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diametakomisi#March_2020 (i.e. DMacks here) which prevents my changing the article @ this time (I'm supposing)

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Kristen_Stewart

  • Rank 1 1st by added text & edits Sergay stopped edits @ 23:30, 22 December 2016
  • Rank 2nd; 2nd by edits, not within Top 10 by added text Tnays20 04:54, 15 February 2020 (most recent edit), 15:33, 11 September 2019 (immediately preceeding)
  • Rank 3rd; 3rd by edits Rodhullandemu blocked
  • Rank 6th; 6th & 4th Mody18 stopped edits @ 12:33, 14 November 2019

Diametakomisi (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

television is possible but televisual is actually less confusing and is more strictly true

"televisual transmission" (because "light is transmitted through television") is true of the viewing of a programme on a television (c.f. broadcasting literally is like a broad range of transmission, i.e. to many not few) c.f:

1α - Kristen Stewart's work for television was broadcast / transmitted / viewable / watched on a television

1β - I (or any individual) watched Kristen Stewart who had previously done work together with additional others to make a television programme, when I switched on the television-

to

2α - Kristen Stewart's televisual work was broadcast / transmitted / viewable / watched on a television

2β - I (or any individual) watched Kristen Stewart who had previously engaged in televisual acting activity therefore when I switched on the television I viewed her activity

a cinema > cinematic

a television > televisual

a theatre > theatrical

Diametakomisi (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC) (3 minor corrections 18:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC))

I notice that you're arguing the same layout/titling issue on multiple talkpages, in each case editors disputing on the same editorial and style-guide grounds, and now spreading discussion across multiple talkpages. If it affects multiple pages, it should be a centralized discussion (vs WP:CROSS-POST). DMacks (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hippophobia in Personal Life

Mentioning Stewart's hippophobia in the same paragraph as a discussion of her bisexuality may be confusing to readers. Rougetimelord (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Australian mother

Has Kristen herself ever said something like "my mother is Australian," or that her mother was actually born in Australia? In the Howard Stern interview (here), she states that her mother was adopted in California in 1953, and indeed this is her mother's birth record from California (here). I suspect the fact that her mother spent time in Australia and apparently went to high school there (if the Australian paper is to be believed) was extrapolated a long time ago to her mother being a native Australian, and that has been bouncing around the internet for the last 12-13 years or so. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

She has not said that verbatim, but does not challenge the claim of her mother being native Australian. Instead she says that her Australian relatives are in Vancouver. [1] Cinematic Maniac (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Jewish ancestry, again

I added a reliable source stating that her mother's ancestry is Ashkenazi Jewish. An editor removed that information, the source, and related categories with the reason as WP:NONDEF (Jewish ancestry is not a "defining characteristic"). If we continue with that logic, ancestry and related categories would be removed from tens of thousands of articles. So we would have to remove Category:American people of Jewish descent, Category:Jewish American actresses, and/or Category:Jewish American actors from actors such as Maude Apatow, Ed Asner, Nikki Blonsky, Rachel Bloom, Lauren Bacall, Zac Efron; I could name dozens, probably hundreds, more. We would have to remove Category:American people of Arab descent from actress Alia Shawkat and other actors with Arab ancestry. And that's just the actors. And it's just the Americans. And it's just the Jews and Arabs. There are numerous categories about ancestry (such as English, French, German, etc. etc.) that apply to many articles. Most of the people in those and all other categories related to ethnic, racial, or national descent would have to be removed, because none of them is noted for their ethnicity or nationality. Those categories are in virtually every biography on Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

What strikes me is the edit summary "Jewish ancestry is just as notable as English, Irish, German, Arab, etc. etc. etc.", but yet we don't learn anything about the remaining three grandparents (if the information in the removed source is valid)? Note: the notification in WT:ETHNIC has brought me here. –Austronesier (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. We probably could add other grandparents (and father's family) if it's available. But I don't think that those details are necessary to include Jewish background. I think we can add, but not remove. Sundayclose (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
The article cites a Howard Stern interview which is nowhere to be found. It’s not even on the official YouTube. I believe, looking at the Wikipedia revisions, that the reasoning came from a disputed edit on this website. All articles claiming Stewart has Jewish ancestry were published after this date. These articles are only on Jewish newspapers. Thus, I’m not sure if these are reliable. I’ve seen no other source that corroborates claims of Stewart’s Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. [Here’s the edit in question.] Cinematic Maniac (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • There are numerous categories about ancestry (such as English, French, German, etc. etc.) that apply to many articles. Most of the people in those and all other categories related to ethnic, racial, or national descent would have to be removed, because none of them is noted for their ethnicity or nationality. Correct. Categories are not supposed to be trivia factoids. If the only relevance of this information is that one grandparent or another was of X/Y/Z ancestry, and this has otherwise no bearing on the article subject, then it should rightfully be removed per WP:NONDEF (I'll note that, on the other hand, there are clear examples of cases where this categorisation is quite correct, so it's not necessarily the case that every article is problematic), and also per MOS:ETHNICITY. If this over-categorisation is a widespread problem, might be a good reason to start a discussion about it at whichever Wikiproject is most relevant. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: Let me make sure I understand you. Are you stating that in the tens of thousands of articles in which someone's ethnic, racial, or national descent (assuming reliable sourcing) is not part of their notability, any mention of such descent and any related categories should be removed? Examples are in my first post above, and there are many thousands more throughout Wikipedia. And by logical extension, should categories related to where a person was born or currently lives (such as Category:People from Staten Island for Christina Aguilera) be removed because that detail is not relevant to their notability? If so, I'll begin a discussion at WP:Wikiproject Biography to get more opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I support @Sundayclose's reliable additions. Everything important regarding her family's background should be menionted. Especially adoptions and (Jewish) heritage and everything she talked about in that web-archived live interview with Howard Stern. Cheers. Legend Terminated (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I assume since you haven't responded to my request for clarification that you don't wish to explain yourself more fully. In that case, there's no point in my requesting opinions at WP:Wikiproject Biography because I seriously doubt that there will be much support for your opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Wrong. It just means I was busy IRL and didn't notice this. As to your request, yes, overcategorisation is a widespread problem which needs to be solved on multiple pages. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: Do you have anything besides your sole opinion to back up your claim? I still don't see any point in opening up a discussion for something that likely has so little support. Of course, since it's your opinion we're talking about, you're free to try to seek support as you please. So if you decide to open up that discussion I'll be happy to participate. Otherwise it's a waste of time. Sundayclose (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
It’s one thing to say she has some Jewish ancestry (the negligible amount that is there) and an entirely different thing to say she is a Jewish American actress. Besides this comment on Howard Stern’s Show, she has never publicly identified as a Jew in any way. Trillfendi (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I understand the hesitancy to state that she is Jewish, although that's done on many, many articles for people who haven't explicitly stated that they are Jewish. My larger concern here is the claim that we should not categorize someone as Jewish, Arab, French, German, American, etc. etc. if that description isn't part of their notability. With that reasoning even people who are undeniably Jewish, but their notability isn't based on that fact that they are Jews, would have related categories removed. That essentially would require removal of those categories for tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles (and that's just the English Wikipedia). So I suppose rabbis who have articles could get those categories, but not the thousands of actors who aren't notable because they are Jews. I think there is little or no support for that on Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Yet more false equivalence. There is a large difference between categorising based on nationality (French, German, ...) and on ethnicity/religion (Arabs/Jews/...). As I have already linked and explained to you, that should be avoided when the subject is not notable because of that. There is precedent for widely used stuff to be wrong. Unless you can find a good reason beyond it being widely (mis-)used, then your argument remains an unconvincing appeal to tradition. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: I suggest that you start a discussion at WP:Wikiproject Biography. But in the mean time, please explain why it is acceptable to categorize actor X as "People from France" (assuming person X is actually from France but is not notable for being from France), but it's not acceptable to categorize actor X as "French Jews" (again assuming it's reliably sourced that X is a Jew but X is not notable for being a Jew)? You have failed to make a convincing argument for that differentiation. Sundayclose (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there is a huge difference. Nationality (and/or place of birth) is an encyclopedic and objective fact which is reported in all kinds of sources (celebrity gossip magazines? yes. other encyclopedias? yes. Actual biographical books? yes.) and for all kinds of people (athletes? yes. artists? yes. politicians? yes. historical figures? yes. So on so forth, you get the picture). On the other hand, ethnicity and religion are rarely as prominent, especially when they have little to do with a person's notability (did you know Nobel was Lutheran in his youth [a fact mentioned by relatively few sources]? neither did I, but it's clearly the case that religion is not a defining characteristic of that person, which is what categories are supposed to be for). Your argument is a textbook false equivalence RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: No, you still fall very short of justifying the distinction. You're talking in circles. Let's take actress Jennifer Connelly as an example. It is well sourced that she has Jewish ancestry and that she is American, which have nothing to do with her acting. She is categorized as an American only by the simple fact that she was born in the USA. Being an American has not determined her success as an actor any more than her birthplace of Cairo, New York, or her hair color, or her shoe size, or her hand dominance. Yet you think it's appropriate to retain any categories related to her as an American, but not categories related to Jewish ancestry. Nope, you are simply wrong on that by Wikipedia's standards. Your opinions are fine (we all have them), but let's not pretend that your opinion is shared by more than a very small minority of Wikipedia editors. If you're serious about this, you need to take it up at WP:Wikiproject Biography if you think yours is a legitimate argument. I can virtually guarantee you that you will have very little support, and certainly not enough to change the way categories related to ethnicity are assigned. Unless you get substantial support there, I can safely dismiss your argument as an unsupported extremist view. So I'm finished discussing this here with you because it's a waste of time. If other editors weigh in here I'll respond. I'll be happy to comment at WP:Wikiproject Biography if you actually have strong enough convictions about such an unpopular opinion to present your arguments there. There really are no reasonable excuses for you not doing that. Sundayclose (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The only one that is digging their head into the sand here and looking unreasonable is you, with your ad lapidem dismissals. It's not that hard. On Wikipedia, we follow what can be verified in reliable sources, giving it in a fair and balanced manner, and without including our own original conclusions. What is and what is not relevant is based on sources. If most sources point out that the subject of this article is "American", then we include this. If most sources do not make the distinction that she is also "Jewish" (an ethnicity/religion, which, as per MOS:ETHNICITY, should be avoided in most cases), then we don't act as though this were of equal importance, and most certainly we don't go for ridiculously low-potshots, like calling the others' arguments an "unsupported extremist view" (you will find that your dramatic hyperbole also happens to be factually wrong: I'm linking to long-standing policy pages, which are generally accepted as the way things are done on Wikipedia). This doesn't have anything to do with whether other articles are also doing this wrong (a discussion which should indeed take place at WP:BIOGRAPHY, once I have more IRL time), since each article is different (see also WP:OSE). If you can't find significant sources which make this point, then it is your argument which does not hold up in light of the way things are done, namely WP:BURDEN. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Let us know when you seek opinions at WP:Wikiproject Biography instead of relying only on your personal interpretations. I look forward to the discussion, but I'm not holding my breath that you will take that bold step. And don't offer the excuse that I should do it. So far you have no support here (and by that, I'm not referring to whether Stewart is Jewish; I refer only to your bizarre opinions about assigning ethnicity categories). So if you want to convince us, get the opinion of the broader Wikipedia community. Let us see that you stand by your convictions. Sundayclose (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

[How To] play the web.archive.org interview video, where Kristen Stewart talks about her mother's Jewish heritage

1. You click on this link: https://web.archive.org/web/20210208105938/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tak2CWne6iQ&feature=youtu.be
2. You wait a couple of mintues for the website to reload.
3. You click a couple of times on that Play |> button inside the black frame of the video, until it starts that buffering animation.
4. You once again, wait a couple of minutes for the actual video and audio (of the interview) to reload.
5. You can't move the time selector to 23:05, so just wait until it gets there.
6. You turn up the volume to hear the conversation between Howard Stern and Kristen Stewart (where Kristen Stewart talks about her mother's Jewish heritage).
6. ???
7. Profit.
8. Now add that reliable and meaningful bio, back to her #Early_life section on Wikipedia. Cheers. NotKstew (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done because an interview is a WP:PRIMARY source and because this is an article about this person and not their mother (and because the above is overall WP:POINTY). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

To clarify with facts, if the goal is to verify something Kristen Stewart has said (e.g., "My mother said she has Jewish heritage"), a primary source is acceptable. But that doesn't get past a few problems. A primary source is not sufficient as an independent source to verify that she has Jewish heritage (e.g., "Stewart's mother has Jewish heritage"). There's also a problem with linking a YouTube source that violates copyright, as this one does (WP:COPYVIOEL), although there are ways to circumvent that problem. But the bottom line: a video of Stewart saying something is not an adequate source for anything other than the fact that she said it. Sundayclose (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this is simply too slender a reed on which to try and lay a foundation for this assertion: moreover, it's not particularly necessary to the article. I think we're better off without it. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

If you're taking this out despite being absolutely standard biographical material, "Australian mother" should be taken out, too, since Stewart flatly contradicted it by saying her mother is from Van Nuys, California, on The Howard Stern Show, November 5, 2019, in very specific detail; radio interviews - and Stern's show gets millions of listeners daily, one of the biggest in the United States - are definitely usable citations. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC) {{BLP noticeboard}}

  1. ^ https://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/Kristen-Stewart-Pictures-Snow-White-Sydney-Premiere-23625747
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kristen_Stewart/Archive_2&oldid=1199201476"