Talk:Kate Mara

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

Filmography table?[edit]

I like this article very much. Lots of interesting information to make a good read. Though it's very good, I wonder if anyone familiar with the subject could help adding a filmography table? It will make everything clearer. Some other actor articles have this table and it's very easy to tell at first glance which years an actor's been active and their movie roles, so I think it's very useful. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added. I'm always a bit wary of encyclopedia articles that get a bit listy, but I agree with the usefulness of a filmography. dissolvetalk 18:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saw the film last night, and also like this article a lot. -- AstroU (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Praise for the Page[edit]

I really think Kate Mara is a great actress. The last movie I watched with her in it was We are Marshall. That was an amazing movie--really moving and well directed. But overall, this article is great. Nicely organized and I love the table. 4.226.159.148 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She also appeared as a gymnast/murderer in Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, Season 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.240.9 (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what this "talk" page is for, but thanks for weighing in Kate. This article just seems like it was written by her or someone in her inner circle. I wish my family owned a couple of pro football teams. I'd have an article too. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Way too much information?[edit]

Is she really that noteworthy? Do we really need such an in-depth run-through of every role she's ever played? Do we really care how many times she's sung the national anthem at the NFL or that she missed a game in 2006? 118.22.26.54 (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Along this line, I severely cut down the "NFL ties" section and turned it into a subsection of Personal life. It previously discussed her ancestral and familial ties to the teams, and other trivia such as mentioned above, in undue detail. (For a good contrast, look at Julia Louis-Dreyfus. It barely mentions the fact that she is the daughter of a billionaire!) YLee (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might cut/paste from the Article to the TALK here, so we can read if we want to. -- AstroU (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian[edit]

She features in the Christian film Captive (2015). She's Chrisitan? 1.144.97.72 (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol... who cares? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.19.79 (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

picture[edit]

Can we get a better picture.. she's well tasty, but the picture makes her look like a r8 minger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.107.175 (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kate Mara. 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) 01:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kate Mara. 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) 13:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon tattoo[edit]

Didn't she play in the movie 'the girl with the dragon tattoo'? Woodstone (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're close. See Rooney Mara, her sister. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kate Mara. 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) 01:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image RfC[edit]

NO CONSENSUS
Obviously no consensus, default to status quo. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Which photo for the infobox? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Choices[edit]

  • Choice A (September 2015)
    Choice A (September 2015)
  • Choice B (July 2015)
    Choice B (July 2015)

Choice A[edit]

  • Support Superior photo of the two, no question. Attractive, looks like an infobox photo. The other image would be fine in the body of the article, but with the microphone and water bottle in front of her face, the bad lighting, and weird smile on her face, it's far from suitable as an infobox image. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm not opposed to using either photo however, if I had to pick, I'd support choice A because of the water bottle and microphone in choice B. Meatsgains(talk) 01:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Even though thousands of foot candles are reflecting off her face, it doesn't have the water and mic.(Summoned by bot) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The clearer of the two images in my opinion -- Whats new?(talk) 05:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The water bottle and microphone are undesirable elements. Scr★pIronIV 11:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because it doesn't have any objects in the way of her face Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Choice B[edit]

  • Weak Support - Both images are fine. That said, my feeling is that if we have a choice between using a publicity photo versus a more natural, candid image, we should go with the latter. Admittedly, this is only my own personal opinion and not supported by policy. NickCT (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Personally I feel the lighting, her face etc are all better in this image, Admittingly the bottle is an issue however it's not really a distraction as such, Both images are fine but I feel this is a bit more better. –Davey2010Talk 19:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Will readily admit I think this is inferior as a photograph (would love to have one without the mic and water in the way); however, in terms of depicting Mara, it is far more representational. Ultimately I view the purpose of infobox images as serving to identify the subject of the entry (person or otherwise) and honestly, if you'd shown me Image A in a lineup, I would not have been able to tell you who that was, despite watching her for however many hours she was on House of Cards. I think, go with the one where she's recognizable. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this picture looks more like her even though there are indeed elements in the picture that shouldn't belong. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Image A doesn't look like her. SarahSV (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: more natural expression and better colouring / lighting. The first photo does not really look like Mara. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Basically agree with everything Innisfree987 (and SlimVirgin) said, but with the added caveat that I re-watched season one several times after stalling on season three because the show never really got as good as its first season. (It's not off-topic, as she was killed off at the start of season two: off-topic would be asking the rhetorical question of why I prefer the first seasons of shows like HOC and Game of Thrones that I only watch retroactively and so don't experience any nostalgia, implying that the first seasons are objectively better; but I'm not going to do that.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • Further comment Decided this didn't really belong in my !vote proper and might be a good point for discussion. A lot of the "A" supporters seem to be doing so based exclusively on the problematic elements of "B", and while their concerns are definitely valid, I think in a long-term, big-picture sense the flaws or A are worse than B; B's are more obvious in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines whereas A's are only apparent to those ... familiar with the topic (however weird it feels saying that about the physical appearance of a human being). Neither image is likely to help this article become an FA, and ideally an image that both looks like her (or at least like the characters she is famous for portraying) and has no problematic foreground elements obscuring her face will be uploaded; I feel like an image that violates normal, clearly-defined guidelines of image use like B would leave more incentive to find or create such an ideal image, whereas A looks like the kind of problematic image that an article could wind up stuck with indefinitely. (While it's kind of an unrelated problem since he's dead and we're not likely to get a better image in the near future, our Stanley Kubrick article is very much in my mind as I write this: that article has been forced to "settle" for public domain images that aren't recognizable as Kubrick even to people who know what he looked like when he made his best-known films later in life.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another point to consider is that this RFC has been open for three weeks and has been almost 50-50 the whole time with no one writing more than a few lines of commentary (leaving it down to little more than a tallying of !votes), so it's really likely to end as "no consensus, default to to status quo ante". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Discussion at Talk:Elliot Page § Former relationships and other recent revelations[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elliot Page § Former relationships and other recent revelations. Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've temporarily removed the content about Page and Mara since concerns have been raised about it at Talk:Elliot Page/Archive 6#Former relationships and other recent revelations. It will be much easier to avoid fragmentation and redundancy, if all comments regarding it's removal could be posted at Talk:Elliot Page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

add music video[edit]

She starred in When Am I Gonna Lose You by Local Natives, 2019 76.147.199.112 (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kate_Mara&oldid=1223046800"