# Talk:Colin Farrell

Hi! To user:celebheights! how are you? I got a question for you? Why do you keep putting the disputed tags of original research or unverified claims in the Trivia section when in fact all of this are true. I've been a fan of Colin Farrell since 2002, and i have been researching all his biographfy life, including his private life, hollywood success, celebrity status, his movies etc. And if you didn't know about this Farrell does part time modeling; and his sister Claudine Farrell is her personal assistant. Before you erazed something think twice, because most of the Colin Farrell editors are very familiar of him. I think you should do some research and see if it's true or not, you well be surprised about this. :) Ramirez 23:00 28 November, 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, About my foul language. I'm just frustrated!. The Photo is properly licence tag now.. P.S. do not Tamper or add silly things into the Colin Farrell article, because I have "worked so hard" on this article for 2 months, including providing accurate details on COLIN'S infos.  Thanks! --Ramirez 10, December 23:33 (UTC)

Interesting, but he's also friends with Jeremy Renner, and dunno if it's still current, Jamie Foxx. We should include too otherwise delete.--69.2.120.11 (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 Not done: He may be friends with those guys but neither George Clooney nor Brad Pitt's profiles include any friendship section, and the latter was a featured article. Farrell's friendship with Liz Taylor is interesting (it also evens out a section that is otherwise just about his sex life) and has been in the news, so leave as is.--Aichik (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC) 

I’ve Been trying to remove the Elizabeth Taylor reference. Because they add it as one of his flings but in reality, He just a Friendship with her, and didnt have a sexual relation with her. "Without strife, your victory has no meaning. Without strife, you do not advance. Without strife, there is only stagnation." (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The article does not say they had a sexual relationship, it says "relationship", and the source says specifically they had a "romantic" relationship.  We could speculate on the nature of that "romance", but our speculation is irrelevant. Either way, Farrell says they had a relationship, and sources repeat that. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
No,
I have multiple sources that confirms exactly what I said. If One source that isnt legit is enough to confirm such an exaggeration than be my guess. But relationship doesnt mean sex and that article is Flawed. I researched it myself Cause I thought it was strange and that is the reality, that they didnt. They were just very Close. "Without strife, your victory has no meaning. Without strife, you do not advance. Without strife, there is only stagnation." (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Just re-read that Stupid Shit! And It Specifically Says they were Great Friends! Thanks For Wasting My Fucking Time! Learned To Fucking Read! "Without strife, your victory has no meaning. Without strife, you do not advance. Without strife, there is only stagnation." (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Colin Farrell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 22:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


### Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of August 9, 2013, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
NOTE: Please do not intersperse comments in between this review, rather, please respond below the entire GA Review, thanks!
Writing quality suffers. Please post a request to WP:GOCE and also please post to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects asking for help with copyediting from previously uninvolved contributors. We'll have to see some sort of major copyedit before the article's quality is ready.
Lots of one-sentence-long-paragraphs and two-sentence-long-paragraphs. Can these please be expanded upon, or merged into other paragraphs?
Early life - this sect seems a bit sparse, surely there are other secondary sources from whence to expand this sect a bit more?
Early career - this sect also seems a bit small, can it be expanded upon more with additional WP:RS sources?
A bit too much usage of quotations overall, please consider trimming these down, and paraphrasing some of them as well.
Personal life - a bit too much WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to this sect, especially some lurid details, and even in some cases citations needed tags for some of this info, that is really a big fail problem.
2. Factually accurate?:
Major problems here throughout the entire article.
All sentences and all facts need to have inline citations to WP:RS secondary sources satisfying WP:V and using WP:CIT formatting, more info at WP:CITE.
There are multiple places with missing cites, where cite needed tags could be added. This is a big fail if not addressed.
Filmography sect - Notes column - entire Notes column in this sect is unsourced. Each fact must have an inline cite, per above.
Television - same thing as Filmography, entire Notes sect of the column is unsourced, needs inline cites.
Selected awards - Again, entire sect is unsourced. Needs inline cites, per above.
3. Broad in coverage?: See problems with small sects, small paragraphs, above.
4. Neutral point of view?: Please trim bottom 3 links from External links sect, they seem inappropriate or haphazardly thrown in there.
5. Article stability?
Article edit history is stable, for now, but there have been multiple periods of instability. Something to watch out for.
Multiple unaddressed sects on talk page. Please look at the most recent five (5) unaddressed sects on talk page, and either respond to them, or summarize them here as to any outstanding issues.
6. Images?: Three (3) images used, all check out alright on image pages at Wikimedia Commons.
NOTE: Please do not intersperse comments in between this review, rather, please respond below the entire GA Review, thanks!Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


### Worked on the above
Fixed the one-sentence-long- and two-sentence-long-paragraphs. Filled in Early Life and Early Career, the latter with new sources, cut down on quotations, paraphrasing some.
Trimmed Personal life, took out Maud Newton quote, cut down Stalker and Sex Tape sections. Not sure what you mean by lurid as Farrell's been pretty open about these things, other actors have gone through similar problems and it adds layers to his life: He wasn't manufactured by the Disney system.
Does it still need a "major copyedit"? I am a member of GOCE and found a few things but overall I think it's okay. I don't mind putting it up on the GOCE board but I wonder where you think the remaining problems are.
Found some places that were missing cites, what else sticks out to you?
Sourced Notes columns in Filmography and Television sections. Selected awards section just repeats these, sources can be seen in Filmography and Television.
Deleted bottom 3 links from External links section
Will look at the most recent five unaddressed sects on talk page, but one, posed by me, I've already answered.
--Aichik (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Update: Have addressed those last five unaddressed sections on Talk page.--Aichik (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, will take another look soon. — Cirt (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I see a 2nd opinion was requested. I welcome that actually, because I think this particular article could only benefit from additional GA Reviewers. — Cirt (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I took a quick look through and didn't see any red flags. Since there was already one review that is fine with it being a GA, I don't see the need to do another, so as a result I'm going to pass this. Wizardman 22:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll respectfully defer to the judgment of Wizardman (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Just starting this section to discuss the addition of a sidebar to the article.
My opinion is that "Colin Farrell" is not so a large topic that the reader needs additional help in navigating. The links in the sidebar go nowhere that isn't, or couldn't be, better linked in the article.  Some of the links go to minor mentions of him in other articles, or just link in an unstructured manner that was is already listed in the relevant places.   There doesn't seem to be any criteria involved in deciding which of his films are included, and which aren't.
WP:LEADSIDEBAR says that sidebars should be avoid in article leads, and their use should be judged on a case by case basis.  In this case it's overkill and unnecessary clutter jamming up the top of the article. Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, re: one of my main points (that he has multiple fictional characters with their own articles), most of those don't have much from him. The one that had the most aside from Penguin, ironically, was Crockett (Miami Vice), and someone reverted that immediately as well.
I see your compromise by moving it to the bottom of the main article page for Colin, but why remove it altogether from the filmography page? It is still up on his awards article. Could we make a compromise for now and place them at the bottom of all three pages, rather than remove them from any, while we discuss for consensus?
I don't really see it as being overkill. But I do understand that perhaps compared to some others, he doesn't have as many unique mentions to warrant one. I suppose I could reduce the roles in the box down to just The Penguin and Bullseye, being the 2 notable comic book character portrayals. Also, as I said in my edit summary, WP:LEADSIDEBAR also states that while it's discouraged from placing it in the lede, you CAN place it in the first section, so Early life is an appropriate place. However, like I said, I'd be fine with it remaining at the bottom for the time being should consensus decide it's unworthy. But I'd ask you to consider doing that for all 3 main articles for consistency, please. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 15:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Adding it to the filmography page just creates a box that lists, in an arbitrary fashion, links to films that are already mentioned and linked in the article.  It's completely pointless. These sidebars are a good idea for large topics that benefit from being grouped and organised in some way.  It might make sense, for instance, if a sidebar on "Irish Actors" was added to this page.  But adding one for Farrell himself, on a page that already links and lists everything about Farrell, is just pointless repetition.   I understand that the sidebar looks odd as a footer.  If you want to create a footer template, it might not be so bad because it doesn't crowd and distract from the lead.  But I still question the need for such a thing.  --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't have links to films. It has links to character pages or real-life figures. Your point still stands, that they're already linked in the article. But just correcting that. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 13:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)