Talk:Sienna Miller

message: — Heading-only unsigned comment added by 193.92.138.201 (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2007‎ (UTC)
:Done? -- AstroU (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get, rid, of, the, commas 

message: This article is not neutral, and never will be.  
150.204.49.17 13:51, Aug 19, 2005 (UTC)
: This troll put NPOV tags on several, apparently randomly selected articles. To make an NPOV dispute you have to say what it is. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 16:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
What's the deal with comparisson to Kate Moss in several occassions?! The article is actually slamming down Sienna Miller. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and not judge what people do with their lifes. Please!! Let's keep Wikipedia credible.
I agree. This article is gossipy and includes information that does not belong in an encyclopedia -- the aim of which is to be short, factual, neutral. (Truthbody (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, calling other editors "wiki-clowns"  is not only a very pathetic attempt at put-down but it is also against WP:NPA. If you can't maintain some semblance of maturity, don't venture to a place where you have to play with others. Second of all, a consensus was reached to not include awards like the Razzies in articles because they're not a legitimate award. If you want to complain about that, open an RfC and change the current consensus. The article currently contains content that supports Miller's notability. I don't see anything overly complementary or negative which is in line with policy. Unless you can point out some troublesome content, I think we're done here. Pinkadelica♣ 19:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you've just proved all my points. Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.181.248 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: This article is controversial. --Anilocra II 10:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial

message: The manual of style indicates that the opening paragraph of a biography should record both what someone does and why they are significant. If you don't agree with that opener, i think it should read "who is most famous for playing Francesca in the film [[Casanova..."Amo 19:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "She is primarily known for"

message: well, to be fair she was living there while shooting "interview", but yeah, i haven't seen any evidence that she keeps a home there or anything. Amo 10:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She also lived there for acting training, as well as being born there. My greatest concern is that she must maintain a residence there, and must spend some visible amount of time there. If I have a house in London and a house in Cornwall, but spend three weeks a year in Cornwall, I think it would be safer to say 'Lives in London, with a holiday home in Cornwall' than 'Lives in London or Cornwall'. Also, there seems to be a bias on Wikipedia about people randomly living in NYC, as I had to change this for Stephen Fry as well, as he was down as New York, when they meant Norfolk =P Cheerio, Roche-Kerr 13:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Living in NYC

message: There are several bits of vandalism in this page, particuarly saying that Kate Moss is more attractive and talented than Sienna Miller.
Pittsburgh is angry. Don't make Pittsburgh angry. We bite. Kolindigo 01:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: The opening paragraph is meant to describe who she is and why she's important. that sentence "culterally she considers..." has no place in the opener, and would best be replaced by reference to awards she has won or similar. Her ethicity needs to be incorperated into the article, but seeing as i favour the "america-born english actress" mould i'm at a loss as to how to do it, and think it would be better done by someone else.Amo 13:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening para

message: Yellow-bellied sapsucker has today wiped out the filmography on the questionable basis that it is already linked to IMDb. According to WP:BIO such lists are appropriate. I've copied the removed text below for reference. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look it's no a big deal, but why input a lengthy, unselective filmography when the link to IMDb is already provided?? I am not going to contest whatever you decide to do. I am onto something else. Cheers. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There's no reason to even debate this. This person is under the provenance of Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and one of the goals of that project is to complete and table filmographies. A link to IMDB isn't sufficient and isn't encyclopedic. I'm returning the filmography. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the keep.  I see two benefits with including the filmography -- enabling wiki-links to the films the actors have been in, and also being able to leave notes about a particular film, such as an award win or a voice role. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is absurd. IMDb is not part of Wikipedia. Does Encyclopedia Britannica delete core information about subjects because the World Book has it covered? Does IMDb delete core information because Yahoo Movies lists it? This is the silliest logic I think I've ever heard on Wikipedia, so I just had to comment! Go look up the word "encyclopedic." --Melty girl (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Filmography

message: Year	Title               	Role           	Notes
2002	The American Embassy	Babe           	Season 1, 1 episode
2002	Bedtime             	Stacey         	Season 2, 4 episodes
2003	Keen Eddie          	Fiona Bickerton	
I nominate that the filmography be included in the article. Please indicate support or opposition below. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look it's no a big deal, but why input a lengthy, unselective filmography when the link to IMDb is already provided?? I am not going to contest whatever you decide to do. I am onto something else. Cheers. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There's no reason to even debate this. This person is under the provenance of Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and one of the goals of that project is to complete and table filmographies. A link to IMDB isn't sufficient and isn't encyclopedic. I'm returning the filmography. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the keep.  I see two benefits with including the filmography -- enabling wiki-links to the films the actors have been in, and also being able to leave notes about a particular film, such as an award win or a voice role. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is absurd. IMDb is not part of Wikipedia. Does Encyclopedia Britannica delete core information about subjects because the World Book has it covered? Does IMDb delete core information because Yahoo Movies lists it? This is the silliest logic I think I've ever heard on Wikipedia, so I just had to comment! Go look up the word "encyclopedic." --Melty girl (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Television

message: I've changed up the section on Robin Hood.  The Wikipedia article cited a rumor that she was removed for her partying and extramarital relationships.  However, other sources say she was removed because her youth and beauty were too much of a contrast to Russell Crowe's older age and excessive weight.  I'm erring on the side of encyclopedias just not having rumors in them period.  Chicken Wing (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I just reverted the re-addition of the content. If someone feels that the information is paramount to the article, a discussion needs about its inclusion needs to take place before the content is re-added. Pinkadelica Say it... 05:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robin Hood 

message: I've read somewhere that her father is.C'est la vie (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Is she Jewish?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Sienna Miller. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611121232/http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/2006-01/060110-pepe-bags-sienna.aspx to http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/2006-01/060110-pepe-bags-sienna.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090802205342/http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1014029,00.html to http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1014029,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070828002652/http://www.twenty8twelve.com/ to http://www.twenty8twelve.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Resurgence"? "Continued acclaim"? Can we use some more neutral terms for section names?172.87.33.194 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased section headers? 

message: Quoting MOS:ETHNICITY:  Based on this, "American-British actress" or "American-English actress" in the lede (or in the ) is incorrect, as those are ethnicities, not nationalities.
The correct construction for this at this article's lede is either "American and British actress" or "American and English actress". The note at the end of MOS:ETHNICITY is directly relevant here – there is no preference for "British" over "English". As Miller seems to self-identify as "English", we should go with "English" over "British". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisiting Nationality in Lede as per [[MOS:ETHNICITY]] 

message: Why there is a note as “first cousin once removed” in relatives section within the infobox? What does it really mean? Thanks. 176.55.121.101 (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note as “first cousin once removed” in the infobox?