Talk:Emma Watson/Archive 4

message: "She also claims to be a big fan of the Shrek films, toast, and Destiny's Child"The fact that she likes toast is irrelevant. I think it sould be removed. - 18:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toast 

message: I think the source should be switched to something else as the Daily Mail isn't really reliable --Ewonline 02:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's reliable for nothing but a conservative POV LiAm McShAnE 19:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily Mail as Source 

message: http://www.slashfilm.com/article.php/20060927harry-potter-casting
I wanted to add some of this information but the page is locked.  Apparently she may not want to do the next two movies.The Horned Water 04:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the original interview, which has ben misquoted out of context across the Internet in the past few days, she never mentions sepcifically that she would not want to return to the Harry Potter movies. --Kevin Walter 10:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That started off as rumor and then it just exploded into being news. But its totally over analyzing what she said in the interview --Ewonline 19:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  this page (at the bottom) says that all 3 have signed up for the final 2 films. It's the sentence before the final paragraph.75.67.128.65 22:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not signing up for next two movies? 

message: Why was the picture deleted? We need a replacement in order to make it a good article. DavidJJJ 16:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much to my continued disgust, see here. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see WP:FUC: we cannot use a character image to illustrate an actor and claim fair use. This was in effect before even the more stringent rewrite of policy. Sorry. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made a request to Wikimedia Commons, where that particular image was uploaded. Meantime, I must ask again that you read the new fair use policy; not only can we not use character images to illustrate actors and claim fair use, we can no longer use unfree images of anyone of whom a free image can be made—essentially, anyone still alive who remains in the public eye. This policy is too strict, in my opinion, but there it is. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The deletion request page for that image is here. –-  kungming·2 (Talk) 07:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That image is just a photoshop special, where  that guy put emma's head on some random girl spreading her legs open. The original page is here, and as you translate, it shows that it is his "dream" to see Emma in her underwear, so that proves that this image is fake and NOT approiate for wikipedia. Was it ever inserted into the article? Karrmann 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least once. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Basically, any image to which the copyright owner (usually, whoever took the picture) gives up all rights for use and reproduction, anywhere. I have a request in to a professional photographer who has captured many of the Potter cast, but no reply yet. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It cannot be simply promotional any more; per the new policy, if a person is living and in the public eye, an identifying image must be free. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. But not all images have to be free. For example, the article for William Clay Ford, Jr. is allowed to use a free use image, since Bill is not a real public personia, even though he is till alive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karrmann (talk • contribs) 20:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That image could be removed at any time. There is nothing on the image page giving fair-use rationale as required by the template that the image is "exceptionally difficult to replace". The uploader needs to make the case for inclusion within the image page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've seen Flickr pictures on other articles - when an image is uploaded to Flickr, is that effectively releasing it into the public domain? Could a Flickr picture be used here? RHB 22:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Flickr user owns the image they have uploaded (i.e., they took it themselves), and have chosen the option in Flickr for a Creative Commons license (or public domain), then it may be used here. --Kevin Walter 03:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This search shows photos licensed under Creative Commons and tagged with emma watson. Some are plainly taken from the films or of no use, but one or two are ok. RHB 16:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All are screenshots, blends, images of other images, do not contain sufficient data that the uploader is entitled to release the rights, or have "some rights reserved" attached. None is suitable without direct permission from the owner, sorry. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The picture of Emma that is presently on the article, is one of Hermione from one of the Harry Potter films, not an actual picture of Emma. I think that we need to find a more appropriate picture that is actually of Emma, not of her character. DavidJJJ 19:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see this on fair use policy, as RadioKirk mentioned above. DavidJJJ 19:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I noticed that someone started a trivia section, but it got reverted with a tag saying "rv: no "trivia", sorry." Why can't there be trivia?
--Falconus|Talk 03:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:AVTRIV; in a nutshell, trivia makes something trivial. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: This article must use a free use image to identify Emma Watson.  The current image is not appropriate.  I tried to remove it but User:AntiVandalBot reverted it.  I would suggest  image if no free alternate can be found.  --Phoenix Hacker 07:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blah, blah, blah.  Can we give the image b.s. a rest?  John Reaves 07:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: THANK YOU! I am getting sick of all this jazz over images. Either somebody uploads a fair image and we go in a stink over it, or some pervert adds photoshopped images of Emma showing her undrewear or naked from the waist down, and we just need to give it a rest. Lets just leave no image on the page, and wait for a free one. Karrmann 15:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was refering to the b.s. over fair vs. free since it's all a pedantic powertrip for
a few editors. But sure, let's give it a rest.  John Reaves 15:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pedantic, yes maybe. But powertrip my ass. The WMF has encouraged and said to delete all RFU's and that's what we're doing. --Lhademmor 16:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Use Image 

message: Hi, I noticed that on the site it mentions:-
"Emma Charlotte Duerre Watson[1] (born 15 April 1990 died 04 February 2007) is an English actress who plays Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter film series."
I think we all know she is not dead yet. Someone please get it corrected. Thanks!
Anonymous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.50.105.181 (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, 60.50.105.181, you know how to edit; if you see obvious vandalism, be bold and revert it. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emma Watson dead? Get your facts right! 

message: We really need to get an admin to get this page semi-protected. Exvicious (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a quick response, requests for page protection should go to WP:RfPP. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was alarmingly useful.  Thanks, F1celloguy!  No one seemed to respond negatively to the idea (or at all), so I put in a semi-protection request. --EXV // + @ 23:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Emma's filmography states that she will still play Hermione in Half-Blood Prince. However, she has not signed on to do Half-Blood Prince yet, nor has she said if she wants to or not. I think that that should be removed until she has verified it. --Austinsimcox 19:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it - as you said, it's not verified, plus the film hasn't even started shooting yet. --Ckatzchatspy 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography 

message: I'm not getting in to this, but the birthplace was changed from Oxford to Paris. I'm changing it back. — Gary Kirk // talk! 10:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the Birthplace section above; more than one editor has said she says "born in France" though the veracity of Paris is still in question, to be honest... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think since it is in dispute, we should put up a "cite needed" at once.  The Wikipedia requires verifiability - regardless of the "truth".  If someone can come up with a bullet proof reliable source on Emma's birthplace, such as from her official web site, or from Warner Bros, or whatever, then we can post it as a verifiable fact.  Otherwise it comes down to opinions, rumour-spreading, original research and fan-gossip; and either the reference to birthplace should be deleted, or the alternative birthplaces should be discussed as uncertain, in a special section called "Birthplace Uncertainty" or something to that effect. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Even easier, I would consider France verifiable; I'm going to remove Paris right now. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is OXFORDSHIRE, not Oxford. www.emma-watson.net is only one of HUNDREDS of fan sites that say so. --Tybre 21:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, fan sites such as the one mentioned do not qualify as reliable sources and therefore cannot be cited as such. --Kevin Walter 23:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe so, but where did you hear this Franc stuff? I've never heard anything like it anywhere.--Tybre 00:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See other discussions on this and archived talk pages. A consensus was reached a few sections above that, based on a video interview, Watson was born in France. --Kevin Walter 01:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might add that its also printed on her official web site as Paris, France. --Ewonline 05:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace 

message: Ok, the story about her quitting originated in a tabloid called News of the World, which is a sister site to The Sun. Both notorious for spreading false rumors. While the WB told BBC, a much more credible source, that they are confidant she will stay. I know for now we have to keep both of them, but it is more likely she will stay. That tabloid story reminds me of Wikipedia vandals. I just wanted to place my input on this issue. Until then, no more rumors about her quitting, ok?--The Showster 18:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated BBC report. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: One of the most reliable Dutch tv stations says that Emma doesn't continue... But many say she does Ajox 14:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC report already cited within the article addresses the rumors and includes a quote from Warner Bros.; this is about as reliable as you can get. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: More rumours: . Christopher Connor 22:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the Emma quitting rumors 

message: There is a new rumor of Emma dating a rugby star which I think is fake. The Sun reported it(a give away) and their "source" says they have been dating since last September, which in late that September she said that she had trouble finding dates. Only when Emma says she is dating will we believe it, but until then she is considered single. Why can't the tabloids leave her alone and stop spreading lies about her? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Showster (talk • contribs) 14:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Showster, sorry to repeat the obvious, but this page is for discussion of Emma Watson the article, not the actress, per talk page guidelines. Thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's fine. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I keep hearing this rumor all the time, but do you have any way to prove it? Either its the Sun making it up or shes being tight lipped about it... --Ewonline 05:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumor of Emma dating rugby star 

message: Some guy keeps posting a car crash that was an April Fool's joke on a site called Gamefaqs. Block him the next time he does it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Showster (talk • contribs) 05:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  April Fool's Joke 

message: There are no references in the reference section at the present time. What happened? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Showster (talk • contribs) 18:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All fixed. --Kevin Walter 01:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the References section? 

message: I think it would make better sense if you classified her as an "English" actress, otherwise "British" would make it more confusing and some people say she's from Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland, although she is officially from England. --PJ Pete
:I think that we generally say "British" unless the person's specific nationality is actually important (for example I imagine Steven Gerrard is an "English" footballer because he represents the England national team). ugen64 04:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the immeadiately above is not stritcly true, I think it's better to call her "English" as it's more specific. Calling her British is practically leaving out information... Amo 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British/English Actress 

message: According to the FHM website, Denise Richards is #98 and Emma isn't even on the list. While that site got Jessica Alba wrong, most of the other girls were wrong or in the wrong position ( http://www.fhmonline.com/girls_100_sexiest_2007.asp?cnl_id=1&stn_id=136 ). 
Maybe linking to the primary source instead of a newspaper would be a better idea. (Nbmatt 22:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would depend on which FHM regional version you're looking at, as the quote is from thisislondon and a variety of other British newspapers such as the Daily Mail report on her achieving the same position (google link) - the source would be the UK FHM (http://www.fhm.com/100sexiestwinner/), but as the issue has only just been released the list is not on their site yet. 82.11.41.163 23:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I just checked that site (in the interest of knowledge of course!) and she doesn't appear on the list. :-) ugen64 03:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the magazine in front of me and can say without doubt 100% it is here in print. The reason that the site isn't updated is that they want people to buy the magazine to find out the Top 100 before they put it on the site. So it'll go back in Cls14 12:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite the print magazine appropriately, and add the information into the article. --Kevin Walter 02:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There we are. All referenced. I will try and get a weblink when it goes online. Cls14 18:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A conversation involving the physical quality of Emma Watson?  Wait a second...Lopsider321 13:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FHM Status... 

message: I have removed information regarding the alleged breast size change on OOTP movie posters. Information was not cited from reliable sources per WP:RS, and contentious to the subject (see WP:BLP). --Kevin Walter 02:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this was technically the right thing to do (removing the non-RS claim), but personally I am of the opinion that recent news articles about celebrities are quite easy to find with a simple google search, and this was no exception -  (first page). :-) ugen64 08:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, this is certainly not going in the articles. John Reaves (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well enough people evidently care that there are 40+ news articles about it - and anyway when you include quotes from the Sun as being notable (a tabloid that is quite notorious for making up quotes, by the way), I don't see why something considered newsworthy by MSNBC isn't notable. ugen64 02:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being on the news hardly makes something worth including. It's called a "slow news day". John Reaves (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breast size/poster controversy 

message: Due to the fact the Sun is nothing but a worthless tabloid and it is about a stalker in which it was never confirmed whether it was true or not, I removed the reference to the article. If you want, I can try to find a more credible source to the information needed, as I believe it was mentioned before. We should never post articles from tabloids on this site as references, as they spread false information all the time. Heck, it was the Sun's sister paper, News of the World, which posted a false article about her leaving. I hope one day people will stop taking these tabloids seriously or treat them as credible sources, so that there is less confusion. In the meantime, we shouldn't refer to any of their articles and only link to credible, trustworthy sources.The Showster 20:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed the reference to the Sun article 

message: According to People magazine, Emma is the eldest of seven children. http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20044820,00.html
:Confusing her with Rupert Grint presumably. Amo 18:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eldest of seven? 

message: And this is important to the article why? So we know she was born in Paris, France. Is there really a need to reiterate that? --Tsurayu 03:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ancestry information is usually included in articles. You could find similar bits on most Harry Potter cast members, like Maggie Smith's Scottish mother, Alan Rickman's Welsh and Irish parents, Gary Oldman's Irish-born mother, and so on. I don't see how stating she has a French grandmother reiterates her being born in France. She could be born in France and have no French ancestry at all. Mad Jack 05:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Grandmother 

message: Please add Emma toCategory:Hollywood Walk of Fame since she now has her own star. Thanks.- Sam. If you need sources, just search for Google "Hand, Foot, and Wand Ceromony". I'd do it myself, but I'm rather tired. Thanks again.
: says "The venue is located just next to [...] Hollywood's Walk of Fame" - so it wasn't actually the Hollywood Walk of Fame... strange thing is, though, if you do a Google news search, the BBC news article actually says "The three stars of the Harry Potter film franchise have been immortalised on the Hollywood walk of fame"... ugen64 11:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between the Hollywood Walk of Fame and prints at Grauman's Chinese Theater.  I'd initially added Watson, Radcliffe and Grint to the WoF page, before realizing the difference myself.  The difference is... she doesn't have a star, she has prints at Grauman's.  -FeralDruid 00:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walk of Fame 

message: Excuse me, but the other day, I added a link leading to Emma's Neopets User Lookup, which has more proof then ANY poser for Miss Watson, and Miss Watson is actually on there, she has proof, and, I'm going to add it back, when I find time, but if anyone else knows the address please add it, unless someone tells me why it was deleted. Thanks!! Ruby loves me.. not u.. 01:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is probably that this is an article about her, not a resource page for tracking her down... Samatarou 00:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Watson has not made any official statement that she has a Neopets account, nor is it referenced on her recently created official website (which also denies any rumors of her having a MySpace, Bebo, or Facebook account). Please locate and cite a reliable source, referencing the URL in question (http://www.neopets.com/userlookup.phtml?user=xem_watsonx). Until then, no Neopets URL should be added to the article, and will be removed. --Kevin Walter 03:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is certainly no proof on that site considering anyone could create that account. Anyone, with too much free time, could pose as her. And besides that this person has taken it too far forging Emma Watson's signature. Anyone who has seen her sign an autograph or anything of the sort knows that isn't her signature. --74.132.94.122 01:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: While she very well may have a Neopets account, until there is solid proof of such from a reliable source (a press release from herself or Warner Bros., for example), it has no place in the article. Even if such proof is presented, the existence of Watson's account is trivial and not relevant to the article. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Kevin Walter 06:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The Neopets account quoted is full of spelling and grammatical errors and was not written by someone who speaks English as a first language, which Emma Watson obviously does. Jack1956 21:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neopets 

message: There seems to be some kind of war going on as to whether the disambiguation link should say "the actress Emma Watson" or "the Harry Potter actress". It seems to me that "actress" is perfectly unambiguous, since Equity rules prevent more than one actor from using the same name. It also seems somehow disrespectful to call her "the Harry Potter actress" given that she did not play the title role. Samatarou 00:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  page description 

message: There seems to be some kind of war going on as to whether the disambiguation link should say "the actress Emma Watson" or "the Harry Potter actress". It seems to me that "actress" is perfectly unambiguous, since Equity rules prevent more than one actor from using the same name. It also seems somehow disrespectful to call her "the Harry Potter actress" given that she did not play the title role. Samatarou 00:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  page description 

message: I just archived the talk page and rewrote the page from scratch to make it a good article candidate. Feel free to improve. —Onomatopoeia 15:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC preparations 

message: I have currently put this article on hold for GAC. My comments:
*Emma Watson was born in Paris, France to Jacqueline Luesby and Chris Watson, two English lawyers.This should be cited.
*In 2000, casting began for the film Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone—titled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States, the film adaptation of the bestselling book Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by British fantasy author J. K. Rowling.This should be cited.
*She gives an on-screen hug to co-star Daniel Radcliffe and steals the limelight in a magical school dance wearing a sleeveless pink evening dress.This seems POV—who said she "steals the limelight"? And is the on-screen hug and the specific dress she wore in one scene really notable?
*In 2006, Watson also played Hermione in The Queen's Handbag, a special mini-episode of Harry Potter in celebration of Queen Elizabeth II's 80th birthday.This should be cited.
*Watson herself acknowledged that she will never have to work again for money, but she has declined quitting school and becoming a full-time actress because "learning keeps me motivated".The quote is in first person—it should be "learning keeps [her] motivated".
*Emma Watson is the eldest daugther of divorced English lawyers Jacqueline Luesby and Chris Watson.This should be cited.
*Watson is an avid sports player and as of 2005, her musical interests include singing, hip hop, blues, and classic rock, including Eminem, Eric Clapton, U2, Nelly Furtado, Joss Stone, Amy Winehouse, and Norah Jones.This should be cited; and updated if possible, since it's accurate as of two years past.
Cliff smith 04:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did all the cleanup just now, hope it passes. —Onomatopoeia 12:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since all of my comments have been addressed and I believe that this article meets the GA criteria, I promoted this article to GA status. Keep up the good work! Cliff smith 23:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yoohoo! Thanks for the green plus and your constructive criticism above. —Onomatopoeia 07:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice find, I'll incorporate that ASAP. —Onomatopoeia 07:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: I know that Emma "politley" refused to say anything on dating Tom Ducker but wasn't it obvious she was. And now I hear she is not. I'll site the source as soon as I find it again, but I don't have a name here, and don't really got time to register so I think someone should add in about her being single again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.44.86.44 (talk • contribs).
:Until there is a reliable source regarding Emma's relationship status, nothing can be added to the article. --Kevin Walter 06:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know we can't use it in the actual article, but could you provide a link to where Jo refuted it? Tabercil 21:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  relations 

message: I can see no reason why this, generally excellent, article can't be sent along the road towards WP:FAC.  I've requested a peer review from the Biography WikiProject, to make sure that it meets all their requirements.  Does anyone have any comments before it goes to the full Wikipedia:peer review?  Happy-melon 13:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's ready. Definitely send it to WP:PR, even perhaps straightaway to FAC. Onomat has done a wonderful job. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the main editor of the article, I think it is not a bad idea at all, and I saw you already did the correct thing, namely putting it up on WP:BIOPR. Use it as a base for a real thorough spit-and-polish-action, and then FAC will be realistic. I'll stay tuned in any case. —Onomatopoeia 10:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not send it to A-class review? It would be a good stepping stone to FA. -Duribald 06:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I honestly think the WikiProject Biography has gone on a summer vacation!  I havent' heard anything from them on WP:BIOPR, let alone A-class review.  WP:BIO is such a massive project, things just seem to get lost in their bureacracy.  Happy-melon 10:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  -->Peer review --> FAC? 

message: A perusal of other featured actors and actresses reveals that the addition of extra images would be appropriate.  Fair use images may be used in moderation to support the analysis of the subject's work in the appropriate film.  For this article, I would say that the inclusion of one fair use image from one or other film would be appropriate to liven up the "Harry Potter years" section.  
We have posters from all the films bar the first to choose from:
*Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - :Image:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets movie.jpg
*Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - :Image:Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban poster.jpg
*Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - :Image:Harrypotterandthegobletoffireposter.jpg
*Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - :Image:HP1.jpg
The only actual in-film clip that I think would be appropriate is from PoA, when Hermione hits Draco.  As this is actively discussed in the text I think that an image of this would be highly appropriate.  I can get a high-fidelity still from this scene if we need to.  So, which image is it to be?  Happy-melon 14:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra images

message: I have requested assistance from the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board to check the references from the german source in this article, which is here.  In particular, we need to check the validity of the quotes that are drawn from the source, which are found in this paragraph: 
In an interview with German broadsheet newspaper Die Welt (2007), Watson addressed how awkward she felt having to kiss Grint's character in the seventh film. Despite being a Hermione-Ron shipper herself, she said she "would rather not think about it now", adding that while Grint was "very nice" and "many girls like him", he was definitely not her type. Commenting on Radcliffe's widely publicised nude scenes in the theatre piece Equus, she not did categorically rule out nude scenes herself, but immediately added that "you will never see me naked without any reason".
Assistance with confirming the validity of the references would be greatly appreciated, as well as alternative translations for the final quote, as it jars rather with the rest of the paragraph.  Is "you will never see me naked without any reason" the correct translation?  Is "you won't see me naked..." an acceptable alternative?  Happy-melon 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added German translations of the relevant passages, I hope it clears things up. The part is (1)Aber (2)Sie (3)werden (4)mich (5)nie (6)grundlos (7)nackt (8)sehen which translates literally to "(1)but (2)you (3)will (5)never (8)see (4)me (7)naked (6)without (6)reason". —Onomatopoeia 08:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say "without good reason" be the way it would have been expressed in English Agathoclea 18:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German source 

message: Can someone checkup if emma watson is currently dating tom felton......??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.53.35 (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last I heard she was dating some rugby or soccer player but she tends to play coy and not confirm rumors so i wouldn't put it in the article.
She was seen with Daniel Radcliffe in Valentine's day snogging each other.Miley Cyrus fan (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is she currently dating 

message: Does anyone have any final things to do to this article before I hit WP:FAC with it?  Speak now or forever hold your peace, etc etc. 
I have two things that I'm doing/going to do:
*I have written to the copyright holders of the images in this article, as a boilerplate request for rights release under a creative commons license.  If they say yes, one or more will be a fantastic addition to this article.  If not, well, you won't get what you don't ask for.
*Ten minutes before I open the FAC nom, I'll go through the whole article with a red pen and be utterly ruthless in copyediting it.  Happy-melon 18:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cabin crew seats for takeoff? 

message: this news report makes me want to double check her A level subjects and grades once I get to a computer that's not behind a firewall which blocks the flash on her site.  Happy‑melon 11:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exam results? 

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, T Rex | talk 04:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Pass 

message: OK, Emma was the juniorest (see above) ever. How old was she, exactly? 14 or 15?  Mr. Chips 10:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vogueing? 

message: Unblock this page , i need Copy Something For page in spanish  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.249.22.67 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So make an account. That way the locks won't affect you. Anakinjmt 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Need 

message: Is it worth including current rumours that she might be dating that guy of the HBO/BBC show "Rome?"Wizlop (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, if you can find a reliable source which discusses the matter. But honestly, even then probably not. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. We don't record every minute detail of a person's life. Furthermore, rumors very, very rarely are suitable for inclusion. Occasionally something which is only a rumor gets very well documented and becomes noteworthy in itself, for instance rumors of Catherine the Great engaging in bestiality. Completely unfounded, but notable nonetheless. But as you can see, that's a completely different case, and Emma Watson ain't no Catherine the Great. Short answer, no, never include rumors, even if sourced. If you ever find yourself questioning whether something belongs or not, it almost certainly doesn't especially in the case of biographies of living persons. faithless (speak) 07:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current rumours about dating 

message: I notice that this article is locked down, as non-registered (and non-logged in) editors can't make changes. Shouldn't there be a banner on the page indicating that the article is currently under protection? 68.146.41.232 (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The protection is noted by the small silver padlock in the top-right corner of the page.  If the page were fully protected, the padlock would be gold.  It is semi-protected, meaning that only logged-in users can make changes.  Happy‑melon 11:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection label needed 

message: I was looking at the critical reception for ballet shoes and i think the statement that it was poorly reviewed is an unsourced generalization  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.60.220 (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read reviews from the Times, the Telegraph, the Guardian and a couple of others - all criticised the pace and flow, although the cast got credit for good acting. Happy‑melon 11:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ballet shoes 

message: Sorry to be away for a time, I have been occupied with real lfe.  Anyway, I agree on further reflection that I do not need to impose my own organizational scheme on the article, though I think some parts could possibly flow better, though I do not have an example right now.  There is one more sentence I find objectionable: there is no need for Watson's opinion of her new co-stars in the latest movie, that does not really add anything.  I will have to take another careful look tomorrow, but I think that may be the last sentence I have a serious objection to. I am close to being able to support. Indrian (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you will like the edit I did! I reincorporated a few things from your version. --Melty girl (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Comment 

message: I wonder if it's worth referencing (with sources, of course) that Watson has repeatedly denied press rumors that she has anything more than a close friendship with Radcliffe and Grint? This is becoming a more frequent topic of discussion given the expected romantic content of the next two films. I know the current issue of "Movie Magic" contains an interview with her in which she addresses the issue directly (stating that Grint is "not her type"). If these rumors were just NetGossip, it wouldn't be notable, but since we've seen major broadcasters such as E! trying to get a rise out of Watson by seeking her opinion of Radcliffe in Equuis, etc., etc., it might be worth noting. And now that the actors are reaching (or have reached) the 18 mark, I'd expect this sort of coverage to increase, not decrease. 23skidoo (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because gossip and rumors are discussed in the news doesn't mean they should be covered in Wikipedia biographies -- particularly non-events like this where there's the typical gossipy speculation about co-stars and it's being denied. There is no event or fact to report on except that people like to imagine attractive co-stars getting together. Just because it is true that people are speculating and it's verifiable that Watson answers questions about this speculation doesn't make it appropriate content for this encyclopedia. Just because people discuss something in the news doesn't make it encyclopedic: please see WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP for why this type of content is inappropriate. This article is probably on its way to FA status right now -- adding back gossip and trivia would send it down to the road to WP:FARC. --Melty girl (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life section 

message: The Telegraph needs disambig. Randomblue (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What link do you mean? This is vague. Maybe you could just fix whatever the problem is yourself...? --Melty girl (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Randomblue was referring to a link to The Telegraph, which is a disambig page.  The paper intended is The Daily Telegraph.  I unlinked it; it was already linked earlier in the article. Mike Christie (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambig 

message: Why is there only one picture in this article where Emma Watson isn't even recognizable? I seem to remember that there used to be sensible images in here a while ago? Where did they go??? --Krawunsel (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They weren't free. -Duribald (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It turned out a large number of the photos which that user had posted to Wikipedia were copyright violations, so for safety's sakes, all of the photos they uploaded were deleted. Tabercil (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I know an IP wrote something about that in all caps, but anyone aware of this. I could eventually add this up in the Watson article, while someone may think of adding an article on Mr. Ducker. I've first noticed indications of the relationship on an article related to the split of Radcliffe and Laura O'Toole. Apparently an article said that he is a rugby star.--JForget  18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We're well aware of those rumours. There are also rumours about them splitting up. It's all to insecure info to be covered i na featured article, and the source you refer to is a wiki, by the looks of it, and cannot be used as a reference on Wikipedia. -Duribald (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, the same article mentioning that Radcliffe and O'Toole have split also shows that Watson and Ducker have split - see the link in my first comment above.--JForget  17:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That seems to be little more than a gossip internet page. Furthermore the only claimed source is an anonymous alleged friend of ms Watson's. That doesn't exactly qualify as hard evidence. This is a featured article, so I don't think we should risk the status of the article by including gossip. Relationships should be referenced with published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy or they should be left out. - Duribald (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Ducker 

message: Would it be legal to tell somebody her email address?  If so, could somebody please tell me?  I need to ask her some questions. - Elephant Lad (talk) 3:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think we have it? :)  Tabercil (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think he was, hence the smiley after the comment.  As he said, however, we are no more likely to know Ms Watson's personal e-mail than anyone else in the world, and I would not be surprised to hear that she does not, in fact, have a personal e-mail account.  The best I can suggest is her official website, of which I can see only one e-mail address listed: info@emmawatsonofficial.com - I doubt that anything sent there gets any closer to her than her PR's clerk's assistant's tea-lady's in-tray, but it might still be worth a try.  Happy‑melon 18:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: Rumors have been flying around in the past few days regarind Emma Watson and Johnny Borrell dating. Those rumors have been confirmed false, by Emma's webmistress Jo(on forums of a site previously owned by Jo), and by Emma herself on her official website. So anything regarding these rumors should not be included on the page, as they are false. The Showster (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2008)
:Yeah, and now the rumors are that she and Dan are dating. It looks like they were spotted at a pub on Valentine's Day, but we should be cautious about people going "OMG LIKZ EMA N DAN ZEY ARE DATING ITZ REEL LIFE HARY/HERMINY!" Especially when, considering how many times they've said they think of each other as brother and sister, I put a lot of doubt into this idea that they're dating, even if TV Guide.com and Fox News and the Mirror post it. Besides, all the other sites are going off this Mirror post, and I think the Mirror is not seen as a very reliable source. Anakinjmt (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of Wikipedia policy, the Mirror is as reliable as the Times.  A claim referenced to the Mirror is suitably cited.  In terms of common sense, of course, we should take everything the mirror says with a large tablespoon of salt. Happy‑melon 13:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Newspapers suchs as the Mirror hardly ever tell the exact truth. They aren't a very reliable reference. --Jammy (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a heads up 

message: Hi. I was just about to manually fix some vandalism that was on here earlier and in the midst of doing that someone seems to have reverted the article. I'm just wondering how that was done and whether anyone can do it or only certain people. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can edit this page. -Duribald (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: All users can undo, only certain users can revert or rollback, which undoes all the consecutive edits by the same user Grsz11 (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You can revert to a previous version of an article by opening that version, clicking the 'edit' tab at the top of the page and saving it without making any changes. You might also find a tool like WP:TWINKLE handy. faithless (speak) 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting 

message: If you wanted to tell what country she's from, you would call her a "British" actress. Calling her an "English" actress only tells what constituent country she's from. --PJ Pete  —Preceding comment was added at 06:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is she a British actress, or English? Or is there really a difference? 'Cause I've always heard she's a British actress. Anakinjmt 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to use British here, as that is her legal nationality. Saying that she's English tells us her ethnicity, which is inappropriate for the opening of the article. faithless (speak) 17:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read the archives. This topic has been discussed. If you can provide a link to somewhere on wikipedia that says it's "inappropriate" to open an article that way, please link to it here, and then change the article. Amo 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the archives, and you were the only one to think English was to be used instead of British. Everyone else thought British. Anakinjmt 19:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (editconflict)I am well aware that this subject has been discussed before; that doesn't mean they got it right. The guideline is quite clear: nationality should be given in the opening of an article, not ethnicity. Watson is ethnically English, but there is no longer any such thing as English nationality (see British nationality law). Her nationality is British, and the article should reflect that. faithless (speak) 19:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick question faithless, but why do it British? Why not just British? Anakinjmt 19:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Faitheless didn't I did. Just out of ease.Amo 19:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I see the Spanish version describes her as "inglesa", whereas J.K. Rowling is described as "británica".  Presumably this shuld be consistent as well. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  I reckon she's English - Most people IN BRITAIN don't consider themselves British, it's a silly pseudonym for the constituent countries popularised by American films. She isn't Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish, and don't say it's only an ethnicity, since about 40% of Northern Ireland is ethnically English. / 15:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember a debate that was going on in England last year, everyone was going around asking "do you feel British or English?" To be quite honest it should remain English as it pinpoints her exact nationality, as if you said British then it could mean she could be Welsh, Scottish or English. Jammy (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 16:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  British?/English? 

message: I'd like to explain in more detail than an edit summary why, exactly, the Watson-Radcliffe-dating rumours do not belong in this article.  Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - we deal only in confirmed, verifiable facts.  As such, we could, if we wanted to, put in a sentence saying that Ms Watson walked into a bar on February 14 with Daniel Radcliffe.  That is verifiable.  Any claim of romantic engagement, sourced or not; or even a note that there is no confirmed claim, falls foul of WP:OR, WP:BLP, maybe a bit of WP:CRYSTAL, etc.  And without that claim, this piece of information is quite simply boring.  Where did she go on February 13?  What about February 15??  The only reason that her whereabouts on St Valentine's day is notable is if it has a confirmed, reliably-sourced romantic connection, which of course it doesn't.  Hence, it's trivia, and so it gets the chop.  Happy‑melon 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating rumours 

message: Due to what looks like some WP:SPA activity I have semi protected until tommorow at 12:00. This is a short protection to save established editors having to revert dubious unsourced entries. If problems persit please use WP:RFPP. If regular editors of this page feel this is in error please use my talk. Pedro :  Chat   22:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi Protection 

message: Production has been confirmed, it's not a rumor anymore.
I got most of the information in, but can someone fix the citation please?
I'm horrible at those. Drew (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 

message: It says she's signed for the following three installments... shouldn't that be two?
125.238.62.147 (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Deathly Hallows is being produced in two parts, so there's actually three films to come. Happy‑melon 15:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Installments? 

message: does describing yourself as "a bit of a feminist" qualify you for a "tag" called "English feminists".
I'd say no.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.115.11 (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, those two claims are very comparable. She says she's a feminist, she's a feminist, whether you agree with it or not. faithless (speak) 09:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: If someone describes themselves as holding certain views, that is what matters. If a person says, "I am a (feminist, Communist, racist, optimist, etc.)", then they are; that is the only criterion. Now if you want to argue over the notability of such statements, that's a different story, but the veracity is indisputable. faithless (speak) 05:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. I don't mean to argue, it just seemed that having her in the 'English feminists' category was a bit of a, I dunno, stretch of the truth . If the justification for that is her claim and her claim alone, then, sure, she's a feminist. 220.101.129.116 (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem, arguing is what talk pages are for, so we don't have edit-warring. :) I think I should add something to my last statement - if another reliable source were to call her a feminist, that would also be acceptable. For instance, I doubt Susan B. Anthony ever used the word 'feminist' to describe herself, but that's certainly what she's thought of as today (disclaimer: maybe SBA did refer to herself as a feminist; I'm no expert, I'm just guessing that the term isn't quite that old). But when it comes to a person's beliefs, only they can say what they are. If she had said she was 'a bit of a Christian' I don't think we'd be having this conversation. They're both the sort of thing that if you say you are one, you are. :) faithless (speak) 06:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emma Watson, feminist