Talk:Anne Hathaway/Archive 4

Filmography table
Please stop adding films that are not in production to the table. Based on WP:CRYSTAL and Wikipedia practice, films only go into the table once they start filming. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

On religion
The article states: "However, she decided against it at the age of 15, after learning that her brother, Michael, was gay;[7] she felt that she could not be part of a religion that condemned her brother's sexual orientation."

What Anne Hathaway actually said, confirmed in the citation given, is: "But when I was about 15, I realised my older brother was gay, and I couldn't support a religion that didn't support my brother."

The statement in the article does not truly reflect her actual words. The words she used "not support" clearly express her disdain, but they do not mean "to condemn". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelyjubbly01 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a good observation and should be corrected to reflect the actual quote. This guidance is as it pertains to the manual of style and the section on minimal change.  My 76 Strat  01:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Some of the links are not good, and is Huffington Post a reliable source? Here is one that sounds accurate, as already included in the article, this link has her direct quote, which sounds accurate to me. http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/GuffShuff.asp?filename=6a5a9a8sa.9amal&folder=aGDafTaSah4afaf&Name=GuffShuff&dtSiteDate=20060607 I'm changing the sentence in the article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move redux

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved. There is no consensus in the discussion below to move the page, and I would also like to address one fallacy in some of the arguments here. Most people who view the actress's page do not arrive via the disambiguation page (page veiws). The vast majority go straight to the actress's page, either via internal links, or via a Google search. It appears that at least 15 out of 16 readers viewing the actress's page never even see that dab page. At any rate, this is a case of no consensus for the move, so we'll fall back on our usual practice of not moving an article in the face of significant opposition. - GTBacchus(talk) 14:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway (actress) → Anne Hathaway – WP:ASTONISH and WP:TITLE practically demand this move without discussion, but some editors have objected. Wikipedia readers clearly are looking for the actress by a factor of 16:1; see article hit stats for the actress and the wife. Frank &#124;  talk  00:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The wife of William Shakespeare is clearly of more notability.  ASTONISH does not trump RECENTISM.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is policy, while WP:RECENTISM is a mere essay. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 17:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've provided current Wikipedia statistics showing otherwise, by a factor of 16:1. Do you have any citations from reliable sources to support your assertion? Frank  &#124;  talk  00:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Deadline for what? You've made an unsupported assertion; are you saying there's no deadline for supporting what you've claimed, namely that "the wife of William Shakespeare is clearly of more notability"? Perhaps I should toss WP:NOTINHERITED over the fence now? Frank  &#124;  talk  00:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I note that this was discussed less than a year ago. Page hits are not necessarily decisive, sometimes we ought to take a historic overview.  I am open to persuasion if the actress signifcantly rises in notability, but barring something really dramatic I suggest we leave this for a couple of years. PatGallacher (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Not necessarily decisive"? If there were a slight advantage for one topic over another, I could see that point, but we are talking about 16x readership for the actress over the wife. In addition, Anne Hathaway (actress) is number 373 on the list of most popular Wikipedia articles. With in the project, that puts this article in the top 0.01% of all English Wikipedia articles: that's 0.0001, meaning that only 1 in 10,000 articles is more popular. And, the trend is increasing in the actress' favor; a year ago, the ratio was still a quite decisive 11x.  Frank  &#124;  talk  00:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Frank, responses to every comment on your proposal will not win you friends. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mark, failure to provide policy-based reasons to oppose the move will not demonstrate WP:CONSENSUS. Merely typing "oppose" does not get at the crux of the matter; this is a discussion, not a vote. I am not looking for "friends". That's what Facebook is for. Frank  &#124;  talk  00:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Frank, behaving like a dick will prevent you winning arguments, whether policy-based or not. I think that was what Mark was trying to say, whilst avoiding the name calling I've engaged in. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're saying that Wikipedia users behave like dicks by a factor of 16:1, well, I suppose it's up to those users who are seeking this article to comment on that assertion, which, in my opinion, doesn't advance this discussion. If you're suggesting I'm behaving inappropriately, you're certainly entitled to your opinion - but again, this is a discussion, not a vote, and not a name-calling session. I'm still focusing on content, not contributors. That's what I'm here for. Frank  &#124;  talk  01:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that your style of argument predisposes the failure of that argument, despite any external facts. Sad but true. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The two previous discussions were sound, and no compelling argument was advanced to overturn their outcome. An encyclopedia is not a search engine, and historical significance should outweigh the transient tide of popular culture. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The speed with which this was implemented was astonishing: it's almost as if this unpopular, as demonstrated by the two earlier discussions, outcome needed to be snuck through quickly, as the consensus against remains.--Old Moonraker (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose.  It would be indeed astonishing to find the actress occupying the primary namespace.  -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 06:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a ludicrous argument. It would astonish an old guard of scholarly elitists, maybe, who wish to "educate" the more ignorant masses who only know of pop culture, amirite?? elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The numbers speaks for themselves, 448 613 views the last 30 days, versus 27 715 views. Last year when I proposed this move, this article was at 238 000 views. As you can see, it's only getting more popular. Twice as popular, in fact. Oh, and quoting the guidelines for those of you who continually oppose the move: "A topic is primary for an ambiguous term if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box." What is so confusing about that? Please explain that to me. Nymf hideliho! 07:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am going to leave this here, as it was such a great argument by Station1 last year. Nymf hideliho! 07:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Forget recent statistics. "Anne Hathaway" has primarily referred to Shakespeare's wife for 400 years and will continue to primarily refer to her long after anyone can still remember there ever was an actress of the same name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When that happens, we'll switch it back. Powers T 14:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That article is not policy, but merely an essay, and certainly not meant to apply to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 17:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support; with a proper hatnote on this article, people searching for Shakespeare's wife are no worse off than they were before, while we satisfy the vast majority of people who are looking for the actress. Powers T 14:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Oh and WP:NOTINHERITED is a ludicrous argument. If nobody had ever heard of her then it might apply, but most people who know anything about Shakespeare have. This argument simply does not apply to a figure as iconic as Shakespeare - so much has been written about him over the centuries that naturally his family have become "celebrities" as well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * With due respect, it's no more ludicrous than invoking WP:RECENTISM, which was certainly never intended to address WP:PRIMARYTOPIC decisions. Powers T 14:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * With due respect, rubbish. The principle of recentism applies here, whether the essay was meant to apply to article titles or not. It is even referred to in the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline: "An exception may be appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account". This exception, to my mind, clearly applies here. The principle of notinherited does not apply, since anyone with any knowledge of the subject is aware that Shakespeare's wife is a subject worthy of note. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's silly making making 448 613 people click one extra time, due to some perceived notion of recentism. As someone else said in an earlier requested move, "Putting her article at Anne Hathaway does not suggest she's better or more important than Shakespeare's wife; it only recognizes the reality that most readers typing Anne Hathaway in the search box expect to land on this article." Can you really argue with that? Nymf hideliho! 16:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this a trick question? We haven't made half a million people click an extra time (which in the long run is a flyspeck anyway). The page use statistics cited in support of the move also show that the DAB pages involved aren't getting anywhere near that many hits, so those half million users aren't clicking through them. They're not "typing 'Anne Hathaway' in the search box". Instead, the stats show that people are coming to the actress's page through links somewhere, and the best bet would be that they're coming from search engines providing direct links. So moving the page won't help them in the least. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, then. You are making 27 000 people click an extra time, minus the 6% looking for Shakespeare's wife. That's 324 000 a year. Nymf hideliho! 16:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Recentism strongly favours not moving this page to the primary topic. Snowman (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should an essay, from the perspective of an editor who seems to be tiffed by pop culture, override policy? I quote from policy:
 * A topic is primary for an ambiguous term if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC)
 * This criteria is policy and should override the use of an essay for the POV of editors seeking to combat the endless frenzy of pop culture on Wikipedia. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 17:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a policy, it's a guideline. And I quote again from that guideline: "An exception may be appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account". Which part of that, or indeed normal Wikipedia procedure, suggests we must be bound by some sort of rule without exception? -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. We are arguing the relative notability of a popular, award-winning modern actress, who has a ten-year career at the tender age of 28, versus a woman who married a famous guy. And when all the statistics back up the notability of the former, you still want to relegate her to a hatnote or disambiguation. Ridiculous. Elizium23 (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what is ridiculous is that we are putting an actress who has been around for ten years and who has appeared in a handful of notable film roles above an historic personage who was married to one of the most famous figures in the history of the western world, who has herself been the subject of an enormous corpus of scholarship for the last 400 years, and who has a very famous historic building named after her. What's ridiculous again? -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. This is ridiculous guys, and stop attacking Frank. There is nothing wrong with addressing faulty arguments. The main purpose of redirects and WP:ASTONISH should take precedence over what seems like Shakespearean elitists who wish to force "common folk" readers to realise there's a second "more deserving for reading" Anne Hathaway. ASTONISH and PRIMARYTOPIC are policies; RECENTISM is a mere essay. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * PRIMARYTOPIC is a guideline and ASTONISH is also an essay; neither are policies. Please try to stop misrepresenting your arguments. It really doesn't make them any stronger. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, what is a primary topic isn't established by numbers alone. If one of the meanings of Mercury becomes popular for a decade or so, it does not mean that we as an encyclopedia need to change our disambiguation system. —Kusma (t·c) 20:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- actress will always be a secondary topic; revisit in a hundred years for confirmation. --192.80.65.234 (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While there are guidelines I can cite for this, most of them have already been brought forward. Instead, I'm voicing my opposition for the sake of Wikipedia not becoming a celebrity directory. Rennell435 (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for the third time. No sense repeating myself though. Nothing has changed except her article has become even more popular and less recent. Station1 (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the argument from 192.80.65.234 pretty much sums it up. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 192.80 didn't even cite a single policy or guideline, all of which support treating the actress as the primary topic so long as she is the subject most likely to be sought. Powers T 13:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And that's that. Because Wikipedia is all about rules, isn't it. Er, no it isn't. It was never meant to be. It was meant to be about discussion and debate and even the guidelines (including WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, endlessly quoted in these move debates) include exortations to consider exceptions. To read some comments here, you'd think the whole project was governed by rigid rules designed to be eagerly enforced by self-appointed rules lawyers. Thank God, it isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the fact that the people screaming WP:RECENTISM is doing the very same thing, that's a rather odd statement. Nymf hideliho! 14:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Recentism is more than just some "rule" from Wikipedia; it's a fact and a concept that exists outside Wikipedia. We merely link to the essay to highlight it, but we could equally not do so. But since many editors seem to think that you have to have a link in an opinion for it to be worth anything... -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Spare me the pseudo-anarchism. Placing the actress at Anne Hathaway has more to do with making the encyclopedia logical, rather than Wiki lawyering. If people expect to find the actress (94% do), why make them go the long way? Nymf hideliho! 15:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got the wrong person if you think I'm anything approaching an anarchist! But, like a majority of others here at the current time, I don't agree that the article should be moved and no amount of statistics-quoting, rules-quoting and attempting to misrepresent Wikipedia as a rigid bureaucracy will change that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you are not approaching the problem with an open mind. I suppose I'll renominate the article in a year or two again. It's not set in stone, after all. I would like to know if you think that putting the actress at Anne Hathaway (a DAB article, currently) would somehow lessen the importance of Shakespeare's wife, though. Nymf hideliho! 15:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I just don't think that endless statistics prove a primary topic and that the concept of a primary topic was never meant to be proved simply by statistics. I fear the lack of open mind is on the other side, as it were (we've had more than one "support" opinion claiming that anyone who opposes the move is "elitist", after all). You obviously disagree, as is your prerogative. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm all for IAR, but we need a good reason to abrogate the guidelines we have in place. What's the good reason here?  That we want the twelve out of every thirteen people who are looking for the actress to be reminded that there was once someone else by the same name, even though we have a pretty good idea who they're looking for?  Isn't that accomplished equally well (if not better) by a hatnote?  Really, what's the advantage?  Powers T 16:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The "good reason" is that a clear majority of people in this discussion don't want the move. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The majority you refer to would be far more useful if WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT were a policy rather than something to be avoided as much as possible around here. Instead, every single oppose amounts to "I don't want it" with no policy to support it. However, there actually are policies which have been cited and directly related to the topic at hand, and the clear majority of those policy-based comments here do want the move. A dispassionate comparison of each comment to File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg will show that the opposers are concentrated at the bottom of the triangle (including actual name-calling), while the supporters are concentrated at the top. That opinion may earn me another name in this discussion, but it is, nevertheless, what I am observing.  Frank  &#124;  talk  12:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Which policies have been cited? A couple of guidelines have been cited, but no policies. Guidelines have also been cited in opposition, and actually one policy as well. As I've said before, if you want people to take you seriously don't try misrepresenting your arguments and think we won't notice. It doesn't make you look good and it doesn't make your arguments any stronger. There are arguments on both sides - saying one side's arguments are based on policy and the other's just based on IDONTLIKEIT is simply arrogant. As to the opposers "name-calling", have a look up the list and see who is calling who "elitist"! Sounds a bit like "name-calling" to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:TITLE (policy), WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (guideline), WP:ASTONISH (essay), and page hits (historically expressed intent of the reading community, over a period of years). Yes, WP:RECENTISM has been linked as well, by opposers, but it's not clear how it applies anyway. It is a debate for the ages as to which figure is more important historically, but such debate is beside the point, since readership of this encyclopedia is clearly looking for the actress by an overwhelming margin. That says nothing about recentism or importance; it is merely an acknowledgment of the readership we serve and is the crux of this request. Frank  &#124;  talk  13:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:RECENTISM is actually quoted in the guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that the supporters love to quote! If you don't understand how it's relevant, I suggest you read that. All of it, not just the bits that support your point of view. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But why don't they want the move? There has to be some sort of purpose behind refusing to give readers what they clearly are most interested in.  Powers T 13:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because primary topic is based not just on current statistics, but also on long-term value, as the guideline quite clearly states. And those of us who oppose believe that the long-term value of the actress will not exceed that of Shakespeare's wife; she is popular at the moment, but who knows what the future holds? Wikipedia is not just a pop culture guide, but a scholarly work which caters for everyone. As to "refusing to give readers what they clearly are most interested in", is clicking on a link on the disambiguation page so hard? Will it put people off because they have to click one more time? Will they not be able to understand the word "actress" in the disambiguator? All of these are clearly rubbish, so I fail to see the problem with retaining the status quo. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I see a few. First, predicting the future is not part of our mission here, indeed WP:CRYSTAL (yes, a policy) more or less forbids it. Second, the thought that we must make a decision now for the ages is a bit misplaced; there's nothing that says we can't change it again in the future - even 100 years, as some have suggested. Finally, "we've always done it this way" (to paraphrase some opposes) isn't a great reason to avoid this move (nor is it supported by policy). Frank  &#124;  talk  13:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Frank, you've already been refered to WP:IAR. You can cite all the policies you like, but the simple fact is that there's a clear consensus against you. I suggest you live with it. Absconded Northerner (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't about consensus against me; the requested move is for the good of the project and I don't have a personal stake in it, other than my desire to improve the encyclopedia. If you are implying that a two-day old discussion is already at the point of establishing consensus, or that consensus involves vote-counting rather than evaluation of policies and discussion, I'm not sure you are really aware of how consensus works around here. If it does indeed turn out that consensus is against this move, so be it, but I don't see that we are even at a point where consensus is established, let alone that it is "against me". Frank  &#124;  talk  14:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. That seems to be your problem here. Absconded Northerner (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "The requested move is for the good of the project". Ah, now we come to the crux of the matter. You may think that, others don't. Or are you saying that the editors here, many of them very experienced and valuable contributors to the project, opposing the move have not got the good of that project at the forefront of their minds? Just a teensy bit arrogant and patronising, wouldn't you agree? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I rather think the opposite. The point I was making is that this isn't about ego or arrogance; it's about making the encyclopedia better and more accessible to the people who actually use it - today - rather than to some other constituency, perhaps later. I am making no value judgment on any contributor to this discussion or editor of this (or any) article in advancing or discussing this request.  Frank  &#124;  talk  15:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a good argument for eliminating PRIMARYTOPIC completely -- after all, "is clicking on a link on the disambiguation page so hard?" But I don't think you'll find much support for that view.  We are not a pop culture guide, but neither do we ignore pop culture, or the fact that much of pop culture is what people are looking for.  Our goals are to get people to the article they're most likely to seek as quickly as possible; why make an exception in this case?  Powers T 13:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. As shown above, 94% of people who view the dab page are looking for the actress and this percentage has been steadily increasing for the last few years. Primary topic discussions are rarely so clear-cut. Jenks24 (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The number of people who view the dab page is quite small, so most people seem to access the actress' page in a way that does not involve this page. As far as I know, we don't have statistics that tell us how many clicks a given disambiguation page link gets per month. —Kusma (t·c) 20:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Quite small" is both relative and subjective. 23,150 readers viewed the dab page in July. I consider that number large, both as an absolute number and compared to other dab pages. It is only slightly smaller than the 26,630 who viewed Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare). It is small only when compared to the 379,222 who viewed Anne Hathaway (actress). It is quite correct that most people who access any article on WP do not come through a dab page; those people are irrelevant when considering pageviews except as evidence of the proportion seeking each article. It's also true that we do not know directly how many clicks come off a given dab page per month, but it is logical to assume that the propotions will be roughly the same as those who come via a different route.  Since 93% of all the people seeking Anne Hathaway land on the actress's article, it's reasonable to assume a roughly similar percentage of 23,150 people per month click on her  article after reaching the dab page.  Even if we discount that to, say, 80%, it means 18,520 people in July were inconvenienced by the current set-up. That seems like a unnecessarily large number to me, especially considering that there is no corresponding benefit. Station1 (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Does anyone else think perhaps Wikipedia shouldn't have primary articles and use (song), (film), (actress) etc. for all articles? AnimatedZebra (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you then write separate articles about Ronald Reagan (actor) and Ronald Reagan (politician)? —Kusma (t·c) 21:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * With the greatest possible respect to User:Kusma, that has to be the single greatest example of missing the point ever. Absconded Northerner (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't doubt that the bard's wife will, in the long run, prove more notable. Today, however, and probably for the next 40-50 years, the now-twenty-something actress will likely be what over 90% of people be looking for, and for the others, a hatnote straight to Bill's wife should suffice. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @AnimatedZebra: No. I can understand the possible logic behind such a suggestion, but as I think all title clarifiers are unsightly, I'd like to keep them to a minimum. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare) should in fact be the primary article and should be named just Anne Hathaway, with the dab page moved back to Anne Hathaway (disambiguation). The article Anne Hathaway (actress) is about someone of merely temporary fame and does not need renaming at all. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're selling the actress a bit short. The awards she's won are not insignificant; she's certainly accomplished more in her 20-some years than her namesake ever did.  Powers T 12:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and HuskyHuskie. Seems to be a great deal of ad hominem argument and elitism here. Such snobbery towards an actress does a disservice to the Immortal Bard.  Rubywine . talk 14:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Those with long memories say that obviously the wife of Shakespeare is primary.  Those with short memories say that obviously the actress is primary.  To me, what's obvious that there needs to be a disamb page, as now.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: as Ghmyrtle above, etc. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Table of contents
Why is there no TOC on this page? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good question. I've spent too much time trying to fix it. It has something to do with the project templates because when I remove them entirely, the TOC shows up. But I couldn't figure out the actual problem. I suggest you ask at the Help forum or the Pump. I'm tired of trying things without really knowing what I'm doing - and getting nowhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed they are related; I've added the TOC for what it's worth. Those project templates do seem to make it rather longer than it should be, but it's there now. Frank  &#124;  talk  02:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I put a queston on the Village Pump, but it hasn't been responded to yet. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason was that the page Talk:Anne Hathaway (actress)/Comments had a header in it. Accordingly, the TOC was placed right before that header, somewhere in the middle of the WikiProjectBannerShell. I have now deleted the subpage per WP:DCS, but will preserve its contents for posterity: Ucucha (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway (actress)
As of this edit, I would categorize Anne Hathaway (actress) as a B-class article. Some of its strengths include moderate referencing, images containing fair use rationale, and good writing. On the other hand, some weaknesses include the lead section, which does not summarize the article as a whole and the lack of images and information. In my opinion it is approaching Good Article status, but still requires some work. Never Mystic (tc) 02:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (End of the subpage) Ucucha (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There are six images, making the article look good and also interesting. They are well chosen. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Forced Table-of-Contents on talk-page
After seeing the subpage "/Comments" derail the implicit Table-of-Contents (because the subpage contained a "==Header=="), I have explicitly inserted the double-underbar "_TOC_" to show the TOC box. In general, when using computerized typesetting, try to avoid auto-generated anything. Instead, every page should have a "_TOC_" tag, and tell everyone what that means, so people can be prepared to control the typesetting, in more-obvious ways. Wikipedia tried to "re-invent typesetting in the dark", and so very few people realized how the implicit, auto-generated Table-of-Contents boxes would generate so many thousands of confusing situations, over the past several years. Kids don't do this: "Don't use implicit auto-generated boxes". Try to place specific formatting directives, in each page, for each typesetting option being used. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As a singer
Happy Thanksgiving! We enjoyed the movie Rio with grandchildren. Anne Hathaway was the voice of the animated heroine, Jewel, (an exotic blue bird), and sang a song at the end; and also with a group among the 20 or so songs in the excellent-for-children movie. Anne Hathaway has a lovely voice and I wonder when else she has sung. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This talk page is for general discussion of article improvement, and not intended as a forum for discussion of the actress. You may try using Google to find a fan site or similar that has more information than contained in this article. If you should find a reliable source documenting her singing career, feel free to add it to the article. Elizium23 (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, since the article is about the actress, it is entirely appropriate, and I'll do some research. Thanks for the encouragement; it would improve the article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting! Before entering the first paragraph here, I searched the Article for 'singing' and found nothing. Now that I research further for Anne Hathaway singing, I find Wikipedia as a good starting point, "A soprano, Hathaway performed in 1998 and 1999 with the All-Eastern U.S. High School Honors Chorus at Carnegie Hall'.  Maybe that is it for now. Or is Rio an indication? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)