Talk:Austin Nichols

User constantly editing this page
I sent an abuse mail to Wikipedia, complaining about two users. Both users should be blocked from Wikipedia since they are constantly editing actual facts from different articles including Austin Nichols, Sophia Bush and Jake Gyllenhaal. I'm a bit fed up with these childish fan war games since this is an encyclopedia and not your private Jake Gyllenhaal fan site message board. Please, take your relationship rumors and fanatic link removal there and leave those people alone who want to add CONFIRMED facts. Don't forget this is not a playground. People use these sites for their research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.123.67.32 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC).

Unless there is clear reference to the fact that these rumours originated within TABLOIDS, I see no reason why they should even be addressed as speculation. 24.224.143.211 17:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the provided reference, the disputed info is sourced from blogs: "Blogosphere gossips have been claiming that..." As such, the info does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources and should be removed, unless there's a reason to ignore the guidelines in this case. --Muchness 22:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you read the talkpage for Jake Gyllenhaal there was extensive discussion on whether the link should be included, what the wording of the sentence should be etc. I think it was decided that, because there IS speculation, and quite widespread speculation at that (Jake/Austin rumours can be found on virtually every corner of the net, along with pictures of the two, discussion to the point of obsession over proving Jake is Toothy Tile and so on.) it really did need to be mentioned, and the link is from a reasonably reputable paper with a writers' byline, so, until a better link was found, that one would be best. I think WP:RS doesn't count here because the source is secondary, not primary, reasonably reputable, and if it does count, WP:IGNORE should be in effect. But check the Jake page for the actual debate. Dev920 22:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Google searches using  and various combinations of relevant keywords return less than 1000 hits, so I'm unconvinced that this speculation is widespread or notable. For better or for worse, this is fairly controversial (and potentially defamatory) information, and it originates solely from some speculation on internet blogs. To establish grounds for inclusion, we need something more substantial than some blog posts and a gossip column that cites those blog posts as its source. --Muchness 00:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you searched for but when I put in "jake gyllenhaal austin nichols" I got 89,000 hits, and ""Jake gyllenhaal" "Austin Nichols"" returned 35,000. As I mentioned before, we felt that the gossip column link was inadequate, but given it was explaining a widespread phenomenon and has known authors in its byline, it was though to be alright.

However, you are right, the paragraph as it stands at the moment makes their relationship seem like fact whereas to be neutral it has to be noted that it is only assumed to be fact by many people. I'll try to create a more neutral line. Dev920 12:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A google search for  and various combinations of relevant keywords that address this speculation returns less than 1000 hits. Your proposed wording is weaselly in that it use the passive voice to avoid attributing the speculation to a source ("There has been speculation..."), and attributing the speculation to its sources (e.g., "Several internet bloggers have speculated that...") makes it clear that the info is currently non-notable. --Muchness 14:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I really don't know what you mean by that. What are you searching for?
 * Sorry for not being clear, I was trying to avoid repeating the speculation on the talk page. What I mean is a search for
 * and so on. --15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I find that strange. Go look at his IMDB profile - there's no end of threads about them there. It really is quite big. Dev920 21:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Austin's personal relationship with friend Jake Gyllenhaal has recently come under speculation"? Dev920 14:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This wording is still using the passive voice to avoid attributing speculation to a source.--Muchness 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Austin recently experienced speculation regarding his personal relationship with his friend Jake Gyllenhaal."?
 * Speculation based on unsourced hearsay and internet forum posts does not belong in an encyclopedic article. As you yourself have said upthread, the current source is inadequate per WP:RS. Find a published source that demonstrates notability and the info can stay. --Muchness 21:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Austin recently experienced speculation regarding his personal relationship with his friend Jake Gyllenhaal."?
 * Speculation based on unsourced hearsay and internet forum posts does not belong in an encyclopedic article. As you yourself have said upthread, the current source is inadequate per WP:RS. Find a published source that demonstrates notability and the info can stay. --Muchness 21:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Good article
Does anyoen know where we can get some good, meaty info on Austin? Dev920 15:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Automated Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 21:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 1 Mile, use 1 Mile, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 1&amp;nbsp;Mile.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Non-free images
According to the Non-free content criteria, non-free images may only be used in an article when they "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" of that article (criterion #8). In the article about Austin Nichols the images Image:UtopianSociety.jpg and Image:Glory road.jpg fail this criterion. Both images are only used for decorational purposes and do not increase the readers' understanding of Austin Nichols, therefore they should be deleted from this article. – Ilse@ 11:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

'Obscure and Panned' Really?
In the section 'Acting Career' (sub-section 'Box office and critical success') the movie Thanks to Gravity is described as 'obscure and panned'. On what authority? Rotten Tomatoes? Because the movie doesn't even have a rating there. And the reference to Film Threat? It actually gives the film three and a half stars, saying in the last line of the review that the movie, "...eventually wins you over like one of [the main character's] debate arguments."

Now, I personally thought that the movie was sappy and uneven, but of course, that doesn't give me the right to come on Wikipedia and describe the movie as 'obscure and panned' when, although that might be true in my mind, isn't supported by secondary sources (as far as I can see).

I'm not a regular editor of Wiki pages, so I'm not too sure what the protocol is, but I think that particular phrase should be deleted, until a proper source is found, especially since the current one supports the contrary.

And yes, this article is really about Austin Nichols and not Thanks to Gravity, but each article should aim for accuracy and balance in all of it's sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.205.119 (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

FAR
Hello! Another editor has suggested that this article may need to undergo a featured article review. Below is a copy of the editor's concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC) "I am nominating this featured article for review because...I was shocked when I happened upon it in random surfing that it had the featured-article star. It has a three-sentence lead, no picture, three dead links, and if nothing else, the sniff test. It just doesn't look like it's (anything remotely close to) Wikipedia's best work. The article's history shows that it was promoted in 2006, at which time it's my understanding that FA standards were much more lax, reviewed once in 2007, and never again vetted by the community. Five years is a long time to go between reviews, no matter what. Green-eyed girl ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 11:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)"