Talk:Emilia Clarke/Archive 2

Seth MacFarlane
This has previously been discussed, but it seems like there should be 1 sentence on her personal life indicating she dated Seth MacFarlane in 2012-2013 on her wikipedia article given its coverage in WP:RS and that they both confirmed it and it's mentioned on his wikipedia page. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * https://www.eonline.com/news/754072/emilia-clarke-finally-opens-up-about-dating-seth-macfarlane
 * https://www.glamour.com/story/emilia-clarke-cover-interview
 * https://www.eonline.com/news/399162/seth-macfarlane-splits-from-game-of-thrones-girlfriend-emilia-clarke
 * https://www.huffpost.com/entry/seth-macfarlane-splits-emilia-clarke_n_2922787

I propose a similar statement to what's on Seth's page: '''""From 2012 until 2013, MacFarlane was in a relationship with Emilia Clarke.[191] They have remained on good terms.[192]"" ''' 24.217.247.41 (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Check the talk archive history, it was classed as WP:TABLOID and Trivial. Govvy (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I did check the archive history. I linked it. It doesn't make any sense to classify who she dated as WP:TABLOID (which says nothing about listing romantic partners on wiki), especially when it's listed on Seth MacFarlane's page and it's typically included on the personal life section of celebrities (see Selena Gomez where it includes her brief dalliance with the Weeknd. It needs to be re-discussed. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, you seem to be against including any type of relationship history in wikipedia articles, but the policy you cited for exclusion (WP:TABLOID, WP:NOTADIARY) does not apply. To say that Emilia Clarke dated Seth MacFarlane is accurate, can be reliably sourced (to herself!), is not libelous, does not implicate privacy concerns as they have attended highly public events together, the relationship is notable as it was covered in the press (she discussed negative "fan" interactions due to her dating), and one or two sentences in an article as developed and detailed as this one is not undue weight. I can certainly think of instances where waiting to add a relationship would make sense in terms of complying with WP policy, but I don't see that being the case here, seeing as its 5+ years old. If you want "no dating" to be the rule for personal life sections on WP, start a RFC or something. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * List of Previous Discussions in the Archives: | Nov 2015 | Oct 2018 | April 2019 (Maybe stop archiving these so quickly?) 24.217.247.41 (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it should be included. One short sentence like "Clarke dated actor and comedian Seth MacFarlane from 2012 to 2013" is sufficient. Provided it is sourced from somewhere that isn't too gossipy, and doesn't go into too much detail for a disinterested tone, it doesn't violate WP:BLP. Shuipzv3 (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I really don't think it's important to her article at all, removed it last time and I thought removed the content on Seth's article before also. Govvy (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how anything has changed since the many previous discussions. The fact that some sources, mainly gossip-based websites, mention that Clarke dated MacFarlane for an undetermined period of time, doesn't mean it needs to be included here. This is an encyclopedia, not Who's dated who. --  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Ponyo, Gossip websites did not mention it, | Clarke herself mentioned it in an interview. Again, Ponyo and Govvy, you seem to think no details about a celebrity's relationship history should be on wikipedia's "personal life" section, but that just doesn't comport with the rest of wikipedia. Perhaps we should start an RFC regarding relationship history for wikipedia articles. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on Including Clarke Dating MacFarlane
Currently, Emilia Clarke's wikipedia page does not include the fact that she dated Seth MacFarlane from 2012 to 2013, despite the fact that it is currently included on his wikipedia page, multiple RS have reported on the relationship, and Clarke did an interview with Glamour Magazine in which she directly confirmed the relationship and commented on being disappointed in negative fan reactions to her dating him. Should Emilia Clarke's article include at least 1 sentence, similar to that of Seth MacFarlane's stating that they briefly dated from 2012-2013?


 * Yes, include one sentence stating that " "Clarke dated actor and comedian Seth MacFarlane from 2012 to 2013"

24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, do not include any mention of her dating Seth MacFarlane.

Survey

 * Yes, it has been confirmed by Clarke and it is not gossip to report that Clarke confirmed briefly dating another celebrity in the 'personal life' section on wikipedia. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a part of her personal life and for it to be included on one page but not another is an oddity. - Yeetcetera Let's chat 09:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 'No This survey is a joke, sorry, this is gossip, this is not encyclopaedic. Govvy (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No. I see this as a form of connective trivia that is not particularly notable for either party. Simply being mentioned in passing in news media does not make something notable. Did their brief period of dating have a notable impact on either of their lives? Did their dating have a notable impact on anyone else, cause any notable events or controversy, or result in any notable lasting outcome? If the answer to these both questions is no, then I see no need to include it in an encyclopedia. Including it may even give undue weight to this relationship compared with other relationships they may have had, simply because other dating partners did not have a Wikipedia entry. 203.10.55.11 (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No Nothing has changed from my stance in previous discussions, except for the fact that the relationship is even further in the past and less significant than when previously discussed. From the archives "My personal inclination would be not to include it, as it is clear Clarke has been reticent to discuss the private relationship and it was essentially a short lived fling that happened several years ago. It really doesn't add anything to a BLP article to note the subject had a low-key relationship for a handful of months years ago". I also agree with the points made by IP 203.10.55.11 directly above.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No A short lived, irrelevant relationship that ended a few years ago that is not notable enough for Wikipedia (I do not think any of the sources given above, the first my browser will not open are in fact RS).... WP:Gossip, WP:Tabloid, WP:NOTDIARY WP:Trivial etc etc ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No too brief to be notable. I’m not certain of a set criteria but unless they were dating at least longer than five years, or got engaged then split, it would be more notable. But I don’t think they lasted longer than a year so no. Not notable. Rusted AutoParts  18:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No short-lived relationship that is only reported upon by the gossip press because it existed, not because it has any notable impact on Clarke's life. Erroneous reference to it on another page doesn't mean it should be included here. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No the inclusion of this relationship is irrelevant. It doesn't create any additional value to this article and the relationship didn't create anything notable for either Clarke or MacFarlane. Cook907 (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No Short term dating falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are plenty of other places on the web to place this info for those editors that it is important to. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No per others, too trivial to justify inclusion and poorly sourced to boot. Pincrete (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A weak yes    A brief sentence on something covered by multiple sources is appropriate info for an article.  BTW there were several "not notable" rationales given in the comments.  The is no Wikipedia notability criteria for content within articles.  Wp:notability is criteria for existence of a separate article on the topic.North8000 (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
Here is the quote from Glamour Magazine: "GLAMOUR: You also dated Seth MacFarlane. Any pros and cons of dating someone who's in the public eye versus someone who's not?

EC: "Well, a con is you have strangers giving you love-life advice like, 'I'm a big fan of the show, and I'm not sure what you're doing with that guy,' which I didn't react well to," she explained. "That happened in New York when Seth and I were together. This guy started to give me advice: 'Can I get a selfie? And by the way…' Unh-unh, bro.""

List of Previous Discussions in the Archives: | Nov 2015 | Oct 2018 | April 2019 | Current discussion (Oct 2019) is above in talk page


 * Summary of previous discussions: Two editors (Ponyo and Govvy) have consistently argued against the inclusion on various grounds claiming that it is WP:Gossip, WP:Tabloid, WP:NOTDIARY WP:Trivial, while several editors (UditaCh, The Optimistic One, Shuipzv3, and myself) have pointed out that including a brief mention that she dated someone in the 'personal life' section is not gossip, is not against WP:BLP, and is well-supported by the RS and is common practice across Wikipedia. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You have failed to inform these uses you are talk about, this is bad-faith,. Govvy (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * @Govvy I don’t know how “this is bad-faith.” I’m sorry if I did something wrong. I didn’t know you had to @users. Several editors have disagreed with you and Ponyo over the years, but have gotten nowhere. I read the guidelines for RFC and this seemed to qualify. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Use of "Endorsement" not "Advertising"
04:55, 27 February 2020‎ (Endorsemenmts) < 00:29, 27 February 2020‎ (Publicity) <  13:55, 26 February 2020 (Endorsemenmts) <  22:43, 25 February 2020‎ (Advertisments)

https://brandmarketingblog.com/articles/branding-definitions/marketing-endorsements/ -  "..Often the key element in an advertisement or marketing campaign, a product endorsement is a public declaration from a person or organization in support of a product’s features, quality, benefits, and/or brand.

An endorsement can be either paid or unpaid. When we think of endorsements, most people think about athletes or celebrities paid big bucks to endorse a brand. But the vast majority of endorsements are unpaid.

Five-star product reviews on Amazon or other e-commerce or social media websites are endorsements. An endorsement can also be a positive rating from a certification organization,..."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/endorsement - the fact of a famous person appearing in an advertisement saying that they use and like a product

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/product-endorsement.html - A written or public statement by a celebrity, business or professional group extolling the virtues of a product and recommending the use of the product to the public.

https://www.clinique.com/emiliaclarke Introducing our new Global Brand Ambassador: actress, activist, and Clinique iD fan

https://www.vogue.co.uk/beauty/article/emilia-clarke-clinique-happy-skin (Hannah Coates) - "I swear by the BB Gel (Clinique) is endorsement, the image doesn't show a statement endorsing

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/beauty/fragrance/a22908975/emilia-clarke-beauty-interview/ (Bridget March) - shows endorsement (Dolce & Gabbana), but the actual advertisment doesn't show endorsement

Diametakomisi (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Decided to change the heading to advertising and endorsement, because the advertisements; photograph - Clinique, and, short film - Dolce and Gabbana, don't include endorsements, although in magazine interviews Clarke does subsequently endorse; i.e. the two factors are seperatable as - the advertising media used to subsequently endorse

19:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC) i.e. one is representation (because she is attractive, so attracts (without the need for endorsement) attention to the product), the other is basic endorsement as defined above 19:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be rude, but you could of written French and I still wouldn't of understood what on earth you said. Do you think you can be clear and precise what problems you see with the article? Govvy (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think they had an issue with me renaming the section from "Advertisements" to "Endorsements". You can see on other articles, for example Charlize Theron, that "Endorsements" is used so I was basing off that article. I have no problem with "Advertising and endorsements" section name., I would highly suggest taking a look at Help:Citation Style 1 and Citing sources to help with citing sources correctly. I had to remove all of your provided citations because they were formatted incorrectly. --    LuK3      (Talk)   19:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I was looking at Angelina Jolie and Natalie Portman, both have a title heading of In the media. I think the section needs to be titled to that and bits sorted between Personal section or combine the two section together like on Portman's page. Govvy (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

filmography isn't a general description applicable to all works
c.f. "filmography":

"a list of films by one director or actor, or on one subject" https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/filmography

https://filmography.bfi.org.uk/ - "a complete history of UK feature film..."

"a list of motion pictures featuring the work of a prominent film figure or relating to a particular topic" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/filmography

https://www.henricartierbresson.org/en/hcb/filmography/ "Films directed by Henri Cartier-Bresson"

Diametakomisi (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Umm, it's standard practice to have the title Filmography maybe you should have a good read through of WP:MOS. Govvy (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

20:14, 8 March 2020‎ reversion
"Talk:Filmography which abundantly shows sources of > Filmography is only "film"

the sources look to agree to me, Davey2010 if you look for yourself you'll see too, that the summary is true.

Diametakomisi (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * In the 9 years I've been editing here I've never "Filmography" been referred to as "Work" with "film" being "Filmography" and "television" being "Televisual"..... so as such I see no valid reason to A) change it now and B) change it here,
 * Given this has been the format for well over 10 years IMHO it isn't going to be changed any time soon but you're still more than welcome to start an RFC over at Talk:Filmography, Thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Televisual is a portmanteau word which I can't find in wide use anywhere. You are free to try and form a new WP:CONSENSUS at the Wikiproject film. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * > as indicated at Talk:Filmography < My opinion represents the source evidence not me, so your "10 years IMHO" opinion as to what you think or don't on the subject is irrelevant imho(tbh), as a subjective opinion against the objective evidence. In other words, if you had the evidence to show "Filmography" describes video-games, for example, then I would agree with your position on the subject we are discussing. How to support 10 years of the wrong choice if it is the wrong word used in the article...No-one changed the article in 10 years isn't proof. Please find the proof against my position then I'll be relieved from the consternation of this disagreement, that the sourcing evidencing my position is as blatant as it is. Diametakomisi (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * is a profligation of error to argue against evidence to a continuation of error such that the sources of Talk:Filmography are true. If true and false were 1 and 0 respectively (definitively) there isn't decimals available to allow 10 years as an application to my self in this argument, because the sources show 1 not 0. Diametakomisi (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Not only have you just violated WP:OR, but you've also violated the standard MoS we use and to restore your edit for a forth time violated WP:3RR which is edit-warring. I suggest you stop this otherwise an admin will end up banning you from editing. Govvy (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * the discussion is "Filmography" is "film" is the contending subject, that televisual results from removing Filmography is a separate issue, that we could discuss after the commencement of the discussion here, especially since "portmanteau" isn't applicable to televisual since television is tele + vision as vision is to visual - "Televisual" returns http://www.televisual.com/, https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/televisual, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/televisual Diametakomisi (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Diametakomisi (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * > Talk:Kristen_Stewart.
 * Diametakomisi (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC) (minor changes after signature 13:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC))
 * , I have not seen the term "televisual" used in any biographical article. "Filmography" comprises many different mediums (television, film, video games). Theatrical performances have traditionally been included in the Filmography section. As stated by Davey above, feel free to open up a WP:RFC at the appropriate venue. However, re-introducing your edits after multiple editors reverted back to previous versions constitutes edit warring which is not allowed. --   LuK3      (Talk)   14:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, my error, because I was hoping to direct your attention to the fact of Talk:Filmography which conclusively proves Filmography is exclusively film, with "televisual" being more or less irrelevant to the intended discussion (I think < > or < > is not so very important a problem) - i.e. Filmography in the current position is simply an error, w.r.t. "Theatrical performances have traditionally been included in the Filmography section" is a bunkum statement of proof as delusion is an existing concept in the world (c.f. "definition of delusion" - "an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument.." https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/delusion) - I don't want to seem offensive but this is now a continued reiteration of the same argument from me on the subject when the sources are simply obvious, tradition in wikipedia has no value compared to reliable sources which is the WP:5P2 pillar of the organisation of wikipedia as you know, with the greatest respect (considering our mutual dilemma), Diametakomisi (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC) (1 correction after signature 16:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC))
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers is where you would want to ask. Like it or not, what you seem to think of as mere inertia for which others who support it are clearly wrong, and that therefore you should get the right to do it your way, is a form of arguing against WP:CONSENSUS. If you feel a centralized style-guide is in error, then that's where you need to address it, not by putting one article contrary to it. "Televisual" is a really non-standard word in English, despite whatever derivation and definition you might find for it, and does not appear to be used on WP at this time despite how technically correct it might be (better to use a more common word so more readers will understand it). "Television" is the word used in the WP:FILMOGRAPHY recommendation. DMacks (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Edits
Do you think you can give it a break, some edits are okay, but others are starting to feel disruptive here. Govvy (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is considered disruptive? All i've done is add headings and the public image section, all of which has been removed.Why is Leewills (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)that?


 * You adding in the same information already mentioned in the article, that's twice now, also, have you not noticed a few different people have removed your edits, yet you've put them back again and again. Govvy (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough but what was the issue with the public image section? Most of that was new, relevant and correctly cited information e.g. the issue of nudity and her being invited to join the academy yet it wasn't allowed to stay. I don't get it.Leewills (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I moved the information you added to "Public image" to more suitable sections. For example, the issue of nudity would be better in the "Game of Thrones" section, where it was already mentioned. I added the Academy invite to "Awards and nominations". The public image section is not a catch-all, most of your additions would be better in different sections. --   LuK3      (Talk)   16:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Let me just be clear that it is NOT my intention to be problematic, however I do need some things cleared up so that I can know how to properly conduct myself moving forward in relation to edits: I understand moving certain pieces of information to more suitable areas, but the nudity topic for example, where I tried to go a bit in depth with her stance on the matter e.g. being annoyed at the constant questions in relation to nude scenes and turning down fifty shades of grey was completely erased and then simply replaced with one line of information about her becoming more savvy about the level of nudity needed for a scene. I'm not saying a whole essay should be written on the topic, but why reduce it to just that little bit of information when there's more to it? Which is why I tried giving it it's own section under "public image". Lastly, I've seen many articles where other celebrities have distinct headings for particular sections of their page e.g. charity work,endorsements,advertisements, media image etc. yet when I try to add them (even as sub-headings) to her page for better clarity they all get removed and are reverted back to being under one single heading titled off-screen work. Why can't charity work/charitable causes and advertisements at least be separated and given their own headings since they're so vastly different?Leewills (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I went through your edits and found two big issues. The first issue is that your edits sound very essay-like. The sentence "The latter half of that description could in part be attributed to Clarke’s time as the Mother of Dragons, as she herself has stated that she grew with the character of Daenerys Targaryen..." sounds like original research. Another issue is that the references you provided does not back up what you said. We need to be careful in not making up information, both intentionally or unintentionally. That includes removing original research. --   LuK3      (Talk)   21:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Understood. I am new to this after all, but what was the issue with me creating separate headings for endorsements/advertisements and charity work? They're two completely different things yet they're under one very vague heading. Why can't they have their own headings for better clarity?Leewills (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia article titles and headings should be concise and brief. Having all of her charitable activities and endorsements would be classified as her off-screen work. I went ahead and created subsections for her endorsements and charity work. --   LuK3      (Talk)   23:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay. That was the last of my inquiries. I'll be sure to be more mindful of my edits in the future.Leewills (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

British vs. English
It looks like there have been a few reverts, especially today, regarding her nationality in the opening sentence. According to MOS:OPENPARABIO, it states that the opening paragraph should include Context (location or nationality). I think British is best to use in the lead however I would like to get other editor's opinions. --   LuK3      (Talk)   20:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Great Britain is the Sovereign nation, the country she was born in is England, which makes her both British and English, however, due to there being, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Island, you should really avoid the lead to the Sovereign state and point to the country of origin. Govvy (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So it was to my knowledge that British should be used unless the subject strongly identifies with a specific country then we would use that demonym. I have not seen any sources that have stated her preferences so I would be fine using English. --   LuK3      (Talk)   21:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * English is equally correct, but more specifically accurate ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a rather sad problem with classifying people from the UK as exclusively British when they're from England and exclusively Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish/Irish when they're from these regions. Standard term for all people from the UK should just be British (which is the official, non-controversial descriptor of their nationality) unless it is blatantly clear they do not identify with a British nationality/identity and exclusively identify as some other regional identity. This is really a ridiculous issue. And what's even more ridiculous is people going back in time and attributing a 'Scottish' identity to people like David Hume or a Welsh identity to Henry Morgan Stanley. It's an insidious rewriting of history and it's impressing an identity on people they almost certainly had no attachment to, and in many cases (such as Hume) they were probably actively hostile to and against.

If you're just labelling anyone from what we NOW consider to be Wales or Scotland (because historically Scotland only applied to lands north of the Forth and Clyde until the late Middle Ages, and I'm not sure Welsh lands were ever clearly defined historically beyond being fluctuating areas where people spoke Welsh) as Welsh or Scottish then it's nothing other than a regional descriptor, and you may as well list them as British (from the British Isles) or European or Eurasian or as being from Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Bit of a non-subject this really. She was born in England to English parents. As most UK celebrities are listed as their country of origin rather than as ‘British’, we would be changing every biography’s lead if this is such a massive issue Scf1985 (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We must not confuse the issue by trying to cover other articles here, only Ms Clarke. Saying "English" is more specific is silly as WP policy never demands specificity - only verifiable content. I think British is most logical. 86.8.200.103 (talk) 15:20,10 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, by that logic, you’ll be changing the lead from ‘English’ to ‘British’ on around 98% well-known English-born actors’ biographies then. If someone was petty enough to change her to British, she’d only be changed back to English within a few days anyway, as I’ve seen with other actors bios. Good luck Scf1985 (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)