Talk:Emma Watson

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2023
In the "External links" section, add the official fansite https://www.emmawatson.net Calvin Bullard (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See WP:NOBLOGS. Tollens (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Model
Recently, I've observed an ongoing debate among editors regarding the inclusion of the word "model" in the lead sentence and infobox when describing Watson. Some editors have been adding "model," while others have consistently reverted these edits, removing "model" from these specific sections. The editors advocating for the inclusion of "model" find themselves puzzled and seek an explanation for this discrepancy.

On the other hand, editors opposing the use of "model" argue that previous revisions should be consulted for the rationale, as they have already explained their stance in the past. --Bibliophile Dragon (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Modeling isn't (per ROLEBIO) what made her notable, regardless of how many magazines mention her modeling. Seasider53 (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The main reason Watson is notable is for being an actress. Model and activist shouldn't be included per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE which states the first sentence of a biography should list the main reason the person is notable. The first sentence should read Emma Charlotte Duerre Watson (born 15 April 1990) is an English actress. Nemov (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing that link. I believe "activist" should stay, I have nothing to say further. Bibliophile Dragon (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * She is known as an activist even less than she is a model, so no. Seasider53 (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What makes you say that? Can you provide any evidence that she is known as an activist even less than she is a model? Bibliophile Dragon (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The onus is on the person who would like to add content to show she is as well known as an activist as an actress. It is not up to others to prove a negative. MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bibliophile Dragon A better question would be can you provide any evidence that being an activist is the main reason she's notable? Nemov (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Activism may not be what brought her fame but it still is one of her professions. And I've seen many famous magazines like Vogue (magazine), Elle (magazine) etc. address her as an actress and activist. So even if it can't be mentioned in the first line of the article, shouldn't it be mentioned in the introductory paragraph? Otherwise it may seem like her profession as an activist is being neglected. I know there is a part in the article dedicated to her activism but many others celebrities' like Ariana Grande also have a section like that and even though Ariana is very outspoken about many topics, her main job isn't activism and she is not a professional activist. That's why I think "activism" should be mentioned at least in the introductory paragraph if not in the first sentence of the paragraph. Idk nothing so just (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Idk nothing so just it's mentioned with due weight in the lead. The main first paragraph should be dedicated to why she is notable in the first place. Nemov (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say she is well known for her modelling. Kimand299 (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Watson's relationships
There is no reason for this article's Personal life section to include an enumeration of 10(!) past boyfriends. In what way is that of "historical, societal, scientific, intellectualic significance"? I suggest deleting that part.

I would like to know everyone's opinion on this matter: Should any of Watson's past relationships be mentioned in the personal life section of her Wikipedia article? Or should none of them be included, considering that Wikipedia is not a gossip site, and the mention of her marriage, if it were to happen, would be the only relevant information regarding her relationships in the personal life section? Bibliophile Dragon (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nemov, @Seasider53, @MrOllie I would love to know your thoughts on this matter. Is that okay? I would like to reach a consensus on this matter if that's alright with you. Bibliophile Dragon (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you would like a consensus you can start by restoring the article back to the status quo until you have support. Nemov (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Simply blanking reliably sourced material entirely is not acceptible. MrOllie (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is if the information is trivial, which it was. Seasider53 (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's to be determined via discussion. Please restore the status quo. Nemov (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that a listing of past short-term romantic relationships is the purview of a gossip site and is not relevant for this article. CapitalSasha ~ talk 12:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This is rather simple... If something has received adaqeque coverage via reliable sources it should be included with due weight. If it doesn't, just remove the parts that fail that standard. Removing an entire section because WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't sufficient. Nemov (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We can't shoehorn trivial information into an article just because it is mentioned around the internet. Seasider53 (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also see PUBLICFIGURE; essentially, we have a WP:BRD case here. Content was removed, content was restored....at that point discussion should have followed; just reverting back and forth is editwarring (all involved should consider this a warning). I would urge to restore at least the adequately sourced content, and discuss about its inclusion or exclusion afterwards....no touching the article, or we might have full protection and/or blocks for edit-warring. Lectonar (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We create biographies on wikipedia, not a gossip column like you have in People magazine, Seasider and Bibliophile Dragon in my opinion have done the right thing in removing the relationship stuff. I only think it's worth mentioning, when one gets married or has children within a relationship. Govvy (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Nationality
The article says that Watson is English. It should say that she is French-English or French-British, like that of Tara Strong which says she is Canadian-American (actually it says Canadian and American). 174.94.54.119 (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * No, it shouldn't. Seasider53 (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed previously; one instance can be found here: Talk:Emma_Watson/Archive_7. Lectonar (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless, can you hyperlink Paris, France in the infobox? Several articles on celebrities have the name of the city they were born in hyperlinked, but this one doesn't? 174.94.54.119 (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Common terms should not be linked. Seasider53 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry I misspoke. I meant to say can you hyperlink Paris?174.94.54.119 (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:OVERLINK. Seasider53 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But Rupert Grint Has the name of his birth city hyperlinked. So why shouldn't this one be hyperlinked? Would you care to explain? 174.94.54.119 (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Because Harlow is a lot less known than Paris is. Seasider53 (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)