Talk:Kate Winslet/Archive 2

Music
She sang a whimsical duet with "Weird Al" Yankovic on the Sandra Boynton release Dog Train entitled "I Need A Nap".

Explain, please, why this is not a useful addition. 71.127.13.57 (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Many reasons. Whose descriptor is "a whimsical duet"? That is POV commentary. WHy is it notable when the only source offered could be described as promotional in nature (Sandra Boynton's own website). And the song, and the album from which it comes, do not warrant articles here at all. Wildhartlivie (talk)
 * I'll grant "whimsical"", but the rest is factual reporting. 71.127.13.57 (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: 7 edits
Wildhartlivie has reverted the 7 edits I made this morning. I think they were good edits, little touches that I could make to perfect a 99% perfect article. The reasons given don't seem to justify my edits being reverted. I realize the article is under GA review, and I hope the article passes, but even more importantly I hope the article becomes as good as it can be. For instance, in the lede, two directors are mentioned, Ang Lee and Peter Jackson, yet, even though Titanic is mentioned, its director, James Cameron is not. It seems odd to leave out mention of the director of the subject's biggest hit. Other little changes I made were to promote clarity and flow, and almost all, if not all, were reverted. I won't engage in an edit war, even though I think my edits were an improvement, the combing of one loose strand of hair in an otherwise magnificent coiffure, but I do think that strand of hair needs to be combed back. Thus, I want this thread to serve as a call to reconsider the edits of mine which were reverted. Good day!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article is undergoing a good article nomination and if you had looked at that, you'd see that a intro rewrite is one of the recommendations. As for your edits, my concern was that you changed content being reviewed and which I felt could jeopardize the review. The edits were not massively reverted, there was rationale for each change. The edit summaries explained the problems that led to changing the wording back. Let's examine that. This edit was because you added content that was not covered in any source in the article and was not supported in any way, there is no source that her film role choices are considered "unpredictable". In fact, while working on this article, I did not see that anyone has said that. This edit was because you added that Lee said he "admired her passionate performance in Heavenly Creatures, he was initially worried about the level of "craziness" Winslet had exhibited", except the source that was given for the rest of the sentence does not say anything about admiring her performance nor was there mention of "craziness" in her performance. Additionally, you added a statement that Heavenly Creatures received "dozens of awards", which is patently not true. Between nominations and awards, the film received 20, not "dozens". Amidst this edit, you displaced a source and reworked sentences that were not in need of such and contained grammatical errors. see review comment about the phrase "as well as". This edit left a one sentence paragraph. I was confused by the wording in this edit and it added a phrase about technicalities without a clear explanation of that. My concerns were for the review currently underway and I did not feel that the edits you made provided the "perfect clarity" your edit summaries stated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I was going to leave this article alone, as I was initially offended by Wildhartlivie's tone in editing and discussion (esp. when that editor assumed that I had not looked at the GA assesment page), but upon reflection, I realize that Wildhartlivie simply brought up some points of concern, and that I am free to respond to them. In this way, out of synthesis of diverging perspectives, I am hopeful that the article will improve. I was mistaken to think that because the article is up for GA status that serious dialogue should therefore cease until the article passes. Rather, I think that there is no more appropriate time to discuss ways in which to improve the article. After all, that's what the assessment is about. With that said, I have reinstated the edits which Wildhartlivie reverted without explanation.
 * Regarding my insertion that a film of Winslet's had won "dozens" of awards, I was not referring to Heavenly Creatures, but to Sense and Sensibility.
 * As for the paraphrase of Ang Lee's perspective on Winslet's acting, I have reread the sourced quote, and I found that in fact it does exhibit Lee's admiration of her passionate performance in Heavenly Creatures, and it does mention her "craziness". Here is the sourced quote, verbatim:"'I wanted the same passion, but I tried to reduce that craziness and try to bring grace,' Mr. Lee said."
 * Regarding Wildhartlivie's claim that I "displaced a source", I checked and rechecked the edit, and found no evidence of such. I can only hope that Wildhartlivie or another editor will help me understand that concern.
 * Since my edit regarding the Academy milestone confused Wildhartlivie, I offer this explanation: Before my edit, the text had it that Winslet set a milestone by playing the role of an Oscar nominee. My edit corrected that info to present the fact that Winslet played has not played the role of an Oscar nominee, but that she has played the role of a character, whose older years in the same film were portrayed by another nominee. My edits sought to clarify a complex situation involving three actresses, two characters with split roles, and four Oscar nominations. For this reason, I think Wildhartlivie's confusion might have arisen as a result of the particular situation rather than my edit.
 * Wildhartlivie had let pass a few of my grammatical edits, and I let some of that editor's edits pass as well, such as the revertion of my rearranging of the "Music" section.
 * I hope my edits meet consensus.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

first paragraph: to rely on awards received or work in film
The following two comments are moved from my personal talk page (Abie the Fish Peddler (talk)): "I have reverted your last four edits. The WP:POV tone of the lead was shocking. Read WP:LEAD.  The POV tone on the tormented nature of her roles may be suitable for the main body if well-cited.  The LEAD should give a broad overview.  My goal is to have a first paragraph, which details the essentials of her career, summarizing the most important general details. Then the subsequent paragraphs detail her acting chronology and the most important non-acting elements of her life.  Look at your first paragraph and the current one.  Ask yourself what best summarizes her career for someone who only is going to read the first paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)"
 * "I didn't mean to shock you, I only meant to do what you suggest. The reason my version of the second sentence differs with yours, I think, has to do with the fact that your version says she is notable for her AMPAS awards, while my version says she's notable because of her work. In fact, I have read the articles you suggested, and as an added fact, I referenced them just before my edits. To verify this, simply read above the first line of the article where it says 'Please don't mention Academy Award winning in the first sentence.' Yes, you didn't add that in the first sentence, but if you look at MOS:FILM, you'll see it advised not to even mention awards won in the first paragraph. The reason the article cites is POV. So, my friend, I think you are the one making the POV edit, additionally since my edits were well referenced. I shall add the mention of 'acutely portraying bright but tormented women' into the body of the article as you suggest, but I insist that it belongs in the lede, at least until we find something that improves on both of our versions. Just as important, you're edit summary saying that you don't have time to edit with a scalpel is the thing that shock me. If you don't have time to edit well, I strongly feel that you should take a break and come back later. WP won't burn down if you don't step in, and WP won't lose credibility if someone reads about Kate Winslet from a perspective which you personally hadn't thought of before. With all respect, I will revert your reversion, additionally because your edit repeats the mention of several of her films. Hope to hear your further thoughts, Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)"
 * I have just now referred to several Featured Articles of actors in order to improve the lede paragraph, among them: Bette Davis, Kirsten Dunst, Diane Keaton, and Maggie Gyllenhaal. This is why I now understand User:Tony the Tiger's point about the description of Winslet's characters not belonging in the lede. I am looking through the body of the article to see if I can find a place where it fits. Let me know if you find it, or if you don't think it belongs in the article at all.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize you were the reviewer, Tony the Tiger. I hope I was respectful in my editing and dialogue. I'll continue to try my best.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

proposed reworking of the section "2007-present"
'''I have reworked the section "2007-present". What do you all think about it?''' 2008 proved to be a fortuitous year for Winslet, as both of her released projects, Revolutionary Road (2008) and The Reader (2008), received wide critical acclaim, and each received a Golden Globe Award. The Academy Awards, which restrict an actor's being nominated twice in the same category within the same year, recognized only one of Winslet's 2008 performances, which resulted in some controversy. Though she was originally the first choice for her role in Stephen Daldry's The Reader, the film adaptation of Bernhard Schlink's 1995 novel of the same name, a scheduling conflict with Revolutionary Road resulted in Winslet initially turning down the role, and Nicole Kidman replacing her. However, a month after filming began, Kidman's pregancy forced her to leave the project, enabling Winslet to rejoin the film. Employing a German accent, Winslet portrayed a former Nazi concentration camp guard who has an affair with a teenager, and who years later stands trial for war crimes. Winslet later admitted that the role had been difficult for her, as she found it "not natural to sympathise with a SS guard." The film, which co-starred Ralph Fiennes, garnered generally mixed reviews, while Winslet's performance received rave reviews, as well as earning her sixth Academy Award nomination, which she won. The performance also earned her the BAFTA Award for Best Actress, a Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress, and the Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress – Motion Picture. Revolutionary Road was directed by Winslet's husband Sam Mendes, and reunited her with her Titanic costar, Leonardo DiCaprio. After reading Justin Haythe's sceenplay adaptation of Richard Yates' 1961 novel of the same name, it was Winslet who conceived of both Mendes and DiCaprio working with her on the film. Regarding her first time working with her husband, Winslet commented that it was "a great thing" to see other sides of him. DiCaprio commented that his long-term friendship with Winslet proved to be an advantage for their "fight scenes," as did the relaxed environment which Mendes created for the actors. In his review of the film, Scott Foundas of the Village Voice said: "As Winslet has already demonstrated once this season (in The Reader), among her seemingly boundless gifts is an acute grasp of bright young women beset by some intractable inner torment." David Edelstein of New York stated in his review of the film: "There isn’t a banal moment in Winslet’s performance—not a gesture, not a word. Is Winslet now the best English-speaking film actress of her generation? I think so." For her performance, Winslet was awarded her second Golden Globe of the year, this time for Best Actress. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that it is far too late here to propose changes after having plowed in and made myriad others. I think this is an article that I worked on for almost a year and for some reason, you've jumped on it now and managed to render an article that had been completely stable for all of that time, into one that is not. I don't know why you've decided to jump on this and make all of these sudden changes, but your edits have knocked it out of GA criteria re: stability. Thanks for that. There is no need that I can see for sticking in a "notes" section and I think that is totally unnecessary. This edit moved the content away from the reference. You did that twice. The reference was there to support "the actress served as somewhat of a “patron saint”", not the names of the co-stars. Bad form. I see no way not to pull this from GA consideration at this time. I'm personally sick to my stomach that all of this has come up now and I don't have the quality of health to allow my blood pressure to rise like this. Another eye bleed is imminent. I'm sorry Tony, how can this possibly pass now? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to be an expert on GA qualification, but I do see when an article can be improved upon, and I think that's the basis of improving an article until it reaches a satisfactory state. Is it so important for you to have those two letters G-A at the top of the page, and a notch on your user page for you to forget about "CONSENSUS". I wish I could prove to you that I am not trying to sabotage the article, which I hope you are not deluded enough to think is your article alone. Clue: It's not. On the contrary, I have spent a few hours working to the best of my ability to add a tiny bit of missing coherence, I'm not trying to own anything. Here's an example if you don't believe me. Your reversion of my edit for the movie "Quills" was actually the "bad form" edit, not mine, as all you had to do was move the ref over to the "patron saint" clause. Instead you reverted the whole thing which inaccurately reads as if Kate Winslet was inspired by the Marquis de Sade. You see? You didn't even realize that I had corrected the application of the clause. You ask questions, but you don't ask them on the talk page, you ask them in your edit summaries as you are reverting. Another example of your well-intentioned but harmful editing is exhibited in your repeated claim that Heavenly Creatures did not receive "dozens of awards but 20," which is ridiculous not because you're wrong, but because the sentence we're dealing with is not Heavenly Creatures, but Sense and Sensibility. Poor thing, let's take a deep breath, and assume good intentions, me in you and you and me, and please read my comments above. I strove to answer you thoughtfully. As a sidenote, I think the way you can maintain stability on this article by addressing any concerns that come along, and not by simply reverting blindly without taking the time to understand the edits. By the way, how much time is left before the administrator reads it again?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is no consensus reached here. The other problem is that you charged in and didn't bother posting to this page about it until after you'd made multiple edits. How Is anyone supposed to know what you're doing when all we see are the results. You still moved the source away from what it was supporting. Please don't patronize me ("poor thing"). Whether it was Heavenly Creatures or Sense and Sensibility, dozens of awards were not won and that is extraneous in regard to what were mostly screenwriting awards. And please do not make a sideways nod to insinuating ownership. Regardless, this has introduced an instability to this article, and yes, to a certain extent, a GA status is a desirable thing. Don't discount that this article has been worked up to that nomination or that the editing and reverting the GA reviewer jeopardizes that nomination. Lots more than a few hours work went into this article and rushing in to rewrite sections without first discussing that drives right over and through that. Yes, a GA is important. It is disengenous to suggest otherwise, especially when this happens during the GA review. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up
I just cleaned up several errors that had been introduced into the "Awards and nominations" section over the past couple of months. The most significant of these was the claim "Upon earning her second Oscar nomination at age 22, [Winslet] became the youngest to do so." This is simply false. Sal Mineo earned his second Oscar nomination at age 21 for Exodus. DocKino (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

a call for feedback from other editors
Obviously, Wildhartlivie did a good thing nominating this article, and most likely spent did some good work on it before that, but in the last day, I have witnessed an wound up, bossy type who I think would now do better to sit back and nurse that one's own health, and let other editors scramble to meet the GA deadline. So, let's hear from some other editors. Who sees improvements in the version of the article from ten edits ago (here), before they were all reverted? And who thinks my edits should stay reverted? And who has other ideas? This is WP, for the love of knowledge! Let's have some fun! All within WP guidelines, of course.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, it is entirely improper to characterize another editor as "an wound up, bossy type". Please adhere to civility guidelines here and desist from making personal attacks upon a disagreeing editor. I happen to agree with her changes and have to wonder why you would want to rewrite an article under Good article nomination all the while attacking that nomination as you did above. I do not see your edits as improving the article. Mostly what I see is your trying to ram through what you think without discussing changes first or addressing what has been raised as problems with what you've done. You even edit warred with the good article reviewer here. This article has been here, virtually unchanged, except for improved referencing, for a long period of time. What makes you think that it "suddenly" needs "improved"? I personally think your edits need to stay reverted and you desist from edit warring over it. LaVidaLoca (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for your perspective, LaVidaLoca. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea (several actually). Comment on content, not the contributor. Don't edit war unless someone is actually vandalizing an article. Don't make mass changes to an article while a GA review is running if there are protests. Ol' bossy Wildhartlivie wasn't the only one who reverted you so take that as a sign to step away for the time being. There are seven billion different articles here to work on, so I find edit wars over supposed improvements to high profile articles beyond absurd.  Pinkadelica ♣  04:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if you realize how offensive your opening sentence is.  Don't be so confident in your own rightness that you start to believe you have the right to speak about another editor in this manner.  You don't.    You've been given some good advice here, and I won't repeat it.  I'll just say that I agree with every word of it.   Here's something else for you to consider.  Wildhartlivie has done a lot of work on this article, and has probably invested more effort than any other editor to raise it to its current standard.  That does not mean she owns the article or that it can't be changed, or that you are not welcome to contribute,  but she deserves more courtesy than you have extended.  She certainly deserves more than you suggesting she be put out to pasture.  You suddenly appear here, giving every indication that you think you know best, and start making changes throughout the article that undermine Wildhartlivie's past efforts and potentially damage the GA nomination, without necessarily elevating the article to the point that the edits and the attitude behind them,  are worth the aggravation.   Perhaps you're acting with the best of intentions and enthusiasm, but even so, how do you think you look from where she is sitting?   Rossrs (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've got to comment here, as I've worked with both Abie and Livie, and know them both to be very good editors. Abie, I think it's probably best to strike your comment about Wildhartlivie, as it's certainly not appropriate (and actually kind of nasty).  We all get mad and say things in anger that we regret later, and I think this is one of them (at least for WP issues).  I think the comment temporarily closed more doors than it opened concerning the discussion, as can often happen.  But the door can be reopened!  We're all good-faith editors in this discussion, and we know it.  Just speaking my piece... Doc9871 (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WOW! Nice! Thanks all for your suggestions, and for the clue as to what the majority want. (Hey, Doc!) I want to clarify a couple things: I didn't initially come here knowing that the article was undergoing GA nomination, or who Wildhartlivie or Tony the Tiger was. I came because I had the energy to work on Kate Winslet's article.
 * -As for the reaction that I should show Wildhartlivie more respect, I think these suggestions may have arisen as a result of mistaking my tone. My referring to that one as a "poor thing" and going on to say that Wildhartlivie should be "sitting back and nursing that one's health" were in response to some of Wildhartlivie's health-oriented comments, like this one from above: "I'm personally sick to my stomach that all of this has come up now and I don't have the quality of health to allow my blood pressure to rise like this. Another eye bleed is imminent. I'm sorry Tony, how can this possibly pass now?"
 * -My original intention was to breeze through, edit the article to a state which I would consider perfect, and then move on, letting the main editors of the page take what they wanted from my changes, fully expecting that my edits would be corrected upon. I understand now that the blanket reverting which resulted was partly because I hadn't explained my intention beforehand. Regardless, the consensus seems to suggest that I be the one to sit back and nurse my health, so I think I'll take that advice and skip this "Kate Winslet article" town for another article. But I should note that if I ever bump into any of you again, I assure you I won't be harboring any grudges, I see this whole encounter as an amusing exercise in communication. Farewell.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Rather than suggesting that we have all mistaken your tone, (and that the mistake is ours?), perhaps you should have acknowledged that we were only reading what you actually wrote. Anyway, if you've found this amusing, that's wonderful.  You're probably alone there.  It would have been nice if you'd apologised for the tone of your comment, rather than just trying to explain it away as our misunderstanding, but as long as you don't do it again.  Rossrs (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oscar nominations
I'm removing the bit about Winslet being the youngest to get two Oscar nominations. Assuming the dates in the Angela Lansbury article are correct, you can see she was younger when she got her two. Angela was born in 1925, her first nomination was for Gaslight in 1944 and her second for The Picture of Dorian Gray in 1945. The difference between 1945 and 1925 is 20. Tabercil (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah. Did some digging and found better information here: "When she was a teenager, Angela won nominations for her work in "Gaslight" and "The Picture of Dorian Gray". Tabercil (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And a reliable source to affirm is what was requested. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ephraim Katz, The Film Encyclopedia (HarperPerennial): Lansbury was "born on Oct. 16, 1925" (p. 789). "She was nominated for the best supporting actress Oscar for her first role, in Gaslight (1944), and subsequently received nominations twice more, for The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945) and The Manchurian Candidate (1962)" (p. 790). DocKino (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

2007-present section
Congrats on the GA status Wildhartlivie et all! I know I'm not popular here, as I got off on the wrong foot originally. But I've rewritten the 2007-present section, and am leaving it for you all to decide if it's worth anything. There are a couple little grammar improvements such as "an SS guard" as opposed to "a SS guard"; an added quote or two, and some restructuring. Hope some of it looks good to yall. Even if not, thanks for giving it a look. You can find it in the Page History under my self-reverted "test section". And once again, congrats on the hard work!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me&mdash;nice work, Abie. Jonyungk (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no clue as to why you would propose making changes to a section that just two days ago passed good article nomination. Changing that section would throw the entire good article into jeopardy. Why would you want to do that when multiple editors spoke up against this very thing? What is your point here? You didn't bother to speak up during the actual assessment process to say anything here and it's not bolstered by a wiki-friend popping in to comment on it. And thanks for the compliment on having worked this article up to and through good article status, Jonyungk. Your sentiments about it mean a lot. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wildhartliive, I honestly cannot tell whether you are giving me an honest compliment or being sarcastic. I just read the article through for the first time last night and was impressed with the work done on it. Apologies if I somehow gave offense. Jonyungk (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Rossrs and I literally spent 3 weeks on the GA review alone. It was a long and arduous process. The article itself was about a year and a half in the rendering. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You know what, Wildhartlivie? I've had enough of your hostility. First, you told me not to make edits during the GA assessment, even though the reviewer said that several of my edits were good, and so I backed off. And, now that the assessment is over, and you've got your GA status, you still don't let me touch the article! Well, I've got news for you, friend. You don't own this article. It's free. So, move over. There is still work to be done. Don't forget that "A" status and "FA" status are still ahead of us. I'm adding this article to my watchlist, and we're steering this thing forward, like it or not. So, I recommend you get used to it. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Abie, it does seem a little odd that you did not comment at the GA review, but choose to return to the article so quickly after the GA process was completed. The timing looks a bit off, that's all.   Whatever your motives are, at least try to understand how it looks.   You started off with "I know I'm not popular here", but it doesn't have to be that way.  You are right in saying that the article needs to move forward, and now might be a good time to focus on the article.   With regards to your edits, I think there is a mix of good and not-so-good, and this comment is intended in good faith.   Overall it's not bad, but some of the changes do not seem necessary to me.  The main thing, to me, is that the tone is different to that in the rest of the article.   That's a difficulty with any article.  When different editors get involved in writing different sections, the individual "voices" are sometimes audible, and they shouldn't be.   The article should read in one "voice".  That was achieved fairly well (but not perfectly) during the review (and before) but your edit introduced a different voice, and so the overall tone and flow of the section was changed - some of it was for the better, and some not.    Some of the writing is awkward.  Changing "it was Winslet who suggested that both should work with her" to "it was Winslet who conceived of both Mendes and DiCaprio working with her on the film" is one example because the word "conceived" is not the natural word to use there.   "Regarding her first time working with her husband, Winslet commented that it was "a great thing" to see other sides of him" is another.  Technically not wrong, but quite awkward.


 * The section regarding The Reader is more on track, in my opinion.  Some of the changes there improve the flow and the only part there that I think doesn't work is "Winslet admitted..."   "Admitted" is one of those words that subtly conjures up a negative context (WP:WTA) because it usually follows an accusation.   Although things like "Winslet said" or "Winslet stated" are kind of banal, sometimes that is the most neutral way to word things.  That's a minor point.  I'm also not sure why the info about The Reader and Revolutionary Road was changed around.   If that was to bring it into chronological order based on production date, or based on release date, it should have something in the text to indicate the progression, but it would need to be consistent.  Although the first paragraph notes Revolutionary Road first and The Reader second, the edit changed their order, so it should have also been changed in the first paragraph.   I'm not sure what your reason was for this, so I may be missing something there.  Rossrs (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the thoughtful answer, Rossrs. I accept that it was made in good faith, and I hope you trust the same from my comments, because that's how I intend them. I understand your point regarding the "one voice" and I agree. My main reason for wanting to edit this section in particular, I should explain, is for that first paragraph. To elaborate, I think 2008 was a particularly momentous year in Winslet's career, and so I think a kind of introductory paragraph to the section is in order. As for the sequence of the films, I meant to set them according to release date, and agree that I failed to achieve that same sequence in the first paragraph. I also agree with your perspective on the word "admitted", the superiority of "suggested" over "conceived", and that the sentence regarding Winslet's perception of her husband while at work needs to be rephrased. In addition, there's one more sentence that doesn't seem to flow well in my judgment, and I'm curious about how it sounds to you. I'm referring to the first sentence in the "Revolutionary Road" paragraph. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean, "In 2007, Winslet reunited with Leonardo DiCaprio to film Revolutionary Road (2008)." ? I think it flows ok, but it's a short sentence, where perhaps a longer sentence would flow better.  It seems to emphasise the reteaming of Winslet and DiCaprio ahead of the film itself.    That's what I see, but I'm not sure what you're referring to.  Rossrs (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to my test edit version where it says "Revolutionary Road was directed by Winslet's husband Sam Mendes, and it reunited her with her Titanic costar, Leonardo DiCaprio." In other words, I agreed with what you said my version lacked, and in addition, I am having trouble with that particular sentence. I'm wondering how it sounds to you. Luckily it seems to put the film on even par with the reteaming of the stars (in my estimation), but is it grammatically correct? Is it just me or does it sound awkward?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right then, I was looking at the wrong sentence.  If you read it out loud it sounds like two distinct sentences joined by the word "and".   That makes it a little stilted, although grammatically speaking, I don't think it's actually wrong.   There are probably a couple of ways it could be amended, but I think merging it with the sentence that follows, would make that section more succinct and would also avoid repeating the names "Mendes" and "DiCaprio" in successive sentences.  I think sometimes you can have two reasonable sentences that work well by themselves, but not so much when you put them together.   If I was working on that paragraph, I think I'd approach it that way - identify the keys points from the first two sentences and put them into one sentence.  Or - one short sentence.  "Winlet's next film was Revolutionary Road.", followed by a sentence that combines her idea to have it directed by Mendes and co-starring DiCaprio.  That might be better.  Rossrs (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you hit it, Rossrs. Nice.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You know what, Abie? I'm really quite tired of you coming in and making changes to this article both during the GA nomination and immediately afterward, both of which jeopardized the ongoing GA process. You have failed to answer direct questions like why would you do such a thing and why a person with whom you exchange talk page posts would come in to congratulate you on disrupting the process. You seem to ignore that the simple fact was, your changes during a GA process was disruptive, while the edits you made introduced confusion and errors, the reviewer didn't notice that, he only read what you changed. Why would anyone come in and make massive changes to an article undergoing a review, anyway? What is the purpose. And again, why would your "friend" here come in, congratulate you, and ignore that you disrupted the process. Not to mention the action itself was done in a way to challenge the entire article. This is bad faith editing and bad faith disruption. I don't much care whether or not you don't like my comments. Your actions were deliberate and disruptive. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really feel a need to explain myself to Wildhartlivie, as I'm not here to engage in a hostile back in forth, but rather in civil editing and improving of articles. If someone has trouble assuming good faith and being civil, that's not my problem. My comments and questions regarding the article to Rossrs stand.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly think you do owe an explanation for your actions that jeopardized a GA review and why you "test edited" a change within 2 days of the article passing GA. There's a standard of good faith that was violated in that action and you owe an explanation for that action, not just to me, but to other editors here, including the GA reviewer. You were the one who started your post out here referring to your popularity in an aggressive manner. Why would you want to take actions that jeopardize a review process? If you refuse to answer that, you are refusing to work collaboratively and that speaks for itself. Please stop trying to jeopardize the review results. And as for you comments about an "A review", we don't do those anymore. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your tone and your demands are coming across as extremely uncivil to me and don't seem focused on the present issue, which are my edits to the section entitled "2007-present". Either comment on the issue in civil tone, or don't, but if you seek to stir up a fight, I'm simply going to have to report this to an admin. I'm keeping in mind not to be personally affronted by your words, but that you are proving to be a detriment to the editing experience. The choice is yours. My last comment to Rossrs still stands.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing incivil about expecting an explanation for actions that served to jeopardize a good article review, nor actions that continue to jeopardize its status and asking why you did that. If you continue to refuse to answer those very valid questions, then your posting here is pointless. Your posts here, four at my last count, discounted anything I had to say, make accusations of incivility, hint at personal attacks and continue to refuse to respond to direct questions about your motives. You apparently do not intend to explain your actions, which were inappropriate, and thus, your "test edit" does not merit discussion. Either explain yourself and drop the personal affronts or just stop. You have no idea about "my tone", I was unaware you had extrasensory perception regarding perceiving "tone" in typing, but I assure you, the questions regarding your actions and motives are completely valid. Report it to an administrator, I suspect they would like an explanation for charging in and putting a GA review in jeopardy as well. Don't think those questions aren't prevalent in anyone else's minds as well. Why would anyone act in a way that directly jeopardizes a good article review and immediately after it passes, act in a way that continues to throw the status into question and do so intentionally and deliberately? And don't bother with reporting it to an adminstrator, I've done so myself about this entire process and your refusal to answer valid questions about your actions. And let's not overlook the characterization of editors here as having "some kind of wild, almost rabid protection instinct over one to three editors on that article. They won't let me get a word in. Knowing me, I'm probably the cause of the attitude." Yeah, if you spent a year and a half developing an article and finally taking it to GA review only to have it jeopardized by someone who never edited here before, a bit of protectiveness is to be expected. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Return to the point
Looking over all of this (quickly, as some of this just got repetitive), I would like to propose that we bypass all of this, and get back to the focus of the article. Good job to everybody's contributions, including those who have spent a great deal of time on the article as well as those who even made minor changes), a community-built article has reached GA status with the potential of going higher (I haven't contributed to the article really myself, except for securing permission for three of the images). Since the article is now well-developed, let's get away from all of the back-and-forth and focus on the issues raised. As the article is already developed, most large changes should be brought here and allow consensus to form. This article will only continue to improve if reverts are avoided and the editors remain around by not being blocked. Please, for the rest of this discussion, let's move on to what changes are again proposed and move forward while keeping a cool head. Now, we should all go off to watch The Office, get some comedy coursing through our veins, and return to this article when ready to focus on improvements. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nehrams. There really haven't been issues raised about anything that weren't addressed during GA review. My concern is not upsetting the apple cart regarding that work. Spending a year and a half on something to have it jeopardized is unsettling and it would be beneficial to understand the motives behind doing so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My error
I don't know what happened except there was an aparent edit conflict when I made this edit the first time. I reverted myself, apologies to anyone who may have been trying to edit at the same time as me. Thanks for understanding, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No harm has been done Crohnie. It all looks fine.  :-)  Rossrs (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, not actually sure what I did there, to be honest it freaked me out. I thought I was changing two words, not the whole article. It was very weird to me.  I haven't had a good morning with my edits and I have had a friend give me a cup of coffee.  I guess maybe I need another one! :)  Thanks again, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Same thing happened when I edited, thus the two tries. Cheers, a two cup day indeed!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am positive that it was you and I who edit conflicted. It was weird wasn't it.  Usually I get a message telling me that I am in conflict and have to try again.  I didn't get the message, maybe you did.  Anyways, alls well that ends well!  Oh, and I'm on cup three now as it is definitely warranted by the way my editing is going today.  :)  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm positive it was you that I edit-bumped with. At least she wore your perfume. And, yes, all's well. Except my jealousy regarding your coffee. :-( --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't be jealous, the coffee pot turned off and the coffee is cold. ;) This is how my day is going. :) -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

updated "2007-present"
Per Rossrs's input, this is my proposed version of the "2007-present" section. By the way, I love the image for this section. Who is responsible for its uploading?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please copy the existing section under your proposal to make it easier to see what's been changed? (Something like this would make it easier.) Maybe you could even bold text the bits that you feel are significant.  The image is great.  If you click on the image, you'll see that the uploader is User:Nehrams2020.  Also, I think if you just say "I have a new proposal, what do you think?", anyone who thinks the existing version is fine, is likely to wonder why it needs to be changed and perhaps not give your proposal due consideration.  Given that the article has recently been examined with a fine tooth comb, it's understandable that there will be editors who think it's good as it is.  If you don't support your suggestions it looks like you are trying to reinvent the wheel.  That's my initial reaction to any such proposals.   Could you please briefly address what you are aiming to achieve, why you have changed certain points etc.   You've touched on it earlier, but a few key points here in dot form would make it easier to understand.   It's not only the proposal itself that you need to sell, but you need to show how it would benefit the article.   Thanks.  Rossrs (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work on the image, Nehrams2020. And thank you for the suggestions, Rossrs. As you'll see I've employed most, if not all of them.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have set the two versions of the section on the same page for you to peruse with ease here. Besides aiming to improve the flow and to point out the momentousness of the year, I've also removed two items: the quote "a blessing and an added pressure", as it isn't a direct quote from Winslet, and the mention of DiCaprio and Winslet watching period videos in preparation for their roles, as it comes across as particularly uneventful. In their place, I've added a sentence in which DiCaprio describes his experience of working with Winslet again, as well as with her husband. I think this is preferrable to the present version because there is flow from where Winslet first suggests the project, to where DiCaprio offers his assessment of the project after the fact. Actually, that one line, I feel, could still use a little reworking. Do you have an idea on it? I've also added budget and box office info (though I'm sure it will need proper formatting) to keep a consistency with the other sections, and I've added a quote which I think essentially embodies what I find so fascinating about Winslet, namely that "among her seemingly boundless gifts is an acute grasp of bright young women beset by some intractable inner torment."--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you going to the effort of setting up the page as I requested. It made it much easier to compare. I am going to be nit-picky and please understand that the GA review was very thorough and particular, so any revisions have to be considered and appraised in the same manner.

1. Do we deal with films chronologically in a biography, in order of filming, which from a bio point of view makes sense, or by release dates, which from a consumer point of view makes sense?
 * Essentially, Rossrs, this is my reason for including the introductory paragraph. I think these two films are so interwoven, in shoot dates and scheduling conflicts, in release dates, in reviews, and during the awards season, that it is of secondary importance to me which film we discuss first. It is more important to me that we include the intro at all. With that said, I personally lean slightly towards going by release dates, as it seems to flow better, keeping in mind the quote from the review which mentions both films.(Abie the Fish Peddler (talk))

2. Paragraph 1. I understand the idea of summarizing to act as an introduction for her fortuitous year. I don't deny the validity of this approach and I quite like the concept and the intention. I don't think the way it's done is necessarily effective because it introduces the awards and focusses almost exclusively upon them, which results in repetition in the next paragraphs. The Academy Award "loophole" is a little unclear because the reader may not understand that the films were in competition, and it's too specific a point for two films that haven't even been discussed. It's a tangent that takes the focus off Kate right when you are trying to establish the importance of events to her. It's covered in the "Awards" section and I think that allows it to be discussed in appropriate context.
 * I have edited the introduction to read smoother, and I've added a mention that Winslet is only the 4th actor to receive two Globes in the same year, though the only source I have is counting them up. I've also removed all mention of the Academy Awards. I hope these changes put the focus back on her, though I'm open if you know of another way.(Abie the Fish Peddler (talk))
 * Sentence by sentence. Sentence 1.  I think this is still something of a problem.  I recognise your intent, as I've previously said, but the wording needs to be more neutral.  To call it a fortuitous year is something of a conclusion drawn, and it would be more effective to let the accomplishment speak for itself.   Sentence 2.  I think "bestowed" is a little pompous.  Bearing in mind the "one voice" I mentioned before, this is the type of language that looks a little jarring.  Sourcing for the four dual winners is a problem too.  Currently it's WP:OR.  It needs a reliable source.   Overall - you've kept the focus on Winslet and that's a a step forward.  Rossrs (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

3. Paragraph 2- The Reader. I think the first sentence flows more smoothly than the previous version. I'm glad "the fall" has gone as it means a different time in different parts of the world and where I live it's not even called "fall" and it happens in March. I noticed this during GA review and forgot to comment/change. Winslet "able to rejoin". I don't think that is right as it implies Kate waiting in the wings for Kidman to break a leg - or get pregnant. "Rejoin" also indicates that she was there previously - she wasn't, as she turned the role down. I would change it to "at which point Winslet accepted the role." The next sentence "Employing a German accent and co-starring with Ralph Fiennes, Winslet portrayed a former Nazi concentration camp guard who has an affair with a teenager, and who years later stands trial for war crimes." does not flow as well as the sentence it replaces, although in that sentence I would remove "(Kross)". Next sentence "Winslet later said that the role had been difficult for her, as she found it "not natural to sympathise with an SS guard." becomes somewhat awkward at the point the quote begins. The existing version is more succinct and simple.  "While the film as a whole garnered generally mixed reviews,[9] Winslet's performance garnered mostly favorable ones,[9] as well as earning her her sixth Academy Award nomination, which she won."  This is awkward too.  "mostly favourable ones" is not an improvement on the previous text, and neither is "which she won".   She didn't win a nomination, with is literally what is being said.  The existing version is clearer.
 * Yes, I often forget about the seasons happening at different times depending on geographic location, thanks for the reminder. I made the change you suggested regarding "accepted" for "rejoin", and in the next sentence I removed the Ralph Fiennes clause, which I think was the only cause for discomfort. Please tell me if I diagnosed incorrectly. I've also rearranged the "not natural" sentence to remove awkwardness. I believe I've succeeded there. And I've changed the line about Academy Awards per your perspective, which I find was more correct than mine.(Abie the Fish Peddler (talk))
 * Sentence by sentence. Sentence 1. Fine.  Sentence 2. Fine.  Sentence 3. Yes, you diagnosed incorrectly.  I wasn't bothered by Fiennes.  Although it's the scantest of plot revolation, it's given as two seperate facts (she had an affair and she stood trial as a former Nazi).  The current version links the two through the teenager who witnesses the trial.  I still think the original version is better. Sentence 4.  Fine.  Sentence 5. Fine.  Sentence 6. Fine.  Sentence 7. Fine.  Rossrs (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

4. Paragraph 3 - Revolutionary Road - very good beginning. In the second sentence "reunite with her in working on the film" worries me. We know DiCaprio was her Titanic co-star so the word "reunite" is redundant as is "work on the film". (What else would they be working on?) I would replace the phrase with "play the husband of her character." Removal of the watching videos sentence is fair enough as it's kind of vague, ("uneventful" you say), but I would keep the fact that they were favourably reviewed. Something like "They attracted favourable reviews for their portrayal of a couple in a failing marriage during the 1950s, (insert Rotten Tomatoes as source), and DiCaprio commented that his long-term friendship with Winslet, and Mendes' relaxed working environment, proved to be an advantage during their "fight scenes"." If he's acknowledging this as the reason for their effectiveness, it is fair to say that the positive reviews are a result of that. The connection is enough to merge the two ideas. I think it's a very good addition as it personalises the working relationship of Winslet/DiCaprio and Winslet/Mendes. Do we need the revenue figures for the film? Does it reflect Winslet's appeal with audiences, or DiCaprio's?  Who knows? I think it's a suitable addition. It's great to say it was a commercial success, but a similar point could be made about the The Reader to ensure consistency/balance. I like the Village Voice quote, but - forgive me - I'm not American and I know nothing of the publication. Is it influential to the point that we should be quoting from it? If so, fine. If not, can a similar quote be found from somewhere else. I note that it's a tabloid, but I don't know if that lessens its legitimacy. The quote itself is useful as it briefly addresses the type of actress Winslet is, or at least how she is perceived, and it segues neatly into the New York quote. The last sentence about the Golden Globes is, to me, a weak sentence replacing a weak sentence. Not better or worse, just different, so I don't know that it's necessary to change it.
 * Thank you for the compliment. I edited the second line, removing the redundancy of "Titanic costar", though I didn't use your wording since the next line mentions that they play a married couple. I also did not mention the favourable reviews at this point, though I did try to enhance that very issue in the next sentence. As far as the revenue figures, I'm not adamant about them, though I do find it odd that they exist in every other section but this one, so to answer your uncertainty I've also added the figures for "The Reader", though they need proper formatting (I'm not so strong at the maths). I've also worded the last line of the section to have more punch and tie it all back to the beginning. As for the Village Voice, I consider it the preeminent arts periodical in New York, though for your reference, I should add that I am from the U.S.A. though not the East Coast.(Abie the Fish Peddler (talk))
 * Sentence by sentence. Sentence 1.  Fine.  Sentence 2. I'm very ambivalent.  I don't think it's a strong sentence.  Sentence 3. It still seems awkward and I think the problem lies in the first few words "regarding their portrayal".   It's not really a sentence opener, and that type of phrase usually goes at the end.  It still needs work.  Sentence 4. A worldwide total what?  It needs the word "gross" but otherwise it's fine. Sentence 5.  Italics needed for The Reader, otherwise fine.  Sentence 6. Fine.  Sentence 7.  Fine.

For what it's worth, that's what I think. Rossrs (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being "nit-picky", or what I like to call "careful", in your comments above. I agreed with most of them, and made edits to my proposed version accordingly. My detailed explanations follow each of your paragraphs above, and my updated draft can be found here. Cheers, Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at your revision, and there are still issues that I believe need to be worked on.  I've used the word "fine" several times.  That's just shorthand to indicate that I don't have anything more to say on those points, and it can mean anything from "very good" to "satisfactory", and it's only my opinion.   Other editors may say "not fine", you know.  Rossrs (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict
Sorry, Wildhartlivie. Yes, that "she" wasn't dropped by the IP editor. I tried to add the "she" along with reverting the possible vandalism. But you beat me to the reverting. Very well, the "she" can stay if you insist. But I maintain that it's awkward, as the subject of the sentence is so far from the predicate. Cheers, Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you're saying about it, but the sentence already has one subject, "she", which serves the entire sentence. I don't think it needs it in there twice. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, I agree. No sweat. I'm sure everyone will understand the meaning anyhow.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Abie, The reasons I changed the syntax was this: (1) there were two sentences back to back starting with "she"; that's just bad and immature writing form. (2) the other paragraph that spoke of her awards (all the way down to the emmy mention) was just long - too many words - and clumsy to read.  Thus, the changes making for a better flow.  (3) beside all of that, I felt that what I changed it to was a good compromise for the issues each of you had.  As it was, it just read "wrong".  --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing, SkagitRiverQueen. I appreciate that you tried to find an alternative to the awkwardness in the lede. By the way, I don't mean any of my edits or reverts personally. However, I feel that your edit added two sentences that are equally awkward. 1) The sentence "Along with winning the 2008 Academy Award for Best Actress for he role in The Reader, Winslet is the youngest person to accrue six Academy Award nominations." is just as long a sentence, its intention is unclear, and it introduces a spelling error. 2) The sentence "Winslet has also won awards from the Screen Actors Guild, British Academy of Film and Television Arts, and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, as well as being nominated for an Emmy Award." is grammatically incorrect in my book. I do agree with your idea to go through the lede and make sure there aren't too many "She" sentences. But this edit didn't focus on that. Cheers, Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well...we're gonna have to agree to disagree here. The wording that was edited back is poorly done and clumsy, at best.   --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You're here to resolve a content dispute between Abie and Wildhartlivie? You've said so much. This is your motive for your first-ever contributions to this page? There is a an obvious pattern that continues constantly... Doc9871 (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly feel the last edit, made by my friend, Doc9871, serves no positive purpose here. Doc, is not a regular editor on this page and seems upset about something going on at another article. Please don't pull this article's talk page down too, Doc. Love ya, but this is not the place. Sincerely, Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine. It's not really proper to strike another editor's comments without asking for them to do it first, I'll have you know; but you're right it that my comment might not belong here on Kate's talk page, that's for sure. Cheers! :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Point noted. I hope to never have to do so again, as my hands are now trembling, but I'll remember to ask the editor first next time. Cheers back at you. :-( --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Abie. I removed the word "also" from one of the sentences. That is one of those words that should rarely, if ever, get used in articles of this calibre and somehow it slipped in there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point, Wildhartlivie. I concur. Nice work.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The sinking man's crumpet
An editor added this "nickname" yesterday morning and has reverted it 3 times since different editors have removed it. He refers editors to this page in his reverts, but has failed to defend his reverts here. This is a cutesy comment made in one newspaper, repeated in a couple more British papers, and she is in no way widely known as the "sinking man's crumpet". This is a trivial mention of a cutesy news story that is in no way notable, widely known or repeated and is in fact, in many ways, quite demeaning in content. It is entirely unencyclopedic mention. This is not widely repeated, there are only 20 Google mentions of this and most of those are in blogs. I do not feel this is notable content for this article and should not be returned. Opinions? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The editor in question needs to understand that three editors have disputed the inclusion of this content - I was one of them - and that it's up to him/her to support why it should be included, rather than expect other editors to explain why it shouldn't. It's unencyclopedic and "cutesy" pretty well covers it.   It's common for movie reviews etc to coin phrases to make the text more appealing to the reader and as a marketing device it's nothing new for either the film industry or the publishing industry.  Sometimes the phrase sticks and sometimes it doesn't.   In this case, 13 years after  Titanic was released, it's fair to say it has not stuck.   It's not particularly a nick-name, but more precisely it's a catch-phrase and a play on words.   The "sinking" man's crumpet?  It doesn't even make sense.  Rossrs (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It does if you are British and are familiar with the epithet given to highbrow TV presenter Joan Bakewell in the late sixties/early 70s of "the thinking man's crumpet" - crumpet being British slang for attractive women. So it's clearly a play on words and a compliment, albeit rather unPC in these days. 82.32.238.139 (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but it made a great Four Word Film Review! Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of you and I'm so sorry to make such an obviously demeaning edit not once, not twice, but three times. What was I thinking! I believe "sinking man" refers to Titanic but as I've not seen the film I can't really comment (it's meant to be said in a German accent). FYI, I was referring to another editor's (Nymf) talk page, but I really wouldn't bother wasting any more of your time on this, the moment has passed and the goose is uncooked. Ericoides (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree. It does refer to Titanic, and like I said, it made a great Four Word Film Review, which I submitted and it has already been accepted. This sort of goes along the same line as the review about Titanic that is "Icy dead people". It's in poor taste but funny anyway. It just doesn't belong here. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is in extremely poor taste, but I laughed just the same.  Can't you just see a Date Movie type film with a Haley Joel Osment look-alike in one of the lifeboats, pointing his finger and delivering the line.  Now if that ever makes it into a film, I'll regret suggesting it at a free-content site such as this.  Rossrs (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL. I'd love to see that filmed. Yeah, it is funny. It's actually the #2 highest scored review on the site with 241 votes (#1 is for Kramer vs. Kramer: "I bet Kramer wins.") and it spawned a whole series of copycats: For Alive: "Ice. Eat dead people." and "Icy dead pupils". For Cool Runnings: "Icy sled people." For Pirates of the Carribean: "High sea dead people". For The Grateful Dead movie: "I see Dead people". For Four Weddings and a Funeral: "I see wed people". AND last but certainly not least - Guyana Tragedy: The Story Of Jim Jones: "Hi-C dead people". You should join so you can vote for what makes you laugh or smile! Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Sorry about the typo in my last edit summary. Obviously I meant production not the mess I put there. I tried to say thing it in a null edit but it didn't take. Weird. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Holiday (2006)
The present link from the Filmography to the film The Holiday leaves the user in Holiday (disambiguation) instead of directly to the film. I would adjust it myself but the article is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.229.34 (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I just looked at this and the reason it does this is because it is redirected to Holiday (disambiguation). I noticed that any of the holiday film articles have all been redirected there.  I'm not sure what to do about this myself though so I'll defer to the others.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Already fixed. - Artoasis (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mildred Pierce
Wildhartlivie, why are you still undoing the credit in her filmography? In February you said we still don't include films not yet in production in filmography. Shooting has begun, ergo it now can be included in her filmography. Make up your mind. You btw still need to respond at the Alyssa Milano discussion. If I'm getting no objections, I'm going to start make changes again.Moviefan (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to seriously read up on what sources are reliable because popsugar.com is not. And since this is a television project, the rule of thumb is that we don't include television projects until they are aired. Meanwhile, pls don't introduce discussion here about other articles. The same for the Milano article. Don't cross post discussion. If in fact, I felt your comments required response, there would have been response. You need to learn about discussing and not attacking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The source isn't the point. The information is. This was the first article I came across, I figured I could post it on a discussion page. I don't think Kate Winslet dresses up like that for fun. I was misinformed by you're comment (we still don't include films not yet in production in filmography) and unaware that it doesn't include television projects. Now I know. If you're undoing it without any comments, you can expect it will be questioned. Thanks for the explanation.Moviefan (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is a point. You can't cite a source that isn't considered reliable and say "well, here it is, it isn't reliable, but it supports what I want to say." This is a good article. Sources must be reliable and dependable. Your gut feeling that Winslet doesn't dress like that for fun aside, Popsugar doesn't cut it. And you weren't misinformed, we still don't list films not yet in production. The other side of that is that if you're asserting the film is in production, it needs to be supported by a reliable source. I find it curious that another new account has the same issues with using Popsugar. Is this your only account? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was misinformed, because your comment (we still don't include films not yet in production in filmography) was specificly aimed towards Mildred Pierce. Check it yourself on the revision history: 11:48, 13 February 2010. Moviefan (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Try thinking logically for a minute, if you can. You were not misinformed, we do not list films not yet in production. That was the basic initial problem with your edits, but next, we also do not list TV productions until they've debuted. That was the second initial problem with your edits. Just think about it and wait for the SPI results. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Relationship
The personal life section refers in a couple of places to Kate and Sam Mendes as if they were still a couple (...live in Greenwich Village in New York City, ...own a Grade II-listed five-bedroom house, ...never fly together on the same aircraft). Given their separation, these should probably be revised. Rojomoke (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Pictures
Really guys, did someone intentionally choose pictures to make this celebrity look foolish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.83.135 (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal life
I have removed the sentence "Winslet was later in a relationship with Rufus Sewell, but", as 1) their "relationship" is not notable enough to be included (they only dated for three months), 2) it's unsourced, and 3) the way it's worded creates the illusion that she left Sewell to marry her first husband. If you disagree, please consider using the following: "In 1996, Winslet had a brief relationship with actor Rufus Sewell, whom she met on the set of Hamlet.

I've also removed the following: "Mendes and his production company, Neal Street Productions, purchased the film rights to the long-delayed biography of circus tiger tamer Mabel Stark. The couple's spokesperson said, "It's a great story, they have had their eyes on it for a while. If they can get the script right, it would make a great film." because 1) it belongs in the Career section, not Personal life, and 2) with Winslet and Mendes having separated, it probably won’t get made.

Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The film Carnage
I removed this film because it's not due out until 2012. I got reverted. A lot can happen between now and its release. I don't do revert wars so I would like other editors opinions about this. Thank you in advance, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  19:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Crohnie, my understanding of the implementation of WP:CRYSTAL (which isn't specific on this issue) on filmographies is that we allow unreleased films in the tables as long as they are in production (they've begun filming). This particular film appears to be in post-production, which is why I reverted you and and added the post-production note to make it clear.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, I sure liked it better when films were added after they were released. It was much less complicated. :)  Thanks for responding.  I did notice you adding the post production to it.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I agree with you. I think tables should reflect past events. Unfortunately (for us), that doesn't appear to be the practice.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I find that it's not consistent in the way it's done. Maybe it should be addressed but I'm way to tired to try to deal with any policies like this one which I would assume would be at WP:Crystal.  I guess we can leave it for now and see what happens.  I know a lot of good editors are watching this article because it went through GA in the past year or so.  Thanks for chatting about it though, I really appreciate it, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

How many films of this importance are produced, but remain unreleased? --91.10.44.224 (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed
I added a clarify tag to this sentence: 'Pope said her naturalism was "there from the start".' Mostly because of the unexplained, out-of-nowhere use of the term "naturalism." An editor reverted my edit, with the added note, "unnecessary tag, word used in article and is fairly self-explanator." Well, I for one still don't know what it means. And judging by this disambiguation page (Naturalism), the idea is not so clear cut and self explanatory as the reverting editor may believe. Bobnorwal (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Her acting style is very natural. I think you're overanalyzing it (no offense). And how would you clarify it, anyway? Ask the author of the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Merkin
Many sources make a false claim that she used a merkin in The Reader. They do this by using a partial quote. I have added the details of how she refused to do so and have included the full quote in the references:


 * "Let me tell you, The Reader was not glamorous for me in terms of body-hair maintenence. I had to grow it in, because you can't have a landing strip in 1950, you know? And then because of years of waxing, as all of us girls know, it doesn't come back quite the way it used to. They even made me a merkin because they were so concerned that I might not be able to grow enough. I said, 'Guys, I am going to have to draw the line at a pubic wig, but you can shoot my own snatch up close and personal.'"

This makes total sense since she has never been shy. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but this material does not belong in article at all, and I've removed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Bbb23, per the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle let's discuss this. I'm not interested in edit warring, but will pursue this if necessary. You provided no legitimate reason for your deletion in your edit summary. You must provide a policy-based reason. What is it?


 * This happens to be a widely misunderstood (totally misrepresented!) matter on many reliable (and even more unreliable) sources, and I've fixed the matter with the most reliable source of all - her own words in an interview for Allure magazine, "the leading U.S. women’s beauty magazine". That's an extremely reliable source, and removing properly sourced material, especially when placed in a very relevant context, is a serious matter. If such misrepresentation had happened here at Wikipedia we'd have a serious BLP issue. Well, it's happened in the real world and the truth is now here at Wikipedia. Why delete it? Do you really want a lie about her to continue to circulate? -- Brangifer (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no "lie" in the article. Wikipedia articles don't exist to debunk lies. The material is trivial and doesn't belong in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that's your opinion. Now how about a policy-based reason. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You know, sometimes there's not a policy for everything. However, try WP:NOT ("In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive."). And section WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, a difference of opinion, and since I'm basically an inclusionist (someone who wants to "build", rather than break down, the encyclopedia) with plenty of experience here, I think it's good enough to stay. BTW, it happens to be a very small addition - just one sentence. Can we find a compromise? -- Brangifer (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, your links to WP:NOT aren't specific enough to be useful or applicable. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is what you want to add:"Because the film required full frontal nudity, the film makers tried to get her to use a merkin, but in an interview for Allure, she related how she refused to wear it: "Guys, I am going to have to draw the line at a pubic wig,...""

But the reference adds more with this:"NOTE: Many sources claim that she wore a merkin by only quoting part of this interview (found in full in the printed issue): : "Let me tell you, The Reader was not glamorous for me in terms of body-hair maintenence. I had to grow it in, because you can't have a landing strip in 1950, you know? And then because of years of waxing, as all of us girls know, it doesn't come back quite the way it used to. They even made me a merkin because they were so concerned that I might not be able to grow enough. I said, 'Guys, I am going to have to draw the line at a pubic wig, but you can shoot my own snatch up close and personal.'""

What's your compromise suggestion?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My compromise was already done by placing the full quote in the reference, instead of ballooning the text. That kept it to one sentence. I didn't see any need to add "but you can shoot my own snatch up close and personal". That would have been too much, IMO, but perfectly consistent with her personality and opinions about nudity in films. That subject isn't even broached in the whole article! I suspect a very interesting section could be written just on that subject....;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Separation changes
User:DBSSURFER wants to change the infobox to indicate that Winslet was married to Mendes until 2010. Then, by implication, the parenthetical that says separated, would supposedly mean that 2010 was the year of separation. I reverted because it's not true that she was no longer married to Mendes in 2010. However, DB insisted on his change, so I compromised by indicating that she is still married to Mendes but added 2010 to the parenthetical about the separation. DB reverted again, this time labeling my edit "vandalism", which does him little credit. In any event, although this is a minor point, the article should not say, as it does now after DB's last reversion, "m. 2003-2010" as that is simply false. My compromise would show: "Sam Mendes (m. 2003–present) (separated in 2010)", which is accurate.

I will revert one more time (my last revert for purposes of 3RR) and ask DB to comment here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * DBSSURFER is clearly wrong here, and there is no need for a compromise, but your compromise will hopefully result in peace on the matter. If DBSSURFER still persists, a block will be in order. In fact any undiscussed change by them can be reverted on sight per BRD. If they won't discuss here, they have no business editing the article in any controversial manner. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any proper reference about the separation, so it's all unsourced content right now. We need a source. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Brangifer Be careful in the use of your language. I am not interested in your 'personal' opinions and word use. Here is the reference: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-15/entertainment/kate.winslet.gets.divorced_1_sam-mendes-american-beauty-oscar?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ
 * Would you like any more?
 * Also, I am totally amazed at how a veteran admin like Bbb23 can make such a critical error and act so naive and ignorant when there are tons of reference to support my claim. And, what exactly does separation mean in your language?DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A few more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/08/kate-winslet-divorce-vogue_n_833068.html
 * http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/kate-winslet-divorce-was-hard-for-sam-mendes-and-me-2011410
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1258142/Kate-Winslet-Sam-Mendes-split-mutual-agreement-years-marriage.html


 * This was a huge news all over a year ago.On which century are you fellas?DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing references. Without them your edits violated our most basic policy. Now we can do something about this since edit warring isn't the way. When I mentioned you were wrong, it was in your approach to dealing with this. Per BRD, when your edits were reverted, you should have started a discussion here and provided references. The burden of proof is on you. As a newbie you may not be aware of this. Bbb23, with 17,000+ edits and three years experience here, and myself, with 33,000 edits and six years experience, know this and you're welcome to cooperate, rather than war with us. Wikipedia isn't a battleground. Even when you're right, such behavior can get you blocked rather quickly.


 * FIRST of all this must be mention and documented in the body of the article. THEN it can be mentioned in the lead and the infobox fixed.


 * She is in the November issue of Harpers Bazaar (UK) and discusses the divorce. It would be nice to have the exact date, but it must have happened in 2010. The wording in some of those sources is a bit confusing, and some of them aren't the most reliable sources. The start of the separation was in March 2010, that's clear. It would be nice to have the date of the divorce itself.


 * "Separation" is what usually precedes a divorce. It can be short (a few days) or long (a divorce never happening). -- Brangifer (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There you go again with your use of words. Who are you threatening here? And what do you mean i should take it to the talk. I asked the other person to take it to discussion and he/she was the one who reverted it. The articles say they divorced on march 2010. What good is your experience if you cannot even research first and then jump directly on discussions and then insult others with your rude words. Your experience mean nothing if you go on editing same page again and again every day. And I am not afraid of getting blocked by ignorant admins. Sorry but both of our "experienced" editors disappoint me.
 * They have divorced and there are 100s of reference for that. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not threatening you, just trying to teach you how things work around here. We're not allowed to include unsourced content. Period. That's what you did. Then to make matters worse, you edit warred over it. That is never right, even when you're right about the facts. As to taking it to the talk page, you are the one with the burden of proof, not other editors. Regardless of how irritating you find being called on that policy violation, your warlike attitude isn't welcome. Better to learn and collaborate. You really do have a lot to learn here. This is a community with rules and customs. If you don't learn to adapt, you'll be in for a hard ride. Attacking other editors is a serious breach of protocol.


 * The important thing here is to get this information included, sourced properly, and worded properly. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Done and marked "resolved". -- Brangifer (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Brangifer, I appreciate your assistance in this, but I must say I'm not convinced that Winslet and Mendes have actually divorced, and even if they have divorced, when the divorce was final. The sources in the article are at best confusing, and although they use the word "divorce", they do without any precision as to when what happened. From a read of the totality of the sources (not just the ones in the article), it seems reasonably clear that the couple separated in March 2010. Yet some of the cited articles say they divorced in March 2010, which is not possible, at least not in the U.S. (I don't even know what court gave them a divorce.) Anyway, I have tried in vain to find anything definitive on these issues. In the absence of anything concrete, I'll leave the article the way it is. By the way, the Mendes and Winslet articles are now inconsistent.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Although having the exact date of the divorce would be nice, it's not absolutely necessary. We just follow the sources, and the most reliable ones do use the word "divorce", spoken by Winslet, so I think we're on solid ground. I'll check out the Mendes article. We can use the same sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * March 2010 is the exact date. And here is something new : http://celebrity.uk.msn.com/news/gossip/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=154218107 I am pretty sure Winslet would date others only after she has divorced and yes the references do say that.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's very amusing. Some people date while they're still married, let alone while they're separated. And speaking of peformers generally, my suspicion is they do more of that than us ordinary folk.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately some even begin dating before any formal separation, let alone divorce. Sometimes the spouse first learns of it through the media. Rather a sad situation. I don't envy entertainment personalities with their split and fractured lives, with their spouses working on the other side of the world, and their children somewhere else. No wonder there's so much adultery and divorce. We don't really need an exact date for the finalization of the divorce anyway. It could have happened some time after they started using the word in the press. British and American language differences can also muddle the waters as to the meaning of terms. "English" isn't just "English"! There is formal English, British and American "English", informal speech, and then the sensational and sloppy way terms are used in the press, which is why only reliable sources are used here. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

CBE?
I'm an American, so I apologize in advance for my ignorance, but noted that Ms. Winslet recently was granted CBE - I noted that Sir Elton John holds the same rank, but he is listed as "Sir". Is there also a female appropriate pretitle that should be added before her name? Lady? Dame? 68.14.129.243 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem with Kate Winslet and Anna Winslet
When I click the wikilink Anna Winslet the result shows Kate Winslet. Methinks Anna Winslet and Kate Winslet are not the same person. So why Anna Winslet redirected in Kate Winslet? --Hopeoflight (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Anna Winslet is the sister of Kate. The article of the former is redirected to Kate's article. &mdash; Vensatry  (Ping me)  07:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If these two are not the same person, so why Kate Winslet redirected to Anna Winslet? Is it fair that when a person wanted to know about Anna Winslet and click Anna Winslet wikilink, then he found Kate Winslet's article! Beth Winslet also Kate Winslet's sister and this article is not redirected to Kate Winslet, so why in Anna Winslet? Methinks you know that Raima Sen is the sister of Riya Sen and there is no redirection from Raima Sen to Riya Sen or vice versa. I am requesting you for considering this matter. Thansk. --Hopeoflight (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture
The picture is from October 2011 and the image File:Kate Winslet César 2012.jpg was taken in February 2012, and therefore I think it should replace it. - 95.146.108.6 (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A time difference of a few months isn't a valid reason to change the picture. The image you want to change to is terrible and unflattering, and hence the original image will be restored. -- smaro jit  HD 08:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Name vandalism
I logged in today to find out Kate winslet name as Gary Robert William Orr. I suspected of vandalism and a quick look at the references and a google search did not retrieve such a name in any other place. I reverted the name back to Kate Elizabeth Winslet as per infobox. I am not sure if this is her current full name but will be back to it later or if someone has the info and source on her current full name please correct it.Learningnave (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a vandal, indeed. Thanks for noticing. In the future, you can also use the "undo" button in the view history tab. Nymf (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)