Talk:Charlie Hunnam

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

September 1 to 7, 2013

Links

I've changed the title of the fansite link at the bottom of the page as Hunnam has no official website. In addition i've noticed what i think is becoming a Wikipedia:Edit war over which fansite should be linked at the bottom of the page - i'm not a wiki expert so i don't know. If there is a dispute over which fansite should be linked then please discuss it on this talk page rather than continuously making changes. Princesskirsty 10:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all fansite links from the page, as they do not conform to WP:EL. If you disagree with me and wish to re-add them, please discuss it here first. Sarcasticidealist 17:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All edits I may have done "princesskirsty" were all done in error as you well know I'm connected to both sites so why would there be a "war" crazy its all about charlie. No Charlie doesn't have an official site but I'm working on it & in process of speaking to his management about it now. As for title Green Street I will find out for definate & reason behind the changes from the writer. "charliefanuk"

I watched one fansite link being deleted to add in another which was then deleted by someone to add another and then both were added, then deleted to be replaced by one and so on. I knew from IP addresses that it was 2 to 4 different people doing it and i thought it was some sort of fansite feud. I got concerned that it would continue, which was when i brought it to the talk page because by wiki rules 3 reverts like this is considered a form of vandalism (a Wikipedia:Edit war), i thought it would stop when i pointed it out.

It didn't. I only edit a handful wiki pages - i don't really know how to do much here, so i asked for another editor to help. This is when all the fansites got deleted (because it seems they're not actually allowed on the wiki page in the first place) it was recognised as vandalism and the page got protection. I'm not much of a fan anymore, i don't know what goes on at fansites - i couldn't tell you the last time i visited either of them. I'm only concerned with this page and wikipedia. (i responded to the GS thing below as well :))Princesskirsty 21:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 to 4 different people jesus, I only come here because I'd been told by Monika & Noelia that the sites were here but then gone..so I'd thought I'd be clever & put them back.....maybe not so clever. If you remember I wasn't to hot on livejournal, I'm only just getting the hang of myspace & the forum codes, it spins my head. Anyways i'll stop trying to be clever & hope they don't get deleted again. :)Not much of a fan jeezz I nearly edited that :) Tina

Children of men

i had previously stated in the article that The Fishes were eco terrorists as in my opinion and in some articles i've read - thats what they are. Someone has since changed it to terrorist - i've also read that in articles. and since either way it doesn't make a difference to the article i just removed it. Princesskirsty 13:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of "Green Street"

There has been speculation as to the various titles used for the movie Green Street in which Charlie Hunnam stars. IMDB clearly states that "The Yank" was the the original working title of the film in the USA. Princesskirsty 22:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses the title Green Street as opposed to Green Street Hooligans in the article for that movie, thus i have used the title of Green Street for the writing of this article with the alternative titles in brackets where appropriate. Princesskirsty 22:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princesskirsty I've asked the writer Dougie Brimson about the titles to which he's replied : "The original working title was Hooligans, then The Yank and then it was changed to Green Street. the hooligans was added to GS for markets other than the UK." So theres the facts straight from the horses mouth I suppose you could say. ummm shall I edit somewhere? probley best I don't i'll leave it for you to add wherever. Charliefanuk

Good info :D i don't think any edits are needed though. The title for the film was Green Street like he said (i added the alternatives from IMDB in smaller text because i thought it would add a bit more to the article). I had wondered about whether the title here should be GS or GSH but the actual article for the film itself on wiki is entitled Green Street. I made the comment here on the talk page back in January because someone made an edit to the page and changed the title to something it was never, they changed it to "Yank" if memory serves right - so thats why this section is here on the talk page. I was just informing other editors what had happened and the decision i had taken incase they wanted to discuss the title. No one came forward, i think because the wiki article is GS that no one has a problem with it. Any other editors want to hop in with an opinion? Princesskirsty 21:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Educated at Royal Grammar School, Newcastle?

Charlie Hunnam was listed as in the Royal Grammar School, Newcastle article as having attended that school. The policy at that (RGS) article is that we only list people as former students if a) they have a Wikipedia article (which Hunnam does, obviously), and b) that article states that the person attended RGS, and c) cites sources for that. There's no mention of schooling in Hunnam's article, so I've deleted the reference to him in the RGS article. If someone adds information on Hunnam's schooling to this article, they are welcome to add back the reference to him in the Royal_Grammar_School,_Newcastle#Famous_Former_Pupils section. Thanks! --Jdlh | Talk 00:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hunnam

I couldn't find any sources that he was a gangster, so I think that part should be removed unless you have some yourself or can locate something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.199.193 (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morgana McNelis

If I'm correct, a celebrity involved in any sort of romantic relationship with someone whether they're married or not, are allowed to be included and mentioned on their page too, so my inclusion of Charlie Hunnam's long-time girlfriend/partner Morgana McNelis on his page should be warranted. I have seen pages for many other celebrities that contain information about all their romantic relationships, both married and not married, which led me to believe that non-marriage lovers and partners are also allowed to be mentioned on their pages. I find it nonsensical and ridiculous if this sort of information is allowed on certain people's pages but not on others. I have discussed this issue with another user but he recommended I seek a third opinion from other users, so I have started a discussion here about this. I strongly believe non-marriage relationships should and is also allowed to be mentioned on wikipedia pages, since many other celebrities also have this kind of information on their pages, and there is no particular rule that specifically states that non-marriage relationships are not allowed. I do hope other users can weigh in with their opinions on this issue, because I want this issue resolved quickly.

And to 91.97.63.23, I did not mean to get into a edit-war with you, but I strongly believe that any celebrity involved in any sort of romantic relationship with someone, whether married or not, should be allowed to be included and mentioned on their wikipedia page too, so I really think that my inclusion of Charlie Hunnam's long-time girlfriend/partner Morgana McNelis on his wikipedia page is warranted. And if other users believe the same, then there should be no problems with that. I will hold off from editing Charlie's page any further until this issue is resolved. But please understand that if other users share my opinions about this issue, I won't hesitate to edit Charlie's page again with the information of his long-time partner included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.128.157 (talk • contribs)

I've mentioned this question at WP:BLPN, as I was unable to find clear guidance on whether or not including this material is appropriate. I would note that, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, the inclusion of such material at other articles doesn't indicate that it is appropriate here; it may instead indicate that those articles themselves should be edited. DonIago (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Celebrity gossip" is a specific category for which strong reliable sourcing (preferably multiple sources) is needed. Celebrity gossip articles are not in that category - and the Daily Mail is specifically not usable for "celebrity gossip" per many BLP/N and RS/N discussions. Collect (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That source may not be a good one, but there are others [1][2] [3][4] that are fine. Their relationship has more than enough coverage in RS to be included. (came here via the BLPN post) Fyddlestix (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it in the past. It's well-covered, and I found good sources for it. It gets removed whenever it's added now, perhaps because the IP editor who's been edit warring to remove it does not like some aspect of it. The original dispute was over whether the relationship started in 2005 or 2007; the edit-warring blanker insisted that it was 2007 but was unable to show any reliable sources for that date. When I provided explicit sources for a 2005 beginning, that's when the blanking started. I didn't care enough to revert it and add it back. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to re-add it now then - if the IP continues to edit war we can take it to 3RR or ANI, no reason why this content shouldn't be included. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charlie Hunnam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charlie Hunnam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References for screenwriter

I added more recent screenwriter information but I don't know how to style it in an MLA format as Wikipedia guidelines indicate so I used APA style. In my edit comments I added this along w site links information and asked if another editor could revise the source citing format to Wikipedia style of MLA. The information is not. uncited it is cited in a different style. Dliesergee (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

request of third party or editor review of editing and adding information

Request a 3rd individual review edits and severe removal of valid information in order to further disengage w editor who is deleting information on their opinion and not valid cited information. Also review edit comments which contain rude and abusive comments to other editors Dliesergee (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. DonIago (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is in regards to your own recent edits, you have been edit-warring and should have come here to discuss the issues without fighting to restore your preferred version of the text, especially given that this is a WP:BLP. The other editor frankly hasn't been doing any better than you, at least in terms of starting a discussion on this page.

You should not reinsert your edits until there is a consensus favoring their inclusion. DonIago (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC community wide

please review article and edit page regarding information Dliesergee (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To what RfC are you referring? Do you have a link to it? What specific changes do you feel may be needed? DonIago (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago I put all this in my edit notes. It doesn't matter I am done assisting and updating this page. I don't have time to read and figure out how to reference in MLA style. I spent a significant amount of time updating the page yesterday and cited sources APA style. An anonymous person hiding behind a user name should not be able to determine what information about a living person to include or redact. I followed the edit war guidelines per Wikipedia which no one else seems to do. Since this actor doesn't use digital platforms I am sure he does not care how correct or incorrect his Wikipedia page is. Further, no educated competent individual would name call or disrespect another in their comments. That is unprofessional and disrespectful. I work full time and don't use Wikipedia as a platform to show my competence or intelligence. I did it as part of. supporting Wikipedia. I will stick to monetary donations of credible and professional open sharing platforms. Dliesergee (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question for administrator

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

--Dliesergee (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC) help[reply]

Dliesergee What specific help are you seeking? 331dot (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have said you aren't going to contribute further. Have you changed your mind? 331dot (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as unresponsive. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]