Talk:Emily Browning

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians

	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 articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Melbourne Low‑importance

	Australia portal Emily Browning is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music 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.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the Talk page for discussing changes to the Emily Browning article

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them a ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.

Talk page guidelines

Please respect Wikiquette, assume good faith and be nice, and bear in mind what Wikipedia is not.

Relationship with Xavier Samuel

I notice my edits about her relationship with Xavier are removed, even though I found a source saying they confirmed it at his last premiere. This was because apparently we're not supposed to keep a 'dating track record', but I disagree because they were co-stars as well and he's also an actor/Australian. It's also relevant considering they're going to have a movie coming out together. Thoughts?

Other than that, how can I better the page to make it more concise? Thanks.

Browningfan (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just trivia. The big governing rule is WP:NOTNEWS--we're not a newspaper, which means we don't try to keep up on small, rapidly changing details in people's personal lives. Of course, we do mark people's spouses or other similar relationships, but just dating someone is not encyclopedic information. Whenever you're thinking of including information, especially personal biographical information, think about whether the information will be relevant ten years from now. Dating someone very rarely meets this requirement, unless it becomes highly important, long-term news. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's fair enough but for celebrities, I feel like a lot of their relationships stay relevant since it spins a web of connections for them. But that's just me. ;) ...I'm not a Wikipedia expert yet. Browningfan (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to add a Link

Ehy I'd like to add my Emily's site into the "external links". How I Can?

Consider this. Orthografer 21:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Of Emily

SaraP - Where did you get that picture of Emily? Emily Browning Fan

It would appear the question is moot since the image has been deleted. If anyone adds a new image of Emily to this page, please make sure you properly cite the image and ensure that it is suitable for fair use. Wikipedia has adopted a zero-tolerance policy and it'll just be deleted again. Full instructions can be found on the Upload Files page. 23skidoo 14:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please find a better picture of her? There's plenty at the fan site. Just make sure you cite it. I'm kinda new to Wikipedia so I'll try to, but I don't really want to do anything in case I mess something up. Emily Browning Fan

I agree with bad picture person^^up there^^please change it205.238.237.8 03:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)a fan[reply]

RockSoul 14:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC) I need help! How can i post the link of my website on the Emily Browning's wikipedia page?[reply]

We desperately need a new picture of Emily Browning. The current one is from 2004 when she was like 14-15 and she is now 18. I recently found two stills from her upcoming film A Tale of Two Sisters (also known as, "Tale") but I dont know if Wiki will let me put it up. Ideas? - Jennifer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.182.231 (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a newer picture . User:Vierce19 Feb. 16, Febuary 16 05:07:18 (UTC)

This is the most hideous picture I have seen of this beautiful creature. Please, change that awful photo a.s.a.p. You do her no justice, making her look like some sort of red headed gollum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.17.227.10 (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, please upload a new picture to Wikipedia. You can do that at WP:Files for upload. However, please note that we may only use images that are free--that is, they cannot be pictures from a magazine, a publicity shoot, a movie, a tv show, even a blog. This is a pretty hard and fast rule of pictures of living people. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is three years old, dated 2011. I would say the picture is OK but could be better. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All

Please don't trust any additions by user:Big1 cocerning this page. V. Joe 09:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC) or by User:RockerballAustralia or any additions about a non-extant film called "pizza shop." There isn't any such movie, and major acctresses to not attach themselves to minor scripts. Cheers V. Joe 16:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rockerball

Don't worry about him, we discussed it... it appears he was taken by an untrustworthy website. Cheers V. Joe 15:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Should the external links section have been deleted?RockerballAustralia 23:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age

The article makes no reference to Emily's age. I note her IMDB page https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0115161/ lists her date of birth as December 7, 1988. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmittleman (talk • contribs) 17:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Emily Browning is alive, the WP:BLP policy applies. Not only does this state that ages are not required, in WP:DOB it specifically says Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. Browning's DOB has not, that I can see, been 'widely published'. I couldn't find a single WP:RS that supported the information - and multiple sources are required. WP:IMDB is not a reliable source as it is user-generated, so should not be used as a reference for DOB information. The same applies to the various 'lists of birthdays' sites Google turns up. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English

The article states "She learned most of her English from the television show Sesame Street on PBS". Has it occurred to anyone that people speak English in Australia and thus they are very likely to learn English from other sources than Sesame Street? 217.136.184.180 17:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty amusing, and it thankfully is no longer in the article. Besides your point, Australia doesn't even get PBS. Australia does have ABC, but I daresay that her parents spoke English well enough to teach her. And, y'know, the school system teaches various words, too. -- Ianiceboy 10:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They meant American accent by English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.216.197 (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New movie question

Is this so called trailer, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTLk8OjR5Kw, to be trusted or is it full of crap? --RockerballAustralia 10:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

twillight

Shouldn't we add that emily tried out for the role in Twillight (2008 film)--Spittlespat 01:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is there a reliable source for that info? --RockerballAustralia (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

72.50.99.8 needs to be blocked, they have done several vandalisms to this article. better yet, the article should prolly be protected under BLP for awhile since there have been some other vandalisms as well. Bloggyelf (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has been warned 3 times; while it's not a hard and fast rule, we usually warn new editors 4 times, then, if they vandalize after that, we block them. That can be done by reporting the editor to WP:AIV. But at this point it's been about 10 hours since the last vandalism, so it seems to have stopped. Blocking is only done to stop disruption, not to punish people; at this point, that IP may easily have been reassigned to another computer. Looking at the rest of the article history, the last time I see vandalism before today is 4/15, nearly 2 weeks ago. That's not enough recent activity to justify semi-protection, especially since I see good edits by IP editors in that same time frame. This article is on my watchlist; if the vandalism gets worse and is being done by more than one non-confirmed editor, protection can be requested at WP:RPP. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ah, i figured out how to request protection. apparently someone felt it was enough vandalism to warrant a short protection, and i agree especially since it is a BLP article. for reasons that aren't really worth going into, i think the release of Sucker Punch caused some obsession and mischief about Browning. anyway, hopefully that will die off by the time the protection lifts and people can resume useful edits. thanks for your answer at any rate. :) Bloggyelf (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emily browning.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Emily browning.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Emily Browning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emily Browning. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110509012910/http://celebritywonder.ugo.com/html/emilybrowning.html to http://celebritywonder.ugo.com/html/emilybrowning.html

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) 10:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

explanation

User:The Rambling Man placed a {{refimprove}} tag on this article in August 2017. I asked them to return here and explain that tag, since the article already had 38 references.

They didn't do that, offering their explanation on their user talk page instead, asserting that some sections of the article were without references.

Well, there is a separate tag, the {{refimprove section}} tag, to be used when only particular sections lack references.

I corrected that. Geo Swan (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what tag or where it was used, this odd idea that because an article has 38 references (gasp!) that it cannot possibly be deficient in referencing. You now have a throughly littered article. It's a shame more effort wasn't used in resolving the numerous referencing issues in this BLP and less expended on this seemingly trivial discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is important that tags be used responsibly. The Rambling Man claimed, in his reply on his user talk page, that the meaning of his tags was "straightforward". I found the tag placement mystifying. So, it was not "straightforward". I strongly disagree that my concerns were "trivial". Geo Swan (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point again. You have three tags in sections which need referencing, rather than one tag which indicates the article, as a whole, needs more referencing. You could have probably fixed those issues by now, but instead you insisted on continuing this dead-end discussion that no-one is reading. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]