This is an archive of past discussions about Kate Winslet. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There are too many examples given in the first paragraph, where there is a list of the movies Winslet is "best known for." It should say something like, "...but she is probably best known for her roles in 'Titanic,' 'Sense and Sensibility' and 'The Reader' (a role which won her the Academy Award for Best Actress in 2009)."
OSCAR BLOOPER
Under 'Awards' the article states that Peter Jackson won Best Original Screenplay in 1994 for Heavenly Creatures.
Not only did he not win that Oscar for that film, but the actual 1994 winner was Pulp Fiction, a fact which can be verified by the tag in the incorrect sentence itself! Surely the author means 'Nomination' instead.
"Idealistic" existence
Sonmeone needs to remove the pharse "Idealistic existence" and replace it with "Ideal existence", or rephrase it in some way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.24.189 (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought that Kate Winslet was married to director Sam Mendes of American Beauty fame. This article says that she is married to someone named Liam Donnelly, is this a mistake?
Aliendood05:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Kate is most definitely married to Sam Mendes. The article also claims she was linked to Jeff Smeenge and Anthony Bregman but I don't recall her ever being linked with them.
Zenitram8220:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Removing fansites
I agree that Wikipedia should not be a collection of links to improve one's Google score, but there is a time and a place where fansite links are necessary. I'm specifically thinking anime articles here ... oftentimes, the original site is in Japanese anyway, and if there is an English translation it's typically just a web front for selling DVDs, so we very often have to rely on fansites for our information (or at least our external links). How do this mesh with Wikipedia policy? I agree that seven fansites might be going overboard, but surely we could pick out the best one or two and allow it to remain linked, as it's going to have all sorts of information you won't find on the IMDB page? --Cyde Weystalkcontribs19:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for contacting me regarding this issue. As you know, verifiability is a serious concern at Wikipedia, especially in light of the recent negative press coverage we've received related to the John Seigenthaler fiasco. With regards to celebrities, we should only link to official websites, not fansites, for information. Should the reader want to know more beyond official sources cited, they can always refer to Google for fansites and such. In addition to WP:NOT, the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy states: Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be verified by readers and other editors. If a fansite is the only source for a piece of information, we probably should not be including that piece of information due to verifiability concerns. Hall Monitor19:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Going back to the anime example ... oftentimes the absolute best source of information on something is what could be described as a "fansite". How would you classify the verifiability of these sites? I mean, you could always just watch the anime yourself and you'd see what they were talking about is true. And now going back to Kate Winslet ... her official site probably isn't going to include anything controversial, or at least stuff she doesn't want people knowing. She has it censored. Fansites are probably more honest as they aren't censored in such a fashion. I don't see why some Internet sources (fansites) are automatically blacklisted as reliable sources while other non-fan sites are given a higher footing even though much less work has gone into them? --Cyde Weystalkcontribs20:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
But you don't know when fansites are actually telling the truth or not, unles they cite their sources. And if they do, we'd use their source. For example, let's just say that one fansite gave a detalied reason of Kate's divorce of Jim more than anybody else, but didn't say where they got it from. For all we know,it may be made up. Official sites aren't the only places to find verifiable info about Kate. You can get sources from magazines, books, legit entertainment and news sites, all which aren't as censored as an official site. Read that verifibily policy carefully. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!>21:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Main pic
Although Wikipedia isn't censored, the image is POV. The main image is supposed to be a major example of what the subject of the article is. When one looks at the naked pic of Rose, it doesn't describe who Kate Winslet is as an all-around actress, or singer. We should find either a DVD cover with only her on it, or a fair use headshot of Kate. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!>03:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
So your contention is that the picture shows one of the character she plays rather than her herself. I thought you were just editing for nudity. Well, my response is that that is her most famous role and it is her playing that character, and she doesn't have a lot of make-up on that makes her not look like her (a la Charlize Theron in Monster), so I don't see what is wrong with the picture. --Cyde Weystalkcontribs03:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey now, don't go deleting the pic until you find something better. A pic of Rose from Titanic is more illustrative in showing who Kate Winslet is than none at all. --Cyde Weystalkcontribs03:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't intend to delete the pic. After all, it survived IfD. I originally thought of putting it either by where it talks about Titanic, but there wasn't much verbage, so I put it under her figure, since one of the prominent themes of that particular pic is her figure. As for the main pic, I found an official pic from Kate's agency which would satisfy both the article and WP's policies. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!>04:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, I added a new photo, a promo pic from Titanic, that is color and should hopefully be ok with everyone. AriGold16:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
See the problem is that all photos of her on the page are now 9 years out-of-date. People change considerably in that amount of time. While the picture you just added is prettier, I think the one Lbmixpro found is more accurate. And besides, we already have the pretty picture angle covered in the OTHER picture. Which, by the way, I'm still trying to find the DVD somewhere so I can do a screengrab and get a better version. --Cyde Weystalkcontribs16:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually it looks like it's fairly recent. I just saw that outfit on the Neverland promotional pictures page in IMDB, along with some stuff from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Only problem is she's in character and wearing costumes/has dyed hair in those two pics. We really just need a good illustrative photo showing her being herself. And I'm not having much luck finding anything like that. Even her main photo on IMDB is just from Neverland. --Cyde Weystalkcontribs16:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
If this were Pornopedia I would argue in favor of this pic (in addition to the other two), but frankly, that would be too contentious. People are already reverting the Titanic photo as it is, and that barely shows tits. I just searched all of the Google Image results for Kate Winslet and I didn't find a better version of the Titanic pic. That's really, really sad. It's only the highest grossing nude scene ever. *Sigh*. I'll just have to ask my friends if any of them have the DVD. --Cyde Weystalkcontribs16:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Any idea on how one might get ahold of Kate Winslet? Maybe through her press person? I bet she's probably aware at least of the existence of Wikipedia (most people are) ... would it be within the realm of the feasible to ask for a recent (and CC/GFDL) pic? I know on IMDB most actors/actresses pay $35 to put a pic on their bio ... here it would be free! --Cyde Weystalkcontribs16:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I was the one who changed the Titanic picture back, when you said the reasons you thought it was no good. I changed it to the Neverland one, it's from 2004. AriGold18:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it's possible to get overly concerned with the photographs, they seem good enough to me. The article however is a pretty sparse coverage of her. I came to check it out because I saw an interesting AMEX ad (yes, of course not a credible source) where she (apparently biographically) describes some pretty incredible events in her life -- almost drowning, dying, etc. Seemed interesting so I came for her bio but see nothing -- which could either mean there's nothing to it or it's just WIP but anyone if anone has more info I'm curious! --Joshhannah08:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
ha, I'm officially an idiot. Here's the amex ad: [1]. The events recalled -- drowning, imprisoned, whatever are just references to roles she has played I think. To be ignored! --Joshhannah17:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that's right - they are all roles she has played. For example, at 17 she went to prison for murder = Heavenly Creatures. Almost drowned at 20 = Titanic. And so on.
Gotta love the best known for Heavenly Creatures and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and not mentioning her role in Titanic, the highest grossing movie of all-time.
Spoken word album?
The article mentions her winning a Grammy for a spoken word album yet fails to identify the album. Someone with that info should add it. Thanks! 23skidoo03:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I was going to revert the edit that removed the article's image as I feel that fair use is maintained because Kate Winslet qualifies as part of the film's "contents". However the image taken from Eternal Sunshine was quite poor and even included a dialogue subtitle? What's up with that? I think a screenshot taken from the film qualifies as fair use, but it should be one without text. Since Titanic is her best-known role, it is probably more appropriate to use an image from that film. In any event, an image needs to be located to replace the one deleted. 23skidoo15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The image used to replace it was much better but was AGAIN deleted because of an interpretation of the fair use rules. One more time -- the rules say screenshots can be used to illustrate the CONTENTS of a film. Kate Winslet is one of the CONTENTS of the film illustrated! 23skidoo15:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
What about this Titanic one.I didn't uploaded this one.User: Alfredosolis
Example No. 8 under FU:counterexamples is the stupidest, most idiotic and brainless thing I have ever read on Wikipedia. In fact I contend it has been added as vandalism. If we can't use images to show what a person looks like ... Anyway, if the Titanic image is no good then we're back to using the Romance and Cigarettes one. This is getting absolutely insane. 23skidoo11:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the picture should be of Titanic that's her most famous roll.
Was anyone aware that she has a beetle named after her? Agra katewinsletae is a ground beetle from Costa Rica described in 2002. I think this is rather interesting (insects being my thing) but I couldn't see anywhere this could fit into the article. Any ideas? Richard Barlow11:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Lol, out of all the things they could name after her, they chose a beetle...still, better than what most of us have...I still find it funny and odd though! I suppose you could add that in the trivia section?Gammondog22:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It is deceiving to claim, "there have been only two occasions where two actors playing the same character have both been nominated for an Oscar; Winslet was a nominee in both instances." It would be better to say, 'there have only been two occasions where two actors playing the same character in the same film..." because Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett were both nominated for playing the same character in the same year for Shakespeare in Love and Elizabeth. 71.28.137.14523:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I've just changed this - Brando and De Niro were also both nominated (and won) for playing the same character - in The Godfather and The Godfather Part II
Here is the wikipedia article of academy award records, stating that Kate Winslet currently holds the record for being the youngest person ever to receive 6 nominations.
First, you are responding to something posted well over 2 1/2 years ago. Second, the number of awards she's been nominated for is already covered in the article. Third, you put the claim that she was the youngest nominated for 6 awards in front of a source that does not state that. Please stop repeating information. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm puzzled as to why Heavenly Creatures is featured so prominently (alongside Titanic) in the introduction - is this because the person who added it was a Heavenly Creatures fan, rather than because it's actually one of her most notable roles?
Since nobody has replied to this, I've snipped it out. The role (including the praise she received for it) is still discussed in the appropriate place.
I was wondering, if Heavenly Creatures was no box office success, how can she be best known for that role if Sense and Sensibility brought her higher recognization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginnina (talk • Ginnina 00:12, 24 January 2008
Body image statement
Per WP:BLP I have removed the following statement from the article: "Has banned any mention of body image in her household due to frustration over Hollywood's obsession with weight" on the grounds that the source cited [3] is a blog and blogs are generally prohibited from being used as "reputable" sources (and this one in particular source doesn't seem to have any purpose other than poking fun at Winslet). If someone can find a magazine, newspaper, non-blog Internet, or television source in which Winslet is quoted in support of this statement, please feel free to put it back. 23skidoo15:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
AMEX commercial
An anonymous unregistered editor deleted the paragraph about Kate's AMEX commercial, stating it "isn't that important". I disagree. For one thing, these ads are extremely widely circulated -- people still remember Karl Malden's AMEX ads 30 years later. But beyond that, the commercial is notable for how it presented Winslet and represented the different facets of her career. Whether the paragraph should be shortened or reworded is not the issue here. Let's see about getting consensus before blindly deleting it. I personally think it's fine as-is. 23skidoo16:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
New image
Minor point - is it possible to indicate in the caption which year the new infobox image comes from? I'm assuming either 2006 or 2007. 23skidoo14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
British Ex-Pat
I realise that Kate is very proud to be British, blah, blah. As of now she spends most of her time in New York City so that is why I added her to the list. Just thought I'd make that clear before someone removes her from that category! Zenitram8220:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
But has she chosen to relocate, and potentially move towards getting US citizenship, or is she there primarily for work reasons? Just because she spends a lot of time in NYC does not necessarily make her an ex-pat. Billy Connolly was never considered a Scottish ex-pat and he lived in LA for a number of years (possibly still does). 23skidoo21:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Err... I guess you're right. She has a home in England and she claims she spends her time in NYC mainly for work so I guess she isn't technically an ex-pat. Zenitram8221:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
To become an Ex-pat you have to spend a number of years in your adopted country, and not be accociated with your home country. As Winslet has a UK residence this doesn't fit that category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.142.249 (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Physical Characteristics
It seems to me that the entire paragraph about Kate's "whopping" large feet and her "impressive" bust (which is actually a very average size) is POV and inappropriate in both tone and content. Ms. Winslet is one of the most acclaimed actresses working, certainly of her generation. Do we care what size shoe she wears? How her feet compare to one of her co-stars? Uncited claims about her alleged emotional issues about the topic? It looks like something cut and pasted from some foot-centric celeb blog or something. If there aren't any reasonable arguments for the continued inclusion of this paragraph, I'd say that it should be taken right out.Dreamalynn20:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)dreamalynn
I agree, Dreamalynn, and so I've removed the suspected OR, POV, and definitely unencyclopedic paragraph. Here it is in its entirety in case it can be re-added, complete with sources:
Winslet claims that her feet are still the only part of her body she sorely wishes she could change. Her feet are a whopping size 11, yet she is only 5'6", though her bust size is an impressive 34C. Not only was she sorely teased as a child about them, but her "Titanic" co-star Leonardo DiCaprio teased her immensely when he noticed their disproportional size. Winslet claimed this brought back a lot of unpleasant memories. Winslet remarked that her feet are the same exact size as DiCaprio's and he's a 6'1" man and she's a little woman at 5'6". Winslet has to wear exquisite dressy shoes at Hollywood Premiers, but they do not make shoes in her size and the ones she has to wear are far too small, which are painful to wear. She claims that it is a pain to find shoes that actually fit and she "picks at her feet" quite a bit, perhaps it an attempt to reduce them. [citation needed]
are you seriously suggesting that Kate Winslet wears off-the-shelf shoes 2 sizes too small; can't afford to have shoes made to measure? Think about it, what does she earn?Erwfaethlon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC).
Fair use rationale for Image:KateWinsletTitanic3.jpg
Image:KateWinsletTitanic3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
"Although she seems to be living an almost idealistic existence, it wasn't always that way." This sentence is anti-encyclopedic. Please remove it. - KW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.104.87 (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:KateWinsletTitanic3.jpg
Image:KateWinsletTitanic3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Fair use rationale for Image:KateWinsletTitanic3.jpg
Image:KateWinsletTitanic3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Is there a source that gives her date of birth? IMDB has it as 1975, three years younger than here. Just wondering who's right (from previous experience I would trust wikipedia over IMDB but there are no references to back it up.) Shploom (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Unverified Information
"As of 2006, it is reported Winslet and Mendes have a large lake house near Canandaigua Lake, in Canandaigua, New York. [6]"
The citation is to " International Vegetarian Union - Kate Winslet" which does not support this claim. Google searches on this only refer back to Wikipedia's entry on Kate Winslet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.184.178 (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Awards content removal
Just wanted to leave a note explaining the removal of a large amount of repetition concerning the awards Winslet has either been nominated for or won. There is a separate article for awards and nominations, then extensive listing in the infobox. This was supplemented by a repeated listing of awards and nominations for some of the awards in its own section - which had headings for major awards, followed by prose detailing the noms & awards, followed by a listing of them. Then there was the filmography table which mentioned only the awards ceremony names followed by an awards table. Finally, for a couple awards, there were succession boxes. The question was "Just how many times can the same award be mentioned in the article? and for some, the answer was seven. I have combined the tables into one, removed the redundant listings in the awards section but left the other details & stats for those and rearranged some of the sections according to MOS:LAYOUT. Hopefully, this alleviates questions. The main focus of the article had been awards, not her career. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Fine and well, but I'm uncertain why the changes I made to this particular section yesterday were reverted, thereby removing the mention of her Golden Globe wins for The Reader & Revolutionary Road, but keeping nominations. To me, the wins seem more important. I understand there is a separate article which lists those awards; however, it seems like a main component of this particular section and a pretty major thing. Jennisaurusrex (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Your additions to the filmography were removed because they were already in there. If you will look here, you will see that the Golden Globes wins were then on the list twice. Wins come first, and once she won, the nominations were moved further up in the list and in alphabetical order by awards name. In the separate awards section and one other place, your additions were reworded, not removed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Career
It seems unimportant to describe a commercial in full detail on this page. The part regarding the AMEX commercial--
During the ad, she is shown holding items relating to her films; during the reference to Sense and Sensibility she thumbs through a copy of the book, and when she references Finding Neverland, she's holding a hook. When Winslet talks about nearly drowning at age 20 in Titanic, she is walking over a bridge with water underneath it, in reference to the iceberg and water seen in the film.
This should not be in an encyclopeadia article about Winslet. If this information is relevant then there should be a separate article regarding the AMEX commercial series. Unless, someone has a good reason for keeping this in the article speak up or I will delete it.
Please sign your comments. I see no reason to delete this; the commercial makes visual references to her past work, and is a notable ad. The onus is now on you to cite policy prohibiting this information. The synopsis can be reworded (and probably should as there is a wee bit more detail than needed), but it should not be removed. 23skidoo (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with 23skidoo. The point of the inclusion is that Winslet's film roles are so prominent that the viewer knows who it is and that she is recognizable. There is no compelling reason to remove it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
"Best known for..."
It seems to me that there are too many films in this list in the introduction - obviously some roles like Sense & Sensibility and Titanic belong there, and probably now The Reader. But why is Heavenly Creatures listed for instance? And Little Children? They're great performances, but definitely not her best-known.
Brianwilsonisgod (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've just altered this further myself, and removed the character names, which are pointless here, and covered lower down in the article.
Brianwilsonisgod (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, you're clearly fond of your own version - but if you disagree with a change and revert it, can you please write something here explaining why? If you've got time to make an edit, then you've got time to put down a short note. Thanks.
I still think listing all the character names alongside the names of the films is indulgent for an introduction. What do other users think?
Brianwilsonisgod (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Why British?
Hardly any other English actors are described as British. Unless there is wide spread objection I will change it to English to keep it line with the usual trend.88.111.33.198 (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
'Actress and singer'?
Surely this is a silly and misleading way of defining her in the opening line of the article? I know she's sung in a few of her films, and had one single released as a tie-in with A Christmas Carol (all of which is covered in the article), but she's not an 'actress and singer' - that makes her sound like Jennifer Lopez!
Brianwilsonisgod (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I notice that someone else made this edit (removing 'and singer') a week ago, but it was reversed by another user without explanantion. Would anyone like to make a case for keeping what is to my mind a misleading description in the opening line? Otherwise I will edit again myself.
Brianwilsonisgod (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This section would be a very solid reason why it is included. She had a single called "What If" in the soundtrack of Christmas Carol: The Movie that reached #1 in Ireland and #6 in the UK, sang in Romance and Cigarettes, sang an aria from La Boheme in Heavenly Creatures, sang a duet with "Weird Al" Yankovic on Dog Train. All of those were released on CD and that makes her a member of ASCAP. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "and singer" should be removed. With the exception of the "Weird Al" performance, all other references to singing are primarily acting performances. I suggest that the Music section should be edited to reflect this. I'll make the change in a week unless substantive evidence is produced. 86.139.173.146 (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Singing in connection with acting doesn't negate that she sings. One cannot "act" like she's singing when she's using her own voice for songs, which was recorded and released for sale and had chart status. There is no other need for substantive evidence, it is already there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I find "actress and singer" an overstatement that doesn't belong in the lead. That perhaps she has had some success or praise as a singer does not make her a "singer" in the way that it is generally understood. She is an actress; this is where she devotes her time and her energy, and where the great majority of her acclaim is directed. She is an "occasional" singer, including undertaking this for roles when necessary; that is what should be mentioned in the lead, not that she is a singer. Meryl Streep, with her long and varied career, doesn't suddenly become a singer because she did a few numbers in Mamma Mia. Maedin\talk20:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
<blush>I admit I hadn't noticed that; I thought it still said actress and singer.</blush> Should have checked. Apologies! Maedin\talk07:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Good article
There was a very interesting article about her in yesterday's Guardian [4]. She has Size 11 feet reported in that article, which I was agog about - checking other sources shows that they are a US Size 11 which is a UK Size 10. Still big ....! 82.32.238.139 (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Best known for...
How can you say "Best known for..." and then list half a dozen roles? If she were known for only 1 or 2 roles, it'd be a different story, but taking someone of her fame and attempting to make a comprehensive list of notable roles is self-defeating. To me at least, it seemed like the sentence was just filling space so the first paragraph wouldn't be only one sentence. 122.102.238.133 (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Husband and wife teams with Oscars
In the Academy Award nomination milestones section, is it worth mentioning that she has also joined the very select group of Oscar winners whose spouse is also an Oscar winner? I'm sure there must be a Wiki-list of this somewhere ... Well done Katiepops!!! 86.134.116.184 (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is a VERY select list - Douglas & Zeta-Jones, Newman & Woodward, Sarandon & Robbins, Olivier & Leigh, McDormand & Coen - and that's just off the top of my head.... Brianwilsonisgod (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
That's what that page says, however in trying to verify it from the Academy Awards Database source, it wasn't that clear. Meanwhile, the sources for Winslet are quite extensive. Wildhartlivie (talk)
That page duplicates the one from the Academy Awards Database [5] The sources for Winslet are extensive simply because she's much more famous than Mineo. 95.28.186.45 (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
And gosh, why wouldn't I have looked at the sources on the oldest/youngest page? There's a funny kind of principle on Wikipedia - which holds true for most types of encyclopedias - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The Wikipedia oldest/youngest page only duplicates the AADb page, and it only separates the awards into nomination categories and compares by category, not as a compilation of actress/actor. Because it does not, it can't be used as a source to refute the reliable sources that support that, at the very least, Winslet is the youngest actress to be nominated twice. One thing I doubt is that James Lipton would get such an important statistic wrong, so I'm thinking she is the youngest actress to be nominated twice. And Winslet may be more well known to today's contemporary audience, but Sal Mineo was extremely well known in his day. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
In other words, you agree that Sal Mineo was younger at the time of his second nomination, but since there are no sources other than that list from AADB you don't want the information to be changed, even though it is objectively wrong. Besides, even if the list doesn't compare actors and actresses in the way you described, it's no problem to create it in a minute using your logic. 95.28.186.45 (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't assume anything. That someone essentially copy and pasted a page from AADb doesn't necessarily mean it gives the information that can support changing what is sourced. It isn't a matter of what I "want", it is a matter of what can reliably sourced and verified. The information won't be changed at this time because there are multiple reliable, 3rd party sources that state that Winslet is the youngest. We don't have the luxury to assume those sources meant actress. Read the quote above again - it isn't about truth, it is about verifiability. We aren't permitted to make an assumption. The AADb is out of date by over a year, and it does not provide the data to use to support the change you seem to insist should be made on this page. It is a problem, a huge problem by Wikipedia policy, to use logic to synthesize a conclusion upon which content is changed. It simply must be citable. It is conceivable that the AADb is wrong and to this point, no one anywhere seems to have published an article, paper, book or magazine article that has said definitively that "Oh, NO. Sal Mineo is the youngest." That is verifiability. Having said that, I'm not going to spend all night arguing it. It's policy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
