Talk:Maya Hawke

Requested move 24 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Maya Thurman-Hawke → Maya Hawke – That is her name but judging by the news coverage and the credits for "Little Women", "Maya Hawke" is the name she's decided to trade under. Serendi^podous 01:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Serendipodous: Best discuss this move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. Media mentions vary, with Maya Hawke appearing to predominate over Maya Thurman-Hawke. The key element, however, is the on-screen billing, indicating that Maya Hawke is her official stage name. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Correct name

This was going back many years ago when we promoted Ethan Hawke's article to FA. Both Maya and her brother's names were erroneously reported by some celebrity magazine, and got picked up all over the press (even by reliable sources). It was their grandmother who reported the mistake to the WP:BLP Noticeboard. An editor with paid content access subsequently made the correction. Please note that the information of an obituary has to be provided by family members, therefore much more credible than celebrity reporting. Artoasis (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It would have been more considerate if you had said this the first time. Serendi^podous 07:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

That comment section makes things even more confusing. Not only does Googling "maya ray nenna thurman hawke" produce exactly one result, the same section, but it's unclear if the siblings' surnames are intended to be "Hawke" or "Thurman Hawke". Serendi^podous 15:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring against use of the word actress

The current edit warring by IP 83.100.186.60 against the use of the word "actress" is completely unnecessary, and is against widespread use of the word on the project. Multiple discussions (e.g. WT:FILMBIO) have confirmed that use of both terms "actor" and "actress" are legitimate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Filmographies

First thing – the examples at WP:FILMOGRAPHY are just that: examples. They are not supposed to be "the only answers" on how to do these – they are just supposed to provide guidance on things like proper formatting. None of which overrules MOS:TABLE, which clearly says, basically, "only use tables, when they make sense. Two small tables – one of which is only 3-rows long – does not make sense over a larger combined table in this instance, at this time. Regardless of what is being claimed, most 'Filmography' tables for "newer" actors start out as a combined 'Film & television roles' table until the actor accumulates enough film and television roles where splitting makes sense. That is generally when the actor has about 5 roles of each kind, when separate tables are large enough to justify splitting. Hawke isn't there yet. Ergo, it makes no sense to "split" her table right now, and it should stay a single combined table until she acts in more roles, when splitting the table into separate 'Film' and 'Television' roles actually makes some kind of sense. The fact that other editors get this wrong at other articles has no bearing on what should be proper practices. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• It really comes down to a matter of opinion then, right? You're talking about waiting to split until Hawke acts in "more roles", but what qualifies as more roles? How many roles is enough roles to split? It's a matter of opinion not defined in the guidelines. WP:FILMOGRAPHY resolves this dilemma in my opinion by setting a standard of simply splitting. That removes any need to define a set number of titles necessary. Plus, in this user's opinion, the filmography looks more organized and proper when television and film titles are separate as film and television are entirely different mediums. What do you guys think? Armos, Armegon, TropicAces, Rusted AutoParts. -- TheMovieGuy.

WP:FILMOGRAPHY "requires" no splitting – Example #2, for instance, does not have table-splitting of the (acting) filmography table (proper). The point is, as per MOS:TABLE – tables should only be used when it makes sense to use them. Small tables are not a sensible use of tables (single-row tables are the absolutely worst examples of this, but even 2-, 3- and 4- row tables are probably better presented in list-format). So, what's better? – Two small tables? Or one larger table? In the current situation, one larger table is better. When Hawke gets more roles under her belt, two tables will likely be justified... And, yes – guidelines are not designed to cover every situation, which can leads to situations where it comes down to "opinions" – in that case, WP:STYLEVAR kicks in. P.S. What you are doing above is WP:CANVASING, and is considered very bad-form – you aren't supposed to call in other (presumably friendly) editors to a discussion like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

as they slept

i don’t know how to add things to the charts, but could someone add the short film As They Slept to her filmography? 2600:1017:B00D:1BD2:593:EF0:CD28:47DB (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Short films are generally considered minor roles. Might be worth mentioning in prose if there is secondary source coverage. But best left out of the Filmography which should focus on more notable works. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Singer as an occupation?

My edit that she is a singer was reverted but I don’t understand why because she’s on Spotify (with 73,532 followers), and on a recent interview with Buzzfeed Celeb where the Stranger Things cast plays with dogs, she said that she’s a singer (talked about her songs). GamerKlim9716 (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Restating what I explained on my talk page: Occupational notability is based on independent secondary coverage, and/or in the case of singing, charting. Plenty of actors also sing – that doesn't make them "actor and singer" unless they have a notable (separate) career as a singer (e.g. chart nationally). Spotify is not a metric for notability, nor is releasing songs on social media. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of discography

Curious about the reasoning behind the removal of Hawke's discography about a week ago. While her music career may not be a professional focus, by all accounts she has legitimate credentials. Namely, she is signed to the well-regarded indie label Mom+Pop. I understand editors' efforts to create a concise biography but ultimately believe that information regarding her music warrants inclusion, or at least more careful consideration before removal. By all means, most fans will likely be unfamiliar/uninterested but her musical work has been noted by the music industry and is well-received. For these reasons, I will be re-adding her discography is a week or so unless there are further considerations added here.

CommonSentiments (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose including "singer"/"musician" in lede, and especially a 'Discography' section, at this time. In the internet age, almost anyone can release a "single" or an "album", and almost any celebrity can get a record contract and get some press coverage of their efforts. That's not the benchmark. She does not meet WP:NSINGER at this time – she only comes close on NSINGER #1 (but probably not close enough), but importantly does not meet the much more important NSINGER #2. Therefore, she shouldn't be labeled as a "singer"/"musician" at this time, as she is overwhelmingly notable as just an actress. (I also question whether Blush (Maya Hawke album) meets WP:NALBUM either...) For right now, mentions of her music releases in prose in the 'Music' section of the article, are sufficient. If she releases more work, get more coverage, and most importantly actually charts somewhere, then we can revisit this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer @IJBallI; I'm hoping to get insight from others as you seem to be the primary editor against inclusion of a discography. And to be clear, I'm arguing for inclusion of a discography, not additions to the lede. Please keep the discussion on topic.

That said, I disagree with your main reasoning against inclusion as it relies on the fulfillment of WP:NSINGER. This strict requirement may be excessive as Hawke is a notable person due to her career as an actor. In this case, information on her musical career is supplemental. I am not familiar with any Wiki guidelines which require the fulfillment of additional notability guidelines for supplemental career information. Furthermore, she fulfills NSINGER #1 and NSINGER #5 which grants her notability anyhow.

Ultimately, it seems that you are relying on subjective biases here under the guise of WP:NSINGER. It is not up to the editors of Wikipedia to independently designate the legitimacy of one's output. As the citations show above, there is legitimacy to Hawke's musical work. It is not my job to further prove this to a single editor who effectively gate-keeps this article. In particular, I take issue with your statement, "If she releases more work, gets more coverage, and most importantly actually charts somewhere, then we can revisit this." This statement on charting is ignorant at best and exclusionary at worst. Musical quality and legitimacy is not based on having charting records, only one of many possible indicators of NSINGER, and it is not up to you to have the final say on this.

I do commend your diligence as an editor and appreciate your fast response. However, my opinion has not changed on the inclusion of a discography section. ~ CommonSentiments (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Put another way, at this time a WP:DISCOGRAPHY section is WP:UNDUE. Again, she's released an album – but if neither it or the singles are charting anywhere, a discography is undue coverage of that. For now, I think a prose section on her music releases are sufficient. If/when they actually making a dent on the charts (which would generate the significant secondary source coverage that would entail), then it would no longer be undue... BTW, my discussion about what is appropriate to the lede is directly related – as soon as a Discography section is added, people will add "singer" or "musician" the lede almost immediately. The fact is, as of right now, Hawke is overwhelmingly notable as just an actress (in Wikipedia terms), and not for anything else. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

One more thing – if consensus is that it's appropriate to include, I'm not going to fight it (though I disagree with it, at this time). But a consensus for that needs to be shown, and that's going to be hard if only you and I comment here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Support inclusion of discography. There seems to be a very loud and active minority who has been gatekeeping this page and undoing any productive edits whatsoever by multiple users. Multiple studio albums and singles released under a mainstream recod label that have received extensive media coverage and reviews does warrant being included with a discography section. If you do not believe this is the case, then you are deliberately choosing to exclude important information based on a subjective judgement when the point of this article should be to present a range of information. While Hawke is primarily known as an actor, she is not just an actor and it is not correct to invalidate major aspects of another's work based on some shaky justifications. It is not the job of Wikipedia to curate a specific and narrow viewpoint of a person and their work as doing so will be down to the whims of individual editors who aren't really qualified to make such a judgement. An editor cannot unilaterally decide that Maya Hawke should just be an actor when it is more appropriate to refer to her as an actor and singer. Do not take these comments as a personal attack, as some have frequently done, but it is frustrating when legitimate information cannot be added because someone else is able to shout louder. Xselant (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Editors don't prove (or declare) that – significant reliable source coverage is what proves that. Just to drive that point home, after a quick search I can't find one Rolling Stone article on Hawke's music career – not getting significant (music) coverage in something like Rolling Stone is a clear red flag. Olivia Rodrigo doesn't have this problem. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Nice anecdote but it means absolutely nothing. Relying on an anecdote of a Google search of all things while ignoring the coverage that is clearly there shows a subjective bias at play where you don't think Maya Hawke qualifies as a 'real' singer when she is signed to a respectable indie label. You are being irrational when you say that significant reliable source coverage isn't there. As much as you deny it, Hawke's musical career has received coverage from large, respected and reliable outlets in the music industry like NME, NPR, Pitchfork and USA Today. Using the exact same (flawed) logic you are using here, you couldn't call Olivia Rodrigo an actress because she is primarily known for her music when she can be and is indeed both an actress and singer. Xselant (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Yeah, she should be listed as a singer and is obviously trying to make a career as one, but that iJball or whatever user loves to annoyingly gate keep who is and isn’t a singer with some annoying criteria that only makes sense to him. he does this with multiple people and it’s very annoying. there’s no user arguing with him because he’s just going to camp out and get his way 🖤 Whyryan? (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Literally anytime I see an actor who has a music career (most of the time with multiple bodies of work + single releases) I see that user constantly editing it out. not all singers have charting music and that doesn’t make them less of a singer. If someone who is primarily a singer doesn’t have a song that actually charts, but have a wiki page, what are you going to label them as? Should actors not be listened as actors because they don’t win an oscar? Anna Kendrick has a charting single, higher than most actual artists who are primarily singers as well as multiple charting soundtrack appearances, but singer keeps getting removed from her page. AnnaSophia Robb hasn’t sung a single lyric since 2006, but it’s still on her article. I feel like the criteria is just dumb. At a certain point I feel like y’all need to just use common sense. If she’s signed to a label, released a full length album and is still releasing music as frequently as she acts, then????? Whyryan? (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The question is, is she a professional singer? Has singing earned her an income over and above the costs of production and promotion? Or is this just basically a hobby she is using her high profile to promote? The Oscar analogy is wrong. This is more like a waitress going to auditions and promoting herself on Instagram. Plenty of singers start out and try to make it and don't. That doesn't make them singers. Serendi^podous 07:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

go ask her Whyryan? (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

y’all are just saying anything at this point. your waitress analogy is dumber than my oscar one. she’s signed to a whole label and is releasing her second album. why are y’all being purposefully dense… regardless if she’s a professional or this is her “hobby” she’s still making and releasing music…. if this was a hobby she’d stick to soundcloud covers and soundtrack appearances. She’s writing, recording and releasing multiple bodies of work…. it seems like whatever auditions and promotions she’s doing on her instagram are actually becoming something, yeah? but it seems that her page properly lists her occupations so the argument is over. Be blessed 🖤 Whyryan? (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

She's still modelling for Calvin Klein as of last year

So I think it's fair to say she's a model. Serendi^podous 12:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)