Talk:Anne Hathaway

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Anne Hathaway (actress)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am reviewing this article as part of GA Sweeps. This is in pretty good shape, but it needs some work to bring it in line with the current standards of WP:WIAGA. I am outliniing a partial list of issues that need to be addressed. After I post this listing, I will give concerned and interested editors a week before I reevaluate the article's quality rating. I will be following along with the progress of the article and may make additional comments as it is appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, Never Mystic (talk · contribs), Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs), Tchockythegreat (talk · contribs)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Delisted mostly due to WP:WIAGA 1b and 3a.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• According to the alt text checker this article needs WP:ALT text.  Done
• According to the link checker this article has two deadlinks.  Done
• The subject is more than adequately identified. I see no need for File:The Princess Diaries.jpg and File:Anne Hathaway in Brokeback Mountain.jpg to be included in the article considering WP:NFCC.  Done
• P.S. those images probably are acceptable in the articles about the movies.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• The remaining images should have {{personality rights}} tags on them at commons.  Done
• Many terms need links such as Carnegie Hall, sexual orientation, (Jane Eyre, Gigi, Once Upon a Mattress I think adaptations of these should link to the article but am open to thoughts), Paper Mill Playhouse, Brooklyn Heights, Seton Hall Prep, West Orange, Get Happy: The Life of Judy Garland
• I am a little confused on the reference to Emily Blunt. Clarified.  Done
• Why so long a section on a former relationship and not one on the current one? Mostly because the old boyfriend issue involved a fairly widespread scandal that led to break up and the new boyfriend thing is kept very under wraps. I'll try to find more content about him.
• The article has many one-line and stubby paragraphs that should either be expanded or merged.
• The article has numerous one remaining paragraphs that are entirely uncited. Please add inline citations. At least one per paragraph assuming the article is properly formatted so that distinct paragraphs cover distinct topics.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment about the lead section : I find this sentence to be out of place for lead. "Her acting style has been compared to that of Judy Garland and Audrey Hepburn[1] and she cites Hepburn as her favorite actress[2] and Meryl Streep as her idol.[3]" The comparison to Garland and Hepburn is cited to an unknown author and an article that we can't read. We have no way of knowing the context in which the comment was made, whether the commentator was qualified to make such a comment, whether it is a widely held view or that of a single commentator ... there is nothing to support using it in the lead, and it is not drawn from the article, so it is not part of a summary. I would remove it, but perhaps someone more familiar with the article may have more information to provide. Audrey Hepburn is mentioned twice in the lead - and nowhere else in the article, and Streep is mentioned as an idol in the lead, but the context in the article is different. None of this serves as a summary. All the names in the lead look a bit like 'fame by association', and the lead should be fairly and squarely about Hathaway. Should this sentence be deleted? Rossrs (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be moved to the body of the article and removed from the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Many concerns have been address and many have not. It seems that many of those that are unresolved me be active decisions, but no explanation is present. I will check back to monitor progress.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note I really hate that this article had to be delisted. I've just not been well enough to devote my attention to fixing the problems. It's disheartening to know that several persons were notified about this and none came to help fix what were essentially small issues. I even posted requests at some talk pages and no response from them. Perhaps this can be worked back up in the near future, but between ongoing health problems and an illness, I just couldn't give it the time it needed. Sorry folks, but at least I made an effort. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead section during October 2009 reassessment

I would like to address my recent edits which were reverted by User:Wildhartlivie and welcome anybody else to provide input to help us reach a consensus. When my edit was reverted, the reason given was "moves away from GA criteria in reducing lead". I believe that this is a scenario in which the term "less is more" can be used: the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to present as much information as possible on a subject without making its article too long. We are accessing the internet to retrieve this information and browser errors can occur when length becomes a concern. Although this article does not pose a threat in terms of length, the goal to include only the essentials should be a top priority.

For example, the article presently features three paragraphs in the introduction. I attempted to condense as much detail into two paragraphs, especially the part pertaining to Hathaway starring in family films, which is the same idea, but separated into two paragraphs. Additionally, I do not believe that each of her co-stars deserves merit in the introduction because, in the end, this article is about Hathaway. Listing these other actors, save perhaps Julie Andrews under the sole basis that she worked with her on her first film, is distracting to the reader.

I should mention that the current revision has some untidy prose: "...the next three years, with lead..."; this comma is not grammatical. There is unprofessional language in the usage of "her early acting bestowed upon her" and "for her star turn". Also, citations do not need to appear in the introduction, which is the general summary of the article, and can instead be used in the bulk (see here). Finally, the edit summary provided by Wildhartlivie only mentions "reducing [the] lead", but I can see other reverts made (with the exception of the removal of the speculated upcoming films, indicated in "removed unsourced 'in development' films") that were not explained.

—Major Seventh (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

To start, this article is a good article currently undergoing some minor clean up to continue the GA rating. I will assume good faith that since you are new to Wikipedia, you might not be familiar with the criteria for GA articles. The lead should summarize the main article itself. That you reduced the lead to two paragraphs decreases the summary. Besides linking common terms such as actress, you added that she is a singer. Well, yes and no. She's not notable as a professional musician, she sometimes sings in her films. You changed her birthplace, cited as Brooklyn, New York, to New York City, which is a more generalized area than the more precise, and more importantly, cited location.

You wrote that she was dissatisfied with her career as the reason she began appearing in more serious films. The article doesn't say that, it basically says she was maturing and thus, did her film roles. Some of the language in the lead that you wrote ventures into using an amount of peacock terms. You wrote "Critics have noted Hathaway's diversity as an actress in her roles in Becoming Jane (2007) and Rachel Getting Married (2008), the latter of which earned her pervasive acclaim, numerous industry awards..." However, the article doesn't include anything about critics citing her diversity, while "pervasive acclaim" is somewhat vague and mostly unsupported by the article. The only other co-star mentioned in the lead is Meryl Streep, which I would suggest is arguably more notable, especially since the next paragraph, by design, includes the fact that Hathaway cites Streep as her "idol". Except you moved that paragraph completely out of the lead and placed it near the bottom in the personal life section. As for citations in the lead, there is no restriction against them, and are used to reinforce that the statements being made are not personal opinion, per WP:LEADCITE. If you had concerns with a couple phrases, that is something else, which wouldn't have been as scrutinized as a major lead rewrite. At 34.5-35000kb, there is no issue with article size, either prior to your edits or after, so size is really not an issue nor a concern. The concern really isn't conciseness, it is comprehensiveness of a career.

I removed and replaced a citation to a source that would not pass WP:RS, replacing it with an acceptable source. I removed a citation in the filmography to IMDB, mostly because there was no reason to use that cite as the film had entered production. I replaced a deprecated style code in the filmography head with current coding. There was next to nothing else changed that wasn't covered by my edit summary regarding reducing the lead. I have no issue with copy editing language that may not be clear, but I do have an issue with a complete rewrite of the lead in the middle of a GA reassessment that should not be controversial, without first broaching such a rewrite on the talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am in accordance with some of your arguments (the peacock terms, her career as a singer), now conscious of their importance and/or relevance to the article's improvement. However, I am still befuddled with others: you have stated that the introduction should summarize the article, with which I concur, but that my reduction in turn shortened the summary. I do not understand how my more concise introduction makes the article less comprehensive; the side-by-side comparison suggests that the information is unquestionably similar with minor amendments (such as the removal of co-stars Steve Carell and Meryl Streep and the addition of her more notable role in The Princess Diaries), including the amalgamation of the two paragraphs regarding her appearance in family films which I addressed in my last post. In this case, lengthening the introduction to "summarize the article" seems redundant. We are attempting to write an encyclopaedia, not a novel, and to-the-point writing would satisfy the reader on a larger scale. Why use five words when we can use one? That quotation may not entirely apply here, but it should be enforced while maintaining comprehensiveness.

I changed "Brooklyn" to "New York City" because, as precise as it is, Brooklyn is a borough of New York City, not the actual city. In my many years abroad, I have found it peculiar how Americans would tell me the state in which they lived rather than the city or the actual country, and this tendency has made its way onto Wikipedia. Many articles have an American's place of birth/death listed as the borough and state or the city and state without even mentioning the U.S. itself! Contrastingly, non-Americans commonly have their city and country listed, and the province/state/borough is not always present. I am not generalizing, but merely making an observation, and I believe that "Brooklyn" is not common knowledge. Is an Australian going to know where Brooklyn is? What about a Russian who speaks English as a second language who has never left his or her country? Thus, I do not understand why Brooklyn is present in the info box rather than the famed locale New York City. Brooklyn should be written into the section detailing her early life.

The article does not state that Hathaway was dissatisfied with her career, you are right. Sources should be sought for this claim, with which I have been made familiar over the years. Another concern is "pervasive acclaim": the adjective is a synonym of "widespread", so I am unsure what you mean by it being "vague", considering that you reverted to "widespread", which is likewise not supported by the article. I moved the information about Meryl Streep as her idol to the personal life section because Hepburn was already listed as one of her favourite actresses. Also, Hathaway's acting-style has been compared to Hepburn's. For this reason, I do not see why Streep needs to be cited as her idol in the introduction when she is mentioned as a co-star, and furthermore, when Julie Andrews is mentioned as a co-star before Streep. How many co-stars are needed? This article is about Anne Hathaway. The repetition is sometimes confusing too, such as Hepburn as her favourite actress and Streep as her idol, which, in my opinion, is a lot to process.

I suppose no harm exists in using citations in the introduction, but the argument in question — sourcing those she admires — does not strike me as something controversial as indicated here. They look messy and unprofessional in an otherwise clean summary. I did not notice that the references in the filmography were in fact from the Internet Movie Database, so I have no complaints with those revisions, and am glad to see only sourced material there. A really good observation! Still, I do not consider the introduction as comprehensive or concise as it could potentially be. —Major Seventh (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's late, and if I miss any points, I'll come back tomorrow and go over what I've written and clarify anything amiss. Basically, a three paragraph summary is more in accord with GA criteria. Most B-class articles have two paragraphs at most, unless they are being developed for higher rating. Brooklyn is the specific part of New York City where she was born. The reason city/town names are wikilinked is so that people who don't know where it is can find that out. On a smaller scale, it's akin to saying Indianapolis when the actual locale is Greenwood, Indiana. I don't think I'd agree with your statement that Brooklyn wouldn't be easily identified as part of NYC, perhaps at some point in the past, but not now. In either case, the link provides the information and the source provides the location. We shouldn't generalize from a specifically sourced location. One is a generality, the other is a specific. I overlooked Steve Carell. That doesn't need to be included, I agree with that, but I believe to meet GA criteria, the lead needs to be about 3 paragraphs. No point in jeopardizing the status just to combine it into two paragraphs. I think your concern regarding conciseness may not coincide with status ratings.

The use of the word "widespread" is a general standard in articles such as this when critical reception is largely positive, however I've not seen the word "pervasive" used in this context in WP articles such as this one. I find it vague because, in general, it isn't a descriptor I find used in regard to critical reception of film work. Acting style is one thing, working with someone an actor considers an idol, especially given that much was made of that when Prada was being publicized, is something else entirely. That is why it is mentioned in the lead along with the Prada acclaim.

If you have suggestions for improving the lead, by all means, post them here and let's discuss them. I'd much rather do that than make them in the article and then discuss them. That gives the appearance of lack of stability in the article, which isn't something that is desirable during a GAR. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please pardon my absence. This edit recently conducted by User:Rossrs has in my opinion done the article some good (why even mention Julie Andrews?), and I will address a few concerns that I think can be improved, which will ideally enhance the article's quality:

1. We are both in accord that Steve Carrell does not need to be included.
2. I have read a plethora of online reviews, a large percentage of which used "widespread" to refer to positive reception.
3. Is Hathaway's portrayal of Jane Austen notable enough? Becoming Jane generated considerable commentary because she was cast in the role, but I do not believe it is as significant as Mia Thermopolis, the role for which I am sure she is still best identified. Furthermore, it was her first motion picture role.
4. She later ventured away from the "G-rated" image her early acting career bestowed upon her, starring in the films Havoc and Brokeback Mountain: this sentence needs to be rewritten because it is crufty and informal. Her early acting career did not bestow an image on her, but instead her association with the family-oriented genre of films; however, it should be based around her dissatisfaction with the direction of her career. Again, I will locate as many sources as I can for this claim, which I have heard (even from Hathaway herself) since the release of the second Princess Diaries film.
5. Hathaway has made three appearances on People magazine's list of the world's most beautiful people and the introduction should be updated to accommodate these additional achievements. Out of curiosity, does People magazine have to be the only source of her success in the industry?
6. I have thought of a rather basic way to ensure three paragraphs in the introduction while maintaining comprehensiveness and conciseness. The first paragraph can cover her beginnings and association with family films, the second from Brokeback Mountain to the present, and the third can remain in tact.

I have written a (re)workable introduction to serve as a fundamental. Most of the information merges my former introduction with the one currently used in the article. Tell me your opinion.

1: Anne Jacqueline Hathaway (born November 12, 1982) is an American actress who made her debut in the 1999 television series Get Real. After it was cancelled, she was cast as Mia Thermopolis in the Disney family comedy The Princess Diaries (2001), from which her career gained momentum. Over the next three years, Hathaway continued to star in family films, reprising the role for its sequel, and appearing in Ella Enchanted (both 2004).

2: Interested in other projects, Hathaway distanced herself from her early career image with supporting roles in the films Havoc and Brokeback Mountain (both 2005). She subsequently co-starred with Meryl Streep in the adult comedy The Devil Wears Prada (2006) and appeared in Becoming Jane (2007). In 2008, she earned widespread critical acclaim for her lead role in the film Rachel Getting Married, for which she won numerous awards, and was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress.

3: Her acting style has been compared to Judy Garland and Audrey Hepburn and she cites Hepburn as her favorite actress and Streep as her idol. People magazine named her one of its breakthrough stars of 2001 and she appeared in its list of the world's 100 Most Beautiful People in 2006, 2007 and 2009.

—Major Seventh (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm generally okay with this version, with a couple minor comments. I'm still not comfortable with describing her transition to adult themed films as distancing herself from earlier roles. Like I said, she grew up and so did her roles. I actually think the more accurate wording would use the word "transition", as the section title suggests. Also, for the last sentence, I would suggest:

"People magazine named her one of its breakthrough stars of 2001 and she was first listed as one of the world’s 50 Most Beautiful People in 2006."

I'm not sure we need to cover the Beautiful People in the lead each and every time she is on the list. Having said all of this, any of the points in the assessment list that you want to help address would greatly appreciated. The article doesn't really require expansion, just fixing the points listed above. I've yet to find much in the way of reliable sourcing regarding her current relationship with Adam Shulman. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Unambiguous article title

"Anne Hathaway (actress)" is an unambiguous article title; Shakespeare's wife was not an actress, and there are no other uses of "Anne Hathaway" that could be confused with "Anne Hathaway (actress)". So the article should not be hatnoted, per WP:NAMB.--ShelfSkewed Talk 21:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, she wasn't an actress, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that people may be confused by 'Anne Hathaway the actress' and 'Anne Hathaway the wife of a famous playwright'. The hatnote does no harm at all, and WP:Abundance_and_redundancy supports keeping it in. --hippo43 (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty far stretch, and I don't think Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy applies to this situation at all. But, yes, the hatnote does no harm and I'm not inclined to make an issue of it.--ShelfSkewed Talk 03:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

why isn't there at least a "for the wife of the playwright...." link up top?

more importantly, were hathaway's parents aware of the shakespeare one when picking the name anne? i expected either "named after..." or "not named after..." in the early life section. there must be sources on this! 216.50.220.23 (talk) 09:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Early life and career

Clearing up Hathaway's spiritual philosophies. When reading the article, the wiki quote seemed out of place and strangely abrupt, so I checked original source, and sure enough it was taken out of context. The wiki quote states her religious beliefs as "nothing", but the original source states no such thing. The article states that her move to the Episcopalian denomination didn't take, with Hathaway responding, "I'm nothing...fuck it, I'm forming. I'm a work in progress." She is not describing her beliefs as nonexistent here, just her denomination and/or affiliation. She had previously identified herself as a "non-denominational" Christian, so this is in line with that earlier statement. In the spirit of her original intent and quote, the reference to this article should be reworded as Hathaway states her religious beliefs are a "work in progress." That is her last word on the topic via the original source and is obviously much more indicative of the intent of her statement. My hope is that the constant re-editing of this more accurate contribution isn't an example of Wiki-bullying or some goofy atheistic bias or quote mining. --Biaspo (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Follieri Section

Here's the statement: "Court papers state that Hathaway was an unwitting beneficiary of the stolen money, which had in large part paid for Follieri's opulent lifestyle of jet-setting, shopping sprees, and fine dining." There used to be a CNN link that supposedly supported this statement. It no longer works, so I inserted a dead link tag. That tag was replaced by a reference to the Los Angeles Times. However, the Times article, which is just a very short blurb underneath a photo, doesn't support any of the statement. It doesn't reference court papers. It doesn't say that Hathaway was an unwitting beneficiary. It doesn't say anything about the money paying for Follieri's "opulent lifestyle." It just repeats that Follieri was arrested for fraud and money laundering and an "amusing" quip by Hathaway. Unless the statement can be supported by a verifiable source, it should be removed.

Another problem with the section is the statement: "Hathaway was never implicated in wrongdoing." That clause, plus the clause that precedes it, are supposedly backed up by a Fox News article, which coupled with a link to another article, have far more information than the Times article. However, the closest the articles come to saying that Hathaway did nothing wrong is the assertion that Hathaway was "charged with no crime," a much narrower statement than the very broad (and vague) statement that she was not "implicated" in anything "wrong." I'm not saying Hathaway was a suspect or a person of interest or that the FBI or any other agency decided after investigation that she was innocent, but without a verifiable source, the best the article can say is that she was not charged with any crime.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I see it, the text of the section and the accompanying inline refs are in a state of confusion. Having investigated the situation, the reason is clear. The editors of this article should read the linked web pages correctly, and attribute the statements in the Wikipedia to the correct websites. Finally, because this is a BLP, if consensus cannot be reached 100% for the accurate sourcing of information as contentious as possible criminal proceedings against people who have a reputation to lose, then the maxim is: If you can't find out, cut it out. (see: WP:BLP)--Kudpung (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to evaluate your comments unless you identify which statements aren't supported by which sources. The most "contentious" paragraph is the second one about Follieri's arrest and what happened or didn't happen to Hathaway. The first statement is: "Follieri was arrested in June 2008 on fraud charges for allegedly fleecing investors out of millions of dollars in a scheme in which Follieri posed as the Vatican's point man on real estate investing." That statement is sourced by two articles. The first (#59) says Follieri was arrested for "bilking investors" (fraud) out of $6M. It also says he posed as an agent of the Vatican and a "pointman" on real estate investing. Without even looking at the second source, the first source is clearly adequate.

The second statement is: "It was reported that the FBI confiscated Hathaway's private journals from Follieri's New York City apartment as part of their ongoing investigation into Follieri's activities; however, Hathaway was not charged with any crime." That statement has one source (#61), which says that Hathaway's private journals were seized by the FBI from Follieri's apartment. The continuation (you have to click on a link to read more) says that the FBI raided the apartment to "bolster their casse against" Follieri. It also says that Hathaway "has been charged with no crime."

The final statement in that paragraph says: "On October 23, 2008, after earlier pleading guilty, Follieri was sentenced to four and a half years in prison." That statement is backed up by two sources. The first (#62) notes the sentence. The second (#63) notes the earlier guilty plea.

So, what exactly is not supported by the sources connected to each statement? There were problems before, but as far as I can tell, the problems have been fixed. Indeed, the main dispute was between me and another editor, and the fact the other editor didn't respond to my latest comments or revert my changes probably means they are satisfied with the result.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Slight majority opposing move; certainly no consensus to move at this time Black Kite (t) (c) 14:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Anne Hathaway (actress) → Anne Hathaway — Clearly the primary topic, with it being the top #619 article on WP with 238 000 hits in 201008, versus Shakespeare's fairly unknown (as per the article itself) wife having 21 000 hits in 201008. Link-wise, the actress also has more than twice the incoming links than the Shakespeare related article. Nymf _hideliho! 19:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• oppose I would have thought the Wife of the Bard would be the primary topic than, not a flash in the pan actress, who I suspect will be of little or no interest in a century or four, perhaps thats why we have a disambiguation page Fasach Nua (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In 400 years, we can move the articles back, then. Powers ^T 21:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I dare say it will be less than 400 years and this move wreaks of Wikipedia:Recentism Fasach Nua (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That essay applies to article content not article naming. Article naming is guided by WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Powers ^T 22:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - clear primary topic here - for each person looking for Shakespeare's wife, eleven are looking for this article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Disambiguation pages are your friend. Corvus cornix_talk 22:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• • For only two articles, hatnotes are more than sufficient. Parsecboy (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Both individuals are very famous, so a disambiguation page is the correct option. The Celestial City (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - at Google Books, I get 600 hits for the actress and 28,000 for Shakespeare's wife. Even though more people are currently searching for the former, the latter has the edge in terms of academic attention being paid to her, even in contemporary works. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems likely most of those hits are for books about Shakespeare that mention Hathaway only in passing, don't you think? Powers ^T 14:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Go with the disambig page idea. --BwB (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose There may not be very much known about Shakespeare's wife, but a lot of people have still heard of her, if anything I would regard her as the primary meaning. If you do do this move, you will have to move "Anne Hathaway" to "Anne Hathaway (disambiguation)". PatGallacher (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • A: |Primary topics aren't decided by which was named first, but by which are more frequently being searched out. The actress's article is one of the most popular of our 3.5 million articles; the Bard's wife isn't. B: There's no need for a disambiguation page at all. With but two articles, hatnotes are more than sufficient (and faster than forcing people looking for Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare). Think of it this way: right now, 100% of all people typing in Anne Hathaway have to make a second click to find the article they're searching for. If we make the move, only 8% will still have to make a second click, whereas 92% will be exactly where they're trying to go. Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
    • At the risk of digressing slightly, in order to do that we would first have to delete Anne Hathaway (poem) as non-notable. PatGallacher (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM and WP:BIAS. — AjaxSmack 01:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

How exactly is this WP:RECENTISM? Do you know any other issue that is dealt with in a 400 year perspective? People were claiming "recentism" when it was first moved two years ago, but look at it now - the person/article is still relevant. Besides, as Powers already stated, that essay refers to content only. Article naming is governed by WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If anything, claiming is that it is "recentism" is biased, as you somehow demean Anne Hathaway (actress), implying that her fame is a fad. Do you have any real facts to back up your claims? Nymf _hideliho! 02:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per opposers. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. By all the suggested objective criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this Anne Hathaway is the one a large majority of readers are searching for or linking to. Why send them to a dab page where they do not wish to be? It doesn't help the minority looking for Shakespeare's wife, who have to click through whether through a dab page or through a hatnote. And this Anne Hathaway is even more sought now than she was two years ago when people brought up recentism at Talk:Anne Hathaway. How many more years must hers be the much more sought article before it's no longer "recentism"? Putting her article at Anne Hathaway does not suggest she's better or more important than Shakespeare's wife; it only recognizes the reality that most readers typing Anne Hathaway in the search box expect to land on this article. Station1 (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Good points, Station. I might reconsider my vote based on these points. --BwB (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The above argument presupposes that she is the much more sought after article. But is she? I sense a degree of US-centrism here, I have not heard of most of the films or TV progammes she appeared in, her career is still a relatively short one, one Oscar nomination does not make you a household name. Germaine Greer did write a book on Shakespeare's wife fairly recently. We might re-consider the situation in a few years, if the actress e.g. wins an Oscar. PatGallacher (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Is she? Take a look at the statistics, in the last month Anne Hathaway has been visited 16458 times, Anne Hathaway (actress) 202658 times, Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare) 30272 times and Anne Hathaway (poem) 819 times. Making for a total of 250207 page-views, this article making up 81% of the page-views. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • How about if she were to co-host the Oscar telecast, as has been announced today[1]? - Station1 (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - page view statistics tell a clear story, and no-one who's looking for Shakespeare's wife will be inconvenienced by going to her article from a hatnote rather than a dab page. One feels that academic snobbery is the only reason for any resistance (though perhaps we should be glad that Wikipedia still has some academic snobbery...)--Kotniski (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - let's wait until the year 2397 and see which one is still a household name. The actress? Never heard of her, came here thinking there was a big hullabaloo about a wench from Stratford.--Kudpung (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Never heard of her? Unlike the woman who isn't notable if not for being someones wife… _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Kotniski. We don't determine primary topic by guessing which topic will be the most recognizable in the future, what readers are looking for now is all that matters. If the situation changes by 2397, nothing's stopping us from moving the pages then. Jafeluv (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Station1, Kotniski and Jafeluv. What matters per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is likelihood of search, and page view counts are clear on this. Arguments based on WP:RECENTISM (including suggestions to wait until 2397, etc.) are moot as that essay applies to content, not titles, and should be weighted accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support per all of the above. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. This has already been voted on. Do we really have to have another vote whenever some bright spark comes up with a "new" idea? The only thing that's changed is the previous move.Pingku (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That was over two years ago. Consensus can change. Jafeluv (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I suggest opposition exclusively based on the position that consensus was to oppose two years ago needs to be given no weight in deciding what is consensus today, per WP:JDLI##Title_discussions: "Consensus is determined not by the percentage of the participants in support or opposed to a given position, but by the quality of the arguments posted, evaluated in terms of how well they are based in policy, guidelines and conventions.". --Born2cycle (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm... "Over two years ago" = almost exactly two years, for what that matters. I honestly didn't think it was think it was that long ago. Please excuse my knee-jerk reaction. In any case, the arguments don't seem to have changed. If anything, the actress-centric side has become more focused on the idea of structuring Wikipedia so that people (or at least most people) will find just what they are looking for and will not be distracted by 'irrelevant' facts. My contention was and remains that this sort of tunnel vision is not what an encyclopedia should be about. Education by serendipitous discovery should be encouraged. Anyway, that's my bit. Pingku (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Now, that's a much better reason to oppose the move. In fact, I suggest that wording, "Education by serendipitous discovery should be encouraged", succinctly captures exactly what countless others have tried to say in myriads of similar discussions. I don't think we should compromise other goals in order to achieve this one; I think it happens naturally and we shouldn't name things precisely in order to encourage this, especially when doing so contradicts other goals of Wikipedia, like helping readers get to their intended destination with fewer clicks. If we were serious about encouraging "education by serendipitous discovery", we could periodically and unexpectedly send readers somewhere via SPECIAL:RANDOM regardless of what they clicked on, LOL. Of course, that would not be a reasonable thing to do, and what you're essentially suggesting here is merely a more modest version of such a mechanism. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    • "…structuring Wikipedia so that people (or at least most people) will find just what they are looking for…" is exactly what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says should happen. I don't believe "serendipitous discovery" is what an encyclopedia is about, it's about finding what you're looking for. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 21:42, 4 December 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Combining Simpsons episodes in one row

I object to combining two credits into one Simpsons row. Usage of 'rowspan' is specifically discouraged by Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography tables because it breaks sorting and is an accessibility issue. Please keep the tables free of issues like this. Nothing is gained by combining the entries. Elizium23 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup, ↑↑↑ See also: that-was-me. Jack Merridew 03:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was editing in response to a question by User:Bbb23 at WP:VPT#Table_Help. I was not aware of the rowspan issues, very interesting, thanks for the link. --Mepolypse (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted Mepolypse's well-intentioned change that inserted rowspan. I went to a lot of trouble to combine them in such a way that it's very readable. And to say that nothing is gained is not true. These aren't separate movies. They are separate episodes in one TV show, and combining them is logical and easier to follow for the reader - so there is some gain. Anyway, having removed rowspan, doesn't it now look reasonable combined?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

They are separate episodes, separate seasons, and separate characters, and sorting is still broken. Elizium23 (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that if this is to be a list of films, as opposed to a list of roles, then it should ideally list as many rows as there are films (a smaller number). If it is a list of roles it should ideally list as many rows as there are roles (a larger number). That just seems most intuitive. (edit conflict) Update: Oh, I see now that they're TV episodes, the question then is if these are separate "films" or not. --Mepolypse (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Elizium, it's true that sortability is broken on the Role column, but not in the usual way, only to the extent that it sorts on Jenny, not on Princess Penelope. Because rowspan is not involved, I don't see how it affects the accessibility issue. Finally, I still think, on balance, it's better for the reader than making the entries separate, but if a consensus of editors agree with you, I'll let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Combining disparate data into single cells is always inappropriate. Please, all, drop it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Such a categorical statement - and a command as well. Still, one for Elizium, and although hardly a consensus, I'll defer to a majority in a very small sample. I do intend to put the two rows next to each other rather than being separated as they are now by another film. Hopefully, no one will object to that.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You have a source for such a change? It seems to me that the base order of this table is chronological and thus we should be presenting them in that order. What order did these roles occur in? Jack Merridew 03:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Also; this table has {{sortname}} on some of the character names... but some are simply first names, and this is resulting in sorts that are a mix of first and last names. Given that there likely *is* no last name for many characters, it is inappropriate to use sortname of character names. Jack Merridew 03:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't the editor who added the additional episode of The Simpsons to the table. It was done by an IP here. All I did subsequent to that was to combine the two episodes into one row. I kept the IP's addition the same (or at least tried to), and it was the IP who used sortname (frankly, I am/was not even aware of what it does/did). You're welcome to fix that - or any other part of the table that uses the template improperly. As to the order, I have zero idea as to whether the second Simpsons episode was released after PoliWood. Nor do I have any idea whether the IP intentionally put it in that spot because the IP investigated such a piece of trivia. Nor have I ever looked at any of the filmographies strewn throughout Wikipedia to see if each film in the same year is listed in precisely the correct order by month and by day. Nor do I want to. Give me a break.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the second Simpsons episode, as it was released in 2010 not 2009, and ensured that at least the first four items in 2010 are now in chronological order by release date. This means the two Simpsons episodes are no longer next to each other. I hope this is acceptable for all. --Mepolypse (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. I'm glad you noticed it was 2010. Too bad I didn't (it would have saved all of us a lot of grief), but, as I said, I didn't add it in the first place, so I wasn't focusing on its accuracy.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I was focused on issues such as accuracy as well as appropriate table structure. The base order of such tables should be chronological to the best of our knowledge. 'Merging' of table cells is usually inappropriate as it will outright break the table's sortablility (rowspan) or prevent keying off the 'second' item (two-in-one-cell). Regards, Jack Merridew 06:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Typo in opening paragraph

it says "starredin" Becoming Jane. Nandor1 (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Filmography table

Please stop adding films that are not in production to the table. Based on WP:CRYSTAL and Wikipedia practice, films only go into the table once they start filming. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

On religion

The article states: "However, she decided against it at the age of 15, after learning that her brother, Michael, was gay;[7] she felt that she could not be part of a religion that condemned her brother's sexual orientation."

What Anne Hathaway actually said, confirmed in the citation given, is: "But when I was about 15, I realised my older brother was gay, and I couldn't support a religion that didn't support my brother."

The statement in the article does not truly reflect her actual words. The words she used "not support" clearly express her disdain, but they do not mean "to condemn". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelyjubbly01 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a good observation and should be corrected to reflect the actual quote. This guidance is as it pertains to the manual of style and the section on minimal change. My76Strat 01:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Some of the links are not good, and is Huffington Post a reliable source? Here is one that sounds accurate, as already included in the article, this link has her direct quote, which sounds accurate to me.
http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/GuffShuff.asp?filename=6a5a9a8sa.9amal&folder=aGDafTaSah4afaf&Name=GuffShuff&dtSiteDate=20060607 I'm changing the sentence in the article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anne Hathaway (actress)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, but I was the person who delisted this article in 2009. Unfortunately I see fit to quickfail this article for a few quick reasons as follows per WP:WIAGA. Please do not read into this as me having it in for young Miss Hathaway (quite to the contrary). A quickfail is in order for the following reasons:

2b-5 citation needed templates for starters

3a-the main infobox image alludes to Hasty Pudding Woman of the Year honors which were not even mentioned in the text. You mention the date of the announcement of her Oscar host role, but not the date of the role.

1b-I originally failed this in part for problems with coverage of her personal relationships so when I glanced at that section now I see MOS issues such as linking the second instance of Raffaello Follieri rather than the first.

I don't mean to be harsh on this article. It is vastly improved since I delisted it. However, GA standards have improved as well. The article could easily pass with some minor improvements, not the least of which are mentioned above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Also 6a-make sure all images have {{Personality rights}} tags on them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not involved with this article at all, just an interested onlooker. I'm confused as to how the points above relate to the "quick-fail criteria". Citations templates, for example, aren't even required by the GA criteria. While GA reviewers are under no obligation to put an article on hold, I would have thought that an article that "could easily pass with some minor improvements" would be the ideal candidate for reviewing and placing on hold. I have not read the article in detail and am not commenting on its suitability to be listed as a GA, but just going by what the reviewer has stated above.--BelovedFreak 15:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I always quickfail for lack of inline citations. In this case, I presented a couple of other reasons. You are welcome to bring this article to WP:GAR or to renominate. At GAR, I can assure you that this will not pass without almost all the changes I have suggested. Lack of citations is in and of itself a reason to ultimately fail an article. It is also an indicator of other likely problems.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I still think some of those points are a little too minor to "quick fail" over, but I understand that you were just mentioning them as additional points. I must now confess that I misunderstood your point about "citation needed templates", or misread it anyway. I thought you were requesting citations to be formatted using templates rather than noting {{citation needed}} templates! In light of that, the review makes sense and is not unfair as I thought it was. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 16:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move redux (2011)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. There is no consensus in the discussion below to move the page, and I would also like to address one fallacy in some of the arguments here. Most people who view the actress's page do not arrive via the disambiguation page (page veiws). The vast majority go straight to the actress's page, either via internal links, or via a Google search [2]. It appears that at least 15 out of 16 readers viewing the actress's page never even see that dab page. At any rate, this is a case of no consensus for the move, so we'll fall back on our usual practice of not moving an article in the face of significant opposition. - GTBacchus^(talk) 14:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Anne Hathaway (actress) → Anne Hathaway – WP:ASTONISH and WP:TITLE practically demand this move without discussion, but some editors have objected. Wikipedia readers clearly are looking for the actress by a factor of 16:1; see article hit stats for the actress and the wife.  Frank  |  talk  00:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The wife of William Shakespeare is clearly of more notability. ASTONISH does not trump RECENTISM. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is policy, while WP:RECENTISM is a mere essay. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've provided current Wikipedia statistics showing otherwise, by a factor of 16:1. Do you have any citations from reliable sources to support your assertion?  Frank  |  talk  00:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:There is no deadline. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Deadline for what? You've made an unsupported assertion; are you saying there's no deadline for supporting what you've claimed, namely that "the wife of William Shakespeare is clearly of more notability"? Perhaps I should toss WP:NOTINHERITED over the fence now?  Frank  |  talk  00:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I note that this was discussed less than a year ago. Page hits are not necessarily decisive, sometimes we ought to take a historic overview. I am open to persuasion if the actress signifcantly rises in notability, but barring something really dramatic I suggest we leave this for a couple of years. PatGallacher (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"Not necessarily decisive"? If there were a slight advantage for one topic over another, I could see that point, but we are talking about 16x readership for the actress over the wife. In addition, Anne Hathaway (actress) is number 373 on the list of most popular Wikipedia articles. With 6,924,226 in the project, that puts this article in the top 0.01% of all English Wikipedia articles: that's 0.0001, meaning that only 1 in 10,000 articles is more popular. And, the trend is increasing in the actress' favor; a year ago, the ratio was still a quite decisive 11x.  Frank  |  talk  00:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Frank, responses to every comment on your proposal will not win you friends. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Mark, failure to provide policy-based reasons to oppose the move will not demonstrate WP:CONSENSUS. Merely typing "oppose" does not get at the crux of the matter; this is a discussion, not a vote. I am not looking for "friends". That's what Facebook is for.  Frank  |  talk  00:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Frank, behaving like a dick will prevent you winning arguments, whether policy-based or not. I think that was what Mark was trying to say, whilst avoiding the name calling I've engaged in. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're saying that Wikipedia users behave like dicks by a factor of 16:1, well, I suppose it's up to those users who are seeking this article to comment on that assertion, which, in my opinion, doesn't advance this discussion. If you're suggesting I'm behaving inappropriately, you're certainly entitled to your opinion - but again, this is a discussion, not a vote, and not a name-calling session. I'm still focusing on content, not contributors. That's what I'm here for.  Frank  |  talk  01:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that your style of argument predisposes the failure of that argument, despite any external facts. Sad but true. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The two previous discussions were sound, and no compelling argument was advanced to overturn their outcome. An encyclopedia is not a search engine, and historical significance should outweigh the transient tide of popular culture. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

  The speed with which this was implemented was astonishing: it's almost as if this unpopular, as demonstrated by the two earlier discussions, outcome needed to be snuck through quickly, as the consensus against remains.--Old Moonraker (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. It would be indeed astonishing to find the actress occupying the primary namespace. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• This is a ludicrous argument. It would astonish an old guard of scholarly elitists, maybe, who wish to "educate" the more ignorant masses who only know of pop culture, amirite?? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The numbers speaks for themselves, 448 613 views the last 30 days, versus 27 715 views. Last year when I proposed this move, this article was at 238 000 views. As you can see, it's only getting more popular. Twice as popular, in fact. Oh, and quoting the guidelines for those of you who continually oppose the move: "A topic is primary for an ambiguous term if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box." What is so confusing about that? Please explain that to me. Nymf _hideliho! 07:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I am going to leave this here, as it was such a great argument by Station1 last year. Nymf _hideliho! 07:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Forget recent statistics. "Anne Hathaway" has primarily referred to Shakespeare's wife for 400 years and will continue to primarily refer to her long after anyone can still remember there ever was an actress of the same name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • When that happens, we'll switch it back. Powers ^T 14:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • That article is not policy, but merely an essay, and certainly not meant to apply to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support; with a proper hatnote on this article, people searching for Shakespeare's wife are no worse off than they were before, while we satisfy the vast majority of people who are looking for the actress. Powers ^T 14:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Oh and WP:NOTINHERITED is a ludicrous argument. If nobody had ever heard of her then it might apply, but most people who know anything about Shakespeare have. This argument simply does not apply to a figure as iconic as Shakespeare - so much has been written about him over the centuries that naturally his family have become "celebrities" as well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • With due respect, it's no more ludicrous than invoking WP:RECENTISM, which was certainly never intended to address WP:PRIMARYTOPIC decisions. Powers ^T 14:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • With due respect, rubbish. The principle of recentism applies here, whether the essay was meant to apply to article titles or not. It is even referred to in the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline: "An exception may be appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account". This exception, to my mind, clearly applies here. The principle of notinherited does not apply, since anyone with any knowledge of the subject is aware that Shakespeare's wife is a subject worthy of note. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
      • It's silly making making 448 613 people click one extra time, due to some perceived notion of recentism. As someone else said in an earlier requested move, "Putting her article at Anne Hathaway does not suggest she's better or more important than Shakespeare's wife; it only recognizes the reality that most readers typing Anne Hathaway in the search box expect to land on this article." Can you really argue with that? Nymf _hideliho! 16:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Is this a trick question? We haven't made half a million people click an extra time (which in the long run is a flyspeck anyway). The page use statistics cited in support of the move also show that the DAB pages involved aren't getting anywhere near that many hits, so those half million users aren't clicking through them. They're not "typing 'Anne Hathaway' in the search box". Instead, the stats show that people are coming to the actress's page through links somewhere, and the best bet would be that they're coming from search engines providing direct links. So moving the page won't help them in the least. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Okay, then. You are making 27 000 people click an extra time, minus the 6% looking for Shakespeare's wife. That's 324 000 a year. Nymf _hideliho! 16:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Recentism strongly favours not moving this page to the primary topic. Snowman (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Why should an essay, from the perspective of an editor who seems to be tiffed by pop culture, override policy? I quote from policy:

A topic is primary for an ambiguous term if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC)

This criteria is policy and should override the use of an essay for the POV of editors seeking to combat the endless frenzy of pop culture on Wikipedia. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not a policy, it's a guideline. And I quote again from that guideline: "An exception may be appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account". Which part of that, or indeed normal Wikipedia procedure, suggests we must be bound by some sort of rule without exception? -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. We are arguing the relative notability of a popular, award-winning modern actress, who has a ten-year career at the tender age of 28, versus a woman who married a famous guy. And when all the statistics back up the notability of the former, you still want to relegate her to a hatnote or disambiguation. Ridiculous. Elizium23 (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but what is ridiculous is that we are putting an actress who has been around for ten years and who has appeared in a handful of notable film roles above an historic personage who was married to one of the most famous figures in the history of the western world, who has herself been the subject of an enormous corpus of scholarship for the last 400 years, and who has a very famous historic building named after her. What's ridiculous again? -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This is ridiculous guys, and stop attacking Frank. There is nothing wrong with addressing faulty arguments. The main purpose of redirects and WP:ASTONISH should take precedence over what seems like Shakespearean elitists who wish to force "common folk" readers to realise there's a second "more deserving for reading" Anne Hathaway. ASTONISH and PRIMARYTOPIC are policies; RECENTISM is a mere essay. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • PRIMARYTOPIC is a guideline and ASTONISH is also an essay; neither are policies. Please try to stop misrepresenting your arguments. It really doesn't make them any stronger. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, what is a primary topic isn't established by numbers alone. If one of the meanings of Mercury becomes popular for a decade or so, it does not mean that we as an encyclopedia need to change our disambiguation system. —Kusma (t·c) 20:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose -- actress will always be a secondary topic; revisit in a hundred years for confirmation. --192.80.65.234 (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. While there are guidelines I can cite for this, most of them have already been brought forward. Instead, I'm voicing my opposition for the sake of Wikipedia not becoming a celebrity directory. Rennell435 (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support for the third time. No sense repeating myself though. Nothing has changed except her article has become even more popular and less recent. Station1 (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - the argument from 192.80.65.234 pretty much sums it up. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • 192.80 didn't even cite a single policy or guideline, all of which support treating the actress as the primary topic so long as she is the subject most likely to be sought. Powers ^T 13:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • And that's that. Because Wikipedia is all about rules, isn't it. Er, no it isn't. It was never meant to be. It was meant to be about discussion and debate and even the guidelines (including WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, endlessly quoted in these move debates) include exortations to consider exceptions. To read some comments here, you'd think the whole project was governed by rigid rules designed to be eagerly enforced by self-appointed rules lawyers. Thank God, it isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Considering the fact that the people screaming WP:RECENTISM is doing the very same thing, that's a rather odd statement. Nymf _hideliho! 14:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Not at all. Recentism is more than just some "rule" from Wikipedia; it's a fact and a concept that exists outside Wikipedia. We merely link to the essay to highlight it, but we could equally not do so. But since many editors seem to think that you have to have a link in an opinion for it to be worth anything... -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Spare me the pseudo-anarchism. Placing the actress at Anne Hathaway has more to do with making the encyclopedia logical, rather than Wiki lawyering. If people expect to find the actress (94% do), why make them go the long way? Nymf _hideliho! 15:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
            • You've got the wrong person if you think I'm anything approaching an anarchist! But, like a majority of others here at the current time, I don't agree that the article should be moved and no amount of statistics-quoting, rules-quoting and attempting to misrepresent Wikipedia as a rigid bureaucracy will change that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
              • I am sorry you are not approaching the problem with an open mind. I suppose I'll renominate the article in a year or two again. It's not set in stone, after all. I would like to know if you think that putting the actress at Anne Hathaway (a DAB article, currently) would somehow lessen the importance of Shakespeare's wife, though. Nymf _hideliho! 15:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
                • No, I just don't think that endless statistics prove a primary topic and that the concept of a primary topic was never meant to be proved simply by statistics. I fear the lack of open mind is on the other side, as it were (we've had more than one "support" opinion claiming that anyone who opposes the move is "elitist", after all). You obviously disagree, as is your prerogative. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm all for IAR, but we need a good reason to abrogate the guidelines we have in place. What's the good reason here? That we want the twelve out of every thirteen people who are looking for the actress to be reminded that there was once someone else by the same name, even though we have a pretty good idea who they're looking for? Isn't that accomplished equally well (if not better) by a hatnote? Really, what's the advantage? Powers ^T 16:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
        • The "good reason" is that a clear majority of people in this discussion don't want the move. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The majority you refer to would be far more useful if WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT were a policy rather than something to be avoided as much as possible around here. Instead, every single oppose amounts to "I don't want it" with no policy to support it. However, there actually are policies which have been cited and directly related to the topic at hand, and the clear majority of those policy-based comments here do want the move. A dispassionate comparison of each comment to File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg will show that the opposers are concentrated at the bottom of the triangle (including actual name-calling), while the supporters are concentrated at the top. That opinion may earn me another name in this discussion, but it is, nevertheless, what I am observing.  Frank  |  talk  12:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

<sigh> Which policies have been cited? A couple of guidelines have been cited, but no policies. Guidelines have also been cited in opposition, and actually one policy as well. As I've said before, if you want people to take you seriously don't try misrepresenting your arguments and think we won't notice. It doesn't make you look good and it doesn't make your arguments any stronger. There are arguments on both sides - saying one side's arguments are based on policy and the other's just based on IDONTLIKEIT is simply arrogant. As to the opposers "name-calling", have a look up the list and see who is calling who "elitist"! Sounds a bit like "name-calling" to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:TITLE (policy), WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (guideline), WP:ASTONISH (essay), and page hits (historically expressed intent of the reading community, over a period of years). Yes, WP:RECENTISM has been linked as well, by opposers, but it's not clear how it applies anyway. It is a debate for the ages as to which figure is more important historically, but such debate is beside the point, since readership of this encyclopedia is clearly looking for the actress by an overwhelming margin. That says nothing about recentism or importance; it is merely an acknowledgment of the readership we serve and is the crux of this request.  Frank  |  talk  13:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM is actually quoted in the guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that the supporters love to quote! If you don't understand how it's relevant, I suggest you read that. All of it, not just the bits that support your point of view. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

But why don't they want the move? There has to be some sort of purpose behind refusing to give readers what they clearly are most interested in. Powers ^T 13:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Because primary topic is based not just on current statistics, but also on long-term value, as the guideline quite clearly states. And those of us who oppose believe that the long-term value of the actress will not exceed that of Shakespeare's wife; she is popular at the moment, but who knows what the future holds? Wikipedia is not just a pop culture guide, but a scholarly work which caters for everyone. As to "refusing to give readers what they clearly are most interested in", is clicking on a link on the disambiguation page so hard? Will it put people off because they have to click one more time? Will they not be able to understand the word "actress" in the disambiguator? All of these are clearly rubbish, so I fail to see the problem with retaining the status quo. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see a few. First, predicting the future is not part of our mission here, indeed WP:CRYSTAL (yes, a policy) more or less forbids it. Second, the thought that we must make a decision now for the ages is a bit misplaced; there's nothing that says we can't change it again in the future - even 100 years, as some have suggested. Finally, "we've always done it this way" (to paraphrase some opposes) isn't a great reason to avoid this move (nor is it supported by policy).  Frank  |  talk  13:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Frank, you've already been refered to WP:IAR. You can cite all the policies you like, but the simple fact is that there's a clear consensus against you. I suggest you live with it. Absconded Northerner (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about consensus against me; the requested move is for the good of the project and I don't have a personal stake in it, other than my desire to improve the encyclopedia. If you are implying that a two-day old discussion is already at the point of establishing consensus, or that consensus involves vote-counting rather than evaluation of policies and discussion, I'm not sure you are really aware of how consensus works around here. If it does indeed turn out that consensus is against this move, so be it, but I don't see that we are even at a point where consensus is established, let alone that it is "against me".  Frank  |  talk  14:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That seems to be your problem here. Absconded Northerner (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"The requested move is for the good of the project". Ah, now we come to the crux of the matter. You may think that, others don't. Or are you saying that the editors here, many of them very experienced and valuable contributors to the project, opposing the move have not got the good of that project at the forefront of their minds? Just a teensy bit arrogant and patronising, wouldn't you agree? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I rather think the opposite. The point I was making is that this isn't about ego or arrogance; it's about making the encyclopedia better and more accessible to the people who actually use it - today - rather than to some other constituency, perhaps later. I am making no value judgment on any contributor to this discussion or editor of this (or any) article in advancing or discussing this request.  Frank  |  talk  15:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a good argument for eliminating PRIMARYTOPIC completely -- after all, "is clicking on a link on the disambiguation page so hard?" But I don't think you'll find much support for that view. We are not a pop culture guide, but neither do we ignore pop culture, or the fact that much of pop culture is what people are looking for. Our goals are to get people to the article they're most likely to seek as quickly as possible; why make an exception in this case? Powers ^T 13:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. As shown above, 94% of people who view the dab page are looking for the actress and this percentage has been steadily increasing for the last few years. Primary topic discussions are rarely so clear-cut. Jenks24 (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  The number of people who view the dab page is quite small, so most people seem to access the actress' page in a way that does not involve this page. As far as I know, we don't have statistics that tell us how many clicks a given disambiguation page link gets per month. —Kusma (t·c) 20:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  "Quite small" is both relative and subjective. 23,150 readers viewed the dab page in July. I consider that number large, both as an absolute number and compared to other dab pages. It is only slightly smaller than the 26,630 who viewed Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare). It is small only when compared to the 379,222 who viewed Anne Hathaway (actress). It is quite correct that most people who access any article on WP do not come through a dab page; those people are irrelevant when considering pageviews except as evidence of the proportion seeking each article. It's also true that we do not know directly how many clicks come off a given dab page per month, but it is logical to assume that the propotions will be roughly the same as those who come via a different route. Since 93% of all the people seeking Anne Hathaway land on the actress's article, it's reasonable to assume a roughly similar percentage of 23,150 people per month click on her article after reaching the dab page. Even if we discount that to, say, 80%, it means 18,520 people in July were inconvenienced by the current set-up. That seems like a unnecessarily large number to me, especially considering that there is no corresponding benefit. Station1 (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Does anyone else think perhaps Wikipedia shouldn't have primary articles and use (song), (film), (actress) etc. for all articles? AnimatedZebra (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  Would you then write separate articles about Ronald Reagan (actor) and Ronald Reagan (politician)? —Kusma (t·c) 21:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  With the greatest possible respect to User:Kusma, that has to be the single greatest example of missing the point ever. Absconded Northerner (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I don't doubt that the bard's wife will, in the long run, prove more notable. Today, however, and probably for the next 40-50 years, the now-twenty-something actress will likely be what over 90% of people be looking for, and for the others, a hatnote straight to Bill's wife should suffice. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

@AnimatedZebra: No. I can understand the possible logic behind such a suggestion, but as I think all title clarifiers are unsightly, I'd like to keep them to a minimum. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare) should in fact be the primary article and should be named just Anne Hathaway, with the dab page moved back to Anne Hathaway (disambiguation). The article Anne Hathaway (actress) is about someone of merely temporary fame and does not need renaming at all. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you're selling the actress a bit short. The awards she's won are not insignificant; she's certainly accomplished more in her 20-some years than her namesake ever did. Powers ^T 12:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and HuskyHuskie. Seems to be a great deal of ad hominem argument and elitism here. Such snobbery towards an actress does a disservice to the Immortal Bard. Rubywine . talk 14:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Those with long memories say that obviously the wife of Shakespeare is primary. Those with short memories say that obviously the actress is primary. To me, what's obvious that there needs to be a disamb page, as now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: as Ghmyrtle above, etc. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Table of contents

Why is there no TOC on this page? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Good question. I've spent too much time trying to fix it. It has something to do with the project templates because when I remove them entirely, the TOC shows up. But I couldn't figure out the actual problem. I suggest you ask at the Help forum or the Pump. I'm tired of trying things without really knowing what I'm doing - and getting nowhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed they are related; I've added the TOC for what it's worth. Those project templates do seem to make it rather longer than it should be, but it's there now.  Frank  |  talk  02:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I put a queston on the Village Pump, but it hasn't been responded to yet. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason was that the page Talk:Anne Hathaway (actress)/Comments had a header in it. Accordingly, the TOC was placed right before that header, somewhere in the middle of the WikiProjectBannerShell. I have now deleted the subpage per WP:DCS, but will preserve its contents for posterity: Ucucha (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway (actress)

As of this edit, I would categorize Anne Hathaway (actress) as a B-class article. Some of its strengths include moderate referencing, images containing fair use rationale, and good writing. On the other hand, some weaknesses include the lead section, which does not summarize the article as a whole and the lack of images and information. In my opinion it is approaching Good Article status, but still requires some work. Never Mystic (tc) 02:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(End of the subpage) Ucucha (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There are six images, making the article look good and also interesting. They are well chosen. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Forced Table-of-Contents on talk-page

After seeing the subpage "/Comments" derail the implicit Table-of-Contents (because the subpage contained a "==Header=="), I have explicitly inserted the double-underbar "_TOC_" to show the TOC box. In general, when using computerized typesetting, try to avoid auto-generated anything. Instead, every page should have a "_TOC_" tag, and tell everyone what that means, so people can be prepared to control the typesetting, in more-obvious ways. Wikipedia tried to "re-invent typesetting in the dark", and so very few people realized how the implicit, auto-generated Table-of-Contents boxes would generate so many thousands of confusing situations, over the past several years. Kids don't do this: "Don't use implicit auto-generated boxes". Try to place specific formatting directives, in each page, for each typesetting option being used. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As a singer

Happy Thanksgiving! We enjoyed the movie Rio with grandchildren. Anne Hathaway was the voice of the animated heroine, Jewel, (an exotic blue bird), and sang a song at the end; and also with a group among the 20 or so songs in the excellent-for-children movie. Anne Hathaway has a lovely voice and I wonder when else she has sung. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is for general discussion of article improvement, and not intended as a forum for discussion of the actress. You may try using Google to find a fan site or similar that has more information than contained in this article. If you should find a reliable source documenting her singing career, feel free to add it to the article. Elizium23 (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, since the article is about the actress, it is entirely appropriate, and I'll do some research. Thanks for the encouragement; it would improve the article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting! Before entering the first paragraph here, I searched the Article for 'singing' and found nothing. Now that I research further for Anne Hathaway singing, I find Wikipedia as a good starting point, "A soprano, Hathaway performed in 1998 and 1999 with the All-Eastern U.S. High School Honors Chorus at Carnegie Hall'. Maybe that is it for now. Or is Rio an indication? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move. Consensus seems quite clear that most people believe that now, in 2012, most people searching for "Anne Hathaway" are looking for this person. Should that not be the case in 2013, when the 16th-century Hathaway becomes exalted for discovering Neptune before anyone else, or in 2029, when Anne Hathaway from Osaka, Japan, establishes a new microstate in her home city that controls 90% of the world's oil, this can be changed. But until then, this is the most appropriate setup, backed by the consensus below. -- tariqabjotu 02:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway (actress) → Anne Hathaway – I moved it yesterday not realizing that this was requested before. [See note below.–Noetica] I think Anne Hathaway (actress) should be the default redirect, as she is a more significant figure. Shakespeare's wife can still be searched through the "disambiguation" tag that is left above. This is evidenced by the amount of hits the page gets, that she is the prominent Anne Hathaway of today
[Note: The proposer has not described the situation correctly. In fact there was a confused rearrangement involving a redirect and and a DAB page. That situation was then rectified; and the current RM, which is not the first for this page, is under discussion assuming the status quo that has now been restored.–Noetica]
Marty2Hotty (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment, which has changed since this? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose disambiguation should be at primary location. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. If you google "anne hathaway" -wikipedia, the top 17 results refer to the actress. For page views in the last 90 days, the math is 849830 / (849830 + 122307 + 2192). So the article for the actress got 87 percent of relevant traffic. Shakespeare's wife will remain at the same lemma. A hat note will be added to actress' page, so she will remain one click away for a reader browsing the base lemma. There's no reason to expect this move to effect her article. Kauffner (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Meh. Supported last time, and IIRC the stats showed that the actress gets something like 20 times more page views than Shakespeare's wife. But since the last RM this criterion has been added to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Clearly Shakespeare's wife has greater long-term significance/educational value, so I guess leaving the dab page at simply Anne Hathaway would be acceptable per the guideline, even if it does disadvantage thousands of readers. Jenks24 (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That guideline could support designating Shakespeare's wife as primary, but I don't see how it can interpreted to mean that the DAB should be primary. Kauffner (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if the guideline has two basic criteria and they support two different articles being the primary topic, surely the best bet is to compromise and say neither is? Jenks24 (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy restoration of the status quo. The proposer admits he made a mistake. Should that accident be the occasion for drawn out wrangling to revisit the issue? No. Everything was in order, after previous RMs. A careless action like this one should not be allowed to dislodge an arrangement that had been decided by the community, through proper processes. If new moves are to be considered, let them be raised in the usual orderly way. It is increasingly difficult to sort out the tangled history of these pages. And Kauffner's pageview evidence (above) is meaningless, because the pageview facility jumbles the figures when there are redirects and moves. The history of each relevant page would have to be tracked accurately; and then the resulting numbers would have to be interpreted correctly – which, most regrettably, Kauffner's numbers rarely are. ☺ Noetica^Tea? 06:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  [Retracted, after an explanation from Jenks, below and at WT:RM.–N]]
  • Take a look at where the pages are located, Noetica. You may wish to retract this comment as it is based on faulty assumptions. Jenks24 (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! ☺♪ Noetica^Tea? 07:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose or speedily withdraw this proposal: We must wait for 15 or 50 years to decide whether either Shakespeare's wife or the actress must be the primary topic. Even one year after previous proposal is too soon for an actress to be primary of all "Anne Hathaway"s. Even the name is ambiguous as All That Jazz, Doctor Zhivago, Loving You, Lovin' You, and Firestarter. Even human names, such as David Isaacs and Christopher Knight, are ambiguous. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says that primary topic is not actually defined: in fact, "usage" and "long-term significance" are actually discussed commonly. Actress might have not had much of significance as Shakespeare's wife had, but actress is significant. The page views are too current or recent to conclude that the actress is the primary, yet actress meets "usage" criteria. There might be other criteria, but I think two criteria are enough to discuss. Nevertheless, two criteria are too vague to prove primacy status for either topic. --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • After Powers' comment, I'll go for neutral at this time. Powers did not realize that Shakespeare's wife influenced other works based on her, such as history, poem, and such. However, I don't see, according to article, contributions made by her other than childbirthing children. The actress debuted in crappy Disney movies, starred in Devil Wears Prada, and appeared twice with Jake Gyllenhall. While the actress is popular and significant, the wife has been... significant due to impact and descendants. However, 600-1500 views per day for the wife is too big to be less significant, but... that's all I can say. --George Ho (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. After setting aside the confusion caused by an ambiguous statement in the preamble (what is "it" in "moved it"?), it is timely to consider the full set of relevant pageview statistics for the last 90 days:

• Anne Hathaway (currently a DAB page, with the next four pages) as entries: 46614
• Anne Hathaway (actress): 849830
• Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare): 122307
• Anne Hathaway (poem): 2192
• Anne Hathaway's Cottage: 8166

And we should add this one, since early in those 90 days it has traffic also:

• Anne Hathaway (disambiguation): 2467

And these, which redirect to Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare)

• Anne Shakespeare: 551
• Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare's wife): 982
• Anne Hathaway Shakespeare: 115

And these, which redirect to Anne Hathaway (actress):

• Anne Hathaway (actor): 141
• Anne Jacqueline Hathaway: 130

Just so we know we have things covered.

Now, what to make of all that? It is worthwhile making a rough amalgamation of pageview figures, showing percentages of the total of pageviews assembled here (=1033495):

• Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare), or a poem about her, or her house, redirects included: 13%
• Anne Hathaway (actress), redirects included: 82%
• Anne Hathaway (DAB pages): 5%

Observations on the present arrangement, working accurately enough for present purposes (ignoring some quirks with the pageview facility):

1. Only 5% of enquiries did not immediately find a content page with an indication of the precise topic in the title. (And some enquirers at the DAB page would be satisfied with the information they found there; some would be looking specifically for a conspectus of the meanings associated with "Anne Hathaway".)
2. Even assuming that 85% of the enquirers who went through the DAB pages were interested in the actress, 95% percent of all such enquirers found their way to the right page without going through a DAB page first.
3. Even assuming that only 10% of the enquirers who went through the DAB pages were interested in Shakespeare's wife, 96% percent of all such enquirers found their way to the right page without going through a DAB page first.

So my conclusions:

1. About 95% of enquiries are immediately satisfied, by arriving directly at the desired page under the present arrangement.
2. No more than (and probably significantly less than) 5% of enquiries are delayed by going through a DAB page under the present arrangement.
3. Therefore, the present arrangement is working very satisfactorily.
4. Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare) being a topic of enduring importance across the centuries, and fit for a major treatment without ephemeral distractions in any serious encyclopedia, we would need a very powerful argument indeed to upset an arrangement whereby her article is found without distraction or difficulty.

So I finish with this question:

Is there a sufficiently powerful argument against the present arrangement? An argument that respects as a first priority the need for an encyclopedia to serve its readers (rather than mechanically serving some algorithm or rules for determining titles)?

If there is, let's see it laid out in detail please, answering all of the detail that I have advanced. I may have made some errors along the way; if so, I look forward to them being pointed out.

☺

Noetica^Tea? 09:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

what is "it" in "moved it"? The article whose move is being proposed; the article currently at Anne Hathaway (actress)... What else could "it" be? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I could find no record of either page having been moved since last year. Could you? The proposer did alter the second-mentioned page (Anne Hathaway), with this edit, changing it from a DAB page to a redirect page (redirecting to the first-mentioned page Anne Hathaway (actress)). There may be more details to add; but those are sufficient to show that the situation was badly described, and that the referent of "it" was unclear. Since it will remain unclear, I am now boldly amending the preamble to remove that confusion. ☺♫ Noetica^Tea? 03:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support, as before. No one has yet convinced me that Shakespeare's wife made any significant contributions to world history or culture; as far as I can tell, had she never married Shakespeare her name would be completely unknown today. How anyone can claim that simply by marrying the greatest writer the English language has ever known she gains "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" than an actress with significant contributions to modern popular culture is beyond me. Absent that "substantially greater ... value", we should direct searchers immediately to Anne Hathaway (actress), provide a hatnote directing students of literature to Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare), and put this debate to rest. Powers ^T 17:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's consider other criteria, as "usage" and "long-term significance" are not the only good criteria:

• Familiarity criterion: Anne Hathaway meets this criteria at this time, but how long will she familiar? I didn't know who Shakespeare's wife was; I even thought Shakespeare is totally gay!
• Impact: The actress is a current blockbuster? As a lead... she is international, but Devil Wears Prada was the only big blockbuster since Princess Diaries in the United States. However, she made supporting roles more lately, but her name would be used as blockbuster. The wife inspired a poem and history records.
• Interests: Which topic is interesting? Sadly, I don't want to watch cheap, shallow, lousy romantic movies that actress is starring in. Also, I don't care for the wife, but I would like to interview the surviving descendant of Shakespeare. Even though this topic does not deserve to be primary under this criterion, I would rather learn more about the poem inspired by the wife instead.
• Ambiguity: How ambiguous is this name? Shakespeare historians know "Anne Hathaway" as a wife, while many people before the actress were not familiar with this wife. Now "Anne Hathaway" is becoming more associated with the actress, this may be likely. However, would the Shakespeareans be offended by this proposal?

Each is strong for the actress except "Interests" for me. Am I missing more criteria? --George Ho (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I made the move that sparked the previous discussion on the matter, and I still support it. We are not building an encyclopedia for the ages; we're building one for now. If, in 5 (or 50) years, it seems the actress really was just a flash in the pan, we can change it back. In the meantime, as she is far more than that, and our readers clearly are looking for her when they get here, she should be the primary hit. That Google makes it easier for searchers to land in the right place by default does not mean we should ignore the reality of the matter, that this page is (by a wide margin) the one readers are looking for. I make no representation that the actress is more important than the wife; I am saying it doesn't matter. Our readers are overwhelmingly looking for this page when they search out Anne Hathaway. Frank  |  talk  19:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support if the stats in Noetica's oppose are to be believed, 85% of article traffic for Anne Hathaway is for the actress. People looking for Shakespeare's wife wouldn't be inconvenienced as they could still click the hatnote. Hot Stop 04:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support the proposal which supports our readers, per Hot Stop. Ignore the relatively new "long-term significance" clause of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which is contrary to user interest, by definition, and should be removed. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "Long-term significance" criterion is not a rule, and neither is "usage". "There is no single criterion" to define an actual primary topic. In fact, the guideline says that both criteria are commonly used as arguments in requested moves; cases may vary with either one, both, or none. Also, WP:IAR may not apply to misinterpretations. --George Ho (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I think it's obvious that most people who search for Anne Hathaway here are looking for the actress. By most I mean 276,000 views for the actress and 44,900 for Shakespeare's wife. INeverCry 06:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose This year people might be looking up the actress, but people have been interested in Anne Hathaway Shakespeare for centuries. Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

People have been interested in William Shakespeare for centuries; the interest in his wife is purly in her relation to him and his works. INeverCry 21:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I was the one that proposed the move, after it was suggested to me. By "it", I meant that I actually moved the Anne Hathaway article without checking the talk page earlier only to be told later that there were debates about it for a long time. As stated before, I think when people search on Wikipedia today for "Anne Hathaway", there is a high probability that they are looking for the actress. A note at the top that says "This article is for the actress, for Shakespeare's wife, click -here-", etc I think is sufficient. The amount of views per each page clearly shows the interest as well. If Shakespeare's wife ends up getting more views in the future, we can request a move back to her. Who knows? Maybe in decades when the actress may not be significant, this may be the case, but I doubt it. Therefore, I support the move. Marty2Hotty (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Marty, I remain mystified. Please show the diff of your move, from the record of your contributions. If you cannot do that, please show us the time (UTC time, right?) at which you made the move in question. Noetica^Tea? 07:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Marty made a cut-and-paste move of Anne Hathaway to Anne Hathaway (disambiguation), which was quickly reverted (see the recent history of those two pages). He did not actually make a logged move. @Marty, please don't move pages by cut-and-paste; in future use the move tab/button (should be under the drop down arrow). If you are unable to use the move function, leave a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Technical requests so an admin can perform the move (or refer it to a full discussion if that would be more appropriate). Jenks24 (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

- Yeah, I didn't move it on purpose without knowing that there was a huge debate. Thought it was very minor. Also didn't know Anne was the name of Shakespeare's wife until now :) Marty2Hotty (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Reluctant support because would like wp to be highbrow, but yep. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The overwhelming majority of people are looking for the actress so this move makes sense. Tiller54 (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose On the grounds that it's disruptive to re-open a discussion which was chewed over at some length less than a year ago. PatGallacher (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The numbers presented by Noetica clearly show that the actress is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And while the current arrangement does do a pretty good job of getting people where they want to go, the proposed move should do an even better job of reducing unneeded visits to the dab page. Dohn joe (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Recent edits (2012)

Please do not remove the information regarding Anne Hathaways short hair as it is perfectly valid and relible. Thanks Milkshake6789 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC).

Gossip sites are NOT, and will NEVER be reliable. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a collector of information. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The material has been added again, sourced to the same gossip site. Why is it still here? --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I just removed it as trivia.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo in infobox

Two problems with the proposed new photo for the infobox: (1) It was not discussed here on the talk page. Please achieve consensus to replace an infobox image rather than just adding an image to the article. (2) Copyright status is unclear. It appears that this image was taken from a website that retains copyright to it. Wikipedia prefers freely licensed images, especially for biographies. Please revert your change. Elizium23 (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

BIG Error in Anne Hathaway Article!!!

I know for a fact that the Filmography is missing a very significant movie Hathaway was in. She appeared in Elmo's Christmas Countdown in which she sang a featured song with Big Bird. I saw it myself in my sister's DVD. I would change it but I don't have a Wikipedia account, and even if I did, the article is locked. Someone please update.

24.170.94.134 (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Camila, on 7/31/2012

 Done Elizium23 (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for a better and more recent profile picture for Anne Hathaway

The present profile picture is fairly small, non-descript and is 2 years out of date. This is a request for someone to upload a better, larger and more recent picture of Anne Hathaway, preferable one that portrays her the way she appeared in The Dark Knight Rises, as most users visiting this page do so on account of her performance in that film. 84.196.186.69 (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple. Wikipedia does not use copyrighted material, and any image from the Dark Knight would most likely be copyrighted. Also, it's silly to assume that most people only visit this article because of her role in that movie. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not silly at all. She rose to prominence with the public under her role as "catwoman". Secondly, the original reason for the request remains unaddressed: the present profile picture is too small, non-descript and is 2 years out of date. It's worth replacing with a better picture for the purpose of improving article quality. The request stands. 84.196.186.69 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to request. If you can find a properly licensed picture that is more recent and better than the current one, we'll have something to discuss.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That, or if someone else so inclined can find one. That is precisely why this request is being put out. It's puzzling how this current profile picture appears to be so aggressively guarded. 84.196.186.69 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from finding it a properly licensed image. I'm not sure why you think it's being "guarded", but properly licensed images aren't always easily found and the chances of finding one of her as Catwoman are next to none, which by the way, is far from her first prominent role. It might be the first one in which you became familiar with her, though. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

A picture of her as Catwoman would be inappropriate for the infobox anyways. This biography article is on Anne Hathaway, not Catwoman. You wouldn't even be able to see her face with the mask on. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hasty Puddings

Do we really need a full caption of "Hathaway in January 2010 after being named Hasty Pudding Woman of the Year" on a close-up of her face, instead of just "Hathaway in January 2010"? There's no background evidence of the event in the picture that would need explaining to the reader, and the obscurity of the event - it's an honorary student theatre award, and it's not mentioned anywhere in Hathaway's article - makes the caption seem unnecessarily odd. (I assumed it was vandalism until I clicked through.) --McGeddon (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be precedent for a full description in the caption in plenty of other BLP articles. Subjects are often captured at film festivals, awards ceremonies, and fan conventions, and this is always mentioned in the caption, even though those appearances are not notable in themselves and not mentioned in the article. Arguably, the Hasty Pudding award is itself notable, and should be (re-)added to the article. Here's a source to get started (BBC). Elizium23 (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Anne's "golden globes"

Could someone please fix the picture? It has been vandalised and is rather vulgar. 105.236.78.72 (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Academy Award in lead sentence

I noticed a remark regarding the inclusion of Academy Award winning in the lead sentence. That is POV/undue, and should not go in the first sentence I would like to discuss this. It has also been mentioned that She is not defined by an award but is not an Academy Award the pinnacle or defining moment for an actor/actress? I see it as very defining and along that line of thought I would submit other examples to you such as
Barack Obama being president is not defining. He's just a politician. Rod Steiger lead sentence uses the contested descriptor and I'm sure I could find another. and in a further reaching attempt to clarify our stance on this regarding a biographical article how would you edit this lead sentence? James_B._Bullard I'm not looking to have my revision to Anne Hathaway reverted, rather a discussion with experienced editors who see things a bit differently than me. So that maybe we/I can come away from this with a different view. I feel it is not POV to use the epitome of accolades in a given chosen profession in his or her biographical article. One final example, a list of the Noble Laureates. Many have that prize in their lead sentence why should Anne Hathaway not be allowed to have her prize as a descriptor? Granted an Academy Award can not be any further from a Noble Prize but it [IS] their defining moment. Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 20:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your logic and think it would be completely appropriate to include it in the lead. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It does go in the lede, but it does not go in the first sentence. There is a big difference, and this is the general consensus on articles of Academy Award winners. Nymf _{talk to me} 06:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

News articles about how much people supposedly hate Anne Hathaway

I've read news articles from women saying that people are supposedly annoyed at Anne Hathaway. They "hate" her because she is supposedly overly dramatic, apologizes too much in public for trivial misdeeds (such as not wearing the dress to an award ceremony that you're supposed to wear), and is very enthuastic about life, or something like that. I wonder if mention of this alleged annoyance has any place in the article on Anne Hathaway, or is that too POV? 198.151.130.41 (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)