Talk:Carey Mulligan/Archive 1

Speedy deletion removed

Hi. I removed the speedy deletion notice, as 'Carey Mulligan' appears to be a real actor, with several appearances. See [1], [2] for example Henrik 20:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this article makes for an interesting Wikipedia case history. An article is nominated for speedy deletion based on the idea that an established Wikipedia editor (User:Mike Rosoft) feels that the person isn't notable, and the article isn't well enough written. In the name of quality control, the editor wants the article completely wiped.

The article survives, and improves, and eventually becomes a "good article" nominee. The subject (who gets singled out for critical praise in just about everything she appears in) eventually gets nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress. As an Oscar nominee, the case for an article is now open-and-shut, even for people who know almost nothing about the acting profession. Even if they haven't heard of someone, they've heard of the Oscars.

If the original "speedy delete" nomination had succeeded, the original info, which is now preserved in the edit history, would have been lost. The article would need to have been recreated from scratch, by someone else confident enough to originate a new article (which not everyone is), and run the gauntlet of "deletionist" editors who search for new articles and wipe pieces that they aren't happy with. Instead of gradually being improved, the article might have stayed deleted, been restarted in another unsatisfactory form by another user, and deleted again. If the original "quality control" effort had suceeded, the article probably wouldn't have been in as good a state as it now is.

"Unfortunate" deletion decisions are a persistent problem with Wikipedia, they destroy information permanently, and deter people from contributing. Wales has said that bad edits don't matter because nothing is ever really lost from wp, but this doesn't apply to complete deletions, which, for non-power-users, are gone forever.

At the very least, I think that wp needs a "deletions bin" that people can sift through if they're creating a new article, to see if there's any previous attempts at an article with information that can be reused. Then speedy deletes might be less toxic to the wikipedia environment, and speedy deletion might be regarded less akin to mindless Wikipedia vandalism by people who disagree with the (sometimes rather hasty) decisions that put articles through the shredder when they should be improved rather than eliminated. ErkDemon (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Companion?

The page says she's going to be a companion for Doctor Who's next series, but they just announced that that's going to be Catherine Tate. Unless Mulligan's only going to be in a few episodes, that notation should be cited or removed. --user.lain 00:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, but which part of the article says that? There are references to Doctor Who, but I think that refers just to Blink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.164.211 (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the Doctor Who, she's listed as a guest in it, but she was in every scene and logged about 10x more screen time than the Doctor, so really, it was a major credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.225.176 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Credits

I think it would be a good idea to merge her credits back into one table. It's great to have it formatted properly, but i don't see any reason to separate guest/major/ minor. It's also pretty urgent that her theatre stuff is moved out of "minor", not only because the minor/major distinction is POV, but also because her theatre work has been pretty high profile. Any support, esp from ppl who can manipulate formatting like that (i don't trust myself not to ruin it if i get too adventurous :s), would be much appreciated. Amo 18:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thou Shalt Always Kill

I was the one who added this (unreferenced) statement a while back. I've been trying to find a reference but to no avail. I only have the video to go on, and the girl in it (at the 'use it to get into their heads' bit, about a minute in) looks so much like her it can't be anyone else. I know unreferenced statements shouldn't be in Wikipedia, but could other people please check out the video and see whether they think it's her? If there's any doubt, I'll remove the statement. VaughnJess 11:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went and checked straigth after I read it on the page trying to spot her and I'm sorry but it looks nothing like her —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.35.69 (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll get rid of it. VaughnJess 05:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Worldwide view of the article'

In January 2010, this page was tagged stating "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject." I've been editing the page, in what my understanding of the problem is, to try to give the page a worldwide perspective (i.e. her films box office figures list worldwide revenue and what amount of the total was from the US and Internationally; her film's release dates). I feel confident that I've fixed the problem so I'm going to remove the template on the top of the page. If there are still any problems with the worldwide view of the article then it would be very helpful to point them out so I can immediately fix them. Ashley92995 (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers name

Brother's name is Owain not Owen. Relying on one mis-spelled Independent article someone insists on calling Carey's brother Owen rather than his actual name. His name is Owain Patrick Mulligan as the GRO birth record at ancestry.com will show you: ^[1]

That is a pay site of course but there are many newspaer references that get his name right if you would bother to do a google search including subsequent Independent articles. BTW someone deleted my previous references. I don't mind Carey being described as an English actress - British would be better and she does self-identify as being Welsh ref http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wWNRCueUZo But no, leave it as English ... however get her brother's name right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.164.168 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ancestery.co.uk" is not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not based on fact, it's based on what reliable sources state. If you can find a reliable source that says her brothers name is "Owain" then I'd be more than happy to put it in the article, until then, the name should state "Owen". Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 11:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So ancestry.com which has the official UK Government record of birth deaths and marriages is not a reliable source - OK, and wikipedia is not based on fact - OK.

Are these enough reliable sources?:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/carey-mulligan-hollywoods-new-star-pupil-1899054.html

or:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1245170/Carey-Mulligan-From-barmaid-Baftas-star-The-British-girl-outshine-Avatar.html

or:

http://www.careymulligan.org/carey-mulligan-profile.php

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/showbiz-and-lifestyle/showbiz/2010/02/07/mum-keeps-my-feet-on-ground-says-oscar-hopeful-carey-mulligan-91466-25778500/

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ia626985c88bb6872d398b51ce103062c

This article is from 9 years ago, same Owain though:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/3293494/You-orrible-little-students.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.140.88 (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've listed reliable sources, I've re-added the name "Owain" into the article. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 04:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her school

She went to Woldingham School as it says here [3] but I don't know for how long. Sweetie candykim (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal life" section

In this section of the article it says that "Although she attended Catholic school, she considers herself spiritual" This seems perhaps slightly odd. Here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Spirituality#Religion it says that "In the Catholic Church, Spirituality is generally seen as an integral part of religion" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.36.188 (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RSC work

She appears on the [of actors in RSC productions], but there's no mention of that in her article and I can't find a source to support it. Anyone know which job this is a reference to? Amo (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English/British

I changed English to British in the article. The change was reverted and described as "rubbish" in the edit summary. It's a point of view, certainly. Below, for what it's worth, is the discussion that followed.

You need to familiarise yourself with WP:UKNATIONALS before making changes such as the one on Carey Mulligan. Assessing the article clearly shows describing her as English is perfectly acceptable - Born In England, raised and most of all - Became notable in England. She is clearly English 'and' British then - so why describe her as English over British...hmmm, good point - but English people are also British by default, so are Scots & the Welsh. We describe them as such because it's more specific...to identify them with their home nation...eh but when it's not possible to clearly see which home nation they belong to, British should be used...unless they say "I'm only British" too...and so on. Ancestry... I'm personally a little annoyed whenever someone uses this reasoning - hence my calling it "Rubbish" - Ancestry should never be used as a clear indicator of someone's identity. I cannot be more clear on this - it's a very outdated principle. Ta.--Τασουλα (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Born in England, granted, but a somewhat peripatetic upbringing, wouldn't you say? "Became notable in England" is a curious concept. Notable in England as opposed to Wales or Scotland? Her notability derives from her films, none of which have been shown exclusively in England. You say that ancestry should never be used as a "clear indicator" of someone's identity. Fine, but in the absence of clear evidence of self-identification, it is not our job to decide which home nation the child of one English parent and one Welsh parent belongs to. As for WP:UKNATIONALS, with which you might wish to refamiliarise youself, it is clearly stated that there is no consensus on how the nationality guideline should be applied to people from the United Kingdom. And as for violating community consensus, the issue has not been raised on the article's talk page. Feel free to open a discussion. Rabascius (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You raise it on the talk page - per WP:BRD. Her film success has nothing to do with it, a writer from Wales may become initially popular in Scotland but they'd still be Welsh - and the burden of proof lays on you to prove she isn't English when the article clearly points to her being so! As it stands...you know, information and stuff. She has been described as an English actress on the article for a very long time - so maybe you missed the bit in UK:NATIONALS which states it's strongly discouraged to go and fiddle with articles based on a pre-conceived whim like you have? A whim is useless, find some substance to your claims pu-leeze! That is, that she doesn't self-describe as English! Unless you have real evidence to suggest she isn't English, and that British should be preferred, it's not going to change. And it's funny...such a recent interest you have in this, especially for an inexperienced editor like yourself. You clearly have no idea what the community consensus on this issue is. I have no interest in edit warring with you on this, but the community consensus is against what you're doing. I bare no ill feelings...you're not Nimbley6 or some idiot trying to make out as if Christian Bale is Welsh or that U2 are British...but understand that you can't make these changes without consensus. Heh.--Τασουλα (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have it your way. Any passing nationalists will be pleased. A couple of points, however.

– "Her film success has nothing to do with it..." Isn't this precisely the point I make above? You, on the other hand, think that her becoming "notable in England" (as opposed to where?) is the main reason ("…and most of all…") to consider her English. Since the fact of being born in England does not in itself make someone English, and given her unconventional international upbringing, I struggle to see how the article "clearly points to" her being English. What the article actually states (you know, information and stuff) is that she is half-English, half-Welsh. Her mother is Welsh and she still has family in Wales. You argue that identifying her as English is "more specific". It is also wrong, or at best only part of the story. That is why I believe that "British" would be more accurate and more appropriate.

– "And it's funny...such a recent interest you have in this, especially for an inexperienced editor like yourself." You find it funny that an editor reading an article for the first time should decide, on spotting what he or she perceives to be an inaccuracy, to edit it? Really? What happened to assuming good faith?

– There is no community consensus on this issue, if by "this issue" you mean the nationality of people from the United Kingdom. If, on the other hand, you are referring to the fact that in this article the description "English actress" has gone unchallenged until now, consider this: the original version of the article, created on 7 March 2006, had "British actress". That "consensus" lasted for more than three years, until 8 October 2009, when the description was changed to "English actress" by an anonymous user (whose only other edit is an identical change to the Kim Cattrall article, on the same date). The "very long time" for which the current "consensus" has existed is actually shorter than the period for which the previous "consensus" went unchallenged. Just saying. Rabascius (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll jump in here because I reverted back to English. In the interest of disclosure, I'm not a big fan of these discussions. Still, I often see editors try to change English to British in articles where the subject's notability (and sometimes place of birth) has been achieved in England, not in "Britain". Frankly, I think that's the most important thing to look at in leads and is confirmed in WP:OPENPARA (remember that WP:UKNATIONALS is an essay, not a guideline). So, unless there's some indication that Mulligan's notability stems from significant work she's done in other British countries, it should remain English. As a related aside, the lead also says "numerous British programmes" - what does that mean?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something but I can't quite see how we conclude that a subject's notability has been achieved in England and not in Britain or indeed the rest of the cinema-going world when that notability stems from appearances in films, the release of which is certainly not limited to England. Having said that, my only point is (was) that on the basis of the information contained in the article, Carey Mulligan is not English, she's half-English and half-Welsh. "British actress" covers that in a way that "English actress" doesn't. I may be wrong but WP:OPENPARA appears to support the view that "British" is more appropriate, in that Britain (not England) is "the country of which the person is a citizen". As for "British programmes", I suppose it might refer to programmes on British television? Rabascius (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that it matters where the films are released, but where Mulligan resides when she makes them. I believe she was married in England. Is there any reason to believe that she doesn't live in England? That would also comply with OPENPARA. I suspect you're right about "British programmes", and, frankly, I think it's a silly description.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interview where she uses "English" and "British" interchangeably when referring to herself, if that helps. Chickenmonkey 01:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually she only refers to herself as British in this, while describing Danish director Lone Scherfig as "not English". But look at the bizarre logic being applied here:

Τασουλα says she is English not British because she "became notable in England" (not Britain). I point out that her notability comes from her films and is therefore not limited to England (or indeed Britain). Τασουλα then says "her film success has nothing to do with it". Well yes it does, if her film success is why she is notable.

Bbb23 refers to articles where "the subject's notability [...] has been achieved in England, not in Britain", and suggests that Mulligan could only be described as British if there were evidence of her having done significant work in "other British countries". Once again, I question the idea that notability deriving from films – most of which are not even British productions – can be described as having been achieved "in England" and not in Britain or indeed everywhere that those films are shown. Bbb23 then says it doesn't matter where the films are released, which is perfectly true, unless of course you are trying to argue that the subject's notability is limited to a particular territory and use that as a basis for a description of his or her nationality.

Meanwhile Τασουλα , having already described my edit as rubbish and questioning my good faith, accuses me of violating a nonexistent community consensus (or a "consensus" achieved on the basis of a hit-and-run anonymous edit) and brandishes WP:UKNATIONALS – which only proves that there is no consensus. And Bbb23, more constructively, cites WP:OPENPARA, which however clearly supports the view that the nationality should be the country of which the subject is a citizen, i.e. Britain.

And while we're arguing about where she resides when making her films (LA isn't it? Or Australia) or where she became famous (on the BBC, at the BAFTAs, in the pages of the Daily Telegraph, at Sundance?), it is apparently irrelevant that the subject of the article is only half-English, at least according to the information contained in the article itself. Rabascius (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The part of that video I was referring to is, "I think it was sort of that she wasn't English, really, that was so brilliant because she found the things we find day-to-day about being British--or living in Britain, or living in London--she found them fascinating." Perhaps you and I are interpreting her words differently, however. I looked at several interviews, and this is the closest I found to her addressing whether she is "British" or "English". Frankly, I think there has not been a consensus sought in the past because it is not something she has had any reason to address, so there has been no reason for us to address it. As a matter of comparison, Christian Bale has matter-of-factly addressed a similar issue, so there was a basis for us to form a solid consensus. This is really the first time this issue has been raised, in regards to Carey Mulligan, so it makes sense that there has been no need for consensus to be reached.

Honestly, there is no reason for this issue to become heated. In the end, it is not even an issue the subject of the article even finds important enough to distinguish for herself. To that end, in this instance, given her nomadic childhood spent moving from hotel to hotel with her family, I would think she considers herself "European" more than anything else. That is entirely original research, on my part, though. For the article, I would go with British, barring any indication of preference by Mulligan herself. Chickenmonkey 17:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a generational thing but I see "British" as a useful catch-all in those innumerable cases where British citizens are of mixed heritage or ancestry. I get that some people self-identify as belonging to one (or more) of the constituent nations and others don't. No problem at all with that. But I don't think it's the job of an encyclopaedia to impose a specific national identity at the expense of other possible identities on a subject of mixed heritage who has not addressed the issue publicly. In such cases citizenship would seem to be a more encyclopaedic criterion. I'm not going to change the present article because I don't want to be accused of tribalism, cultural imperialism, Celtic (!) nationalism, etc. Maybe someone else will come along who feels more strongly about it. Out of interest, why do you say that you would go for British? Is that per WP:OPENPARA or for some other reason? Rabascius (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with British simply because it is undeniably accurate. Absent a solid self-identification where she says she does not consider herself British but instead English or Welsh, then it is just simpler for us to say she is British. Frankly, she is English, though. She was born there and currently lives there with her husband, so I would not argue against leaving it as English. What I am mainly saying is that I do not think it matters whether we say "English" or "British" because both are accurate, and she has not openly expressed a preference. It is not like someone is arguing to call her "American" or "German", you know? Chickenmonkey 21:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for your input. Rabascius (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in article?

I noticed the article states "When Mulligan was 16, she attended a production of Henry V starring Kenneth Branagh." As it also states she was born in 1985 this would have been 2001. However Kenneth Branagh didn't appear as Henry V on stage again after the RSC production in 1984. She could only have seen the film version in 2001. So something about this is wrong as she wasn't even born when this production took place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.221.150 (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to give a source to dispute the source given. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

WP:V says "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research." Awards fall within this descriptor, as they are not "common knowledge". Chickenmonkey 20:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there 'Chicken Monkey'. While I do understand what your saying about the Wiki 'V' policy, the reason I don't think that the awards/nominations in the filmography chart need sources is because from what I've seen in FA actors articles (Reese Witherspoon, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jake Gyllenhaal, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Kirsten Dunst to name a few) the article's don't source the awards in the filmography chart and only source the awards when its mentioned in the person's career section. Also, in this article's GA review the GA reviewer never mentioned any of the awards needing sourcing. Crystal Clear x3 20:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the awards are mentioned in the prose, it makes sense to source them there; however, if they are not mentioned in the prose and are only mentioned in the filmography, they must be sourced in accordance with WP:V. If sourcing were not required, I could simply say Carey Mulligan won the Universe Award for Cutest Actress (which she could very well win), and nobody could say I was wrong.

If those other articles contain unsourced material, they should be edited accordingly. Chicken monkey 21:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll remove the unsourced awards. Crystal Clear x3 23:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, we could find sources for them. The Chicago Film Critics Association Award for Best Actress actually was sourced. I assume you removed it mistakenly; so, I'll put it back. Chickenmonkey 00:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really correct to write she was nominated for the NYFCC for Shame? The group doesn't announce nominees and it's only been said unofficially that she was the runner-up. 89.143.36.37 (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be an article for her noms? --Lluvia Roja (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who

I wonder if more prominence should be given to her role in Blink. This has won many awards, and is often quoted as one of the best, if not the best story in Doctor Who's 50-year history. It cemented Stephen Moffat's reputation and brought Mulligan to the wider TV viewing audience for the first time: it was a "Doctor-lite" episode [4], meaning she effectively took the lead. Many would regard it as a key break-through performance for her.--Mattmm (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by Kevin Bacon's An Almost Holy Picture (American Airlines Theatre)

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carey Mulligan. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0225croydon/tm_objectid=16165216&method=full&siteid=53340&headline=actress-carey-s-pride-and-joy-name_page.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carey Mulligan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Carey Mulligan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0225croydon/tm_objectid%3D16165216%26method%3Dfull%26siteid%3D53340%26headline%3Dactress-carey-s-pride-and-joy-name_page.html
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5rZ6XiZty?url=http://constellations.tcon.ca/2008.shtml to http://constellations.tcon.ca/2008.shtml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://oscar-watch.ew.com/2010/06/25/academy-new-members-bono-gabourey-sidibe/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://news-briefs.ew.com/2010/11/15/carey-mulligan-the-great-gatsby
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elleuk.com/news/fashion-news/black-lace-benefit-for-the-safe-project/%28gid%29/698928
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019003648/http://www.warchild.org.uk/news/carey-mulligan-joins-war-child to http://www.warchild.org.uk/news/carey-mulligan-joins-war-child

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Carey Mulligan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three Children

Announced birth of third child. [5]https://pagesix.com/2023/10/10/carey-mulligan-confirms-she-marcus-mumford-quietly-welcomed-third-baby/ 2600:4040:56CD:8600:FD5E:98C1:4A82:5001 (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=ONSBirth84&so=2&rank=0&=%2c%2c%2c%2c%2c%2c%2c%2c1%2c+%2c%2c%2c1%2c+%2c%2c%2c1%2c+%2c%2c%2c1%2c+%2c%2c%2c%2c%2c1%2c+%2c%2c&gsfn=owain&gsln=Mulligan&sx=&gs1co=1%2cAll+Countries&gs1pl=1%2c+&year=&yearend=&sbo=1&sbor=&ufr=0&wp=4%3b_80000002%3b_80000003&srchb=r&prox=1&db=&ti=5538&ti.si=0&gss=angs-b

[1] ttp://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=ONSBirth84&so=2&rank=0&=%2c%2c%2c%2c%2c%2c%2c%2c1%2c+%2c%2c%2c1%2c+%2c%2c%2c1%2c+%2c%2c%2c1%2c+%2c%2c%2c%2c%2c1%2c+%2c%2c&gsfn=owain&gsln=Mulligan&sx=&gs1co=1%2cAll+Countries&gs1pl=1%2c+&year=&yearend=&sbo=1&sbor=&ufr=0&wp=4%3b_80000002%3b_80000003&srchb=r&prox=1&db=&ti=5538&ti.si=0&gss=angs-b

[1]