Jump to content

Talk:Emma Stone/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Page creation

The main reason I created this page was actually that Emily Stone had been redirecting to Emma Stone, whereas I was expecting an article about Em Stone. In the course of research towards creating both an Em Stone article and a disambiguation page, I discovered there were at least two other living women with the name Emily Stone who were sufficiently notable to warrant an entry in Wikipedia (as well as several non-notable women, including a teacher and an amateur athlete). All of these seem to be distinct women with the same name. I made a judgment call that the senior editor of Antarctica's only major newspaper was the most notable woman known primarily or exclusively as Emily -- and not as Em or Emma. I did not take the time to verify all the work claimed on Ms. Stone's resume, but operated on the presumption that proof of one (her position as senior editor of the Sun) was sufficient to dispel doubt about her claims as a group. The decision to include the blogger Emily Stone was actually something of an afterthought once I saw that there were a number of independent sources referencing her and/or her blog about chocolate. Jackabug 15:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Emma Stone Austin TX 2009

This photo is horrible. It's blurry, she's in a weird pose, there's a shoe, and she looks like she's going to eviscerate the cameraman for taking it. We have two good pictures of her already, I move to just delete this one in lieu of something more flattering and encylopedia-worthy. Elizium23 (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It was the only free use photo available when it was added. The newer ones are better, so I don't object to it's removal. It would still be available via the external link to Commons. dissolvetalk 06:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sentence Structure

I rearranged a sentence in the upcoming roles section at the top of the page that originally said "In Crazy, Stupid Love, an adaptation of The Help" that led me to believe Crazy Stupid Love was an adaptation of The Help. Perhaps with more careful parsing I could have realised it sooner but to the casual reader this is no doubt confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ailes Grises (talk • contribs) 10:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2012

Please add that "Emma Stone is currently dating The Amazing Spider-Man costar Andrew Garfield."

Littlemonster4life (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, needs a source--Jac16888 Talk 01:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that the've admitted to dating, maybe one could add that it's rumoured. teammathi 14:28, 12 July 201 (CET)
We don't include rumors in articles here. DP76764 (Talk) 15:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
What about the rumors about Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson? They're included on their wiki pages. It was just a suggestion. teammathi 18:10, 12 July 2012 (CET)
Just because stuff exists in other articles doesn't mean we should include it here. Minor caveat: if there are good sources (no tabloids or gossip rags) covering material, that is something that may be included (see the first responder to this edit request). DP76764 (Talk) 18:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Official Twitter removed

No policy-based or coherent reason has been provided for the removal of Stone's official, verified Twitter account. Please explain or replace what was deleted. Elizium23 (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Photos

Please retain, somewhere in the article, the photo that used to be in the infobox. It is recent and flattering. Changes to the infobox image should be discussed first, but I have no objection to including the new one. Elizium23 (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Ratings

Are the ratings really necessary? If someone can give me a reasonable, legit reason as to why they should stay, I'll leave them. If not, I'm going to just take them down after a few days. Xpinkxcasualtyx (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs

She has a voice role in the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.182.200.32 (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the page is locked and I just made an account, can someone please add that Emma Stone has a role in the game? Hesoyam1124 (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 July 2012

She is set to voice Amanda Cartwright in the 2012 videogame titled Sleeping Dogs.


180.190.192.156 (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Elizium23 (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Producer

There is currently a disagreement among several editors. Stone will be a producer in her upcoming feature Little White Corvette, I believe, as do others, that the credit "producer" should be added to the Infobox now, before the movies release. Others do not. Please discuss, and we will decide on popular opinion. LiamNolan24 (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

There are two sources cited inline stating that she will executive produce Little White Corvette, and executive produce a film with Will Gluck. Since the statements are about films that haven't yet begun principal photography, adding the credit could be premature and considered crystalballing. As recently as July, Stone stated to ABC News that she "wants to produce". I'd say hold off on the credit until it's sourced that a film she's producing has actually begun production.dissolvetalk 21:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I also think that we shouldn't add "producer" to the infobox just yet. It should be added as soon as the film has started production or pre-production. teammathi 8:33, 27 August 2012 (CET)

Ellis Island, huh?

Emma Stone may believe Ellis Island officials changed her grandfather's surname in the immigration process (if she was quoted correctly in the source article); however, this persistent myth is debunked in the Ellis Island article:

A myth persists that government officials on Ellis Island compelled immigrants to take new names against their wishes. In fact, no historical records bear this out. . . . The Americanization of many immigrant families' surnames was for the most part adopted by the family after the immigration process, or by the second or third generation of the family after some assimilation into American culture. However, many last names were altered slightly due to the disparity between English and other languages in the pronunciation of certain letters of the alphabet.

Given that Ms Stone does apparently believe the family story, how should we note this? 174.52.210.196 (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In this article, we shouldn't note that at all. The article already links to the Ellis article and that's all that's appropriate for this article. DP76764 (Talk) 04:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Stone and Garfield

I'm not sure their rumoured relationship should be included in this article since they have never officially confirmed this. An article saying they're in a relationship because they have been photographed kissing isn't a reliable source. Maybe we could add that it has been rumoured that they are in a relationship and add a few more references. teammathi (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Another blunder

Please note, that a Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry does not equal german ancestry, only a german-speaking ancestry at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.114.6.22 (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Dutch is Netherland, Pennsylvania Dutch American.


Mother's name

The current text specifying her mother's name, "Stone was born in Scottsdale, Arizona, to Krista Jean (née Yeager; b. 1960), a homemaker, and Jeff Stone...", is ambiguous. Is 'Jean' her middle name or a surname from a prior marriage? − Rusty Lugnuts (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 06:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Categories

@Musdan77: Why are you so adamant to remove the names of the categories from the awards? Any particular reason? ツ FrB.TG (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course there's a reason -- which I gave in my edit summary. MOS says: "The lead section should briefly summarize" ... " a concise version of the article." ...and "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article." And since the awards have their own article (linked to twice), and the links pipe to the categories, there's definitely no need to put the full category name in a lead that's still too long. I was being conservative. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Emma Stone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 12:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


I'll be happy to take this JAGUAR  12:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments

  • "such as creating awareness on breast cancer" - might be worth linking breast cancer
  • The lead summarises the article well, so no issues here
  • The Awards and nominations section has no citations
  • No dead links. Impressive!
  • No dab links

FrB.TG I can hardly believe this myself but the article is flawless. It is well written, fully comprehensive and all the references check out. I would have passed this outright if it wasn't for the unsourced Awards section, in which the GA criteria states that every section or paragraph must contain at least one citation. Once that is addressed, this can pass. Well done on all the work! I literally couldn't have brought up any other issues in this review. JAGUAR  13:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, one can refer to the sources in the career section. I did not cite sources in the awards section as I did not want to repeat a bunch of sources which look weird. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
That's understandable. Passing JAGUAR  13:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Image change

Rusted AutoParts: Regarding the image, I would like to add that in the 2012 image she looks much better, smiling. In that case we would also be able to add that image under the 2014 section, but I don't think that we can have that image under the 2014 section as it's from 2012. Also, 2012 is not that old and she has not undergone a significant change; she looks pretty much same in both pictures. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I mean, she's smiling in the 2014 picture too. But as I said, if we have access to something that's more recent, we should use it. The 2014 pic isn't blurry, unfocused. We got her face in clear view, smiling. Aside from general nitpicking, there shouldn't be any problems with it in my opinion. Rusted AutoParts 17:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
If we are to keep the 2014 image as the lead one, the 2012 image has to be removed from there as it looks very irrelevant there. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The section itself is called "2012-present". Just because it's not precisely near anything 2012 mentioned, it shouldn't be removed. Rusted AutoParts 17:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Alright, if others do not have any objections, I don't either. I don't like an article lacking images. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the 2011 image in this edit; see my edit summary. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Filmography

Why is there no filmography list? 2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

There is Spiderone 15:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
And, after looking on the article for the word filmography I have to come to the talk page to realize there's no filmography on the article and I have to visit another article to find it out. Great. --37.223.105.98 (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
So? Is that too much of an effort to click on another page? - FrB.TG (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup, it's dumb I know, but several years ago 3 or 4 people got together and created a supposed "consensus" and because of that we're forever stuck with whatever they came up with. This site is a joke and pretty well anyone can write anything as long as there's a website somewhere that appears to verify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.64.175 (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't consider the "anyone can edit it" a weakness (though vandals do ruin this) but a strength of Wikipedia because if it wasn't for these "anyone's" we wouldn't be having over 5 million articles. Besides, the filmography page was created on a suggestion of a seasoned editor who suggested that there was enough material for a separate page. - FrB.TG (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

She also received an Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role for La La Land. 187.188.11.219 (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Added in the "Accolades" section. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Garfield

I believe that her relationship with Andrew Garfield is by all means worthy of at least a few sentences in both her biography and Garfield's. A relationship which the media has so much analyzed, scrutinized and reported is not mere speculation. After all it was not a brief fling. They were together (on and off) for five years. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC) PS even an editor at the discussion (that the user is referring me to and repeatedly removing well-sourced statements from an article) is saying what I am trying to here: "well-sourced reports concerning current relationships maybe included".

A long string of policy-related discussions, most recently at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive250#Do we report celebrity dating? have consistently concluded that an encyclopedia does not include such content absent demonstrable/documented impact on the article subject or their career. To argue that "And when something gains so much coverage we mention that whether that is made-up or true" shows a profound ignorance of our BLP policy and practice.[1] And there is no support in policy, guideline, or practice for the idea that FAs are somehow exempted from BLP standards or consensus practice. And since this is not a "current relationship", but one described as ended about two years ago, your final argument is just nonsense. And wikilawyering to deny long-established consensus outcomes is hardly a sign of reasonable, good faith argument. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Clearly you are failing to see that the media reported them for five years - half decade. The general speculation of co-stars which ends with the film's release is something I'm also completely against, but not a popular couple like Garfield and Stone. Many well-reputed and reliable sources have reported their relationship. – FrB.TG (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Clearly you do not respect consensus. Clearly you do not understand WP:BLP and WP:RS. Clearly you do not appreciate what "current" means. As Jimbo Wales himself said, Wikipedia does not chronicle the twists and turns of celebrity hookups, dating, or "relationships". This is not Wikitabloidia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll say this as a general point; it's true that brief hookups and low-profile relationships aren't worth including in articles, but major relationships that were high-profile certainly are. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. A notable relationship, such as the one she has had with Garfield, should be included. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced

Excuse me, but how is it documented that Stone is a talented actress of her generation???? It is not even sourced by a reference in a media by a critic, let alone be objectivvely cross-examined knowledge. Please consider it to be removed. We cannot let a remark like that to feature on the preamble of an article which is also featured. It is not objective and subbstantiated to call other mythical actors like that, there are numerous examples, let alone Emma Stone who is in her very beginning and not a good actress personally for me.--Soccererer (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's well-sourced in the media section. Your personal opinion on her "talent" are irrelevant. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Image

Although I prefer File:Emma Stone by Gage Skidmore.jpg over the current lead image, I am okay with any of them being the lead image. Editors change the image from one to another, leaving some work for me, as I have to change the image in the 2012 section. @Nightscream and Rusted AutoParts: it would be great if you reach an agreement here instead of changing. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2017

I would like to collaborate in the editing of the page, aiming at the improvement of presented content and promising to respect the rules and laws of Wikipedia and certifying that I can increasingly improve the information presented in a cordial and responsible manner.

Sincerely, user CornelioGama CornelioGama (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You are already autoconfirmed and should be able to edit this page. That request template is not for asking for permission but is for people that can't edit the page because of the protection. --Majora (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emma Stone. 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) 21:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Emma Stone. 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) 11:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emma Stone. 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) 06:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emma Stone. 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) 17:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

"...a song she and her mother love."

Seriously? Perhaps her favorite color and flavor of ice cream are also relevant here? I will grant that IF she has just one tattoo, then the basis for it may rise to the level of biographical significance, but the fawning over a Beatles song? Hardly.98.21.221.175 (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2018

There don't seem to be any decent cites for "Cited in the media as one of the most talented actresses of her generation" so please take it out of the lead.

For example the first cite rather underwhelming says:

More talented and interesting actresses of her generation? Anna Kendrick, Jennifer Lawrence, Shailene Woodley, Mia Wasikowska, Saoirse Ronan, Dakota Fanning, Emma Stone, Chloe Moretz, Emma Watson, Amanda Seyfried, Mila Kunis, Emily Browning, Hailee Steinfeld and Carey Mulligan, to name a few. Ur Momma Non-Notable (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done reverted to an older version ChamithN (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Credit for Emma Stone Mill Valley Film Festival photograph

Please add my name as the photographer of the Emma Stone Mill Valley Film Festival photograph at the top of this article. You can add it in the citations at the end, but when I gave permission to use the photograph on Wikipedia, that request was part of my permission. List my name as Steve Disenhof. You can find my original posting of this image here: [1] Hofendis (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://marinsd.smugmug.com/Events/i-nsdt2pn

Regarding Photo

Hi there, I was wondering if we could allow the most recent photo of Stone in 2018 at the UK Maniac premiere stay. All in favor? To me there isn't any glaring reason why it shouldn't be there. Thoughts? User:Krimuk2.0 You cited it as lacking "professionalism" but to me it looks even more "professional" and is a face shot. It highlights the qualities that people associate with her, especially compared to the 2016 photo, and it's even the most recent photo so to me it makes sense.

"Recent" by two mere years is not the criteria for the main image. The problem with this image is that she is mid-smile and we can see someone else's shoulder in the frame. Normally, that's fine, but since we have an image without those problems, we should go with that. Anyway, let's keep it at WP:STATUSQUO until more people can weigh in. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Permit me to introduce another choice in the mix. The only flaw I could see with #1 was the logo appeared to be something growing out of her head. I am not sure if the lighting/color on #2 is good enough to make it preferable. At any rate. I would prefer #1 over #3 for the reasons mentioned. It's not super-old, it's very glamorous, and obviously well-posed. Elizium23 (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Krimuk2.0 Mid Smile? I think you are splitting hairs, in the photo you prefer she isn't even smiling and there is also something behind her in that photo as well.

Again, let other people weigh in. Also, you need to sign your talk page messages using tildes. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

personal life

should there really be a photograph of emma stone and her former boyfriend in the section? especially since she's now married, it could be misleading.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emma_Stone/Archive_1&oldid=1136698350"