Talk:Angelina Jolie - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 04:24, 24 December 2015 (→How do we judge how actor articles should be rated?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:24, 24 December 2015 by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) (→How do we judge how actor articles should be rated?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Angelina Jolie article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Angelina Jolie is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 19, 2013.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 9, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
October 8, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
November 21, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is a selected biography on the California Portal.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has been selected for use on the United States portal.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

International relations: United Nations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

LGBTQ+ studies: Person

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
	This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Matthew Phiong (August 30, 2006). "WikiCharts Top 100 most viewed Wikipedian pages". "Blog is Everything".

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Angelina Jolie article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Update Filmography Section

Suggestion: Can the filmography section title be updated to 'Selected Filmography' or 'Filmography Highlights' to reflect that her full Filmography is on a separate page and the listed films are not extensive. It is also not clear what the criteria is for the films that are listed. Kitty4777 (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Done I am curious as to the selection process as well. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

My selection was based on box office success and major award recognition. The films listed are those that grossed over $150 million and/or received Oscar, Golden Globe, BAFTA, SAG and Emmy wins/nominations. Plus her first major film. Voice roles and sequels are excluded. Maybe others can think of better, more objective criteria. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I personally think it would be more appropriate to include a link to Angelina Jolie filmography in "see also" and not have a section. It's very odd to arbitrarily list some of her work and not all of it. Even more odd to exclude films such as Kung Fu Panda that are clearly among her biggest roles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Since people will be looking for the Filmography section when they come to this article, and might not think to look to the See also section for it, I think it would be better to write up a summary for the Filmography section while maintaining the link to the Angelina Jolie filmography article. This is per WP:Summary style. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Aren't the "Career" sections essentially a prose summary of her filmography? That would be redundant. You do bring up a good point, though, that many people who come to this article are looking for her filmography not knowing she has a separate article for it. Would it be reasonable to list all of her film/TV credits, including non-acting roles, without details such as character, box office, and directors that are saved for the main article? An extended version of the bullet points already in the article. I realize that would be somewhat lengthy, but it makes more sense (to me, anyway) than only including a small portion of her roles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

While typing my reply to you, I also thought about the fact that "the 'Career sections essentially a prose summary of her filmography," but the way that the Filmography section is has bothered me for sometime and I see my suggestion as a better suggestion than including a selected list or locating the link in the See also section. For Misplaced Pages actor/actress articles, it's become standard practice to simply have the Filmography section consist of a link to the main filmography article, and I don't see a need to have this article do differently in that regard. Yes WP:Summary style and MOS:Paragraphs are clear about having an appropriate amount of material in a section. But WP:Ignore all rules is also clear. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

How about this? –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Since I was already reverted by Betty Logan, I'd like to invite her to this discussion and ask how the reverted edit constitutes WP:INDISCRIMINATE. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I do not support adding a full filmography as in this edit. It is completely unnecessary IMO and redundant when a dedicated filmography article already exists. The question remains as to what to do with the section? Personally I would be okay with completely removing the abridged filmography and just having a link to the main article, but I appreciate why some editors prefer to have a condensed list of her major films in this article. However, adding a full list of her film roles undermines the point of having a dedicated filmography article: we have a full list somewhere else so we don't need a full one here! There are several options as I see them: i) retain the status quo limiting the list to career highlights; ii) remove the abridged list completely; iii) merge the tables at Angelina Jolie filmography back into this article. The filmography article isn't so big as to make a merge prohibitive so editors need to decide what they want to do: is the topic best served by compartmentalising her biography and filmography, or would it be better to just have a single article covering everything? Betty Logan (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Having a bulleted list of all of her films doesn't fulfill the same purpose as the filmography article, though, as her roles (actress, producer, director) were not mentioned and the extra details from the tables there (director, box office, etc.) were not included. But I would not be opposed to merging the filmography article back here. The lead section largely repeats information from the "Career" sections here. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I am struggling to see what purpose having two lists does fulfil. If people want a list of the films they can just click the filmography link. The same with the awards table too. Surely the whole point of creating sub-articles is so we don't have to include them here? There are two approaches to article writing: you can have a comprehensive article which has everying and is a one-stop shop, but if the tables/lists are large the article risks becoming unfocused. The other approach is to compartmentalise and create sub-articles for the lists and tables; with this approach what you gain in focus you lose in comprehensiveness, since readers may have to visit other articles to get the information they want. Both of them are valid approaches but I do think this article needs to fully commit to one or the other because it is somewhat silly to have a bit of a list or a bit of table here and the rest somewhere else. Personally I would just remove both the awards table and the filmography list since the sub-articles already exist but ultimately I am not a principal editor on this article so I defer to those who are. Betty Logan (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be missing the point that the edit you reverted does not contain all of the information found at Angelina Jolie filmography. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is the point. Why do we need a full list and a bit of a list? Either have a full list at a sub-article or have the full table in this article. We don't need two lists. Betty Logan (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: Noting here that SNUGGUMS moved the filmography link to the See also section. Per what I stated above, I don't like that option. But, as also noted above, I'm not keen on having a Filmography section that only links to the Filmography article. Perhaps place the filmography link at the top of the Career section? Maybe place it right underneath the 1991–97: Early work subsection, since placing it immediately under the Career section might cause it to be overlooked from the table of contents if editors simply click on the 1991–97: Early work subsection? Flyer22 (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems like a good suggestion. I agree the link needs to be more prominent in the article, where readers would normally look for a list of her films. Betty Logan (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it to the 1991–97 subsection. No problems with that placement. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That's good. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

UGH.

Why must one search for a link to the filmography? This is frustrating and annoying. Why can't there be a (admittedly brief) "Filmography" section, with the link to the main article? That way it shows up in the TOC. Many, if not most, people accessing the Jolie page will have an interest in her filmog and they shouldn't have to do a text search just to find the link to it. A change is needed. - WOLFchild 05:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: For more on what Thewolfchild means, see this discussion (that's a WP:Permalink). Flyer22 (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that Flyer. People looking at that article will also see that a 'selected filmog' was added, greatly improving the article in content, accessibility and user-ability. Many actor bio pages with split off filmogs have either a retained a selected filmog or a section header with the link to the main filmog making it easier to find. I see no reason why we can't do one or the other here. It would only improve this article. - WOLFchild 00:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As you can see above, both options were vetoed for violating some type of guideline. Wiki has an awful lot of those. But for what it's worth I support your edit. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't see any specific policy mentioned that outright prohibited any of the proposed options. I just saw varying opinions. The fact is that of the two options I suggested, either adding a 'selected filmog' or simply adding a section header with a link to the main filmog (so that it can be readily found in the TOC) are both found in plenty of actor bio pages across wp. I also see that BettyLogan was open to simply merging the main filmography back into this page. I would be all for that as well. As far as I know, filmogs should only be split off when it's absolutely necessary, as in when both the main page and the filmog table are so large, that having them together makes the article to unwieldy and slow to load. I don't think that would be the case here.

As I see it, we have four (4) choices;

1: Re-merge the main filmography table back into this page and into the "Filmography" section.
2: Add a 'selected filmography' to the "Filmography" section. We could have discussion to determine which films to include.
3: Leave the article the way it now, with a section header for "Filmography" containing only the link to the main page (making it easy to find in the TOC)
4: remove the "Filmography" section altogether, as was done a few days ago, and go back to burying the link to the main filmog somewhere within the 'Career' section, so no one can find it (unless they do a text search to find where it's hidden).

The first 3 are listed in my order of preference, any of the 3 is fine with me. Number 4, for me at least, is a non-starter. I'm sure we can all work out something to improve the article. - WOLFchild 04:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

In the discussion above it is important to note I was opposing a specific version of a selected filmography, which I felt was becoming too bloated and making the satellite article redundant. My view is that if editors want the bulk of the content back in the article then why not just merge the content back in fully? Personally I have always felt that "selected" filmographies are too much of a compromise, and settled upon by editors who don't want to commit fully one way or the other, but I do not formally oppose them if the correct balance can be obtained (i.e. how much do we have in and how much do we leave out?) and a neutral criteria can be achieved. That said, if the decision is taken to spin the filmography out of the article, I think it is crucial that there is a prominent link to the filmography. This could be done via an article hatnote, but also the infobox provides a link for this type of thing which you can see in an a test edit I made here. Whatever approach is taken it should be made easy to find a list of her films. Betty Logan (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Betty, I completely agree with you on each and every point you have just made. As it stands right now, after Flyer's last edit, the Filmography is quite visible and easily accessible via the TOC, which addresses the immediate concerns that I at least had. So, afaic, there is no urgent need to make any more changes in regards this issue. I will check in from time to time to see if there is any further discussion and/or proposed changes on the matter. Thanks everyone. - WOLFchild 08:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

my daughter's mentor

Hello, my name is RUTH MAKAMA. I am a Police officer as a fingerprint expert in Abuja Nigeria Africa. I have a daughter by name QUEENETTEFERAND CHERISH ABU 13 years of age. Living with me in Nigeria. She is about to finish her O level as in Secondary School. Pls mam, She always disturb me about u that she want to join u in acting by u mentoring her. pls ma, my daughter loves acting and she loves how u always act. kindly give her room for trial. pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. Thanks her mom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.210.213.165 (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

For possible future reference

Jolie is next expected to direct Africa, about Kenyan conservationist Richard Leakey's fight against the illegal ivory trade.

References

"Angelina Jolie to direct ivory poaching tale 'Africa'". BBC News. September 21, 2014. Retrieved January 20, 2015.
"Angelina Jolie's Latest Incarnation: Filmmaker". Associated Press. December 22, 2014. Retrieved January 20, 2015.

Awards and nominations section

Why is there a redundant table in the section when there is a linked main article? Lapadite (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

So that there is actually something there as opposed to simply a link. I take it that it's the section's way of applying WP:Summary style. The main article for the awards and nominations has a lot more material. What is in the section is just a snippet of it, and is therefore barely redundant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, but another table is redundant imo. Why not not prose instead, briefly summarizing the main article (similar to its lead)? Lapadite (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Common name: Jolie or Jolie Pitt

It seems the mainstream media have begun calling her Jolie Pitt with the release of her new film. I know People (the unofficial Jolie-Pitt mouthpiece) and The Hollywood Reporter have consistently done so since she changed her name at the start of the year, but now when I look at google news there's many outlets doing the same, including the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone, etc. Other sources still use Jolie.

What does this mean for the article, with regard to WP:COMMONNAME? Should we start calling her Jolie Pitt only in new and future material or change every existing mention of Jolie? Should the article be moved or not? Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"Angelina Jolie" is her WP:Common name. I don't see how "Angelina Jolie Pitt" is even close to being her common name. And having the article use "Jolie Pitt" throughout is not only unnecessary but can create a confusing and/or awkward read when referring to both Pitt and Jolie (for example, "Pitt and Jolie Pitt"); that is, if the person doesn't simply refer to her as "Jolie" in that instance. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

No, Jolie Pitt isn't her common name yet, but it likely will be in the near future, which is why I've brought it up. It's her legal, professional and public name and reputable media outlets have now adopted it. To quote policy: "If the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the 'new' name, Misplaced Pages should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." The key word I think is routinely; sources like the ones I mentioned have only just started using it (or at least I hadn't noticed until now). So when does 'routinely' apply? If a majority of sources is still using it six months from now? A year? Btw, reputable media use Pitt and Jolie Pitt together, so I don't see the problem there. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how it will be her common name in the near future either, given that she has been known as "Angeline Jolie" for far longer and therefore the vast majority of the sources about her use that name. Various newer sources referring to her as "Angelina Jolie Pitt" doesn't trump that, in my opinion. I would be against the move unless that name reached the level of "Jada Pinkett Smith" in acceptability. These days, it just seems natural to refer to "Jada Pinkett" as "Jada Pinkett Smith." Not so natural to refer to "Angelina Jolie" as "Angeline Jolie Pitt," or else we wouldn't even have to question the matter. As for "Pitt and Jolie Pitt" together, I mean for things in the article like the following: "After a two-month courtship, Jolie married actor Billy Bob Thornton on May 5, 2000, in Las Vegas." If we changed Jolie to "Jolie Pitt" there, it is confusing and awkward, no matter that readers will know that her last name is now Pitt before reaching that point in the article. She was not "Pitt" when she married Billy Bob Thornton. Another example is the following: "In early 2005, Jolie was involved in a well-publicized Hollywood scandal when she was accused of being the reason for the divorce of actors Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston. She and Pitt were alleged to have started an affair during filming of Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)." Using "Jolie Pitt" there is also confusing and awkward. For sentences like these, I would suggest simply using "Jolie," if this article were moved to Angelina Jolie Pitt. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

For a better understanding of what I mean, take this example at the Jada Pinkett Smith article, where I changed "Pinkett Smith met Will Smith" to "Pinkett met Will Smith" for better flow. Notice that the section already used "Pinkett and Smith became friends" instead of "Pinkett Smith and Smith became friends." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Two more examples where I would forgo "Jolie Pit" are the following sentences: "Jolie and Pitt did not publicly comment on the nature of their relationship until January 2006, when Jolie confirmed that she was pregnant with Pitt's child." and "Jolie took on Pitt's name following their marriage." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Pinkett Smith is a very good example, yes. I think Angelina is heading in that direction, just based on the wide variety of sources that have made the switch, from New York Times to Vogue. I understand your latter point, but that's only a matter of good, clear writing. Anyway, I will come back to this in six months or so. It's entirely possible that Jolie Pitt won't be as widely picked up as I expect, but if it does, then WP:Common name is clear that we should consistently use Jolie Pitt (except, as you point out, where it would cause confusion). Until then, to address my own question, continuing to use Jolie for new material is probably best. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I only just noticed your own name change. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

How do we judge how actor articles should be rated?

Before Monochrome Monitor's edit, Angelina Jolie was in Category:Top-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles. Monochrome Monitor placed her in Category:Mid-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles, which includes actors like Drake Bell. Jolie is far above that level of fame, popularity, respectability and career work. With this edit, I reverted Monochrome Monitor, stating, "As a biography, I'd rate her high (not top). Film aspect? Mid. But this field isn't working. So I'll revert and remove it." I saw that the field is working, and so I placed her in Category:High-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles with this edit. So which category is she best suited for, and why? How do we judge this for her or other actors? Are we basing this on how well-received their acting career has been? On how famous and/or respected they are? On what? Monochrome Monitor has been going around making these changes to actor articles and to film articles; for example, see this edit at Talk:Avatar (2009 film) and the fix afterward by Frietjes. And with this edit at Talk:Dustin Hoffman, Monochrome Monitor stated, "stop adding actors you like to this category. it needs to be free of recentivism. People on AFI's list of stars, influential directors, and anyone on "greatest X of X" list will count." By contrast to Monochrome Monitor's categorization of Jolie, he placed Brad Pitt in Category:High-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles. Why Pitt and not Jolie? I'll alert WP:Film to this matter for more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Categories: