Talk:Katie Holmes/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Pictures

I updated the pictures, used some magazine and dvd scans to more recent pictures. Anyone think this would be better than the GQ up top http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Arenakatie.jpg ? AriGold 20:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

...and on the 8th day, God created Katie Holmes.

Amen. Now all this article needs is a good picture of her. --Demonslave 18:39, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Is there an official Katie website?

Apparently not. I googled the phrases "official site" and "Katie Holmes" as well as checked on IMDB and came up with nothing. PedanticallySpeaking 16:50, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

"In somewhat of an interesting coincidence, ten years earlier, Tom Cruise's wife at the time, Nicole Kidman played the female lead/love interest in the movie Batman Forever opposite Cruise's Top Gun co-star Val Kilmer. In the 2004 movie Batman Begins, the part of the female lead/love interest has been inherited by Katie Holmes." Come again? That has got to be one of the more serpentine "interesting coincidences" I've ever seen, no offense intended to the author.

I think it's an interesting coincidence. In Batman Forever, Tom Cruise's wife, with whom he vowed to be with "forever," was the female lead. In Batman Begins, Tom Cruise's fiance, with whom he had just "begun" a relationship, was the female lead. The part about Val Kilmer does seem pointless, though.

CoS?

Is there a reason the first external link is to the Church of Scientology? --SPUI (talk) 19:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it. Cruise is a member, but that's irrelevant to her article. PedanticallySpeaking 16:15, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Cruise did brainwash her into Scientology. That ought to be a crime. Free Katie! Dr. Cash 04:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Does Katie know about Scientology's evil galactic alien Xenu? People should be free to believe in whatever they want to believe, but I doubt Katie has been told the full story and seen critical websites such as Operation Clambake (www.xenu.net) that suggest that Scientology is a cult.

Stuff about Cruise/Scientology

Now, I'm as down with the whole "Katie Holmes was kidnapped and brainwashed by crazy Scientologists" insinuations as the next man, but the article as it stands seems to be pretty POV in that direction. (Obviously, it doesn't say this directly, but this is clearly the implication, and all of the known facts are pretty blatantly given the most negative characterizations possible) Any thoughts on how to improve this? john k 20:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which is to say - Wikipedia is not a gossip column. john k 20:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but right now I was surprised to see how little info we had on all that: I thought I remembered reading this article before and we had a fair amount of info, but now it's really poor. Everyking 02:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would appear that just about everything was taken out. Obviously some discussion is needed, but we also shouldn't be basically repeating information which has only been disclosed in gossip columns. john k 03:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Wonder Boys

Anyone else think there is no too much about Wonder Boys here? Additional material seems excessive and bordering on NPOV violations without sourcing. 66.213.119.98 17:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Too much because a small role? Too much because out of balance? What? Before you revert, realize that the earlier description was in error. Hannah has a crush on Grady, not Grady lusting for Hannah as was stated. "Sourcing"? Simply that I have seen Wonder Boys several times and added to that by looking at more than a dozen film reviews. Length was needed to explain the importance of her appearance in a serious film as opposed to her other roles in various thrillers and horror movies, some quite forgettable. I would think her role in Pieces of April needs equal amplification. Pepso 19 August 2005

no to advertisements

Unless there is some overriding cultural or historical signficance, I object to using advertisements as images; this is essentially free advertising for large, wealthy multinational corporations like the Gap. If her fans want to add more pictures to this article, why don't the find screenshots from her movies? -- Viajero | Talk 18:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, if we did that, then people will object. Some folks don't believe screen shots are acceptable. PedanticallySpeaking 19:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Personal life sources

When I wrote the body of this article, I tried to give printed citations to my sources. The personal life section has been greatly expanded since then. The citations are to web-pages. I'd appreciate if future contributors would cite printed works. I will examine these web-cites and see if I can come up with printed ones; though I would be much obliged to those who added them if they would help. PedanticallySpeaking 19:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason to restrict sources to printed material. Just because something is printed doesn't necessarily make it any more reliable than material appearing on a web site. That said, we absolutely should drop information cited only from web sites that are not considered credible. Fan sites, gossip sites, etc. etc. etc. --Yamla 19:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying we can't use web sources. My objection is that we're citing web-sites of magazines, e.g. People and Entertainment Weekly. I'd like to see the citation to the actual printed article included. Once information is in print, we should cite that over the web. PedanticallySpeaking 17:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair use images

Are magazine covers no longer considered fair use? Maver1ck 08:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Magazine covers are fair use provided you are discussing the magazine or you are making critical comment (not necessarily criticising) the fact that Ms. Holmes appeared on the magazine. For example, it would be entirely legit to post the naked-and-pregnant Demi Moore cover if the resulting (small) scandal was discussed in the article itself. But it would not be legitimate to post a magazine cover with Ms. Holmes just as an example of a picture of her. That, at least, is how I read copyright law, fair use, and Wikipedia policies. It's all a little confusing. --Yamla 16:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If you're confused about fair use, then you're on the right track. The factors for figuring out fair use in court cases has been referred by a top legal scholar (Judge Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit) as "fuzzball factors."

Legal Name

Katie's legal name is Kate Noelle Holmes according to both [1] and [2].

These sites have the same biography, so at best they count as a single source of information. A google search on "Katherine Noelle Holmes" (exact match) returns 19,900 hits. "Kate Noelle Holmes" returns 313. imdb has her birth name as Katherine. Furthermore, I suspect the whole "Kate" thing is part of Mr. Cruise's revamping of her image. However, I'd like to get some more comments or, ideally, some better sources, prior to reverting back to "Katherine". --Yamla 03:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The whole reason I changed the name is because I saw a recent interview in which Katie was asked if, when older, she would go by Katherine and she replied that her legal name was Kate and that is what her parents called her. I'll try to dig up the source. -- Kevin Clark

Her legal name may (now) be Kate, but what we care about is her birth name. We'd generally give her birth name, then the name she is most commonly known as. This is still Katie rather than Kate, however, but I suppose we could add a bit stating that she now prefers to be known as Kate rather than Katie. --Yamla 18:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles in Current Biography and Biography magazine both give her full name as "Kate Noelle Holmes". PedanticallySpeaking 18:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Given this additional source, I'm going to change the page to Kate. --Kevin Clark 23:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

After the marriage, she will be known as Kate Cruise both professionally and personally. [3] [4] Chantessy 16:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, The Superficial is hardly a reliable source. Additionally, Tom Cruise's last name is not Cruise. It seems strange that Ms. Holmes would adopt Cruise's middle name for her personal last name. --Yamla 17:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

FAC?

Does anything think this could be a featured article? It failed once before and many changes have been made since then. 66.213.119.98 18:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Katie isn't really cute?

Does anyone think that Katie has Italic textthose Bold texteyes? If we see Dawson's Creek first season...those eyes make us feel her character's pain, her wish of living.

And the relevance of this to an encyclopedia would be...? DJ Clayworth 15:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Virginity claim

Is there an actual quote from Holmes where she said she would remain a virgin til marriage? The MSNBC article quotes a tabloid as proof, but has no quotes from Holmes herself. Crumbsucker 14:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I put a quote, cited, from the Mail on Sunday. The MSNBC piece named the wrong newspaper entirely. PedanticallySpeaking 21:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not my question. My question was is there a quote from Holmes herself. I have never seen one. Also, Mail on Sunday or Sunday Mirror, doesn't matter. They are both tabloids. BTW, in your reworked article, you removed most of the links to cited sources, which makes it harder to check sources for accuracy. Crumbsucker 22:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The links I removed were to sites such as "E! Online", print sources being preferrable to electronic ones. PedanticallySpeaking 19:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

haha, an actress being virgin till marriage. good one.

I thought both Holmes and Chris Klein were virgins while they were together? - 03:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Her acting

Gee, this article isn't very nice on her, is it? When it comes to her last few roles, anyway. I'm sure we can include a positive review in there, somewhere? Because putting in a quote that basically singles her out as the worst thing in "Thank you for Smoking" is kind of POV in one direction. JackO'Lantern 01:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If I said she was the worst thing in a film, that would be POV. But citing one of the few published reviews of the film to that effect, is not POV. In general, she has gotten bad reviews for her films and to try to balance every negative one with a positive one would be misleading to readers. PedanticallySpeaking 19:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Over-referencing

This disucssion copied from Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

The number of references in articles which are making it through FAC has been rising, seemingly inexorably, for some time now. I often object to articles with more than about 40 references because I think it's almost always unnecessary to cite so many sources, and very distracting for readers to see so many footnotes in the text. In every case I object to, people are citing things which really don't need citing, like uncontroversial facts and things which are just common knowledge, and they commonly respond to my objections by saying they're only following guidelines here. So, I think it's time to include guidelines on when citations aren't necessary, and possibly a guideline on how many citations are likely to be appropriate for articles of a given length. What does anyone think? Worldtraveller 17:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that over-referencing is a valid concern, but very few articles reach a problematic level. There's no need to cite thing that are common knowledge; but I think it's desireable to cite facts—even uncontroversial ones—if they are obscure or difficult to find. This tends to be the case for many FAs on historical subjects. —Kirill Lokshin 17:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what would you say would be a problematic level? If we aren't reaching it now it looks like we inevitably will reach it at some point. I really agree with what you say, but I believe we've reached a situation of over-referencing if an article on a minor actress has 89 references. An article on World War I or the British Empire or something like that, I could understand needing this number of references... Worldtraveller 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Err, that one would probably qualify as problematic. I suspect that both the overabundance of footnotes and the length of the article (56K!) are caused by the inclusion of too much trivia. —Kirill Lokshin 01:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes at the bottom of the page in no way destract from the reader. They're in a separate section, anybody can ignore. We need to cite more than a typical publication, because an uncited claim in Wikipedia has the reliablility of a UseNet posting. Also, if something truly is known by everybody, and needs no citation, than why are we writing about it? Why are we telling people things, that everybody already knows? Generally, we should write about things not already known by everybody, and those things need citations. Remember, the very readers who are learning about something from the article, are also our "fact checkers" and editors. It is absolutely essential fact-checking be done by non-experts. There simply aren't enough experts to catch maliscious sneaky vandals, as soon as they slip rubbish in. Other publications don't need so many citations, because they don't let just anybody write the origianl version, or fact-check it later. I suggest thanking people for "over-citing". Now occassionally there is true over-citing. Sometimes a citation is used for a fact already well supported by other sources, or if the fact was removed from the article (but the citation was not). But rarely, is there true over-citing. Quite the opposite. --Rob 17:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Very well said, top to bottom. Very good points. - Taxman ^Talk 23:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's these: ^[1] all over articles which I am saying are distracting, not the footnotes section. Look at the first few paras of Katie Holmes and tell if you don't think that's messy looking. And we should certainly be telling people things they already know, as well as things they don't - otherwise we wouldn't be comprehensive. I find for the scientific topics I write about, 20 references is about the most I feel the need to include, and no-one's yet complained they're under-referenced, so when I see minor actresses with 89 listed references I think that's excessive. Worldtraveller 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

First Katie Holmes is not a "minor actress"!. And yes, I know what you were referrring to. No, those are *not* distracting at all. I think Harvard(?) inline references can be distracting, like "(Smith et al, 1986, p. 3)". But "^[1]" after ever sentence is perfectly fine. Katie Holmes has a little maintainability problem, because its useing the ref/label (which can get out-of-sync) instead of the new <ref><references>. But, basically it is seems to be doing what it is supposed to (I haven't read it thoroughly though). I've written a number of articles with more footnotes then sentences, and will continue to do so. The beauty of these footnotes, is you only have to follow/check the ones you care about, and can ignore the rest. A fact checker doesn't have to check all 89. They just check the ones they doubt. If there were 20 citations, but the fact they questioned was one of the other 69 other uncited facts, they'ld have a real problem. --Rob 13:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There are two technical solutions possible. a) short term - use template:inote for some of the references b) long term - use style sheets and classes to make only key references visible by default. Given this, there's no justification for reducing the number of references in an article. They do not have to add clutter to the end user. Mozzerati 21:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's fairly easy to hide them (especially with cite.php) if readability is the prime concern and the value they offer in verifying material is so high that I see no benefit to holding back from encouraging the citing of all important facts. What's common knowledge to you may be novel to me and I appreciate the verifiability and the evidence that someone researched it, so it's much better to err on the side of more rather than less. We have to be careful to avoid dishonest citations and making articles appear more authoritative than they are, but that's standard content negotiation and research. More reliable sources wins out all the time. - Taxman ^Talk 23:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

But that's my point really, is that I see a lot of things being cited that there is very little value in citing. Also, faced with 89 references in an article, I personally would feel very disinclined to check very many of them. If there were only 20 I might. I think in this way excessive referencing can be harmful. Worldtraveller 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point I made and I don't agree that's happening very often. My only qualification was referring to not using high enough quality sources. Again, what's common knowledge to one person is novel to another. I'd rather have 500 references in an article if there were that many important facts in it given they are easy to hide and if hidden, they wouldn't hurt readability which is the only drawback to them. And you don't have to check all 89 references. Check several and if they all check out well the chances of any being fraudulent are much lower. If a few don't check out that calls into question every citation that editor made, allowing effort to be directed to where it needs to to improve the article. Only in a type of formal review process would every citation need to be checked, and in that case again more is better. I think its a fantastic thing that we've finally turned the corner were editors are reallizing verifiability is the most important thing we can work on. Other people have already given the reasons why WP is different from other types of reference works and why we need to cite infinitely more than they do. Finally, why did you make the same post here and at WP:V and not note that in your post? - Taxman ^Talk 13:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There's some inaccurate material

Hello Dolly and Damn Yankees, despite indications in the media otherwise, were not musicals at Katie's high school, Notre Dame Acadamy. They were musicals at nearby St. John's Jesuit, an all male high school. I graduated from St. John's in 1998, knew Katie, and saw both musicals. I have my yearbooks which picture Katie and show her as casted in both Hello Dolly and Damn Yankees at St. John's, if anyone needs proof. This should be fixed in the article.

Vandalism?

Second paragraph - "In October 2005, the couple announced Holmes was pregnant with the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard." 139.163.138.14 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverted, albeit funny. -- Zanimum 02:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I really dislike vandalism, but I really have to ROFLMAO on this one! :-) Dr. Cash 04:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In her pregnancy section somebody wrote that Katie Holme's daughter's name, Suri, also means "fecal matter" in ancient egyptian, ROFL Guusks

Citations all messed up

Why exactly does this article use both {{ref}} and <references>? Pick one (the latter please!) and use that one for everything. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 01:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I had begun to change the ref formats to the new way, expecting someone else would lead the charge and continue. -- user:zanimum

The teabagging team?

any source? or just wishful thinking?

WHY WAS THIS A FEATURED ARTICLE?!

I am VERY disappointed. —This unsigned comment was added by 68.212.85.194 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 5 April 2006.

you can live without learning everything about Katie Holmes? amazing. —This unsigned comment was added by 161.76.99.106 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 5 April 2006.

It does not matter what the article is about if it is well written and sourced. Lapinmies 06:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. From What is a featured article:

1. It exemplifies our very best work.

The featured article has the most visible spot on the main page and is therefore what visitors see first. It's a bit disingenuous then to say it doesn't matter what it's about. Far too much gets written about American actors/actresses already without Wikipedia wasting a featured article on one. WhiteCat 08:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I should qualify this and say I don't mean any criticism of the article itself, or the authors - I know the feature article requirements are pretty stringent, and no doubt the article is a great example of article writing & editing. I just object to the classification of front page featured articles as some sort of dry content-agnositic category that's only of interest to other wikipedians for editing aesthetics: most of the front page readers *aren't* editors. Picking eye catching, interesting, off-beat, important & encylopedic articles is obviously a matter of taste, but.. Katie Holmes? WhiteCat 10:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well put WhiteCat, the front page is just like any other front page on the internet or newspaper, for that matter. This is hardly "our very best work" Cyborg 14:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

First truly poor selection I've seen. ---- Bobak 14:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Must not have been around long, then.. there was the Gwen Stefani song a couple months ago. Katie Holmes is World War II compared to that. 68.98.167.121

The one on April 1 was very poor but I guessed that was a 'april fools'. However this article is truely dissapoiting, it has [citation needed] all over it for a start. Luke C 15:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I had little to do with editing the article but you need to look at Katie Holmes#References and footnotes and Katie Holmes#Bibliography for the "cite". Also see Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I am also horrified that a "featured article" has [citation needed] passim. What happened? Was someone on a deadline and messed up or what? I agree this is an article that has a lot of sources, and I would bet most of them are pretty good, but with a nod to those who undertook the effort, this is *not* at the level of FA, imo. This gets tossed back across the desk to the student with a B minus, and a note that if they do the re-write and follow their Manual of Style, they could get an A. Disappointing.--BradPatrick 17:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur, posting this as the featured article is asking for vandalism and low repute for wikipedia. I like that these articles exist, but they shouldn't be featured.

4.0?

>her mother's alma mater, where Katie was a 4.0 student.

What does this mean? Could someone explain this in terms a non-American can understand.?Blaise 07:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

American schools use a scale that goes A, B, C, D, and F. A being the best, F (failing) the worst. In college this scale is usually changed to a number scale 4.0 being an A. Dismas|^(talk) 08:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a link, which explains the strange habits of Statesiders (ho ho) - Drrngrvy 15:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

some schools in the US use E's instead of F's. E.g., Ohio State University.

Filmography wrong way round

the filmography is upside down on this article, should be in chronological order (see all the style guides). please reverse it, or this article will be removed from FA list. Zzzzz 11:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is ridiculous that this is the third page I've found in a row that you've started this discussion, and with an idle threat to boot. I defer to my comment on the Julia Stiles talk page except to point out that both articles zzzzz links are inactive and he just changed the order shown to suit his needs. Why should I believe you carry this discussion in good faith when you're changing "policy" to fit your argument? Sad. Cburnett 03:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A further note. Zzzzz changed the Wikipedia:Filmographies to fit his argument so he could use it as an authoritative source (despite it being inactive). I've started discussion on Wikipedia talk:Filmographies#Chronological ordering to address this since Zzzzz is scattering discussion on many articles' talk page. Please continue this discussion there. Cburnett 03:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipeoplemagazine

What has happened to the encyclopedia? Half this article is gossip. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's bad enough that this article is full of gossip as Malber points out, but it should absolutely not be on the front page! That's like saying "We don't care if wikipedia is turning into something else than an encyclopedia" Cyborg 13:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, too much rubbish. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid website. Celebrities pull stunts all the time. It's not notable, it's advertisment. Wikipedia should stick to the cold hard facts. --65.25.217.79 10:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography

The bibliography at the bottom of the article is way too long and not important since the articles are not used as references. I suggest radical cutting. --Ton e 13:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

-Fixed vandalism where "Tom Cruise" had been replaced with "Rosie O'Donnell"

If this article is the "best of Wikipedia"...

...then this project is in serious trouble.

The article from top to bottom is incoherent, with no narrative structure or theme nor even a good timeline. The first paragraph makes absolutely no sense. The sections on Dawson's Creek make very little sense to someone who has never seen Dawson's Creek. The sections on her recent relationship to Tom Cruise are ludicrously over-referenced to citations that never should have been referenced by any reputable encyclopedia.

If anyone wanted an example of an article that looks as though it's been written by chimps, then this is it.

Don't bother with the "SOFIXIT" tag, because this article should be composted rather than try to salvage anything worthwhile.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.45.184 (talk • contribs)

This "chimp" tried to encourage major changes to Wikipedia policy to prevent phenomenon such as this, instead users who like chimpy gossip harrassed me, intimidated me, so I just left and started writing some books. Now here I am again preventing libel and other vandalism from less intelligent chimps. --67.77.201.22 16:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivial information

Do we really need to know what her grade point average was in high school or what score she got on her SAT? The article might as well list how old she was when she had her first period! That's all the first paragraph of the "Early life and career" section is: a random collection of facts. It doesn't give any insight into who this person is. I'd edit it down, but it's been oh so carefully cited. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd second the suggestion of a rewrite/reorganization. This article is commendably informative but it reads like a magazine piece, not an encyclopedia entry. Perhaps some of the factoids could be bulleted and the fat cut out. And 85 references?!? ka1iban 14:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Aritcle gone

It's gone. Replaced with 'hah dum bitch'. I belive fixing it might be required.

Prostitute?

Uh, in the early career section..."but turned it down[16] to continue her job as a prostitute on the streets of Los Angeles". I'm not judgin', but this is probably vandalism, yes? ka1iban 15:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

--That's the first I heard of Katie working as a prostitute. I think it's probably vandalism. I second that. (Oliver from Vancouver)

You're talking about one of the vandalisms that wasn't correct until several edits later. It was overlooked by those reverting vandalism and I had to manually take it out. --67.77.201.22 16:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

blocking the article

Shouldn't articles on the main page be blocked? So we would have avoided vandalism. Mr.K. 15:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We never want to block main page articles unless absolutely necessary. When articles are featured on the front page, they get a lot of improvement. There are many editors watching the featured articles and revert vandalism pretty soon after it happens.--Adam

^(talk) 16:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but those countering vandalism need to watch more carefully, some of the vandalism is getting overlooked because of the constant changes and, apparently, edit conflicts. --67.77.201.22 16:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

For example, this edit by User:Timbarajas[5] was not corrected by User:CambridgeBayWeather(Who's edit summary states: "CambridgeBayWeather m (Reverted edits by User:24.172.195.239 (talk) to last version by User:Timbarajas").[6] CambridgeBayWeather actually reverted to a vandalized version, so I had to go back and manually correct it[7]. The page should be locked, and anyone wishing to contribute should come here to talk page and suggest changes. --67.77.201.22 16:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC

if one so cares about an article could wait till it's not featured and fix the few problems that may arise. the benefit of several edits outweight any few problems. besides, who of the many that add to a featured article would actually do it if it wasn't featured?

That is the benefit of having it featured. Many improvements happen while it is on the front page. Many people add to the featured article when it is nominated for feature status also. Visiblity on the front page greatly improves articles. For example, I usually improve featured articles only after they are on the front page because I had never seen them before.--Adam

^(talk) 17:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

See also User:Raul654/protection. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 12:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ummm

"Weeks after ending a four-year relationship and year-long engagement with actor Chris Klein, Holmes began a highly publicized relationship with actor Tom Cruise in in a small role, Libbets Casey, in the film which starred Kevin Kline and [[Sigourney life. Her life parallels mine, which is all about new everything—relationships, personal perceptions—and about being guarded." Holmes filmed the pilot of Dawson's Creek in Wilmington, North Carolina, during spring break of her senior year of high school in 1997.[1] When the show was picked up by The WB, Holmes moved to Wilmington, where the show filmed."

Somebody fix that paragraph, quick? :-/ It's a featured article at the moment, kind of embarrasing. I'd revert it myself, but I'm not exactly sure what it's supposed to say.--Hawkian 17:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please fix

Weeks after ending a four-year relationship and year-long engagement with actor Chris Klein, Holmes began a highly publicized relationship with actor Tom Cruise in in a small role, Libbets Casey, in the film which starred Kevin Kline and [[Sigourney life. Her life parallels mine, which is all about new everything—relationships, personal perceptions—and about being guarded...

What's that supposed to mean? I couldn't make any sense of it. It's currently the featured article on the Main Page. Please help!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 17:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

... --Hawkian 17:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The force was with User:Berolina.[8] --ElectricEye 17:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, Berolina!--Hawkian 17:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Good article!

I commend the people who worked on this. We need more good actor articles. So many are poor and don't deserve to be. I'll link to one who I think is high-level enough and needs improvement - Michelle Pfeiffer. JackO'Lantern 20:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Dawson's Creek - Joshua Jackson

Just a little nitpick... If my memory serves me correctly... which it may not... Joey's first boyfriend was infact Dawson. Joey and Dawson were off and on all the time and it wasn't until their senior year that Joey and Paycee (?) went on that summer boat trip thing.

I could be very wrong, but that's what I remember. Thought I'd throw that out...

Bell's Palsy

I don't want to start another furor, but the Bell's Palsy article has Katie listed as a sufferer (along with a few questionable others). Can anyone confirm she's a sufferer or is this just prankery? Or possibly the work of evil psychologists? :) ka1iban 14:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As the principal author of this article who read dozens of articles to compile it, I have not seen a mention of this disease in connection with Holmes. If someone could cite a source for this, I would be grateful. PedanticallySpeaking 15:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

For want of a source, I removed the reference to Holmes in the Bell's palsy article. PedanticallySpeaking 15:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography 2

I still think the bibliography list is far to extensive. I would delete all but let's say 10 items but I would prefer someone who knows more about it to do it. --Ton e 18:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why someone added all the biography? It's totaly useless for an encyclopedia. --Ton e 14:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Because we are supposed to cite our sources. The list is not useless for it allows people to verify where facts came from. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more on this. PedanticallySpeaking 15:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

But this is what references section is for, as far as I know... Of course it is essential to cite sources but bibliography section just seems to list the magazines she was in. --Ton e 06:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Placenta Eating?

BBC News has a story about Tom Cruise eating Katies Holmes placenta after child birth: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4918012.stm - Think this should be added in the pregnancy section.

That's called gossip. (And kinda sick.) --Kevin Walter 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

silent birth

anyone want to add some stuff on this crazy thing? I understand the birth was done this way.

Ther'e been no confirmation that ths crazy thing went down this way. BabuBhatt 22:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There's a lot of press hype on this but the articles so far have had little of substance, even People which seems to have had the inside track on the subject. So I'd prefer to wait until we get confirmation. PedanticallySpeaking 16:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

References

There's a good deal of references and such that could be greatly improved, using the named references function of cite.php. As I'm not really familiar with the article, would someone who is be willing to go in and tag it as such? I noticed a good deal of "ibid" and "[lastname]" references in the article, which can be changed thanks to Cite.php. I believe the article at WP:CITE would be useful for anyone familiar enough with this article's sources. -Mysekurity ^[m!] 03:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives