Talk:TomKat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the TomKat article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

[edit] Expansion of notability, and more will be added over time

I expanded this article in a way that show's their notability as a romantic pairing, and use of the word TomKat. I will continue to expand this article, of course. They, as a couple, have been written about extensively in several books. If notability of the word "TomKat" is more important to people for this article to establish, then I will try to expand on that as well; though I was about expanding on that either way. Flyer22 (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Great expansion. Keep up the wonderful work! I'll try to add some more too when I get some time. нмŵוτнτ 17:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Great expansion. And good job on making this article more encyclopedic. Flyer22 (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Might this be the earliest use of the term TomKat? 29th April 2005.

http://chaddarnell.typepad.com/runchadrun2/2005/04/this_weekend.html Fences and windows (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] There is no date

On the article referenced by the link, there's no date. There really should be one. Tabloid stories like this one come and go every day. --VKokielov (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah! but hark!

"So even after Cruise, 44, and Holmes, 27, get married, people will find something else to speculate about, such as whether they will have another child or how they’re getting along, he said."

That means your article is at least as old as July of 2007, for then Tom Cruise got to be 45. I am removing the link. --VKokielov (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Then again, one of those dates is wrong; if Holmes was born in December 1978 and Cruise in July 1962, then the difference between them is 16 years and four months. Twenty-seven plus sixteen is forty-two. Where is the rat? --VKokielov (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Tabloid stories? This is a huge newspaper for a city. нмŵוτнτ 23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, what's the date of that newspaper have to do with that comment? I've reverted this, anyways. To my knowledge, there is no policy/guideline that says sources must not be too old, especially if they're still up to date. нмŵוτнτ 00:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about policy. Look -- if you tell me that people are STILL crazy about it, then you must prove to me that they STILL are. Otherwise I will show you that the Allies are about to cross the English channel to attack the Germans. --VKokielov (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And of course it's a tabloid story. Not your newspaper article, but the whole affair. How would you like me to gaze at you, follow your every fart and fizzle and proclaim them to the world? Not to mention that there are better things to think about than Hollywood actors. All this is my opinion, but it's manifest that none of these Hollywood sensations last very long. Where is Britney Spears? Where are Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt? --VKokielov (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(added afterwards) They come and go in bursts, like the fits of strangeness their subjects undergo. --VKokielov (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please try to edit without your own point of view affecting it (see WP:NPOV). нмŵוτнτ 00:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you grab on to that word? D* it, I didn't say that I edited my opinion in. How could I say that, when I asked you to PROVE that these "people all around the world" still remember anything about this? And you still haven't proved it, but instead have hit me with everything you could find to evade proving it. Now, then...please PROVE to me that it is still "notable", in the language of Wikipedia. --VKokielov (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

especially if they're still up to date, you said. Splendid -- now prove that it's up to date. It is on you. --VKokielov (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I got angry. But please anticipate what I am trying to get at, or else tell me that you don't understand. Otherwise it seems like you are calling the wine rotten after tasting the top of it with your fingers. When I say I would like a date, I mean that I'm not sure that the sentence in question -- not the article, mind, but that sentence! -- still has currency. Without currency it is tendentious and ostentatious - "look at me! read me!" --VKokielov (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I figured out the perfect compromise: I put it in past tense. I think this will suffice. Are you happy with this solution? нмŵוτнτ 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because media sensations come and go does not make former media sensations any less relevant or notable, of course (not that I'm stating that anyone on this talk page stated such). And sometimes former media sensations remain just as popular, but just aren't in the media like they once were. As for Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, many people are still crazy about them. But as a couple? That craziness may have died down or rather will die down, but the craziness was still there, as we all know.

At first, seeing this new debate about the above reference, I immediately thought of it like asking to prove that Luke Spencer and Laura Webber still have the highest-rated hour in American soap opera history. I mean, of course they do. I see that it's a little different, however, since a person can get a hold of soap opera ratings and see that their hour is still the highest-rated, and even if they can't, all references all over the internet state such...and until they state otherwise, it's kind of a mute point. With TomKat, on the other hand, having a reference from a year ago stating that people all over the world expectantly follow the couple's actions, may seem a little more like "Do they still?"... But, really, do we think that no one is following this couple's actions anymore? That no people in various countries are following this couple's actions anymore? The number of people following them may have decreased since their much publicity in the news, but suggesting that they aren't followed anymore is a little off. I mean, there are Tomkat fanatics out there. Thus, I really don't see the need for that change in the lead. If they were divorced, then, yeah, I could see how they, as a couple, aren't followed anymore. But this issue seems to be solved now anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compromise. --VKokielov (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TomKat's marriage impossible

Rolfe, Peter (April 20, 2008). TomKat's marriage impossible: Has Katie Holmes lost that loving feeling for Tom Cruise? Friends say she has finally succumbed to the crushing weight of their high-profile relationship.. Herald Sun. News.com.au. Retrieved on 2008-04-19.

Source to use in this article. Cirt (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

When I get a good chance to, I'll add that to this article. Or someone can get to doing that before me, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)