This is an old revision of this page, as edited by D-Day (talk | contribs) at 17:08, 25 July 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:08, 25 July 2005 by D-Day (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Removed text taken from http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0914612/bio Everyone feel free to paraphrase that and integrate the facts into the article. Paranoid 12:26, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This long-standing factoid that she was named after her aunt is apparently untrue, but I only tried one source -- see , which says it was her paternal grandmother... :-? ugen64 02:10, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Dubious entry removed
Anonymous user:200.73.180.22 added the following:
I can find no mention of this anywhere: it is stated several times that the first HP film was her first professional engagement (indeed see this article). --Phil | Talk 09:36, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Mhmm, I'm inclined to agree with you. ugen64 23:33, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Dubious Entry II
User:202.7.166.170 has recently made multiple edits under the trivia section and before reverting I wanted to ask the other community memebers if they thought the edits relavent. Thank you -Hoekenheef 14:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- They all need to be sourced before they can be kept. The one about hair is obviously not NPOV. If verified, the bits about birthplace and ancestry are worth keeping I think (the others can go as far as I'm concerned). I'd rather see them in the bio part than tacked on as "trivia" though. --W(t) 14:27, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
- Makes sense. -Hoekenheef 17:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Removal of Trivia Section
I removed the trivia section once before and was reverted. I am now doing so again. This section is just plain silly and contains no relevant information. I now address each point as follows:
1. The Jane Austen reference has nothing to do with her. Unless her parents named her specifically after said character (which would still not be worth mentioning, I think, but would at least be a connection) then this is a random bit of coincidence of no encyclopedic value.
2. The IMDB reference is dumb. I doubt there is anyone that thinks she is "Emma Watson (II)", as the IMDB system is not so opaque. Even if a few poor souls are fooled, this is not relevant to her life or career.
3. Her height is not encyclopedic and may even still be subject to change since she is only fifteen.
4. I am sure she shares a birthday with a lot of people. This is not encyclopedic.
5. The fact that she has worn dental braces is the kind of thing one puts in a gossip magazine for young adults and not an encyclopedia.
6. If Lycos Top 50 internet pools are really that important, someone can put this factoid into the main section of the article. This is the only bit of information that seems like it may be relevant, but a trivia section is not neccessary to keep it.
7. Not encyclopedic. There is no signifigance attachted to this fact.
Trivia sections in general are probably best avoided in an encyclopedia article, but they should at least contain relevant and interesting factoids. This is just a collection of useless and irrelevant facts and degrades the quality of the article. Indrian 17:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Death rumour?
The article stated rather baldly:
There are no truth to the rumors sparked on the internet that she has died.
I rather think that any such comment should be even more carefully supported by proper citation than normal. —Phil | Talk 11:59, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
- I was the one that put it there. I'd read that somewhere but I forget. Thanks for taking it off for me. My bad.