Talk:Maya Hawke/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move 24 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Maya Thurman-Hawke → Maya Hawke – That is her name but judging by the news coverage and the credits for "Little Women", "Maya Hawke" is the name she's decided to trade under. Serendi^podous 01:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Serendipodous: Best discuss this move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. Media mentions vary, with Maya Hawke appearing to predominate over Maya Thurman-Hawke. The key element, however, is the on-screen billing, indicating that Maya Hawke is her official stage name. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Correct name

This was going back many years ago when we promoted Ethan Hawke's article to FA. Both Maya and her brother's names were erroneously reported by some celebrity magazine, and got picked up all over the press (even by reliable sources). It was their grandmother who reported the mistake to the WP:BLP Noticeboard. An editor with paid content access subsequently made the correction. Please note that the information of an obituary has to be provided by family members, therefore much more credible than celebrity reporting. Artoasis (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It would have been more considerate if you had said this the first time. Serendi^podous 07:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

That comment section makes things even more confusing. Not only does Googling "maya ray nenna thurman hawke" produce exactly one result, the same section, but it's unclear if the siblings' surnames are intended to be "Hawke" or "Thurman Hawke". Serendi^podous 15:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring against use of the word actress

The current edit warring by IP 83.100.186.60 against the use of the word "actress" is completely unnecessary, and is against widespread use of the word on the project. Multiple discussions (e.g. WT:FILMBIO) have confirmed that use of both terms "actor" and "actress" are legitimate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Filmographies

First thing – the examples at WP:FILMOGRAPHY are just that: examples. They are not supposed to be "the only answers" on how to do these – they are just supposed to provide guidance on things like proper formatting. None of which overrules MOS:TABLE, which clearly says, basically, "only use tables, when they make sense. Two small tables – one of which is only 3-rows long – does not make sense over a larger combined table in this instance, at this time. Regardless of what is being claimed, most 'Filmography' tables for "newer" actors start out as a combined 'Film & television roles' table until the actor accumulates enough film and television roles where splitting makes sense. That is generally when the actor has about 5 roles of each kind, when separate tables are large enough to justify splitting. Hawke isn't there yet. Ergo, it makes no sense to "split" her table right now, and it should stay a single combined table until she acts in more roles, when splitting the table into separate 'Film' and 'Television' roles actually makes some kind of sense. The fact that other editors get this wrong at other articles has no bearing on what should be proper practices. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• It really comes down to a matter of opinion then, right? You're talking about waiting to split until Hawke acts in "more roles", but what qualifies as more roles? How many roles is enough roles to split? It's a matter of opinion not defined in the guidelines. WP:FILMOGRAPHY resolves this dilemma in my opinion by setting a standard of simply splitting. That removes any need to define a set number of titles necessary. Plus, in this user's opinion, the filmography looks more organized and proper when television and film titles are separate as film and television are entirely different mediums. What do you guys think? Armos, Armegon, TropicAces, Rusted AutoParts. -- TheMovieGuy.

WP:FILMOGRAPHY "requires" no splitting – Example #2, for instance, does not have table-splitting of the (acting) filmography table (proper). The point is, as per MOS:TABLE – tables should only be used when it makes sense to use them. Small tables are not a sensible use of tables (single-row tables are the absolutely worst examples of this, but even 2-, 3- and 4- row tables are probably better presented in list-format). So, what's better? – Two small tables? Or one larger table? In the current situation, one larger table is better. When Hawke gets more roles under her belt, two tables will likely be justified... And, yes – guidelines are not designed to cover every situation, which can leads to situations where it comes down to "opinions" – in that case, WP:STYLEVAR kicks in. P.S. What you are doing above is WP:CANVASING, and is considered very bad-form – you aren't supposed to call in other (presumably friendly) editors to a discussion like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

as they slept

i don’t know how to add things to the charts, but could someone add the short film As They Slept to her filmography? 2600:1017:B00D:1BD2:593:EF0:CD28:47DB (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Short films are generally considered minor roles. Might be worth mentioning in prose if there is secondary source coverage. But best left out of the Filmography which should focus on more notable works. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Singer as an occupation?

My edit that she is a singer was reverted but I don’t understand why because she’s on Spotify (with 73,532 followers), and on a recent interview with Buzzfeed Celeb where the Stranger Things cast plays with dogs, she said that she’s a singer (talked about her songs). GamerKlim9716 (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Restating what I explained on my talk page: Occupational notability is based on independent secondary coverage, and/or in the case of singing, charting. Plenty of actors also sing – that doesn't make them "actor and singer" unless they have a notable (separate) career as a singer (e.g. chart nationally). Spotify is not a metric for notability, nor is releasing songs on social media. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)