Talk:Nicholas Hoult

the amount his films grossed

This information was unsourced and not a true reflexion on him. An extra in the first 3 star wars films could claim the same thing for a similar amount. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Way too long

How can this have been identified as 'exemplary'? It's slightly longer than the Churchill entry, consists entirely of puff and needs reducing to within an inch of its life. The point of an encyclopedia is to allow people to look things up quickly, not to make them lose the will to live. Since it's mostly written by his PR people maybe they could make a start. Sartoresartus (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Did you have suggestions for improvement, or did you just come here to complain? Also, do you have evidence that this article has been in any way written by Hoult's PR people? DonIago (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

including "current" residence

Regarding this edit: so just because there is a reliable source for something, it doesn't mean we include it; we're not indiscriminate (not surprising the "residence" field was removed from infobox person in this RfC); where a person currently lives (with no other context) has no bearing on understanding the subject... it's basically trivia; and per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, this is a new addition and it's been reverted, so consensus for its inclusion should be built on the Talk page. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

STATUSQUO and BRD do not advise us to revert two different users. Aside from the points I made in my already-linked edit summary, I'll say that removing the "residence" parameter had more to do with not overwhelming the infobox. Multiple users in that discussion even suggested that it would be appropriate to mention one's residence in prose in the "personal life" section. While it is not as important as their nationality or birthplace, a person's residence is a location with which they have associated themselves, so it is simply not trivia. What other context is necessary? Type of property? Number of years of residency? Roommates?

Here are some WP:OSE examples of BLPs, including some FA-level articles, that do not adhere to your principle that current residences with little to no context do not warrant inclusion: Amy Adams, Andrew Garfield, Anna Kendrick, Anne Hathaway, Billy Eichner, Bryce Dallas Howard, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Chelsea Handler, Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, Cillian Murphy, Dakota Johnson, Daniel Kaluuya, Elizabeth Olsen, Emma Watson, Ethan Hawke, Greta Gerwig, Jennifer Lawrence, Jessica Chastain, Jimmy Fallon, Joaquin Phoenix, Jonathan Bailey, Joy Behar, Julianne Moore, Katherine Heigl, Kristen Stewart, Kristen Wiig, LaKeith Stanfield, Lupita Nyong'o, Margot Robbie, Maya Rudolph, NeNe Leakes, Nicole Richie, Oscar Isaac, Paul Dano, Paul Mescal, Patrick Wilson, Paul Rudd, Pedro Pascal, Richard Madden, Rosie O'Donnell, Ryan Reynolds, Sarah Paulson, Scarlett Johansson, Taron Egerton, Theo James, Wanda Sykes, Zoë Kravitz. I hope this list helps your conviction to rectify those articles' mistakes. KyleJoan^talk 01:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit-warring editor

Editor Nottedeluce is edit-warring at this Featured Article to restore his badly written, misformatted version. English is not his native tongue, and he's introduced many blatant grammatical and style errors, such as redundancies and italicizing quotations. Another editor helpfully fixed the text, correcting the errors and fixing the badly written English, and was instantly reverted.

I started fixing his errors manually, and quickly realized that there were too many to make it worthwhile, so I restored the good version, only to see it instantly reverted. At this point, within a couple of hours he's reverted me twice, and the other editor once, leaving such edit summaries as his last: "My English is not correct. It is not my native language. For me it is a good article. DON'T DISREGARD THE WORK OF OTHERS!!" He's getting out of hand. Carlstak (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I have warned the editor in question. We probably need to revert back to the Dec 9 version to undo the questionable changes. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I share Carlstak's concern and concur with Joeyconnick's suggestion to revert, which I did just now. The article is now back to this version. The issues with Nottedeluce's edits were too great to let slide. KyleJoan^talk 09:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I've notified an admin of Nottedeluce's behavior, including the five reverts he's made so far in less than 24 hours. If he continues his edit-warring, we should get some action to stop the nonsense. Carlstak (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Returning to the article is throwing away all the work and time of several users, invested in making a good and updated article Nottedeluce (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Volver a esa edición del 9 de septiembre, es dejar un artículo que no es neutro y desactualizado. Nottedeluce (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

"it's getting out of hand" when all I'm trying to do is make a good article Nottedeluce (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to continue editing the article. Providing true data and information to create a good final article.

I will do it little by little, over the days, so that you have time to read and verify that it is true and neutral.

I start today with a small part. I have as much right as you to write. and I have you not blocked it. You block me because you hate that I change the article. Nottedeluce (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)