Talk:Brad Pitt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleBrad Pitt is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 10, 2012.
Article milestones
June 16, 2008Good article nomineeListed
December 3, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 31, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
June 9, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 27, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2019[edit]

Spencer Gross (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

There are multiple grammatical errors in this text and I MUST fix it

Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for editing permission. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected page; however, you can do one of the following:
  • If you have an account, you will be able to edit this page four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other pages.
  • If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this page.
  • You can request unprotection of this page by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. A page will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
  • You can provide a specific request to edit the page in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2019[edit]

Elizanon (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Brad Pitt is having his birthday today. He's turning 56. So please change his age in his profile from 55 to 56!

His age will change automatically, because there is a template for his date of birth which shows his age. MadGuy7023 (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Filmography section[edit]

SNUGGUMS, regarding this, it's come up before. One issue with having it in the "See also" section or in the "Career" section is that it can be easily overlooked by readers. Because of the way that our actor biographies are usually set up, readers expect to see a Filmography section in these articles. When they don't see one, they may think that this material is missing. With the setup you have implemented, readers can easily overlook the link from the table of contents because it's common for readers to not click on the first heading in a section with subsections. They may think that "Career" is just the description and that it's the subsections in the section that have all the important material. And, for this article, with the exception of the link you added and the List of awards and nominations received by Brad Pitt beside it, they would be correct in thinking that. Having the Filmography link in the "See also" section is at least better than having it at the top of the Career section where you placed it. The "List of awards and nominations received by Brad Pitt" link is at least in the lead as well.

Please don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at Talk:Brad Pitt/Archive 4#Where to place the Brad Pitt filmography link, I see that you were a part of that discussion. As seen there, a "Selected filmography" section was also suggested and used. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

One shouldn't have an otherwise empty section that solely consists of a referral link to the filmography subpage just for the sake of having a section titled "filmography". Same goes for awards and nominations. It's lazy when people leave nothing else and serves no real purpose or benefit when it doesn't actually tell readers anything. If somebody is willing to write up some prose in a similar fashion to what Emma Stone or Leonardo DiCaprio have, then I'd be fine with that, but "selected filmography" is a bad idea that shouldn't have been implemented as that concept has neutrality issues by cherry-picking certain titles likely reflecting a specific editor's opinions on the works (i.e. their view on what's most important or maybe what they like the most). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
SNUGGUMS, per what I stated above, I think that the setup you opted for is less helpful than including a "Filmography" section with just the filmography link. That is why this was extensively debated before. I agree that a "Selected filmography" section can be problematic, but remember what Betty Logan stated; see Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 11#Update Filmography Section. In the meantime, I've moving that link to the "See also" section, which is nothing but links to portals without it. Another option, per WP:Summary style, is to include some of the written material from the Brad Pitt filmography article and add it to the Filmography section with a link to the main article. But, although that list article is FA, a summary can also be prone to cherry picking. Betty Logan and Erik, you commented in the aforementioned "Where to place the Brad Pitt filmography link" linked discussion. Any thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
My opinion has changed slightly since that discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
We should return to the WP:STATUSQUO. The filmography link should be locatable in the contents table. We are not helping readers by making them search through the article when all they might want is a full list of his films. I don't agree that simply having section just for the link "serves no purpose", and aesthetics shouldn't take precedence over functionality. If editors object to this so strongly there is nothing to prevent them from writing an accompayning paragraph to fill the section out a bit. Betty Logan (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, something that solely uses a referral link lacks a purpose when it doesn't tell people anything. Nobody could reasonably say those types of sections help anyone or anything. Also, no functionality is lost by removing otherwise empty sections as you seem to think. One possible way to use prose without being biased is to establish a clear criteria like highest grossing productions or most favorably reviewed works. Those aren't based on anybody's "these are my favorites" or "only these matter" subjective bases that I suspect are used for "selected filmography" sections. As for placing both links the "see also" section, no objections there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
As a reader, I've mainly wanted to see an actor's credits (I prefer saying that over "filmography" because TV isn't film; we're just copying IMDb's lazy crediting evolution). It is inconvenient to me to come to the actor's article and go to another article to look up the works that made them noteworthy. Empty sections are not appropriate, and "Filmography" sections with just the page-section template look just about empty. I think the "See also" section having the credits link is worse because it is not going to be consistently there, and the Table of Contents is not going to reflect its presence. I would much rather support the credits table always being in the actor's article, and if page length is a concern, lengthy prose should be summarized and spun off. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
SNUGGUMS, the way those sections help -- their functionality -- is what Betty Logan and I stated above. As for your suggestion "to establish a clear criteria like highest grossing productions or most favorably reviewed works," the same can apply to a Selected filmography section. Anyway, I will consider crafting a paragraph or two, taken from the Brad Pitt filmography article, to re-add a Filmography section to this article. Similar should also be repeated at the Angelina Jolie article for consistency. They aren't married anymore, but still. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn After reading all this I still don't understand why the filmography section is hidden in the See Also area. It makes no sense to me. We can still have a filmography section without a selected credits if that's your beef. The main reason people would go to his page would probably be to look at his filmography, and I honestly had trouble finding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The One I Left (talkcontribs)

The One I Left, it doesn't seem to me that you read the whole section. My position is clear. I feel that having a filmography section with a link to the Brad Pitt filmography article is fine. But there is no point in adding it when SNUGGUMS will eventually remove it and when SNUGGUMS has removed that setup from other articles. One solution is clearly stated with my "20:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)" post. I simply have not gotten around to doing that. Also, sign your posts when you reply. And no need WP:Ping me since this article is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

A suggestion here to solve this issue. Since we have a link to 'See also: List of awards..." just under the 'Career' section, it seems intuitive to add a second line right under that links the reader to the actor's filmography, being 'See also: Brad Pitt Filmography'. We can then remove the 'See Also' sub-section and avoid the need of writing a small prose dedicated for a filmography section. User:Muchomachu 15:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Per previous discussions, including it in the "Career" section makes it easy to overlook. Readers won't see it from the table of contents. At least they will see the See also section from the table of contents. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
And for anyone thinking that it would make logical sense for a reader to assume that a filmography link is in the Career section, they usually aren't looking for a link. They are usually just looking for a filmography. And like I stated above, they may think that "Career" is just the description and that it's the subsections in the section that have all the important material. With a See also section, at least those looking for a link or thinking that the section may somehow enlighten them on where to find the filmography material will look there. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a suggestion from a normal Wikipedia user. Please keep the section Filmography as such like in other actors' pages. I always click the filmography from Table of contents and if it is not there in the contents I often go to IMDB than searching for it in the article. Most people normally visits an actor's page just to see Filmography. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Section name & template placement[edit]

I’d like to suggest something. Since there’s no consensus on the matter could we at least combine filmography and awards as it seems to me that while you focused on the filmography you had overlooked the awards which are of similar importance. The argument was that the readers won’t be able to find the filmography under ‘Career’ and for that reason it should have its own section which I agree with. But the awards remained under ‘career’ and suffer from the same problem. I think the best way to resolve this would be to rename ‘filmography’ to ‘filmography and awards/accolades’ and link awards there. ArturSik (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with this edit, easier to find, better layout. - wolf 20:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

David Spade and Brad Pitt[edit]

Refer to in Media section ?

" inspired and tasteless riff about the time his grandmother was looking at his class picture, telling him how he was the cutest boy in his class, when she spotted his classmate Brad Pitt. “Oh, my God, I’d fuck that kid,” Spade has her declare. “Holy shit, do you know that dude? Hook me up, I’m your grandma. Take care of me now — I used to take care of you. Do something for me. That kid is a piece of ass. I wanna get in there and do some damage.” David Spade — who did not, in fact, attend school with Brad Pitt — was actually born in Birmingham, Michigan..."

David Wild. David Spade: The Stealth King of Prime Time Rolling Stone. April 30, 1998
0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
request to interested editors: @ThinkBlue: @HJ Mitchell: @Yamla: @Flyer22 Frozen: @Encyclopædius:
0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Why would you want to add that trivia to the article?† Encyclopædius 16:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Don't add it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2020[edit]

Hello, I am big fan of Brad Pitt. I recently saw an interview that Oprah did with Brad and she said he was 6 feet in height. But wiki has it at 5'11". Though I would point that out so that it can be corrected. I tried to edit it but was not able to. Thank you Chillinred (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Chillinred (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Not done, height is not mentioned in article, as far as I could tell.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 04:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020[edit] (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC) You should mention in the introduction that Brad Pitt has won an Oscar Award - Best supporting actor - in 2020 for the film "Once upon a time in Hollywood"
 Already done The second sentence of the article mentions an Academy Award, and the third paragraph gives the rest of the details. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2021[edit]

Change: "Pitt's other Academy Award nominated performances were in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) and Moneyball (2011)."

To: "Pitt's other Academy Award nominated performances were in 12 Monkeys (1995), The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008), and Moneyball (2011). (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done WikiVirusC(talk) 13:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Actually Not Done' - 12 Monkeys nomination mentioned in prior paragraph, doesn't need repeat mention. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


".. but recently he has found his calling in black comic outrageousness and flashy extroversion;" It's extrAvert and intrOvert. This being a literal quote we should obviously not change it, but perhaps add (sic)? Or is the word misspelled so often that it has become acceptable? PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 05:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)