Talk:Emma Roberts/Archive 1

Archive 1

Association with Julia Roberts

I'm just curious, is Emma being Julia Robert's neice such a significant part of her identity that it belongs in the opening paragraph of her wiki? She's built up a good body of work, and I feel mentioning Julia at the top marginalizes Emma to be nothing but a recipient of nepotism. Seems a little off to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.19.41 (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is, without her famous aunt she'd be nothing. She's admitted it herself where she says about the countless auditions she's went on. Yep I could go on countless auditions all my life and i'd never be where she got to because of a famous aunt. If you look at younger pictures of Emma Julia toted her around hollywood like a handbag. Think that was to groom her or was Julia just being a nice aunt. Woods01 (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing Dates

If there is an event in this persons life that you are sure that is going to happen (i.e, movie involvment or releases), please put them in the past tense. If you are unsure if the event is going to take place, it would be better to leave out said event. Never do encyclopedias say "currently", "soon to be", or "will . . ." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Popperbop (talk • contribs) .

Of course they do. See the first sentence of the George W. Bush article ("George Walker Bush [...] is [...] currently the 43rd President of the United States") for an example just from the top of my head, and 2012 Summer Olympics for another one ("The 2012 Summer Olympics [...] will be held in London"). Putting things that haven't happend yet in the past (2001- ).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.214.11.195 (talk • contribs) .

I'd say that's more a matter of format, than of professionality. A printed encyclopedia would surely try to avoid such phrasings, because thus they won't be out-of-date so quick, but why should something that has not happend be put in past tense in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, where things can be edited to be up-to-date anytime? --Fritz S. 19:21, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Place of birth?

Has anybody a dependable source for her place of birth? Some sources say she was born in Los Angeles, California (these sources include IMDB, but on her official homepage it says that "almost everything about Emma at imdb is incorrect."), other sources claim Rhinebeck, New York. Can somebody confirm either place? --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going with New York. This looks like a first-hand source [1] and it says Rhineback, New York. I remember back in the day when I had a subscription to RootsWeb.com, which had a complete database of California birth certificates, I couldn't find Roberts' certificate on there, which almost certainly means she was not born in California. JackO'Lantern 20:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Emma has born at Northern Dutchess Hospital in Rhinebeck,NY. SturrockNY21 (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This article below states Emma was born in New York City. Dutchess County is not part of New York City or New York County. This article actually announces Emma's birth and is probably one of the first ever mention about Emma. Kinda cool that Eric's firstborn grew up to be a star in her own right.

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20114570,00.html

Spymate

Isn't it true that Roberts has an important part in the movie Spymate? If so, why isn't it listed?Freddie 23:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's listed. JackO'Lantern 23:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Good Article

I have removed this article from our list of good articles as it falls someway short of the prose quality expected from such an article. The punctuation in particular is very poor; this is something I would fix myself, but I am going to bed now. I may go through the article tomorrow, assuming someone does not beat me to it. Rje 03:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed most of the punctuation/grammar issues in this article. As I know absolutely nothing about Emma Robert, I may well have made a few errors on the way. Rje 01:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-editing. There are no factual mistakes in your changes as far as I can tell. I'll restore the GA. Mad Jack O'Lantern 01:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

New article

This interview has some good new info in it, if anyone's interested. [2] Mad Jack 16:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actress... and Pop Singer

This article says:

Emma Rose Roberts (born February 10, 1991) is an American actress...

...Roberts is also a pop singer; her debut album, Unfabulous and More: Emma Roberts, was released in 2005.

Shouldn't it be?...

Emma Rose Roberts (born February 10, 1991) is an American actress and pop singer...

...Her debut album, Unfabulous and More: Emma Roberts, was released in 2005.

Another observation:

Emma Rose Roberts (born February 10, 1991) is an American actress. She is the daughter of actor Eric Roberts, and the niece of actress Julia Roberts.

Is her family that important to put them right after her name and bithday? It would better fit in the "Family" division of the article.

Edward Monforte 02:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Her family is very important, it's brought up in almost every article on her, and usually as the first thing. Meanwhile, her singing is more of a minor thing, there currently are (from what I've read) no plans to release any other music, and the one album wasn't very successful. She's also played her singing down in some interviews, and said she's an actress first. I think the current order of the lead captures all this pretty good. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

rv due to vandalism (picture was changed) XHollywoodx 20:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Role in The Winning Season

It is already shown in Emma's official fan page, Fabulous-Emma.com, the name of the character she will be playing in the movie. Plus, the admins have proven to have great and reliable sources, so the info shown there is trustable.- The Silver Raider 16:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSilverRaider (talk • contribs)

--Friends007 00:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Kerri Fox

Does Emma have a sister called Kerri Fox? Saw it just now on Wikipedia!

Vandal

12 Cocks, 1 Girl listed under Filmography. I'd remove it, but t'is locked! --71.64.107.132 (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done --NrDg 19:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Name in Article

Why has "Roberts" been replaced with "Robert's" so many times in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.93.137 (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a very good article

There's a lot of original research, and it looks like it was largely contributed to by one of her fans. There are a lot of typos, red links, and non-notable pieces in this page, and it needs a complete rewrite. Δnnuit Cœptis 04:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree. I don't have a clue how this article garnered GA status. It reads like a list of quotes by the subject herself, more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia article. ViperNerd (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The 'Personal Life' section especially, is a long, long list of random trivia. Do encyclopedia articles on people usually list who their favorite movie actor is? Peabody80 (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

indeed,is this written by a twelve-year-old girl? her handing some ridiculous note to a jonas brother at a non-awards show constitutes worthwhile information? someone ought to attend to this --69.154.190.119 (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Emma Roberts/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force ("GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs some work to meet current criteria, outlined below:

• The article is good, but the problem is content is out of date, at least by one to two years. The lead states " Roberts also signed onto star in Rodeo Girl[6] and the Nancy Drew sequel,[7] but both films have recently been put on hold and have not entered production.[8]" is sourced to late 2007, but there's no indication of further movement or lack thereof.

 Done I reworded the sentence to "Roberts is set to be reunited with Nancy Drew director Andrew Fleming on both Rodeo Gal[6][48] and a Nancy Drew sequel,[7] although the latter has been put on hold since 2007.[8] " Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 20:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Prose: "Roberts was born in Rhinebeck, New York, United States.[9] She is the daughter of actor Eric Roberts (who was born in Biloxi, Mississippi but raised in Atlanta, Georgia) and his then-girlfriend Kelly Cunningham.[10] Roberts is the stepdaughter of Eliza Roberts. Roberts has one stepsister and one stepbrother, Morgan Simons and Keaton Simons.[11] She is the niece of actresses Julia Roberts and Lisa Roberts Gillan.[12] Roberts said in an interview, "I've just always wanted to act. Ever since I was really little I've wanted to do it. But my mom didn't want to get me into it too young. So, it's just been something I've always wanted to do."[13]"—This is one damn confusing paragraph, mostly because there's way to many Roberts in there. For the sake of clarity, I think it might be better to actually refer to her as "Emma" here.

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 23:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• There's issues with missing and improper punctuation and spacing, redundant phrasing i.e. "Roberts then began to feel bad about the comment so then at the 2009 Kids' Choice Awards Roberts wrote Nick Jonas a hand written apology." (also why is this apology business really necessary for inclusion? Is it that big a deal?)

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 20:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• All references need to be fully and consistently formatted, by hand or via {{cite web}}, et al.
  • There are dead links (current ref 29) and there are many possible unreliable references used: what makes eBelle5, Perez Hilton, Kidzworld, girliegossip, and Girl.com.au reliable?
  • Using Wikipedia as a source? In my articles? Oh no you didn't! Axe it!

I am putting the article on hold for one week pending improvements. Keep me appraised of updates on the page. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Any progress towards replacing the dead/bad refs? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As no progress has been made in the last two weeks or thereabouts on final issues, I am delisting the article. It may be renominated at WP:GAN any time the nominator feels it meets criteria. If someone has questions or comments, my talk page is the proper venue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Emma Rose Roberts is not "Louisa Musgrove" in "Persuasion"80.137.36.24 (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

She was only four years old 1995. There is another Emma Roberts who plays Louisa.

This is not a very good article

There's a lot of original research, and it looks like it was largely contributed to by one of her fans. There are a lot of typos, red links, and non-notable pieces in this page, and it needs a complete rewrite. Δnnuit Cœptis 04:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree. I don't have a clue how this article garnered GA status. It reads like a list of quotes by the subject herself, more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia article. ViperNerd (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The 'Personal Life' section especially, is a long, long list of random trivia. Do encyclopedia articles on people usually list who their favorite movie actor is? Peabody80 (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

indeed,is this written by a twelve-year-old girl? her handing some ridiculous note to a jonas brother at a non-awards show constitutes worthwhile information? someone ought to attend to this --69.154.190.119 (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Emma Roberts/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force ("GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs some work to meet current criteria, outlined below:

• The article is good, but the problem is content is out of date, at least by one to two years. The lead states " Roberts also signed onto star in Rodeo Girl[6] and the Nancy Drew sequel,[7] but both films have recently been put on hold and have not entered production.[8]" is sourced to late 2007, but there's no indication of further movement or lack thereof.

 Done I reworded the sentence to "Roberts is set to be reunited with Nancy Drew director Andrew Fleming on both Rodeo Gal[6][48] and a Nancy Drew sequel,[7] although the latter has been put on hold since 2007.[8] " Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 20:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Prose: "Roberts was born in Rhinebeck, New York, United States.[9] She is the daughter of actor Eric Roberts (who was born in Biloxi, Mississippi but raised in Atlanta, Georgia) and his then-girlfriend Kelly Cunningham.[10] Roberts is the stepdaughter of Eliza Roberts. Roberts has one stepsister and one stepbrother, Morgan Simons and Keaton Simons.[11] She is the niece of actresses Julia Roberts and Lisa Roberts Gillan.[12] Roberts said in an interview, "I've just always wanted to act. Ever since I was really little I've wanted to do it. But my mom didn't want to get me into it too young. So, it's just been something I've always wanted to do."[13]"—This is one damn confusing paragraph, mostly because there's way to many Roberts in there. For the sake of clarity, I think it might be better to actually refer to her as "Emma" here.

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 23:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• There's issues with missing and improper punctuation and spacing, redundant phrasing i.e. "Roberts then began to feel bad about the comment so then at the 2009 Kids' Choice Awards Roberts wrote Nick Jonas a hand written apology." (also why is this apology business really necessary for inclusion? Is it that big a deal?)

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 20:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• All references need to be fully and consistently formatted, by hand or via {{cite web}}, et al.
  • There are dead links (current ref 29) and there are many possible unreliable references used: what makes eBelle5, Perez Hilton, Kidzworld, girliegossip, and Girl.com.au reliable?
  • Using Wikipedia as a source? In my articles? Oh no you didn't! Axe it!

I am putting the article on hold for one week pending improvements. Keep me appraised of updates on the page. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Any progress towards replacing the dead/bad refs? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As no progress has been made in the last two weeks or thereabouts on final issues, I am delisting the article. It may be renominated at WP:GAN any time the nominator feels it meets criteria. If someone has questions or comments, my talk page is the proper venue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There's an obvious formatting error in the table, although I'm not sure where the error is in the code. Can someone take a look at fix. Areback (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture

That picture is 2 years old and also not exactly flattering. I'm not sure how to change it but if someone knows how could they please do that? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtTwilight (talk • contribs) 20:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nancy Drew 2

i deleted the film nancy drew 2 becuase there has been no comformation for it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdaly93 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal life section

Do interested editors think that details of Roberts' personal life - boyfriends, etc. - should be posted within that section? And if so, what should the depth of sources be? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

We do not need a laundry list of all her past boyfriends. She is 20 years old for heaven's sake! We can expect she will have a fling here and there and Wiki is not the place to recount them all. Please remember "Wiki is not a tabloid". --BweeB (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The information is sourced and I think this is the perfect place to discuss leaving it out or leaving it in. Like it or not, the personal lives of performers (of any age) are part of their story, their article aren't only about their professional jobs. Whatever the consensus is is fine by me, that's why it is being discussed here. Cheers. Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what other say. --BweeB (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I object to lists of past boyfriends and trivia like it. Any relationship that did not lead to an engagement is of dubious notability and probably does not merit inclusion in a summary of a personal life. Elizium23 (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much agree. Dating histories don't belong in Wikipedia; they aren't encyclopedic. The discussian at Talk:Jessica_Biel#RfC:_Relationships is a pretty good example of consensus on this general issue. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Talk:Jessica_Biel#RfC:_Relationships seems to indicate that there is a difference of opinion, I think maybe 3/4 there saying don't include relationship news or maybe just include notable relationships, 1/4 saying include it? I don't know...if we are not supposed to include any news about performers' lives then why does the Elizabeth Taylor article have a "Marriage, romance and children" section with a paragraph devoted to Taylor's many relationships (plus the article-space about all her marriages)? A performers' relationships are news, they drive the sales of magazines, people tune into TV shows to learn about them, they drive interest in that performer's work and can make that person more or less marketable... whether you or I or any other editors are personally offended by reporting about performers' relationships or if we think it's stupid is not the issue...if the information has been reported in reliable sources then should it be included in Wikipedia? Shearonink (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it's bad form to appeal to WP:OTHERSTUFF in discussions about including content. Elizabeth Taylor is particularly notable for her many marriages. I doubt that any biography of hers would be complete without a mention of these relationships, particularly with Richard Burton. Marriages are typically notable in the life of a person. They involve an engagement, a wedding, a specific start date and, all too frequently, a specific end date. They are subject to solid documentation, if only through public records. Emma Roberts, being a young woman, has dated but not married anyone. Dating relationships are decidedly amorphous things. There is no specific start or end date, and the documentation that one even exists may consist of paparazzi photographing a couple "together" when going "out somewhere." Who is to say whether the parties involved in a date are the proper sexual orientation, and whether or not they are actually attracted and/or committed to each other? It is these kinds of ambiguities that make it undesirable to cover those relationships in any detail in an encyclopedic article. In a nutshell, WP:DUE and WP:RECENT are the words to watch. Elizium23 (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm just interested in having a discussion about this issue. I was thinking the Taylor analogy could be related to this discussion since the relationships paragraph there was not about her many marriages but was instead about her many dating relationships. If dating news is allowed in one article but not in another article then why is that so? I am interested in this matter, that is all. For whatever reason, if the community decides to not include dating news in particular performers' articles then that is the decision of the community. Shearonink (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again I object to the burgeoning list of boyfriends and dating gossip that has appeared in this section. Can anyone demonstrate how this data is notable and/or relevant to her career that we should keep including it? Elizium23 (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• It says she was engaged several years ago, I think it should specify whether she actually is currently engaged or whether that was broken off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyndane5 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Mean Girls 3 ???

Is there any confirmation of a 3rd Film of the Franchise? —77.21.123.10 (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have semi-protected this article for three months, and also removed a line from the text citing an old romantic relationship (which numerous IP's have been insisting on "updating" with new claims, but without providing sources). WP:BLP requires material of this sort to be substantiated via reliable sources, but the various IP's evidently either refuse to understand this or simply do not care. The line I removed had an apparently reliable source (a July 2011 Mail Online story with photos), but I didn't feel it was appropriate to keep this info up in the face of numerous claims (even if unsourced) that a 21-year-old starlet had a new beau. Presumably, if someone can find solid sourcing for Emma Roberts's current love life, the stuff about the old romance could go back in (along with the reliably sourced new info). — Richwales 16:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

too many parents

"She is the daughter of actor Eric Roberts and Kelly Cunningham.[2] She is the stepdaughter of Eliza Roberts and Kelly Nickels" I'm guessing this means her birth mother is Eliza Roberts but It should be re-written so guesswork isn't required. Nitpyck (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Viral-gif edit

I'm not following: There's nothing in the article body that explains or supports this caption. If an image doesn't add to the subject's understanding, it has to be removed. Could editors who might recognize the point of this please add context to explain it? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the image since there isn't anything about it in the article right now and a search for reliable sources, albeit a quick one, did not really turn up anything. Also, as I tagged it on Commons I'm not certain this is a free image. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Beach Music

I noticed that Beach Music has been added to her filmography. Has anyone heard about this? Any sources? Because I've been searching the internet and have found nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.204.173.171 (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find any sources and have removed it for now. Gloss • talk 01:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emma Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://tribecafilm.com/filmguide/ashby-2015

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emma Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060623201755/http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-02-23/movie_reviews5.php to http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-02-23/movie_reviews5.php
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6PyCb3Cq4?url=http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms28.htm to http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms28.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214031213/http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/evan-peters-inspired-adult-world-role-emma-roberts-article-1.1613046 to http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/evan-peters-inspired-adult-world-role-emma-roberts-article-1.1613046

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Heavy smoker

Emma Roberts is a heavy smoker, this fact is all over the internet and it's all over her voice too. Sounds like she's been at it for a decade or more. Can this fact be added to the article?

If it's both cited and, in some way or form, notable. But it's not either, so unlikely. JesseRafe (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Emma Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biography.com/people/emma-roberts-21101141
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022132252/http://omg.yahoo.com/news/scre4m-emma-roberts-20110407-154900-855.html to http://omg.yahoo.com/news/scre4m-emma-roberts-20110407-154900-855.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071202035640/http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/hollywood-exclusive/-unfabulous-emma-s-back-to-back-movies-don-t-include-drew-2-keke-palmer-blown-away-by-her-own-perfor.html to http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/hollywood-exclusive/-unfabulous-emma-s-back-to-back-movies-don-t-include-drew-2-keke-palmer-blown-away-by-her-own-perfor.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090311013358/http://www.teenvogue.com/industry/coverlook/2009/03/teen-vogue-cover-girl-emma-roberts_090302 to http://www.teenvogue.com/industry/coverlook/2009/03/teen-vogue-cover-girl-emma-roberts_090302
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.theinsider.com/movies/49077_Emma_Roberts_and_Elijah_Wood_on_Painful_Breakups/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.teenvogue.com/search/query?keyword=best-dressed

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emma Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206170545/http://movies.about.com/od/actressesbiographies/p/emma-roberts.htm to http://movies.about.com/od/actressesbiographies/p/emma-roberts.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.teenvogue.com/search/query?keyword=best-dressed

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020

the main photo is old and want to update to a more recent one attached.

File:Emma Roberts .jpg

Petersweeneyent (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

That appears to be a copyrighted image from the magazine The Laterals. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2020

3rd paragraph "2013-2016": Change "Osgood Perkins" to "Oz Perkins"; wrong Person Mario-huber (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done The wikilink is changed, but not the text. @Mario-huber: if you want the text changed also, let me know or reactivate your request. {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 22:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Partners...

Question to Trillfendi: What is your rationale that only Evan Peters should be in the infobox? Garret Hedlund - by your own definition of "The partner parameter is for partners" - is her partner, is he not? Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

NO! For Christ’s sake, no. Dating someone for a year is not a partnership for this parameter. And we are not going off completely unverifiable gossip about alleged pregnancy, as this is a BLP. Adding Hedlund there is not only disruptive (hence why the page is now protected—specifically because people kept messing with the infobox), it’s idiotic. She and Peters had been in a long term relationship for 7 years; engaged for 6 of them. There’s a stark and clear contrast as to why Peters is there and flings or casual relationships aren’t. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Trillfendi (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure about that. I'm pretty sure that dating for a year - more in fact - is exactly what the parameter is for. It's why we have the param "partner" to offset the param "spouse". 6 weeks, yes, 6 months, perhaps - but more than a year? Do you genuinely think that a 17 month relationship is a "fling or casual relationship"? You are completely misrepresenting or misunderstanding Crystal - to suggest that a partnership has to meet a chronological milestone before it's genuine is not only completely subjective, but also OR to decide when that milestone has been met. Boyfriend states "Partners in committed non-marital relationships are also sometimes described as a significant other or partner, especially if the individuals are cohabiting". Criteria seems to have been met. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It’s really not. In fact, chronological milestones are exactly the reason why people are excluded from the parameter and why one often sees the same hidden note saying “this parameter is for unmarried life partners, not boyfriends/girlfriends or fiancé(e)s”. To keep a standard, and to keep gossip out. Because people try to do childish shit like put Camila Cabello in the partner parameter for Shawn Mendes. Who will sit by and watch the encyclopedia turn into a glorified stan account? The only reason y’all want him there is based on the presumption of pregnancy rumors. One year is not a long term partnership which the infobox specifies. If and when that time comes shall be left to the future. Trillfendi (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't be presumptuous or condescending. By your own definition of "long-term" Evan Peters doesn't meet the criteria, only having been involved with Roberts for 7 years, not the suggested 10. On the other hand, if you want to play dictionary games, the term "partner"[3] makes no mention of any kind of chronological length required to qualify.

Clearly you are not going to budge here, so I'll ask a wider audience over at BLP. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Mistake of pronoun under 'Personal Life'

It is stated as 'Roberts in November 2020 revealed in an interview that he suffers from endometriosis since his adolescence.[87]'(sic) where the pronoun referring her should be 'she' instead of 'he'. 2sh Nidhi 2sh (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Name of her child

The inclusion of the name of Roberts' child is in dispute. The relevant guideline is WP:BLPNAME: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced."

Please discuss and reach consensus. Also note that we do not use primary sources such as birth certificates, we only use reliable secondary sources. Fences&Windows 23:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

pregnant Cosmo cover

I thought Paulina Porizkova posed on the cover, 4 months pregnant, in a bikini so she would be the first pregnant celebrity to appear on the cover...although not obviously so 2600:100D:B008:EBEB:7D66:714E:506:1F39 (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Nerve (2012)

An anon editor (2600:8800:7D80:707:F57B:2270:5D38:169F (talk · contribs)) raised this discussion at WP:TEA about film "Nerve (2012)". Mathglot (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, Nerve (2012) is missing from Roberts' filmography and would like to have it added. Source was not given in the discussion. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 03:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Roberts starred in the 2016 film Nerve. --The Vital One (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Edits to Personal life section

I recently made this edit to the Personal life section, with a view to improving the flow and clarity of the section, and removing the name of her non-notable son. In fact I:

• corrected a ref using a cite web template incorrectly using the |publisher= parameter
• added the author's name to a ref also incorrectly using cite web/|publisher=
• corrected four other refs incorrectly using the |publisher= and/or |location= parameters
• changed the inappropriate "Peters confirmed" to the simpler and more accurate "Peters said"
• changed the outdated "As of March 2019, Roberts is in a relationship" to something more current (it's been more than two years) and combined the sentence with the preceding one about the split from Peters, also in March 2019 (they go together, see?)
• consolidated the announcement the couple was expecting (which IMO is no longer important) with the actual birth, including birthdate and gender of the kid
• removed the name of the NN child per WP:BLPNAME.

I didn't include all the details of my edit in my edit summary because it was mostly ref fixes and the son's un-naming, and I guess I should have mentioned that I reworked the text somewhat. Sorry if leaving out the details made it too hard to follow.

My edit was reverted, however, with the edit summary, "Vandalism correction." I absolutely reject any description of my work as "vandalism". I have since reinstated my changes but, if they are found to be unacceptable for policy or editorial reasons, I would be glad to discuss possible changes here, in keeping with WP:BRD. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Baby name?

Please use this section here to justify inclusion of names in a BLP article. The claim is made that "The mention of the baby's name is AUTHORIZED in a Wikipedian debate at the beginning of the year" - can you reference that for a wider audience? Also, that was some time ago - opinion and consensus may have changed, which seems to be the case as insertion has been reverted several times.

Personally, I think this may be a case of WP:OTHER and I see no notability of the baby, either through name or otherwise, but I'm willing to be persuaded. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The mention of the baby's name of Emma Roberts was authorized by the Wikipedia administrators in a debate on January 26, 2021 (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) with the same criteria that the mention of the names of the children of Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and other celebrities was authorized. This authorization is final. The baby of Emma Roberts and Garrett Hedlund is notable for the media that surround him, his birth certificate was published in the press around the world, something that not even for the Jolie-Pitt children happened and the fact that they were not born in the United States it is not a justification for not publishing it. Rhodes Hedlund has more media coverage than Gwyneth Paltrow's children. The explanation they use to remove his name every time they try to mention him on Wikipedia is unintelligible. I consider an act of vandalism the fact that they remove the name of this baby in this Wikipedia article, obviously they remove it for personal reasons, exposing the lack of neutrality and professionalism of some Wikipedia users acquiring the same behavior of a 'troll', making use of of the abuse of authority. Encyclopedia45 (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Please link to the actual discussion as requested, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Encyclopedia45: "authorized"?? What website are you on? The rest of us are on Wikipedia, where we have certain guidelines, such as assume good faith, which expects you to not suspect other editors of trolling or having noncollaborative "personal reasons"; WP:Vandalism, which speaks about the special meaning of that word, which you have (for at least the third or fourth time, I've lost count) misused; WP:NPA which I will leave you to read and consider how it might apply to your post here. But I'm sorry, there is no "authorization" functionality here. Your bogus claim "This authorization is final" is ludicrous. Please drop this stick and move on. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

misinformation

The article mentions that she's passed away, i believe that is erroneous, 87.208.151.196 (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Claims of misgendering

@Trqalobaid so far the sources are entirely based on Ross's statements which is a primary source and they are all recent. In order for significant coverage in the article to be warranted, it needs to be shown this is something lasting and that it has impacted Roberts in a significant way. That bar I don't think has been met (at least yet). S0091 (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Relationships sub-section

The first paragraph in the "Relationships" sub-sections is supported by many sources that do not have a consensus of the Wikipedia community based on this link:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

In particular, this part:

In 2012, Roberts began dating actor Evan Peters, whom she met on the set of the film Adult World.[95] In July 2013, while they were staying at a hotel in Montreal, Quebec, someone overheard a dispute coming from their room and called the police. After a "heated argument", they had begun hitting each other.[96] When the police arrived, they arrested Roberts. Peters was not arrested because Roberts did not have any immediately visible injuries. A week later, she was seen with bruises and other injuries all over her body.[97] Peters declined to press charges, and Roberts was released several hours later.[98] In a joint statement, the couple called it "an unfortunate incident and misunderstanding," and stated that they "are working together to move past it."[98] Peters confirmed in March 2014 that he and Roberts were engaged.[99] Throughout their relationship, they separated and reconciled multiple times,[100] with their second split reportedly happening in May 2016.[101] After reuniting later that year, they ended their relationship in March 2019.[102]

I did a quick analysis on the use of sources for WP:BLP cases and here is what I've found:

• https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/emma-roberts-arrested-for-hitting-boyfriend-evan-peters-8713315.html

Source reliability:

The outlet is part of “The Independent”. The Independent, a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information. In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become an online newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date. 

Retrieved information:

In July 2013, while they were staying at a hotel in Montreal, Quebec, someone overheard a dispute coming from their room and called the police. After a "heated argument", they had begun hitting each other 

The publication is considered to be mostly reliable but in the article it seems to be copying the information from another source – TMZ:

“According to celebrity website TMZ, the couple were hitting each other but Miss Roberts was taken into custody because her boyfriend was left with obvious physical injuries.”

Therefore, is seems to be a "mirror source" copying from TMZ. And here is on TMZ:

“There is no consensus on the reliability of TMZ. Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles based on rumor and speculation without named sources, it is recommended to explicitly attribute statements to TMZ if used. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider also whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person.”

• https://www.nydailynews.com/2013/07/18/emma-roberts-shows-badly-bruised-legs-after-domestic-dispute-with-boyfriend-evan-peters/

Source reliability:

Most editors consider the content of New York Daily News articles to be generally reliable, but question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines.

Retrieved information:

When the police arrived, they arrested Roberts. Peters was not arrested because Roberts did not have any immediately visible injuries. A week later, she was seen with bruises and other injuries all over her body

Comment:

The outlet mostly cites another media publication – The US Weekly. it doesn't seem that the journalist expresses his independent opinion on the case:

On the US Weekly:

There is no consensus on the reliability of Us Weekly. It is often considered less reliable than People magazine.

• https://people.com/crime/did-emma-robertss-relationship-with-evan-peters-turn-violent/

Retrieved information:

“The actress was apparently taken into custody from her Montreal hotel and released after questioning.”

A law enforcement source confirms to PEOPLE that there was a conflict between a couple in Montreal on the reported date and that a female was arrested, but declines to state who was involved because prosecutors aren’t pressing charges and the case has been closed. 

On the source:

There is consensus that People magazine can be a reliable source in biographies of living persons, but the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source.

Based on the above, I believe, some of the information is speculative and written in a tabloid style and should be cut or rebalanced somehow. I will work on it in the coming days and anyone is welcome to comment here. Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)