Talk:Robert Pattinson/Archives/2020/July

remember me

remember me is in post-production. or at least emilie and rob are done filming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.145.60 (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Please remember WP:FORUM • S • C • A • R • C • E • 09:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

what? remember me is in post-production. it's not an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.145.60 (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything about an opinion, talk page content should only discuss improvements to the article, do you plan on adding something to article about "Remember Me" being in post-production? This is not a place for general announcements • S • C • A • R • C • E • 01:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it obviously is, because next to his filmography, it says remember me is filming, which is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.120.130 (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said it wan't, I'm just saying this isn't the Robert Pattinson general announcement board • S • C • A • R • C • E • 00:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

+ New MOON IS FINISHED AND ECLIPSE ISFILMING IN VANCOVER CANADA

Well, next to remember me in filmography, it says it is currently filming. im just saying that is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.120.130 (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that is just minor edit, the talk page didn't have to notified of it. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 13:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

okay. then edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.106.4 (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This coversation is pointless • S • C • A • R • C • E • 00:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

the conversation would stop if you would JUST EDIT IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.106.4 (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I forgot the page was protected, I am so sorry! You were completely in the right, I'll edit it now, sorry. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 07:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable reference? • S • C • A • R • C • E • 08:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

umm, the fact that they're both done filming!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.120.130 (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did you read that at? • S • C • A • R • C • E • 22:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

it's obvious! rob's already working on eclipse and emilie's done filming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.120.130 (talk) 04:12, 12 Augu st 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Since the fact it's filming is unreferenced and needs to be, I'll bump it up to post-production and add a • S • C • A • R • C • E • 15:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a Cameo Appearance

His appearance in Harry Potter 4 is not a cameo appearance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.60.111 (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No. It was not a cameo appearance, that's why it isn't labeled as a cameo. Part 5 however (which is billed as a cameo): He is not mentioned anywhere on Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) • S • C • A • R • C • E • 21:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Full Name & Place of Birth

According to official records on ancestry.co.uk, he was born Robert Douglas T. Pattinson in Merton, Surrey.Ravenscroft32 (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there proof that they're talking about him? Please provide a reference • S • C • A • R • C • E • 01:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes because it states his mother's maiden name as Charlton. It also lists two older sisters born in Merton (mother's maiden name Charlton) as stated in his bio. With further research you can find the marriage of Richard Pattinson to Clare Charlton, both names quoted in his bio. Starlemusique (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, you can find them all living together in the electoral role 2004-2007, 2009 and he is cited as Robert D Pattinson. Starlemusique (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Link? ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 23:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the information you said was on there. Do you have to pay to access it? If you do, we can't use that as a reference, everything has to be accessible to anyone at anytime ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 23:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't have to pay to view it, so I'm not sure why you can't see it. I'm also not sure what you mean by "keep in mind, a lot of the content is user submitted." The entry of birth is on an original scanned index page. Plus, where is the reference for the middle name Thomas. I can't find any reference to that fact at all. The birth record only records T. Starlemusique (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, going back through the edits on the page you can see that Thomas was removed as a middle name on the lead sentence because there was no notable reference for it. It wasn't removed from the info box at the same time and so someone then reinstated it about 3 months later unchallenged. I suggest we remove the Thomas altogether and leave it as "Robert Pattinson" or put in both Douglas and Thomas. Starlemusique (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've forgotten where the link is, could you please reprovide it? ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 21:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=ONSBirth84&so=2&rank=0&=,,,,,,,,1,+,,,1,+,,,1,+,,,1,+,,,,,1,+,,&gsfn=robert+douglas&gsln=pattinson&sx=&gs1co=1,All+Countries&gs1pl=1,+&year=&yearend=&sbo=0&sbor=&ufr=0&wp=4;_80000002;_80000003&srchb=r&prox=1&db=&ti=5538&ti.si=0&gss=angs-b

I've clicked on that link from other IPs and it works. That still doesn't provide the reference for Thomas though. By the way, the link for the valium quote is a dead link. Starlemusique (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Once on the page, do I have to click anything additional? Because from what I can see, there is no proof that is him. It's better to have a reference that states explicitly it is the actor ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 12:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's just the reference for the birth. You'd have to do other research to prove it (which has been done) but nothing explicitly states it. If it needs a reference like that then it will have to stay as Robert Pattinson, so for the same reasons the Thomas really needs to be removed. There is nothing that explicitly states that his middle name is Thomas other than this page and people who have taken the information from this page. Starlemusique (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed his middle name until a better source can be provided per WP:BLP ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 22:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It also says on the Robsessed DVD that his middle name is Thomas. Its a dvd, so i cant provide a source but that it the right name.--WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't own the DVD but I'll trust your statement. I've added his middle name with Robsessed as the source. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 16:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

well everwhere i seen it it says robert thomas pattinson and even in his biography book it says he was born that so thats what it should be! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinkytinky7 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

his real name is robert thomas pattinson, officially it is that... so it should be changed back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.150.219 (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that that is his full name.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert Pattinson's aunt is the true crime writer Monica Weller. Robert's grandfather on his mother's side was John Douglas Charlton who was a Second World War Intelligence Officer with the British ArmyMaxfield1 (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you placed this here - this section hasn't been edited in just over a year! Best to make a new topic at the bottom of the page by using the new-topic tab at the top of the page when you first click on it (IE not when you're in "Editing mode") - as for your comment, we need sources for this. If you can provide some, it would seem good to add to the article. Perhaps. --Nutthida (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Am new to Wikipedia, so need advice on 'how to'. So, thanks for this. Will try.Maxfield1 (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with Kristen Stewart

This article says nothing on his on and off relationship with Twilight co-star Kristen Stewart and that the pair are living together and are engaged to be married. Don't you feel that those are kind of important facts under personal life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.10.116 (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No, since none of those facts can be confirmed. Everything about his "relationship" with Stewart has originated from gossip shows and tabloids. If you can find a reliable source, such as either Pattinson or Stewart actually confirming they are (or have ever been) together, then it could be added. Andrea (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This Belgian newspaper reported today that Robert and Kristen have admitted to be in a relationship in "an interview". They don't mention when or to whom this interview was given though. The paper is pretty much a tabloid anyway, so I doubt if this is credible. Link is here but in Dutch. 84.196.56.90 (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't suprise me but I don't really think they're dating. I think it just might be publicity for the Twilight Saga. But don't hold me to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChelseaDavis1901 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no official proof, it needs to be left out.--WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oddly (given the lack of any confirmation on either side) the BBC referred to Kristen as being his girlfriend in this article about the BAFTAs: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8527511.stm Marthiemoo (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Many sources have claimed he admitted after the BAFTAs, but most are tabloids and might not be reliable. Its been put on Kristens page but i dont think it has reliable enough sources yet. --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

He has recently confirmed it. It's the last thing mentioned in the "personal life" section ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 19:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Are we sure about that? We don't need to put any tabloid junk on the page we really need to make the pages as accurate as possible. That even goes for Kristen Stewart's page, even though I may not like her as an actress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChelseaDavis1901 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

See below. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 19:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In the November 2011 edition of British GQ magazine, Kristen Stewart admits to being in a relationship with Robert Pattinson. This is also listed on her Wiki page. Can this be updated please? 203.211.72.192 (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

His own opinions

How about some sort of mention of the opinion he has on the character that can be considered his biggest role? He's gone on the record saying he thinks that the book should have never been published and that it was written like it was some sort of wish fulfillment for Meyers. Here's an article about it. http://io9.com/5096763/twilight-makes-for-the-best-fanwank-ever I also checked the reliability of the site. They're not making stuff up, this is a website about various media forms of science fiction and fantasy. ... I say that so no one can make some sort of claim that this stuff isn't reputable. Either way, tonnes of other actors have said things that can be taken as controversial and this seems like it'd be important enough to merit mention. 99.240.146.252 (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC) The twilight director Catherine Hardwicke just confirm their relationship, she says Kristen told her that nothing cross the line in the first movie but in the second...I don't know..but I think is a good source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.106.220.3 (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please can you put a better pic of Robert?

I mean, there are thousands of pics, better than the current one :)

Put something which justifies, why he is Edward Cullen :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.96.14.57 (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A free image will never be replaced with a copyrighted one. The one we currently have can be used whenever, however as long as you attribute its creator. We will only use free images to depict a living person. If you can find a free one and verify it isn't copyrighted and placed under the wrong license, feel free to upload and use it. $©@®©Ξ 22:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

pls can you put a decent pic of him!!! this one makes him look kind of stupid!!!........... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayeesha98 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If we were to find a better picture that was free, how do I submit the photograph.?

Tjnj (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Better pic as a vampire in Twilight Hlalisto (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The Scream Award

The section wear it says what awards he won doesn't mention the Scream Awards he won for Twilight I think they should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takaylabs (talk • contribs) 21:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I might stand alone but I love that pic of him he looks natural and un-perfect which is when he is (in my opinion) at his sexiest. Edward Cullen is not Robert Pattinson... he's a character played by Robert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.8.18.30 (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Admits to Smoking

Hilarious. Some skillful fan weaseling there regarding the line where he says he 'admits' to taking valium... and smoking. I won't bother to edit this, it makes Wikipedia rather amusing to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.171.96 (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Red links?

Wikipedia thrives on wikilinks - created by putting double square brackets around an item. Now, occasionally no-one has yet created the target of such a link. So, as an example Harrodian School will currently show as a red link - but you, or I, or anyone else can fix that by clicking through and creating an article. It's fine to be bold and create a pretty awful stub - trust that someone else will improve it. Once fixed it will change to a "normal" blue wikilink. - Lesson ends. - Snori (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sisters

I can't think of a way to incorporate a link for his sister, Lizzy. He has one other sister but her name is not very well known so I think it falls into the WP:BLPNAME category. However, Lizzy appears to have enough notability to have her own article but not enough for a "...he is the sister of Lizzy Pattinson" sentence but a link in his article should definitely exist. Any ideas? ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 02:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request

I wanted to request to edit Robert Pattinson's filmography section. Robert Pattinson has won over 9 awards and has gained numerous nominations. None of that are on his profile. I was wondering if I can be granted permission to edit his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trishstar7 (talk • contribs) 22:10, February 7, 2010 (UTC) {{editsemiprotected}}

Congratulations, Trishstar7!! That edit was you're 10th edit and you can now edit semi-protected pages yourself. although you may want to take a look at the biographies of living persons policy to make sure that your edits comply with it. Happy Editing!! Set Sail For The Seven Seas 335° 3' 0" NET 22:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

I wanted to request to edit Robert Pattinson's personal life. He was named one of People's sexiest men alive for 2009. Glamour UK's most power man and etc. I would also like to request to put a new picture of Robert Pattinson from the New Moon premiere. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trishstar7 (talk • contribs) 23:16, February 7, 2010 (UTC) {{editsemiprotected}}

You don't need to put this on here before making an edit. Feel free to edit the page yourself. Before changing the pic, discuss it here. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 23:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, we can only use images found at commons:Category:Robert Pattinson. I oppose the change, I feel the image we have now is fine. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 23:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, see the boldness guideline. Also, remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so that other users know who is commenting. :) Set Sail For The Seven Seas 351° 15' 30" NET 23:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My friend told me that Robert have a baby with Kristen Stewart. Is it truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.144.154.37 (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No, thats not true, it was a pregnancy rumour once that way quickly discouraged. --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Who changed his birth year?

WHo changed it to 1986? Before it said that he was born in 1978, which seems correct. Who changed it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas100000 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Our source says he says 23, I have the utmost doubt that he is 30 anyway. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 01:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

he is a capricorn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.40.218 (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously guys! I saw the page and it said 1978, I though for sure that someone had vandalized it. NO LIE! It said he was born May 13, 1978.Thomas100000 (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, his Wikipedia article did say he was born in 1978. This was apparently vandalism and was reverted about a week ago. Template:Scarce signature. 22:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Also thought that his DOB may be wrong, even reported it to Wikipedia:BLP, but the more i think about it the more 1986 seems correct. You must have the guy mixed up with Topher Grace79.124.57.4 (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Robert Pattinson did NOT confirm he is dating Kristen Stewart

According to Gossip Cop, the SUN reporter lied about Robert Pattinson admitting anything. This is FALSE and here is the article. ROBERT PATTINSON NEVER SAID HE WAS DATING KRISTEN STEWART. Confirmed. http://www.gossipcop.com/robert-pattinson-never-said-kristen-stewart-couple-sun/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trishstar7 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Gossip Cop" is not a reliable source. However, The Sun has been proven wrong on numerous occasions. I say we remove it until more reliable sources can be found. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 03:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, need a better source if we're to use this at all. Also keep in mind that wikipedia is not a tabloid so we don't have to keep track of every time a celebrity goes on a date. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been such a highly publicized "romance" though and "Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart" are the top searches on Google for the both of them. They are also co-stars in four films. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 04:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

In accordance to WP:BLP, the statements should remain removed until either of them confirm this to a reliable source. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 04:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

_Thank you_! (key word: "THEY confrm" "reliable source" 71.54.78.207 (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Empire Awards

Rob is nominated for an Empire Award in the Category Best Actor for New Moon. In 2009 he was also nominated as Best Newcomer for Twilight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.247.84.184 (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you give us a source for that info? Andrea (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 Added ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 18:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Robert Pattinson to join Madame Tussauds

Hollywood’s hottest leading man to take starring role at Madame Tussauds London http://www.madametussauds.com/London/NewsAndEvents/RobertPattinsonAnnounce/ Rob remembers (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)rob_remembers

Its been added into the personal life section.--WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

RAZZIE NOMINATION

shoulnt we put his worst supporting actor category there?????and wtf is the thing on the very top of the page???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.239.238 (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 Added and  Fixed –Scarce ✉ 09:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Pattinson hates Twilight

Should be added to the page: http://www.eonline.com/videos/v36324_Pattinson_Preps_for__Twilight__Takeover.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by NCLI (talk • contribs) 13:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That link doesnt go anywhere in particular and im not sure, but i dont think that E! is a trusted source...?-WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

He's Catholic

http://www.atwilightkiss.com/robert-pattinson-is-a-catholic-who-believes-in-abstinence.html

You that's right you add this to his locked page if you like him.

i dont think its quite enough of a source, correct me someone if im wrong, but the nature of it sounded more like sarcasm...i dont know if its a serious enough quote to certify it. --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

WhereTheLinesOverlapXX - you are absolutely right. The only indication he is Catholic is a rather facetious comment during an interview, with a rather sectarian, bigoted interviewer, to wit: "Robert Pattinson is a Catholic Who Believes in Abstinence" (Video Courtesy of movies ireland)

"Slap me silly, but, I assumed that, since Rob was from England, he was raised as a Protestant. To my surprise, I found out that he was well acquainted with the Pope, the rosary and the subject of confession. Not that he enumerated the three during his Movies.ie interview, but, any regular Catholic would be familiar with the topics."

INTERVIEWER: “I mean, you, being the method actor that you are, take on your character’s abstinence…(ect.)”

RP: (Agrees with this, then goes on to say…) “I’m Catholic as well.” (and then) “I mean,I totally believe in it.”

As another poster (Rachel Says: May 7th, 2010 at 10:55 am) pointed out on the same thread:

Okay. First of all, method acting is a style of acting where the actor attempts to feel and think all of the things that the character s/he is portraying feels. This is in order to give a more “lifelike” performance.

Notice that the interviewer says that Robert is “taking on” the abstinence BECAUSE OF his being a method actor. He then goes on to talk about Robert and Edward as the same person because of this. Robert agrees and continues the conversation in the first person (”I”) because he’s still talking about himself AS EDWARD. Make sense? Watch it again with this in mind — it’ll click.

And if you think that this means Robert is becoming like Edward in real life, entirely, as a permanent fixture of his personality — it doesn’t really make any sense, does it? What about all the other roles Robert has played in other movies? Robert Pattinson is a method actor all the time, not just with Twilight. That’s his style of acting. So thinking that Pattinson is turning into Edward for real is as absurd as believing that he’s also turning into Cedric Diggory, Salvador Dali, Tyler Whatshisname from Remember Me (lol, sorry — I can’t remember.), etc.

Does this mean that Pattinson absolutely isn’t Catholic? Of course not. But this interview says as much about his own personal beliefs about Catholicism as it does about his own personal beliefs about Buddhism. Which is nothing. [1].

Normally people's nominal religious affiliations are not even important unless they play some kind of important role in the person's life, (WP:BLP) which is not the case here, Pattinson's reported comments about abstinence notwithstanding. Does anyone believe he is still a virgin? Furthermore there is no evidence at his own webpage of any religious beliefs at all. No mention of attending Mass or anything. Neither he nor his sisters attended denominational school(s), which most Catholics in the UK do. The issue of whether Pattinson is Catholic remains unproved in my humble opinion, and more importantly, is an unimportant tempest that does not belong in the Wikipedia teapot. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's hard to tell if he was being sarcastic in that interview or not. For what it's worth, according to this family tree of Pattinson (admittedly on a blog), he is of fully English (i.e. not part Irish or Scottish) ancestry, so that makes it a little more unlikely that he was raised Catholic (unless he was descended from recusants). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have already reverted vandalism since my last edit (above) by an editor User:Bbrezic who deleted my edits for with no reason or explanation, a matter which may yet have to be resolved by an administrator or by the WP:ANI if he/she does not desist. The idea that Pattinson is Catholic holds even less weight when you reconsider the following excerpt from the above-referenced facetitious interview with the above-referenced sectarian bigot of an interviewer: I found out that he was well acquainted with the Pope, the rosary and the subject of confession. Not that he enumerated the three during his Movies.ie interview, but, any regular Catholic would be familiar with the topics. Rms125a@hotmail.com

Personally, I sincerely doubt that CNN would publish an article that had not been previously reviewed. Also, I sincerely doubt that Pattinson would said that he is a Catholic, and that in fact in real life he is not, especially with considering that in almost all interviews and articles he is characterized as an honest person who does not lie. Do you have some proof to offer that Pattinson is not Catholic, any proof, except your own belief that in the said interview he was lying? Suggest any reliable link to support your claim. Also, I think I'll leave this issue to be decide by admins, or how you like to call them “badmins”. There is no need for any threats, and least the threats of interventions by admins. With those threats you only show your nervy side about the interventions you made. Here by I invite the admins to make the observations about this case. If they say that those links are not trustworthy or that is unclear if he he was telling the truth, ill back off, but it will be their decision to revert the article, and certainly not yours. With regards, Bbrezic. 01:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

im not overruling anything, i just wanna say that if you want to involve admins in this, you cant add the information assuming you will be right. no one is claiming he lied, there just isnt enough sincerity in the comment to know its not just a ruse and a comment to go with the conversation. if you would like to prove he is catholic, find another source thats trustworthy, instead of challenging everyone for a source that says he isnt. you have said that this is being decided on the users own views, when in fact what youre doing is the exact same, even worse. you have not waited for council, merely assumed your opinion overrules and have added the information back into the article using the reference under scrutiny. CNN does not review interviews for lying, the media feeds off of bending the truth, they reveiew it for copyright information or things that would be illegal for them to release. what they do with the interview is irrelevant to anything, especially if the comment was just a ruse. Also, *badmins* is a personal attack on a lot of people which i beg of you to avoid as is advised by wikipedia. --Stripy Socks (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In the defense of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, it did sound to me like, in the interview, Pattinson was just being sarcastic, or joking - definitely not "lying". And CNN often reprints news from other sources. While a reliable source, they're not the ultimate, unimpeachable hallmark of verifiability. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

i agree, and this is not a reliable source in any way.--Stripy Socks (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Ball: Reborn

Apparently he's going to act as Radditz (or so they say)...121.91.109.237 (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You need some kind of source --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Filmography

Who changed Robert Pattinson's filmography? Robert Pattinson is confirmed to doing Water For Elephants at the end of this May, and he is confirmed to doing The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, confirmed by Summit Entertainment. He is also scheduled to doing Unbound Captives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trishstar7 (talk • contribs)

Nobody said that he isn't confirmed for these roles. By all means mention it in the text of the article, but filmographies are not meant to tell the future. Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF, we don't add films to an actor's filmography until it is very likely that the film will be made: so once principal photography begins. If filming for Water For Elephants starts at the end of May, then we will add it to his filmography at the end of May. Andrea (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard a thing lately about "Unbound Captives". Last I heard, it was running into scheduling conflicts from hell. He did say he was to do Cosmopolis, though (at the Golden Globe red carpet show), so maybe that could be added to "upcoming" at the top.71.54.78.207 (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

One film that needs to be added, and please forgive me on the years and actual part he had. The movie Troy, starring Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom. Pattinson had a very very small role at the end of the movie. When Orlando Blooms character handed the sword to the boy at the entrance to the tunnel, that boy was Pattinson. This was before his role as Cedric Diggery. Thanks! 96.42.37.19 (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Kirstin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.37.19 (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a source to confirm that? Andrea (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It was confirmed on oprah that Kristen and Robert are dating....http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272631681.shtml 96.42.37.19 (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Kirstin

Nothing was said on Oprah. That reference says that a "source" from Oprah said they were dating. Still too gossipy. Andrea (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

He was in the movie Love and Distrust. Made in 2010. Look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.218.89 (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

People magazine

Under PERSONAL LIFE it says 'People Magazine magazine' can someone take the second 'magazine' out? It not necessary, and also a load of the sentences in that section can be merged to make it look less stop-start, as most are awards from same years. There's so many of them a seperate section may even serve well, although that wont leave much in personal life. Its just a cleanup act and a suggestion, but i dont have the editing authorisation to do it myself. And also, the Time Magazine top 100... award is in the starter paragraph and the personal life section. Does it need to be repeated, or be in the starter? --Stripy Socks (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 194.80.113.3, 13 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Delete the entire page :) 194.80.113.3 (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: That would be — in my opinion — a little bit too drastic. jonkerz♠ 09:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No matter how much you hate sparkle-vampires and smooth talking brits, can't be done as said prev. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mikimouse94, 4 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} please change "Pattinson is best-known for playing Edward Cullen in the film adaptations of the Twilight novels by Stephenie Meyer, and for the role of Cedric Diggory in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" to "Pattinson is best-known for playing Cedric Diggory in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and for playing Edward Cullen in the film adaptations of the Twilight novels by Stephenie Meyer." because Harry Potter is obviously far superior to twilight and people will like Robert Pattinson more if they know he was in Harry Potter first.

Mikimouse94 (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Nonsense. SpigotMap 12:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Powerful Celebritites

Forbes named Robert Pattinson one of the most powerful celebrities in the world. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/53/celeb-100-10_Robert-Pattinson_TZ0B.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trishstar7 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn in Filmography

Thecoolguy4ever wants to add the above future film to Pattinson's filmography. Cresix has reverted the addition twice based on WP:Ball. I don't see anywhere in the policy that it expressly says that a future event cannot be listed in a filmography (or similar list). It seems to me that if the future film merits its own article ("All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."), then it may certainly be listed (and linked) in a filmography. Either way, adding and removing the information is not a good way to to resolve the issue (WP:ATAEW).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree adding and removing is not the best way. I have messaged Thecoolguy4ever, who now understands the situation. It is widely accepted on Wikipedia not to include films in filmographies until they begin filming. The future films can be discussed in the article, but not included in the filmography. According to WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" (italics added). This is not just my practice; it is generally acceptable procedure for filmographies. The idea behind this is that Wikipedia can't predict the future, and until filming begins it is not "almost certain to take place". There have been cases in which a future film was announced but never began filming. Just because the film in question here is part of a series of major blockbusters does not make it an exception. "Sufficiently wide interest" is a basis for discussing in the article (if sourced), but not in the filmography. Filming should begin soon, so please have patience. Wikipedia is not going anywhere. It can be added after filming begins. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Seems to me that if something is "generally acceptable procedure," the Wiki policy should be updated to reflect that. Personally, I don't care much one way or another. As long as you and the other editor are now in agreement, I'll bow out.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Uma Therman?

Uma Thurman's name is spelled wrong in this article. Would someone please fix it? Thanks. 216.79.28.42 (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Cresix (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Therman Uma Hlalisto (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.200.55.142, 13 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

No need to write " biggest actor In hollywood at the the starting, There are other bigger actors then him..but it is not mentioned ion their wikipidia pages....thanks 117.200.55.142 (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Done Quite right, it should not state that in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Pattinson's Signature

In a nutshell, why is it here? Other than the fact that a picture of his signature exists and no one questions its authenticity, I don't see why it needs to be in the infobox. Just because a parameter exists doesn't mean it needs to be completed. I raised this issue in another forum, and a tracking category was created to see approximately how many articles use the signature parameter. So far, it's collected 167 articles - you can look at it here. In glancing at the names I even recognized, the only living actors I could find were Oprah Winfrey and Bill Nighy (his signature is kind of cute). Otherwise, it's mainly dead people whose signature may be of some relevance to who they were, like Charles Dickens, or live people who are so prominent and wealthy that their signatures have considerable power, like Bill Gates.

I've made Pattinson's signature smaller (I also got a size parameter added in my quest to question signatures), but it's still fairly prominent. Personally, I think it just sticks out in the infobox and serves no real purpose. Any comments? I'll happily remove it if I get a couple of people to agree with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Bbb23, I'll have to disagee (as you know from our friendly discussion on your talk page). I think it does no harm and has some interest value. But I'll respect any clear consensus. I do have concerns about how the signature was obtained, and whether it might have been lifted directly from Amazon's website, which I believe would be violation of Wikipedia policy. But I really have no idea how it was obtained. Cresix (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's just you and me, Cresix, because no one else appears to be overly excited about this issue one way or the other. So, by my calculations, there's a 50% consensus in favor of removal of the signature. Just kidding. Unless someone pipes up, I'll leave the signature in.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You could post an WP:RFC to generate a few opinions. Cresix (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but given the apparent lack of interest, I don't think it's important enough to go outside the article and solicit input from other editors. I'm just going to let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand why you might think it's not worth the effort. Signatures have been placed in several infoboxes for Twilight characters (ncluding some huge ones, which I also have a problem with). I thought you might want to RfC them all at once. In any event, thanks for the civil discussion. Cresix (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, appears to be the same editor (Scarce) who's grabbing the signatures and then uploading them. With respect to Pattinson - and any other English actor - take a look at this Commons policy and tell me what you think. Read the overall policy, and then focus on the UK section where it says it's not okay to use a UK signature.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is interesting. If you want to pursue this (which I consider quite reasonable), perhaps you should message Scarce with a few polite questions, including drawing his/her attention to the page you link above. Of course, that wouldn't apply to all sigs, but it may shed some light on what happened. While you're inquiring with Scarce, you might ask if he/she purchased the photos from which the sigs were taken. If the sigs were taken from Amazon's website, I suspect that might be a problem in terms of Wikipedia policy. If Scarce cooperates, this could be settled peacefully. If not you might want to inquire at a talk page related to a copyvio. If I remember correctly, there is an admin who is very knowledgeable about copyright. I can't recall the name, but you could probably find out. As I've said, I may disagree with you about whether it's OK to place a sig in the infoboxes, but I feel quite strongly about Wikipedia policies, especially copyright. Good luck, and let me know what happens. Cresix (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No need to message me, I'm right here. The signature is obtained from the image found on the Amazon website (then I do various editing with GIMP and Inkscape). I believe the Commons page you linked to is for signatures that are from or in the UK rather than signatures of people who are from the UK. Remove, include, delete, whatever. I just found cropping the signatures and converting them to SVG was rather easy and seemed interesting and fairly relevant to the respective topics. ►Scarce◄ 12:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in and explaining what you've done. I kind of figured you took it off the Amazon picture and then edited it with software. I disagree with your understanding about the Commons policy because of this sentence: "It may not always be evident which country's law applies to a particular signature (and this may be a difficult legal question), but taking the individual's country of nationality would be a good start." I could always ask on the Media Copyright Questions page.

I'm also curious. Why do you think the signatures are relevant?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll also thank Scarce for a timely and helpful reply. Bbb23, I do suggest addressing the entire issue at Media Copyright Questions, not only for the UK issue, but just the entire matter of taking an image from a copyrighted website. I certainly believe Scarce did this in good faith, but if there are copyright issues they need to be addressed. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright law is complex. However, Scarce didn't really take an image from Amazon's website, he took a part of that image, and, arguably, he took a part that, at least under U.S. copyright law, is unprotected because it has insufficient originality. Also, even though Amazon's website may generally be protected by copyright, Amazon is selling a copy of the picture and is not likely to be the copyright owner of the picture. So, to the extent there is any copyright violation in the U.S., it would be of the copyright of the picture's owner.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's complex. My concern (beyond any copyright issue) is taking part of an image from a copyrighted website, and whether that is problematic in terms of Wikipedia's policies. I think we all know that we can't just grab any image of a living person from a copyrighted website and place it in the subject's bio article, but does that apply to taking a part of the image on a website if the entire website is copyrighted, specifically the signature? I really have no idea, but if someone purchases an image with a signature, that signature belongs to that person and Wikipedia policies would not apply (at least as far as I can determine). But if the entire Amazon website is copyrighted (as it likely is) and someone takes the image of the signature from the website, could that not be a policy violation even though not necessarily a legal violation? I'm sure it seems that I'm splitting hairs, and maybe I am. But it could become an important issue if signatures are added to more and more websites. Cresix (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if anything, the rights to the signature would belong to the Amazon seller rather than Amazon. In general, signatures are public domain (assuming the UK thing doesn't apply) so you can't replicate it and then claim it to be copyrighted. ►Scarce◄ 03:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If by the Amazon seller, you mean the party that owned the autographed picture, the answer would be no. If the signature is protected, the rights would belong to Pattinson because he created the signature. The fact that he gives a copy of his signature to someone else doesn't change that unless he conveys a license to that person to replicate his signature.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Filmography - sortable vs. nonsortable

CollisionCourse just recently changed the filmography from a sortable table to a nonsortable table. No explanation was given for the change. The table used to be nonsortable until on August 21, 2010, when another editor, Jack Merridew, changed the table to sortable. No explanation was given for that change either, although I believe it's fair to say that Jack prefers sortable tables. I personally don't have any axe to grind on the issue. I suppose I have a mild preference for nonsortable filmographies, partly because I don't see any real functional purpose in sorting a filmography, except perhaps to view the film years in chronological or reverse chronological order, whereas nonsortable tables are generally prettier and combine films by year rather than using separate rows for each film. For me, the more important thing is stability of the article, reaching a consensus on how to display the table, and not changing it absent some compelling reason, i.e., some new and useful functionality comes along. Otherwise, we just bounce back and forth between individual editor's preferences, with the last editor prevailing, at least for a time. The lack of stability also plays a certain amount of havoc with novice editors who combine elements of both sortable and nonsortable tables without realizing it, thereby corrupting the table.

Of course, all this assumes that any consensus can actually be reached, which I tend to doubt. However, in the spirit of optimism, I thought I'd throw it out to those who wish to comment. My vote, fwiw, is for nonsortable tables as stated above, but, as I said, it's not a strong preference.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if I have offended anyone with my edit. Most filmography boxes that I've seen are like how I edited Pattinson's, so I felt that I should edit it like so. -- CollisionCourse (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. I certaily wasn't offended. But because the table has changed a few times, I figured it was a good time to reach a consensus on how it should look.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ACCESSIBILITY clearly states "In general, styles for tables and other block-level elements should be set using CSS classes, not with inline style attributes. This is because the site-wide CSS is more carefully tested to ensure compatibility with a wide range of browsers; it also creates a greater degree of professionalism by ensuring a consistent appearance between articles." Nymf _hideliho! 23:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And here's a few arguments re: the rowspan and sorting part, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (tables)#Formatting and User:RexxS/Accessibility. It is also an accessibility issue. Nymf _hideliho! 23:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please help out the untutored here (at least me). Is this policy talking about colors, colors plus something else, not colors? What about sortability? I can't follow the technical discussion of CSS classes. In your view, does WP:ACCESS mean you MUST have sortable tables? Given the number of non-sortable tables at Wikipedia, that seems unlikely. And if there is such a policy, it should say so because in other policies, it seems to leave the issue of sortable vs. non-sortable up to the editor (including the formatting policy you cite). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

does robert answer this himself

just asking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.87.107 (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No, he does not. Andrea (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Summer House

What is about Robert's Short Film The Summer House, where He played Richard? And the Segmel Love & Disrust? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.212.48 (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

New Edit Request

I wanted to request that you add a facebook page link to the page here. It has just been added and I am hoping to find the best ways to attract his fans. It delivers new on Robert Pattinson. And also is there to encourage fans to be respectful to him and his costars. (as in not screaming at them and stalking them.) It would be greatly appreciated. And this isn't just going to be a little phony site, starting next month there will be paid ads and such to help spread site. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Leave-Robert-Pattinson-alone/228688447186843?ref=ts&sk=wall . Please respond asap! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.22.112 (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Such a link would be in violation of WP:ELNO.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

New film

He has anouther film coming out, just to let you know so you can add it.

It is called Water For Elephants — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.199.237 (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It's already in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Acting

Please update the acting section. Pattinson recieved many good reviews for his performance in Water For Elephants and a lot of critics praised him for "living up to the hype" in Twilight. How come no one has listed that? Water For Elephants did very well commercially and so did the Twilight movies. Forbes listed him the 3rd most profitable actor this year counting Water For Elephants and Remember Me. --Trishstar7 (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)trishstar7--Trishstar7 (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Family Members

Robert's aunt (sister of Clare Pattinson, see Strictlyrobsten.com/2011/08/happybirthday-to-roberts-mom-clare.html) is true crime writer Monica Weller.[www.mirror.co.uk, 30 November 2008, and National Enquirer 2009 - will have to check actual date]. His grandfather on his mother's side was John Douglas Charlton, a 2nd World War Intelligence officer with the British armyMaxfield1 (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC) There's a profile on Flickr about Monica Weller. And a small comment under her photo of Clare Pattinson.86.160.217.254 (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Found reference to Robert's grandfather on Answers.Com86.160.217.254 (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Clare Pattinson's family - this might be of interest: http://pattinsons.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/welcome-to-my-new-blog-about-the-real-i-promise-you-patttinson-family/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxfield1 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for not putting the 4~ after one of my contributionsMaxfield1 (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 March 2012

Robert Pattinson's Wikipedia page does not say anything about his relationship with girlfriend Kristen Stewart. Kristen Stewart's wiki page acknowledges that she admitted that she is in a relationship with him. They have been together since 2009 but his page doesn't have anything on it. This is an important part of his personal life.

JessMarie414 (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please express your request in a 'please change X to Y' manner and include reliable sources for any factual changes. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 April 2012

Under Filmography, it says that Robin Pattinson's role as cedric diggory was only a cameo, which it most certainly was NOT. It was NOT a cameo for robert pattinson. Cedric diggory had a crucial part in The goblet of fire. NOT A FREAKIN CAMEO Pyretiic (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Look again :) "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - Cameo" Not the Goblet of Fire^^ --Τασουλα (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done As Τασουλα states, correct as is. Dru of Id (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 May 2012

pls can i edit ur page

Malaysupriti (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Not an edit request. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 June 2012

Under the section 2008-present, the paragraph beginning "In 2008, Pattinson landed..." contains a spelling mistake. In the sentence beginning "Though the film...", chemisty requires an r.

Jasonblueboy (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 22:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 July 2012

Currently the 'Personal Life' of Robert Pattinson's page states: "Stewart and Pattinson's relationship was officially acknowledged for the first time in July 2012..." which then leads into the current issue of Stewart's infidelity. I would like it to be noted that Pattinson and Stewart's relationship has been publicly acknowledged much less recently than in conjunction with the recent infidelity stories on July 2012. Their relationship has been publicly acknowledged for approximately 3 years. Even if the precise date of their relationship going public is not known, it is factually incorrect to suggest that it is only since Stewart's infidelity. Thank you.

94.192.196.65 (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The relationship has been pretty obvious to the public for close to 4 years, as stated in the article. The article isn't intended to suggest that the public was unaware that they were a couple before this incident. It's meant to state that this is the first time that Stewart in particular has publicly and officially acknowledged/admitted the relationship, as has been noted in several recent media sources, i.e. this article in the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katie-calautti/kristen-stewarts-cheating-scandal_b_1703774.html However I think the current wording may be somewhat unclear on that, so I will change it to make it hopefully a bit clearer. Starswept (talk)Starswept

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 July 2012

"when Us Weekly published photos of Stewart cheating on Pattinson with married director Rupert Sanders, prompting her to issue a public apology to Pattinson."

This line should be changed to " photos of Stewart supposedly (or allegedly) cheating on Pattison"

The reason being there is no definitive fact supporting that she did indeed cheat, just that she may have. All that there is, thus far is media speculation. The truth hasn't come out yet and Wiki must only publish truth. It is not a news outlet. Be that mainstream of celebrity news.

Thanks. Severniae (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 July 2012

"when Us Weekly published photos of Stewart cheating on Pattinson with married director Rupert Sanders, prompting her to issue a public apology to Pattinson."

This line should be changed to " photos of Stewart supposedly (or allegedly) cheating on Pattison"

The reason being there is no definitive fact supporting that she did indeed cheat, just that she may have. All that there is, thus far is media speculation. The truth hasn't come out yet and Wiki must only publish truth. It is not a news outlet. Be that mainstream of celebrity news.

Thanks. Severniae (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not "media speculation". Stewart has issued a public apology for cheating, as cited in the article (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20614722,00.html). Sanders has as well (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20614764,00.html). That's about as definitive as you can get, straight from the horse's mouth. Were that not the case, it wouldn't be in the article. Starswept (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Starswept

I disagree, there is nothing proving beyond doubt that the 'quotes' mentioned are directly from 'the horses mouth' as you say. From first hand experience I can tell you that mags like these do make up quotes to suit a story, not make the story fit the quote. Severniae (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"Proving beyond doubt"? This isn't a court of law, you're not going to get video of Kristen Stewart taking the stand to read her statement. Issuing a written statement to a reputable celebrity source such as People, probably under heavy supervision of her publicist, is standard practice. Do you honestly believe that People, which is usually a direct outlet for publicists, would open themselves up to being sued in such a high-profile case by fabricating quotes? That is ridiculous. Furthermore, if they were fabricated, Stewart's people would have issued a statement saying so long ago, given that the quotes were first published almost 48 hours ago. And if the quotes were fabricated, they would not be being repeated by reputable outlets such as:

Reuters - http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/25/people-kristenstewart-apology-idINDEE86O0HV20120725 Wall Street Journal - http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/07/25/kristen-stewart-issues-public-apology-to-robert-pattinson/?mod=google_news_blog New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/07/25/arts/25reuters-kristenstewart-apology.html?src=mv&ref=arts BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/18992078 CBC via The Associated Press - http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/25/kristen-stewart-apology-rupert-sanders.html

etc

I understand fans of Stewart's may not want to accept this, but she has issued a statement, which is objectively quoted in the article, and there is really no point hoping that it's some impostor and confusing the issue by throwing in words like "allegedly". Were it really only an "alleged" occurrence, it wouldn't belong in the article at all, but it's gone beyond allegations. Starswept (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Starswept

Frankly I'm not a fan - I couldn't give a monkey as to any celebrity. However I hate to see a reputable information portal such as Wikipedia be taken down the route of the rest of the gossip media. There is still no proof that this took place.

Its not a court of law, but it isn't a place of speculation either. Severniae (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of proof you think is necessary to move this beyond "speculation". What would be proof "that this took place" to you? When it comes to public figures, Wikipedia relies on citing reputable media sources - which are present in this case, complete with official, verified statements from the public figures in question. The only other proof I can think of besides two official statements is a graphic sex tape or a weepy sit-down with Barbara Walters in which one of the parties in question describes in great detail the acts that occurred, which is hardly likely to be forthcoming (I hope). When it comes to things like this, Wikipedia can become a bit of a joke, like the Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez "issue". It doesn't make Wikipedia the purveyor of salacious gossip to include information that can be properly cited and stated objectively and simply. If anything, it prevents fans from coming in here and editing the article obsessively to include all the gory details. It's not like the article contains a play-by-play of the photos or speculation as to when the affair began, how Pattinson is reacting, how are the children affected, etc like the gossip media. Starswept (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Starswept

there is no proof that she cheated on him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.153.253.240 (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

These threads read like fan dribble. Wikipedia is not a forum, I must remind certain people...--Τασουλα (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Can more be done on him being "funny looking"?

He's got weird half-asleep eyes and a nearly "monobrow". So what's the appeal? This article is about as justified as the emperor's new clothes without this explanation. 86.160.72.114 (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Robert_Pattinson find an image from there that would look good in the info box. If you choose the best one I doubt anyone will mind the change. You could also email his people to see if they wish to provide one under a 'free licence'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Breaking Dawn - Part 2

Hi Just asking more information to be on here (VampireProject23) * :D <3 **My Coffin** <3 :D * ( Message me, I won't bite) —Preceding undated comment added 04:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

order of the pheonix was a cameo role — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.99.60 (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

In the list of movies Rob Pat starred it, it says he starred in Order of the Pheonix, in the notes it should say "Archive footage; uncredited," but he is not in the credits and the footage in the movie is from Goblet of Fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.99.60 (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal Life

Again,people are adding lots of quotes and things from the articles which are clearly based on unnamed sources and rumors on Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart relationship here. It has to stop, wikipedia is not some fan page where you can add whatever you want. Wikipedia is not a forum, I hope everyone remember that.--Jockzain (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It is absurd that Robert Pattinson article does not have a personal life section and that it doesn't mention the CONFIRMED relationship with Kristen Stewart. This Jockzain guy is really guarding this stuff from the article and it is unwarranted. Somebody needs to stop his neutering of this article... every celeb of this stature has a personal life section but for some reason this one does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.1.166 (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Before making false accusation against me, check the revision history of the article it is not me who is guarding or deleting the personal life section of Robert Pattinson but done by editor AndyTheGrump who said in explanation that "delete entire section - this isn't a gossip magazine" you can see for yourself here 1 2, if you have any problem talk to him instead of accusing me.--Jockzain (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia. It stays. --Evmore (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Please change status of relashonship

There is a part of this article that says him and Kristen have broken up recently and then goes on to cite the mirror UK. I don't think that is a sufficient enough cite to be put in his biography. If you are going to cite a tabloid on his relashonship then it should be changed to him currently being in a relashonship with Kristen since People Magazine, GossipCop, Eonline, Lainey, and many more sited has since said that the rumors where not true and that they are still together. If nothing else change it to unknown please. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.106.181 (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I must know what a "relashonship" is? 76.180.168.166 (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Deleted spam, also wondering why there's no mention of the stewart relationship in the article...-Kaname

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2014

Please change his status to single as he has stated it on video and this is causing an uproar in his fandom. Being linked to Kristen Stewart only brings up the Twilight references that he is so desperately trying to avoid. Here is the source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvtRUXa0EI0 and he is being linked to new rumored GF FKA Twigs http://www.people.com/people/robert_pattinson/ I would appreciate the edit. Thank you so much!

Leanneluv (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I just happened to be editing something about this topic earlier tonight, and didn't see your request but I think I've partially fulfilled it. I've added Pattinson's recent comments on the breakup at the end of the Personal Life section, with two sources. That said, I didn't add anything about FKA Twigs because I'm not sure if the sources that mention the rumors that they're dating are definitive enough. I'll let a more experienced editor decide on that. Thanks. Clockster (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

To follow up, given the links that became available regarding Pattinson dating FKA twigs, I have added that to the entry per this request as well, with sources. Clockster (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Final followup: Added a sentence regarding the prior assumed breakup date between Pattinson and Stewart, with E Online article as reference. I hope this covers the subject as fully as it needs to be. Clockster (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2015

Dear Sirs,

Would it be possible to edit: In September 2014, Pattinson started dating London-based singer, songwriter and dancer FKA twigs.[184] In April 2015, it was confirmed that Pattinson and FKA are engaged.[185]

To: In September 2014, Pattinson started dating London-based Tahliah Debrett Barnett - singer, songwriter and dancer FKA twigs.[184] In April 2015, it was confirmed that Pattinson and Barnett (FKA twigs)are engaged.[185]

OR

In September 2014, Pattinson started dating London-based Tahliah Debrett Barnett - singer, songwriter and dancer (stage name FKA twigs.[184]) In April 2015, it was confirmed that Pattinson and Barnett are engaged.[185]

or something along those lings.

Her nickname is twigs, not FKA! The FKA was added because she was not/is not permitted to use the name twigs as her stage name as it is owned by The Twigs.

The other reason, for me, is that it make her more real and with what is going on with the trolling etc. etc., I think this would make it feel that Pattinson is engaged to the real person and not just the 'stage person' and clearly not just to FKA!

212.250.152.253 (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC) 212.250.152.253 (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: - thank you for the suggestion, but I feel that this change should be discussed first. We normally refer to people by the name that they are best known. For example, in our Beyoncé article, we don't say that she is married to Shawn Corey Carter, we say she's married to Jay Z. It appears to me that Ms. Barnett is best known as FKA twigs, but perhaps not in the same way. If editors here agree with the change, then feel free to reactivate this edit request. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Then can: In September 2014, Pattinson started dating London-based singer, songwriter and dancer FKA twigs.[184] In April 2015, it was confirmed that Pattinson and FKA are engaged.[185]

Read: In September 2014, Pattinson started dating London-based singer, songwriter and dancer FKA twigs.[184] In April 2015, it was confirmed that Pattinson and FKA twigs are engaged.[185] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.250.152.253 (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Robert p

is also going out with a girl something twigs they have been seen together in public.could those two be engaded anytime soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.155.188 (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC) bla bla bla this is useless info

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Pattinson. 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.usmagazine.com/news/robert-pattinson-sings-in-indie-flick-how-to-be-2009313

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 11:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2018

Please change "However, Stewart officially acknowledged her relationship with Pattinson for the first time in July, 2012, when Us Weekly published photos of Stewart showing affection with her Snow White and the Huntsman director, Rupert Sanders, with what the Huffington Post called an "affair."

to

"However, Stewart officially acknowledged her relationship with Pattinson for the first time in July 2012, when Us Weekly published photos of Stewart having an affair with her Snow White and the Huntsman director, Rupert Sanders." Saskia lou (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2018

please change

In 2008, Pattinson became romantically linked to co-star Kristen Stewart. For a long time, the two did not explicitly confirm a relationship, but press photographs and eyewitness accounts drove intense media and fan speculation and attention. However, Stewart officially acknowledged her relationship with Pattinson for the first time in July 2012, when Us Weekly published photos of Stewart having an affair with her Snow White and the Huntsman director, Rupert Sanders. The day that the photos were released, Stewart issued a public apology to Pattinson at People Magazine, saying, "I'm deeply sorry for the hurt and embarrassment I've caused to those close to me and everyone this has affected. This momentary indiscretion has jeopardized the most important thing in my life, the person I love and respect the most, Rob. I love him, I love him, I'm so sorry." After dodging the question repeatedly, Pattinson confirmed in an interview with Esquire UK in July 2014 that he and Stewart had split in 2012. There had been prior speculation that the couple broke up in May 2013, when Pattinson was seen removing personal items from Stewart's home.

to

In summer 2009, Pattinson became romantically linked to Twilight co-star Kristen Stewart. For a long time, the two did not explicitly confirm a relationship, but photographs and eyewitnesses drove intense fan speculation and media attention. However, Stewart officially acknowledged her relationship with Pattinson for the first time in July 2012, when Us Weekly published paparazzi photos of Stewart seen cheating on Pattinson by having an affair with the married Snow White and the Huntsman director Rupert Sanders. The day that the photos were released, Stewart issued a public apology to Pattinson per People Magazine, saying, "I'm deeply sorry for the hurt and embarrassment I've caused to those close to me and everyone this has affected. This momentary indiscretion has jeopardized the most important thing in my life, the person I love and respect the most, Rob. I love him, I love him, I'm so sorry." The couple reconciled in October 2012, but broke up in May 2013, when Pattinson was seen removing personal items from Stewart's home. Saskia lou (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Unnecessary puffery and I see no need for this edit. It doesn't seem to do much in the way of copyediting either. Waddie96 (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2018

please change

In September 2014, Pattinson started dating singer FKA Twigs. They were engaged from April 2015 to October 2017. The couple split in summer 2017 after a 3-year relationship. Saskia lou (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AntiCedros (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2018

please change

In September 2014, Pattinson started dating singer FKA Twigs. They were engaged from April 2015 to October 2017.

to

In September 2014, Pattinson started dating singer and dancer FKA Twigs. They were rumored to be engaged but never confirmed the speculations. The couple split in summer 2017 after a 3-year relationship. Saskia lou (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. AntiCedros (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Relationship with Suki Waterhouse

It has been confirmed that they only had something casual and that they aren’t in a relationship. They are just friends, it’s wrong to add it in his personal life section until he confirms otherwise. Vdh m (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

They were only seen once in public giving a kiss.. => Robert Pattinson- Suki Waterhouse // Robert Pattinson is reportedly dating Suki Waterhouse news-story

Past relationship

Please add his relationship with FKA Twigs to his personal life section —> In September 2014, Pattinson started dating British singer FKA Twigs. They were rumored to be engaged, but never publicly confirmed it. The couple split in summer 2017. Linagober (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is a neutral factual encyclopedia based on published reputable sources, not a gossip mag trafficing in rumors. DMacks (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The Batman

Please do not add an entry in Pattinson's filmography for The Batman, as the film has not started production and the note at the end of the filmography specifically states not to add films in pre-production. Thanks in advance. You may add it once the film officially begins production.  GrendelNightmares  (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Robert Pattinson 2018.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)