Talk:Timothée Chalamet/Archive 3
| This is an archive of past discussions about Timothée Chalamet. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Infobox image
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.
Since, there's been a lot of mixed opinions on which infobox image is the best depiction of the actor, it's better to list them out and discuss.
- Option A
- Option B
- Option C
- Option D
- Option E
- Option F
I think A represents him the best followed by D. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Newer image F seems better. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Can we request a consensus for image F??? This is not a good picture nor is it flattering. His face looks incredibly unappealing, and it also doesnt best describe his features in any way. I do not understand why you changed a perfectly good picture in the public image & fashion section without a consensus.
- A picture of him in a hoodie may be appropriate for this section but this is not a good picture.
- No offense but every picture you have provided here have been of bad judgement. A is not flattering, neither is D or F. Perhaps leave the sourcing of pictures to a different editor. Soe743edits (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think B is the best. Khiikiat (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think A is the best. M.lebedev (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think A is the best, and D is the worst. Cmm78 (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I mistyped. I meant B instead of A. Cmm78 (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Also think D is the worst. M.lebedev (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- B seems like the best choice for the infobox. No unnecessary distractions (hat / hood). Focus entirely on his face. Closed mouth. He's looking directly into the camera. List goes on. ArturSik (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think B is better. Or maybe F? Lililolol (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Is this all we have on offer? (serious question, I mean don't we have any non-mustachioed pic, for example?) ---Sluzzelin talk 03:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- B or a cropped version of C. All the others I find to be slightly awkward. Ggoofy14 (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- A is not a flattering picture. F is also a visibly horrid picture for a wikipedia page of an actor. he's not a rapper. B is the most acceptable, though not great. D is also not great but my personal pick of the bad bunch.
- is this really all there is though? can we maybe find a nicer looking picture that everyone can agree on?
- A complete unknown premiere in london had some really amazing wikipedia esque pictures of him, maybe we can find one from those.
- they seemed to capture his recent features very nicely. Soe743edits (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
F is goood. ! – SJ + 19:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- B is the best to me for a normal-looking expression, no hat/hood. A is a close second. That being said I don't love really any of them and would love more options if available per wiki rules. Yeoutie (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yea, I think we can simplify this poll to B or F. B is the best standard profile pic: good gaze, closed mouth, no hood. (But we don't have to be 'standard' if another is clearly better) F strikes me as a good photo, but could be elsewhere in the article. – SJ + 18:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- If it has to be between those two, F is the best choice. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- lol F is definitely not a front page wikipedia picture. not in that hoodie. Soe743edits (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Is it? If you zoom in on F it looks slightly fuzzy to me. Still prefer B based on my previous comment plus it’s much clearer than F. ArturSik (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- B is not a flattering picture of his. The infobox image needs to be one from which he is most easily recognisable, and I think F does a better job at that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- See, I don’t think that’s the case with F at all. Out of all of these, F is one where he’s least recognisable to me. Could be his facial expression. Also, whether someone looks unflattering or not is a matter of opinion, and really shouldn’t be our main point of concern. The reason I still think B is the best option is because it’s almost passport-like. He doesn’t pull any faces, just looks straight into the camera without any distractions. It’s most representative of what he actually looks like, and can be easily recognised by anyone. ArturSik (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- While I agree with you that "flattering" is subjective, I disagree with the analysis that "he doesn’t pull any faces" in B, when he is smirking, which isn't ideal. A neutral smile, such as in A or F, is hence preferred. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree as well that B is the most standard looking. if we had to pick of this bunch, B is definitely the safest option, however I don't think it's a good picture.
- im sure we can find some better looking pictures. Soe743edits (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- interesting that you think B the most standard looking picture is not a flattering image. but the weird looking picture of his face in a pink hoodie represents his features well and is apparently flattering. lol Soe743edits (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- It's fine to disagree without being snarky. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- wasn't my attention, apologies if it came across that way. B does seem to be consensus option for now, maybe we leave that up until we find a better picture? Soe743edits (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- intention
- Soe743edits (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- wasn't my attention, apologies if it came across that way. B does seem to be consensus option for now, maybe we leave that up until we find a better picture? Soe743edits (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- It's fine to disagree without being snarky. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- See, I don’t think that’s the case with F at all. Out of all of these, F is one where he’s least recognisable to me. Could be his facial expression. Also, whether someone looks unflattering or not is a matter of opinion, and really shouldn’t be our main point of concern. The reason I still think B is the best option is because it’s almost passport-like. He doesn’t pull any faces, just looks straight into the camera without any distractions. It’s most representative of what he actually looks like, and can be easily recognised by anyone. ArturSik (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- B is not a flattering picture of his. The infobox image needs to be one from which he is most easily recognisable, and I think F does a better job at that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- If it has to be between those two, F is the best choice. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yea, I think we can simplify this poll to B or F. B is the best standard profile pic: good gaze, closed mouth, no hood. (But we don't have to be 'standard' if another is clearly better) F strikes me as a good photo, but could be elsewhere in the article. – SJ + 18:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- I like B/C the best. I do like F but I would prefer one where he's not wearing a hoodie or obstructing his face (like D). Is there one with the hoodie down from the same event? Kokaynegeesus (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- B is my first choice. F is my second choice. The rest I don’t care for. Trillfendi (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Public image & fashion
I don’t think a statement from just one article deserves a mention here. This particular “noodle boys” reference is not a general sentiment and has not been corroborated or mentioned by any other outlets. I believe this section should only highlight general and common views and perceptions of him. Soe743edits (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Infobox picture
File:Timothée Chalamet in London 2025 (cropped).jpg became available after last discussion. What do you guys think of replacing the current photo with this one? ArturSik (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think it looks good and shows his full face, either one is fine. IXCat (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- I dont think it’s a flattering picture for his wiki page, the lighting is too harsh on his features. current one is much better in my opinion. Soe743edits (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps we can update the photo to this one File:Timothée Chalamet 2025 2 (cropped).jpg where he's in more formal wear? It's also not an awkward angle or unflattering close-up. Miss HollyJ (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Completely agree. I think this is the best of the bunch. Especially when zoomed in, it’s not unflattering like the previous one suggested. Soe743edits (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
@Miss HollyJ: In my opinion, the current photograph (c:File:Timothée Chalamet-63482 (cropped).jpg) is fine. It was chosen through this discussion: Talk:Timothée Chalamet/Archive 3#Infobox image. Please consider starting an RfC. Khiikiat (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
State reasons for edit restrictions
To the regular, registered editors watch-listing this article:
Please state the reasoning, and intended duration, for the edit restrictions imposed on this popular GA article. It is contrary to founders' intentions—the two, yes, but not just the two, the entire founding generation that established WP policies—to maintain articles for long periods without the general ability of all incoming readers to edit.
Restrictions to editing should be maintained only as long as it takes for the emotion to subside behind a given event leading to edit-warring; and/or until restrictive interventions directed toward specific offending editors (blocks for vandalism, etc.) can my instituted. General, long-lasting restrictions on editing by non-offending, non-registered editors have never been seen as the best answer, or as a long-standing status quo, for any article (and especially and particularly, not for ones rated mid- to low-importance).
From a practical persepctive, limiting the article in the current way prevents simple, non-POV edits that are WP:VERIFY- and WP:OR-directed and compliant from being performed—copy edits and beyond—to the detriment of the article; and, it creates the impression of WP:OWNership by a limited cadres of editors.
Neither of these are outcomes/optics WP needs at this time. [Signed, a former faculty registered editor of very longstanding.] ~2025-38509-63 (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2025
This edit request to Timothée Chalamet has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change place of birth to liverpool slums, as he is EsDeeKid. 67kidepstein (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 05:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2025
This edit request to Timothée Chalamet has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Considered one of the most popular actors of his generation" to "Considered one of the most pretentious actors of his generation" ~2025-42850-65 (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Day Creature (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Copy edit needs.
Kudos to earlier editors that have given so much to make this article—for the parts, such as the lead and Early life, that we have reviewed—such a good example of quality editing in compliance with WP:VERIFY. Bravissimi.
A trio of copy edits to perform, before the restriction on editing is lifted (see immediately preceding Talk post):
1, Change the author name format for current reference [25] to one consistent with the general style of the article. (The near uniform name presentation style of the article is "Last, First"; this citation is a WP:CITEVAR outlier.) Note, we have not done a thorough review for citation content and style consistency (use of {{cite... markup, presentation of authors, titles, etc.), and since other exceptions are likely, this request might prompt either a lifting of editorial restrictions (so we can contribute), or a more thorough review of the citation styles for consistency (either way, so the work gets done).
Re: the following pair of sentences in the "Early life..." section:
His French father, Marc Chalamet, is an editor for the UNICEF and New York correspondent for Le Parisien.[5][12][13] Marc is from Nîmes and is of Protestant background.[11][14]
2, Remove the definite article, "the", before ,"UNICEF", or perform a similar meaning-clarifying edit of the sentence. Use of the defintie article leads to sentence misreading—suggesting that "UNICEF and New York" jointly precede and modify "correspondent"—and so, likely, the article should simply be removed. (While "the UNICEF" might be formally correct—e.g., if one presumes readers see the abbreviation and read its expanded meaning, "the United Nations..."—most readers do not, and so the definite article is not necessary in this context. Simply put, the sentence reads correctly if that article is omitted. Alternatively, if insistent that the definite article remain, a comma should be placed after UNICEF, to make clear that two distinct positions are being described.
3, We object to familiar expressions as contrary to best journalistic and encyclopedic practices. The person being written about is not a friend or acquaintance, and so is not someone with whom we are on a first name basis. As such, we suggest that other expressions—"the elder Chalamet", "Chalamet, the father", or similar—be used, rather than referring to him in instances subsequent to the first simply as "Marc". In this case, the solution may be simpler, insofar as the two sentences can be joined, so the sentence subject does not need to be restated, e.g.:
- Marc Chalamet, his French father, a New York correspondent for Le Parisien and an editor for UNICEF,[5][12][13] is from Nîmes, France, and is from a Protestant heritage.[11][14]
The specific edits offered are not the only ways to solve these three small copy edit issues, but they are, despite being small, issues that should be addressed—the first for article consistency, the second for readability, and the third based on journalistic/encyclopedic best practice.
Signed, as above, ~2025-38509-63 (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Done Thank you for your suggestions and apologies for the late response, this comment had slipped by. IXCat (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Personal life
Hey all. This section seems to be drifting into trivia which often happens and why we tend incorporate relevant information into the biography section instead of having a separate 'Personal Life' section. It might be a good idea to consider doing the same here. ArturSik (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- Hi! This is fair but I do think a Personal life section is useful in this case. I'll let other users weigh in, in the meantime I'll try to re-write it to fit Wiki standards. IXCat (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about merging sections, but I think mentions of him being a "fan" of certain sport teams are WP:FANCRUFT. I'd remove those and move his aspiration to be a soccer player and the YouTube channel stuff to the Early life section, leaving only the relationship and career influences in the Personal life section. Poirot09 (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- This is a good idea, let's see if anyone else or OP has anything else to add. IXCat (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2026
This edit request to Timothée Chalamet has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article claims that Chalamet is in a relationship with Kylie Jenner as of April 2023. It was reconfirmed in January 2026.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15435851/Truth-Timothee-Chalamets-public-declaration-love-Kylie-Jenner-Critics-Choice-rumours-relationship.html ~2026-13236-8 (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- @~2026-13236-8: Hi, DailyMail is not a valid source as per. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources. I did find another source at CNN, and that has been added to the article and the date of the relationship has been updated. --SimmeD (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- Kindly get a stronger consensus for this because it makes no sense to have it as Jan 2026 simply because it was ‘reconfirmed’. The earliest date being there is the most reasonable as it gives readers a general overview of how long they have been together. Soe743edits (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
Career
He doesn’t play a young man in CMBYN - he plays a boy , no? ~2026-23429-1 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ →𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎← 23:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Academy Award
"He also received his third consecutive nomination for the Academy Award for Best Actor"
It's incorrect. He has 3 nominations but only 2 are consecutive (2024 & 2025). ~2026-49173-8 (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
EsDeeKid
Rumors/jokes of Chalamet being EsDeeKid DC.rckus (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2026
This edit request to Timothée Chalamet has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the first picture to a most recent one. Alba.as31 (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Not done: Please upload the picture you want to use and provide the link to it. See WP:File Upload for help. meamemg (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2026
This edit request to Timothée Chalamet has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The opening sentence should be updated from 'American and French' to 'French-American'. Per MOS:BIO, descriptors should be concise. The current phrasing is redundant, as his dual citizenship is already clearly clarified in the Infobox. 'French-American' more accurately reflects his self-identification and the centrality of his French heritage to his professional career. This change removes the verbosity and ambiguity of the current list format and provides a more precise cultural and national descriptor.
~2026-13456-14 (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Not done: Per MOS:BIO, the current phrasing is correct: In cases of public or relevant dual citizenship, [...] the use of the word and reduces ambiguity.
The relevant example given: Arnold Schwarzenegger (born July 30, 1947) is an Austrian and American actor [...]
Uses the same phrasing. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 09:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- "I’d like to reopen this for consistency and conciseness.
While some argue for 'and' to denote dual citizenship, high-profile biographies for dual nationals like John Barrowman successfully use the hyphenated 'Scottish-American' to describe nationality without confusion. The current 'American and French' phrasing on this page is redundant and creates unnecessary verbosity that goes against MOS:CONCISE. Given the subject’s consistent self-identification with his blended heritage, a hyphenated 'French-American' is more accurate to his identity and more readable for the user." ~2026-13540-88 (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)~2026-13540-88 (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2026
This edit request to Timothée Chalamet has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Timothée‘s maternal grandfather was TV writer and author Harold Flender.[1] ~2026-59556-4 (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Not done, it's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
References
- ↑ Margolick, David (2025). When Caesar Was King. New York: Schocken Books. p. 91. ISBN 9780805242553.
Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2026
This edit request to Timothée Chalamet has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"...I just took shots for no reason". The opera and ballet community"
This is incomplete Danbard (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 09:51, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2026 (2)
This edit request to Timothée Chalamet has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "I just took shots for no reason'. The opera and ballet comunity citicized the actor statemant, finding him disrespectful towards the arts, as well as guilty of vanity and arrogance towards fellow actors and productions." to "I just lost 14 cents in viewership'. Members of the opera and ballet community criticized Chalamet's statements, finding his outlook disrespectful toward the arts, as well as reflective of vanity and arrogance toward fellow artists." Tridentata (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Not done: This section of the article has been removed for now; it will require consensus before being readded. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 09:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Comments
Should I add his contvorsty comments on ballet and opera selection by --Sunuraju (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
opera comment
ballet&opera comment should be added back. there's been so much coverage. it deserves a mention Warpfrz (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- yes it need coveage Sunuraju (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2026
This edit request to Timothée Chalamet has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change that he is with Kylie Jenner now and not Madonnas daughter. Slefe (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Not done:. Kylie is listed in the infobox — please be specific about what you want to change. Prolabelmaker (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Columbia mention in lead
Should the fact that he briefly attended Columbia University be worthy of a mention in the lead? I don't know if it makes sense given that he also transferred to NYU and didn't graduate from either. I think mentioning Columbia leads to the implication that he did graduate. It feels worthy of mentioning in the education portion within the body but not relevant in the lead. And if people do want Columbia mentioned in lead, why not also NYU for consistency since he specifically studied acting there. However I believe all this leads to puffery since he didn't graduate from either and only attended both institutions briefly.The One I Left (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Critics Choice Award worthy for lead mention
Opening a discussion as to whether the Critics' Choice Award win is worthy for the lead of Chalamet's main page. Seems more appropriate for his awards article.The One I Left (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2026 (UTC)