Talk:Eric Stoltz

Untitled

This section is an archive of the discussion surrounding a page which was kept following no consensus to delete on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion.

Same reasons and same user as above. Said user has no other prior edit history, at least until he or she logs on to another public computer. - Lucky 6.9 00:48, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. This should be able to grow into a reasonable article. Acegikmo1 02:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I've expanded it slightly. Chuq 03:12, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. A Google search shows over 55,600 entries for "Eric Stoltz" [1] including a sizable IMDb entry [2] indicating a lengthy acting career.Seaeagle04 03:34, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Certainly keep. Everyking 04:13, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Looks great now. My concern centers around how many of these we're going to have to fix. I can just imagine what this person would do with, let's say, Judy Garland: "Judy Garland is an actress who stars in movies like The Wizard of Oz and Meet Me In St. Louis." How useful is that? - Lucky 6.9 04:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, let's image there is no Judy Garland page, and someone comes around and creates a one-line stub. A few minutes later, Lucky 6.9 comes around, places in on VfD, and in due time, the article gets deleted. Then Wikipedia is left with no page at all about Judy Garland. How useful is that? Full articles are better than stubs, but IMO, stubs are better than no articles at all. Abigail 12:45, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you didn't read my other comment. I voted to keep the article in its current form. And, while I wholeheartedly agree that a stub is better than no article at all, no article is better than a useless stub from which another user would have to start from scratch anyway. We're discussing that same subject in regards to the Guelph botany article. I should also point out in light of your current tone that I've tried everything I can to help, not hinder this person and that a sysop politely suggested posting these on VfD. If the general consensus is to keep and expand these as they come in, that's perfectly acceptable. - Lucky 6.9 15:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Further comment: If this was just about one or two articles, these wouldn't be here by my doing. These stubs come in on a regular basis. - Lucky 6.9 16:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Since Lupin has turned it into an article, it looks like a keep (assuming she played a significant character in at least some of the things on the filmography) Average Earthman 16:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. List on Cleanup. RickK 19:46, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. --Starx 05:00, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Weasel Wording

"Eric Stoltz (born September 30, 1961) is an American actor widely considered one of the most prominent and diverse performers in independent film." Taken from the beginning of the article. That widely considered-part seems pretty much like weasel wording for me. MacMoney 20:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

back to the future

i want to delete that whole phrase, and just keep " he was replaced after eight weeks of filming " it has nothing to do with Stoltz who and why got his part. yes? no?Yamanbaiia 10:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Milo & Otis

The summary at the beginning of the article states that Stoltz was in Milo & Otis. Unless someone knows something I don't, there were no people whatsoever in it. Delete, yes? No?

Breadfap (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Eric's sisters

SopranoAscends, instead of going back and forth and talking to each other in edit summaries, let's discuss the sentence about his sisters here. We have to be able to cite every fact in the sentence. At the moment, I don't see anything that connects Catherine (singer) to Eric as his brother, just Catherine as a singer. I also don't see anything to show that they are older. If I'm missing something, please show me.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I am a newbie, and trying to follow protocols. As you know, it takes time.I appreciate you hailing me, as I did not understand how to add to Talk. I have sent Susan a note about this matter. As a writer, I'm sure she will have something we can reference. I see in her bio on her home page that her sibs are not mentioned in order. I saw the photo and made assumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SopranoAscends (talk • contribs) 22:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

A few comments. First, you should sign your posts on pages like this by clicking on the signature icon. Second, I'm not sure if there's a policy on the issue, but I've never heard of an editor contacting the relative of an article subject for more information. I certainly wouldn't do it. You have to be careful that everything cited is verifiable, reliable, and generally from a third-party. Third, on these Talk pages and other forums, use a colon for indenting (I took the liberty of indenting your comment) so that it's easier for people to read the dialogue. As for being a newbie, Wikipedia is daunting and often frustrating - no need to apologize for not knowing things. You'll learn. It just takes a lot of patience. If you have questions, you can feel free to ask them on my Talk page. I might (smile) know the answer.--Bbb23 (date and time stamp inadvertently removed)

Thank you for your guidance. As to contacting a sibling, it would appear most certainly unacceptable, and something I would not otherwise ever consider. However, this person is widely published and has a strong presence on the web. As a journalist, she would be most helpful in supporting the ethics of objective references in this case. I somehow doubt I'll hear back. Now, a question for you as we try to clarify this matter. I found an image (pix) of the siblings as kids. Mr. Stoltz is clearly identifiable, and the sisters as well. SopranoAscends 23:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC){User talk:SopranoAscends}

Don't put more than one blank line between comments or it leaves too much white space. You did something wrong - not sure what - about adding your signature. As for the picture, I'm not sure what you're asking.

As an aside, can you provide some source that says "put up" is correct in the industry? I couldn't. Sounds awful to me, although I've left it alone for the moment. The sentence itself also needs a source. I poked around and found some things but the best stuff said he did repetertory without saying 10 plays, and the stuff that says 10 plays seems to be circular (meaning it is probably cloned from Wikipedia), or it's unrelliable sources (like IMDb, which is probably where Wikipedia got it from in the first place). I'm tempted to reword it and use only a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed to "performed." That will satisfy all I hope! I've been a professional opera singer for thirty years and teach at a university. We "put up" a production. Then we "perform it," and when we are finished, we close the production,take it down or "strike the set." Same applies to live theatre. Only difference is in opera, we never say "put on a show." It "put on the opera." One quirk: we refer to the orchestra as "the band." SopranoAscends 06:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SopranoAscends (talk • contribs)

Middle name

An editor just changed Stoltz's middle name from Hamilton to Holden. Strangely enough, the reference used for the change was to the same website as the reference supporting the previous middle name, one of those geneaology websites, www.familytreelegends.com. In fact, both URLs worked, even though each supported a different middle name. This just proves that those sorts of websites are not reliable sources, and, certainly we cannot pick one over the other from the same site. I would also point out that according to IMDb, Stoltz's midle name is Cameron, although IMDb is not considered a reliable source, particularly for biographical material. Finally, I did a Google news search to see if I could find anything in support of a middle name, but came up with nothing. Therefore, unless someone can find a reliable source in support of a middle name, the article must do without.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction?

Pulp Fiction is specifically identified as an independent film, though that is not the case. Pulp Fiction was distributed by Miramax, and although it is generally identified with indies, it is not indie itself. Even the film's Wiki page points that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.168.162 (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Eric Stoltz is actually in Back to the Future...

... for one shot. When Marty punches Biff in the 50s café, it is Stoltz punching him. This has been confirmed by Thomas F. Wilson and you can see the scene here. Therefore, I would add BttF to his filmography as "uncredited, for one shot".--Invader Phantom (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Film credit

Why isn't the film Out of Order (2003) not listed for either Eric Stoltz or William H. Macy? 2603:6080:A04:AA:A896:9486:62D:6447 (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It's listed here: Eric Stoltz#Television - FlightTime (open channel) 17:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)