This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Illinois Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Chicago Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is there really enough material here to make a navigation bar necessary? Doczilla _STOMP! 22:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Filmography does not seem to be correct, since it includes 1 short story and 1 TV series so I changed to "Works of Fiction", though would be more than happy if some came up with a better term. Perhaps once he has more TV series and more short stories it can be split into 3 distnct sections. AbramTerger ( talk) 11:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Do we need this section since all is included in the "Works" table? AbramTerger ( talk) 11:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I changed the "Filmography" table to a list of "Writing Credits" which seemed more appropriate given that Nolan is primarily a writer and has written short fiction, films and TV scripts. Since each section has different columns, I did not think a table would fit well. Where appropriate I have also included other credits. AbramTerger ( talk) 17:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC) reply

ReAdded deleted list. The details are no more than other peoples and is a more complete set of credits than just the partial "filmography". Filmography is an inaccurate term since most of his recent credits are in TV more than films. At the very least it needs of table of TV credits, and this I think compromises and lists all as a single list instead of 2 tables from 2 careers. The list is less superfluous than the table since the table just summarizee what is already stated in the text. AbramTerger ( talk) 00:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Edited table to remove some of the details of the the co-authorship as well as the season and episode numbers (keeping the dates) of the TV episodes. Is co-scripted or co-screenwriter preferable to co-screenplay for his film credits? Co-writer is inaccurate since with the exception of Memento Mori he has not written any stories for any of the films. AbramTerger ( talk) 10:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC) reply

There has been some adding and deletion of Jonathan's nickname of "Jonah" in the article. It seems to me that it does belong since he is referred to as "Jonah" in some articles and he has been credited professionally (eg Production Assistant in the film "Memento") with that name. Is there a reason that it does not belong as part of his name? AbramTerger ( talk) 12:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC) reply

There has been a persistent unnamed poster who does not seem to like having the nickname listed, but has so far provided any information as to why. I made 2 attempts on his user page to get him to discuss it AbramTerger ( talk) 18:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Another removal of his other credited name within his name. Compromised and put it as a separate sentence with citation at the end of the section AbramTerger ( talk) 10:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I have removed a couple attempts recently to add Interstellar to Nolan's filmography. At this point it is a screenplay and not a film. There are plenty of people who write screenplays and the films do not get made. There are even instances where a film gets made with someone else's screenplay. Until the film is made and there is credit listed it is premature to add it his filmography. The link to the "film" was also removed as it just linked to the Kip Thorne site. There is no film yet to link the information to. AbramTerger ( talk) 11:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC) reply

With all due respect, you are in error. The film has a script, studio(s), producer(s), director, and release date, completely qualifying it to be added to Mr. Nolan's filmography. Cheers, LiamNolan24 ( talk) 22:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC) reply

It sounds like there is everything but a film yet, which indicates to me that it could be in what he is working on, but would not yet qualify for his "Filmography". I just looked and IMDB does not even list it in his filmography. I am not going to start an editing war, but I would at least like to know if you have a link to the WIKI policy on when an incomplete work is able to be listed in a filmography. What are the thoughts from other editors, if there is no policy? AbramTerger ( talk) 23:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I modified the credit to match the article. It says it "is based on a script by" not that he co-wrote the film. AbramTerger ( talk) 23:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I can see why the credits as "grip" may be less important to some, but don't agree they are any more unneccessary than a credit to a non-existing film. But I removed the "grip credits". I think the production assistant and story credit is important so I kept them. I again used "based on a script by" as the article states. The article mentions nothing being co-written as no other writer is listed. The article makes no mention of who will be credited with the screenplay (which at this point is impossible to know). I also made it "Partial Filmography" since we are choosing to not have a complete filmography listing for him. AbramTerger ( talk) 11:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Credits that are " below the line" are not to be credited in a filmography on Wikipedia. Jonathan Nolan is a co-writer on the screenplay, please be vigilant of the given citations/sources. LiamNolan24 ( talk) 19:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC) reply

So I can see why prod'd asst is out, but the story credit is not, so I added back that credit (the story basis got him an academy award nomination for writing. The citation for Interstellar gives "Directed and written by Academy Award-nominee Nolan, pic is based on a script by Jonathan Nolan" which does not sound like co-writing but more like the credit for Memento: written by Chris based on Jonathans idea. I put it back to match the citation unless you have a different citation. AbramTerger ( talk) 00:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Corrected inaccurate and missing info. That new citation does not list Nolan as a cowritter but matches the "based on a script by" to the reference in the table. That citation also does not indicate that Memento was not based on his story, so why was that reference removed? A writing credit in a made film is more neccessary than one that is being made. Writing credits from start to finish do change in the film world. AbramTerger ( talk) 01:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Not once in Nolan's career has he been credited with "based on a script by". Co-writer is a very general term that is extremely inclusive. Please let it be. LiamNolan24 ( talk) 01:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I don't follow the logic of he is has not in the past, he won't be in the future. The credit in the film has not yet been listed since the film has not been released (or made). I was just trying to reflect what the citations you give listed. But it is not worth arguing with you if you will let it go, I will someone else worry about the accuracy of the citations for Interstellar until the film is actually made. But the credit in Memento is NOT cowriter. The credit in the film is "based on the short story by" so you need to let that one go. AbramTerger ( talk) 12:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Another clarification: "writer" for credits is not generic per WGA guidelines ( http://www.wga.org/uploadedFiles/writers_resources/credits/screenscredits_manual10.pdf). "Written by" is a combination of helping to create both the story and the screenplay. Most of Jonathan Nolan's credits are for screenplay, but not story, so he does not get "written by" credit. Many of Christopher Nolan's credits could be described as "written by" since he worked on both the story and the screenplay. The updated list is more in line with his actual credits. AbramTerger ( talk) 22:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I have again removed the birth date as it has been contested via OTRS and no reliable source is included in the article to verify the date. Per BLP policy contested information is to be removed until it can be confirmed. The DNB link states that the source used was IMDB which, by long standing consensus, does not meet reliable source criteria for personal statistics in biograPhy articles (see for example WP:IMDB/RS, WP:Imdb or the many discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard). Any addition of a birthdate without the inclusion of a source meeting the criteria for contested information in BLPs will be removed. -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Again, compendis-type sites such as Yahoo Movies, IMDb, NNDB, "On this Day" columns in newspapers etc. do not meet reliable sourcing criteria for contentious information in WP:BLPs. Please discuss any potential sources on the talk page prior to adding any future birthdates.-- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 14:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Is there any harm of inserting a not-bullet-proof sourced birth date, or is there a different reason for you ridiculous obsession? I mean, even the German National Library accepted 1976 as Nolan's year of birth, yet you continue to delete it. -- bender235 ( talk) 17:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Upholding BLP policy is not a "ridiculous obsession", and if you think it is then I have no clue how you have amassed as many edits as you have. If an editor is able to produce a source that meets reliable sourcing criteria for the birth year it can be included, until such a source is found the contentious date stays out. -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply

WP:BLP never required all information to be bullet-proof. It is meant in regard to potentially libellous information, which a (possible wrong) birthyear is not. In fact, there are thousands of Wikipedia articles in which the birthyear (in lack of any source) has just been estimated (sometimes from newspaper articles saying "the 34-yr old so-and-so", sometimes from the year of college graduation, etc.). Is that accepted practice on Wikipedia? Yes, it is. Because provisionally adding a birth year to a biography, which turns out to be wrong, is meaningless. It's not like accussing someone of a crime. -- bender235 ( talk) 07:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but your interpretation of BLP policy is not correct; it's absolutely not only about libelous information. The opening paragraphs of the policy make this very clear (bolding and italics from original text):

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

The birthdate is challenged and no high-quality sources have been presented to confirm the date, therefore we leave it out. There is no imperative for adding the contentious date and the fact that you point to poor sourcing and incorrect information in other articles as an example as to why it's okay to have sub-standard sourcing here is concerning. -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Who challenged it, apart from you? -- bender235 ( talk) 23:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC) reply

As I noted in my first sentence in this section concerns were raised via OTRS. The information was unsourced and removed per policy and no high quality source has been provided that would allow for its reintroduction into the article. That being said, even if I was the only individual to challenge it the requirement to find a reliable source would be the same. -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 00:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

This is a remarkably weird interpretation of Wikipedia principles. Usually, if one sees something on Wikipedia that he believes is wrong, he is asked to provided a better (more credible) source that proves the current article wrong. Now in this case, we only have someone who says "I think this is wrong, and now you are in charge to prove it is not". Even after nine years in Wikipedia, this is something new to me. -- bender235 ( talk) 12:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

This is the common interpretation for editors who work closely with BLPs and admins who specialize in upholding BLP policy. The issue is raised quite often at BLPN and consensus is always the same. See this link for a recent discussion about this very topic. -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

User:Ponyo, I understand your concern regarding reliability, I've added a source, but your adherence to rule is a bit over the top here. For contentious information highly reliable sources are required, but for DOB I doubt all these sources are incorrect. I added one from goodreads. I wonder what bender235 opinion is here. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I went ahead and added an unquestionably reliable source Hollywood Reporter which is subject to editorial review, with the author of the article listing birth dates. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Wow, it took quite a while to settle this issue. Thanks, Valoem. -- bender235 ( talk) 18:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

The subject has requested, via OTRS, that certain private information remain private. I will discuss this in more detail at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jonathan_Nolan

Replied there -- the site is not usable per its own terms and conditions, and fails WP:RS as being quite like "ancestry.com" which has the same issues. Collect ( talk) 14:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Agreed.-- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I removed the note about the oscar nomination for Jonathan. Though true, it was not Jonathan's achievement, since he did not work on the screenplay. It was a fluke of the academy rules that he was nominated. Chrisopher created the screenplay based on Jonathan's short story, "Memento Mori". Jonathan was nominated only because the film was released before the short story was published, so by Oscar rules he was give a story credit for the writing and the film was nominated as an original screenplay. If the story had been published a few months earlier, only Christopher would have been eligible for the nomination and it would have eligible for an adapted screenplay nomination. AbramTerger ( talk) 13:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Reworded lead to reflect what is in the body of the BLP -- simple removal was likely not needed here. Collect ( talk) 13:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I removed it, since the information is not really relevant for Jonathan. It is a pretty meaningless nomination. The film itself indicates that he does not even give him screenplay credit, so this was a film he did NOT work with Christopher on the screenplay. Christopher based it on Jonathan's story idea. That information is already given in the career segment. It is not need to be reiterated in the intro section, it is redundant. AbramTerger ( talk) 15:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Actually, most folks would consider it relevant as related to a major award category. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC) reply

If he had won and if he had worked on the screenplay I would agree. As it is, the facts are mentioned in the career section. As I said I see no reason for it to be in both and it is more a "factoid" that I don't think needs to be in the summary for Jonathan. Cheers. AbramTerger ( talk) 15:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC) reply

A representative of subject requested ticket:2016101110019536 that the birth day and month be removed. Which I did. I failed to note that this was a recent request, and requested for privacy reasons, not reliability reasons. The request even cited wp:DOB. I apologize for not more fully explaining the rationale, OTRS is very badly backlogged, I saw the request acted on it and did not realize that there were discussions about birth date on the talk page. Those discussions don't change the outcome; as I read the policy we do remove the information upon request.

I'm also sorry to report that per OTRS rules I cannot reproduce the contents of the email here. Two options remain if you feel additional information is needed; you can identify an OTRS agent you trust and ask them to confirm that the edit is consistent with the request or two, you could ask another OTRS agent to send a request to the subject asking for permission to reproduce the email. Given that this request stems from privacy reasons that second option isn't ideal and may be rejected.

I've pointed out to the subject that we have a reference for the year and that reference includes the month and day; they realize this and still request the removal.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 17:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Good enough for me, but I hope you understand I could not have possibly know about this new ticket, also I find it funny that Nolan thinks people cannot find his DOB now that it is off Wikipedia. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC) reply

One additional note: the discussion above refers to an OTRS email. While the ticket number is not listed, it is not the one mentioned in this post. The OTRS ticket number starts with the date year month day and then has a sequence number so you can tell that the current ticket number is from October 11 this year. I did not look at the prior ticket which appears to be sometime in 2013.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 17:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129110639/http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_10195.html to http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_10195.html

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

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

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kilter Films. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 1#Kilter Films until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 10:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply