This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Is there a kind editor who could please switch out the incredibly unflattering due to pregnancy weight gain close up photo of this beautiful actress and instead put at top the 2018 Berlin International Film Festival photograph that is currently at the bottom of the article? A suggested fix: the location of the two photographs could simply be switched. Please! MusaVeneziana(talk) 11:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@45.165.160.181, please find support to change the order. The current order follows the example of other actors/writers/filmmakers. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Let me add support for rephrasing this. Gerwig is much more a director that also acts, than "an actor and director" - that phrasing implies some level of equality that just isn't there in the 2020s. She's one of Hollywood's top directors but only a dime-a-dozen actor. CapnZapp (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 22 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caroline. kk (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Almondmilk2.
— Assignment last updated by GreenBruchert8 (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
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.
Should the order of occupation in the lead be changed from American actress, writer, and director
toAmerican director, writer, and actress
?
Review the previous discussion here. Nemov (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
With a week since the last edit, I would like to ask you Nemov to consider self-closing this RfD and allow the edit to pass. CapnZapp (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reachedmeans. I have attempted to discuss this with you in good faith, but your comments appear adversarial in tone. Discussing it with you further doesn't seem productive. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The RfC creator is claiming a no consensus outcome and I'm not sure I agreewhich the closer ignored. Your last comment could be construed as switching positions, which could have affected the closer's decision. CapnZapp (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sigh.
Chetsford: you do realize you just did exactly what I suspected the RfC would be used for? End in "no consensus" that can be used - and explicitly is used that way by yourself! - as an argument to keep the order? You apparently completely ignored Nemov's last comment.
CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
In general, in these situations, the most recent stable version should be used.You could have reasoned the parties were about to resolve the issue amicably. CapnZapp (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Advice for the next time, Chetsford: just because you profess to merely be a "garbageman" does not mean you aren't allowed to think for yourself. Nowhere during this process do I see any evidence of you hesitating. Nowhere during this process do you appear to have read Nemov's last pre-close comment While no consensus was found, CapnZapp please feel free to make the change I won't object.
How you can read that as "no consensus" when the RfC poster clearly is allowing the change to go through is beyond me - from my perspective you are allowing Nemov to successfully gatekeep the article even though he also gets to go on record as not opposing the change. You are deflecting towards ANI, but that does not mean I think it is a good idea for you to keep closing RfCs when and where you could be construed as ignoring the wider context. Remember, you didn't have to do this. The instructions for closing are very terse which weakens the idea "you're only the garbageman following procedure". A lack of detailed step by step procedure means I will assume an initial step is implied: Step 0. Think for yourself. Maybe next time you will realize you would be helping yourself and others by saying "nope, not gonna touch that RfC!" And just because someone requested the close doesn't mean it's a good idea to put on your procedural blinders and treat every close equally. If you (and others) had abstained from action, I would have followed through on my comment from 23 June[7] and closed the RfC as "withdrawn by the poster" and making the change, and none of us would be here right now. CapnZapp (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply