Talk:Greta Gerwig

Key photograph of Great Gerwig

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)

Actress, writer, and director

@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)

Given that she is focusing on directing now, it should come first, especially because when you Google Gerwig, it grabs the 'American actress' as the tagline, when it should say 'American director' Leorabk (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

She was notable first for being an actor for many years and is still an active actor. The current list is perfectly acceptable. Nemov (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

She has received for more awards and recognition as a filmmaker than an actress and her latest film has shattered so many box office records for a female director. I agree that she's more notable as a filmmaker than an actress. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there a MOS on something like this? I think it reads better as "actress and filmmaker" or "actress, writer, and director." She was a notable actress for a long time before the recent success as a director. I hate to WP:OTHERSTUFF but Eastwood has pretty much been a famous film director now for 30 years. Nemov (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Eastwood has remained extremely active as an actor during that time so it's not at all a similar comparison. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Greta just starred in White Noise last November. She's been as active as an actor as Eastwood the past 5 years and way more the past 10 years. Nemov (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

White Noise is an indie film directed by her life partner released straight to Netflix, getting no major awards. Barbie is continuing to smash box office records for a film directed by a woman. Ladybird is one of the extremely few films directed by a woman to get nominated for a Best Directing Oscar. To pretend that her acting career is anywhere near as notable or gets as much media attention as her career as a filmmaker is simply untrue. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't said she was more notable for acting? The order is pretty much a matter of preference unless there's a MOS. I'm just following other examples and I think it reads easier.Nemov (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• FWIW I've posed this question at Actors and Filmmakers to see if there's any MOS with the order of occupation. Nemov (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  There doesn't appear to be a MOS for this, but one comment was that it should generally be in the order of occupation. That seems reasonable to me and fits the status quo. Nemov (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

I don't get the implication and following order of occupation has worked fine throughout the project. Nemov (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but "has worked fine throughout the project" is a non-argument that advocates for "no change" without actually arguing for it. Bringing up "the project" is a great way to make people think change is hopeless: "do I really need to turn the entire project around?". But that is not so: just because "actor, writer, director" is fine at some other article does not necessarily mean we must have it too.

Now, this talk section clearly exists because editors have a different opinion than "it's working fine". Because editors want to emphasize how the article subject is viewed as a director first and foremost, and actor only as a secondary characterization. Editors like me want to rephrase to distinguish Gerwig from actors who also direct, but remain primarily known as actors. Do you have a constructive proposal that could achieve consensus in both groups? CapnZapp (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's one idea. Let's look at the Wikipedia entries for people on this IMDB list. John Cassavetes is presented as a "filmmaker and actor", which I could see working for Gerwig as well (point is, actor not first or foremost). Vittorio De Sica was a "director and actor." On the other hand, Julie Delpy is (correctly in my mind) presented as actress before screenwriter. And so on... as you go through the list you realize all permutations of "actor", "director", "writer" are equally acceptable on Wikipedia. (Gerwig isn't on the list btw.) CapnZapp (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I've created a RFC on this topic. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Analyzing Cinema, Gender and Sexuality

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)

Order of occupation in the lead

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 to American director, writer, and actress?

Review the previous discussion here. Nemov (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose When I asked the project about this question there didn't appear to be a specific guideline on this question. However, presenting this in order of occupation makes sense. Gerwig was a notable actress for many years before directing. She still continues to act, write, and direct. I don't think the order implies her impact in any of the three fields, but simply order of occupation for her career. Nemov (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support. She's more notable for directing at this point in her career. It makes sense to reorder the first sentence to reflect that. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
  •  Note: I made this !vote before discovering the lengthy history of this dispute. My !vote above still stands, but I do not think this needed an RfC, as I explained in the discussion section below. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• OpposeMildly. I really don't think it matters and it's fine as it is. I do think creating an RfC at this point seems overkill. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• This should not be a RfC. If Nemov just took a step back and let others edit the page for a while, perhaps the world wouldn't end, and we could move on. I feel taking this step is an attempt to redirect away from "this is just a small but natural change" and make it something big and formal, perhaps hoping to defeat the effort on purely procedural grounds. Including the very real possibility this ends with a "no consensus" that can then be misinterpreted as actual support for the status quo. Not interested. CapnZapp (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support She may have been primarily known as an actress a few years ago, but that's no longer true. Both her writing and her directing are now more notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Her significance as a director outstrips her acting. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose non-obvious ordering in favor of an alphabetical ordering since she is notable for all of these occupations. I would also suggest refining the occupations, like "film director" instead of just "director" (which is vague), and "screenwriter" instead of just "writer" (which is also vague). So that can be ordered actor, film director, and screenwriter. Keeping it alphabetical eliminates any future shuffling. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Plenty of articles have non-alphabetical ordering and seem to do just fine. Nobody has claimed she isn't notable for any of the listed occupations; your comment conveniently forgets what the arguments for this discussion revolves around. I have nothing against your suggested occupation title improvements; though this discussion is specifically about the order they are presented in. CapnZapp (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

A non-organic order should be verifiable by their due weight if it is not obvious to passerby readers who may or may not switch it around. (I find the claim that such articles "do just fine" to be vague.) There are numerous actors who also direct, and I don't know how universal (or not universal) it is to switch the order based on editors' POV assumptions of which credit is more prevalent at that point in time. I am arguing to sidestep that nitty-gritty and just order alphabetically. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Did this really need a RfC? It's a minor change that doesn't impact the meaning of the sentence, and in the discussion leading up to this I see three editors in favor, one mildly against. Feels like there's already a rough consensus and this RfC may be a bit of a waste of time. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Now I see the length of time that the previous discussion occurred over. After looking into this more, @Nemov, I'm concerned about potential WP:OWN and/or WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALL issues, especially given edits like this where you're adding a note that implies a consensus that does not exist, followed by rigorous defense of it (1, 2, 3, 4 and more). Numerous editors making essentially the same change to an article, plus the ones supporting it on the talk page, gives us a pretty clear consensus. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks for taking time to comment. In light of there being no policy on this issue and the number of times that section has changed this seemed like a sensible way to get a stronger consensus. Nemov (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

    It's been changed so many times because you revert everyone who's tried to change it for at least the past two years, despite no consensus or policy to do so. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Pinging participants of the previous discussion: @Leorabk, JDDJS, and CapnZapp. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. CapnZapp (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• I see nothing at WP:LEAD or MOS:BIO to cover the order of occupations. Does anyone know of any guidance to follow? I feel like each occupation has plenty of weight behind it. (Do we need to consider "producer" as well?) Why not just order the occupations alphabetically, if there is substantial contribution with each occupation? I alphabetically order names and titles in article bodies often to keep it simple. Keeping it alphabetical would keep relativity out of it, like whether to consider her starting out primarily as an actress, and being known more "now" as a director and writer (which could change later). Remember that whatever non-alphabetical order we go with, passerby editors are bound to change it up later for the aforementioned reasons. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  I watch a few different biographies including filmmakers. Clint Eastwood is a good example where producer came up a few months ago, but there are others where the occupation order changes quite a bit. Given there's no guidance is usually comes down to local consensus, but perhaps it would be better to create some guidance? I could workshop it WP:VPI. Nemov (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Clint Eastwood is actually not a good example because he's very clearly a (very) prominent actor as well as a (very) prominent director. You have been told this already [1]; please stop bringing up Eastwood as a relevant example, Nemov. How about you accepting that local consensus is the best way to handle minor issues like this? Please stop trying to make this a policy issue or shoehorn this article into some inflexible set of rules; please instead allow consensus to form for this article only. CapnZapp (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Erik brought up the question of "producer" and I was responding in good faith to their comment. You are not the arbiter of what I can and can't bring up. You don't decide what I consider a minor or major issue. You don't get to officiate my comments. This RFC will end one way or the other and I'll be fine with it. However, I have noticed that occupations is something that changes a lot on other similar articles. Nemov (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Nemov has responded (see [2]) so I suggest we end the RfC here if no other opinions are forthcoming. As an involved editor, I'd prefer to let an uninvolved editor close & summarize, even though this is not a strict requirement for RfCs. CapnZapp (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Such a strange comment after what I wrote on my TALK. I said let the RFC play out. RFCs take 30 days. There was a comment yesterday. I don't understand your rush, especially after I said I wouldn't use a no consensus close to stonewall that change (which you have accused me of in your comment above). This RFC was created in good faith. My edits on this article are of article watcher's variety. I watch hundreds of them. I'm not the only one who has been making edits on this topic.[3][4] Finding a consensus on this would be better in the long run. Perhaps if you let this RFC run its course, the world wouldn't end. Nemov (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The notion that RfCs "take" 30 days is false. Please read WP:RFCCLOSE, which states "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be," and specifically encourages editors not to wait for 30 days, which is only a date when a bot will auto-end the RfC. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with RFC policy and it seems we have different opinions about what exactly An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached means. 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)

• I've removed the RFC tags since it's been well over a week since the last comment. While no consensus was found, CapnZapp please feel free to make the change I won't object. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. To avoid possible drama I will hold off to see if an uninvolved wikipedian will edit before I do. Also to give everybody time to digest Nemov's response first. CapnZapp (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

• Just for reference this was closed on the request of FormalDude.[5] Nemov (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI: FormalDude specifically stated The RfC creator is claiming a no consensus outcome and I'm not sure I agree which 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)

RfC close

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)

I didn't ask for a formal close to avoid that particular outcome, but we can't fault the closer for closing it correctly. My position hasn't changed. I won't object to a change. Nemov (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

"you do realize you just did exactly what I suspected the RfC would be used for" I do, indeed. But that was the result. You're free to request a close review if you think the close was incorrect. Chetsford (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

First I want to ask you if you even considered my argument, that this shouldn't have been an RfC? Did you at any stage consider aborting your attempt at closing this particular RfC, perhaps leaving it up to us involved editors (as Nemov at least appeared to be prepared to)? Or did you at any stage take into consideration that Nemov has reverted multiple previous attempts, only resorting to creating an RfC when the pressure meant that route was no longer viable? Please don't offer me as a viable path to review the close - I'm sure you followed procedure to the letter and I'm sure there is nothing about the close to formally object to. My point is that we should not use RfCs to gatekeep content we can't otherwise gain consensus for - your decision to make this close effectively means that Nemov does not need consensus for his position, he only needs to avoid consensus against it. At the very least, before you next decide to close a RfC, consider that you don't actually have to, especially when you suspect it's used to gamble on a "no consensus" result. CapnZapp (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Chetsford: At the very least, you could have abstained from adding the last sentence of your summary 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)

"You could have reasoned the parties were about to resolve the issue amicably." I could have. But that was not self-evident to me. If this was the case, it is the responsibility of the various parties to make that crystal clear. It is not my responsibility to decipher cryptic signals and hidden inferences in the comments of editors. Chetsford (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a very bizarre rant. Just for the record, the only reason I created this RFC was because I felt like CapnZapp's tone was battleground in nature. Nothing that has occured since then has dispelled me of this notion. As I mentioned before, I wasn't the only editor reverting this change as a watcher of the article. I am not gatekeeping. I don't understand the hostility being directed at the closer for a routine close that they volunteered their time to do. Nemov (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

"First I want to ask you if you even considered my argument, that this shouldn't have been an RfC?" I did. Aborting an RfC is an act that, itself, requires a consensus. There was no consensus.

"Did you at any stage consider aborting your attempt at closing this particular RfC, perhaps leaving it up to us involved editors (as Nemov at least appeared to be prepared to)?" Nope. Not even once. Once it begins, the RfC is a process that is owned by all its participants, not simply the most vociferous, not simply the OP, not simply those most active on the article.

"Or did you at any stage take into consideration that Nemov has reverted multiple previous attempts, only resorting to creating an RfC when the pressure meant that route was no longer viable?" It was never even a thought in my mind. Per WP:UNINVOLVED, an uninvolved closer will not have been a party to the arguments that led to the RfC. Certainly, at the apex of non-involvement, the uninvolved editor will be completely emotionally detached with zero interest in the underlying article or discussion surrounding it, which describes me in this case. The RfC is a self-contained unit of analysis and it's neither expected nor appropriate for the closer to delve into the history of discussion outside the RfC except in very limited circumstances. Anything pertinent is the responsibility of the involved parties to bring into the RfC.

"I'm sure you followed procedure to the letter and I'm sure there is nothing about the close to formally object to." I'll stop watchlisting the page in that case. Let me know if you need anything else! Chetsford (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford: I specifically brought up Nemov's history leading up to the RfC here and here, and I went out of my way to draw attention to it here. Did you not see any of those comments, or did you deem them not pertinent? Or maybe there's some other explanation I'm missing? ––FormalDude (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

They were absolutely not pertinent. As an RfC closer, I'm not interested in Nemov's "history". If you believe Nemov has violated some of our policies or guidelines in their pre-RfC behavior then you need to take that to ANI. The RfC is not a forum to air generalized grievances, it's a means of resolving content disputes.
So, tell me, what do you want here? Do you want the RfC to: (a) close as a consensus for support on the basis of a 3-3 split with equally valid policy arguments on both sides; or, (b) do you want the RfC aborted when only 1 of the 7 participants !voted that way? If you guys could just come straight out and say what you think should have happened, that'd save me a lot of time. (But, whatever you choose, don't bother bringing Nemov's pre-RfC actions into it. I'm not here to bring justice and order to the Greta Gerwig article, I'm here for no other reason than to close one, specific RfC ... at your request [6].) Chetsford (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford: I am fine with any outcome as long as it is based in P&G. I genuinely appreciate your time and effort closing the RfC and I'm really not wanting to press the matter, but when a closer implies they either didn't read or disregarded some of your comments and doesn't say why, I think it's fair to ask.

I realize my RfC comments could've been a bit clearer, but I was (and am) only concerned with Nemov's pre-RfC behavior as it directly relates to this RfC. The one-sided reverts by Nemov going back at least two years appear to show a lengthy silent consensus well before the creation of the RfC. I feel like my comments expressed that though, so I'm not sure why you wouldn't consider whether or not there was an existing consensus prior to the start of the RfC. If there was already an existing consensus, then it would be a bad RfC regardless of how anyone !voted. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

No Consensus defaults to the most recent stable version, not the version present immediately before the RfC. If the most recent stable version was the version that existed two years ago then, I assume, that's what it needs to revert to. As for silent consensus: "Consensus arising from silence evaporates when an editor changes existing content or objects to it." Nemov is an editor and Nemov objected. Chetsford (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@FormalDude If you think there's a behavioral issue please take it to WP:ANI. Your comments here never took in account that I wasn't the only one reverting this change. I opened the discussion several years ago, asked the project about it, and given the relative lack of consistent discussion I opened a RFC. This process plays itself out rather routinely at Wikipedia. Perhaps if you exercised some good faith much of your comments about this RFC could have been avoided. Nemov (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford: I've been very clear that I think there is evidence that this RfC subverted Wikipedia policy or process and disrupted a consensus. I will presume you don't think it's part of a closer's job to ensure that hasn't happened, as you have apparently decided not to investigate or consider that evidence at all. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

If my extensive comments up to now have left any ambiguity on this point, let me be clear that, no, I'm not going to take any action on accusations of an alleged espionage campaign spanning the last two years. These may or may not be valid and worthwhile of pursuit, but it's far outside the scope of an RfC closing. I'm just the garbageman, driving through your neighborhood picking up the trash. I'm not here to investigate whether your estranged brother murdered your step-mother to steal her diamond necklace and, no matter how many times you demand I do so, I'm going to keep advising you to report it to the police.
Please take this to ANI. Chetsford (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I never demanded you do anything, I just asked for a reasonable explanation, which you have now provided. Thanks. (Sorry if my inquiry slowed your garbage route.) ––FormalDude (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

"Nemov's last pre-close comment" Please see WP:WITHDRAWN, which typically applies to RfCs as much as AfDs: "the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it".
"If you (and others) had abstained from action, I would have followed through on my comment from 23 June[2] and closed the RfC as "withdrawn by the poster" and making the change" I hope not.
"Remember, you didn't have to do this." Happy to, though! All the best -Chetsford (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)