Talk:Billie Lourd/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ancestry

Why does it say *Russian Jewish* when listing her ancestry? Does it say *Scottish Presbyterian* or *Irish Catholic* or *English Anglican*? So why insert Jewish when no other religions of her forebears are mentioned? Religion has nothing to do with listing from which nations her ancestors emigrated to the US. ScarletRibbons (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Jewish is ethnic as well as religious --172.56.11.207 (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Russian Jews are a distinct ethnic group within Russia. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

A "Russian Jew" is a fallacious notion. the Pale of Settlement encompassed the areas of many countries , are Polish Jews counted as Russian even if Poland did not exist until after WW1? Furthermore there is no WP:RS for Lourd's grandfather being a so-called "Russian Jew" there are only two severely dead links one of which was retrieved via the Wayback machine. Wlmg (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Billie Lourd's gender

There are a couple of reliable sources that Billie Lourd was raised without a gender. Should this be included in the article?

[1] [2] Wlmg (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Not without more clarification. The title is clickbait. The interview reads as her not being entirely literal, essentially saying that Fisher raised her without regard to gender... which is quite different from her Lourd not having one. All indications are that Lourd is a cisgender woman who presents as female, uses feminine pronouns, uses the feminine spelling of her name, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsieurxander (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2017

In section Personal life the second '2016' must obviously be a '2017' (please remember the reason why you woke up with a headache two days ago) Ub909 (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2017

Ggeeoorrggiiee (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Series regular or counting episodes?

In the "notes" section, which is the correct format? To say "23 episodes", on the notes for Scream Queens, for example, or to just add "Series regular". I want to know which is the absolute 100% correct format. Hurricane Seth (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion. I doubt there is an "absolute 100% correct format" but I'm going to poke around with some WikiProjects and see if there are any guidelines that specifically touch on this.— TAnthony^Talk 03:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

For instance, the examples at WP:FILMOGRAPHY do not contain an entry for a "contract role" in which the individual has appeared in all episodes of a series. MOS:TVCAST explicitly deprecates episode counts in cast lists but this of course has nothing to do with bio articles. Historically, the biggest issue with listing episode counts was that they were unsourced; for soap opera actors, for example, accurate episode counts are virtually impossible to confirm, and it is obvious when editors are using IMDb (which is not a reliable source). Anyway, Lourd's credits are verifiable, but this practice of updating bio articles weekly to tick off episodes seems recent, and unnecessary. In any case, this will probably end up being a preference/consensus issue, but I'd like to ask around and look at some Featured articles and lists to see where the trend is going.— TAnthony^Talk 03:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be better to add "23 episodes", for example. It just shows how many episodes she's been in and you wouldn’t have to update it weekly because Scream Queens is no longer on the air and Cult ends on November 14th. if you can’t find anything, I honestly think it would be better to add the episode count. Hurricane Seth (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but for AHS you were updating this article weekly as each new episode aired. This would be necessary for an "episode" format, but not so if she was just listed as a contract player. And when you set that format, moving forward for any show she is on contract with, we're adding episodes forever? That encourages article instability. I'm sure that has been happening with other AHS actor articles but that doesn't make it a good idea.— TAnthony^Talk 03:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I still think it’s better to update as each episode airs. I honestly don’t see how it’s encouraging article instability. And yeah, this how many AHS actors articles are, but not just them. several other TV shows have this same format with countin episodes. It really doesn’t take 2 seconds to edit it to the correct episode number and to me, it looks better and is more provides more information when listing the episode count, rather than “series regular”. if you can’t find anything suggesting this is the incorrect format, I’d rather use the episode count. Hurricane Seth^Talk 04:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's better to count episodes in her filmography, rather than just put "Series regular". For example, for Scream Queens, we would put "23 episodes". TAnthony was supposed to check into which was the correct format and get back to me, which he hasn't done. Therefore, I'm going to change Scream Queens and American Horror Story: Cult to "23 episodes" and "10 episodes", respectively. Hurricane Seth (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Dude, there is no rush and "my" version is the longstanding one. Just because you "think it's better" does not make it right or wrong, but the fact that I'm objecting means you need to leave it alone until we get some clarity or others join in. Surely the sameness of the other AHS articles can keep you happy for while.— TAnthony^Talk 00:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

This? Cut it out.— TAnthony^Talk 00:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

TAnthony, no one else seems to care. There doesn't seem to a correct format. It just seems that which is preferred to use is the best. You think yours is the best, I think mine is the best. Find the correct format and let me know. You want some clarity? find it. you're the one who edited this in the first place. it was originally counting episodes. and also, you don't have to be like that and say "the sameness of the other AHS articles can keep you happy for a while. Jesus. just find the correct format. It seems you can do that since you've spent 11 years of your life on Wikipedia and know it like the back of your hand. Hurricane Seth (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I already split the tables as a compromise for now. If you persist with this, we can go back to how it was before you first edited the article, and I can request formal intervention. We don't want that, it'll make us both look like children. The fact that you can't seem to stand the article to stay this way for longer than 24 hours is telling. And the snarky attitude is inappropriate, you're the one being disruptive.— TAnthony^Talk 00:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey, you started with the snarky attitude. I just want you to figure out the correct way since you're so invested in proving me wrong. If this is wrong, I want to know. But honestly before you edited the article, it was just counting episodes. You changed it to your liking and now you want it to stay that way. Please find out what the correct format is and then we can go from there. — Hurricane Seth^Talk 00:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Am I really debating this with you? This is my first edit to the article, and you can see her Scream Queens role was not counting episodes. An IP was the one who started doing that later. I'm not trying to prove you are "wrong", but I'm wondering why you think your viewpoint is any more important than mine. I'm willing to compromise, you don't seem to be.— TAnthony^Talk 00:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I've checked a few featured lists; Priyanka Chopra filmography does not count episodes for Quantico and Peter Dinklage on screen and stage does not count for Game of Thrones, but Bradley Cooper on screen and stage does count for Alias. Shannen Doherty filmography does both, noting "Series regular (XX episodes)", for Beverly Hills, 90210 and Charmed. I may start a general discussion, but obviously this is currently a preference/consensus issue. Since only Hurricane Seth and I have weighed in and are not agreeing, I've used the "Shannen Doherty method".— TAnthony^Talk 17:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to use Choice #2. Meatsgains (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Which image should be in the infobox? Choice #1 is the current photo, choice #2 is the proposed photo. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Choices

#1

#2

Infobox images to choose from

Choice #1

• Support I couldn't quite tell you why, but #2 just feels uncanny to me. I think the crop is a good part of what makes it feel "weird", but I see absolutely nothing wrong with an unadulterated panel shot which quite clearly shows the subject's face. We could _maybe_ bump up the exposure by a third of a stop, but... do we really need to? For lack of a better term, #2 feels a bit 'Instagram', and I find it a lot more off-putting than the original image which is definitely not a "sow's ear", nor do I think it's a particularly bad photograph. This is one of those things that can get a bit WP:SHED-y, in my opinion, and I think we should err on the side of not getting too photoshop unless it's absolutely necessary which it certainly isn't in this case. -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 13:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Choice #2

• Support Simply the better of the two. Face has been brightened, photo has been cropped, and the subject's lean to the right has been corrected somewhat. As well, the very obtrusive and distracting microphone and water bottle have been darkened and blurred to allow the reader to focus their attention more on Lourd. Absolutely not the best photo overall to have as an infobox image because of the distractions in the photo and her unattractive facial expression, but free photos of Lourd a simply unavailable online. The editing of the photo is an attempt to make a purse out of a sow's ear. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Agree with -- ψλ on all points. I do not know why the panel shot with mic and water bottle is so popular among Wiki users. Perhaps it's because of the availability issue mentioned above. I'd much rather see a better photo, but of the two options, #2 is vastly superior to #1.Pistongrinder (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Agree with comments made above. NickCT (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per proposer. 0.67 aspect ratio sucks, pardon my Esperanto. Hey Gage, perhaps you could have gotten a decent shot without a water bottle? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Better lighting with the water bottle and microphone mostly cropped out. Meatsgains (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support (Summoned by bot) 2 is a superior photo. Props to whoever thought to blur the mic so the focus would be on the face not the surroundings. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That would be me and thanks, L3X1. ;-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

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.

Archive 1