Talk:Kaia Gerber

Ethnicity

Correction: Her mom is of English, Irish, Scottish, Northern Irish, Danish, Welsh, French and German descent. Please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.252.94 (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• KAIA DAY LOVEME17 - LOVE.webm

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Pete

when will be the fact, that she is dating Davidson accepted here on wiki??? People magazine is already on her page as a source, so this should be enough:

https://people.com/tv/pete-davidson-and-kaia-gerber-spotted-holding-hands/

I will not put it on her wikipage again, because some users threatened me, that I will be blocked from wiki. Vladulienka0501 (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Pete Davidson#Relationship, to which you have also posted about this source. I suggest that we continue the discussion there, since the material should either go in both articles or neither. However, in summary, I don't think that this source is good enough, because it doesn't explicitly say that they are in a relationship. Wham2001 (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Relationships of Kaia Gerber

In the section dedicated to personal life. Some users insist on writing about short and insignificant relationships of less than 1 year and even less than 4 months, that is a consensus fault in the Wikipedia community, Regarding relationships, it is only appropriate to write regarding public relations of 1 year or more, marriages, legal separations and divorces, or couples who had children together or adopted, open sexual orientations etc. , Kaia Gerber not marry or have children with none, Some users only insist on writing about those friendships and passing relationships in Kaia Gerber's article, for which I deduce that it is an obvious online vandalism and the worst thing is that they use bad sources as references: TMZ, People magazine, Cosmopolitan, US wekly, daily Mirror, E! entertaiment are not reliable sources. Tamaravon89 (talk)

@Tammaravon89: You don't benefit from pinging yourself, and your signature should link to your user page or talk page.

I agree with Tammaravon89 that previous short-term relationships should be excluded from the article. Wikipedia is not a repository for dating gossip, and the relationships are not significant enough that they need to be included in order to understand other aspects of Gerber's life. Personally I would also exclude mention of her current boyfriend following the same reasoning. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 08:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wham2001: agree with you Wham2001 , In accordance with Wikipedia's policies on relevant data and due to the consensus in the KaiaGerber TalkPage, the section dedicated to couple relationships has been eliminated, because Wikipedia is not a repository of relationships, it shee has not married or had children with anyone and in the articles of his partners they do not write about Kaia Gerber, so it is deduced sexist attitudes on the part of the wikipedian users, Tamaravon89 (talk)

Video on Vimeo

There is a video on Vimeo [1]. Looks to be CC if anyone can get anything from it. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image

@Tammaravon89: Please discus the infobox image here. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The infobox or profile photograph in this article is constantly changed, many Wikipedia users believe that a “close-up” of the face or “cropped photo” of a photograph is an improvement, but this is not always the case, the cropped photo that they insist to use is a poor and low resolution photo, it is a disadvantageous photo and does not represent an improvement for the article, it is not about putting the best, but not the worst, I have tried to find better close-up photographs on my own , but it is difficult due to copyright, months ago I was able to upload a better photo by myself, but the original author's description was missing, so Wikipedia removed that good photo, I invite users of this page to look for better photographs To improve this article, as I understand that photographs can be uploaded from FLICKR that have licenses and copyrights, without necessarily being the author of the photo who uploads it, I for My part is trying to contact amateur photographers or professional who have been able to take photographs of this and other public figures and improve the section of photos of this public figure, but for the moment the best option is full-body already photography, not cropped or close- up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tammaravon89 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

spam link and source of bad reputation

Many users have reported the disreputable sites as source that is not 100% reliable, and they have errors in the data if it is added that Wikipedia also has a policy of not spam or giving free publicity to certain platforms or problematic social networks such as twitter or Facebook even more in celebrities and public figures such as Kaia Gerber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tammaravon89 (talk • contribs)

Do you want to discuss at WP:RSN? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Pro jobs & Sources on Wikipedia

1. Please remove 'actress' from introduction (in infobox it can stay). There is nothing to write about as for now. If she has second role more than guest then could be added. Music videos, random IG, YT videos & adverts don't count. What IMDb says is not an oracle for Wikipedia.
Also don't make references to IMDb or some random spanish movie databases - no one is doing it for any professional actress or actor. If no one in any serious press is writing nothing about her then it is like that.
2. Don't make (so much!) references to this industry FMD website. This is industry database. If no one in any serious press is writing nothing about her then it is like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgwikid (talk • contribs) 17:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Photograph

In my opinion the cropped photograph showing just Gerber's face was a big improvement over the current image in the infobox, and I think that we should change back to it. Pinging Emir of Wikipedia and Tammaravon89. Wham2001 (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I agree with the cropped photograph, and there was little reason to revert the media accompanying the "Career" section as well.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed and this was also discussed in a previous discussion I think. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Disagree, the "cropped" photo from the Max Mara 2019 show that insist on using is simply a bad photograph and does not represent an improvement to the article, I had already discussed this before.Please look for new and better photos Tammaravon89 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tammaravon89 I don't understand your reasoning as to why it is a "bad" photograph - its not unflattering and has an acceptable composition, and it's much more suitable than having no infobox image at all.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

That "cropped" photo is obviously a unflattering photo, the funny part is that recently you put a screenshot of the Vogue Taiwan YouTube channel in Kaia's article and on another occasion you Bettydaisies complained to me for doing the same. Find and use good photos for Kaia's article, it is not about putting only good photos, but also not bad, unfavorable photos as some users do. It is time for haters or people who do not like Kaia Gerber to stop editing the article in order to annoy and harm a public figure simply because they do not like it. Tammaravon89 (talk)

@Tammaravon89 The content you published was not under a Creative Commons license and appeared previously under copyright on Vogue's channel. You repeatedly accusing users who disagree with you as "haters" is unconstructive and unprofessional. This entire conversation is about encyplodeic merit. If no other photographs are available, and this photograph is regarding as suitable and unflattering by the majority of editors, then it should be used.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The "cropped" photo

Just to be sure that everybody is on the same page here, the photo we are discussing is the one I have added on the right. I can't see anything unflattering about it. It is clear, shows her face well, and her facial expression is fairly neutral. The photo currently in the article does not show her face well at all. Wham2001 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC) PS Tammaravon89 Could you please start indenting your posts properly? You should take the number of colon (:) symbols of the post you are replying to and add one more at the start of each line in your post. Thanks!

I agree that it is of good quality, flattering, and appropriate for the talk page. I don't understand reasoning for the contrary.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The mere fact that they Wham2001 put the photo on the Talk Page shows the bad intentions of some users, that photo is obviously a bad photo. It is time for people who have nothing good to contribute to this page to stop undercover online vandalism. Obviously, if the public figure that this article is about committed important controversies, it would have to be written too. This is a Start class article, which deals with a new and recent public figure (Kaia Gerber) it is obvious that the sections of her personal life and career will continue to expand over the years and better photos with copyright free will be added. When I started to edit this article, the constant online vandalism and data from disreputable sources about her personal life or the lack of important data regarding her modeling career were insulting, but no one complained about it except me. Now that I have contributed to improve this article, people who used to write data about their personal life with bad sources erase relevant and objective information. it is important to be respectful and objective Tammaravon89 (talk)

@ Tammaravon89 You do not own this article. Wikipedia is a collaborative website. None of the things performed by the user are vandalism. Attacking other users during editors trying to improve the article is far from respectful.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Tammaravon89 Could you please explain what you find objectionable about the "cropped" photograph? Neither I nor Bettydaisies can see anything wrong with it, and presumably Emir of Wikipedia also thought it was an improvement over the current photograph since they made the change originally. But since you say that it is obviously bad, there must be some feature of the photograph that you dislike, that perhaps you can articulate? I think that an objective discussion of the merits of the photograph is the best way to achieve consensus. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

There has been no reply to this question, and all other editors commenting on this page have supported the cropped photograph. I am interpreting that as a consensus and have restored the cropped photograph. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Wham2001. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Career

This article initially started with Kaia Gerber as the daughter of Cindy Crawford who acted in a supporting role in a TV movie in 2016, to that was added her first modeling jobs in 2016-2017 after the modeling career expanded and both sections were put in the “Career” section on Wikipedia, the data must be put in an objective independent way if they like the public figure or not, and the objective reality says that Kaia acted in a TV movie in 2016 and is also a model, They can't delete something simply because they don't like the person, the fun part is that when some users write ridiculous relationships or boyfriends of 2 or 3 months with bad sources of references they don't delete anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tammaravon89 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tammaravon89 You accusations that I or any other editor who disagrees with you is a "hater" or "simply [doesn't] like the person" is ridiculous. Why this article initially started is irrelevant. Is she notably reported as an actress in any reputable source? For instance, Taylor Swift is primarily known as a singer who started out in musical theatre roles and has appeared in multiple films. She is not listed as an actress nor does she have a section as one. --Bettydaisies (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bettydaisies First I am not the person who created this article, the person who initially created it and who created it put the objective and real data that Kaia Gerber acted in a secondary role in a TV movie as well as many other models have played secondary roles : Adriana Lima, Natalia Vodianoba, Camila Morrone, Allessandra Ambrosio. For example and do you mention that Taylor Swift doesn't say at the beginning of her biography that she has acted? Well it's not my fault, I would be happy to write myself that she is an actress. I get the impression that you @Bettydaisiestake the issue of acting in Kaia Gerber as something that puts her above others, or that turns her into someone superior to others, which is not true, it is an objective fact of her life: Kaia Gerber acted With a secondary role in a TV movie at age 15, that makes her neither better nor worse than other public figures, I repeat that it is an objective fact, obviously her main work has been professional modeling, not acting, it surprises me that you take so much trouble in a START CLASS article by a new public figure like Kaia Gerber, If Kaia had problems with drugs or created a company or got pregnant, it would also be necessary to write it, because it is an objective data, neither better nor worse.Tammaravon89 (talk — Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:OWNERSHIP does not refer solely to the creators. Nothing is “your fault” - I was referring to a set standard in a featured quality article. Your repetitive assumptions and impressions are incredibly irrelevant and outlandish. Stop making baseless accusations. If anything, designating a section and profession for her as an actress denotes her from her peers, suggesting that she is an actress with only one credit. No pattern of behavior you describe - not having an issue, not liking a start class article - is remotely true. Wikipedia operates on notable sources. Do notable sources describe her as an actress? Does this format follow WP precedent? This is the only thing that matters in this situation.--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kaia Gerber for Vogue 2019.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Difference between 'model' and 'supermodel'.

Seeing as Kaia Gerber has achieved "the big four" in fashion, would it be fair to upgrade her status as a model to that of supermodel? SpicyMemes123 (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Actress still? Isn’t it actor these days?

Isn’t it actor these days regardless of sex? 2603:6010:E63F:D6A3:4584:D03B:4FAB:9407 (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)