Talk:Lauren Ridloff

Problematic edits

I reverted here a set of problematic edits. The problems included:

• The false claim that she is "best known as a former Miss Deaf America", where sources highlight her The Walking Dead role as such
• The lead section does not need citations if the text is not contentious and if the article body has citations for the text. Furthermore, the citations added were duplicates of what already existed in the body, and with five of them grouped together, does not make clear which detail is being supported.
• The credits extend beyond film, so it cannot be just a filmography. Furthermore, IMDb should never be referenced in Wikipedia articles because it is unreliable. Some of the listings are especially untrustworthy when there is no reliably-sourced mention of these works outside of IMDb.
• In other instances, where credits had reliable sourcing, these were removed or replaced with IMDb, which is inappropriate to reference.
• Graduation years were removed from the infobox without explanation.
• The "occupation" in the infobox should be what is in the lead. Her being a teacher is not what she is known for. It is what she did before she became an actor, which is what she is publicly known for.

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, the "Miss Deaf America" can be added and I am fine with being added behind the roles. The lead section should have citations due to the not notable person as the actress is. The filmography is not as is supposed to be, you are not improving it, quite the opposite. Graduation years are not added to info panel, never seen any actor had that. And occupation is occupation, she is known as teacher, then it should be added to infobox, but I agree that it doesn't to be on the lead section. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE says, "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." In the case of Ridloff, there is nothing about her that is "challenged or likely to be challenged". Inline citations are needed when the material is contentious, like criminal activity. Regarding her credits, you removed reliable sourcing and inserted IMDb. There are only seven sourceable credits, and there shouldn't be three tables for that. It's false to claim 12 credits because IMDb is being used. I did my best to find reliable sources for the other credits but found none. The other sources used in the article never even touch on them, so they're not noteworthy enough to have their own listing. For actors and filmmakers who have lengthier careers, multiple tables can be used, but we are not compelled to have a new table for every medium. Lastly, per Template:Infobox person, the "occupation" field is supposed to follow the lead section. Her being a teacher predates her claim to fame. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand and fair enough. But these typo things, like birthplace, or years active should be like any actor's page. Filmography is a term that is always used and is the basic term actor's pages. And I also removed the unreliable sources. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you tell me why are you undoing the edits that looks literally better on the filmography? Every actor's page is like this. Robert Downey Jr. or any notable actor's pages are using this format and the term filmography. Is that too hard to understand? You can ask any other editors and they will disagree with you in this. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I said above, "Regarding her credits, you removed reliable sourcing and inserted IMDb. There are only seven sourceable credits, and there shouldn't be three tables for that. It's false to claim 12 credits because IMDb is being used. I did my best to find reliable sources for the other credits but found none. The other sources used in the article never even touch on them, so they're not noteworthy enough to have their own listing. For actors and filmmakers who have lengthier careers, multiple tables can be used, but we are not compelled to have a new table for every medium." Also, see WP:3O or post a neutral notification on WT:ACTOR. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It still looks better than your table of filmography. The table is not appropriate and even the reflist is not as it should be. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Deaf in lead sentence

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to list deaf in the sentence before American. It absolutely should be included in the lead paragraph, but it doesn't feel right in the lead sentence. Marlee Matlin, another prominent deaf actress doesn't have deaf before actress, but is listed as a deaf advocate in the lead sentence. I really feel it should be elsewhere in the lead discussion, but I want to see how other people feel about it first. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with raising the example of Marlee Matlin, a brilliant deaf actress. Deaf should come after American. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Marlee Matlin's article is not Good or Featured, so it's not a standard to follow. That said, there is no clear standard to follow when it comes to this particular characteristic. I'm not unopposed to moving "deaf" away from the very beginning, but I feel like it becomes trickier to fit it in later. Most actor articles' lead sections start out with what actors have appeared in, and their biographical information tends to come later. Yet here, "deaf" does define these actors' performances, as indicated by reliably-sourced coverage. Furthermore, The Walking Dead may not be warranted in the opening sentence if Ridloff gains more prominence in Eternals. JJDJS, what are some other ways the deaf characteristic can be introduced? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that Eternals is likely to become a much more notable role for her then the walking dead, which is exactly how we can include her being deaf in the lead. Deaf since birth, Ridloff became the first deaf superhero in a MCU film when she was cast as (character name) in Eternals. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 13:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• My issue with that is it sounds like that characteristic only became relevant for Eternals. Her deafness has been part of her personal and professional lives, in all the roles that she has had, as evidenced by the coverage. In a way, the characteristic is like the nationality characteristic. WP:LEAD#Biographies says to have in the first sentence, "Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable." Her deafness is probably more noteworthy than her Americanness. Is the problem with the order of words? Writing "deaf American" compared to "American deaf"? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Of bigger concern is - why is american capitalised, but Deaf not when it is used to refer to a cultural group/identity in the same way as american or english is? Deaf the verb is spelt "deaf", but Deaf as a culture/identity group should be given the same capitalisation as any other group of this kind. Failing to capitalise it in this context is insulting to those that identify as being of Deaf culture & it is not capitalised a single time in the entire wiki page, other than when directly using organisation names, where of course it is capitalised by the organisation, because that is what is expected by the Deaf community. There's no such thing as a "deaf American" or "American deaf" it is "Deaf American" or "American Deaf". By capitalising American & not Deaf, you are belittling & insulting the Deaf community 203.220.128.114 (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources. They universally write "American" capitalized, where they write "deaf" and not "Deaf" much more often. See The New York Times, Oprah Daily, AP News, Variety, etc. These sources would need to adopt the capitalization for Wikipedia to follow suit. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

RFC about show years in credits

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.

There's a clear consensus to exclude the years that the shows have run in the credits section. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Should we include the years that the shows have run in the credits section? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose We never include that in the credit section, and I see absolutely no reason to do it differently here. It doesn't matter that the Walking Dead was on for 8 years before she joined. All that is relevant to this page is how she's been on the shows. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Agreed: we never include that in the credit section, and I see absolutely no reason to do it differently here.--Whiteguru (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support as an option for this article. See full argument below. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I've done a lot of work on filmography articles, and this just isn't done. ~ HAL333 03:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see a reason to split with the normally accepted practice. Sure we're not bound to do everything the same way on every article, but I don't find Erik's argument persuasive enough to overcome currently accepted practice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - The relevant information for the credits section of an actor is the timeframe in which they took part in a show, not the length of the show. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per PraiseVivec and ScottishFinnishRadish above. Idealigic (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose It actually confused me when I saw it as I assumed it was her time on the show (which made me think it was redundant). I agree with Erik that the arguments not to do it because it is not convention are weak, but we also shouldn't do it because it is potentially misleading and off topic. Aircorn (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• The fact that one has not seen something done before is not a reason to oppose it. There is nothing to require that all tables take the exact same approach, and not every aspect of that approach has been appropriate. For example, most tables do not have "Ref." columns with inline citations. We would not remove these citations from tables just because the majority of them don't have them. (At least, I hope not.) I've also seen an editor fight to restore a "Notes" column that is completely blank just because it has been used elsewhere. Some editors have also tried to delete table captions from such tables just because they have not seen them before.

In this case, the point of including show years is contextual. Here for Lauren Ridloff, in the matter of guest appearances like Legacies and New Amsterdam, the "Role" values are not that useful. The episode titles matter more, and I would argue that the show years contextualize Ridloff's appearances. When it comes to films, the film's year and the year of the actor's appearance in the film are obviously the same and are essentially merged. For something like The Walking Dead, the show years help reflect when within the show's run that Ridloff has appeared. If Ridloff quits her role now, and the show goes for five more years, we would see in the table for how long she was part of the show. It's not harmful to show this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• HAL33's argument that it "just isn't done" is a meaningless reason to oppose. Adding inline citations "just isn't done" in the vast majority of tables either. Would you strip tables of inline citations for that reason? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Some stuff exists for a reason. Jeez. ~ HAL333 01:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• HAL333, Yes, I explained the reason why show years exist here. Nobody has debated the merits or lack thereof. You can say, "I see your reason, but I still think readers should have to go to the TV series articles to find out how the actor's appearance compares to its run." Tables like this can vary in appearance across Wikipedia. Some tables may have the directors or the related studios included too, and arguments can be made for and against. Are you not able to discuss the show-years characteristic directly? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• ScottishFinnishRadish, here is another way to look at it. The "Year(s)" column is ambiguous here. In a credits table on a filmmaker's or company's article, the column will only refer to when the film or TV series was released or aired. In an actor's article, it is not immediately clear whether or not the range refers to the actor's appearance or the TV series's length, hence the ambiguity. The actor may be in a starring role on the TV series, with the years matching the series range exactly, or only in part.

Furthermore, when we write about an actor's appearance in a film in prose, we would write, "John Smith appeared in the film Foo (2021)." When we write, "John Smith appeared in the TV series Foo," what year(s) are we going to include after the title -- the years of his appearance, or the years of the TV series? It will be the TV series. I'm saying here that the years can be associated with the TV series more than the actor. By including here the show years in parentheses after the show's name, a reader can see in entirety the duration of an actor's appearance in a series without having to go to the TV series article and dig around for the show years. I'm hard-pressed to see the harm in including this clarifying detail. If her The Walking Dead character is killed off this year, and the show lasts for 10 more years, the table with the show years can immediately tell us the scope of her role within the show's run. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You say it clarifies details, but I would argue it just creates confusion. When you see too separate date ranges and one has no label, it can confuse and think that she was on the show for the entire listed. Additionally, I don't really see how that context really matters on her article. That context is important when looking for information on the show, but I don't see how it really matters for her. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for actually debating this. I disagree that it causes confusion. Titles followed by years in parentheses always mean that the years are associated with the titles. Like technically we could attach the years after the films' titles, but we don't have to do that here because the first column already covers that. And fine if you don't think it matters, but I see it as taking both a microscopic view (e.g., naming a specific episode) and a macroscopic view (the length of the show's run, to indicate if she was a full part of it or small or fairly large part of it). I think those above simply aren't used to that approach (or new approaches at all) and hold onto the status quo just because. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:34, 5 May 2021 (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.

References to use

• 'The Walking Dead' star Lauren Ridloff thought the showrunner was calling to say her time on the zombie show was over after she briefly left to film a Marvel movie. It was to learn the show was ending.
• How Lauren Ridloff's Deafness Became a Superpower in Marvel's 'Eternals'
• Next Big Thing: ‘Eternals’ Star Lauren Ridloff on Becoming Marvel’s First Deaf Superhero
• Lauren Ridloff Is Making Space for More Deaf Actors, One Enlightening Conversation at a Time
• A Sit Down with Lauren Ridloff
• Marvel Star Lauren Ridloff Is a Marathoner and Real-Life Superhero

References to use. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Lauren Ridloff is Shaping How Hollywood Tells Stories at Latina, December 5, 2021

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Question about how to cite acting in ASL book and video materials

Lauren Ridloff is an actress for the materials in the book Signing Naturally, Units 7-12, by Ella Mae Lentz, Ken Mikos, and Cheri Smith, published in 2014 by DawnSignPress: [1] These materials are well known in the Deaf community and are widely used for American Sign Language courses in the United States. I don't know, however, how to site this on her Wikipedia page. It might initially seem strange to cite this book, but I believe this is a well known resource (at least in the Deaf community), and it features Lauren's acting in a prominent way. Thank you for considering! I have no connection with Lauren at all. I have simply been learning ASL over the course of the last few years, and this is a widely known set of materials. How do we cite this in her Wikipedia page? I would welcome help/advice on this, please. Thanks! MDW333 (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Sign Language Structure 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2023 and 3 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emileecutler (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Emileecutler (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)