Talk:Aubrey Plaza

Lead

Lapadite, I appreciate your intent to expand the article. But please understand that the bio lead is not the place for an indiscriminate listing of credits, genres, and character names. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The content in the lead is not remotely indiscriminate. She has over 60 projects between film and TV, and only the most notable, per reliable sources (not per you or I) are present in the lead. And I did not reinstate some character names you deleted, I restored the most notable content. As a bio lead, it contains significant, sourced content showing the career journey, including the most notable projects, acting roles, and producing roles that received significant coverage from reliable sources. A bio lead for a 15+ year career that has received significant coverage, particularly in the past decade or so, should not comprise merely a few projects and an award; it should also include, among other significant content, the notable reception pertaining to the projects/roles that have been the most impactful to the career journey. And the genres of films, and concise description of roles, are an important context to include in actor bio articles.

Your edit removing notable content, including her producing projects she's received significant coverage for, is disruptive. There are plenty of WP articles that would benefit from pruning that you can focus on, instead of unconstructively removing notable content from solid articles that are being improved and expanded upon per WP:GA and WP:FA standards - for which a criteria is articles being "broad" and "comprehensive" in coverage, respectively. The lead reflects that.

Your edit here tells me you're removing content indiscriminately without researching the subject's career or even reading the body of the article and cited sources. There is no WP:PAG basis for you removing notable content from the lead of bio articles whose source coverage you're not familiar with to know whether the bio/career content you're removing is notable. Instead of deleting significant content and reverting, thus impeding the progress of an article, you should discuss on the talk page what specifically you think shouldn't be in the lead. If you want, we can involve WP:ACTOR, WP:WPBIO, and WP:BLPN. Lapadite (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes please wait for others to chime in instead of edit-warring and telling me what I should or shouldn't focus on. My aim is the betterment of the article. Your opinion of my actions are irrelevant. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You keep blatantly projecting your own pattern of disruptive and combative behavior, which is currently being discussed at WP:ANI and for which you've been warned many times in the past. Your disingenuous comments are obvious; I asked you here to discuss and collaborate, suggested wikiprojects to involve, and you ignored it and kept removing content and edit warring. Your actions are the problem, so they are the focus. Your guideline-violating edits removing notable content and impeding article progress toward GA quality shows your claim isn't your aim. You have no PAG basis to remove significant career content from the lead. And yes, for as long as you keep deliberately disrupting an article and being combative and unwilling to listen, I'll suggest you focus your energy on WP on being constructive, as opposed to continuing your pattern of forceful disruption that's wearing thin. You could learn from collaborative WT:FILM editors like Erik and others there. Maybe spend some time working with others there or in a similar environment. Lapadite (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The two revisions in question: the stable lead that was present, with this revision containing the most notable career content as per RS's; and the revision removing notable content, plus other issues, some of which are still present in the current revision. Here are the specific issues with the revision that removed notable content, alongside the other problems:

• The removal of six projects significant to the career journey: the horror comedy Life After Beth; the drama Ned Rifle; the crime drama Emily the Criminal (also produced); the LGBT-related coming-of-age film My Old Ass; the fantasy/superhero miniseries Agatha All Along (which is the actress' Marvel Cinematic Universe debut, which is also significant as, per RS's, it's a next step from her Marvel-adjacent miniseries Legion); and the science fiction drama Megalopolis, which has also received significant coverage.
• The removal of the actress/producer's producing of the film Black Bear, which she also starred in and for which she received significant coverage and critical acclaim.
• The removal of the notable reception of performances in significant projects, which depicts the career progression: Black Bear, Emily the Criminal, The White Lotus.
• The removal of "her first lead role" for Safety Not Guaranteed.
• The removal of the significant independent film award nominations received for Emily the Criminal, as actor and producer (which occurred i n the same year as her Emmy and Golden Globe nominations for The White Lotus)
• The removal of her directorial debut.
• The mischaracterization of her role in the film Happiest Season, which is a supporting role, not starring.
• The removal of some core genres/descriptions: political satire mockumentary for Parks and Recreation, experimental thriller for Black Bear (as sourced in the bio's body). Also, changing a correct genre to an inaccurate one: changed "dramedy" for Ingrid Goes West (which is also stated in her co-star's bio lead) to "black comedy" to align with The Little Hours's genre (which are two tonally different films per their descriptions in RS's).
• The removal of her hosting the Independent Spirit Awards twice, for which she received significant coverage, and which also relates to her background as a comedian. Lapadite (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Only because a role/award has received "significant media coverage", that does not warrant mention in the lead. If that were the case, every single role and award of Amy Adams or Scarlett Johansson, among other FAs, would be in the lead. We focus on the most notable ones and keep genres/role descriptions at the bare minimum, because the lead is a brief summary. Details continue to exist in the article body, where they belong. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I drove by the WP:ANI and saw the complaint and thought I would comment, since I saw one of her films a few weeks ago. Krimuk2.0 is pretty much right here. The lede is to summarise the article, not listing detailed events and certainly not listing her directorial debut, which is minutia, or first lede role which is also minutia. There are entirely unsuitable for the lede. Nominations should be sectionalised. Only if the person has won the award should it be mentioned, unless the person has been nominated several times for a really major award, then a sentence possibly. Summary information only, not this detailed stuff. Mischaracterization of her role. That is not lead either. More minutia. Don't put the stuff back in it current state. scope_creep^Talk 22:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I also believe that Krimuk2.0's edit make the most sense. The lede should contain summary information, not a large list of projects a subject has been involved with. - Enos733 (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)