Talk:Bridgit Mendler

Education

Over the past few weeks, I removed the University of Southern California link from the infobox's education parameter, only for it to be reinstated at different times. According to the relevant documentation at Template:Infobox person, "It is usually not relevant to include either [the education or alma mater] parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise, as perhaps at Bill Gates." In this case, since Mendler dropped out of USC to focus on her career, it would make her a non-graduate.

As it stands, there's no consensus on whether we should include all the colleges/universities Mendler attended. Given that, should we keep or remove USC from the infobox? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove USC and keep the others; a place somebody drops out of is quite minor compared to where one graduates/gets degrees from. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, remove USC from list. Degrees she actually earned and where she earned them are important. For Gates that was his only higher education and dropping out of Harvard is considered a major part of his life story. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

First sentence

I get this edit in that it is much more in Wikipedia's usual style, but I feel that it hides the most notable aspect of the article's subject. "Businesswoman and former actress and singer" makes you think that she probably has some kind of role in the business of show business. But she's actually in a very different sector now - space, specifically satellite ground stations. That different sector is not mentioned until the final paragraph of the lead.

Anyone got any thoughts on the best way to remedy this? Maybe leave the first sentence as it is but make the second sentence about her current role. Maybe move "In 2024, Mendler became the CEO and co-founder of the satellite data startup Northwood Space" to be the second sentence, from it's current location near the end of the lead? Yaris678 (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Businesswoman is sort of benign and doesn't capture what she is doing now. I changed it to entrepreneur to better reflect her current activities. I think the lead as written now is sufficient. Fair amount of detail in last paragraph and the lead summarizes her life in chronological order. Until her company becomes notable (having a Wiki article would show that) outside of her involvement as a former actress, entrepreneur is still not really a notable occupation now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That's kind of my point. "Entrepreneur" in itself is very common, but moving from show business to satellite ground stations is very notable. It has generated many news articles and is the reason the article appeared in Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/February 18 to 24, 2024. My other point is that the reader won't really grasp that point unless they've read the whole lead, which a lot of readers won't do. For some the last paragraph of the lead will come as a surprise and leave people wondering if we are talking about the same person. The Wikipedia convention is that we should get across the thing that make the subject most notable as early as we can. Yaris678 (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The only reason anyone reports on this is because it is a novelty. Goes against the stereotype of the intelligence of actresses. It is covered by media solely for that reason, not because of what she is actually doing which is fairly common outside of a former entertainer doing it. If her business becomes a success and she becomes more known for her role in that than her acting it should become more prominent in the article. The article currently does get across the activities that make the subject most notable early in the article. Entrepreneur isn't there yet. Chronological order is a reasonable way to present it both in the lead and article body. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Moving from show biz to satellite ground stations is very novel. That is why there are a lot of news articles about it. That is why we should describe it early on. Yaris678 (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Without the context of her fame gained by her acting and singing careers it would not be understandable why her starting a tech company would be noticed by the media. One way to give context and mention it earlier is to redo the opening paragraph to summarize the rest of the lead and use subsequent paragraphs to give more detail. The chronological progression is important to retain though, even in summary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Summarising the lead sounds like a good idea. I will have a go. Yaris678 (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Songwriter

She hasn't written any songs on her own or written any songs for other performers. She gave input to professional songwriters as to what she wanted to sing and got a songwriting credit for that contribution. Songwriting was not a notable separate occupation, it was an adjunct to her singing so shouldn't be listed as a separate occupation. MOS:ROLEBIO footnote "c" covers this situation - don't list if "the role is auxiliary to a main profession". Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)