This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Famke Janssen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are rumors that she portrays Lara Lor-Van in Superman Returns. Leader Vladimir — Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The article currently uses a New York Times source that claims that "Famke" means "little girl". However, it means "girl" and not "little girl". See for example this Dutch page where it says "meisje". "Meisje" is also on the Dutch Wikipedia here and links to [[en:Girl]]. "Little girl" is "Klein meisje" in Dutch. See also "famke betekent" via Google, which will tell you (in Dutch) that it means "meisje" (girl) and not "klein meisje" (little girl). -- 82.171.70.54 ( talk) 01:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Famke Janssen was born in 1964. The source you cited, iMDB, says 1964. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.9.91 ( talk) 21:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Because there is no reliable sourcing provided for Janssen's date-of-birth (sorry, but the two sources don't cut it), and because there's actually a discrepancy in terms of the DOB in the Yahoo source, I've gone ahead and removed an exact DOB, and am now quoting just a year-of-birth (1964), as there seems to be some sourcing support for at least that.
I would note that under
WP:BLPPRIVACY (note the "widely published"
part...), an exact DOB should probably not be added back unless Janssen publicizes one (e.g. in an interview) herself. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 03:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Where is the example of conflicting birth dates? I haven't seen that there should be any other dates than November 5 in question. I provided a reliable source for the birthdate. DrKilleMoff ( talk) 16:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
You think that a now defunct Yahoo article cited "March something" as her birthdate? That doesn't seem very convincing to me that there are conflicts over her birth date. When it comes to the year she confirms it's 1964 in this interview https://www.npo.nl/college-tour/26-09-2014/VPWON_1229976 at 30:38. DrKilleMoff ( talk) 18:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
No matter what Film Review says, they are not more reliable than the subject herself and she confirms in the linked interview above (if you had bothered to check it) that she was born in 1964. That is as reliable as it can be. DrKilleMoff ( talk) 18:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
How about checking the video first before you make assumptions? The interview is in English only, nothing else. DrKilleMoff ( talk) 18:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, @ IJBall: - I've found an interview with Famke, for a website named "Directconversations". It's run by Tim Lammers, a film and television critic and member of the Critics Choice Association. [1] He has conducted interviews with celebrities and did one with Famke in January 2015. In it, he describes Famke as having turned 50 years old back in November [2014], when Famke was asked about a younger actress taking her place in future X-Men films. [2] Quote: “Of course, I’d love to be back, but I think, realistically, with the way ‘Days of Future Past’ ends, is that it’s going back to the 1980s and there will be a much younger Jean Grey,” said Janssen, 50 ... As for this casting a younger Jean Grey business, I told Janssen not to sell herself short about the filmmakers finding somebody 20-30 years junior taking over the role. Despite hitting the milestone birthday in November ..." United Press International has listed her as a notable 5 November birthday as well. [3] And the now defunct Yahoo! Movies profile also mentions a 5 November birthday, but a different birth year as already mentioned. [4]
Granted, the interview with Tim Lammers does not specify 5 November. But at the very least, could we at least narrow down her birth date to circa November 1964? Clear Looking Glass ( talk) 05:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@ IJBall:. Here are two sources that explicity states 5 November 1964. UPI which has been considered reliable in other articles https://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2022/11/05/Famous-birthdays-for-Nov-5-Kris-Jenner-Famke-Janssen/1681667601547/ and an article in Amomama https://news.amomama.com/301320-does-famke-janssen-have-a-husband-the-ac.html DrKilleMoff ( talk) 13:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
We publish information that has been published in reliable sources. That triumphs WP:BLPPRIVACY according to it's own rules. The rule states that according to WP:BLPPRIVACY DoB shall be left out UNLESS there is not a reliable source that can support it. That has been the argument before to not include it. Now however, we have a reliable source and therefore there is no excuse to post the DoB. DrKilleMoff ( talk) 18:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
"widely published, not just "published"... In general, I dislike WP:RfCs for all but really important stuff – but at this point, a decently attended WP:RfC is probably the only thing that will allow for a consensus to be reached on this question. (But such an RfC will have to go through the entire history of this issue, IMO, for it to allow for a genuine consensus to be reached – incl. the conflicting DOBs from various sources, and the lack of publicity from the subject herself on the DOB). -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
So, what would you consider as "widely"? Brooklyn Daily Eagle also publishes the birthdate https://brooklyneagle.com/articles/2020/11/05/milestones-november-5-birthdays-for-judy-reyes-tilda-swinton-robert-patrick/ as well as Hollywood Life https://hollywoodlife.com/pics/famke-janssen-photos/famke-janssen-3 and East Bay times https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/11/05/horoscope-november-05-2016/. DrKilleMoff ( talk) 23:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
And here is another source. https://www.google.se/books/edition/The_James_Bond_Movie_Encyclopedia/AYvRDwAAQBAJ?hl=sv&gbpv=1&dq=famke+janssen+5+november&pg=PT287&printsec=frontcover. That's five reliable sources so far. DrKilleMoff ( talk) 11:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@ IJBall: Actually I'm pretty sure it's standard to use rowspan for the year for these types of filmography tables. I'm the first person to take out unnecessary or confusing rowspan but I think this version is fine. Would you consider reverting yourself on this edit? — Joeyconnick ( talk) 03:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Support. I don't understand the rowspan is "unnecessary". No guideline forbids its inclusion. And judging from the 2017 discussion above titled "rowspan for filmography table", no consensus was reached regarding its inclusion or exclusion. In that same discussion, @ IJBall: (who undid my edit, see here) states "There is IMO no value in using rowspan in Filmography tables". So my edit was undone based on their opinion alone rather than citing a violation. This violates WP:OWN: "If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so." My edit did not violate any guidelines. IJBall simply doesn't like it. That's not good enough to remove the rowspan. It's value is that it makes the table look cleaner and organized. Without it, it's a jumbled mess. Armegon ( talk) 21:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Armegon and IJBall: Before people start weighing in on the RFC below, can I just ask: what are the practical (not aesthetic) pros and cons of using rowspan? Does it affect sorting or screenreaders or something? Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (20:22 Mon 15, AEST) 10:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
"I should add, though, that very complex tables with multiple different rowspans crossing different columns can make navigation more difficult for a screen reader.", so even this discussion acknowledges that overuse of rowspan is still a bad thing (and not just for screen readers – overuse of rowspan makes tables difficult to read for everybody!) Ultimately, it seems MOS:ACCESS is offering no firm guidance on this topic anymore, and doesn't bother to define the circumstances of "multiple different rowspans crossing different columns". Luckily, this isn't what Armegon is proposing, as Armegon's proposal is simply to rowspan the 'Year' column, which doesn't cause problems for screen readers, and is "allowed" (though not required, certainly) under MOS:FILMOGRAPHY. So, the other issue is purely aesthetic – do you like 'rowspan' use in tables, or don't you? Some editors like Armegon like it a lot; other editors such as myself generally don't like it, and feel use of rowspan should be generally minimized. So it's a purely subjective thing. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Seeking consensus whether to include rowspans in the year-column of wikitable sortable. Armegon ( talk) 08:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll weigh in on the Survey at some point, but I wanted to raise a couple of other issues first: alternatives, and complexity.
Taking the first one first: when there is a content dispute, Rfc's are definitely one way to determine an outcome, but not the only way. The way this dispute seems to have gone in the past, and now, is to couch it as an either-or with no compromise possible. But Wikipedia is all about consensus, and compromise is sometimes a way to get there. So, I'd like to put two possible avenues for compromise up for discussion:
Other compromise alternatives may be possible, but those are two that occur to me. If you can think of more, by all means please propose them; the more avenues to compromise, the better.
With respect to complexity: I understand the point that adding rowspan adds complexity to the wikicode of the page. I think editors on both sides of this Rfc would agree that using it does make the wikicode more complex. The implication is, that this makes it harder for editors to edit the table and that's a bad thing. I haven't made up my own mind where I stand on adding rowspan yet, but I do have two responses to this:
Finally, I wanted to raise the question of venue: is this the right place for this discussion? Is the Rfc really about how the table should be formatted in this one article about an actress? Or, is it more about filmographies in general so that maybe it should be tackled at WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, or about the use of rowspan in tables more generally, so it should be discussed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables?
I'm still uncertain how I would vote on this Rfc, but as a general principle, I want the encyclopedia to be as clear and informative for readers as possible, so I tend to favor viewers over editors. That, plus other editor responses here, will guide how I end up voting. Mathglot ( talk) 21:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
what I would call "irresponsible" use of rowspan that not only makes a table impossible to read in a screenreader – it makes it difficult-or-impossible to comprehend to all readers!
My guess is that the ultimate solution will have to be done at the level of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables, because how WP:FILMOGRAPHY editors approach use of rowspan, and how WP:DISCOGSTYLE editors approach use of rowspan is very different (nearly the opposite, actually), so again going "WikiProject by WikiProject" isn't likely to solve anything...
"more than one editor simply doesn't like 'rowspan' use in Filography tables, even in 'Year' column, which also reflects the general feelings on the subject among the WP:FILMOGRAPHY group. It may be "allowed", but it is generally not desired by a good chunk of editors.", but you've actually inverted the appropriate rule for how content issues are supposed to be resolved on this project in doing so. In sayin that Armegon's position is predicated in WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, you are actually strengthening their position in doing so, because that is exactly how the matter should be resolved, under this project's rules. These matters are supposed to be evaluated by the local community of editors on any given article and to determine what works best in that context, without getting tied down by what worked best in a different article or context. And you're not meant to be pointing to what is the preferred version of a particular cadre of editors at a specific WikiProject, because they are expressly disallowed from aggregating their views and enforcing them over a broad-swath of articles. And this rule exists in part precisely because the larger community values the flexibility of the local consensus process. Your argument here really should be going more to the specifics of this article and what does and does not work here, without getting conflated with any larger policy objective you may have. Again, if you think your new rule will be useful over all similar articles, there is a WP:PROPOSAL process for codifying that approach, which you should avail yourself of. But in the meantime, arguing that there is a large group of editors out there that has the same perspective to you (or a similar one, or a third one altogether) is not just irrelevant to the content determinations on this article, it is actually problematic in procedural terms. And it just isn't the best way of winning over !votes, since many editors will interpret it as an argument from authority rather than an argument from first principles.
Quiescent since 25 June. @ Snow Rise and IJBall: Is there such a thing as a "snow no consensus" (jk). Should we request a closer, wait out the timer, or all just stagger home exhausted and flip on the telly? Mathglot ( talk) 08:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't her "Years active" line in the infobox be 1984-present? Famke started out as a fashion model in the 1980s and her article points out that she started her career in 1984 as a model. Famke_Janssen#Modelling_and_early_1990s. "In 1984, Janssen moved to the United States to begin her professional career as a fashion model."
Her X-Men costar Rebecca Romijn also began her career as model before eventually retiring from modelling as well. Rebecca's article states that she's been active since "1991-present", which is the year her page mentions that she began modelling: "Among other jobs, Romijn started her modeling career in 1991." So why is Famke's at 1992 (around the time she quit modelling) and not when she started her modelling career in 1984? Clear Looking Glass ( talk) 08:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
There's something wonky with the syntax of the news item linked to support the claim that Janssen won the Susan B. Anthony "Failure Is Impossible" Award in 2006. I suspect another award got conflated in there. The Festival's own website (now the High Falls Women's Film Festival) lists only Agnieszka Holland as the 2006 awardee. Powers T 22:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Famke Janssen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are rumors that she portrays Lara Lor-Van in Superman Returns. Leader Vladimir — Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The article currently uses a New York Times source that claims that "Famke" means "little girl". However, it means "girl" and not "little girl". See for example this Dutch page where it says "meisje". "Meisje" is also on the Dutch Wikipedia here and links to [[en:Girl]]. "Little girl" is "Klein meisje" in Dutch. See also "famke betekent" via Google, which will tell you (in Dutch) that it means "meisje" (girl) and not "klein meisje" (little girl). -- 82.171.70.54 ( talk) 01:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Famke Janssen was born in 1964. The source you cited, iMDB, says 1964. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.9.91 ( talk) 21:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Because there is no reliable sourcing provided for Janssen's date-of-birth (sorry, but the two sources don't cut it), and because there's actually a discrepancy in terms of the DOB in the Yahoo source, I've gone ahead and removed an exact DOB, and am now quoting just a year-of-birth (1964), as there seems to be some sourcing support for at least that.
I would note that under
WP:BLPPRIVACY (note the "widely published"
part...), an exact DOB should probably not be added back unless Janssen publicizes one (e.g. in an interview) herself. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 03:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Where is the example of conflicting birth dates? I haven't seen that there should be any other dates than November 5 in question. I provided a reliable source for the birthdate. DrKilleMoff ( talk) 16:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
You think that a now defunct Yahoo article cited "March something" as her birthdate? That doesn't seem very convincing to me that there are conflicts over her birth date. When it comes to the year she confirms it's 1964 in this interview https://www.npo.nl/college-tour/26-09-2014/VPWON_1229976 at 30:38. DrKilleMoff ( talk) 18:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
No matter what Film Review says, they are not more reliable than the subject herself and she confirms in the linked interview above (if you had bothered to check it) that she was born in 1964. That is as reliable as it can be. DrKilleMoff ( talk) 18:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
How about checking the video first before you make assumptions? The interview is in English only, nothing else. DrKilleMoff ( talk) 18:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, @ IJBall: - I've found an interview with Famke, for a website named "Directconversations". It's run by Tim Lammers, a film and television critic and member of the Critics Choice Association. [1] He has conducted interviews with celebrities and did one with Famke in January 2015. In it, he describes Famke as having turned 50 years old back in November [2014], when Famke was asked about a younger actress taking her place in future X-Men films. [2] Quote: “Of course, I’d love to be back, but I think, realistically, with the way ‘Days of Future Past’ ends, is that it’s going back to the 1980s and there will be a much younger Jean Grey,” said Janssen, 50 ... As for this casting a younger Jean Grey business, I told Janssen not to sell herself short about the filmmakers finding somebody 20-30 years junior taking over the role. Despite hitting the milestone birthday in November ..." United Press International has listed her as a notable 5 November birthday as well. [3] And the now defunct Yahoo! Movies profile also mentions a 5 November birthday, but a different birth year as already mentioned. [4]
Granted, the interview with Tim Lammers does not specify 5 November. But at the very least, could we at least narrow down her birth date to circa November 1964? Clear Looking Glass ( talk) 05:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@ IJBall:. Here are two sources that explicity states 5 November 1964. UPI which has been considered reliable in other articles https://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2022/11/05/Famous-birthdays-for-Nov-5-Kris-Jenner-Famke-Janssen/1681667601547/ and an article in Amomama https://news.amomama.com/301320-does-famke-janssen-have-a-husband-the-ac.html DrKilleMoff ( talk) 13:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
We publish information that has been published in reliable sources. That triumphs WP:BLPPRIVACY according to it's own rules. The rule states that according to WP:BLPPRIVACY DoB shall be left out UNLESS there is not a reliable source that can support it. That has been the argument before to not include it. Now however, we have a reliable source and therefore there is no excuse to post the DoB. DrKilleMoff ( talk) 18:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
"widely published, not just "published"... In general, I dislike WP:RfCs for all but really important stuff – but at this point, a decently attended WP:RfC is probably the only thing that will allow for a consensus to be reached on this question. (But such an RfC will have to go through the entire history of this issue, IMO, for it to allow for a genuine consensus to be reached – incl. the conflicting DOBs from various sources, and the lack of publicity from the subject herself on the DOB). -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
So, what would you consider as "widely"? Brooklyn Daily Eagle also publishes the birthdate https://brooklyneagle.com/articles/2020/11/05/milestones-november-5-birthdays-for-judy-reyes-tilda-swinton-robert-patrick/ as well as Hollywood Life https://hollywoodlife.com/pics/famke-janssen-photos/famke-janssen-3 and East Bay times https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/11/05/horoscope-november-05-2016/. DrKilleMoff ( talk) 23:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
And here is another source. https://www.google.se/books/edition/The_James_Bond_Movie_Encyclopedia/AYvRDwAAQBAJ?hl=sv&gbpv=1&dq=famke+janssen+5+november&pg=PT287&printsec=frontcover. That's five reliable sources so far. DrKilleMoff ( talk) 11:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@ IJBall: Actually I'm pretty sure it's standard to use rowspan for the year for these types of filmography tables. I'm the first person to take out unnecessary or confusing rowspan but I think this version is fine. Would you consider reverting yourself on this edit? — Joeyconnick ( talk) 03:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Support. I don't understand the rowspan is "unnecessary". No guideline forbids its inclusion. And judging from the 2017 discussion above titled "rowspan for filmography table", no consensus was reached regarding its inclusion or exclusion. In that same discussion, @ IJBall: (who undid my edit, see here) states "There is IMO no value in using rowspan in Filmography tables". So my edit was undone based on their opinion alone rather than citing a violation. This violates WP:OWN: "If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so." My edit did not violate any guidelines. IJBall simply doesn't like it. That's not good enough to remove the rowspan. It's value is that it makes the table look cleaner and organized. Without it, it's a jumbled mess. Armegon ( talk) 21:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Armegon and IJBall: Before people start weighing in on the RFC below, can I just ask: what are the practical (not aesthetic) pros and cons of using rowspan? Does it affect sorting or screenreaders or something? Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (20:22 Mon 15, AEST) 10:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
"I should add, though, that very complex tables with multiple different rowspans crossing different columns can make navigation more difficult for a screen reader.", so even this discussion acknowledges that overuse of rowspan is still a bad thing (and not just for screen readers – overuse of rowspan makes tables difficult to read for everybody!) Ultimately, it seems MOS:ACCESS is offering no firm guidance on this topic anymore, and doesn't bother to define the circumstances of "multiple different rowspans crossing different columns". Luckily, this isn't what Armegon is proposing, as Armegon's proposal is simply to rowspan the 'Year' column, which doesn't cause problems for screen readers, and is "allowed" (though not required, certainly) under MOS:FILMOGRAPHY. So, the other issue is purely aesthetic – do you like 'rowspan' use in tables, or don't you? Some editors like Armegon like it a lot; other editors such as myself generally don't like it, and feel use of rowspan should be generally minimized. So it's a purely subjective thing. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Seeking consensus whether to include rowspans in the year-column of wikitable sortable. Armegon ( talk) 08:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll weigh in on the Survey at some point, but I wanted to raise a couple of other issues first: alternatives, and complexity.
Taking the first one first: when there is a content dispute, Rfc's are definitely one way to determine an outcome, but not the only way. The way this dispute seems to have gone in the past, and now, is to couch it as an either-or with no compromise possible. But Wikipedia is all about consensus, and compromise is sometimes a way to get there. So, I'd like to put two possible avenues for compromise up for discussion:
Other compromise alternatives may be possible, but those are two that occur to me. If you can think of more, by all means please propose them; the more avenues to compromise, the better.
With respect to complexity: I understand the point that adding rowspan adds complexity to the wikicode of the page. I think editors on both sides of this Rfc would agree that using it does make the wikicode more complex. The implication is, that this makes it harder for editors to edit the table and that's a bad thing. I haven't made up my own mind where I stand on adding rowspan yet, but I do have two responses to this:
Finally, I wanted to raise the question of venue: is this the right place for this discussion? Is the Rfc really about how the table should be formatted in this one article about an actress? Or, is it more about filmographies in general so that maybe it should be tackled at WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, or about the use of rowspan in tables more generally, so it should be discussed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables?
I'm still uncertain how I would vote on this Rfc, but as a general principle, I want the encyclopedia to be as clear and informative for readers as possible, so I tend to favor viewers over editors. That, plus other editor responses here, will guide how I end up voting. Mathglot ( talk) 21:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
what I would call "irresponsible" use of rowspan that not only makes a table impossible to read in a screenreader – it makes it difficult-or-impossible to comprehend to all readers!
My guess is that the ultimate solution will have to be done at the level of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables, because how WP:FILMOGRAPHY editors approach use of rowspan, and how WP:DISCOGSTYLE editors approach use of rowspan is very different (nearly the opposite, actually), so again going "WikiProject by WikiProject" isn't likely to solve anything...
"more than one editor simply doesn't like 'rowspan' use in Filography tables, even in 'Year' column, which also reflects the general feelings on the subject among the WP:FILMOGRAPHY group. It may be "allowed", but it is generally not desired by a good chunk of editors.", but you've actually inverted the appropriate rule for how content issues are supposed to be resolved on this project in doing so. In sayin that Armegon's position is predicated in WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, you are actually strengthening their position in doing so, because that is exactly how the matter should be resolved, under this project's rules. These matters are supposed to be evaluated by the local community of editors on any given article and to determine what works best in that context, without getting tied down by what worked best in a different article or context. And you're not meant to be pointing to what is the preferred version of a particular cadre of editors at a specific WikiProject, because they are expressly disallowed from aggregating their views and enforcing them over a broad-swath of articles. And this rule exists in part precisely because the larger community values the flexibility of the local consensus process. Your argument here really should be going more to the specifics of this article and what does and does not work here, without getting conflated with any larger policy objective you may have. Again, if you think your new rule will be useful over all similar articles, there is a WP:PROPOSAL process for codifying that approach, which you should avail yourself of. But in the meantime, arguing that there is a large group of editors out there that has the same perspective to you (or a similar one, or a third one altogether) is not just irrelevant to the content determinations on this article, it is actually problematic in procedural terms. And it just isn't the best way of winning over !votes, since many editors will interpret it as an argument from authority rather than an argument from first principles.
Quiescent since 25 June. @ Snow Rise and IJBall: Is there such a thing as a "snow no consensus" (jk). Should we request a closer, wait out the timer, or all just stagger home exhausted and flip on the telly? Mathglot ( talk) 08:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't her "Years active" line in the infobox be 1984-present? Famke started out as a fashion model in the 1980s and her article points out that she started her career in 1984 as a model. Famke_Janssen#Modelling_and_early_1990s. "In 1984, Janssen moved to the United States to begin her professional career as a fashion model."
Her X-Men costar Rebecca Romijn also began her career as model before eventually retiring from modelling as well. Rebecca's article states that she's been active since "1991-present", which is the year her page mentions that she began modelling: "Among other jobs, Romijn started her modeling career in 1991." So why is Famke's at 1992 (around the time she quit modelling) and not when she started her modelling career in 1984? Clear Looking Glass ( talk) 08:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
There's something wonky with the syntax of the news item linked to support the claim that Janssen won the Susan B. Anthony "Failure Is Impossible" Award in 2006. I suspect another award got conflated in there. The Festival's own website (now the High Falls Women's Film Festival) lists only Agnieszka Holland as the 2006 awardee. Powers T 22:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)