Talk:Susan Lynch

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I see no reason to change this. Sources are driven by their own style guides, and were not beholden to them.Unbh (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As already clearly pointed out to you in a recent edit summary, the reason to change is made clear at MOS:GNL and WP:WAW. And we should always be guided by sources. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am curious where in the MOS the clause - ignore reliably sourced info - in this case The Irish Times - exists. OTOH Gender marking in job titles does exist.  MarnetteD|Talk 04:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an issue of style, so the usage in a particular source is irrelevant. We have our own MoS. Also note that the Mirror article calls her an actress Ficaia (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: GNL and WAW do not automatically mandate changing this, especially WAW which is not policy. As to gender marking in jobtitles - that's an article. If we're guided by sources  as you suggest then the balance of those seems to be for actress once you cut out all the user generated dross.Unbh (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

text: The Daily Mirror is a tabloid. WP:RSP says: "" Martinevans123 (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, this is an issue of style which is up to editorial discretion. The onus is on those trying to change the usage here. Ficaia (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why reliable sources, particularly highly relevant ones, should be ignored. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not an "issue of style" - BTW WP:IDONTLIKEIT is another non-starter as a justification for your stance. "Onus" has been met through sourcing. Unless you can provide a link to a policy guideline or essay the proper, sourced wording will be restored. MarnetteD|Talk 19:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It clearly is a matter of style. The article formerly used "actress", and was recently changed to "actor". This change has now been reverted by two editors, so there is no consensus for any change. The status quo prevails. I suggest you read the MoS discussion here (1) which establishes "actor/actress" as a special case in the MoS: both usages are acceptable, and the matter is decided by consensus. IDONTLIKEIT applies to those who want to change the usage here. Ficaia (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So we have two editors in favour and two opposed. Perhaps a third editor will appear to establish consensus one way or the other. Your link is to an archived discussion at MoS. I don't see any agreed conclusion there. It's not "policy", is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of any agreement is the point. In the absence of any ban on the use of actress and in the light of established usage in thousands of articles, "actor" and "actress" are both acceptable. This is entirely a matter of stylistic preference. 21:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There may well be thousands of articles for long-dead women performers that use "actress". But one might expect an article for someone born in 1971 to use "actor", especially if that's how reliable sources describe her. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Now this is irrelevant, because we have our own style guide, but note this Guardian piece (1) which calls her "an established stage actress". Ficaia (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, are sources relevant or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: One might equally expect some born in 1971 to be described as an actress, which she has been in equally reliable sources. The point is that this is something that is style guide driven in most sources, and we have our own. If someone is described as both in sources there's no reason for us to change, unless a specific preference had been stated by the subject of the article. For what it's worth I'd say the same if the established version was the other way around.Unbh (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should she be described as an actor or an actress