[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Hong Chau

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References to use

[edit]

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2022/2023

[edit]

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence

[edit]

The first sentence mentions only Downsizing. It has not been clear which other credits are worth mentioning. Newsweek here says, "Chau is best known for playing Ngoc Lan Tran in the 2017 film Downsizing, Lady Trieu in Watchmen, and Audrey Temple in Homecoming." Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of edits

[edit]
  • For the lead section, just "is an American actress" is insufficient per MOS:LEADBIO since there are many non-notable American actors; The Whale is the career highlight at this time. Down the road, the context can change since this is a dynamic article. The lead section also should have mentioned Showing Up and The Menu because these films and The Whale were frequently covered together in 2022/2023 about Chau. Furthermore, inline citations can be used for potentially contentious claims, like what makes her noteworthy (like the citation for The Whale saying, "'It takes 10 years to become an overnight success': Hong Chau is finally getting her moment").
MOS:LEADBIO literally has an example: "Cesar Estrada Chavez (March 31, 1927 – April 23, 1993) was an American labor leader and civil rights activist." Is he a non-notable civil rights activist because he is introduced in this way? Plus, there is nothing contentious about the facts claimed in the lead. And furthermore, the lead is not her filmography table that lists all her appearances. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Life" or "Early life" is really prominently "Early life", and two possibly-droppable stubby paragraphs feel tacked on. I'm not sure if a "Personal life" section is warranted, but I think it's more appropriate than these tacked-on paragraphs.
WP:OVERSECTION. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can explain it more than just linking to that section. Do you think it's possible that these two sentences don't even belong? The dog one is really trivial (and I think I added that). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing that bit. I agree that it's quite trivial. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Generally speaking, we should be mindful of consistency in identifying the companies, directors, and genres behind an actor's work. I think it is more appropriate to not add that level of detail unless there is context that warrants it.
Funny that the amount of details that you have added are warranted, but what someone else adds is unwarranted. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get more specific about the kind of details we are talking about? Do you not agree that if we are going to name a work that Chau was in, we should be consistent? You named the director and the genre for Downsizing, but you do not do that for Inherent Vice or American Woman. Same thing for TV, mentioning Netflix for The Night Agent but not Amazon for Homecoming. It's not clear how it is decided on a case-by-case basis. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, every sentence shouldn't and cannot be the same. Good writing & mixing-it up to make the prose engaging is key. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about entire sentence structures. We will obviously name the works and their media and their year at minimum. You're not going to drop "film" or "TV" or the year sometimes, right? It's inconsistent writing to say that Chau appeared in this film and then appeared in that comedy-drama film. I know I keep saying it, but I think we can have consistency and have good writing of the sentences that contain these consistently-presented details. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are other parameters to good writing. Mixing it up is what makes a prose engaging. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the same note, we should beware elevating individual critics' opinions about an actor in a particular work. The more Chau-focused coverage is more appropriate to write about her. For example, for The Night Agent, a positive Variety review was quoted, but I also saw The Hollywood Reporter writing, "Chau and Patrick add value to frustratingly underwritten roles, though this isn’t really a peak for either." Unless there is broader coverage mentioning that Chau was well-received, we should not define that ourselves.
Random press releases are NOT more important than the opinions of individual critics. All FA-articles on actors have critical opinions of individual critics highlighted. I suggest you read some like Scarlett Johansson, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Jessica Chastain, to name a few as to how the Wikipedia community has decided on what qualifies as the best-written articles on actors. Plus, all critics unanimously do not have the same things to say about every actor's performance. That's why the quote is attributed to their name, and not making a general consensus about her performance. And ironically, the THR review says the exact same thing about Chau's performance as the Variety one -- that she added value/elevated the show! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff existing is not a reason to continue a practice that may not be ideal. It's not obvious why Matthew Creith of Out Front's opinion matters more than other critics' opinions for The Whale. It is WP:UNDUE weight in favor of one person over many others. Why does Creith get cited? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same reason why you cite Rolling Stone's Maria Fontoura. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • I feel like there is some downplaying of certain key facts. Chau filming four films in 2021 was a point of focus in the cited source. Furthermore, while Showing Up premiered at a film festival, it will have a commercial release in theaters, and coverage will result. So it's not accurate to say that Asteroid City is next. I'm fine with text about And and The Instigators being condensed but don't think we know if she's a star or not.
Showing Up has already released. A film's first release, even if it happens at a film festival, is the official release. Further information belongs in the film's article, and not in an individual actor's bio. I suggest you see how that is done in the film's star Michelle Williams' page, another FA-class article. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mass removal of all my edits is not okay, and a blatant WP:OWNERSHIP issue. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I explained as many of my edits as I could. I do my best to follow policies and guidelines. Can we agree that we will differ in the details? As I stated below, I mentioned where I reverted but did not mention what was left alone. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)

Pinging FrB.TG, Shshshsh, Dr. Blofeld, HJ Mitchell who have experience with actor bios, as to whether the mass removal of my edits here is valid? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the mass removal of content is uncalled for. For example, I don't understand the point of this removal with the reason that "The Night Agent' doing well is a fact not clearly related to the actor". Why is it unrelated to the actress? She did star in it, didn't she? By that logic, we shouldn't note the critical and commercial performance of any of her work.
As for the inclusion of the opinions of individual critics, this is how usually biographies of actors are written on Wikipedia. Unless we have a source that summarizes the opinions of critics on an actor's performance in a film/TV show (which we very rarely do in case of modern actors), the best we can do is pick reviews from reputed publications (like Variety and Rolling Stone in this case) with proper attribution (which was also done here). FrB.TG (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG, regarding The Night Agent, it was not clear to me why we are looking at how that series performed compared to any other works. The citation does not even mention Chau. I'm aiming for consistency, and it would be extraneous detail to explain how each work did critically and commercially. Are you saying we should explain that for each work?
I get that reviews can be sampled, but my concern is why one review and not others. I come from film articles, and we sample a set of reviews and balance them based on the aggregate scores and summaries. It is a lot of power to quote just one review. How are we to decide to quote a review with extremely high praise, commendable, or could be better? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"why one review and not others" -- by that logic why do you include this press release from THR and not the hundreds of other press releases on Chau? Same logic. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, we can drop that. I only included it before because it wasn't directly from a review, but if it's the same source (The Hollywood Reporter) then it's not independently highlighting a really good quote by someone from another periodical. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's literally the opposite of what I'm saying. Attributing an opinion to their respective high-quality source is the only thing of importance. I repeat, opinion on an actor/performance is never unanimous. Everyone does not say the same thing. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like it is being missed what edits were kept. I only summarized the reverts I made. I find it hard to believe, as seen here, that almost all of my reverts were restored. I've commented above where applicable. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't understand the problem with this edit. Why are we naming the director and the genre here but not so much elsewhere? Why did my previous addition that Downsizing is a film get removed? I'm trying to work out possible compromises here and think some reverts were too much. If mine have been, I apologize and feel like I've explained why. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because the director and genre of her breakthrough role is not trivial information. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this is subjective projecting. You're saying it as a fact, but that is what you think is warranted, and that can depend on the person. Why is it also not worth putting in the premise of Downsizing too? Or the studio that made Downsizing? I'm emphasizing that I err toward not including details unless sources indicate them as relevant. Following this logic, should we also explain that The Whale is a drama film? What about the leading roles that she had with Driveways and American Woman -- what kinds of films were these? I feel inconsistency stands out to me as a reader to only provide a detail for this work and not that work. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:IDONTLIKEIT and not based on any existing policy that says every film/appearance must have the exact same information provided for "consistency". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop assuming bad faith? I think it's perfectly reasonable to pursue consistently-presented details and find it rude that you put it in quotation marks. Are you saying that for The Whale, it's fine that we don't mention the genre even though we did for Downsizing? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would absolutely agree with the mentioning of genre and director for The Whale as well. But if it doesn't that's fine, as long as get an overall understanding of the film and her role in it. As I said, all sentences do not and should not have to be the same. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And no, I'm not assuming bad faith here. I just thanked you for this edit. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Great! I appreciate that. I'm still not crazy about this singular-quoting approach. Can you explain why you chose Out Front to quote, compared to many others? It doesn't seem as authoritative as Rolling Stone or Variety. And can I ask, do you really think that last photo is good? The gray bottom part of it made me think it was an image that failed to load fully. I don't know if cropping it would help? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly open to citing another review apart from Out Front. The reason I chose it is because it succinctly summarised the opinion of very many critics about her performance in The Whale. As for the photo, yes, it's not of the best quality, but we got to make do with what we have. If cropping it can produce a better result, I'm all for it. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I've been looking at the differences and trying to determine what makes sense and what does. I recognize some may just be aesthetic, like it is not so important to have an "Upcoming appearances" subsection. I have to say, though, that the sentence about The Night Agent and "strong viewership" still feels misplaced. The inline citation does not even mention Chau. What I mean is that this sentence feels incidental to Chau's appearance. If readers want to know how a show did generally, they can visit the show's article. Like for example, I'm pretty sure Treme and Little Big Lies were fairly big in their respective times, but I don't think it makes sense to go back and explain each show's general reception. I don't think the detail is needed here. Would like to know others' opinions about this too. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As FrB.TG mentioned above, reception to a show she was a "main cast" member in, is not superfluous information. It's informative. (Also by your logic, why even mention the Cannes, Venice film festival screenings of her films -- Chau has personally nothing to do with those films being selected to screen at those festivals. But such information makes her bio more engaging and informative, and that's what we need to strive to achieve). As for Big Little Lies, mentioning its rating would be a bit more superfluous, as she was a bit player in it and not among the main cast members -- Nicole, Reese, Laura, and Shailene were. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding film festivals, I work with film articles and consistently mention these screenings and the theatrical releases. I don't see it as making the bio more engaging and informative, it's more about completeness. Like the coverage about the screenings (which can write about her) can be decent, but the coverage really expands with theatrical releases. It seems like an incomplete timeline not to mention the very first premiere of a film that she is in (though it would be indiscriminate to name all the subsequent film festivals) and write only in regard to theatrical releases. That's my thinking in terms of mentioning both.
I don't think that the sentence for The Night Agent is superfluous. It's relevant about the show, but it's not as relevant about the actor, is what I mean. Many shows do well out of the gate but would not be thought about in a few months. My concern is that this kind of sentence superficially ties the show's successful premiere to the presence and/or performance of Chau. Hence why I don't think it is relevant enough to be included. I feel like we're probably at odds on this front, so whatever. I've explained my thinking. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"this kind of sentence superficially ties the show's successful premiere to the presence and/or performance of Chau" ==> no where does it say or even tangentially imply that. The sentence, "The Night Agent had strong viewership on the platform" is as neutrally stated as is humanly possible. And what you say about "completeness" is exactly what this sentence achieves. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the sentence by itself is neutral. The point is the framing is that she appeared in the show, and it did well. We don't indicate that for other works in terms of critical reception or box office performance. That's why it feels stuck out like a sore thumb. Like why is this about the work worth highlighting compared to other works, independent of Chau's involvement? If a reliable source was like, the success of The Night Agent will show Chau to many who do not know her yet, that would be highly relevant. But that's what it seems to be implying without a source saying so. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the release timelines, a film's theatrical release is often times spaced out. It first screens at a film fest, followed by a limited release in select NY/LA theatres, followed by a wide domestic roll-out in the US, followed by a staggered intentional release. You can see the release schedule for The Whale here. So if you are talking about "completeness" in release timelines, this article mentions only the first two releases and not the rest of them. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm very familiar with that. Obviously I'm not advocating for all of them to be included. I'm saying that both the very first film festival and the very first commercial release are highwater moments in which the films (and the actors) are reviewed. Like with Showing Up, even though it's not released to the public just yet, we can look at the reviews of the very first film festival screening and see what critics said about Chau. The subsequent film festivals and the subsequent expansions into other markets won't have coverage analyzing her performance but only mention her in passing. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for your point about "Many shows do well out of the gate but would not be thought about in a few months." By that logic, do we only add Chau's films that are thought about after many months? How many people are still talking about Driveways and American Woman? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing to remove mention of The Night Agent completely. It is worth mentioning because she appeared in it. Is it worth mentioning that it is doing well, especially not naming her? Not so much. To touch on one of your examples, I think Driveways did very well as a film (99% on Rotten Tomatoes) but don't think that needs to be mentioned here. What if it got 70% on Rotten Tomatoes? If she is in a film where the director won Best Director, do we mention it too? You can probably tell by now, but I don't like adding any more details than necessary. I feel like it's an editorial whisper to readers that we've decided which details are more important than others. Like you told me that for Downsizing, the director and the genre are both important. Why not mention Paramount Pictures? Why not mention that the film's reception was middling, which implies Chau's performance (and speaking from my POV here) is the longest-lasting takeaway from that film? I guess it feels like for each work, there can be a set of details to subjectively fight over, and I'm not crazy about that. Keeping it simple and letting readers see the works' articles to understand the full context, is what I had been thinking. Anyway, I am worn out and am off to take a break. Have a good one. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry

[edit]

Is Hong Chau at least partially of Hoa heritage? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are not supposed to be used for general inquiries and discussion about a topic. If you want a change to the article, find reliable sources to support the change. Sundayclose (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raising questions relevant to the subject's biography (when sources are not immediately at hand for the contributor raising the question) is completely permissible at our project, and, in fact, exactly what a "Talk" page is for. In some cases, the answer a question like this might not become available until 10 or more years, so this "Talk" page thread can serve as a reminder that this question needs to be addressed, and the article modified once relevant sources arise. Please do your best to maintain a collegial spirit, as befitting our project's traditions and history, and contribute in a productive manner. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

[edit]

DiamondsRuby, Krimuk2.0, the new "Accolades" section is way too difficult to read. Filmographies are chronologically sequential, and as a reader, it makes sense to see the set of awards for each film in the order of the films' release. This is what it looked like before. With the current presentation, my eyes have to go left and right constantly to comprehend the accolades. Why can't we just stay with the approach of listing the films by year and listing the specific awards? The change is not an improvement at all. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, please group the awards by years, like before. It was much more organized. Mike Allen 18:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your attention, sorry for my broken English, which is grammatically incorrect and a bit difficult to understand, but I will try to explain. Believe me, I hesitated a lot because I knew this would happen when I tried to change. I think the new Accolades table has more advantages because:
1. Emphasize the Oscar nomination on the first row and first column of the table in alphabetical order, which highlights the main idea you added in 2018: "Hong Chau was snubbed ... a nomination. .." - when she wasn't nominated for an Oscar for Downsizing and later received the honor for The Whale. Normally readers will scroll through their phones very quickly, rarely patiently reading from top to bottom. However, when they look at the first line, they will see that this is an actor who has been nominated for an Academy Award. Meanwhile, in the old version, this nomination was buried right in the middle of the table and there was no sorting function button.
  • Being nominated for an Oscar is a great honor in an actor's career, especially for Asian actors to be nominated is very rare. In fact, she is the first Vietnamese-American actress (100% purely Vietnamese, regardless of gender) to receive this nomination. This makes it even more necessary to highlight the award at the top of the table.
2. Merge the two columns "Year" and "Ceremony" together into a single column to expand the display space, in which the new "Year" column will link to the ceremony article page when possible, Also add the "Award" and "Category" columns because the old version is missing this section. I tried updating in your old version, but for some awards it was difficult to find out how many times that ceremony had been held, I got discouraged and gave up. However, the year of the ceremony was held is easy to find and matches the new version. Also, I don't think readers care about the year and awards ceremony, it's important that this segment should emphasize the name of the award in the first column and the category that actor received.
3. Regarding the display issue, I think you have a point. The problem occurs when I update the old table, the more information I put in, the more unevenly I see the table displayed between rows. No matter how I zoom in or out, switch Android/iOS devices and PC/Laptop, nothing changes. Especially when viewed on a PC. In the new version, everything is very smooth and easy to see when using Chrome and Firefox browsers on PC and application. (attached picture)
4. I have seen many gold star certified articles of famous actors, these articles use the same table with identical display, Such as those of Leo, Anne, Charile... I think that there must be some reason why this table received the consensus of many members for the article to receive a gold star certification (including the easiest way to display it for readers), so I decided to use it. Then I realized the information was organized very scientifically, complete and easily accessible.
Erik, I know you were the one who laid the foundation for Chau's biographical article and was disappointed when she didn't receive an Oscar nomination for Downsizing, so I thank you for your contributions. As for my edit, I found the new version to be better and decided to post it because I'm very proud of Chau so I wanted to highlight the award, so that future generations of Vietnamese people have something to be proud of. I tried you know. Thanks. DiamondsRuby (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing! To be clear, my main issue is with the order of columns, such as not seeing "Film" first. I think you make a worthwhile point in highlighting the Featured Articles that do it differently. However, I do see other FAs that take yet another approach: Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, David Lynch, Emma Stone. Obviously a section-based approach is least ideal here because we don't want a section heading for each award within the actor's main article. However, the award-first column approach usually has multiple wins or nominations for each award. I somewhat see the case for grouping by award first in these cases, but here we have more of a one-to-one relationship. The way this is being done, it looks like the approach is stuck with having to repeat the film title many times, like The Whale being repeated so much. If the film title column was first, then that would not be a problem.
To explain my thinking about the previous layout, the year is the highest-level grouping because an actor can appear in multiple films in one year. They don't appear multiple years in one film (for purposes of this presentation). Following that, the layout would name the relevant film under which that actor won awards. It's about starting wide and then narrowing it down. This new layout does not have that kind of directionality. For the reader, the new layout requires reading the entire row, every time to learn information. If a reader sees the year and the film title, then they can quickly digest all the awards for that film, reading only the third column, until they move on to the next film. There is less benefit to the award-first approach because Chau has not (so far) won or been nominated for multiple awards under most organizations/categories.
Furthermore, I see no benefit to linking to both the organization and the category when the category is sufficient. If a reader is curious about an organization beyond the category, they can find the link to the organization at the category's article. And the linked years violate WP:EGG, which is why I was always writing "YYYY ceremony" or "Nth ceremony" in the previous layout. (On another point, I do see that there was no sortability before, and I'm fine with adding that.)
EDIT: To comment on the Oscar nomination, it is purely incidental that the Academy Award is at the top of an alphabetical list. If M Award was the most famous award, it would be in the middle of the table. That said, regarding the prose paragraphs, I would be fine with mentioning Chau's Oscar nomination upfront. I think I just wrote the paragraphs in chronological order, but in the case of prose, one can put more important information on top.
Mike, Krimuk, thoughts? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Krimuk2.0, MikeAllen. Any preference for either version or some way to incorporate a middle ground, based on our points and counterpoints above? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite okay with the current layout, as that's the format in FL-class lists such as List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio and List of awards and nominations received by Jessica Chastain, among others. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer it the other way. Most of those tables got revamped with the current style after it was promoted to featured lists.
DiCaprio before (changed in 2019), Cooper before (changed in 2020) Mike Allen 20:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

42.6 Years

[edit]

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

[edit]

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hong_Chau&oldid=1224654127"