Talk:Rick Schwartz

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.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

United States Start‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Removed 'resume' tag posted by anonymous user who placed in retaliation for edits on another page. User placed same tag on five pages I have contributed to without explanation.Wintertanager (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tag was not retaliatory. Tag is to do with issues on the page. The explanation is contained within the tag: Namely, the article is written like a resumé. I am less anonymous than you are. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I disagree. Can you cite specific issues with the page?Wintertanager (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Of those providing input, there doesn't seem to be an obvious problem. --slakr^\ talk / 10:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does this article read too much like a résumé, and should it be tagged as such until it is brought up to standard? 79.97.226.247 (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summoned by bot - Meh not really. There's some "name-dropping" going on - why does the Machete Kills mention list EVERYONE in the film? ("Machete Kills is a sequel to the 2010 genre movie Machete (inspired by the fake trailer to the film Grindhouse) and stars Danny Trejo, Mel Gibson, Jessica Alba, Amber Heard, Michelle Rodriguez, Sofia Vergara, Demian Bichir, Antonio Banderas, Zoe Saldana, Edward James Olmos, Vanessa Hudgens, Cuba Gooding Jr., Alexa Vega, William Sadler, Lady Gaga, Marko Zaror, and Charlie Sheen" - seriously??) but it's not outrageous. Personally I think it would be better to have just fixed what you didn't like rather than tag it and do an RfC. FYI RfC is mainly to bring in people to resolve edit wars or a long-term disagreement only when you are unable to come to a compromise. Looking at the earlier conversation, this should have been discussed more. It wouldn't have hurt to respond to Wintertanager's question. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to 79.97.226.247, this RFC included several pages I had originally contributed to after quite a bit of back and forth; he was justified in adding. Of the pages he tagged, I think the state of this particular one was the worst at the time of the RFC (it had gone through much editing since I originally created - or contributed to, I can't remember). Since the RFC there have been quite a few edits that have reduced the issues (I hope), but it was pretty bad. Wintertanager (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry 72, I didn't even look at the date of the RfC and see the previous versions. Since I just got the request and saw no other comments, I spaced out and thought it was new. Really the only issue was all the name dropping with associated people. And of course I'm not a fan of "tenure" for non-professors, unless it's something like president of notable company or organization. Glad you have worked it out - if you need any opinions hit me up. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks pretty good. It is a little short and could use some more content but I wouldn't say it reads like a resume. Meatsgains (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summoned by bot per Meatsgains, I don't see a major issue with the article. I see no need for any tags whatsoever. - - Cwobeel (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summoned by bot I feel as if this is once again, not a resume'. Just because theres companies and what they do doesn't make it a resume'. What matters the most is, is it significant enough for the companies to be there? That's another question. I feel as if the misconception of what resumes are for, and the other side of the importance of it. I feel like it could be edited a little more, just like any other article. Nick2crosby (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Career section

I have an issue with listing every company the subject works for as a subheading. Its not necessary to break down the career to this level and it has a promotional ring to it. I'd appreciate other thoughts on this. Flat Out talk to me 00:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]