Talk:Bryan Cranston/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Emmy Nominations

In actuality Bryan Cranston was nominated for Outstanding Performance in a Comedy Series for a Supporting Role three times: 2002, 2003, and 2006. So it was the 54th, 55th, and 58th...if someoone can change the info box! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Small5th (talk • contribs) 03:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Timwhat.jpg

Image:Timwhat.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Famous ULC Minister

He is also an ordained Universal Life Church MInister. Please reference theMontastery.org and http://www.ulcministers.com/Famous-ulc-ministers.php for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CurranWhite (talk • contribs) 00:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is this a reliable source? What checks are done to ensure that the people registered on this site have done so in person? What is to stop me assuming some identity, particularly that of a well-known person, and registering as a minister? Until these questions are resolved, sorry, Wikipedia cannot regard this as a reliable source unless the person themselves confirm this. If these questions are not answered in a reasonable time, I will place this website on the spam blacklist, per WP:BLP. Rodhullandemu 00:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Former Murder suspect

I found this article where Bryan admits that he was briefly a fugitive when he was suspected of murdering a co-worker in the 1970's.

http://blogs.amctv.com/breaking-bad/2008/02/qa-bryan-cranst-1.php#more

Ah, a fugitive? I don't see anything that would warrant the term "fugitive". --C S (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Not many people know that Breaking Bad is actually a bio-pic. True story.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.170.67 (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Reminder that this website serves business interests before actual information that would help the public. His alibi should be a matter of public record but has not been provided.

Road to GA

This article is in excellent shape and could be a GA article with a little bit more work. Mkdwtalk 01:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

This guy (Bryan Cranston) was on Matlock once. But it's not mentioned in the article. If I knew more about it I would add it, but all I know is that he was in at least one of the Matlock episodes.

17:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Brayn Cranston acted as Patrick Crump in an X File episode season 6 called Drive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.228.61 (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional appearance in Cleveland Show

B.C. was on a new episode. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2764972/ I just don't know how to edit the thing. Robin.lemstra (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Senfeild

Cranston was very good on Seinfeld, but he is not equally known for that role and Breaking Bad. This keeps being put in and it's just not true. Breaking Bad launched his Hollywood career. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Dupication of information

Since this article has an established awards section, why, for example in the Breaking Bad section is it necessary to list the awards and nominations that appear in the awards section? It strikes me are a unnecessary and a bit redundant to have this information in TWO separate sections. Sjkoblentz (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Lex Luthor rumor

Cranston being cast as Lex Luthor is being disputed by multiple sources. I suggest we strike the line from his filmography and introduce a sentence at the bottom of the career section to the effect of: While Cranston has reportedly been cast as Lex Luthor by the Cosmic Book News website,[1] this has been disputed as rumor by multiple sources.[2][3][etc.] Deadbeef 18:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough – after looking it up again I have to agree. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • No: there is no point in inserting a vague rumor and that it was disproved. It's trivial. See also Talk:Lex_Luthor_in_other_media#The_Metro, where a larger discussion goes against the inclusion in the first place. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

personal life deletion?

Can anyone check why this has just been removed without argument?! 28 september 2013.Super48paul (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Millenium TV Series voice appearance

I'm pretty sure that Bryan Cranston appeared as the voice in the episode Jose_Chung's_Doomsday_Defense, heard in the scenes with the 'Onan-o-Graph' device. He didnt appear in the credits, but only 3 additional actors were listed at the end of the episode. This wouldn't be surprising, as he appeared in The X Files a year later. (Both are Chris Carter shows) Should be confirmed then added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.28.51.68 (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

"I'm pretty sure" is not how we operate. Please familiarize yourself with WP:The five pillars of Wikipedia. Chunk5Darth (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how what I wrote contravenes those 5 Pillars. However "I'm pretty sure" is why I added it to this page, for discussion/confirmation - notice how I didn't edit the actual page! But thanks for your patronising comments, much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.28.51.68 (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You fail to see that because you never bothered reading about the five pillars. Your WP:SPECULATION fails "verifiability, not truth", which is one of those pillars. My comments are not patronizing, but rather intended to help you understand the way Wikipedia works. Chunk5Darth (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You have some serious comphrehension problems. Your comments have been patronising and not helpful. You would have been justified in writing what you wrote had I edited the main article, but I didn't, I mentioned it on this Talk page. (from the 'verifiability' link) "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" - which is precisely why I added this to the talk page, so other contributors could point to a source. But anyway, I'm done here. I don't care that much, I was just trying to bring additional information to the table, and now I wish I hadn't bothered. And FYI, I did read through the 5 Pillars page, and I still fail to see why my original section on Talk contravened any of those point's descriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.28.51.68 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm Facepalm Chunk5Darth (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

ANN's encyclopedia

In accordance and the half dozen listed discussions at WP:A&M/RS#Situational, Anime News Network's encyclopedia section is NOT a reliable source because it is entirely based on user generated content with no editorial oversight. Submitting error reports take forever to fix, if they ever responded to, and the information is displayed is based on whoever submits it first. Just because other parts of the ANN's website (news, reviews, and other articles) are reliable sources doesn't transfer over the the user-generated encyclopedia section.

A note about using Anime News Network as a reference: ANN is divided into sections of varying quality. For news, reviews, and release information, ANN is a reliable source and close to being a newspaper of record for anime and manga. The "fan interest" pieces, however, may be pulled directly from unreliable sources and generally should not be used - http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news is the "reliable" feed. In addition, because the encyclopedia portion is user-edited, that information is not reliable by Wikipedia standards.

That last sentence has been there since ANN entry was added to WP:A&M/RS. —Farix (t | c) 00:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't gotten to all that half a dozen discussions yet, but the first one (to which I linked in the edit summary) ends with the following statement:

It appears to meet the requirements of a secondary source. I scrolled down to the bottom of the page and saw an editorial staff, job and internship openings, and so forth. While it appears to be an entrepreneurial organization, it's not a selfpub. The other part of RS is whether something has earned a reputation, and a quick look at Google Books shows that it's been cited many times. When citing a web site, it's good to include the name of the company that owns the site as publisher and the city where it's based out of; the publisher is Anime News Network, and a little more research shows a mailing address in Westmount, Quebec, a suburb of Montreal.

Chunk5Darth (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
No where in that discussion did anyone say that the encyclopedia section is reliable. In fact several users, including myself, specifically stated that the encyclopedia section wasn't reliable. I don't know what you are reading, but you are definitely not reading that discussion at all. —Farix (t | c) 00:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The encyclopedia section of ANN is not reliable as ANYONE can edit it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Any site that allows anyone to edit their information (regardless if its verifiable) cannot be considered reliable to use in wikipedia. Lucia Black (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that ANN's encyclopedia is not reliable since it contains user-submitted information (I wouldn't say it is user-edited though . . . anyone can add information, but only staff can edit things that someone else has added). Keep in mind though that there is a source field for all information added, and while it is optional to put anything in that field, sometimes people will give a reliable source for the information they submit. To check the sources, click the check sources link at the bottom of any ANN encyclopedia page, and then click the little "i" symbol next to whatever information you want to see the source for. If a reliable source is given for the information, then that source could be cited on Wikipedia. Calathan (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem with the source field is that it is hardly ever filled in or filled in with "I've read it" "I've watched it" or points back to Wikipedia as an original source. As for the particular roles and the pseudonym being referenced, they have no declared source. —Farix (t | c) 15:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Ping both WP:BLP/N and WP:RS/N about whether an unreliable source can be used to verify credits. —Farix (t | c) 13:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If a source is still needed for the "Lee Stone" pseudonym, would this article from Kotaku be a better source? Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources says that Kotaku news articles published after 2010 are reliable, but seems hesitant about using all content from the site. Still, since the article is written by a staff member of a site with an editorial staff, it seems like it would generally be considered reliable. I think it would at least be better than leaving the information unsourced (and certainly better than using ANN's encyclopedia or IMDB). Calathan (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Walter White image

Tentinator removed the image several times, claiming that there is no non-free use rationale. I cited WP:Non-free content#Meeting the contextual significance criterion and explained that the White image is very different from any other picture of Cranston, and it is probably his most prominent role he is known for. Therefore, it meets the contextual significance criteria. Chunk5Darth (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This is actually a textbook case of how WP:NFCC#8 doesn't work. The image is being used as a visual accompaniment to a relevant topic, not the object of discussion itself. I'm going to go ahead and remove it. If readers want to look at what the Walter White character looks like, they're free to click on the link (and that also brings up WP:NFCC#3b issues). And actors looking vastly different for specific roles isn't particularly unique to Cranston - that's kinda what actors (and makeup artists) do. There's not even a mention about how Walter White doesn't look like Cranston does off-set - zero contextual significance here. I'm happy to discuss it in WP:NFCR but this seems like a clear-cut case to me. Mosmof (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, you will go ahead and wait for consensus. Secondly, there is plenty of discussion about Cranston's pre-BB vs. his post BB career. Therefore, a relevant image is needed to accompany his most significant career page. Chunk5Darth (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Use of non-free content under fair use puts a higher burden on the user to show that fair use is valid - so far, you seem to be the only one making the case. And again, there's nothing in the subsection that refers to his appearance (and even then, I'm not sure an image is particularly necessary considering we have a whole article for the Walter White character. Let's let non-involved parties deal with it on WP:NCR. Mosmof (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing a claim

  • Statement: "Cranston is a minister at the Universal Life Church."
  • Citation from the Universal Life Church: "Cranston is one of our ministers."

Why would anyone invalidate that? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, it's not as if the ULC would have any reason to make such a claim falsely. Oh, wait, they would! So we need a reliable independent source. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The primary source is followed by a secondary source, which is an interview with Cranston himself. Therefore, both sources are allowed to coexist. Why the ULC would compromise their integrity by making an outrageously false claim is an entirely different debate. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
A source based on self-identification is fine. The ULC is an SPS of the church, and may not be a WP:RS source for its laundry list of people it asserts are "ordained ministers" in that church. Wikipedia tries to use only sources which can be trusted in such matters. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, when used in conjunction with a reliable secondary source, these are fine, as per the same policy of which you keep reminding me. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 14:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Bryan Cranston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bryan Cranston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

King of Queens, Seinfeld

It's nonsense to state he's equally best known for 5 episodes of Seinfeld and 4 episodes of The King of Queens vs seven seasons of Malcolm in the Middle and 5 seasons of Breaking Bad, the role that made him iconic. Who is deciding this? He was in 3 episodes of HIMYM. Is that not one of his best known roles or is 4 episodes the minimum? Those first two roles were more "before they were famous". --Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Let Me Eat Cake: out of the series you mentioned, Seinfeld actually deserves recognition. Tim Whatley was like the Soup Nazi - a highly memorable guest role that became a recognizable achievement for Cranston. It was his first notable role, years before he landed the lead in MitM, and is therefore lede worthy. Obviously, this can be easily proven with adequate sourcing. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 16:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll take that as a yes then? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 18:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bryan Cranston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Section: Career breakthrough and Malcolm in the Middle

This section does not mention M.I.T.M even though it's in the title — Preceding unsigned comment added by RanielDigal (talk • contribs) 23:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"Moonshot Entertainment" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Moonshot Entertainment. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 7#Moonshot Entertainment until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph notable roles order

Hey! I feel like Malcolm in the Middle should be listed second after Breaking Bad as he had a much more prominent role in the series than he did on Seinfeld. Does anyone have any thoughts? ~Peter Dzubay (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bryan_Cranston/Archive_1&oldid=1068559615"