Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
WikiProject Biography / Actors and Filmmakers (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.
 

RFC
The huge RfC re tables and colour is at:

Proposed deletion of Jeremy Garrett[edit]

American actresses to American female actors[edit]

Unreleased films in filmography?[edit]

In light of this discussion at DRN I'm going to suggest that WP:FILMOGRAPHY (or another appropriate guideline/policy/ec.) be updated to explicitly address whether unreleased films should be included in filmography sections. It's my understanding that the consensus to date is that they should not be included, but when it becomes a contentious enough issue to merit a DRN discussion I think it's time to review the underlying policies, guidelines, etc. and make whatever changes we can to ward off a repeat of the situation. DonIago (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

My impression was that the filmography should include upcoming films. There is no good reason why it should not. A film in production is highly likely to be released (compared to a film merely in development), which is why we use that threshold to permit a stand-alone article. It's not undue weight, either. WP:UNDUE has to do with viewpoints. If we have a tangible film in production (that likely has its own article), it is bizarre not to list it. While advertising is a common concern, this is where WP:NPOV actually applies. There is nothing wrong with informing readers about an upcoming film as long as we write in an impartial tone. Advertising would be writing the topic to make the film sound exciting or to quote non-independent parties pitching the film. As long as we avoid that, we can talk about an upcoming film and link to it where applicable, especially in filmographies. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Couldn't that potentially lead to situations where a film is added to a filmography because it seems likely to be released, but then has to be removed when the film isn't released for one reason or another? Or do you feel that even unreleased films should still be included in filmographies. I don't mean to sound confrontational or such...I have the utmost respect for your viewpoints! DonIago (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Valid and just points Erik. Doniago, to answer your question, if a film is shelved, cancelled etc, it is to be removed from the list I believe. I believe it is the same across the encyclopedia like for films, we have similar scenarios for albums, music singles, concert tours etc, and I can show you that cancelled albums (once confirmed) are removed from discographies etc. However, when it is a confirmed release and production is being done, they are added as part of the discography of the artist. (I will make this point in the DRN also)Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No problem! There is always a small chance that the film won't be released, but I think in the vast majority of cases, it will be. Most films falter in development because it is before the full investment of resources. Once filming kicks off, it tends to mean that there's no turning back. That does beg the question about what to do with unfinished films (those that stop midway through production). It may depend on the coverage on a case-by-case basis. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Not consistent with what I thought the consensus was on the matter, and I still think it might be beneficial to make this part of policy (to avoid a repeat of the DRN filing if nothing else), but understandable. I don't personally care for the possibility of adding material only to have to essentially retract it later, but if that is the consensus, I can live with it. DonIago (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL- we should not be in the business of projecting whether or not a project will come to completion. There is no harm in waiting until it is an actual fact. Wikipedia is WP:NOT not an advertisement for upcoming releases nor do we break news. Giving a not yet film equal weight and billing in a filmography section also violates WP:UNDUE. Projects that require context such as filming and release status are appropriately covered in the text body of the article where the appropriate context can be provided. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
If the film meets WP:NFF (i.e. it is in the filming stage of production), and the person involved is reliably sourced, then there's no reason not to include it in a filmography. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Per WP:CRYSTAL, #1 states, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Films that are in production are almost certain to be released, compared to films just in development. In regard to WP:UNDUE, can you please outline what part of that section applies here? We are talking about listing films, not viewpoints. Also, if we look at WP:NOTADVERTISING, #5 states, "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources." We can and should write about upcoming films as long as we can follow #5, and we can and should list these films that have been neutrally covered. Going back to WP:CRYSTAL, it states, "In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims." Do you plan to put Finding Fanny Fernandes up for deletion? If not, why are you trying to keep it out of sight? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
There are lots of film projects that have entered production and not been released or not been released anywhere near the trumpeted dates. We are an encyclopedia, we can wait to report actual facts and gain nothing from presenting and projecting uncertain events. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
You did not answer the question above. BollyJeff | talk 17:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
TRPoD, the problem is that you are arguing alone against consensus. There is widespread long-standing consensus for putting films already in production into filmographies. It just hasn't been codified as a formal guideline. Films in development or pre-production or whatever, those stay out, and it is reasonable to set the threshold of commencement of principal photography, because that is when actors begin their actual work. If they're working on a film then it deserves to be listed in their name! Elizium23 (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Include unreleased films in Filmography sections?[edit]

There is a clear consensus, that films, where principal photography has begun, should be included in "Filmography" sections of articles, but they should be removed if the film is shelved. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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.

Should we be including unreleased films in the Filmography sections of articles?

!vote[edit]

  • do not include WP:CRYSTAL / WP:UNDUE. despite longstanding bad practices against policy, it does not improve the encyclopedia to continue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Include per long-standing and widespread consensus. Commencement of principal photography is the best metric we have for ensuring a film's release. If a film is subsequently shelved or cancelled then it can be removed, simple as that. As long as these films are permitted to have an article following WP:NFF then I see no possible policy violation. Elizium23 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Do not include. Every filmmaker's career is full of unfinished projects. Filmographies should not become a dumping ground for every suggested or discussed project. Notable unfinished films can be discussed in the body of the article cited to reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    @Gamaliel: The film in question is Finding Fanny Fernandes, which finished filming by November 2013. This is not a film that stopped midway through production. In other words, this is not an "unfinished project". Can you reconsider based on this? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    Including films where principal photography has commenced does not strike me as unreasonable, as long as we drew the line there and did not include every conceived project that was discussed by the director at some point. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    @Gamaliel: Yes, this is the source of the debate. Finding Fanny Fernandes started and finished filming, and the article for it is neutrally written per WP:NOTADVERTISING. We're not talking about films that never finished finishing here, so "non-completed" or "unfinished" is incorrect here. Better to say "unreleased", which indicates that filming is done, but it has to be released ultimately. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    Looks like I may have assumed the discussion was broader than it was. If the discussion is limited only to specific cases like that one, then I support inclusion as well, as long as it is cited to reliable sources and the fact that it is unreleased is clearly indicated. Gamaliel (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Include as long as principal photography has begun, per WP:NFF guidelines. This is also the long-standing consensus in articles on actors. Nymf (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Include. Films actually in production are relevant to the subject's career, and (usually) remain relevant even if they aren't released. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Include per Elizium23. BollyJeff | talk 20:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Include Sometimes the unfinished films are as much importance as the completed ones. See Orson Welles filmography, for example (albeit, poorly formatted). And WP:NOTPAPER applies here. This is an encyclopedia and as such, we should include all the relevant information in these lists, with the necessary sources as needed. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Include per Elizium23 --Loeba (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Include because Wikipedia permits articles about upcoming products (films fall in that category) as long as they are neutrally written, and the filmography is a list that readers can navigate to identify an actor's films that are verified to be in production. The vast majority of films that are produced are released, so unless there is a verifiable claim to the contrary (e.g., will be shelved and never released), it should be included. For the small set of films that may be shelved during production or afterward, I think if a given film is notable enough to have its own article, it is usually worth including in an actor's filmography. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Include – There is precedence of including not-yet-released-but-confirmed-product across the whole of the encyclopedia for not only films, but music albums, singles, tours, videos etc. Remove only if it is shelved. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Include Again per Elizium23. Soham 13:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Include - As long as they have been verified by a reliable source I do not see why not. If not then you shouldn't be able to assume anything will happen until it does, or refer to it on Wikipedia. Plus, personally, I have always found the upcoming films section of filmographies useful and interesting. Cls14 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Include the unreleased films. But if i.e. the actor was initially on the film, but they later got fired or cut off and replaced and/or the film was unreleased, a mention in the career section is enough. Provided of course that there are reliable sources.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Include per Elizium23 and Raykyogrou0. Corvoe (speak to me) 13:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

discussion[edit]

See the discussion above. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Please justify how you believe that WP:UNDUE applies, because as it is a subsection of WP:NPOV I can't for the life of me see how it governs inclusion of films which are always covered in WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply, because a film is not an "event." A film is a job. Actors are workers who make a career in films, so to document that they have been hired and begun work for a particular job is perfectly acceptable and makes no prediction about its subsequent disposition as a released or shelved film. Elizium23 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Documenting in the text that they have been offered or started a project is acceptable and not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Presenting a not film as if it were a completed film IS WP:CRYSTAL.
Re: UNDUE: Under the "Balancing aspects" subsection: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Presenting a film that has not been release under the equal presentation as films that have been released under the Filmography is to give it inappropriate weight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
It is a completed film. It is just unreleased. In addition, a filmography is a list. We do not sort the films in such a list by any kind of weight, like most prominent role to least prominent. We list them in chronological order. It is verifiable that this completed film is next in the filmography. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
If it is a completed film and we have documentation of completed filming is one thing. That all we have is documentation that the project has entered principal photography and the press office has issued a "release date" is a completely different kettle of fish. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Google shows that there was a wrap-up party celebrating the completion of filming for this film. This is one headline. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I thought the subject of this RFC was a general question about films which have commenced principal photography but not yet been released, not an extended discussion of one particular film. Elizium23 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
That is what I thought too. If not, the RfC is misleading. My "include" above is not in regard to a single particular movie. Nymf (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
yes, the RfC is to determine general guidance on if/when in the process of the creation is it appropriate by the general Wikipedia policies it is appropriate to include a not yet released project in a filmography. (It started at one particular article, went to DRN who said they thought there was general guidance not to include and said to bring the discussion here to gain overall clarity on the subject with broader discussion.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Elizium23 and Nymf: I meant that this discussion is because of one film, in the sense that the wider consensus is resoundingly obvious, as reflected above. I suppose it helps to make it more concrete; I just felt like this was a rather wide discussion because of one editor's disagreement with everyone else. Anyway, I've said my piece above as well. :) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I certainly agree that this is a tempest in a teapot. TRPoD cares enough to make an RFC out of it though, so I guess it will have to run its course. One thing that I would stipulate going forward, for this practice to continue, is that any film that is yet-unreleased must have a notation in the "Notes" column indicating its status, i.e. "Post-production", "Completed", "Unreleased", something descriptive so that everyone knows at a glance it is an unreleased work. Elizium23 (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Elizium, that is how it is done generally. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I know. I am mentioning it for discussion because pending the positive outcome of this RFC, we will want to enshrine the consensus in the appropriate MOS guidelines for the project, and I suggest that we mandate a notation as I suggest, as well. Elizium23 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
This same editor has come out against the "Notes" section as well, so yes, let's make sure that it is documented what is desired/allowed in filmography tables. BollyJeff | talk 18:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
On the Notes subject, instead of "Completed", I put the date of release. What do you think? --Musdan77 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That seems to be a better way to display the yet-to-be released films and would confirm their notability in the table as well. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You do not always know the release date of an upcoming film. I think we are close to done here. Can someone from the film group please craft the proper language? I suggest something like "any film that satisfies WP:NFF can be included in the filmography table of the related actors, directors, or other filmmakers. The film's progress status (filming, post-production, release date, etc.) should be included in the notes section of the table with a source." BollyJeff | talk 23:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
we NEVER know the actual date of release of a upcoming film. we may know a scheduled or announced date of release and the article content must always be framed that way. WP:CRYSTAL -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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.

RFC[edit]

A request for comment that is relevant to this project has been filed here Talk:Martin Landau#RfC: Is a career image better for the lead.3F. Any input will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 02:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Human height[edit]

Just seeking a wider range of input from informed persons at Template_talk:Height#rfc_97AACED.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional editors requested[edit]

The discussion at Talk:Nicholas Hoult#Reliable sources considered gossip? might benefit from additional opinions. DonIago (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Director, Budget, Box office columns in Filmography[edit]

Is there a place that I'm not looking that states it's ok to add additional columns to a filmography such as the director, budget and box office? I think it looks awful and clutters the table up tremendously. Filmographies should be limited to Year, Title, Role, Notes, and Source if necessary, just because it's all a user needs to know about the actor, is what they were in, their character, what year it was and any notes that might go with it. Director, Budget, Box office is starting to get off tangent about the film instead of about the actor. Like at Justin Timberlake's filmography, I tried bold deleting it without consensus and summed it per WP:FILMOGRAPHY but was reverted by another editor just because they disagreed and said that WP:FILMOGRAPHY is a guideline not a rule. Thoughts? Am I totally alone on this? LADY LOTUSTALK 20:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You and I have discussed this before over a specific filmography page - personally I don't find that such information clutters the table or anything, it's very easy to ignore a column you aren't interested in, whereas it is useful to give readers additional information in case they are interested. I don't agree that such information is irrelevant to the actor either - the people they work with is a big part of their career, while box-office takings provide a useful indicator of how popular that film was (which again is relevant to their career). I've never considered it as a column but I actually like the idea. It all amounts to making the table more useful than the simple filmography lists readers can find on IMDb or numerous other websites. That's my view. --Loeba (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't like it. If a film has 15 actors with their own articles, we should repeat this director, budget, and gross information (with sources) in all 15 articles? It's not necessary. BollyJeff | talk 20:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Exactly my thought Bolly, if a user wants to look at the director, budget, or box office, then it should be on the film/televisions article and not the actor. And Loeba, I see where your coming from and I remember briefly discussing it (on Hepburn's filmography?) but it comes back to the repeating information that is going off tangent and not about the actor. If it was in their article that's one thing because yes it is totally relevant to their career and who they worked with but in the point of a filmography table, I think it should be limited. LADY LOTUSTALK 21:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd include the director, but I'm not sure about the other info. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding text originally posted on WT:FILM#Director, Budget, Box office columns in Filmography
Personally I would bin it all. I don't see how any of that stuff is integral to a filmography. If readers want to know how much a film made or who it was directed by they can look it up at the film article. There seems to a culture of bunging in as much information as possible into a table, but I think tables are better when they just stick to the pertinent facts. In the case of filmographies that is the title, role and year. Everything else is just window dressing. Betty Logan (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding text originally posted on WT:FILM#Director, Budget, Box office columns in Filmography
I'm against inclusion of any of this information. A filmography is related to the actor's career, and should only show the film (and the year to show chronology of the career path) and the role, and possibly a note if there is something notable worth mentioning - awards, etc. Who directed it, budget, etc, etc, is tangential. There are even some that show other actors in the films! Look at this monstrosity. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes it can be useful to record a notable collaboration i.e. John Ford and John Wayne, Fred and Ginger etc, but noting the director and co-stars of every film is certainly not necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure, notable collaborations could be mentioned in a notes section. Or even in prose. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
As an occasional reader of actor articles, one of my biggest frustrations is that when I go to one such article, usually to see their films, I find out I have to go to the filmography sub-article to see such a list. It seems ridiculous to me that such a list is split away from the main one when such a list is what makes them known. What about an approach like having two filmographies? A simple one in the main article (title and year, that's it) that can also link to the filmography sub-article, which will be a more detailed version of the list? Remember that we have film series articles to aggregate information, so can't a filmography do something similar? For example, a reader could browse the films and find out the associated directors. Other columns may depend on the actor. I do oppose an awards column because it is ridiculous to make one film be fifteen rows in height because of one good turn. Anyway, to get back on point, what about having the two -- simple one on the main article, detailed one on the sub-article? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
One problem with this is that you could have a "simple" filmography that would be too large for an actor page. That aside, although Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, it is also not WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A lot of the information trying to be included is simply not notable in the context of the actor. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
If you want to see that kind of information on a film's page, then why not add that information to it instead of trying to cram all the info to the actors filmography? Wouldn't it be easier to see it in the article where most appropriate instead of all the actors attached to the film? LADY LOTUSTALK 12:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Robsinden, are you saying that splitting off the filmography is warranted? What I am envisioning is the standard bullet list, broken up into multiple columns, listing an actor's films and release years. If even that kind of list is too long to be on an actor's article, is there not some kind of rule of thumb to identify a subset of the most relevant films? Also, I think that when we enter table territory, we have a compulsion to add other fields, and I think it really depends on the actor. A "Role" column is not much for films with purely fictional characters, and these roles would not be in context. (Lady Lotus, not sure if you are responding to me and not Rob, but there can be redundancy in aggregation. For example, a "Director" column could be relevant for an actor especially if there is collaboration, so readers can see which films fall under that and which do not, via sorting. Otherwise, a reader has to visit all the film articles to get a sense of that.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Erik, I'm saying that a splitting off is sometimes warranted, but not always. But when it is, we should still keep it simple. Look how difficult the John Wayne filmography is to understand. And I had to fight to get it down to that state (it used to have a "leading lady" column). Personally, I'd prefer to see these filmographies as simple as possible (I'm not really a fan of them in table form - but appreciate that this is a personal preference), and as I mention above, regular notable collaborations with specific directors or actors can be marked in the "notes" column, but if it is that significant then really it should be dealt with in prose. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, actually, it still does have "leading lady". I was obviously unsuccessful in my head-to-head with another editor to get them removed. Or I just gave up. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You said above that "Awards" would be the only reasonable specific column to include beyond the film title and release year. That can get messy, though. What are you thinking in terms of how to present that information succinctly? Maybe some kind of summary that is an anchor link to the film title in the "Accolades" section or list, wherever it may be? Regarding the other columns, I just want to make sure we don't lock out any new columns fully, but perhaps put a cap on the number somehow. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I think I said that awards could go in the notes column ("and possibly a note if there is something notable worth mentioning - awards, etc"), but agree with you that maybe an awards section is best served separate from a filmography table. Picking someone at random, Amy Adams#Filmography, Amy Adams filmography and List of awards and nominations received by Amy Adams, seems to be the way to go. But I do not favour adding additional columns - directors and co-stars can be dealt with in a notes column. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Erik, I was responding to you. You said it was frustrating not seeing that information on the films page and having to go to the actors, I was just saying wouldn't it be easier to have it on the films page and not 15 different pages for the actors attached. And I agree with you on the awards being in there, I usually move the awards to their own section because I too hate the look of 15 awards high for one row. I agree with Rob with his example of Amy Adam's filmography, awards and bio all separate and how the tables are. A filmography (in the form of a table) should be as simple as possible. Otherwise, it can be put throughout the actors article in their career section about how successful the movie was in the box office and what director they worked with. LADY LOTUSTALK 13:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Going back to my director comment (sorry, sleep and other business has kept me away): I think it's useful (yeah, yeah WP:ITSUSEFUL) to see the director of the film as this is a defining feature to the film, along with who stars in it. Browsing through filmographies, I like to see how many films Klinski made with Herzog, or Jack Nance did with Lynch, etc. The idea on the John Wayne filmog is sound, it's just that the layout is terrible - can't even sort it as it's in a million different tables. My preference would be the style of the Isabelle Huppert filmography, which, of course, I'm totally biased too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I think my main issue with a "directors" column is that in a lot of cases, you'll end up with little or no repetition of directors, irrelevant and non-notable collaborations, and "unimportant" directors in the table. Which is exactly what is happening at Isabelle Huppert filmography. Even when some of the other collaborations might be notable. Hence why I think this is best left for the "notes" column to only commemorate notable instances. If the collaborations are that notable, then this should be noted separately elsewhere anyway: Werner Herzog#Collaborations, Jack Nance#Later career, etc, etc. - --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
FYI, the way we keep awards bloat under control in the Indian Cinema work group is to limit only the top two major awards in the tables. Others go somewhere else. For us that means only Filmfare or National awards are allowed in the filmography table. Here it could mean just Academy Awards, for example. BollyJeff | talk 15:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Could you clarify whether you mean "the highest two for a given entry in a table", or "only Filmfare and/or National, if they have them"? Also, how about nominated vs won? The bollywood pages are hella-cluttered with zillions of lesser awards, would be good to get this clearly stated (and linked from WP:FILMOGRAPHY, since that's the useful shortcut for all sorts of filmography table cleanups). DMacks (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I meant "only Filmfare and/or National" in filmography tables, won and nominated. I have not seen award clutter in the Bollywood actors that I follow, but I have seen huge lists in the Hollywood actors, as was described above. BollyJeff | talk 18:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I support Eric's idea of having a simple filmography listed with bullet points on the main biography page, and then having a table and more details on the "Filmography" article. This is what's done on Alfred Hitchcock and I think it works well. Although if we're dealing with a lot of films, I really like having a "Select filmography" lists. I've done this on a few articles that I've worked on (ie Katharine Hepburn#Filmography and theatre credits, Bette Davis#Selected filmography) because it highlights important films for readers (which is likely one of the main reasons they'll be visiting an actor page). I know a lot of people consider this controversial because "how can we decide where to draw the line" and whatnot, but I don't think it's that difficult to employ a little common sense and select the 20 or so films most worth highlighting... --Loeba (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree on how Hitchcock is set up on his main article page but wouldn't recommend using his filmography page for a reference as those tables are butchered the way they are set up. But I'm wanting to gather a consensus on limiting the columns of a table and it's looking like the majority is for removing the box office and budget from existing tables. LADY LOTUSTALK 19:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed that budget and box office is completely inappropriate in a filmography and makes it look cluttered. Role, director and most notable awards is best.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
agree that "budget" and "box office" are irrelevant in filmographies on actors pages and we should recommend against ever including them. the "director" may be appropriate, but i dont think it should be "recommended" . I think we should recommend against a generic "Notes" as per WP:BEANS its an invitation to clutter and trivia. Anything that could only be classified as a "note" would always be better covered in the text body or not be worthy of coverage at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Project page questions[edit]

The project page (WP:ACTOR) currently has a layout problem - on my screen at least, the sidebar thingy is currently covering our list of recognised content, rather than forcing an indent. Does anyone know how to fix it? Also, while we on the subject, would anyone object to the removal of the A Class, DYK, and AfD subsections? These aren't maintained at all and I can't image they ever will be, I think they're fairly pointless. In my view all we should list is FAs, FLs and GAs. --Loeba (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, A class, DYK and AFD should be removed!! I created what seems to be causing you the problems I think by moving up the FA and GA list nearer the top where it belongs. I'll fix it, let me know by hitting the "thanks" button if it solves it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Aha I worked it out - the contents table was being forced into a certain place, I've allowed it into its natural place now which creates enough of a gap for the sidebar not to get in the way. I don't think you purposely wanted the article lists above the ToC when you moved them? It was a good move to place them above all the other info, but it's fine for the ToC to come just before (right?) --Loeba (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the A class, DYK and AFD. If anybody finds the AFD link useful it can be readded at the bottom of the page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Good, thanks. --Loeba (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Colin Firth on stage and screen[edit]

I've split this from the main. The theatre credits needs building if anybody is interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study[edit]

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

Lots of actor sidebar templates at TfD[edit]

Click here for the discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

User TRPoD's edits against consensus[edit]

There have been a lot of discussion on this talk page on whether unreleased films should be included in the filmography table or not, and consensus had been reached. However, flouting this consensus TheRedPenOfDoom has been repeatedly removing sourced information from a handful of articles. See this edit. He has also been adding 'citation needed' tags to the scheduled release years of Shraddha Kapoor's films here, after trying to remove the in-development films altogether, refusing to engage in any form of healthy discussion on her talk page. He is also actively demanding for inline citations on the filmography table when sources are clearly provided in the main body. He was involved in a long discussion on Ranveer Singh's page here, where it was unanimously decided to include films that are in post-production or are currently filming. I would, thus, request users to establish consensus on two things, so it can be uniformly followed for all pages and not just the ones TRPoD targets:

  • Do we need inline citations for films in the table when sources are provided in the main body?
  • Does WP: V and WP: CRYSTAL deny us from mentioning the scheduled release year for projects, that are currently filming, in the filmography table?

Thank you. --krimuk 90 04:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know why TRPoD is still reverting these edits if a consensus has taken place. TRPoD, you need to learnt to accept inputs from others, and not enforce what you personally think is right all the time. You are also trying to put the "guest appearance", "cameo" and "special appearance" label in the ROLE section. Here it states the best layout for the table. Please follow it!
As for the 2 points above:
  • Don't think we'd need to repeat sources in this case.
  • That Crystal page says Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. In the case (Shraddha and Ranveer's pages), this is definitely the case, as these films have gone through principal photography already. Also, they are notable films since they are reasonably high-budgeted and anticipated due to A-List actors, producers, directors working in them. For this reason, this also makes them almost certain to take place. AB01 (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I think its time to topic ban him seriously. I have never seen such a nuisance of an user before. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If the films are sourced in the prose then I agree that they should not be removed. However, I don't see the harm in adding citations in the table also for unreleased films as some people might go straight to the filmography and want a link to a mention of a film to be released.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, of course there is no harm in that. But removing the films altogether when sources are present in the main body is unfair. --krimuk 90 09:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah if it's sourced in the article then removing it is unwarranted. Probably best though to also source unreleased films in the table to avoid people who don't bother to read the articles removing them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I would really appreciate comments from other editors here, on what to mention under the 'years' column for in-production films in the filmography tables. Come on people, please reply so that we don't have to keep arguing over this! This might be a joke to TheRedPenOfDoom, who despite previous discussions on this page, is still hell bent on pushing his agenda. What's funny is that he cites policy and then adds stuff like "upcoming" under the year column and "filming" under the role column; just ridiculous! I do not want to interact with this user again, and thus wish that this matter be resolved once and for all. -- KRIMUK90  18:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
If a WP:RS states a film is being released in 2015, for example, I see no problem in adding that to a filmography table, with the relevant cite. I think WP:COMMONSENSE applies here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:COMMONSENSE does not override WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. We cannot present a future release as if it has been released. and in any manner, it is not COMMONSENSE to attempt to predict future events. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Read the first part of my post about WP:RS, which equates to WP:V. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
TRPoD, that says a lot about your common sense when you quote a policy and do not abide by it. Consensus has been reached on this issue long back, you are simply being a disruption to the normal editing of these articles. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 15:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
"Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution." seems to be the basis of all of your complaints, and yet not one has ever ever ever even come remotely close to articulating how ignoring the rules helps improve the encyclopedia. Not once. Not even close. Wikipedia does NOT gain from prophesying about future events rather then stating what can actually be verified: a proposed/scheduled release date. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
If your issue is with future events, then you are targeting wrong articles. Take those all blue-linked articles to AfD. Once they are deleted, they would be excluded from filmographies. Until then i see no reason to exclude blue-linked articled whether future-planned-releases or past-unreleased or past-banned-films, etc. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Nail. Hit. Head. I think TrPod should drop the stick and walk away from this. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I am baffled that TrPod won't drop the stick, despite the unanimous RfC. It is getting disruptive and pointy now. Nymf (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
TRPoD, please answer this question for once: When the notes section mentions "filming" or "post-production", how can anyone think that the film has released? We would be deceiving the readers only when the notes section is removed, which you have done on multiple occasions. -- KRIMUK90  07:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I have NEVER removed sourced content that would leave a mis-impression that a film was released when it has not been. Do not lie. The RfC result was "where principal photography has begun, [an unreleased film] should be included in "Filmography" sections of articles," but there was not and there cannot be at a wikiproject level a valid consensus that we should misrepresent a film as being released in a particular year until it has actually been released. Your precious "filmography" guidance clearly says the "year" column is the year of release of a film. until it has been released no one can verify the actual year of release. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, in case of in-production films (mentioned clearly in the notes section) it automatically refers to the reliably sourced scheduled year of release. You would understand that if you could read the also-precious ("My own! My love! My precious!") WP: COMMONSENSE. -- KRIMUK90  10:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I have read the commonsense and quoted it above. have you actually read it? There is no improvement to the encyclopedia by pretending that we know for certain when a film is going to be released when we can accurately reflect a "scheduled" release. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, God! Who is pretending here? How can a film be "filming" if it has already released? No one is misrepresenting the fact that a film has released. If that's not commonsense, then what is? -- KRIMUK90  10:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
there are multiple ways to address the content and represent it factually. but placing a plain year in the "year of release" column when the film has not been released is not one of them. There is absolutely no benefit to the encyclopedia from such "we are not telling you accurate information here, you have to look over there to find the whole truth". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious, having seen yet another misplaced warning on TRPoD aka TRiPOD talk page. Are you guys actually showing actual release of a film before the film is actually released? That is daft. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

"Look over there". We can't assume that our readers are lazy enough to not look "so far away". And no Roxy, we are not showing actual releases of a film that hasn't released. We are showing that the film is currently filming and is scheduled to release in that particular year, something that is followed in all filmography FLs. If this is unfair, then it should be changed in "all" the articles including the high-quality ones and a handful of articles should not be targeted. -- KRIMUK90  10:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Show me a page that is in dispute please. Thanks. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Several. Some of these are Shraddha Kapoor, Ranveer Singh, and Sonakshi Sinha. I would also request you to see FA-quality articles such as Reese Witherspoon, Deepika Padukone and Preity Zinta for comparison. -- KRIMUK90  10:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) Here is one of them [1] and [2] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
(e/c)The Filmography sections of those three pages all show films from this year that haven't been released yet, and yet the table implies that they have been released, yes? Is that the issue? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, according to TRPoD, he believes that it implies so. But according to the rest of us, we have mentioned that they are "filming" or in "post-production" so it in no way implies that they have released, but are scheduled to release in that year. -- KRIMUK90  10:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
So what do you do when a Film was scheduled for say July 2014, and gets delayed to March 2015, and you had it in Wiki's voice that the film was released in 2014? Seems wrong to say that authoritatively until it happens. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
We did not say that the film "was released in 2014". When an RS publishes that the scheduled release year is 2014, we mention it. If it later changes to 2015, we change it. What's wrong in that? If we follow this chain of thought, then we might as well not mention the films that they are filming for now, in case they get shelved. -- KRIMUK90  11:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I've had a look at the filmographies on the Reese Witherspoon, Deepika Padukone and Preity Zinta pages as well as the original three above, and looked at TRiPOD's diffs too. I feel that those filmography tables are a little misleading as they do imply that films have been released before they actually have, but the column heading just says "year". If it said "Scheduled release year" it wouldn't be an issue, but what is extant is ambiguous. You are correct that we do not say "was released in 2014", but the implication is strong, and I think we could do better. I'd like to note that not until today have I looked at this area of wikipedia, I just have TRiPOD on my watchlist, and he gets a load of "final warnings" and I followed this one up. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, we could do better. What do you and the other editors propose? We need to come with something that can be uniformly followed for all articles to avoid such disputes in the future. -- KRIMUK90  12:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that the "year" column isn't used until a film has actually been released, per TRiPOD. Alternatively, relabel the "Year" column "Scheduled" simples. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Both have their cons. If we remove the year, then readers won't know when the film is scheduled to release in. The second one cannot work because the table also includes films that have already released. The third alternative, which TRPoD uses, is writing "scheduled for 2014" in the year column which completely ruins the format of the table, and also doesn't make sense under that particular column. Honestly, I believe that when "filming" and "post=prod" are clearly mentioned in the notes section, we really cannot be accused of misrepresenting the fact that a film has released. Because no film can be filming when it has already been released, right? The only alternative that works is using a key to explicitly state that the film hasn't released, as is done in Jake Gyllenhaal filmography.-- KRIMUK90  12:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
This is such a beating of the dead horse, a simple mention of the line "scheduled to be released on XXXXXX" on the notes column is easy breezy. Our readers are not dumb or illiterate that they would not understand it. If a 2014 film is delayed to 2015 release date, we change the year column and the wording in the notes section. As Krimuk90 said, post-production is also a good way of presenting this fact. One user's sudden (read as ridiculous) reservation to understand and comprehend simple situations like this is not a reason to disrupt all the other editors and their normal editing when consensus was reached. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 15:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
again going around the same thing and beating a dead horse wouldn't happen if you sorted out the problem. Change the table column heading to "scheduled release" or stop implying a film has been released when it hasn't. This issue will come up again and again if we keep implying that a film is released when it isn't. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Roxy, could you please reply to my previous comment? Thank you. -- KRIMUK90  17:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(→) @Roxy the dog: I'm sensing you have completely missed what Krimuk wrote above my post. Who exactly here is saying that unreleased films are represented as released films would you enlighten me? We are talking about adding a comment in the notes column which all of us here agree that solves the case once and for all. And here in lies my assertion that our readers are not dumb enough to believe if 2014 is mentioned in the year column, the film has already been released. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, IndianBio. I see no response to the comment on whether we should follow the format used in Jake Gyllenhaal filmography. Instead, we receive a snarly reply on how "we" are to be blamed for a format that has been followed on all FA-class biographies for years now. -- KRIMUK90  17:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the page to me Krimuk, I see that is an even better change than what I was suggesting. Let's ask the other participants of the discussion, @Lugnuts, Nymf, Bollyjeff, Soham, Dr. Blofeld, Dharmadhyaksha:, what are your thoughts on this change per Krimuk? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the format used in Jake Gyllenhaal filmography can prove to be quite effective in showing "future releases" that are not released yet. Another suggestion that might prove to be just as effective would be mentioning either "TBA" or "TBD" in the year section. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 19:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think TBD will work, because people will claim that they know it, and insert the year repeatedly. The different color and key marker from Jake Gyllenhaal filmography is a good idea, so long as we do not adopt the rest of that article's table style. We should keep the stable that we have now for ICTF tables and just add the key. That said, what we collectively want does not seem to matter in the least to one particular individual. We need to hear his thoughts on this idea now. BollyJeff | talk 00:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Real life can get in the way sometimes. The Gyllenhaal solution works very well, and using "TBA" (To be announced? what does TBD mean?) would also remove ambiguity. You guys people with enthusiasm for the subject need to decide. I only came here because of the rather childish final warning on TRiPOD's page. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
To Be Determined. BollyJeff | talk 12:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Obviously if the film is years in the future then its not a good idea but if they have commenced filming then I think it's appropriate to mention it even if it hasn't been released. And if the mention of the films are in the prose and sourced, I'm not sure you really need to add them to the filmography although I don't see any harm in it. Either way if films are known to be being released then I think it's useful for the reader. If reliable sources have announced it then we should probably mention it, we're only here to reproduce other sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Roxy and Blofeld. But this discussion remains incomplete without TheRedPenOfDoom's valuable comment. Are you okay with using the key to explicitly indicate a film hasn't released? -- KRIMUK90  03:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
It funny how one editor can hold us all hostage like this (such power!). Anyway, I see that someone is going ahead with the change. BollyJeff | talk 12:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I changed it on a couple of articles. Atleast now TRPoD can't mess around by saying that we are misleading our readers. Or can he? Let's wait and watch. I wonder why he hasn't replied here as yet. He is always so quick to revert my edits otherwise. -- KRIMUK90  13:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The disruption already started. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
This is cheap, disgusting behavior that is not acceptable. -- KRIMUK90  14:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I have lost any faith of a professional editing pattern from him/her. A pathetic show and misuse of editing privileges. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Exactly! Why should I spend so much time starting this discussing when someone is not going to be bothered with it and do his own stuff? Can anyone else help with this? I assume not. -- KRIMUK90  14:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Administrative intervention and blocking, since he/she chooses to edit against WP:CONSENSUS, which has been achieved here unanimously. Krimuk, file a WP:ANI if he/she continues this disruption and edit warring. There are enough examples of disruptive editing pattern the user has shown. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The insertion of gymnastic markups to provide "clarity" for some future event just to include an unadulterated year in the release date column is about as silly as they come. If it is determined that there is value for including works that are not completed (although it is like insisting on calling a man a "father" at the time he shoots his load then placing stars and red highlights to caveat ***there are a whole bunch of other things and time that need to happen, but he did his part!!!*** rather than waiting the 9 months until there is an actual baby before using the term) there ways to simply and factually reflect what the reliable sources say: dont include a year at all, clarify the year with "Scheduled for XXX (ref)" among them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have bothered to read the comments above, you will see that no one above shares a similar sentiment. So the fathers can shoot their load up someone's ass for all I care! If an RS publishes a scheduled release year, it should be mentioned. -- KRIMUK90  14:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
LMAO, I'm done with you TRPoD. Consensus is against you and you will stop the reversions. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 15:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
what i see is at best a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that does not have any policy basis but is rather built on ignoring basic policy standards without meeting the important clause that shows there is an improvement to the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see multiple regular editors don't agree with you Red Pen on this. Obviously you can't ask hundreds of people about the issue but Id say the fact that a number of people disagree on this it is indicative of what the sort of outlook on this is. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The majority of editors here indeed look like they are against TRPod. I do not mean to offend him in this statement, but his actions here make him look like a typical "Bollywood hero", i.e. taking on several men himself, albeit unarmed and unsupported. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure why there is such a kerfuffle over this. If a reliable source provides a release date, then why on earth should that date not be used? We do this in numerous pages with upcoming films and it's not contentious in most circumstances, so it shouldn't be a problem. - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly SchroCat, but if you see TRPoD's contribution history you will see how vicious he gets regarding this! And that too, only for a handful of articles. -- KRIMUK90  15:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • To stop me having to drag through the edit histories, has reliably sourced information been removed? If so, then that shouldn't happen. If material has been removed that is not reliably sourced, then it shjouldn't be re-added without such a citation, as per WP:BURDEN. - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
@SchroCat:, it has been done time and again by the user, complete and utter disregard for consensus and refusal to stop edit warring. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 15:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
@SchroCat:Most recently in Varun Dhawan if you have a look. And he has targetted that, Shraddha Kapoor, Ileana D'Cruz, Ranveer Singh multiple times. More specifically, see this edit in which he has removed reliably sourced info, after all this discussion. I am definitely not going to include release dates if they weren't reliably sourced. -- KRIMUK90  15:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
while there are often times reliable sources for scheduled release dates, for films that have not been completed, there obviously are not reliable sources for any actual date that the film has been released. My intentions have been to show what can be verified by reliable sources in a plain and simple manner that does not require markup gymnastics or readers after seeing a date in "Released year" column to jump to a "notes" column to see that we have presented them not an actual release date but merely a projected release date. Verifiable information presented simply and where the verification would be needed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Films in post-prouction nearly always have firm release dates attached to them. If this is reported in reliable sources, then removing the supported information is not helpful. Perhaps an RfC would be the best way to settle this, rather than your seeming one-man battle against consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
We have already been through the RFC route, see rfc and it is still not enough for him. BollyJeff | talk 17:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If there is an editor deliberately ignoring the consensus of an RfC for their own preferences, and ignoring a discussion about their actions, then file an comment at ANI asking for assistance in curbing the disruptive behaviour. You will have to ensure that the editing that you are discussing is in contravention of the RfC and provide diffs that show the behaviour in question. - SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
again, they have planned/scheduled/announced/projected release dates, but until it is actually released it is just planned/scheduled/announced/projected and should be clearly presented as such. Wikipedia does not need to prophesy when we can clearly and simply present facts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no prophesy: there is the reporting of what a reliable source has to say: that is supposed to be what we are all about. - SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, no. Wikipedia:V#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion. WP:IINFO. There is reporting of projected dates, which by policies Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball WP:V must be reported as projected dates. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes. Your selective cherry-picking and synthesising of sections of various different policies is all well and good (if terribly misleading), but your deletion of selected material is against consensus, against all good practices and against policy. I suggest you curb your instinct to delete cited material (especially in the face of an RfC), or someone will slap you straight into ANI. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Cherry picking core content policies. now that is rich!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Which can easily be done - and without the need to remove correctly supported material. That seems to be the worst of all possible avenues and isn't helping anoyone. Removing seems to be going against the consensus here, which also isn't helping anyone. - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
If he doesn't remove (which he does mostly) he writes "scheduled for 20xx" in the year column, which is ridiculous under that particular column. "Scheduled for 20xx" is not a year, but a note. So if you want to include that it needs to done under the appropriate column.-- KRIMUK90  17:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Violated consensus again. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • For Action Jackson I don't see anything in the sources that state the film will be released in 2014, ditto for Tevar. The citations for Holiday carry a date and the information shouldn't have been changed. - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The Bollywood Hungama source does provide the release date, SchroCat. :) I presume that was removed by some IP user, but I have added that again. -- KRIMUK90  01:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Didn't we just agree to do that by the use of color coding and daggers? But you had issues with that too. Why? Oh, because you are allergic to make-up! -- KRIMUK90  16:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
If you take pains to read the discussions above, you will see that each and every one of these points have been discussed, and commented upon. If you still repeat the same things, then it is very difficult to take you seriously. Can't you understand that you are the only one fighting this battle for no apparent reason? The reason I started this discussion was to avoid these issues; and now that we came to a decision, you go ahead and repeat the same things again. Why? Does this mean nothing to you? Why are you assuming you are always right? -- KRIMUK90  16:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, we can have a separate table for upcoming films where we can do away with the 'year' column. -- 117.208.198.0 (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
That is one of the possibilities, yes. Also check out the other possibilities that have been discussed before. Thanks. -- KRIMUK90  16:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm a wikipedian with a registered account. I chose to be anonymous in this particular discussion to avoid any personal vendetta whatsoever from TRPoD. And I have completely gone through the discussion here. -- 117.208.198.0 (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
If we establish consensus to follow this on all the articles, then I have no issues with it at all. My issue here is the targeting a handful of articles without establishing any sort of consensus. -- KRIMUK90  17:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached, and what one man/woman feels about it has no candle or weightage whatsoever, especially when that person is heavily biased, does not read or give importance to other's points, and strongly abides by WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I guess trout slap the editor and report for vandalism if it continues. Close this discussion already, and TRPoD, its high time you stop being a complete dick. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Is this still going on?!? I thought it was cleared by now! :/ Red, come on...why can't you be a little compromising? You're making such a big deal of something so trivial! We've been taking in your arguments and responding appropriately to your Crystal and V blah, but when other editors have cited principles from other Wiki pages, you have refused to even consider them. It seems that *in the words of Ross Geller* you "don't give a tiny rat's ass" about anybody else's opinion. The world doesn't revolve around you, you know?! Literally every editor here has disagreed with you. Doesn't that set off alarm bells? AB01 I'M A POTATO 13:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I was asked to comment here. Going through the discussion, I'd say if the films (future) are adequately sourced in the prose then there is no harm in adding that in the table too. WP:CRYSTAL clearly doesn't apply here, given an article on the film exists in WP. Having said that, I don't think there are any issues in extending the idea to having citations in the tables as well. For yet-to-be-released films we may possibly add a key item and add an explanation in the "Notes" column of the table. But using phrases like "Scheduled for XXX" in the year column is a bad idea as it becomes an MoS issue severely affecting table sortability. Vensatry (Ping) 03:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure how it "adversely" affects table sorting - any sorting would keep the not yet released films separate from the films that have actually been released -which is if anything a benefit in favor of doing so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
However you play this, some of your edits are still against the consensus of the RfC. I do agree that where there is no supporting citation to cover the information this should either be removed or,a,{{cn}} tag be placed on it. - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy FAR[edit]

I have nominated Cillian Murphy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Artoasis (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Annie Hall[edit]

Input on the talk page would be warmly welcome. I was about to promote it to GA but an editor insists that the lead doesn't have to be a decent summary of the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The Gloria Foster bio says that she and Clarence Williams III met doing the mod squad but they did s movie together in 1964, were married by 1967 and the mod squad ran beginning in 1968. Explain or correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:8E80:E48:715B:1A45:E430:8D14 (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Miley Cyrus proposal[edit]

Just a reminder that there is an ongoing discussion regarding the potential creation of WikiProject Miley Cyrus. All comments are welcome and appreciated! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review request[edit]

I've been working on the Demi Lovato article for a while and am hoping to get this from GA to FA. A peer review I requested can be found here. My goal is to have it be the "Today's featured article" for her 22nd birthday on August 20th. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)