Talk:Actors Studio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The Actors Studio[edit]

It would be extremely helpful if some small commentary could be included which would delineate the circumstances and/or reasons underlying the move from the New School University to Pace University, and mention that an MFA acting program appparaently still continues at the New School. --24.94.19.234 05:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Commentary on the split, I agree, although so much of it was private contract negotiations that it's hard to know the details. I was a student while all this was happening, and I really don't have any info I can put here (I have info, just nothing I can back up with verifiable sources). As for the acting program at the New School, info on that really belongs on the New School page (folks can follow the link for that info). --Brian Olsen 18:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Co-presidents[edit]

I heard that Ellen Burstyn and Al pacino are nowadays presidents of Actor's Studio. Meaybe worth to mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.151.115.9 (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Uncategorized[edit]

As of May 2005, the Actors Studio is no longer be affiliated with The New School.

Beginning in Fall 2006, the Actors Studio will partner with Pace University to offer a three-year MFA degree in lower Manhattan.


The Actors Studio is not part of New School University. The Actors Studio Drama School is NOT part of New School University. The Actors Studio Drama School (ASDS) was launched in 1994 as a joint venture between the Actors Studio and New School University (then called the New School for Social Research). James Lipton is now dean emeritus of ASDS and is not the actual dean of the school. The Actors Studio is a not-for-profit corporation. The Actors Studio Drama School is located at Pace University and has not been associated with The New School since its split in 1995. The Actors Studio has no affiliation with The New School.(Mamakagan (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)exec.dir. of The Actors StudioMamakagan (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

Please do not delete founders from Actors Studio Yair-haklai (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

I'm not quite sure why there seems to be several reverts of edits, so I thought I'd spell out what the edits were that I made and according to what guidelines.

  • Further reading was broke out into it's own section, in accordance with WP:MOS guidelines. Continuity across articles makes it easier to read... and I believe that's why the guidelines were put in place. It also, then, pops up in the ToC.

In addition, further reading isn't a subsection under references or notes -- it's just that, further reading, which could be used by some editors to expand the article should they choose. So, it's a misnomer for it to be under notes.

  • Having the alpha categories in the ToC makes it easier for folks to navigate - and the Compact ToC was created just for these situations. But, it's totally a style choice.
  • Refimprove tag was removed because there's just a couple of places where citations are needed. They are tagged appropriately in the article -- and appear in Categories for clean-up.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
You are laboring under the misapprehension that the MoS is a policy, which must be followed, when that is not the case. MoS is a guideline. Now, it's true that guidelines represent the collective wisdom of Wikipedia's editors over the years, but it's also true that they are intended to represent what is actually done rather then provide standards that have to be followed. -- in other words, they are descriptive and not prescriptive. If there is not "wiggle-room" to allow editors to find better ways of doing things, then MoS is no longer a descriptive guideline, it becomes a de facto prescriptive policy, and that is not its intention.

One of the pillars of Wikipedia is WP:IAR, "Ignore All Rules", which says that if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore the rule and make the improvement. In this case, putting "Further reading" into a separate hierarchical section helps to contribute to the unbalance in the ToC, where there's more there representing he "back of the book" (see also, notes, references, bibliography, external links etc.) than there is representing the actual content of the article. There's nothing wrong with including "further reading" in the broad "references" category, where it can be easily found by any reader, just as there's nothing wrong with eliminating the alphabetical hierarchy of notable names. A reader arriving here to find out if Al Pacino was a member of the Studio will have no more difficulty perusing the list now than if he had the "P" title to go to from the ToC (which entirely ignores why he's at this article instead of at the Al Pacino article; most people looking at the list of notable members are just going to be crusing it for fun anyway.)

So, in short, decisions about how the article is laid out should not be dealt with robotically by slavishly following a set of iron-clad rules, we should use those rules as guidelines, follow them when it makes sense to do so, and use our own abilities as rational, thinking entities to change them when that makes sense. Certainly, it's been said over and over again at AN, AN/I and at ArbCom, the MoS is not a valid reason for edit warring. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I totally get that MOS are guidelines. I am a bit confused about how the guidelines for handling MOS guidelines for section headings, for instance, would prevent you from improving Wikipedia. (From above "WP:IAR, "Ignore All Rules", which says that if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore the rule and make the improvement."
For the lack of better guidance, I use the guidelines to determine when articles should be tagged and how to get them into the consistent wiki format / style, based upon leadership/mentorship I've had from senior editors over the past few years. This is the first time that I can think of that what I would consider a seasoned editor has reverted content that meets guidelines with content that doesn't meet guidelines. Further, the items are reverted with out any reasoning - other than you prefer it that way.
Since I do spend a lot of time working on new articles, tagging them, and cleaning up - I would like to have some input on this, even though the edit changes between you and me have been essentially what I think of as pretty minor.
My reasoning: If I am to ignore the guidelines, then I'm a bit confused about how to copy edit and tag articles.
I don't know if it helps to say that I'm trying to look out for the reader - making articles as consistent as possible for readers (actually I thought of copying your "for the reader" image and message because I love it so much!!). For what it's worth (which may not be much) I am generally not a rule-bound person, I think even rules are guidelines, but when it makes sense to follow guidelines, I do so.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I just posted this to Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements because of the amount of copyediting I do.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I have not said "ignore the guidelines" - in the vast majority of cases the guidelines will be very good, well, guides to what's best to do. But if you see there's a better way to do something, don't let the guidelines stop you from doing so, it's really as simple as that. If you think the guidelines are the best solution when working on a new article, fine, but it's also best not to stand in the way of someone who has what might be a better idea and a cogent explanation and justification for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that you didn't give our discussion a bit more time before going to 30 - that seems pretty passive-aggressive tome, so as far as I'm concerned, this discussion has concluded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A couple of things, Beyond my ken:

  1. I tried to explain my reasoning for asking for another opinion - it's based upon the amount of copyediting I do. I really think the edits are minor and am quite surprised that it's becomes something that evokes an emotional response. Please refrain from calling me or my behavior names, like passive-aggressive. It wasn't meant that way and I'm sorry that you took it that way.
  2. I was more than a little surprised that once I stated that I was posting the issue on the talk page my edits were reverted.

It may be that I am just really missing something... like why you like to have further reading under "References"... why you don't like to have an alpha look up for a long list of "notable" people... etc. Can you help me understand why you want it this way?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

FWIW, I just took down the 3O discussion...before posting to 3O one should ensure that thorough discussion has occurred here, and that was not the case at the time the 3O request was filed. There were three posts here, which to my mind does not constitute "thorough".
I would prefer not to express a specific opinion myself as I am unfamiliar with this subject matter, though my general advice would be to do what works best for the article as long as it doesn't violate policy. If you're unable to reach a consensus I would recommend contacting the relevant project pages (see the top of this page) to see whether you can garner additional opinions there. DonIago (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, I understand - and that helps.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I, like Doniago, am a regular at 30 and was about to take this down at 3O, for the reason he cites, above. However, I would like to offer some comments, not under the rules of 3O, but as just another editor:

  1. Just my offhand !vote: I don't think the alpha capitals in the notables list should be section headers. It's unnecessary and confuses the TOC; on the other hand, I think that the Further Reading header should be a section header. Not because of what MOS says, but just because it's better.
  2. I think that we have to be careful about IAR. IAR gives every editor the right to edit against the policies and guidelines, but it doesn't create any right to have those edits retained if another editor objects. Once that happens, then it becomes a matter for consensus decision. Beyond My Ken is absolutely right that most content based policies and guidelines do not create a right to edit war (there are a few — generally with legal implications — which do have an exemption, but this clearly isn't one of those). If consensus cannot be reached then according to this section of the Consensus policy, the last stable state of the article, if there is one, ought to be retained. If I am not mistaken, the stable state of this article for some time prior to this series of edits and reversions was with the capitals as section headers and with the further reading as a non-header (exactly opposite to my preferred position, unfortunately).
  3. That creates a situation which is somewhat complex, at least in regard to the further reading header. I disagree that there is no compulsion whatsoever to follow guidelines and were this a case of first consideration about the further reading heading I would argue that the MOS position ought to prevail unless a consensus can be formed not to follow it in this case. In general we follow consensus and, per the CONLIMITED policy, "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community." (Emphasis added.) But the fact is that it's been in the article for quite awhile as a non-header and that at least implies a silent consensus to have it that way rather than as set out in MOS.
  4. So even though I don't think it's the best way to do it, I think the article should keep the alpha headers and the non-header further reading title unless a consensus can be formed to do it the other way. The best way to achieve such a consensus is probably by a RFC if CaroleHension cares enough to set one up (I don't care that much). If Carole does that, then I'll probably !vote in the manner I stated above, or if Carole just wants to continue the current discussion that's where my !vote stands for now.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I just reverted the article (based upon comments and edit summary here), which I think takes care of some of these issues, but I'll take them one by one.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. Ok, that helps. I reverted the Notable people section accordingly - and removed the Compact ToC template.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Points taken.
  3. Ok, that makes life a bit harder when an article has been a mess (not this case) for some time - and people with self-serving interests contest guidelines (again, not this case)... So, back to this case.
  4. ....thinking --CaroleHenson (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
There This is only one person contesting the move of the Further reading section into its own header.
Beyond My Ken had recently removed the section headers for the alpha values in Notable people - and I'm agreeing with your points, so I'm not sure why there's an issue there.
We didn't engage in discussion about removing the Refimprove tag - and my addition of a couple of citation needed tags.
Since BMK clearly bowed out, how about if we let this latest version and this conversation stand for a bit and obtain consensus on Further reading and Refimprove. If there is consensus that for putting "Further reading" under references - and keeping the Refimprove tag, I'll make those changes. Does that make sense?--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Good by me. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! I'll keep watching this page for any developments.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Notable actors[edit]

As this section is essentially a list, and one that's been tagged for needing citations since 2014, it should really have references added. The claim that they're "notable" is particularly troubling since it opens up the question of exactly what makes them "notable" in this context. Is notable a synonym for famous? Is it notable that they attended the Actors Studio?

In any case, a heads-up that I may start removing unsourced entries, though I'm willing to give it another couple of weeks. The "notable" question though, IMO, really needs to be addressed. DonIago (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Punctuation[edit]

If proper punctuation were used, it would be Actors' Studio, would it not? Novel compound (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Good question. Actors' Studio has been marked as a misspelling since December 2011, and the official website doesn't use an apostrophe. I don't know why. We need to get a consensus to change this though. See WP:RM if you want to formally request a change. wbm1058 (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
See also Talk:Inside the Actors Studio#Missing apostrophe. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
And Talk:Actors Studio (TV series). wbm1058 (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it shouldn't be marked as a misspelling. Actors Studio is the name of the institution. Strasberg's book is Strasberg at the Actors Studio.  • DP •  {huh?} 17:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Templating the redirect as a misspelling – {{R from misspelling}} – puts pages that link to that redirect in Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings which is intended to be patrolled to fix misspellings.
Templating with {{R from modification}} or {{R from alternate spelling}} means that it's an acceptable alternative which won't show up in the list of pages to be corrected. wbm1058 (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Actors Studio. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)