Jump to content

Talk:John Waters (director, born 1893)

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

Possible page move

[edit]

The qualifier seems rather clunky to me. I'm not sure whether it is a correct use of the naming conventions. I would have thought that "John Waters (born 1893)" would be the more appropriate title for the article. I looking for other editors thoughts before attempting any page move. I did receive some here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Possible_page_move. Thanks ahead of time for your input. MarnetteD | Talk 22:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John S. Waters re-directs here. Any reason why that isn't used as the page name? It's true he didn't usually use the initial, but neither did John D. Hancock. Note John Waters (assistant director) re-directs here as well, but he was also a director and second unit director. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input G. I don't know if you took a look at the edit history (see here [1]) but there were several page moves from 2008 to 2010. I would have no objection to going back to "John S. Waters" as you suggest as I think that having no qualifier is preferable to using one. The "John Waters (born 1893)" that I suggested was an alternative since there had been some resistance to using his middle initial in the past. Shall we wait a few days and see if anyone else responds and then proceed? MarnetteD | Talk 20:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look far enough down the history page to see that. I personally don't really like using an initial when the person was rarely credited that way. John D. Hancock was almost always billed as John Hancock. I'm now thinking that should be moved to "John Hancock (director)" as no other director used that name, unlike here. Year of birth seems uncommon, but that might actually be the most encyclopedic, and I don't really want to reopen a dispute over this. No harm waiting a few days to see if others have an opinion. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the reasoning against using the middle initial and, since he had more than one credit in his career in film, we can't really use any of those. The use of birth year is sort of a "last choice" option but I have seen it before. Thanks again for your input. MarnetteD | Talk 21:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the lead, the obvious disambiguator is "filmmaker", however John Waters (filmmaker) is, remarkably, already used. So, I suggest, John Waters (early filmmaker). --B2C 22:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That implies the silent days. He was working on major films into 1958 - well beyond what I would call an early filmmaker. But that's just me... - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John Walters (filmmaker born 1893) and John Waters (filmmaker born 1946) are options. Year of birth is uncommon in general, but common when the "standard" qualifier is not precise enough. WP:PRECISION does give some preference for using natural qualification (e.g., John S. Waters) over qualifiers, so that would be my suggestion, if the Biography project didn't have more explicit guidance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Director" is preferred over "filmmaker", as seen at the recently moved Walter Hill (director). And an assistant director or second unit director wouldn't usually be called a filmmaker, except in the most vague sense. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "early filmmaker" implies only silent films, and I suggested the term because that's how he is described in the lead. If it's good enough for the lead, it's good enough for the disambiguator. If it's a problem as a disambiguator, then it shouldn't be used in the lead either.

We should try to avoid year of birth if possible. How about John Waters (early film director)? --B2C 05:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Born2cycle. There was a conversation at the film project talk page a year or so ago that came to the conclusion that we wanted to avoid the use of the term filmmaker as the qualiifer in the title of an article. Some of the reasoning is that it is a little vague and, while most US and UK and other English speaking countries will would understand the term, other readers could confuse it with those who make Film stock. I wanted you to be aware of this so that you don't think we are entirely discounting your idea. At this point I am leaning towards John S. Waters based on WP:PRECISION and he was credited as that a couple times in the credits during his career. MarnetteD | Talk 13:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point above about "filmmaker" usage in the title/lead stands. If that's really true, take it out of the lead. If it's not, then it's not a valid objection to using it in the title.

Assuming the objection to "filmmaker" is sound and the lead is updated accordingly, the reason the disambiguator early film director is preferable to adding the middle initial is because the disambiguator more clearly distinguishes this use from the other uses of "John Waters", most notably John Waters (director). --B2C 17:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree for the most part. Unless a reader is using one of the two films where the initial appeared, they would not know John S. Waters was who they are looking for. Though I would like something better, early film director may be the best compromise. Note that John Waters (director) re-directs to the DAB page, which has its own issues, making it sound like our guy here was inactive when he won his 1934 Oscar. BTW, I fixed the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that I was going to mention is that we should link filmmaker in the lede but Gothicfilm has removed the need to do that with his edit - which looks good BTW. Gefore the ce I did not understand this theory that if we didn't use the term filmmaker in the qualifier that we had to remove it from the lede. There is certainly no policy or guideline that states that has to be done. Also by that line of reasoning it could be argued that we would have had to remove "director" or "1893" from the lede since we weren't using them. One thing that is missing from this page is a hatnote to the DAB page. As G points out John Waters (director) goes to the DAB page and not to the creator of Smellovision :-) As to anyone searching for persons named John Waters they will be taken to the DAB page where we can use the sentence about the subject to direct them to this page. As can be seen here Lovejoy (disambiguation) and here John Smith, among thousand of others, most DAB pages use middle names or initials and try to keep the qualifiers to a minimum. My last objection is that "early" director is almost as clunky as the current one - for instance we would not use "late" or "recent" director. However that is just me. If the two of you are okay with it than please proceed. Then the sticky problem becomes moving Baltimore's own John waters away from "filmmaker" as its qualifier :-) MarnetteD | Talk 02:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing to consider - in spite of my post the term "early filmmaker" is not unheard of but it usually refers to those who worked in the late 18 and early 1900s. It is most often used with those who simply filmed real life events but could also refer to the Lumiere brothers and Georges Méliès. IMO it would be misleading to use it for someone who was directing films in the 1920s and especially to someone who also made sound film. Again I will let the two of you proceed as you see fit but I did want to add this as food for thought. MarnetteD | Talk 03:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revert to my first response - "early film" implies the silent days. It should be avoided here. I believe my first move at WP was at Don Taylor - that's the DAB page. Two directors had that name. I moved one because of the drop down. I was able to solve it with no controversy because the better known Don Taylor was also an actor, but the previous title made it sound like he was only an actor. Using the drop down search Don Taylor (director) took you to the lesser-known one with no alternative. I moved the other to Don Taylor (actor/director). It's true readers can probably figure out who they want at the DAB page, but I believe they should have a good shot of determining it from the WP search box drop down as well. That's partly why initials aren't good. There's not going to be a perfect non-verbose solution here. Using my Taylor model, I propose we move our guy here to John Waters (director) and the better known one from Baltimore to John Waters (writer/director), and put a hatnote on both, as with Taylor. That's probably the least verbose, most accurate way to solve this. John Waters (director) would be the lesser-known, but people would immediately see the higher-placed John Waters (writer/director) in the drop down. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems link a workable solution. You might want to start a conversation about your suggestion on the other JWs talk page. I am sure it has more watchers and they might have other ideas and/or suggestions. MarnetteD | Talk 19:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought you'd say that, and I agree. I opened a thread at Talk:John Waters (filmmaker)#Proposed page move to John Waters (writer/director). Gothicfilm (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you are going to move pages around you should make them fully unambiguous. I'm okay with the (writer/director) disambiguator, but I would move the other one to John Waters (assistant director); if you look at his work he predomiantly spent the most notable part of his career as an assistant director, and that is what his oscar was for. If he hadn't had his career as an assistant director I doubt he would even be on Wikipedia, since I haven't heard of any of the films he directed i.e. he is a notable assistant director. No need to make this more complicated than it is. "Writer/director" is fine for one, and "assistant director" is fine for the other. Betty Logan (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe we should list directors as ADs. His AD position is only notable because of his win in the brief Oscar category. He's like a handful of others who's most notable credits are actually as second unit director, after a period of directing B films, like Yakima Canutt. "Director" is simplest, and anyone looking for him based on his AD Oscar win will realize he must be the guy out of the three available choices - he wouldn't be the writer/director or the actor. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think (director) is appropriate in this case, not least because John Waters (director) is the primary topic for the Cry Baby director (albeit an ambiguous one). In view of that John Waters (director) would be better redirected to the dismabiguation page. It actually provides worse dismabiguation then we currently have: someone who is searching for a film director called "John Waters" is most likely searching for the Cry Baby director, so as it stands now you have a choice between John Waters (filmmaker) and John Waters (1934 Academy Award winner) in the search box. However, if you move the 1934 guy to John Waters (director) and the Cry Baby director to John Waters (director/writer) you lose that distinction. How is someone like my mom supposed to know the difference between the two? At least as it is now she will probably realize it isn't the 1934 guy. Betty Logan (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but if you know the Baltimore Waters wrote all his films it's clear - if not, you go on to the DAB page, which has their birth dates. Plus each page has a hatnote. Note that John Waters (director) currently re-directs to the DAB page, which has its own issues, making it sound like our guy here was inactive when he won his 1934 Oscar. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't we supposed to avoid slashes in article titles? I'd prefer to go with "(director born [birth year])" per WP:NCPEOPLE. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would unambiguously solve this problem. If there is a standardised disambiguator that works in this situation we should use it. Betty Logan (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I therefore propose moving per WP:NCPDAB as follows:

John Waters (1934 Academy Award winner) to John Waters (director born 1893)
John Waters (filmmaker) to John Waters (director born 1946)

in order to achieve sufficient (and simple) disambiguation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only one John Waters is also a writer. WP:NCPDAB gives as an example
even though Steve Smith (ice hockey) could apply to either one. But if others prefer John Waters (director born 1946) over John Waters (writer/director), I'll go with it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Steve Smith (ice hockey) could equally apply to both (in the same way that John Waters (director) could in our case) - I'd have thought that further disambiguation would have been required. However, as they were both born 1963, maybe the editors decided it was getting too complicated. This is not an issue we have here as they were born in different years. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know WP:NCPDAB prefers John Waters (director born 1893), but what's wrong with a simple John Waters (1893–1965)? "Born 1893" seems to imply to me that, remarkably, he's still alive. For the deceased, year and death dates seem more reasonable. See Katarzyna Ostrogska for example. Would it really be better if those articles were titled "(noble woman born ...)"? Gabbe (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two points to that. Firstly, that profession is a preferred disambiguator and only if further disambiguation is required do we use dates. Also, there is an issue of consistency. If you had John Waters (1893–1965), what would you call the other article to match the formatting? Then there's the endash/emdash/hyphen issue, which I still haven't got my head around, so I think it's safe to assume the casual reader hasn't either. Also we should be following the guidelines, not basing it on other stuff. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As there's been no discussion on this for nearly a week, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and make the moves. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Waters (director born 1893). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Waters_(director,_born_1893)&oldid=1253704807"