I would like the list to be broken down more
It would be nice to see a list of child movie stars separate from a list of child television stars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonwithwings (talk • contribs) 02:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not inclined to support splitting the article by medium, as child actors do obtain roles in multiple media, generally of course being noticed on stage or TV before getting film roles. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed rename as "American"
These two lists are evidently US-centric. I propose that they be renamed:
The few non-American entries can be the start of new lists by nationality. I would set up category:Lists of child actors so that readers can browse all such lists. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The suggested titles aren't exactly grammar friendly. JPG-GR (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that they are not ideal, although anything else has to be longer. What would be better? List of former child actors from the United States and List of current child actors from the United States? There are some precedents for that format in Category:Lists of American people by occupation. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have reverted your move of the article as clearly there are non-US subjects in the article and to move it without extracting these into separate articles is misleading. I don't have the time to go through the list checking which are American and which are not. Also, I could not find the discussion listed here  unless I'm missing it. I don't think that a discussion between 2 of you is really a consensus to move. Jack1956 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
When user:JPG-GR wrote in the edit history here "per WP:RM", that is what he meant. You can clearly see it in the edit history there, properly removed from WP:RM at the date and time that this page was moved: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&diff=next&oldid=215224871
You have reverted one but not the other. Please see the discussion at Talk:List of current child actors from the United States#What to do now? which has a report on progress. I hope you will then see fit to reinstate the move of this page. Whether or not you have time to assist with splitting the article by nationality, another active editor has already volunteered. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks... I missed that discussion. Jack1956 (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for reverting quickly. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Petula Clark & other nationalities
Petula Clark isn't an American. Not sure if anyone intends to make pages for other nationalities or not. Also, why does the redirect to List of child actors come directly to this page? This should be fixed as well - not all child actos are Americans. This whole thing gives me a headache. Giorgio Cantarini is now the sole listing on an orphaned page. ExRat (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- See the links in the discussion section above. The "Current" list has already been split by nationality and this "Former" list is about to be split. In retrospect, I should have split it before requesting the move. I'll put a "work in progress" sign up. - Fayenatic (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
missing child actor
I only glanced through the page briefly, but I noticed at least one major child actor missing. Kirsten Dunst. Not sure how she got overlooked, but she does have a wiki page to link to. I'm new to editing, so I'd rather someone else do it, just wanted to point it out. Thanks! Redaera (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I added her. For An Angel (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Kurt Russell is missing. He was a HUGE star for Disney as a teenager. Raffy85 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems Annette Funicello might need to be added to the list, as well. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a MOS for this type of "list" page, but It seems some have added rather long filmographies for some actors while it appears most have chosen to add a list of the top five credits (or less). I realize some child stars were rather prolific and a handful became superstars as children, but it seems like a list of the top five most well known credits (determined either by Wikipedia traffic stats, or IMDb traffic stats) would keep things under control and keep the page easy to read. I'm willing to perform this "cleanup" myself, but I just wanted to mention it here to get other editors' thoughts before i started removing anything. It looks like this talk page doesn't seem to get a lot of traffic in recent years, so I'll leave this here for a few weeks to see if we need to reach a consensus before I start any cleanup on the page. If I don't see any objections by this time next month then I'll assume it's non-controversial and just go ahead with the changes.--- Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Limit to examples
For all you fellow article lurkers, I think we should maybe establish consensus for how many examples of a child actor's works should be presented under their names. Personally I think 3 examples are sufficient. The scope of this article seem primarily to list child actors, not their works. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Consensus related to this discussion prefers that this list include the names of child actors, but exclude examples of their works. There was a general concern that selecting a few notable roles could be difficult, but the inclusion of these roles was ultimately deemed unnecessary. Community-wide consensus typically limits lists of these types to notable individuals, i.e. individuals with articles already written about them, where readers would be able to learn about these notable actors' notable roles.
Proposal: The number of examples provided for each child actor should be limited to five, and this should be clarified in the lead. I propose language to the effect of:
- "This is a list of former child actors from the United States. These actors were aged 17 or younger at the time they started acting but are currently 18 or over. The list also includes child actors now deceased. Movies and/or TV series in which an actor appears are mentioned only if the actor was still a child at the time of filming. List is not intended to chronicle the actor's entire career, so examples of their works should be limited to five."
Rationale: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list. Wikipedia is not IMDb. The focus of the article are the actors, not their works.
Support - as nominator. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with the rationale ("Wikipedia is not IMDb"). How would we decide which 5 films, for example, should be the ones listed? --Precision123 (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for commenting! I'm not sure. It seems that any examples should be for identification purposes more than anything. A (currently indeffed) user, Crakkerjakk, previously suggested "the top five most well known credits (determined either by Wikipedia traffic stats, or IMDb traffic stats)". That seems a little difficult to enforce or to double-check. If we were to explicitly state that they should be notable and have Wikipedia articles (as many lists do) that might help matters. But I still think the choice of films is not crucial. We could also get rid of the examples entirely if the subject is notable and has an article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think that seems reasonable. The factors I would consider, in no particular order, are: (1) fame of the film, (2) prominence of the actor's role in the film, and (3) date of the film. Let me know what you think. --Precision123 (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Precision123 Do you have anything akin to a language proposal for what you're suggesting? I don't know how slick I am with figuring out which films are famous and how prominent the child actor was in it. But if anybody wants to help with that, that'd be awesome. A lot of child actors work in small roles in unknown films/tv before making it big, but maybe I'm not understanding what you're proposing. Though I guess if we say "...so examples of their works should be limited to five, and should contain the most popular projects in which they had significant roles. Please only include roles during which they were children." would that cover it? And is there a sleeker way to present that? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think that sounds good. I don't think I'm too slick about figuring those things out either. I would say something like: "This is a list of child actors along with up to five examples of films they acted in. The examples are films in which the actor was 17 or younger at the time the film was made." Yes? :) --Precision123 (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Precision123 Sorry, I forgot to reply to this. I'm unclear if you were withdrawing the specification that the films had to be the most popular ones. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment How about we lower the number of films/shows from five to three? Also, I support this idea, except with my idea of three films/shows. |CanadianDude1| 00:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- @CanadianDude1: I've no preference. I pitched five because another user suggested it on the article's talk page. Three should be sufficient, unless there's an argument I'm unaware of. Precision123 do you have any thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think three would be sufficient as well. I was not withdrawing the specification that the films they acted in had to be the most popular--I guess I was trying to sort of devise "popularity" factors. --Precision123 (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Precision123 Okay, how about this re-wording of the lead:
- This is a list of former child actors from the United States. These actors were aged 17 or younger at the time they started acting but are currently 18 or over. The list also includes child actors now deceased. Examples of notable movies and TV series in which an actor appeared should be mentioned only if the actor was still a child at the time of filming. List is not intended to chronicle the actor's entire career, so examples of their works should be limited to three, and preferably should cover their most notable works or works in which they had significant roles.
- So far, I think that addresses the sum of all of our thoughts. Obviously there could be other input from the community. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thumbs up from me. --Precision123 (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Community question Do we need to specify that actors added to the list need to be notable, i.e. there should be articles on them already? Typically for lists of this nature, we don't add people who don't have articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support in principle I agree that the number should be limited but why shouldn't it be limited to zero? What encyclopaedic value is there in including any examples in this article? The reader is forced to go to the individual article to see the full list anyway, so including any number seems pointless. It would probably better to expand this article to add relevant information that can be used for comparative purposes, age when the person first appeared in a production, whether the person is still alive, and anything else that might be seen as useful for such a list. Regarding the woring of the lead, WP:REDUNDANCY says "if the page is a list, do not introduce the list as "This is a list of X" or "This list of Xs..."." Cyphoidbomb's suggestion that only notable actors be included seems common sense to me. If we don't limit the list to notable actors, then any child actor, no matter how non-notable they are, could be included. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Aahh! A strong point, AussieLegend, and one that I don't disagree with. Firstly, thanks for participating! I happened upon this article a while back. The examples were here when I got here. I noticed existing bloat, and another (indeffed) user happened to notice it before I did. I suppose there is no real NEED for examples, since (like many list articles) if we require that the listed actors have articles, that implies they are notable, and presumably we could just go to their article to learn more about who they are and why they are here. In the interest of trying to establish a consensus, is there any leeway? Could you settle for three examples, or are you a no-example fella? And Precision123, CanadianDude1, do you have any contrary thought regarding Aussie's suggestion? Here's an example of the kind of thing I perceive Aussie to be arguing. There exists a list of stuff that occurs on February 25. Typically, anyone listed needs to have an blue-linked article. That's how we prevent Joey Nobody in Manchester from submitting his best mate's b-day. I do object to infinite examples and would prefer something in the 0 to 3 example range. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't see any need for examples, either. Limiting the list to notable actors seems sensible, especially when one considers WP:CSC. If we simply must list examples, I'd prefer it be limited to something like 3. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I also don't think examples are necessary, but a reasonable limitation (2-3) makes sense if we use them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Typically, an article about an actor or actress has a filmography on the page already. Not sure listing movies is necessary - for those with redlinks, their names could redirect to the most famous movie they were in. Makes things more streamlined. Just my two cents. (By the way, saw this on the RFC/A page and swung by). GRUcrule (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, GRUcrule! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.