Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Filmography table discussion

Sounds like a good thing, and I'm willing to help, in fact I started working on the first name on the list, Wallace Beery but his complete filmography is huge and in table format is completely overwhelming. Before I go any further, I would like to clarify - should we be aiming for a complete filmography? I believe we should, as a partial filmography is biased and against our NPOV policy. But in some cases a complete filmography is way too big, and Beery is a good example. His article is quite short, and with a full filmography, it looks completely unbalanced. In this case, do you think splitting the filmography to its own article, would be appropriate? Rossrs (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a funny story about this. Well, no, not really, but I started out going through the list alphabetically, and wound up skipping the actors with the huge filmographies, simply because I was wanting more intrinsic reward for my work, which wasn't coming fast enough in a big task like that. :)
I do believe we should be aiming for a complete filmography. I've come across some so far, where there were maybe 30-50 films selected, and I've wondered on what basis that was determined. In a few cases, films were omitted when the actor won a fairly major acting award (Oscar, BAFTA, Golden Globe). There are a handful of filmographies that are beauties to behold, and I'll get back to you on which ones I thought were stellar examples of what we should be doing. One thing in particular concerning the Beery page - only one of his Sweedie films was mentioned, yet that serial was largely what established him as a star.
I think that in the case of someone with an extensive list of serial, short and silent films, perhaps 2 columns of filmography in table form with only year, title and role columns might work. It would cut the length in half on the page, look more tidy and leave room for the bigger table with the feature length films. I suppose I could refer you to the List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for a two column table, since I'm drawing a blank on a filmography page right now. It was a one column page and I decided one night to make it more concise. Shirley Temple has an abbreviated sort of columnar table and the Clark Gable filmography has some good points visually, but when I looked at the raw edit page, I had some shudders. Personally, I support breaking a long and extensive filmography into its own page.
I try to go through and do a bit of reference clean-up and the like when I'm starting a new actor page. A tip if you're going to delve in: transfer the character names onto the opened edit page before you dive into the tabling. Once the table is done, you can go back through and add the awards to the table, or other notes. It goes a lot quicker. I try to always include Academy Awards, BAFTA Awards, Golden Globes and Emmy Awards in that. I hope I don't sound bossy. I don't intend to, but I've done close to 100 of these now and I keep finding short cuts. If I can be of any help, let me know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Funny that you mention List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. I added Elizabeth Montgomery earlier today, and thought how much better the table looked, since last time I visited the page - and that was you! Well done, I must say. I hadn't looked at the Clark Gable filmography before, and it is quite good visually. I like the two-column Shirley Temple example - very good for relatively short filmographies. A couple that I broke off into seperate articles are Bette Davis chronology of film and television performances and Vivien Leigh chronology of stage and film performances which I think are OK. They lend themselves to a fair bit of additional info such as directors, costars etc, which I quite like, but on the other hand they look rather bulky and wouldn't be very appealing on the article page. I guess one issue is that there is no consistency (even the few that I've created have been somewhat different). Maybe it would be a good start to agree on breaking off filmographies that are quite large. Rossrs (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kudo. Yes, I am willing to agree to move filmographies when they pass a certain level of size and complexity. Now all we have to do is figure out what that is. I'm off for a while for now. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking that now the list is growing smaller it might be a good idea to flag what we're working on so that we don't waste time on a list that someone's already working on. I've added a note after Mary Pickford. Rossrs (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, we can do that, although I think it's just the two of us who are working on these at the moment. In the several weeks I've worked on this, off and on, I can't recall having bumped heads with anyone, but then, eventually, it will happen. I can get through a few everyday if the rest of the article is in good shape, but then I find ones that need an infobox, or references, or clean up, or... TEXT, for that matter. I will note George Chakiris, as I've started that already. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm pretty sure it's just the two of us, but as the list gets smaller the chances of us bumping into each other increases. Rossrs (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Table (sortable?) vs bullet list

Two Points:
1) I've noticed that it seems common in these tables to have the year span multiple rows for film from said year. However it makes the table harder for others to edit later. it also means that we cannot make the tables sortable (which is great for longer Filmographys).
2) For filmographys that do not have extensive notes for each role; a table takes more space, and is more complicated than, a simple list. Such a list is still suggested at Manual of Style (lists of works): Filmographies and I think should still be the default approach for lists that do not have notes about the various roles.
At the very least the two Filmography guidelines should match. —MJBurrage(TC) 19:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It may make it a bit harder to edit, but not impossible, nor illogical by following the format in the rest of the filmography. As far as sortability, that's a matter of personal taste, which frankly, for me is a bit much and I find it more difficult to introduce and edit a sortable table. Not every system or browser uses the Java based sort function, which is the reason that scrollable reference sections aren't permitted.
As for the MoS suggestion, notes should be present in some form on most every filmography, as there is likely something to note in some film for every actor or filmmaker. The project style is evolving, and obviously, hasn't been broached at the MoS, which it should be. My experience with the MoS is that tables are rarely included, and that should be addressed. The MoS suggestion for filmographies is outdated and at least in this project, stark lists are considered sloppy, unfinished and rough. However, at the moment the focus has been to actually have a filmography present. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sienna Miller filmography

An editor cut the the filmography from Sienna Miller on the basis that it was unnecessary since there was a link to IMdB. I don't normally edit film articles so, rather than get into a revert war, I've copied it on to Talk:Sienna_Miller#Filmography and asked for statements of support for its re-inclusion, or not. Your attention is appreciated. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Claudette Colbert

Just to draw attention to the Claudette Colbert article, which is in need of improvement. Any contributions would be welcome. On this subject - I wonder if there would be any value in maintaining a list here of articles that are particularly below standard in the hope of generating a wide clean-up brigade from this project. I was thinking that rather than having random messages on this talk page, perhaps a section could be added to the project page. I'd be interested to hear any opinions. Perhaps it would be a way of concentrating efforts onto a deserving or needy article with the hope of adding it to the list of GAs and FAs. Rossrs (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea is fantastic. I would like to see some language though that encourages people to only include subjects of high importance. Otherwise, the list could get unwieldy. Or maybe they could be segregated by priority. --Melty girl (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there is a danger of creating an unwieldy list, and I would be very unhappy if that was the result. On the other hand, I think we'd be creating a minefield of possible NPOV accusations if we tried to enforce an importance criteria. Working on the philosophy that any article that qualifies for inclusion on Wikipedia, should be of the highest possible quality, I would hope that the articles for even minor or obscure individuals could be targetted for improvement if necessary. Maybe a better way would be to keep an article listed for an agreed period of time (a month?), after which it is moved from the project page to the talk page, or even to an archive. It could then be readded, if an editor was sufficiently motivated to do so, but this would clear out the "deadwood". The "cleanup" tag, for example, creates exactly the sort of "deadwood" that I think we should be avoiding here. What do you think? Rossrs (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
We do ascribe low, medium, high and top importance/priority to subject matter, so I don't see how it would be harmful to list articles under those category headers. I think it would be helpful to note that the Claudette Colbert article has more important subject matter than, say, the Valerie Bertinelli article, yet both are in need of improvement. Also, given the low level of activity here, I wonder if a time limit would end up being ineffective. --Melty girl (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess to a degree it's a case of "wait and see". Whatever we try may come up with a result that nobody expects. I did misread part of your earlier comment. Segregation by priority is fine - somehow I focussed just on "only include subjects of high important" - so, my apologies. As for the low level activity vs. time limit - agreed. Perhaps it would be better to have it on a subpage, and then remove from the list (or move to an archive page) when any participants agree that the article has been raised to a suitable standard. Rossrs (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
A subpage/archive sounds good to me. --Melty girl (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How to handle minor awards

I've been monitoring the Brad Renfro page recently, in lieu of his death and making sure things stay under control and accurate. Recently I have twice reverted (removed) an overly long list of apparently very minor awards he won as a child. They take up way too much of the actor's page and the awards seem less than notable. Considering it would be easy to find tons of minor awards for almost any actor, how should these award lists be handled. I am currently opting to remove them. This is less of a question about lists format and more about how to decide what awards are notable and which aren't.Gwynand (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be limited to awards that meet Wikipedia's own notability criteria. ie the award is notable enough to have its own WP article. The list you've removed looks like a shopping list, but it's just a list of names without any meaning or context. For example, "Young Star Award" - there's no way of knowing who awarded it, what was the selection criteria, whether it's an award with any widespread signficance or if it's a two-bit award given out, for example, by a magazine. So my take on it would be : if the award is not notable enough to have a WP article - out it goes. Rossrs (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Rossrs. Be that as it may, there is a brief article on Young Star Awards, although it tells very little. If the awards are notable, then they can certainly be entered on the filmography table under notes. Personally, I don't much care for the plain list of awards as a stand-alone when there is a table present. Perhaps one thing to keep in mind is that when someone dies like this, there is going to be a bunch of fancruft showing up and rather than battle it out too much, it can always be removed later, when "passions" die down. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Judy Garland, Reese Witherspoon FACs

The articles on Reese Witherspoon and, even more significantly, Judy Garland have been nominated for FAC; both are in need of more decisive reviews, particularly Judy Garland, which has been peculiarly ignored. Both reviews are in danger of being archived, and it's been requested that we weigh in. Please take a look if you can. --Melty girl (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

An opinion please

Hi. I was wondering if someone could take a quick look at User:Refsworldlee/Oliver Golding, and let me know whether it would pass being introduced into mainspace, on grounds of notability (the subject may have given up acting, at least for now, and does not yet play tennis to the very highest standard, being a minor) or any other criteria you think may fit. This would be appreciated. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 13:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry, it's gone to mainspace now. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 23:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nonagaye.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Nonagaye.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

It appears the uploader has been blocked.--Rockfang (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Close the assessment department?

It seems like whoever opened the assessment department has departed. Articles no longer seem to get assessed after being requested.

Should we note that it's inactive at the moment? Close it down? Or make a new guideline that encourages people to simply ask a specific, uninvolved editor to use the criteria to assess rather than waiting for the assessment department to respond to official requests? --Melty girl (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would think that the assessment department would have an important function. I think that an impartial editor could be approached. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Priority ratings revisited

I know that to a certain extent, a priority rating is subjective, so excuse me, BUT - in what world is Haylie Duff (rated high priority) a higher actor/filmmaker priority than Daniel-Day Lewis, Johnny Depp, Boris Karloff, Chico Marx or Jack Benny who were all assessed as mid priority? Is it just me? (By the way, I've changed those, I just wanted to raise awareness of this.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Haylie who? And who exactly is Rhoda Griffis? Last time I looked at the top priority list there were about 100 names on it and now there are less than 20. Are there any criteria or benchmarks for determining who gets which priority? (No it's not just you). Rossrs (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC) - Forgive me, I am obviously hallucinating. I was looking at the wrong page - "top" rather than "high". Rossrs (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are guidelines for assessing priority, and while they still require making some subjective decisions, I wouldn't think that TOO many people would disagree wildly on where a given person would fall, but then I'm finding some exceptions that make me wonder. Perhaps some of it is bias on the part of different editors in relationship to the subject of the article. Maybe Hillary Duff assessed Haylie's? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Maybe Hillary Duff needs to stay away from Wikipedia and stick to what she knows!! Rossrs (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Are Playboy Playmates considered porn stars?

I am currently working through Category:American actors and moving the articles into subcategories, mostly by medium. There are a number of Playboy Playmates listed in this category. Some of them, such as Rebekka Armstrong, have appeared in numerous Playboy videos. Are Playmates considered porn stars or should they just be marked as film actors? Or just female adult models? They are already marked as Playboy Playmates so their film career may be assumed by that, but I'd rather not just remove their actor category without making sure.

I asked this question last week in Category talk:American porn stars, but got no response. I am also asking on Talk:Playmate. I am not an expert on this topic, so would appreciate any input. Thanks! -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that it depends on the Playmate involved and her history of work. By virtue of being a Playboy Playmate does not deem one a porn star, nor is every Playmate an actress. For example, I don't think you could classify Marilyn Monroe or Jayne Mansfield as a porn star by any stretch of the imagination. I don't think the Wikipedia article concerning pornographic actors is very clear, since it contradicts the discussion of pornography (the actor article doesn't differentiate between film actors and live sex shows while the pornography article distinctly separates them). The freedictionary.com defines porn as "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire." I'm fairly certain Hugh Hefner would argue that the pictorials in Playboy have artistic merit. Be careful not to overcategorize. Hope that helps. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

women screenwriters

Since there is no one to play with over at WikiProject Screenwriters, I guess I will post here. I have begun working on the articles for women screenwriters. But there are more stubs than I will ever get to, would anyone like to join me? I'd start a wikiproject, but I suspect I will be alone. Screenwriters aren't 'sexy' enough, everyone wants to work on Actors or Directors. I just spent a week on Jay Presson Allen, though it's still only a first draft. I am going to go back and do a second pass on [[Anita Loos[[, and have Lenore Coffee in my batter's box. If anyone would like to play with me, it might be fun. EraserGirl (talk) 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Still looking for someone to play with me. Finished a first draft of Fay Kanin And gave a once over to Clara Beranger, Dorothy Kingsley and Doris Schroeder though they are still sadly lacking in substantive material. But they are now on my list of folks to research while I am researching other things. I have my eye on a few more women to work on. BTW I am putting together a bibliography on my subpage and I am desperate for more titles to add. EraserGirl (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


WikiProject Screenwriters

Regarding the practically abandoned Screenwriters Project: I am trying to figure how best to jumpstart it. I would recommend that the Screenwriters project be made into a task force of Actors and Filmmakers and deprecating superfluous WikiProject structure. I am well versed in the subject matter but I am not at all versed in Wikiproject management. I am finding the disconnect between categories, lists and indexes of the screenwriter's project wildly misleading, thoroughly subjective, often irrelevant, and possibly sexist. As it stands the project main page gives the impression of a fan page dedicated to current popular television writers. I think the project should to pay equal attention to all eras and disciplines. As I have posted before I am deeply engaged in writing well researched articles about dead women screenwriters. However, I would like to see template standardization applied to all screenwriter articles, not just whomever has the best TV-Q rating, and would be willing to do much of the heavy lifting towards this end. I would like to find other editors who are interested in breathing some life into this neglected topic. Any thoughts? any questions? Any answers? EraserGirl (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you and I may be the ones who realize how limited editorial enthusiasm would be. The screenwriter isn't 'flashy' enough; everyone wants to work on Directors or actors. EraserGirl (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Support merger. John Carter (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - it's about time. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What would be the next step in the conversion to taskforce? Is there a ballpark time limit to wait to hear from more project members? a month? I wonder if is there even any interest to participate at the taskforce level. EraserGirl (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Still trying to drum up interest in the Screenwriters project/taskforce. Anyone at all? this is quite depressing, all these dead screenwriters and no one will speak for them. EraserGirl (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Minghella

Too bad about Anthony Minghella huh? Creamy3 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Something that I think should be dealt with

I'm not able to go through every BLP article obviously, but I've noticed quite a few which are arguably written by the subject in hand or at the very least someone associated with them. A lot of the times the articles are of d-list directors, writers, etc that no one really knows about. A lot of these follow these criteria:

  1. The user editing the article is only associated with the article of the person, or editing related articles to include his name. Said user's edits make up the bulk of the article.
  2. The article is a written in a non-neutral, almost advertising tone
  3. The entire article reads like a fluff piece from IMDB, or a full-fledged biography detailing everything but the name of the school.
  4. Little to no reliable sources can be found.

I suppose a good example would be Nick Palumbo, although I've noticed quite a few more. Check out this version [1].

What I'm asking is if those who monitor biographies can give a look into this and try to prune those that fit the criteria.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There are nearly 19000 articles under this WPBIography workgroup alone and the scope of what you're suggesting is probably not possible. There are several ways that articles are looked at, including the assessment phase of this project, but others also look at new articles. There are some issues with all that this suggests. Obviously, anyone can edit an article, and the {{notability}}, {{copyvio}}, {{NPOV}}, speedy deletion, {{AfD}}, and all the other fine tools at WP:templates are there for anyone to implement when they are needed. It doesn't require a wikiproject member to come in and do that. If you are coming across articles that are of questionable notability, then by all means, use the necessary tags. Those bring articles under the radar on various pages that are dedicated to looking at issues. In the case of the Palumbo article, it appears to me that you've been involved with this for 14 months, so I'm wondering why you've not pursued other avenues to the disputes you've had over it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The Palumbo article has been settled a while ago. I just used it as an example of what I'm talking about as that was the most notorious by far of self-promotion and I felt that it was the best way to get my point across of what I'm talking about. But for the record, I did pursue "other avenues" with the Palumbo article and it took me a while before any help was found.
I am aware of the extent of the BLP articles and I wasn't expecting one person to do it alone. I just figured that several different people who regularly monitor the articles could keep a look out for what I was bringing attention to.
I was told to come to this Wikiproject with my concerns by two different editors, but I suppose they were wrong in suggesting it now.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It is an issue that those of us who are active on this project are aware of, and when it's possible, non-notable articles are tagged for deletion, copyright issues, autobiographies, and any other problems. The real problem is that there aren't enough active members with the time to tackle it as a project to go through all the articles under the project banner and address. Other problems that crop up with it is that often, new articles aren't given the project banner on the article talk page, so no one even knows they are out there. That's why I suggested the use of the tags that are pertinent to bring it to the attention of whomever monitors those issues to deal with as they can. If you come across a new article, look on the talk page and at least see if it has the {{WPBiography}} banner. Once it does, those who sort articles will assign it to the work group that governs the area and if it has issues, it will eventually get tagged accordingly. I'm not trying to be snippy with you, I'm just pointing out that whether in a project or not, anyone can tag an article for issues and when they do, then it brings the article into awareness. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I had an attitude. I'll still keep a look out for the biographies too.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Janet Jackson FAC

Janet Jackson has been nominated for Featured article. I'd like as many editors as possible to participate in the review to ensure passing. Please help review! Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Filmography formatting

Sorry, having a dumb moment. I thought I saw the article on formatting filmographies etc...but I can't find it again. How do you format the film title in 2 languages?

  • Schloß in Tirol, Das (1957), writer the Castle in Tyrol

is the translation in italics or in brackets or parentheses? or both or neither? Thanks. EraserGirl (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how you're presenting it. If you're (hopefully) using a filmography table (like on the main project page), you would probably put it in the notes column. If you're just putting it in a column format, there's not a lot wrong with how you have it above, except:
  • Das Schloß in Tirol (1957), writer the Castle in Tyrol (English)

There's not a good formula for the columnizing. If it's a person who has extensive separate credits in more than one category, you might consider making a separate section for each category (writer, director, actor, etc.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but Gina Kaus really doesn't have THAT many credits, more sections would create clutter. I am always hesitant to point put what I am working on, cause it's like ringing the dinner bell for sharks. So far it is just a draft of my notes and a rough translation of the German WP article. I do have more citations to work in and I know it needs all kinds of help at this point. I have about four German émigrés in my to do list and knowing how to format bilingually will help me later on. EraserGirl (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Kiyoshi Kohatsu needs sources and substantiation

I looked for stuff regarding Kiyoshi Kohatsu but all I could find was an IMDB entry... WhisperToMe (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Preity Zinta FAC

Preity Zinta has undergone recent significant work, and the article's main contributor has nominated for FA. Please help review the article. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Actors and Filmmakers versus Arts and Entertainment

I'm working on expanding some stub and start-class articles about Asian actors, and I notice that some are tagged with the Arts and Entertainment working group template. Should those templates be replaced with the Actors and Filmmakers template, or should the latter simply be added, or...what is the correct etiquette? Thanks! -- Hamuhamu (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The Arts and Entertainment homepage suggests that "Actors and Filmmakers" is their child project. I infer from this that it is best to tag articles within its scope as being maintained by the "Actors and Filmmakers" project. Easchiff(talk) 11:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if the article is about actors, directors, etc. associated with film or television, the article should be tagged as a "filmbio-work-group" within the WPBiography template. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Filmmaker vs. Film maker vs. Film-maker

Someone recently moved the Kevin Smith article from Kevin Smith to Kevin Smith (film maker). While I don't take issue with the move in and of itself, trolling through Category:American film directors, there does not seem to be a consensus on whether to use "filmmaker", "film maker", or "film-maker". I see examples of all three. Has this WikiProject come up with a guideline or manual of style for nomenclature? Thanks, GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

While there isn't any specificity here on the spelling, I would think that "filmmaker" would be preferred, considering the form used in the project and the form used in redirects. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Q. Schmidt

There is a rather large argument and edit war going on at Michael Q. Schmidt (in addition to an ongoing images for deletion debate about the image). I don't have the time nor inclination to join in, but it really needs someone impartial to join in and sort it out. Is there anyone here that would be able to step in and help? Mike Peel (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead section in many actor articles

I've noticed that the articles for some very notable actors have lead sections that barely do justice, and I wanted to just highlight this in the hope that it might lead to discussion about how to standardize the leads, as well as perhaps encourage editors to make some adjustments. Just a few examples : the linked version of the articles of Ingrid Bergman, Katharine Hepburn and Helen Hayes discuss only their award wins, and while the awards are notable this doesn't summarize either their careers or the articles about them. More recent performers Gwyneth Paltrow, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Dustin Hoffman are award lists only. Jack Nicholson has a lengthier intro, but is about 75% a rundown of his awards. Notable yes, but is that all there is to say about Jack Nicholson? Meryl Streep - same. On the other hand Tom Hanks is a dual Oscar winner, and they are not mentioned in the lead at all.

I also wonder about the laundry list of awards for people like Helen Hunt - again the awards are notable, but I think they could be written into the intro with context. Maggie Smith is set out slightly differently, but she seems to have done nothing with her life but accumulate awards. Vanessa Redgrave -same. Denzel Washington's lead discusses his awards, not once - but twice. Geoffrey Rush is about his awards and places he's lived. I give so many examples, just to demonstrate that this seems to be the norm rather than the exception.

Examples of better articles, that I think would be suitable as "models" are the featured articles, Diane Keaton, Eric Bana, Judy Garland, Bette Davis Vivien Leigh Jake Gyllenhaal, Reese Witherspoon. Witherspoon's is one of the best I've seen.

I guess my question is how to make articles standard, neutral and comprehensive, and complying with WP:Lead and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). I can understand that some "lesser known" performers may have sketchy articles and even sketchier leads but these are all very prominent people, with fairly comprehensive articles that are diminished by lead sections that are heavily skewed towards their awards. I'd be interested in hearing other opinions. Rossrs (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a valid discussion. There has been a lot of discussion over leads in film articles, but not a lot on the biographies side of it. WP:LEAD is both fairly clear, and fairly ambiguous, about this section:
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless must not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.
I agree about the Witherspoon lead. I'd be willing to work on developing better lead guidelines and/or working on polishing the leads if a project were to begin. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
That would be great! Rossrs (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been giving this more thought, and a project would be probably the only way of keeping track of it. I've been looking at numerous articles - virtually every Academy Award winner or nominee article focusses on the award and little else about the person. Some go further than the awards but still don't summarize the article. I wonder if the first thing might be to identify the high priority articles, and then assess them to see just how much work is required. It looks like a big task, but important as the lead is really the core of the article in my opinion. If it's bad, it's unlikely to tempt people to keep reading. Rossrs (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, we do have a list of 100 already determined to be top priority, most of which aren't in your examples. And we do work well together. I'll contact another editor to see if she might be interested. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I started here going through the Best Actress Oscar nominees/winners (expecting they'd be focussed on awards and sure enough....) I only got to about 1970, and only found 6 articles that I thought had appropriate leads. Of course, many of these articles are for low to mid priority performers, so going through the top priority people first would be good. I did this as an exercise and if nothing else, I convinced myself that the lead sections are not treated in a standard manner, and don't seem to be regarded as important. Rossrs (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a look a little later. One point that occurs to me is that no actor/actress who has been nominated for an Academy Award should be a low priority biography, not in relationship to this project at least. Perhaps once we develop this list, we should decide an acceptable lead format? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes and no. Ida Kaminska for example is more a footnote to film history despite an Academy Award nomination - and there are others of course, but point taken. Regardless, they still merit a suitable article and suitable lead. I was thinking that names could be drawn from the top priority list (that we are quite familiar with), and perhaps winners/(nominees?) of Academy Awards including honorary awards, BAFTA, Golden Globe, Emmy etc. Maybe even going through the lists of names in the Hollywood Walk of Fame might highlight some important people. I think this will draw most of the more notable names, plus anyone else that merits attention. The list should be fluid.
Then deciding a format. I was thinking a couple of points could be : 1. Opening sentence to include name, dates of birth/death and their significant areas of profession/notability. It should not attempt to measure or assess the impact of the person, nor should it include tangential occupations. 2. The body of the lead should summarize the article and cover the person life completely, with emphasis on notable events in the career. Awards should be discussed as part of the chronology, or in some cases as a summary at the end of the lead. 3. Posthumous recognition or contemporary notability should be at the end of the lead, and in some cases include an award summary, if the individual accrued a number of awards during the career. 4. Relationships and family members should only be included if either they or the relationship is notable. This could include professional associations (Myrna Loy & William Powell or Jeanette MacDonald & Nelson Eddy for example). 5. Broad statements that are not supported by the article should be avoided. 6. I would like to see words such as "iconic", "icon", "legend", "legendary" and "superstar" avoided like the plague. Rossrs (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Extlinks to Broadwayworld website

User:Broadwayworld2 has added a link to individual performer's pages on his website to the various Wikipedia pages for those people. Several other WP editors are concerned that this is not appropriate per WP:EL/WP:SPAM. Links to that site have been tracked due to COI/extlink-spam concerns [2]. There has debate about it with no consensus on admin "pure spam" grounds. Figured I'd ask here...anyone comment on notability/reliability of the site, and especially on the appropriateness of using it as simple External Links items (vs specific inline citations)? DMacks (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Welllllllll. There is more than one issue on this. The reliability of the site is one. How it is being used and inserted in another. I think this is the crux of problem the site presents, and probably why it hasn't been blacklisted (and I'm not sure it should be).
Having looked over the site, at least surfacely, it doesn't appear to be any less a reliable source than many others that are used on Wikipedia. I checked a couple news articles on the site, which appear to be valid and accurate, comparing them to news items on other sites like Playbill.
I'm not supportive of the stark insertion of the external links to individual actor profiles or news items that should properly be used as inline citations to article content. An example would be a link to a page covering Clay Aikens appearing on Broadway vs. its use as a source for material in the article. Per WP:ELNO, the link should have unique content. The profile pages I looked at didn't seem to have unique content. I wouldn't question the use of a news item from the site as a reference in the article.
If the links are being inserted on a wholesale basis, it could be considered spam. There is an WP:CoI issue here, if, as I read, the contributor is from broadwayworld.com. That is the real issue that needs to be addressed. Basically, it's not a black and white question. There's not a problem with the non-blog web content. There is with representatives from the site blatantly adding it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your research into this matter. Our site has a significant amount of exclusive content not available elsewhere. In addition to our active, daily news desk, our photographers are recognized and represented at all major (and minor) theatre-related events. We film our own video segments, which are exclusives to our website. We have the farthest-reaching theatre database in the world, which covers Broadway, Off-Broadway, Off-Off-Broadway, National Tours, US Regional, UK Regional, West End, and several other countries, as well. No other website has much of our data.
As has been mentioned, we are also the source for many legitimate references included on Wikipedia. For listing examples of more prominent performers, please see http://www.broadwayworld.com/people/Kristin_Chenoweth/ and http://www.broadwayworld.com/people/Alec_Baldwin/
I've now reviewed many rules of WP, and I cannot find a solid reason why we shouldn't be able to include our individual people listings on their respective pages. We are not spamming with non-relevant information: merely providing a link to our exhaustive list of exclusive content. This is no different than including links to IMDB, et al.
The only issue I can see is that we include our listings in an official capacity (using a name representative of our website.) Is this the only remaining issue? I would be fine with posting under a different name - that just seems a bit silly to me!
Looking forward to resolving this once and for all. Thanks.Broadwayworld2 (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Any updates folks? Broadwayworld2 (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Certainly, the username triggers bots to identify any additions of these links to be identified as spam. The pertinent guidelines can be found at WP:SPAMMER, which covers the way that spam is identified as well as what to do and what not to do regarding outside links. Essentially, there is no guarantee that adding the link to multiple articles won't be identified as spam, regardless of the username used. One of the issues would continue to be the question of what additional information the outside link would provide that is already not available in existing links or the article in question. I still urge the use of this site as sourcing for inline citations where relevant material on a given actor is included in the article. I can't say that adding links won't be questioned, but it's likely that if it is used as citations, it won't be. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Biography (actors and filmmakers)

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles article review

I will be opening a sub-page with a listing of articles related to this project which have been selected, in order to review them for inclusion. Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Wikipedia 0.7 article review for the listing and issues. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Sorkin at FAR

Aaron Sorkin has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Aaron Sorkin. An editor seems to disagree with what this article said just a few days ago and has removed many references and substantially rewritten the article. I fear the changes are WP:POV. Please review and comment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Scope

Would a sub-page of an actor come within the scope of this project. For example a List of awards and nominations received by...' article? --JD554 (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody got any thoughts? --JD554 (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts. Wikipedia doesn't countenance true subpages for articles, although they're used for other purposes. So a List is a separate article, and should stand on its own. With that said, I do think that such Lists can be a good idea, and are within the project's scope. Notice that there is a featured List designation for excellent ones. Easchiff(talk) 10:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, sub-page was probably the wrong term for me to use, I did just mean a standalone article. I did feel that kind of article would be within the scope of this project and therefore added {{WPBiography|filmbio-work-group=yes|living=yes|class=|priority=|listas=Bowie, David}} to Talk:List of awards and nominations received by David Bowie. But another editor who also isn't a member of this project removed it saying it isn't a biographical article. --JD554 (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing in the scope of this project which precludes lists related to biographies of actors and filmmakers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Place in final credits

Is an actor's "place in final credits" (First, 5th, 15th, whatever) a meaningful piece of information in the filmography section? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean as in something that would be noted in the filmography? If so, it is probably not so useful. Some actors negotiate their place on opening credits, some do for closing. Some films list them in order of appearance, some don't. It would be difficult to determine the reasoning. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Any other opinions? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that it would be hard to determine what the placement means. Then there's the issue of sourcing - where would one find the references to support that being 3rd in the final credits has significance and meaning? For that matter, outside of personally observing the final redits, where does one find a credits list that is reliably sourced? IMDB? There's no guarantee that online sources have correct credit listings without checking it against the film, and that's original research. But mostly, again, how would one determine the significance of it? I can't see it making much difference in an article. LaVidaLoca (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Any other opinions? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Navbox question

Does this project or the associated WP:Bio have a position on the inclusion of biography article in navboxes for television series, films, film series, video games, and the like?

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to a template box that is placed at the bottom of the page of the article, not exactly, but it needs to be a very relevant biography, for example Harrison Ford in a Stars Wars template. We do have a position on nav templates for actors, which is that they aren't acceptable. Hope that helps. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah... I was looking at (as examples):
- J Greb (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Those are acceptable, although I must say that there is an over-proliferation of navboxes these days. I'd love to see less clutter at the bottom of a lot of pages. In some cases, the data in the navbox is just a regurgitation of what already exists in prose form, which should always be our primary goal. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Filmyear

Members of the film community will, I think, be interested in this notice just received on my talk page. (A reminder that "Filmyear" - shortname "fy" - is a template that expands "{{fy|XXXX}}" to "[[XXXX in film|XXXX]]". It's a shortcut for linking to "year in film" articles for release dates and so on. It's currently used on about 1000 film-related pages.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Filmyear has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 19:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:GAR review of Tina Turner

Tina Turner has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Cfr candidates

I don't know if anyone here has an opinion, but I have nominated these categories for renaming: Category:Lists of female actors and Category:Lists of female movie actors by name. My hope is to (a) change "movie" to "film" per the current accepted guideline, and/or (b) go for some kind of consistency between "female actors" and "actresses". Please feel free to comment at CfD. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

I've opened a request for comment on Talk:Cate Blanchett#Are actors who worked on location in another country other than residence considered expatriates? It's fairly self-explanatory, I think. I'd welcome any input. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Internet Movie Database

Hi folks: I suggest caution in using the Internet Movie Database as a source. I notice that it was used as a source in Roman Bohnen, stating that his birthday was 1894, giving that as an alternate to an obituary giving his birth date as 1901. Reference to Ancestry.com found multiple proof positive that he was born in 1901. I just started a trial of Ancestry.com and I find it to be an excellent source of birth and death date data, and highly commend it to all.--Stetsonharry (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think everyone active in the project is aware of the limitations and strengths of IMDB as a source. It isn't considered a reliable source for many things (bios, trivia, etc.) but is for films, roles and similar credits. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I sure wasn't aware it was so inaccurate. Great revelation to me! I am forewarned and now forearmed.--Stetsonharry (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
IMDB is very useful for filmographies and awards, but certainly has errors. If you have the energy, you can send in corrections to them. I've done this about ten times over the last year or so for errors in the filmographies. All the corrections were ultimately done. I don't usually bother correcting the biographies; most people would prefer Wikipedia, I think. Easchiff(talk) 03:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I tried to correct once and nothing happened, so it left me discouraged.--Stetsonharry (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. I do give a reference or argument when I send in an update; it can take a long time to find a proof sometimes. Also, the first error I found was for a distinguished editor (Ralph Rosenblum) missing from one of his films. Maybe it helps to start with an obvious error. Easchiff(talk) 03:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
How about this: I once added an entire movie that was not in the database and it was not added. I'm not joking. I have the movie on video. It was not added. I swear. I can't remember offhand the name of the movie, but I should dig it out. Not sure it is notable enough for Wiki, but it was made by a major studio in the sixties. It was a documentary.--Stetsonharry (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Template question

I notice a number of actor biographies that have a template indicating they are supported by the "arts and entertainment group." If I affix the template for this working group, do I remove the old template? Or do I just not add this template? Sorry to be a greenhorn about this.--Stetsonharry (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

At some point, some unknown persons added a lot of a&e group tags to actors and other similar articles without the filmbio parameter. If the artist is a film person, then the filmbio tag should be added to the WP Biography template. If the artist is also involved in theater or literature, then the a&e tag should remain. If not, then remove it. People can fall into many categories. Look at Talk:Arnold Schwarzenegger. Welcome to Wikipedia. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. How do you add the filmbio tag? I just was horrified to notice that when I added the filmbio tag to several articles, leaving the a&e tag, the a&e tag was no long visible.--Stetsonharry (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see that. I think it doesn't show up because both the filmbio and musician work groups are sub-projects under the general a&e project (which is a sub-project of WP Biography). The template would look something like {{WP Biography |living=yes |class=B |priority=High |filmbio-work-group=yes |musician-work-group=yes |listas=Hudson, Jennifer}} If the person was a film actor, then the filmbio work group should be included as the group is more specialized than the broader a&e, which covers a lot of area. Don't worry about the disappearance, all of the sub-group articles are listed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought I would have to go back and redo all of them.--Stetsonharry (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


Silent movie photos

I had a question on photos that are screen shots or stills from old silents. I found some good ones to illustrate the Eric Campbell and Albert Austin articles. These and other silent movie articles all some to cry out for photos, and many seem available. All are from before 1923, and are in the public domain. But I have seen some notices in Wiki saying that pretty much anything you take off the web is not useable. Can someone please clarify? Thanks for your patience with my dumb questions. --Stetsonharry (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's true to say that the notion of just grabbing any old image off the net is strongly discouraged, and usually not permitted, but there are numerous images used here, either as public domain images, or less often, as unfree media supported by a fair use rationale, that have been obtained off the web. If the image is in the public domain, and this can be confirmed, it doesn't matter that it was obtained off the web. It just needs to be tagged correctly. Image:Pearlwhite.jpg is an example. Obviously the source will be different but the copyright tag used on this image will most likely fit the images you've described. It is possible to use unfree images but they must be supported by a fair use rationale. (Image:Frances Farmer Undated.jpg is one example). The notices you've seen are to disallow the wholesale uploading of images just because they exist on the net, and this has been a big problem in the past ie pictures of modern entertainers being taken from the net simply because they are better quality than what may be available as a free image. Rossrs (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Greatly appreciate your taking the time to straighten me out on this. Thanks,--Stetsonharry (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Rossrs is a good source for all things images. :) Please feel free to ask any questions that you might have and welcome to the project. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Happy to help, Stetsonharry, and to echo Wildhartlivie's sentiments - welcome to the project. Rossrs (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Biography as a header

I've noticed there are a lot of articles that use the word "biography" as a header. I think for many, especially very short articles, it's redundant, and I've been removing them for that reason. After all, a biographical article is a biography. For articles that are a little longer, I can see that they break the sections in the ToC and distinguish the text of the article from the supplementary sections such as filmographies, but I can't see any other purpose. My question is - how do other editors feel about it?

An example is Jena Malone. Not a very long article, and all of the text fits neatly into the concept of biography, and the ToC seperates the article body from the remainder, but is it necessary? Featured articles such as Bette Davis, Vivien Leigh, Cillian Murphy, Anna May Wong, Jake Gyllenhaal, Emma Watson, Angelina Jolie, Preity Zinta and Jack Warner are much longer and more detailed articles, but do not make use of a "biography" header. There's a biography header in the Eric Bana article, and although I certainly haven't checked every featured article, this is the only one I found out of about 10 that I looked at. Would this be justification enough to remove the biography header? ie the assumption that all the featured articles have been scrutinised to within an inch of their lives and that this is a reasonable standard to aim for in other articles? Is there anything in any of the manual of style guidelines? (I couldn't find anything) Rossrs (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the term is put there as an organizational matter, and for lack of a better word. I might even have done that on the Jena Malone article or not. I think there is a purpose for a divisory heading in a lot of cases. When background starts out an article (such as early life, education, whatever), some sort of natural division is probably called for. The word biography is likely employed to separate a section from more detailed career sections, although I think I prefer Background. Do you have a suggestion for better terminology? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
No, but upon reflection I think it is the terminology that I find jarring and redundant. I can see the organizational purpose in articles where there is something to organize, but I'll continue to remove it from stub articles where I can see no purpose at all. I can't think of a better word to use, but there must be one. Rossrs (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Background comes to mind, or history, or vita, or ... I don't know. Maybe someone else has an idea. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes for Korean actors and singers

Hi all. I was wondering if anybody would support a Template:Infobox Korean-language singer and actor like Template:Infobox Chinese-language singer and actor for Korean actors and singers. I want consistency and simplicity like many and would normally recommend keepign just one actor box but I;ve noticed many of the Korean articles don't have standard actor/singer infoboxes but have a transliteration box or have both so often may look cluttered. Evidently somebody raised the concern years ago when Template:Infobox Korean Film was created which is specially used for Korean articles to include the transliteraitons in one. For instance Jo Yoon-hee, I think the box underneath looks out of place and would be much better as a parameter at the top of the top box. Also the infobox could be designed to incude Korean awards given to actors and singers which will display when required. Then there are articles like Ju Jin-mo which have large transliteration box but no actor box and it isn't consistent. Count Blofeld 13:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If the Chinese template works for its purpose, then I see no reason that a Korean one wouldn't be helpful as well. I'd much prefer that to augmenting the current standard one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


Category:American B-movie actors

It just came to my attention, in reading a bio of a very minor actress (June Storey), that there is such a thing as "Category:American B-movie actors." This has the potential for being an exceptionally large category, as most actors in the studio era appeared in some B Movies, including famous actors. If this category were to include biographies of actors appearing only in B movies, then they may fail the notability criteria for performers. I just added an article on Walter Baldwin, for example, who appeared in dozens on B movies but also in major productions in Hollywood and Broadway. Were that not the case I don't think he'd have been notable. However, June Storey appeared in no significant roles in major motion pictures. I'm not advocating her deletion as I believe that we should err on the side of inclusion, but this did lead me to wondering about our standards. If she is eligible then certainly Tito Vuolo (and many others) deserve articles and inclusion in this category. Can someone enlighten me on the inclusion critera for this category, as the category itself does not state which actors are and are not eligible for this category. Thanks, Stetsonharry (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know why this category exists and I think that it would differ very little from the broader category of . I am going to nominate it for deletion, so let's wait and see what happens with that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
It does seem like an odd category, as "A-Movie actors" would be. I think there would be ample basis for having a category like "cult movie actors" or "cult actors" if there is such a thing. (William Castle, etc.) Stetsonharry (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
If you would, go over to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 4 and enter your opinion for the deletion of this and the related categories. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I shall, thanks. Speaking of B-movie actors, can someone please stop by Coleen Gray? I removed some copyright violations, phraseology lifted verbatim from the TCM site, but I left a large quote and I wasn't sure that counted as a copyright violation.Stetsonharry (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I looked at the article and added an infobox. I think the quote just needs to have a {{fact}} tag put on and hopefully someone can source it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I can definitely add the source to that quote. I thought there might have been a copyright issue with it.--Stetsonharry (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability issues

I've been going alphabetically through the list of B-movie actors before it is deleted and, as I suspected, I am finding a high percentage of actors who are so minor that they don't appear to meet the notability criteria for actors. I've place "notable" tags on the ones that seem to not be sufficiently notable. I'd encourage interested editors to check out the ones I've tagged and let me know if I've been too harsh. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you would, please, could you post a list of those articles to my talk page? Another WP Actors and Filmmakers member and myself are currently plugging away at the copious list of actors and actresses and identifying what improvements are needed for each article. It would be helpful to see what you have. I suppose a comment would be that anyone working in "B films" would be lesser known than the more prominent actors who moved beyond the genre and still may be notable enough for something. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I'll keep a running total. I am going through these articles one after the other, and tagging where appropriate. I hate the idea of deleting articles on minor actors, as I feel that a database of even minor Hollywood players is useful, but some of these actors seem minor even by my loose standards. I've seen some that apparently were just bit players in a few movies. Even so, I was reluctant to propose deletion because of my anti-deletion prejudice. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Over a period of time, WP:ACTOR members and a wide number of others who edit actor/filmmaker pages, began to use a slightly varied version of the filmography table and eventually those three minor changes were incorporated. One was the color of the title row, from silver to blue, one was the size of the font, and the last was to remove the word "Winner" from the award description, since someone who was just nominated was noted thusly ("Nominated -"). That distinguished an award received from one that was just a nomination. This weekend, a non-project member who had never participated in this talk page or any discussion about it, changed that, saying it hadn't been discussed. So as to avert dissension, I'd like to gain consensus to approve these already incorporated changes as can be seen here. Please indicate support or opposition, or talk. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - Classier and non-redundant (on using "Winner"). Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - The colour and font is not a big deal to me, although I do prefer the blue. Looking at a couple of real use examples I think it compares favourably to Miranda Otto#Filmography and awards which I see as bland, and for want of a better word - clunky. Eric Bana#Filmography looks a lot more pleasing to me. To me it is elegant and compact. Both of these are featured articles by the way, and I think whatever is chosen, consistency is an important thing. Using "winner" is redundant. It should be assumed that an award wouldn't be randomly mentioned unless it was won, and if it had not been won, that is where it should be clarified as a nomination. Rossrs (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • SupportThe one chosen here is nice and clear. I don't like Winner at all. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I am a project member, thank you, Wildhartlivie, and even if I wasn't, the idea that any editor is "dissenting" is foolish. The reason I reverted the change to blue was because that particular blue (#B0C4DE) just adds another uncomplementary colour to pages; many pages have templates at the bottom that have a blue header (#C6C9FF); some pages use quote boxes with blue backgrounds (#C6DBF7). That's three blues, none of which go together. Grey/Silver is drab, and it's nice to add a splash of colour, but it's even nicer when they match. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't find your username on the list of members or at any point on the history pages, which is why I stated you aren't a member. If you joined using another name, then I apologize for the mistake. As for the colors of the templates, those are very new compared to the length of time we've gradually been moving over to the filmography table color and those templates use more than one shade of yellow, side by side, which also tend to clash, yet no one has objected to that. I also didn't say that an editor was dissenting, I said that in order to avoid dissension from occurring, a consensus should be made here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for misreading your "dissension" comment. Like I said, colour is nice, but it's nice to be uniform. I didn't mean for anything to kick off here! Bradley0110 (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I find the blue table much cleaner and easier to read. If the color seems to be the issue here, perhaps changing it might help, but then again, I never noticed that it clashed with anything else on the page. Pinkadelica Say it... 05:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Per everyone above and the blue table is much better than having a table with "Winner" or "Nominated". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Fine as it is. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we have consensus to use the filmography table with the smaller font, slate blue top, and no use of "Won" to designate an award that is won, but to use "Nominated" to differentiate. Thanks everyone! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Consistency in infobox captions

(also posted to Template talk:Infobox actor)

A couple of editors and myself have been discussing the inconsistency in regards to the captions for infobox images. Some examples - the captions beneath the photos of:

I have intentionally given examples from featured articles, as they have been subjected to more scrutiny than most, and have passed even though there is no consistent format. Does this indicate that maybe a consistent format isn't desired? On the other hand, has this been discussed before, and if not, is it an oversight?

There are obviously several variations being used and no particular standard being used throughout Wikipedia's actor infobox captions - some give name/context/date some just context/date. My opinion is that using the name is redundant. If the image is in the infobox of a particular article, both of which are titled with the name of the person, and there's only one person in the photo, I think it's pretty clear that the picture is of that person, and to state the fact is redundant. I think the location and/or context is important and so is the date. I read Preity Zinta (as an example) from the top of the infobox as "Preity Zinta - photograph - Preity Zinta at the Jaan-E-Mann and UFO tie-up party (2006)," and wonder why "Preity Zinta" appears twice in the same area. I would prefer it as "Preity Zinta - photograph - at the Jaan-E-Mann and UFO tie-up party (2006). Any comments? Thanks Rossrs (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't really considered this before and I'm as guilty of inconsistency and redundancy as the next guy. Actually though, if one looks at the infobox as a whole, it should have the person's name at the top, followed by the image caption, which ideally probably should be read as a whole:
"Nichole Kidman ... at the 2001 Cannes Film Festival"
or
"Nichole Kidman ... At the 2001 Cannes Film Festival"
but not
"Nichole Kidman ... Kidman at the 2001 Cannes Film Festival"
That's how I would consider it, I do believe. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad table markup

I have been informed that this wikiproject recommends implementing an subst' version of wikitable (specifically {{prettytable95}}). Doing this is counter productive as the code will not update when the markup is changed at the example page, override user speific CSS, increases page size, and increased complexity for new editors. I would recommend that the project implement templates like {{film wikitable}} and {{film table header}} with the apporate markup. — Dispenser 19:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

3 August 2007 Dr. Blofeld Table was introduced (blank edit summary)
20 October 2008 Wildhartlivie Changes heading color (blank edit summary)
12 December 2008 Bradley0110 Reverts this change wasn't discussed
16 December 2008 Wildhartlivie Unreverts consensus seems to support this version, if it changes again, it can be adjusted
1 January 2009 Ed g2s Changes to wikitable no need to use custom styles - and these should be avoided when we have a suitable css class
26 January 2009 Wildhartlivie reverts to custom table this was result of project consensus, if it can be adapted to css, then by all means assist us to do so and not override consensus
Looking through talk page's archives, I can't find the discussion where Wildhartlivie's markup/style gained consensus. Could somebody point me to it. If consensus does not exist please revert to the site standard wikitable markup. — Dispenser 17:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Please look up two sections from this one. The section is titled "Discussion". Also please note I asked for input from you about this over a month ago, when I first contacted you about the checklinks tool arbitrarily changing tables, and you posted your note here, I told you that your recommendation to use templates was a bit over my head. There was no response until yesterday. Also please note that when I changed back yet another change to the table, I stated in the edit summary, as can be read above, "if it can be adapted to css, then by all means assist us to do so." Two changes were made to the table from the original one being used for over a year and a half by the project - font size and the background color. I'll also note that I used checklinks for a long time before it began changing the tables on the pages where I ran it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)