Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 9

'Visual' Filmography... ?
I am seeking feedback on an idea for the filmography tables, that being, making them more visual. I have created one as a proof of concept, using the filmography of Justin Timberlake, as he has a smaller filmography, but all feature films. This could be applied in several different ways; it could accompany the existing table, replace the table, or be added at the bottom of the page. This example is collapsed, which again, is just one idea, but this doesn't mean it has to be collapsed. Please have look and let me know what you think. -  thewolfchild  01:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

(I have now removed the two examples I had original posted, as the wiki-police keep gutting the images from them, thereby defeating the entire purpose of posting them. You can't have a discussion about how something looks, when there is nothing to look at.)

The following links are to another page where I had initially created these proofs of concepts;
 * example 1,
 * example 2,
 * example 3,
 * example 4,
 * example 5

feedback

 * Oppose. Not suitable for an encyclopedia, not least because of WP:NFCC.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for the reply. But, could you expand upon it a little? "Unsuitable" how? And, how is it you think NFCC applies? Thanks. -  thewolfchild   13:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not the best way to display the information, a filmography table is suitable enough. What do we gain by adding all the pretty pictures which would fail multiple criteria at WP:NFCC and presents the information in a less accessible manner?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Besides the obvious case why I removed the files on this page (WP:NFCC non-free media can only be used in articles). See WP:NFC The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8). A filmography is just a variant of a discography. See also WP:NFTABLE Werieth (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, how can you discuss making a change, if you can't see what you're discussing? I see no reason why images cannot be used to that end, on a project talk page. (At lease until the discussion is closed). As for NFCC#9, see: Exemptions. Also see WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLE. They both clearly state that there are exemptions on a case-by-case basis. Then, beyond all that, is the fact that these are only guidelines. I am not looking to break them, rather I'm here looking to discuss if they should be ignored or changed. The images I'm using are simply movie posters from the actual, individual WP articles, that are being listed in the filmography. Why not consider this? Keeping in mind the layout I used and the info I included were just part of the example of the idea I am bringing here. Rob states that; "...a filmography table is suitable enough." Why? According to who? Rob then writes; "What do we gain by adding all the pretty pictures...". The immature quip aside, what is gained is an enhanced reading experience due to the added visual aspect. As for Werieth, I would have appreciated it if you had just commented on the idea itself, instead of getting hung-up on policy and trying to shove it in my face, whether it really does, actually apply or not. (We get it, you like deleting stuff. But you do carried away with sometimes.) -  thewolfchild   20:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to read the WP:COPYRIGHT rules. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, read it already. So what? -  thewolfchild   01:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, please check your attitude. If you want an exemption WT:NFC is the place to request one. Until such time as consensus is in favor of your request, there is no exemption. If you want policy instead of guidelines to back my position See WP:NFCC,WP:NFCC,WP:NFCC. Your visual improvements go against the Mission of Wikipedia to provide free content, not only in regards to access, but the licensing of the content. The bar for usage of non-free media is fairly high, why is not having a picture in a filmography detrimental to understanding the actor or actress? Especially when we can provide a link to the full article on the related film with which includes the poster? Also regardless of what this wikiproject decides it cannot override the non-free content policy. If you want to discuss changing policy WT:NFC is the place for that. Werieth (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, please... you're the last person who should be preaching about attitude. I see you quoted more NFCC#'s, which means that you, again, have entirely missed the point. Regardless, I have changed the examples so that no images are included and why would I seek a policy change for and idea that I have simply proposed for feedback, and is nowhere near consensus for inclusion? -  thewolfchild   01:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * oppose and speedy close 1) unacceptable per copyrights 2) formatting nightmare 3) text and reading are good, no need to accelerate the dumming down of people to read by replacing everything with pictographs. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your oppose is noted, along with your reasons (including the snarky one). You guys need to relax. This was simply an idea I posted on a talk page, it's not as if I went and actually changed any articles. It would be nice if you could just reply with a simple opinion, leave out the rudeness and quit trying to bog everything down with endless policy and guideline cites.
 * Oh, and 3 replies a speedy close does not make. -  thewolfchild   01:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per all the comments above. It won't happen. Nymf (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

My question is basically this; What do some people here think about the possibility of adding a thumbnail image of a movie poster to the corresponding entry of an actors' filmography? I'm just looking for feed back on the concept. I realize some users feel there may be an NFCC issue, but even if there is, I don't think it is particularly clear cut, and if there was enough demand/consensus for the idea, then NFCC could be addressed then. I'm not looking for complaints about NFCC here and now, just simple feedback on the concept itself. Wikipedia is full of images. It is a visual medium. I feel adding these images, in one fashion or another, could really serve to enhance these filmographies. Thanks -  thewolfchild   13:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (2nd attempt)
 * Yes if image is free, see below no movie article, no otherwise due to the spirit of WP:NFCC and arguably the letter of U.S. copyright law. If there is no movie article, there may be a fleshed-out section in the actor's bio page or filmography page which discusses the movie in enough detail that a page could be made if the movie passed WP:Notability.  In these cases, I have no problem supporting the placing a movie poster in the section that discusses the movie because this section would be the one and only place in Wikipedia which discussed the movie in the level of detail usually found in an article.  Due to the fact that this dances very close to the edge of WP:NFCC and possibly U.S. copyright law, this would have to be discussed first and likely on a case-by-case basis.  In other words, if the filmography were written with a fleshed-out section for each movie, then yes, I would support using a non-free image in the same section as that discussion of that movie just as we currently use movie posters in movie articles.  However, I don't see enough justification for putting the thumbnail of a non-free image in a "list-only" filmography to warrant it.
 * Note: It's my reading of WP:NFCC and related policies that Wikipedia already allows the use of the image if the image itself is the subject of significant critical commentary, regardless of what article the commentary is in, subject to restrictions like "minimal uses" (e.g. use only a crop if that's all that is needed, minimal resolution, don't use at all if a textual description will do, etc.).
 * davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  21:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Charlie Chaplin's birth date
I have opened an RfC on the Charlie Chaplin article, since there is some uncertainty over what date we should give as his birthday. The information and RfC can be found here: Talk:Charlie_Chaplin. Any input would be much appreciated. -- Loeba (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Feedback please
I have come across a situation with some filmographies that I would like some project and community feedback on. There are many BLP's about actors where the filmography is so large, that it is split off onto it's own page. One of the issues here is that some of the pages are now having a large amounts of content added, which is in effect turning this page into another BLP. One example would be the Jessica Lange filmography. It appears that, during 2012, one editor first created a standard filmography page, but then over a period of 4 to 6 months, with approx. 400 edits, completely transformed it. It now has a lengthy lead, that is basically a "Career" section from a BLP, but also the format of the tables were changed to a questionable format. For the 'Film' table; single buletting for characters, 'Notes' column removed completely, columns added for Box office and Rotten Tomatoes scores, and the 'Television' table; the formatting changed to include individual episodes and dates, dividers are missing and the layout is somewhat unreadable. I have tried contacting this user, but they have not been active for almost a year. Another example of this is the Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography, though not as extreme. I'm not sure when the changes were made there, or by whom.

Recently, following this example, another editor, has taken upon themselves to make major changes to the filmographies of at least 9 prominent actors, ( seen here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, with plans for a 10th), using the Lange page as a reference. Again, these had a great deal of editorial content added, some of it questionable, a lot of it duplicative, and basically converting these pages into BLP's unto themselves. Again, the formatting for the tables had been changed, there is now info missing, such as award nominations, and other comments such as "direct to video", "voice role", "also directed", alternate titles, etc., etc. The added Rotten Tomatoes scores will create addition work to be maintained, (if they are at all, if they aren't, then as they change, the page will be inaccurate). I`ll leave it to others here to decide whether box office totals are necessary. Again, the Television tables are too excessively detailed, they look sloppy and are difficult to follow.

I tried discussing this with the user in question, but they apparently 'left the country' a few weeks ago and have not responded, or contributed since. I have restored these pages, as these changes were made without discussion or consensus, and they have multiple issues. (I would ask that those wishing to comment on this action alone, please do so under a sub-subheading here - I would prefer this discussion focus on the main issue).

Some of the questions here are; I ask this last question because firstly, I do believe these changes were made in a good faith effort for improvement. I also note that after these changes, some other editors made subsequent contributions to these pages, and there was no apparent reaction to said changes (whether they noticed them or not, assumed they were standard, didn't know enough to react or simply didn't care to, I cannot say).
 * Should such major changes be made arbitrarily? (is this even considered as 'bold'?)
 * Should these pages have so much content? (issues with duplication and BLP)
 * Are these major, wholesale modifications to the table formatting acceptable?
 * Are we content with the current layout of filmographies, or should we be considering changes in line with these?

Thanks -  thewolfchild   16:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are this:
 * Content should not be duplicated across the biography, the filmography, the films, and related articles except in summary form or as absolutely necessary for context. That's what wikilinks and main are for.  If for no other reason, having multiple copies of information can lead to information being updated in one place but not another.
 * Wikiprojects can and probably should provide recommendations for the sake of cross-article consistency, but if the editors of a given article or set of articles choose a different way of doing things, editors who participate in the Wikiproject have the same say-so in how things are done as those who do not.
 * Since I'm not active in this Wikiproject and I'm not active editing film-related articles except in relation to other tasks, I'll abstain from the specific questions like how to format tables.
 * davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  17:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not specifically active on this Wikiproject, but I do edit a lot of articles that fall under it (mostly due to landing on my vandal/BLP/EW-tracking radar). Several of the types of changes here are commonly edit-warred (and eventually returned to the current WP:FILMOGRAPHY recommendation) relate to the WP:FILMOGRAPHY guideline. The blue/gray styling vs wikitable standard: unless someone has a rational argument for not following the site-wide style-sheets and formatting standards, I think we should follow them precisely because they are the site-wide standards. ROWSPAN to unify multiple films in a year vs fully independent rows: it's still an accessibility problem in general and Manual of Style/Tables (again, a sitewide guideline) says it's a problem for sortability as well (though in my experience some browsers seem to handle it better now). COLSPAN for subheaders/subsections of tables vs various other solutions for organization: against accessibility guidelines and breaks sorting, also makes the content as a whole less structured (less specific TOC searching/linking, harder to scan by eye in my experience, etc.). DMacks (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. WOW!  That Jessica Lange filmography is horrendous.  It seems that an over-zealous fan has spent an awful lot of time on this, but sadly it doesn't remotely comply with our MOS.  I actually feel a little ill trying to work out how to unpick it all.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said, he re-wrote 9 other major filmographies to look like Lange's. I simply restored them to the point prior his contributions. -  thewolfchild   20:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good work. I've unpicked the Jessica Lange one now.  Hopefully that's the end of it, but somehow I doubt it.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Both the Brad Pitt filmography and George Clooney filmography pages are still somewhat of a mess, if you or anyone else cares to take a look. They were altered by this user as well. -  thewolfchild   04:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested page move
Hi, you might be interested in participating in a discussion at Talk:Michael Powell.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Actor's career - roles portrayed
Where is the policy or guideline that shows which roles are suitable (or otherwise) for inclusion in the career section of an actor's biog? I'm sure that we must have one, because I read it a few years back; and there must still be something of the sort, since some filmographies have no minor roles at all - which means that they were either removed at some point, or excluded from the start. See and User talk:Redrose64. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * well there is the general WP:UNDUE - we give weight / coverage where the reliable, third party sources give weight. Where there is only the primary source of the walk-on role on the film/ the advertisement that they appeared in, WP:PSTS we dont need to cover it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Naming of three articles
What do people think of the current names of these articles that share the same common name:


 * Mary Anderson (silent film actress)
 * Mary Anderson (stage actress)
 * Mary Anderson (1940s and 1950s film actress)

I think that last one is terrible and think they should be in the format of Mary Anderson (actress, born xxxx). Thoughts?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Good catch Lugnuts. I would agree with moving the article to "born XXXX". Especially considering the fact that she acted from 1939 to 1965. MarnetteD | Talk 19:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, I've been bold and moved them. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Light show
I started this project back in 2007, and when I did so I only wanted people joining the project who were prepared to work with others in good faith and work together in improving content for actors and filmmakers in harmony. I'm not happy that this project has on board such a troll who seems intent on causing problems with articles involving editors he has personal issues with which is deliberately troublesome and mean spirited. I wondered if anybody else here has encountered similar problems with this editor. Anybody who shows a repeat patterning of editing and harassment of the edits of others which amounts to trolling should be forced to leave this project. It is disruptive and not helpful towards the mission of what we're trying to achieve as a group. There is a difference between constructive criticism and excessive repetitious warring over a long period picking holes in everything.♦ Dr. Blofeld  23:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Unreferenced tables showing repeated collaborations
I have removed three unreferenced tables from three biographies: Quentin Tarantino, Joss Whedon and Christopher Guest. I was reverted in each case. A discussion is under way at No_original_research/Noticeboard. Feel free to comment on these sorts of director/actor interaction tables. Binksternet (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Simplifying actor/actress gendered categories
Hi - I think the gendering of actor/actress categories has gone too far. We are now starting to subdivide every single type of acting (e.g. film, stage, child, tv) into actor+actress. I think instead we should use category intersection, and only gender at the national level, eg Nationality + actor + gender. I've created an example here Category:Albanian_film_actors which intersects with  - as such for any given actress, you would only have to put her in  and then in whatever more specific gender neutral categories you want. This would greatly reduce the number of actor categories and make it much simpler to maintain, while still giving users the ability to filter by gender through simple category intersection call-outs at the top of the page. This would also avoid any inadvertent ghettoization, which is still rife in the tree (for example, you may note that contains no women, they are only in a sub-cat, which is a form of ghettoization. This is rife in the category tree, and rather than clean it up by creating hundreds of new categories, we can simply things greatly by keeping gender only at the top level of the tree, and having the sub-cats in acting just be non-gendered.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Anytime there is a subcat "female X", there needs to be a subcat "male X" or the female ghettoization cat needs to go. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is not true; see or, or plenty of other female examples. in the case of acting, however, I agree - if we have a female cat, we should have a male counterpart since gender is so important to acting. That said, my argument here is to reduce instances of ghettoization by having, for each country, a single male+female cat at the top level; all other actors cats below that level, or siblings, would be non-gendered; then we could use cat intersection links at the top of the page to divide by gender if absolutely needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For an example of what this may look like, see Category:American_golfers; this has male/female split at the top level, but all other sibling categories are non-gendered.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep split at all levels The fact of the matter is that acting is inherently defined by gender. The awards are given by gender. The roles are given by gender. Category:Western (genre) film actresses are not just females who are in westerns, the roles they fulfill in those films are inherently different. Beyond this, having looked at thousands of these categories, especially historically the very career of people is different because of gender. Unlike writing where the gender of the author is at times obscured, it is always evident and clear in acting. There is a reason why actress has survived as a common word, when very few other gender specific words have. The invocation and meaning of Evita having been an actress would have been totally different if someone had said of a male that he was an actor. We might not need the male actor and actress categories for all of the cities, but even there many things are going on. It simplifies things to split down to that level and not at higher levels, creating slightly fewer categories. Clearly male film actors and film actresses are different. The same goes for male television actors and television actresses. On the more specific issue of alleged ghettoization, I am in the process of trying to move people into the male actors categories, but it is taking an awful long time. It does not help that there is some push-back and once and awhile someone will revert saying that actor and male actor are the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but again, you can get the answer you want (e.g. a listing of Tamil western child film actresses) through a very simple category intersection that we can place at the headers of any categories that want/need them. We're not talking about a few less categories, we're talking about probably eliminating hundreds of categories that serve no purpose except to split by gender at the most micro-levels of acting. We don't do this for other jobs (e.g. we don't have female romance novelists, etc) - so this splitting by gender even at the leaves is in violated on WP:EGRS which says we should not split by gender at the last rung of the ladder, which is what you are doing. I appreciate your efforts to clean this up, by my proposal above will get the same results for the user but will be tons easier to maintain; if someone creates a new "X actor" category, in the future, we won't have to go split it by gender, then go add all the women to actress and all men to "male actor" - we'll just create a non-gendered cat, add anyone necessary, and category intersection will take care of the rest.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment On the uneven split out of male and female categories, Category:Actors in Tamil cinema has both male and female sub-cats created, the actress cat is actually bigger than the parent, but Category:Actors in Tamil cinema directly contains some people who are even parenthetically identified as actresses who are not in the actress sub-cat. The main problem is that even a year ago we had not decided to split acting categories by gender. There are probably over 20,000 biographies of actors in Wikipedia, so expecting things to move quickly is not much. Also, there was clearly more resistance to the male actor formation than the actress formation, and so some of us were initially heisitant to use it too widely. However realistically the only way we will ever know we have fully diffused these categories is if we do so at every level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As ever no WP:RS have been provided to support the theory that acting is "inherently defined by gender." On the other hand there are plenty of real world examples showing that the term actor is now considered gender neutral:
 * The Merriam-Webster definition here especially its 1st example of usage in a sentence "my sister went to drama school to become an actor"
 * Other dictionaries here, here and here  all of which use gender neutral definitions.
 * Writing style guides including this one
 * Name and occupation graphics on documentaries like The Celluloid Closet and programs on The Biography Channel and The Graham Norton Show identify men and women as actors.
 * There are plenty of females in the profession that refer to themselves as actors.
 * The Screen Actors Guild awards refer to Male and Female actors
 * Even though the Academy Awards still use the gender specific words for their categories their "In memorium" segments have title graphics that call both genders actors as can be seen here
 * Another unsourced allegation is that male and female actors are "different" yet somehow they both go to the same acting classes. They are both given exactly the same instructions in emoting, breathing and finding a characters motivation. There is one thing that makes even less sense - if we are forced to accept that they are different then actors can only be men and actresses can only be women. Where is the sense in labeling actors as "male" since they can't be anything else? IMO gender neutrality should be use in these cases it currently isn't in some areas of WikiP but that is not the worst thing happening at the online encyclopedia. MarnetteD | Talk 18:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel like your comment is mixing up two things - (1) Whether the term actor is gender neutral or not and (2) whether gender/sex is important in acting or if acting is defined by gender. I think on the first, yes actor is becoming more and more a gender neutral term, but since we're not yet there we need to be more precise, and a decision has been made, which I agree with, to split actors/actresses by gender. At some point in the future, someone could come along and rename all "actress" categories to "female actor", but in my opinion that wouldn't really be worth the trouble. My proposal above is that we just need to split every single level of the actor tree, but rather only at the very top. As for (2), I think the reliable source is simply looking at the thousands of films produced every year, and you'll notice that a huge proportion of the male roles are filled by men and a huge proportion of the female roles are filled by women. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that if we go with the system I've proposed above, any "XXX actor" category will be gender neutral, with the exception of two categories at the national level - " male actors" and " actresses" - all other cats below would be gender neutral. There are currently around 1172 categories with "Actress" in the title; if we continue along the current path, we would need to create around 800 more "male actor" categories to balance the extant actress categories (there are only some ~300 "male actor" cats). In addition, there are around 2416 "actor" categories total, which means there may be several hundred or up to 1,000 actress categories that have yet to be created if we take the gender-split-at-all-levels idea seriously. My proposal above would result in around 200 "actress" and "male actor" categories TOTAL, and the rest would be gender neutral -so this would be a massive simplification, with not very much cost and much easier to maintain going forward. Category intersection links (see Category:Albanian_film_actors) can be used to filter any of the individual categories further by gender.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Except, with the current system it is very easy to tell that we need to do more diffusion. If we stopped diffusion categories at all levels, then we would not be able to tell this. The basic fact is that gender is very connected with acting in all ways and at all levels.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's one of the very few professions exempted from the Equality Act 2010: a casting director holding auditions can turn down an actress for a rôle if the script specifies that the character is male, and cannot be prosecuted for discrimination. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the whole thing has gone too far and quite frankly is stupid. But it's too late, as the "majority" have had their say on this. Oh well.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your opinion is - could you share it? What would you suggest?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that these male/female splits are not needed. But now the consensus is to have them, so I'm not going to waste my time fighting for them to be merged back to how they were.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This article clearly discussed the issue and it says "Fiona Shaw countered that because of the relative dearth of roles for women, "a young actress' life is entirely different to an actor's, and I don't see any diminishment of status in being called an actress as opposed to an actor -- if anything, the badge of shame is the badge of pride because it's a much tougher job!" There are clear gender distinctions. The awards are all by gender. I see no reason to not split by gender at all levels.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment As I have made clear in the past, I have no strong feelings on whether we should name categories "actress" or "Female actor" or "women actor". I actually at one point nominated Category:American actresses for being renamed to Category:American female actors, that ended up being closed as a deletion, but I don't have strong opinions here. The Corpus of Contemporary American English does show us that in actual usage actress is still a very common term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI test nomination started here Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_16. Please join and comment.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep split at all levels, unless and until we have dynamic category intersection properly implemented. Per my comments at CFD 2013 November 16, any such step should be taken with proper consideration of all issues, rather than Obi's attempt to bring in a new navigation system through the back door.
 * As JPL points out above, gender is a defining characteristic of acting at all levels. That's why all the major awards ceremonies segregate their prizes by gender. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

New category
I have been musing about whether or not to create a category entitled "List of directors who have appeared in their own films" or something similar. Examples would include Alfred Hitchcock, John Wayne, Quentin Tarantino, Eli Roth and the like. Do we think that this is a worthwhile venture? Cls14 (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If such lists exist out in the world already, per WP:LISTN, then it could work as a list. I don't think it would work as a category, as this isn't WP:DEFINING of the directors in question.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think John Wayne directed any of his films. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wayne did direct his film The Alamo (1960 film) and co-directed The Green Berets (film). Directors like Hitchcock and Peter Jackson have had cameos in most of their films. In Hitch's case I wouldn't say that he was directing himslef since he isn't really acting - he is just there. IMO a list article would be preferable. Also be aware that we already have this list List of Alfred Hitchcock cameo appearances so any new list would only need to link to this oage rather than repeat everything that is there. MarnetteD | Talk 17:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay - this isn't obvious at John Wayne filmography, but see below for my issues with that article! --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the feedback. I only went and said John Wayne whilst meaning Clint Eastwood. Once I get my internet working at my new place I shall look at trying to get a list of sorts going. Cls14 (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Actors in navboxes (again)
Given the above discussion, it seems it is not clear from the project page that we do not include actors in Navboxes. Could I suggest that we update the style recommendation at WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers to make this explicit, based on prior consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 3, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 3 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive_3 (among many others I'm sure). --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Firefly
As I understand it, we don't include actors in navboxes per WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries. Therefore navbox doesn't belong on the relevant actor per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. However editors keep reverting my edits. Comments would be appreciated at User talk:Lexein#Firefly navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * NO, not on my talk page. Ridiculous. Better here, since your misreading of discussions here is fueling your deletions. WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries is A) a very buried place to dredge deletion rationale out of (which you didn't cite correctly until two editors badgered you for it. B) unsearchable search term "no actors in navboxes" C) rather odd that all that discussion occurred and I never heard about it, even though I've edited several actor pages. Those discussions are quite deletionist-slanted IMHO, and would do anything to delete content and navigation from the wiki, so it's fundamentally against the project, D) I fundamentally disagree with the exclusion of actors from the informative Firefly TV series template E) I've seen nothing in the various walls of text which concisely list clear, concise rationale for such deletions of either the actor names from Firefly, nor Firefly from articles. F) I've seen nothing in the actual MOS or guideline anywhere which forms a basis for Robsinden's deletions. --Lexein (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Imagine a situation where you had an actor that had been in 30 different TV programmes, each with its own navbox. If we included actors in those navboxes, we would have 30 navboxes on that actor's page, which hardly aids navigation.  THAT is why we don't include actors in navboxes, and there is masses of prior consensus for this as I have demonstrated.  Just because you haven't heard of this consensus doesn't mean it isn't there.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Dismissing the hypothetical. This TV series infobox is for the TV series, and the series represents each of the actors' major notable or first major TV series work. At no point do I suggest here, nor do I necessarily support, an actor navbox. I think you're misreading so badly that you're acting against the consensus for this particular TV series infobox. And pay attention: no actors in navboxes is not listed in this project's main page, especially not in WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers''. --Lexein (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a mass of longstanding consensus against the inclusion of actors in navboxes, as you'll soon see when other members of this and the template project get involved/wake up. You'll be hard pushed to find any other TV series navbox with actors in, with maybe a couple of exceptions, and there is good reason for this.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If there was so much consensus, why isn't it memorialized directly and clearly in the damned WikiProject, or MOS, or other guidelines? You are presently acting improperly, making mass changes with false, unsearchable, improperly linked edit summaries based on "consensus" which was never stated publicly as an essay, Project point, MOS, or other guideline. And that is stating it civilly. --Lexein (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that you could not find the consensus may be an oversight on the part of the project, and once we get this cleared up, maybe we should bring it in to the MoS. In the meantime, you need to watch your edit summaries.  Saying that everything that you disagree with is "wrong", is WP:UNCIVIL and abrasive.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, we do not transclude templates onto articles which are not included in the navbox. Therefore, navbox should only be transcluded if we decide that it IS appropriate to include actors. But, consensus has previously been against this as if we start creating navboxes for cast lists (and we shouldn't differentiate between film and television in this respect) then every actor's article will end up full of navboxes, something that is not helpful. Would still appreciate wider views on this, but for the moment we do not include. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We're still at loggerheads - would appreciate input from the project. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Redlinks in film director navboxes
If anyone is interested, this discussion is related to a proposal to allow redlinks in "filmography" navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability of contents of filmography table
Does every TV show or film on the filmography table have to be referenced? How about if it doesn't have a reference but the contents of the filmography table can be verified in the references in the biography/career section of an actor? I can see most filmography tables don't have references (e.g. David Tennant, Tom Cruise filmography and Steven Spielberg filmography, but these aren't tagged as WP:Fancruft and WP:Unsourced. How do I explain this to another editor? This isn't WP:Canvassing, take for example User:Thomas.W has been tagging filmography tables as WP:Unsourced if it doesn't cite references on the table or worse remove the filmography section (e.g. Enrique Gil: Revision history). What actions should I do? 112.207.164.173 (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Enrique Gil is one of many articles about Philippine entertainers and "models" that have been filled with tons of totally unsourced fancruft, long lists of TV-appearances, films, endorsements, appearances in TV-commercials etc, without a single source/reference of any kind. I have gone through a couple of dozen such articles and tagged sections that were totally unsourced with, while not tagging sections that had at least some reference/source. With the predictable results, on some articles the tags have been removed, on other articles editors, mainly IPs, have just ignored the tags and added even more unsourced fancruft. With Enrique Gil being an example of the latter. So on both Enrique Gil and a number of other articles the unsourced material has been removed and the articles have been semi-protected to prevent IPs and newly created user accounts from re-adding the material. A number of editors have also been reminded numerous times that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fanblog, and that all material added must be verifiable and sourced to reliable sources. As for the articles mentioned above (which I haven't checked) they're of no relevance whatsoever since unsourced material on one article doesn't excuse adding unsourced material to another article. So my advice to  is to get a fanblog somewhere else and add the material there instead of trying to add it here.  Thomas.W   talk to me  10:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Miley Cyrus WikiProject
Back in August, I proposed the creation of a Miley Cyrus WikiProject, and there hasn't been much of a response at the nomination since then. Feel free to stop by, support/oppose, or leave comments. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Should "award" articles be comprehensive?
Recently, User:Lady Lotus has been removing content from several "List of awards and nominations received by X" pages under the basis of WP:INDISCRIMINATE -, , , , , , , , , , , , ,. She thinks we should only include prestigious awards on such pages. Personally, while I agree that there's no need to list every fact or statistic in a regular article, I think lists are exceptions. It's all in the name - people expect it to be a lists of facts, and it's reasonable to assume such a list will be as comprehensive as possible. One of the Featured List criteria is that our "best lists" be "Comprehensive": "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items" (my bold).

I can see no problem in this, seeing as lists are a very easy way to find information. Further, I'm not sure it is our place to determine which awards are "prestigious" and which aren't (and there's been some very odd choices in this respect anyway, such as retaining Empire Awards, which are voted on by readers of a fairly lowbrow magazine, and removing Venice Film Festival and Berlin Film Festival awards).

Lady Lotus, I know that you are acting in good faith. But I do have concerns about this and would like to clarify with the Wikipedia community whether it is appropriate or not. Please can people share their views. -- Loeba (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I go by the rule to only include an award/film festival if it has its own article. Lots of non-notable awards get dropped in from blogs, etc, and I trim these if I see them. There's no reason not to include Venice or Berlin as they are two of the "Big Three" film festivals IMO (the other being Cannes, of course).  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a reasonable rule. If we consider it notable enough to have its own article, we should consider it notable enough to be listed. So there's also no reason to remove most regional critics groups awards, right? -- Loeba (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The main ones I try to keep trimmed are the film critics (Phoenix, Kansas City, Hollywood, New York, Online, etc.) and ones that don't have their own separate categories pages (ex: Academy Awards has a separate page for each award like Best Actress, Best Actor). Lady Lotus (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I can perhaps understand why you wouldn't want to mention these in an article on an actor, but I really can't see a reason to exclude them from an article that is specifically there to list awards. They are notable awards, voted on by professional critics. -- Loeba (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment I certainly don't think awards that have articles on Wikipedia should be removed. Taking this edit on List of awards and honours received by Audrey Hepburn for example: Theatre World Award, David di Donatello awards, Laurel Awards, New York Film Critics Circle Awards have all been removed. If Lady Lotus believes these to be non-notable awards the proper route would be to nominate those articles for deletion first. I would support reverting these articles to their prior states. I second what Lugnuts says, that the lists should include and be restricted to awards we have articles about. Betty Logan (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Betty. I knew I'd have a good example of removal of non-notable awards. Take a look at Haneke's Amour. The current table shows on notable awards/festivals. I moved the non-notable info to the talkpage, for possible future inclusion, if articles are created and are notable.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Loeba and Betty that Lady Lotus seems to be removing an alarming number of awards, some of which are fairly notable. London Circle, Theatre World Award, David di Donatello awards, Laurel Awards, New York Film Critics Circle Awards wins or noms are notable IMO. Some of the really shoddy almost embarrassing awards should be removed but I think most are probably OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I surrender because I will never convince editors to nominate those articles for deletion. Please note that my edits were in good faith, I wasn't removing awards to be a troll or cause chaos. Lady Lotus (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it, it's clear you were only acting in the interests of the lists. I have sent some of those award articles to AFD in the past and they rarely get deleted, but at the same time I believe if we are going to document them on Wikipedia they should be linked to. There isn't a halfway house I'm afraid. Betty Logan (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I know Lady, you were acting in good faith doing what you thought needed clean and debloating. I'd say you're probably right with some of the very trivial awards or if excessive awards are given in parameters, but I think it's useful to list professional film critic/institution awards like some of those above. You're quite right that the line has to be drawn somewhere, where though is the issue! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The New York Film Critics Circle and major festival awards ... I don't think anyone has an issue with those. But the Phoenix Film Critics Society, which includes weekly shoppers, a local newsletter and a non-notable website? The Central Ohio Film Critics, which is an even smaller handful of largely non-notable entities? We're under no obligation to WP:INDISCRIMINATEly list every award and nomination every film club or local film critics group puts up. The Oklahoma City Film Critics? The Kansas City Film Critics? These are next to meaningless. It adds bloat to awards sections and draws focus away from the meaningful awards. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ...draws focus away from the meaningful awards. And what are meaningful awards? Have a read of WP:BIAS too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * And you have a read of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Anybody can give an "award." That doesn't mean every single award that anybody in the world decides to give means anything. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Awards question
Hello! Maybe my question has already been answered in the archives, but I was wondering, where should we put awards received by actors: in their filmography or in a separate section like "awards and nominations"? There are articles here that have both options so it is a bit redundant. See Lupita Nyong'o, Michael B. Jordan. By the way, I was the one who often added awards to Jordan's article and as I didn't know what was best to do, I did both, though I think it's a bit dumb now. Thanks, --Sofffie7 (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think there are specific guidelines to this end. However, I think that an actor's filmography should be separate from the accolades received. The problem with combining them is a filmography can be harder to navigate especially when a row for a film with many awards takes up so much more space, as you can see with Lupita Nyong'o. I think it is better to have a separate section for the awards and nominations. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

John Wayne filmography
Does this need to be broken down year-by-year? I tried to rationalise it (and remove the "leading lady" column), but this has been reverted. Any thoughts? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that it would be best at one table if we can make certain columns sortable. That way, we could give readers the ability to sort films by studio or director. I'm not quite familiar with John Wayne's movies, though... how much of a thing is this "leading lady" element compared to another actor? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, he made a few films with the same leading lady (Maureen O'Hara springs to mind), but at best this sort of information could go in the "notes" column, much like Spencer Tracy filmography. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Any discussion is probably best had at Talk:John Wayne filmography - I've just moved a lengthy discussion there from my talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone want to add something at the talk page? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would, but would probably get blocked by Nazi admin for NPA... (in other words, your version, above, is clearly the better option). Maybe worth bringing up on the Film Project talkpage too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Rob, no kidding, you fuss to no end on here. Why don't you just leave things alone and get on with improving actual content!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

FAR
Interested parties have to be notified of a FAR, so here is one that's underway: Featured article review/Diane Keaton/archive1  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 20:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

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


 * My impression was that the filmography should include upcoming films. There is no good reason why it should not. A film in production is highly likely to be released (compared to a film merely in development), which is why we use that threshold to permit a stand-alone article. It's not undue weight, either. WP:UNDUE has to do with viewpoints. If we have a tangible film in production (that likely has its own article), it is bizarre not to list it. While advertising is a common concern, this is where WP:NPOV actually applies. There is nothing wrong with informing readers about an upcoming film as long as we write in an impartial tone. Advertising would be writing the topic to make the film sound exciting or to quote non-independent parties pitching the film. As long as we avoid that, we can talk about an upcoming film and link to it where applicable, especially in filmographies. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Couldn't that potentially lead to situations where a film is added to a filmography because it seems likely to be released, but then has to be removed when the film isn't released for one reason or another? Or do you feel that even unreleased films should still be included in filmographies. I don't mean to sound confrontational or such...I have the utmost respect for your viewpoints! DonIago (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Valid and just points Erik. Doniago, to answer your question, if a film is shelved, cancelled etc, it is to be removed from the list I believe. I believe it is the same across the encyclopedia like for films, we have similar scenarios for albums, music singles, concert tours etc, and I can show you that cancelled albums (once confirmed) are removed from discographies etc. However, when it is a confirmed release and production is being done, they are added as part of the discography of the artist. (I will make this point in the DRN also) — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 14:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem! There is always a small chance that the film won't be released, but I think in the vast majority of cases, it will be. Most films falter in development because it is before the full investment of resources. Once filming kicks off, it tends to mean that there's no turning back. That does beg the question about what to do with unfinished films (those that stop midway through production). It may depend on the coverage on a case-by-case basis. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Not consistent with what I thought the consensus was on the matter, and I still think it might be beneficial to make this part of policy (to avoid a repeat of the DRN filing if nothing else), but understandable. I don't personally care for the possibility of adding material only to have to essentially retract it later, but if that is the consensus, I can live with it. DonIago (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL- we should not be in the business of projecting whether or not a project will come to completion. There is no harm in waiting until it is an actual fact. Wikipedia is WP:NOT not an advertisement for upcoming releases nor do we break news. Giving a not yet film equal weight and billing in a filmography section also violates WP:UNDUE. Projects that require context such as filming and release status are appropriately covered in the text body of the article where the appropriate context can be provided. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If the film meets WP:NFF (i.e. it is in the filming stage of production), and the person involved is reliably sourced, then there's no reason not to include it in a filmography. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CRYSTAL, #1 states, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Films that are in production are almost certain to be released, compared to films just in development. In regard to WP:UNDUE, can you please outline what part of that section applies here? We are talking about listing films, not viewpoints. Also, if we look at WP:NOTADVERTISING, #5 states, "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources." We can and should write about upcoming films as long as we can follow #5, and we can and should list these films that have been neutrally covered. Going back to WP:CRYSTAL, it states, "In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims." Do you plan to put Finding Fanny Fernandes up for deletion? If not, why are you trying to keep it out of sight? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are lots of film projects that have entered production and not been released or not been released anywhere near the trumpeted dates. We are an encyclopedia, we can wait to report actual facts and gain nothing from presenting and projecting uncertain events. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You did not answer the question above. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  17:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * TRPoD, the problem is that you are arguing alone against consensus. There is widespread long-standing consensus for putting films already in production into filmographies. It just hasn't been codified as a formal guideline. Films in development or pre-production or whatever, those stay out, and it is reasonable to set the threshold of commencement of principal photography, because that is when actors begin their actual work. If they're working on a film then it deserves to be listed in their name! Elizium23 (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC
A request for comment that is relevant to this project has been filed here Talk:Martin Landau. Any input will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 02:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Additional editors requested
The discussion at Talk:Nicholas Hoult might benefit from additional opinions. DonIago (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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


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

I've removed the A class, DYK and AFD. If anybody finds the AFD link useful it can be readded at the bottom of the page.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks. -- Loeba (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Director, Budget, Box office columns in Filmography
Is there a place that I'm not looking that states it's ok to add additional columns to a filmography such as the director, budget and box office? I think it looks awful and clutters the table up tremendously. Filmographies should be limited to Year, Title, Role, Notes, and Source if necessary, just because it's all a user needs to know about the actor, is what they were in, their character, what year it was and any notes that might go with it. Director, Budget, Box office is starting to get off tangent about the film instead of about the actor. Like at Justin Timberlake's filmography, I tried bold deleting it without consensus and summed it per WP:FILMOGRAPHY but was reverted by another editor just because they disagreed and said that WP:FILMOGRAPHY is a guideline not a rule. Thoughts? Am I totally alone on this? LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You and I have discussed this before over a specific filmography page - personally I don't find that such information clutters the table or anything, it's very easy to ignore a column you aren't interested in, whereas it is useful to give readers additional information in case they are interested. I don't agree that such information is irrelevant to the actor either - the people they work with is a big part of their career, while box-office takings provide a useful indicator of how popular that film was (which again is relevant to their career). I've never considered it as a column but I actually like the idea. It all amounts to making the table more useful than the simple filmography lists readers can find on IMDb or numerous other websites. That's my view. -- Loeba (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't like it. If a film has 15 actors with their own articles, we should repeat this director, budget, and gross information (with sources) in all 15 articles? It's not necessary.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  20:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly my thought Bolly, if a user wants to look at the director, budget, or box office, then it should be on the film/televisions article and not the actor. And Loeba, I see where your coming from and I remember briefly discussing it (on Hepburn's filmography?) but it comes back to the repeating information that is going off tangent and not about the actor. If it was in their article that's one thing because yes it is totally relevant to their career and who they worked with but in the point of a filmography table, I think it should be limited. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd include the director, but I'm not sure about the other info.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding text originally posted&#32;on WT:FILM


 * Personally I would bin it all. I don't see how any of that stuff is integral to a filmography. If readers want to know how much a film made or who it was directed by they can look it up at the film article. There seems to a culture of bunging in as much information as possible into a table, but I think tables are better when they just stick to the pertinent facts. In the case of filmographies that is the title, role and year. Everything else is just window dressing. Betty Logan (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding text originally posted&#32;on WT:FILM


 * I'm against inclusion of any of this information. A filmography is related to the actor's career, and should only show the film (and the year to show chronology of the career path) and the role, and possibly a note if there is something notable worth mentioning - awards, etc.  Who directed it, budget, etc, etc, is tangential.  There are even some that show other actors in the films!  Look at this monstrosity. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it can be useful to record a notable collaboration i.e. John Ford and John Wayne, Fred and Ginger etc, but noting the director and co-stars of every film is certainly not necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, notable collaborations could be mentioned in a notes section. Or even in prose.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As an occasional reader of actor articles, one of my biggest frustrations is that when I go to one such article, usually to see their films, I find out I have to go to the filmography sub-article to see such a list. It seems ridiculous to me that such a list is split away from the main one when such a list is what makes them known. What about an approach like having two filmographies? A simple one in the main article (title and year, that's it) that can also link to the filmography sub-article, which will be a more detailed version of the list? Remember that we have film series articles to aggregate information, so can't a filmography do something similar? For example, a reader could browse the films and find out the associated directors. Other columns may depend on the actor. I do oppose an awards column because it is ridiculous to make one film be fifteen rows in height because of one good turn. Anyway, to get back on point, what about having the two -- simple one on the main article, detailed one on the sub-article? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One problem with this is that you could have a "simple" filmography that would be too large for an actor page. That aside, although Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, it is also not WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  A lot of the information trying to be included is simply not notable in the context of the actor.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to see that kind of information on a film's page, then why not add that information to it instead of trying to cram all the info to the actors filmography? Wouldn't it be easier to see it in the article where most appropriate instead of all the actors attached to the film? LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , are you saying that splitting off the filmography is warranted? What I am envisioning is the standard bullet list, broken up into multiple columns, listing an actor's films and release years. If even that kind of list is too long to be on an actor's article, is there not some kind of rule of thumb to identify a subset of the most relevant films? Also, I think that when we enter table territory, we have a compulsion to add other fields, and I think it really depends on the actor. A "Role" column is not much for films with purely fictional characters, and these roles would not be in context. (, not sure if you are responding to me and not Rob, but there can be redundancy in aggregation. For example, a "Director" column could be relevant for an actor especially if there is collaboration, so readers can see which films fall under that and which do not, via sorting. Otherwise, a reader has to visit all the film articles to get a sense of that.) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Erik, I'm saying that a splitting off is sometimes warranted, but not always. But when it is, we should still keep it simple.  Look how difficult the John Wayne filmography is to understand.  And I had to fight to get it down to that state (it used to have a "leading lady" column).  Personally, I'd prefer to see these filmographies as simple as possible (I'm not really a fan of them in table form - but appreciate that this is a personal preference), and as I mention above, regular notable collaborations with specific directors or actors can be marked in the "notes" column, but if it is that significant then really it should be dealt with in prose.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, actually, it still does have "leading lady". I was obviously unsuccessful in my head-to-head with another editor to get them removed.  Or I just gave up.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You said above that "Awards" would be the only reasonable specific column to include beyond the film title and release year. That can get messy, though. What are you thinking in terms of how to present that information succinctly? Maybe some kind of summary that is an anchor link to the film title in the "Accolades" section or list, wherever it may be? Regarding the other columns, I just want to make sure we don't lock out any new columns fully, but perhaps put a cap on the number somehow. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I said that awards could go in the notes column ("and possibly a note if there is something notable worth mentioning - awards, etc"), but agree with you that maybe an awards section is best served separate from a filmography table. Picking someone at random, Amy Adams, Amy Adams filmography and List of awards and nominations received by Amy Adams, seems to be the way to go.  But I do not favour adding additional columns - directors and co-stars can be dealt with in a notes column.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Going back to my director comment (sorry, sleep and other business has kept me away): I think it's useful (yeah, yeah WP:ITSUSEFUL) to see the director of the film as this is a defining feature to the film, along with who stars in it. Browsing through filmographies, I like to see how many films Klinski made with Herzog, or Jack Nance did with Lynch, etc. The idea on the John Wayne filmog is sound, it's just that the layout is terrible - can't even sort it as it's in a million different tables. My preference would be the style of the Isabelle Huppert filmography, which, of course, I'm totally biased too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think my main issue with a "directors" column is that in a lot of cases, you'll end up with little or no repetition of directors, irrelevant and non-notable collaborations, and "unimportant" directors in the table. Which is exactly what is happening at Isabelle Huppert filmography.  Even when some of the other collaborations might be notable.  Hence why I think this is best left for the "notes" column to only commemorate notable instances.  If the collaborations are that notable, then this should be noted separately elsewhere anyway: Werner Herzog, Jack Nance, etc, etc. - --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, the way we keep awards bloat under control in the Indian Cinema work group is to limit only the top two major awards in the tables. Others go somewhere else.  For us that means only Filmfare or National awards are allowed in the filmography table.  Here it could mean just Academy Awards, for example.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  15:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify whether you mean "the highest two for a given entry in a table", or "only Filmfare and/or National, if they have them"? Also, how about nominated vs won? The bollywood pages are hella-cluttered with zillions of lesser awards, would be good to get this clearly stated (and linked from WP:FILMOGRAPHY, since that's the useful shortcut for all sorts of filmography table cleanups). DMacks (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant "only Filmfare and/or National" in filmography tables, won and nominated. I have not seen award clutter in the Bollywood actors that I follow, but I have seen huge lists in the Hollywood actors, as was described above.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  18:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I support Eric's idea of having a simple filmography listed with bullet points on the main biography page, and then having a table and more details on the "Filmography" article. This is what's done on Alfred Hitchcock and I think it works well. Although if we're dealing with a lot of films, I really like having a "Select filmography" lists. I've done this on a few articles that I've worked on (ie Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis) because it highlights important films for readers (which is likely one of the main reasons they'll be visiting an actor page). I know a lot of people consider this controversial because "how can we decide where to draw the line" and whatnot, but I don't think it's that difficult to employ a little common sense and select the 20 or so films most worth highlighting... -- Loeba (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree on how Hitchcock is set up on his main article page but wouldn't recommend using his filmography page for a reference as those tables are butchered the way they are set up. But I'm wanting to gather a consensus on limiting the columns of a table and it's looking like the majority is for removing the box office and budget from existing tables. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed that budget and box office is completely inappropriate in a filmography and makes it look cluttered. Role, director and most notable awards is best.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * agree that "budget" and "box office" are irrelevant in filmographies on actors pages and we should recommend against ever including them. the "director" may be appropriate, but i dont think it should be "recommended" . I think we should recommend against a generic "Notes" as per WP:BEANS its an invitation to clutter and trivia. Anything that could only be classified as a "note" would always be better covered in the text body or not be worthy of coverage at all. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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