Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:19, 18 March 2010

• WT:FILMBIO
• WT:ACTOR

Archives

Through 2007 Through 2008 Through 2009

Filmography tables

Please save as it is an on-going project. Thank you. I've been working diligently to get filmographies tabled. I started work on the film actors tab, and under that, the award winners. Some of them already had completed filmographies, a great many didn't. I have completed filmographies on the Academy Award winners, with only the following to go. It would be helpful to check the ones that are in list form for any film omissions. Some omissions I've come across were a little puzzling. Please jump in and work on the tables as possible. If you do complete one, please strike through the name. Thanks!

* - indicates there is no filmography at all

Academy Award for Best Actor to table

Academy Award for Best Actress to table

Ginger Rogers
Jane Wyman

Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor to table

Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress to table

Thanks again to anyone who feels compelled to jump in!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Foreign names in filmography tables

What is the consensus on this? See Jet_Li#Filmography for example, which has the Chinese version listed even for American films. I can see having it listed in the native language as well, i.e. Chinese for Chinese movies, but other than that it looks cluttered and unnessessary. Thoughts? Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 12:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It should just list the name the article is using. If people want to see the rest of its names, they would go to the main article. This is done with articles with lists of anime/manga titles as well. The only time the original Chinese name should be used is if it has no article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll start cleaning up the tables then. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 18:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Carey Mulligan

Carey Mulligan is currently at GAN but is in dire need of a strong copyedit. Currently, the language is all over the place; there is a heck of a lot of redundancy and unneeded fluff, some of the sources are unreliable, and the reference formatting is a nightmare. It's salvagable for GAN standards though, so if two or three other people could just do a quick copy edit, it will probably be alright. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Dann Florek a B-class?

I've noticed that Dann Florek article is rated a B-class. This clearly not a B article. Only two references and no references within the Personal life section. The lead is just about nonexistence. It's just not a B-class. I've rated a start class. —Mike Allen 23:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

GAR reviews

Hi folks. Forest Whitaker, Daniel Day-Lewis and Ben Stiller have all been brought up for good article reassessment. I have started working on the Day-Lewis article, but your assistance is needed on the others. Problems can be found on the various article's talk pages. Any assistance is appreciated! Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Elisha Cuthbert needs attention as well, as it is being reassessed. Nymf _talk/contr. 14:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

List of awards and honors

I am proposing an update to the guidelines of WikiProject Films to standardize naming awards lists. In my review of such lists, it appears that the renaming of "awards and nominations" to "awards and honors" was undone with both film articles and actor articles. It would be a good idea for standardization. Discussion is here. Erik (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Date of birth for Deborah Kara Unger

Would like another opinion in a dispute at Talk:Deborah Kara Unger. The article for a while has just included the year of birth even though many internet sites do list a full date. An editor has tried using these sites as sources but I don't consider them to be reliable sources. These are the disputed versions: . The editor has made other dob changes on other articles so it would be useful to know if the sources he is using for this information are good enough. The full discussion can be found on the article talk page. I could be wrong and applying the criteria for veriability too stringently, but would appreciate another viewpoint. Betty Logan (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WT:ACTOR is a better place to notify of such discussions. :) Erik (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, film reference.com would be a good source, except no date of birth is given beyond the year, the use of which would be valid. There is no need for a c. with that date. Any published newspaper reference with the dates would okay. filmbug.com, Womencelebs.com and superiorpics.com don't meet the standards and the http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2000/feb/13/comment.akinojumu source does not give a birthdate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You've got to love the irony here! So should I make Filmreference the main reference and remove the Guardian reference? Is Filmreference a reliable source in just this instance because it gives its sources for her biography, or is it standard reliable source for all actors? Allmovie does the same thing, it just gives 1966 as her dob and I've seen it commented that's a reliable source so would that be a reliable source in this context too, even though it doesn't say where it gets the information from? Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, since the guardian article does not give a birthdate, it needs to go. Filmreference is an acceptable source on articles since it cites its sources. Just source 1966 (?) to it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I've updated it as suggested. I was able to use the newspaper reference to source another part that was currently unsourced, and Filmreference is now used as the source for the birth year. Thanks for looking at it. Betty Logan (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Good going. If someone changes it to links that don't support it, I'd recommend WP:AIV. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre guidelines

I was just made aware of this project's bizarre guidelines, and I have to admit I'm quite curious as to why a Misplaced Pages project thinks it's in any position to override the most basic Misplaced Pages guidelines. I found a sentence here saying "Lead sentences should only include name, birth/death dates, occupation and nationality." Should they now? That's in direct oppositions to the instruction on the MOS's lead section page, saying clearly that the first sentence should tell the reader "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"

This seems a classic example of "the mouse that roared" kind of hubris – a project that starts to think it's more important than the whole encyclopaedia, while in reality it's only a very limited maintenance project. I personally, in the future, will certainly follow Misplaced Pages guidelines rather than Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers guidelines. Lampman (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"What (or who) is the subject?" is answered by the "occupation" portion of the lead sentence. Exactly why it is that they're notable is better left for the sections of more detailed prose to follow. It would be awkward to list in one sentence all the reasons why Tom Hanks or Steven Spielberg are notable and there is inevitable disagreement when trying to narrow it down to one reason for which these individuals might be "best known". Suffice it to say, Tom Hanks is an "American actor, producer, writer and director" and he is notable for his accomplishments in these occupations. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion, but it's not what the MOS says. Lampman (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That may be my opinion but my opinion nor the specific guideline that you bring up here are in opposition to MOS. In this case, I think you're misinterpreting things on a very fundamental level. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not in direct opposition. Writing the name and occupation in particular answers the question of who the subject is and why the subject is notable, basically identifying the person as an actor or a filmmaker. Either is a public figure. Notability can be further established in the rest of the article. Why do you think there is a contradiction? Erik (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Because being an actor does not make you notable. Lampman (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"Why is this subject notable?" should not be shoehorned into the lead sentence. Casual readers couldn't care less about Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. As Big Bird has said, the reason for notability should be made by a well-crafted and -researched lead section. Nobody here is pretending to be "in any position to override the most basic Misplaced Pages guidelines" or thinks they're "more important than the whole encyclopaedia" so please don't write sarcastic messages. Bradley0110 (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're entitled to your opinion, I'm just saying that it conflicts with WP MOS guidelines, and you will have to take it up there if you want it changed. Lampman (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ here, both on the quote and the direction it is taken. fact, the statement supports the instructions in MOS:BIO, which specifically says:

The opening paragraph should have:

1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (names and titles));

2. Dates of birth and death, if known (see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death);

3. Nationality & ethnicity –

1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. (Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the essay "Misplaced Pages:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom" and the talk page archives.)

2. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

4. What the person did;

5. Why the person is significant.

The section in question actually reads:

Exclude from the lead sentence phrases that bolster a person's status beyond basic descriptions covering career that designate the person's occupation. Examples include phrases that inflate standing such as being an award winner, award nominee, one of the greatest actors/filmmakers ever, or other such highlights. Such phrases can and should be used later in the lead section in better context, such as summarizing the kinds of awards won or the kind of polls that rank a person's greatness in the film industry. Lead sentences should only include name, birth/death dates, occupation and nationality. Example: William Bradley "Brad" Pitt (born December 18, 1963) is an American actor and film producer.

• What does it say? 1. name 2. birth and death date 3. nationality 4. what the person did 5. why are they notable. How does that differ from what WP:LEAD says? X was born when and where? What do they do and why is that notable. There is nothing in that which is bizarre or attempts to override MOS guidelines.
• What does it specifically say? Don't add in awards and honors in the lead sentence.
• Why did that come about? Because multiple examples existed and in some cases still exist where the editor who is passing by adds "is an Academy Award-winning actor (or whatever)". In fact, there are no articles under this project that should imply or explicitly state that any actor, director, etc. is notable because they won an award. That is blatantly untrue. An actor, etc., is notable for his or her occupation. Notable for being in film or television. No one becomes notable after they win an award. The award comes for the person's work.

There is no presumption of overriding basic guidelines here, nor is there hubris in thinking that anything overrides Misplaced Pages guidelines. To steer articles away from POV-based statements that give undue weight to winning some given award. I'm lost as to why you think this is an example of a project that starts to think it's more important than the whole encyclopaedia or that it is bizarre in nature. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's very simple, if you read WP:ENTERTAINER, you'll see that being an actor does not in itself make you notable. "N N (1900–2000) was an American actor." does not establish notability, and that's what the MOS demands. If you look at the examples given in MOS:BIO, you'll see that they all establish notability beyond simply mentioning profession (in the case of Cleopatra, being queen of Egypt automatically makes her notable; the same can not be said for actors). You guys are free to disagree with WP:LEAD, but you should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit so.

Actually you made me aware of another thing that is wrong with these project guidelines. They tell us to exclude from the lead sentence phrases such as "one of the greatest actors/filmmakers ever", then that "Such phrases can and should be used later". No. Such phrases should never be used anywhere. It's a classic peacock term, and goes against the very basic "show, don't tell" principle. This could be simply the result of bad writing though, and not a conscious attempt to subvert Misplaced Pages guidelines. Lampman (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's an attempt to subvert Misplaced Pages guidelines. The sentence reads "Such phrases can and should be used later in better context" and it's the in better context that would allow peacock terms to be weeded out. At least, I think that was the idea. I think I know how this came about, and I'll try to explain. Firstly, I agree with you that being an actor does not make a person notable but it is the core reason for the notability of most of the subjects that fall under this project. Non-notable actors don't get an article, so if you are worried that there is room for non-notable actors to slip through this loophole, I honestly don't think that was ever intended.

Some time ago, some one (or several someones) went through a large number of articles and added a laundry list of awards to the the opening sentence to create something like "Joe Blow (born November 1, 1920) is a twice-Academy Award and 16-time-Emmy Award-nominated actor." I can't think of a good example to show you. The closest I can think of is this version of the Judi Dench article If you can imagine the first two sentences combined into one, that's the type of intro that was being created for a substantial number of articles. These were gradually removed and/or reworded and in doing so, several other phrases were noted in other articles, claiming so-and-so was the "best this" or the "most acclaimed that" without context or attribution. Many contained something like "best known for his role as ...." Often this is accurate, but just as often it means this is the role best known to the editor who made the edit. This was seen as an issue of POV, and again, a lot of these were reworded. The point you are commenting on was written as a reaction to that type of article intro, and while it was intended to cover a multitude of sins, it was never intended to contradict MOS:BIO.

Meanwhile, a small number of editors began reverting back to the Judi Denchesque type of opening, (and I doubt that will ever completely stop), and the project instruction was formulated mainly so that instead of having to go over the same ground on the talk pages of numerous articles, it could be linked back to one basic comment. The intent was to stay within MOS:BIO and the notability or "what the person did" and "why the person was significant" boiled down to "was an actor". A lot of actors meet the notability requirements to have an article without having a single role or group of roles on which to hang their notability. I think this was trying to bring these articles onto a level field, and stop people from adding their favourite film performance into the opening sentence. Having said that, there are also articles that say something like "was an actor notable for his appearance in a series of film comedies during the silent era." Something that gives it further context. Is that the type of general additional information that establishes notability per MOS:BIO and that you are commenting about? If so, I think we're dealing with the problem of differing interpretations of MOS:BIO rather than an attempt to override it. If only most actors had been Queen of Egypt at some time, it would be much easier to write something specific about them to distinguish each of them from the crowd, but some of them have/had very generic careers of mediocrity - though still notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. For the most part, I think this guideline "worked" because it allowed for the relatively easy disposal of a whole lot of utter rubbish that flew in the face of other policies and guidelines, but whether it was correct is something that can be discussed further. Your last sentence and particularly "not a conscious attempt to subvert Misplaced Pages guidelines" is right on the money. Rossrs (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I think that second instance is probably just the result of unfortunate language. It says that "such phrases (like "one of the greatest actors/filmmakers ever") can and should be used later" when such phrases should in fact never be used. It would be better to say that such facts should be added later, if rewritten in a proper, NPOV manner.

As for the predicament of the inflated opening sentence, I understand that completely, but I don't think there's any point in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It should be possible to assess articles on a case-to-case basis. I came across this guideline when I was reviewing the article on Elisha Cuthbert, and suggested her role in 24 should be mentioned in the first sentence. I was told that this conflicted with WP:ACTOR's guidelines, and that it could lead to POV and OR. In this case, however, it took me about half a minute to find a reliable source connecting "Elisha Cuthbert" and "24" with the words "best known for" – not that I think anyone would seriously dispute that. Currently you have to read through five sentences, and make it to the very end of the lead before 24 is even mentioned, and this used to be a Good Article. This is simply absurd; I for one don't know Elisha Cuthbert from the Canadian children's television series Popular Mechanics for Kids.

Why does this matter? Because Misplaced Pages is there for the reader, and let's face it: most look-ups are probably of the type "where do I know him/her from". Then we should provide that information right away, not send the reader on a wild scavenger hunt through the article. In certain cases, like Leonard Nimoy or George Lazenby, the case is quite clear. For others, like Tom Hanks mentioned above, it might be less obvious (though I can't see the harm in mentioning his back-to-back Oscars for Philadelphia and Forrest Gump right away.) If the system is being abused, then that should be dealt with individually; the policies of WP:NPOV and WP:OR should apply here as everywhere else. But the solution is not to institute absolute bans that violate overriding guidelines. Then the terrorists have already won... Lampman (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

MOS is a guideline, not policy. Calm down. —Mike Allen 19:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I've been quite accurate with the terminology so far. Lampman (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

To quote, "you should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit so" or "The terrorist have already won". Yes, calm down please. Garion96 (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep focused on this topic. It seems like Lampman's concerns have been responded to in great detail, but he remains unconvinced. Perhaps we could select a biographical article, such as Elisha Cuthbert, to show where the guidelines may or may not work? Like what does Lampman want to do with the lead sentence that the guidelines advise against? Erik (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The FA of Anne Frank — who, by the way, is not an actor or a filmmaker — does not contain the lead sentence noting that she is best known for the very thing that really does make her notable. If you believe that the "best known for" phrases belong in the lead sentence for instances where the "case is quite clear", then you probably need to take this up at WP:LEAD and MOS:BIO rather than here on the basis that our guidelines differ because they are exactly the same except possibly only defined in further detail. I disagree with your reasoning that readers who come to Misplaced Pages need to be given information "right away, not send the reader on a wild scavenger hunt through the article". I, personally, think it absurd that anyone would to want to know all there is to know about an actor in the very first sentence of an encyclopedia entry. Also, anyone willing to call the remainder of a very informative article "a wild scavenger hunt" likely does not understand the purpose of an encyclopedia but that it exactly what we are. So long as the subject of an article meets the notability criteria and has an easily identifiable occupation, "most famous for" and "best known for" should never be used in any biographical article's lead sentence because it is more subjective of the author of the sentence rather than objective and informative. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? The diary is linked to in the lead. Geschichte (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In the lead section, yes. In the lead sentence, no. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Anne Frank, for your information, passed as an FA in February 2005. Lampman (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing is Tom Hanks is a notable actor - that's why he has an article on Misplaced Pages! He's notable as an actor which is what the lede says. It's his achievements within his profession that establish that notability, but MOS doesn't say that notability has to be established in the lede. I don't think there is a contradiction here, the film guidelines are just trying to keep the detail to a minimum so there is some consistency between the articles and ensuring they don't come too bloated. Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It does, read again. Lampman (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know how to make this any clearer:

1. WP:LEAD says notability should be established in the first sentence.
2. WP:ACTOR says notability should not be established in the first sentence ("NN is an actor" doesn't count).
3. QED mother fuckers.
   

I'm out. Lampman (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he had to resort to incivility. I think we can consider this matter closed; I advise everyone not to bother responding to him since no good would come out of it. Erik (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, what I said was not "incivil", for the following reasons:

1. "QED mother fuckers" is a long established meme, so obviously I was not suggesting that anyone here has actually had sex with their own mother.
2. Misplaced Pages is not censored, so the use of the term "mother fucker" is not in itself prohibited.
3. QED mother fuckers.

Oops!... I Did It Again. Lampman (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No it's not prohibited, but it shows your true character. You just can't justify calling the participants of this discussion mother fuckers with those flawed reasons. That's being flat out uncivil. Also, what did come of this, is that you have established that Misplaced Pages is not for you. So it may be best that you did leave. Auf Wiedersehen —Mike Allen 23:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No Mike, "with those flawed reasons" I really "can't justify calling the participants of this discussion mother fuckers". Please tell me what kind of reasons would justify that. Lampman (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Per Erik's suggestion, let's drop this. We're at an impasse and I doubt we'll see anything contructive come out of further debate; really it's become more of an argument. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 23:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I was ready to drop this a long time ago. I've clearly shown that I'm right, and I don't really know what else to do. Lampman (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Date of birth changes

There have been many alterations to birth dates by user Special:Contributions/Karbuncle. Many of these alterations are unsourced which leads me to wonder where he is getting the information from and whether it is accurate. I've had to revert his edits several times on the Deborah Kara Unger article because his sources were not reliable. His edits were also challenged at Joey Lauren Adams. The problem is without including sources the dates that are being replaced might be the accurate ones. The regular editors of these articles should double check any date changes. Betty Logan (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk show appearances in the filmography table

I see that Claire_Danes#Guest_appearances has every talk show listed that she has appeared on. As Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, do we really need that listed? What does the consensus say? Nymf _talk/contr. 12:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not think there is precedent for it. A table is particularly unnecessary when one could instead say, "Danes has appeared as a guest on talk shows like The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and Late Night with Conan O'Brien throughout her career," if anything at all. It is kind of taken for granted that celebrities do this, unless there is something significant about a particular appearance. As it stands, this takes up a great deal of space... Erik (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tidied up a couple of filmographies and removed talk show appearances at the same time. Personally I don't think they belong - an actor is notable for acting, not for appearing on talk shows. It wouldn't be appropriate to list an author's appearance for example, unless some pertinent information was revealed (but then should only be mentioned - not listed). I think what happens with actors is that initially people copy information indiscriminately from imdb and these appearances aren't removed. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. IMDb seems to be the main source for filmographies and they list these appearances. These appearances are primarily promotional in nature and any individual actor with a respectable career could potentially end up with a list of talk show appearances that is longer than his or her filmography. Occasionally there will be something notable (or notorious) like Madonna swearing on Letterman or Tom Cruise bouncing on Oprah's couch, that gets some wider commentary, but the appearances are rarely newsworthy or notable. Usually it's a bit of small talk and banter, flatter the host, plug the current project and exit. I don't think we need it - it's placing undue weight on an aspect of the person's career that is of little consequence. Rossrs (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move of multiple lists

Per the WT:FILM discussion about naming conventions for lists of awards and honors, I am requesting the move of multiple lists from "List of awards and nominations received by <film>" to "List of accolades received by <film>". The request is centralized at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Almost Famous. I ask everyone to respond. Thanks, Erik (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Kevin Spacey

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Kevin Spacey/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Famous family of actors and film maker needs clean up

Caleb Deschanel (no ref), Mary Jo Deschanel (tagged-most of content needs refs), Emily Deschanel (not tagged but details not sourced). Zooey Deschanel (has sources but needs some clean up).

It would be great if someone could clean up these 4 articles at the same time. Zooey's article has sources that could be used for the others. Any takers? FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Filmography table question

Is there a standard format for the filmography tables? I've run across quite a few with some parameters that are a bit unneeded in my opinion. For example Mädchen Amick. While admittedly tidy, I think it's a bit much. Thoughts? Pinkadelica 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the filmography tables, and I think that the Amick tables seem to be well-organized. My only concern is that such tables use 90% of regular font size, which to me affects general accessibility. I think that such critical tables in the article body should have consistent readability with the rest of the content. Erik (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a standard format, located on the main page here WP:ACTOR, as accepted per consensus here. There is no accepted precedent for including directors, television networks etc. And the format for styling uses wikitable, not the deprecated style. I think the Amick table is crowded and over stuffed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never liked the stacked format that the Amick table, and others, is presented in. The blue and grey table headings can affect readability somewhat. When I see them, I split the the film and TV sections and add L3 "Film" and "Television" subheadings. Bradley0110 (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind them, they have their uses, but I don't like them for active actors whose work is included in the top section. What I don't like are those tables that have columns added for directors, co-stars, film gross, etc. That content belongs in the articles about the films. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification on the formatting. Pinkadelica 21:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I split them up too (well at first I used the aforementioned style, but was pointed out to the current style). But, if an actor had only very few roles in Film, and mostly appears on Television (and vice-versa), I have used the above style, to make it look more organized and neater. —Mike Allen 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:SecretLife

Comments on Template talk:SecretLife over the use of actors in a navigation box would be greatly appreciated. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

More on Filmography table formats

I recently came across several filmography tables that are being reformatted in a new way. For example from to , from to , from to , and here from to . (Sorry, these may not be the best examples, because the original filmographies did need work. I'm not referring to the fact that 3 or more tables are combined into one---that I agree with. I'm referring to the difference between the new versions and the standard.)

I personally find the new format very crowded (when episodes are listed right under show names), and distracting--especially when the last column (on right) does not align with the left side. I actually prefer the standard version. I was wondering if there has been some updates/proposals to the standard or what the consensus is on the new look? Also, if there is a discussion regarding this new format somewhere, can you direct me to it? Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In looking at the article histories, the majority of this was done by one editor who was imposing his or her own viewpoint on the tables. I've left a note about this. The filmography style should adhere to the standard, and in some cases it is okay to use the stacked tables. The column designated "Notes" should be the place for episode names, etc., not stuck under the show title. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

They should not look like this, or like this, they should look like this. Anything otherwise should be converted to the last. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! I was ready to go somewhere and voice my opinion on the possible change in standard. Thank you for the examples. As an aside, I did not know to omit episode numbers, so I have learned something today!--Logical Fuzz (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The episode numbers are fine if there is no title for the episode. If the episode is titled, then that is all that's necessary. You're welcome. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Good article

I'm very pleased to announce that the article Kate Winslet passed good article nomination tonight. Now, everyone keep an eye out that it doesn't get fouled!! Thanks to Rossrs for all his great help and congrats to him, too! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

GAR Notification

Letting you know I've opened a good article reassessment for Brandon Routh at Talk:Brandon Routh/GA1, and you may be interested. It seems like half the major contributors are sockpuppets (huh?) so uninvolved help would be good. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 22:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Another question on Filmography tables

I'm still confused about the desired/standard format for filmography tables. It is preferred to have all TV and film roles in one table, like George Clooney, stacked tables for film and TV like here: Christina Applegate, or 2 completely separated tables like Julia Roberts? It still seems to me to be a personal opinion.

I usually work on much "less significant" actors. I want to make some new tables and I'm stalled at how to do them. I have seen people split "perfectly fine" stacked tables into 2 tables, or pulling out from one "perfectly fine" table to create stacked tables, also seen people split one table into TV and Film. (I use "perfectly fine" very loosely here.) Nothing is really wrong, it seems to be personal preference but I hate to spend the time on a new table, just to have it torn apart/merged/whatever. I'm very confused. Surprisingly, there don't appear to be many guidelines on this. Are the answers really things like "it depends" and "editor preference"? Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The actual preferred format, I would have to say is the merged one like George Clooney. While there's nothing wrong with the stacked approach, it can be difficult to manage when the top part of the stack starts to become more extensive than the bottom. I'd say a good rule of thumb would be that if there are fewer than perhaps 5 or so, say television roles, that it not be stacked. I'm not a fan of split filmgraphies per se, although it starts to become an issue when someone fills several roles, like with Clooney and directing and producing. No one should be going around converting filmography tables from one style to another without a consensus determination on the talk page. Mostly, like most other things here, how an article develops is how it should remain without further discussion. As an aside, keep an eye out for an IP account that goes around and changes the header to the color orange. Sheesh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review: Akira Kurosawa

Pardon me if this may seem an inappropriate place to make this announcement. I have searched for a volunteer under Misplaced Pages: Peer review/volunteers, but, amazingly, no experts on film appear to be active.

Because this is the centennial year of Akira Kurosawa's birth and the 60th anniversary year of the Tokyo premier of his seminal film, Rashomon (8/25/50), I have requested EXPEDITED peer review, so it can be placed on the homepage as a featured article by August 25th of this year. The page is at http://en.wikipedia.org/Akira_Kurosawa. Thanks.

David Baldwin

--Dylanexpert (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I would just like to start by saying, I'm not a member of this project, but I have worked on the following article quite extensively to make it what it is today. I would just like someone from this project to give it a once (or twice) over and assess the article. I've assessed it as Start-Class, but I think it should now be at least B-Class, it has a ref for most everything on it, and several have multiple. Another reason I would like someone else to look it over because I personally know the subject of the article and I know things about him that aren't mentioned, simply because they're not talked about in articles, and well, to be honest, shouldn't be. The article is for Josh Stewart. Any help would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page and I'll get right back too you. Crash Underride 06:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Checked, commented on requestor's talk page and assessed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Chaplin GA Review

This project has an interest in the Charlie Chaplin article, which is one our most important and most viewed articles. It is being reviewed to see if it matches the criteria for a WP:Good Article. Among other issues it is poorly sourced. The review has been put on hold for seven days to allow time for the article to be sourced. Reference sources can be found on the "Find sources" notice on the talkpage. Further comments can be found at Talk:Charlie Chaplin/GA1. SilkTork * 09:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox actor update

At some discussion, it was asked if a parameter added to the actor banner of "needs filmography" and a response of yes/no would be helpful. I think the response was yes, but I can't find that it was ever done. Thus, I requested it at the template talk page and was told: 1. Discuss the issue on the talk page. 2. Place your proposed code on the templates's /sandbox. 3. Fully test the code (perhaps by making use of /testcases). 4. Obtain consensus for the change. Welllllllll, I thought it was agreed, and I don't know how to write the code, therefore, I propose that this parameter be added to the template and a default category be created. Thoughts? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, WP:ACTOR members, a response about this is needed. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this parameter is appropriate or necessary to be placed in an infobox. It already exits as a parameter on Template:WPBiography, a template that should be listed on the talk page of every article that would theoretically require Template:Infobox actor to be placed in the article and, therefore, making it redundant. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I misspoke, I meant to the WPBiography banner, where we already have needs-photo and needs-infobox. I tried putting needs-filmography on one and didn't get a category as a result. That is what I meant. I knew what I was talking about, just didn't call it by the right name. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. To me this goes hand in hand with the old film parameter of needs-cast=yes, which was turned off without any discussion... Lugnuts (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. Question: Does this mean the table or just a list of credits? —Mike Allen 20:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:WPBiography already contains this parameter. Are you saying it doesn't work? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

To answer my own question, it does work and I just tested it. The existing parameter is "needs-filmography" and the value "yes" generates an entry in Category:Actors and filmmakers work group articles needing filmographies. Was this what you were looking to accomplish or was it something else altogether? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That is what I meant, but on at least one occasion, and perhaps I used the wrong words, it didn't put an article in a category, which is what prompted me to ask about this. I think that since the project suggests a filmography table, that should be what is added. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Clint Eastwood

I started a discussion here about the current size of the article. Please share your thoughts. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Overcategorization

What is the general opinion on the categories that are being added to the articles right now? Do we really need 7 categories to state that a person is Jewish? (See this, for example.) Nymf _hideliho! 12:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Too many. There seems to be an emphasis placed on his ethnicity too. It should be limited to parent cats, and that would reduce some of the current redundancy. Rossrs (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned (regarding the Jewish categories), it could be kept to Category:American Jews and that's it. I have invited the user doing the edits to take part in the discussion here. Nymf _hideliho! 17:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

These over-categorizations are absurd, and almost all fail WP:BLP. Has any reliable source (and in particular the subject of the articles) described these people in this way? Jayjg 00:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite to this discussion page. I've added to my watchlist the links you posted. Please feel free to invite me to other discussions and also post links on my talk page related to this concern. It would really help since I don't have time to go over all the guidelines.Bukwirm1560 (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Filmography

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Misplaced Pages style and naming When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

nb: The rfc-tag was added by Jack Merridew, who did not start this thread. Jack Merridew 16:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Examples

or a plain list...

• 1998, Dil Se

Back in December 2008, the project came to consensus about the filmography table formatting here. At some point, for a reason I can't recall, the font size was changed to 95%. Really don't remember why. In any case, the project consensus was to use the 90% font size, use the blue table heading and continue to format awards with a "Nomination—Whatever name" and not to designate wins with saying "Win-whatever name". I want to establish that we still support using that consensus. Please note below via support or oppose. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You changed it to 95% yourself, here, which was where the page was changed to promote invalid code. Tisk, tisk. Jack Merridew 23:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent what was done. Previous to that change, and I don't know why 95% was there, the table heading code was not using wikitable style, which was presented as a problem. That you failed to even attempt to explain here, after being clearly asked twice, what part of the code was a problem fairly discredits any pronouncements of "tisk, tisk." Tsk, tsk to you for refusing to bring the issue here to start with. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose — The 90% is too small and will interfere with accessibility. The coloring of tables is all of dubious value and hard coding any colors is usually inappropriate. Better approaches would be a) plain wikitable, b) a template based approach to encapsulate coding details and to centrally maintain them, and c) a stylesheet based-approach. 'c' is not too likely as few will support such ephemeral shite in site-wide stylesheets. Regards, Jack Merridew 23:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - There has been no issue raised, anywhere, anytime, by anybody about 90% causing accessibility issues. I have a vision disability that could be effected by sizing but it is not effected in any way by that size. An early attempt at using a template for color coding failed and in its stead, we were given the line coding for the colors. Tables used by various projects also use color and this is only an issue to you because you came across it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

  Actually, the issue of accessibility *was* raised previously, including the font-size concern. I'm surprised you don't recall it as you were quite involved in that discussion until consensus went against you. Regards, Jack Merridew 07:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

  You've stated, below, that you do not remember that long thread that you extensively participated in and that went so against your position; just above, you state that "There has been no issue raised, anywhere, anytime, by anybody about 90% causing accessibility issues." and yet I see a post on this very page that asks "My only concern is that such tables use 90% of regular font size, which to me affects general accessibility." You "replied" to the user (User:Erik) without actually addressing his concern. Do you recall this? Will you address the accessibility concern?

  At this point, I'm fully in favor of no reduction of font-size. And I strongly oppose snotting up the wiki with gratuitous markup to give filmographies undue weight. There may be a case for using tables, but semantically a filmography is a *list* of films and marking them up as a bulleted list (year, title) seems a pretty good option. Any other details such as role-played could go in the film's article.

  You and the local clique seem to have a very off view of your authority to determine what is appropriate for articles. This is all ownership. You made some comment to me on your talk page about 'governance' which, frankly, is absurd. As Lar has told you, repeatedly, "Change your approach."

  Regards, Jack Merridew 19:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  It would be helpful if you would change your approach as well, Jack. I agree with the crux of your argument, but there's no need for such rudeness and disrespect. —David Levy 20:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  Wildhartlivie, what is the justification for having 90% or 95% instead of 100% in these tables? An article like List of accolades received by American Beauty looks adequate with 100% font size. I do not think it is worth any perceived aesthetic benefit to reduce the size further. Erik (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I do think a template based table with CSS styling is probably more correct standard wise (and it would simplify things tremendously), but as the previous attempt failed, we should stick with the old consensus until a real alternative is presented. Nymf _hideliho! 00:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC) On second thought, I am changing my vote to Oppose. The "100%; bog-standard-wikitable" is far superiour in every way. Keeping it clean will make for less edit warring, cruft, increase compability etc. We shouldn't make it more complicated than need be. Nymf _hideliho! 02:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The previous attempt seems to have failed due to a willful disregard of a discussion that went against WHL's liking. While she may not remember this now, she summarily removed all the usages of that template last May (see diffs on offer below by David Levy). The 'old consensus' you refer to is simply a local opinion and only supports what the locals prefer; out on the wider-wiki, there are overriding opinions. The reasonable options going forwards are a) bulleted lists and b) font-size: 100%; bog-standard-wiki-table as seen at top-right. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Neutral to the 90%. I believe that the use of pretty tables in filmography distracts from the article itself, and would prefer the filmography listed in text and not a table. But if folks want to use a template, smaller is better and less distractive... specially as a pretty filmography template is not the main purpose of an article about an actor. Schmidt, 00:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

  I'd support plain bulleted list for the reasons you cite. Hard-coded tables are about the poorest method of presenting this information; see the featured list Mary Pickford filmography which eschews the funny blue and silver this club is pushing. The Pickford list also goes with normal sized text. All this junk about tables and meretricious colours snots-up the wiki-text with heaps of markup of dubious value and presents teh wiki with a serious maintenance issue. There are probably tens of thousands of actor bios here mostly with some form of filmography and there is no easy way to re-style their look. I've no idea what template approach was unsuccessfully tried before, but such an approach certainly is appropriate. If it was intent on colours, it's probably best to have allowed that dead end road to find it's way to failure. Jack Merridew 02:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

  Michael, do you not think that 90% font size affects accessibility? See my link below in my oppose !vote. In addition, I'm reviewing WP:COLOR and am trying to determine if "#B0C4DE", or LightSteelBlue, is an adequate contrast to the black print of table headers. Erik (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  After thought and consideration, I have gone neutral above, as I still don't think that such tables are actually even neccessary in a film or actor's article. They may be pretty, but do not actually add to a reader's understanding of a topic, and take up maybe three or four times the space in an article as the same information offered as plain bulleted text in our standard 100%. I sit here at this PC looking at the examples posted above, using IE7 and my screen resolution set to its usual 800 x 600, any differences seem minor. Then, having temporarily reset the screen resolution to 1024 x 768, I see that 90% is a tad more difficult to read than is 100%. Also, and specially for television roles, the current templates I've seen seem to allow a show's name and a character name but not additional column that might list the year range and number of episodes of a series in which an actor may have appeared. If used, any template must have flexibility dependent upon what information is needed to be presented. All that said, and though I think tables for actors are not always as useful as hoped, I do like the contrast of LightSteelBlue better than the LightGeyishWhite. Schmidt, 04:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about not using a table period (filmography). The credits are important for an actor, that is mainly what they are known for. Most information should be in prose, yes. However, a table is neat and easier the skim through (which is what most readers do, skim through their credits), while a bulletin list of 50 (or more!) credits is messy and a strain on the eyes. What I'm still trying to understand is how if this is such a huge issue, why is it just being noticed now, when this format has been used for at least two years (2008 is when this became standard practice within the Actor project?). I mean only a selective few seem to have an "issue" with the current style. I would like to see some outside opinions that were not related to the previous discussion from last year. —Mike Allen 05:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There could be any number of reasons why this issue has not been seriously explored until now. For example, it may be that it's this subset of articles that only uses smaller-than-100% text size. I went to WP:FL and randomly clicked ten articles across the various categories; they all used 100% text size in their tables. Accessibility is a relatively hidden issue; it's not something most editors will consider. For example, it was only in the last year or so that WP:ALT has really taken off; as recently as September 2008 did it basically say, "Sorry, there is no way to have alternative text in addition to the image's caption." Now it's a standard process in Featured Article nominations. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress; we're continually fine-tuning ourselves. Sometimes we go backward, but mostly we go forward. Depending on the outcome of this RfC, I am sure that we will be able to arrange automated tasks to accommodate. As for use of tables, I do not have an issue with them, but simplicity can work, too. Names of the roles an actor has played can be relatively indiscriminate on that actor's article (and more discriminate in each film's article). Same with directors, though awards and some notes (like "Also directed") are more pertinent. Basically, lists or tables, do what works for the person. Erik (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

@User: MikeAllen: No argument... projects are what make an actor. Their inclusion supports the overall understanding of the individual and their careers. You offer decent points to consider. Perhaps both sides here can come to a compromise. Here are comparisons:

A lengthy career bulleted: Ernest_Borgnine#Filmography.

A lengthy career templated: Tom_Cruise_filmography

The Cruise example shows that a long career templated on a seperate page does not distract from a main article, and yet is easy to find and study. The Borgnine example shows that for a long career, bulleted or not, such a list in the main article itself can become quite unwieldy. As an actor article usually hits the highlights of more major work within the prose of the article itself, I would think it reasonable that if there were 40 or 50 or more projects that could be listed in an actor article, a trimmed "partial filmography" of 10 or 15 might be bulleted in the main article with the "complete filmography" relegated to a referenced sub-page where use of a table could not be in any way seen as detracting from the reader's understanding of the subject as covered in the parent article. For actors with shorter careers, a bulleted text section within the article serves well and does not distract. Schmidt, 16:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support the 90% font. All this back & forth over this is getting annoying. I don't know how many times I've set up a proper table only for someone to change the font simply because they don't like it. That's not the way things are suppose to work around here. I don't like a lot of things, but I still respect consensus. Pinkadelica 01:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• I don't care about the size. Whatever everyone else decides. But the filmography should be done with a template, not individual markup that has to be changed in every filmography page every time something needs to be changed. ++Lar: t/c 03:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. This would work best in a template. —Mike Allen 04:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Then propose something concrete. Nymf _hideliho! 04:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
    • How about this? Jack Merridew 05:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
      • That shouldn't even exist. 25 templates for 25 films all contained within a pair of templates, with no accomodation for the film role or awards of any sort? Can we say redundant and convoluted? There's a good reason why that is only used on 16 articles. It is not user-friendly nor is it sufficient to meet the needs of a filmography in regard to content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
        • WP:TFD is open to you. Jack Merridew 19:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 9#Header color in wikitables
• Template:Filmography table head

As they say, there's nothing new under the sun. This whole issue has been discussed at considerable length before and it's time to properly sort all the issues.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody please display how a 95% looks as compared to a 90% please? ‡ Himalayan ‡ 14:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Examples at top-right. My concern is also about the colour being capriciously non-standard. The embedded colours also function as an attractive nuisance; see this (l r). Note that there are a lot of instances out there that use a semantically meaningless two-tier heading such as on Miley Cyrus; the col-spanning heading should properly be a caption-element. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are always random examples of weird color changes, note the mentions I've made of the Raphael Nadal page. That wasn't inspired by coming here. I've come across the use of the color orange. That other stuff exists isn't a valid argument. There is no support that anyone was "inspired" by checking this project to change them and it's an exception to the wide rule, not the example. That's patent nonsense. That serious editors ask here is proven by MikeAllen coming here to ask about formatting and how to do so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am demanding nothing. Jack Merridew asked a specific question and I replied with a specific answer, that I support the use of the template, as he laid it out, which also included coding for color heading. Meanwhile, my comment also addressed that he stated authoritatively that "The light steel blue will not persist as the wishes of mere few do not constitute consensus" to a group of 5 editors elsewhere that the use of color is preferable, editors who made reference to the table being easier to read with the column names more specified with color and felt the color gave a better aesthetic to the entire page. I don't support the color they chose, which is true of another editor posting on that page. I've also answered the question of the usefulness repeatedly here. Most of what I saw of concern from Erik was the size of the font and whether the color used passed accessibility tables, which it did, Michael W. Schmidt was neutral about font size but opined his support for use of lists, not tables and did not comment on the color whatsoever, it seemed to me that Ms2ger was open to discussion on color, and that gives less opposition than it appears. And if one would care to, there are 5 others on Talk:Miley Cyrus who feel the same, although they were clearly discouraged by Jack Merridew's statements there. An IP said "I find the formatting with the coloured background headings to be much easier on the eye. I wish all tables in Misplaced Pages were done like that." User:DreadfullyDespised said "I think the color helps as well. I didn't mean to engage in a "war" over formatting a table, but I felt it's much easier to read with a colored header rather than one that blends in with the whole thing." User:Keraunoscopia said "The table had color in it for several months, and I thought it spruced the article up a bit, plus it made it easier to read. Just my opinion. The way the table stands now (no color at all) is probably the most hideous looking table I've ever seen." User:HJ Mitchell said "Personally, I'm inclined to leave it as it is for 2 reasons- first, it improves readability and is more aesthetically pleasing and, second, because WP tends to favour the status quo". and User:Liquidluck said "While I believe the current table is better (An actor's filmography table should have extra emphasis, color is more aesthetically pleasing), it is true that the heading color should be blue rather than purple, so I've changed that." These are all points that have been raised here and summarily dismissed as beside the point, though as far as I'm concerned, they are entirely valid. Others here commented that the table clean up was working and that they looked good. How does the general reader know that the colored infoboxes have any distinction, either, but they do. I can't see that any of the editors opposing the tables here have ever put work into them, while editors supporting it most certainly have put hundreds of hours into them. And thanks for the t-shirt suggestion, we'll get right on that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment