Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) at 21:22, 9 March 2010 (→hard-coded markup: -nits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:22, 9 March 2010 by Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) (→hard-coded markup: -nits)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

Shortcuts

Archives

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

Thanks again to anyone who feels compelled to jump in!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Article alerts and cleanup listing...

...are now available for this project!

Hopefully people will find these of use. Regards. PC78 (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC) (Please keep for the time being. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a question

Does anyone else happen to find the sudden flux of additions to articles of a navbox for MTV Movie Awards at all annoying? Don't we have enough meritorious awards to contend with to have to check/render opinion on awards that are open to multiple voting and excessive fan bias? This might just be my own personal rant, but we don't particularly need a navbox for every single award, regardless of its stature or commonality. I've been fine with these boxes for major awards, but I'm concerned, perturbed, and yes, annoyed, at the proliferation of them. Even tucked away in a nice {{Template group}} covering, this is becoming the new generation of undue weight given to a passing editor's award of choice. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Such navigation templates should be removed because such details do not belong in actors' articles. The focus is on the actor, so who else won the award is not relevant in that actor's article. The better approach is to ensure that there is a direct link to the award article, and in the case of Johnny Depp, MTV Movie Award for Best Performance. That way, readers can go to the article where such details are warranted. (In any case, MTV Movie Awards is useless -- look what won the MTV Movie Award for Best Movie in 2009.) Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree—MTV Movie Awards should be treated like the Razzie Awards, IMO. --Mike Allen 20:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Couple of question...

Looking at the consensus above not to have navboxes padded, I'm curious of your thoughts on

Secession boxes for actors to have played a specific character; and
Navboxes like {{Superman actors}}

Thanks

- J Greb (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes were determined to be inappropriate by prior consensus (see front page for that and consensus page). I believe that the use of navboxes like the one you suggested are also redundant to article content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So... IIUC, succession boxes for roles is out, but succession boxes for directors as still good?

And the type of navbox I'm pointing to is a bit of a "sidestep" - since the "Actors portraying..." cats are no-gos, the 'box is a replacement for that. And it is, essentially, as "Cast & Crew" 'box.

Last thought... I'm making an assumption here that these cover all actors, not just those pertaining to film.

- J Greb (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevant AFD

Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Junko Sakurada. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments needed

An issue has arisen at Russell Crowe regarding addition of a large section of content on Firepower International which another editor and myself have gone on record as stating it is given undue weight, leans toward convicting Russell of complicity in a con activity and is inappropriately lengthy with no evidence against him save an appearance on The Tonight Show with a jersey. More opinions are needed on this possible WP:BLP violation. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the contentious section and commented on the talk page. I encourage others to review the situation because the other entities involved are contesting our good faith in the matter. Erik (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinions needed

Please see Talk:Nicole Kidman#Kidman's humanitarian status for a disagreement over referring to Kidman as a humanitarian. Eyes and comments are needed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Some TfDs that may be of interest here

They are:

Thanks

- J Greb (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Cast/Crew in navigation boxes

Since I have run into some friction on this issue, I came here for some clarification. I believe the consensus is for navigation boxes to not contain cast and crew members in Television and Film navigation boxes. Do I understand that correctly? BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 17:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 3#Actors padding TV and film navboxes. Erik (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read it but just to be clear, it is consensus not to include them? BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 18:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That's my impression, not just from that discussion, but from the general approach. I agree with the sentiment that names don't belong in navigation boxes. (This same issue was raised at WT:MOSFILM#Film navbox consensus, oh where did it go?. Erik (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you two on this. Flyer22 (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It does seem logical not to clutter the navboxes up with that unnecessary information. I just wanted to be sure and wanted a solid consensus before I went hacking away. :) --Mike Allen 00:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a relevant TfD going on here. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 11:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you hit a fan nerve lol. Will put my 2 cents in soon. --Mike Allen 18:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm missing the point, but personally I think that the navboxes should include at least principal cast and crew - I would not call this unnecessary information - It is quite a useful tool. However, I do agree that a multitude of navboxes should not be on each individual actor's page. Has a consensus been reached? Is there a central discussion? Rob Sinden (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The consensus for this action is born out of the consensus established in 2007 that categories like " actors", " writers" and " directors" should not exist per WP:OCAT. People then added cast and crew to these navboxes as a way of getting around the category rules. I can't disagree that having cast in the navboxes—but excluding the navboxes from the actors articles—is a good system for navigation BUT a) you then have to deal with well-meaning users who "helpfully" add the navboxes to the articles they have been deliberately left off of, and b) you get people adding as many names as they possibly can to the navboxes as a way of trying to legitimise its very existence, which just becomes irrelevant padding. Bradley0110 (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you add cast/crew members to every navbox, then actors pages will be filled with links that have little to do with the person. It doesn't make sense. We need to draw the line solidly, not just "its okay for the main characters"; that will lead to issues of POV, OR, and UNDUE. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 14:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Other than through people adding them, there is no reason to suppose that "actors pages will be filled with links that have little to do with the person", surely? As far as Navboxes go, it seems to me that (and I'm picking an example out of my head here) it would be strange for a The Matrix navbox not to include Keanu Reeves or The Wachowski Brothers, or a Star Trek navbox not to have William Shatner or Leanord Nimoy, but I'm not suggesting that these navboxes should be on the individual actor or crewmember page, as the links would be in the filmography. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I can't find a consensus anywhere on this - isn't it a case where common sense and discretion should prevail? i.e. if the navboxes get ridiculous and include complete cast lists then they should be pared down, but no need as a matter of course? Rob Sinden (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

An actor/crew member is not defined by the roles he plays. Also, navigation boxes belong on every page contained in the box, otherwise the usefulness of the navigation is lost. I couldn't find the consensus either, but I know it is; the idea has been used before for TfDs. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 15:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what is meant by your statement "An actor/crew member is not defined by the roles he plays" and how it is relevant to this discussion. You also mention that "navigation boxes belong on every page contained in the box, otherwise the usefulness of the navigation is lost", but surely more usefulness is lost if the information is removed completely from the navigation is lost. If you see what I mean. I'm not saying that navigation boxes should have exhaustive cast lists, but I can't see the harm in having (and this is the one that turned me on to this discussion in the first place) Wes Craven, Kevin Williamson, Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette in the Scream template. In fact the template is much worse (nearly useless) without them. In my opinion, these at least, should be on this template. You are also claiming "consensus", but as mentioned, there doesn't seem to be any, and no guidelines seem to exist. Perhaps some discretion should have been used when decimating these templates, or they should have been discussed on relevant pages individually. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. But the point of navigation boxes is to link similar articles together by placing the template on the those pages. If cast/crew are navigation boxes, every show that the person was in would have a navigation box on their page. That is overlinking and unnecessary. Also, we can't simply say important cast members are okay; what does it mean that a cast member is "important"? And what makes one person more important than another. This leads to POV and OR. As I understood it, this is the consensus; when I removed the cast, ie before Robsinden and Bradley, everyone agree: a consensus. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 16:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with removal of people from navboxes in general, and I'm not convinced there's anything like a consensus for it. I am certainly against cluttered navboxes, but to pick a show I don't watch so nobody calls me biased, it would be weird for the 30 Rock navbox not to have Tina Fey. The beauty of navboxes is that they provide an easy way to navigate through an unfamiliar topic and see the bigger picture. The guideline at WP:CLN states "They are particularly useful for small and more or less complete sets" which I would argue applies in the case of above-the-line people on a TV show/movie. I also agree with the essay WP:NAV when states "While the main article already contains inline links to the subsidiary articles, the subsidiary articles themselves are smaller and their prose may not place them into the overall context with each other. Editors who work on the subsidiary articles in isolation may be unaware of this context. The navigation template provides an easy way for the subsidiary articles, even when they begin as stubs, to instantly inherit the conceptual structure of the main article." I think this supports including the principal cast&crew. --Intractable (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Cast & crew are independent of the show, though. It not only gives unnecessary clutter to the navigation box, but also on the persons article. I've explained this five million times; allowing them on navboxes will involve a candy-cane striping on the bottom of every actor/crew member article and would connect them to potentially completely unrelated articles. Now for me, it makes sense to include the creator(s), like Tina Fey and 30 Rock, as they have a strong connection with all subsequent articles; they created them. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 22:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I see maybe five people in the discussion linked to as "consensus" and I don't think that is enough for such a blanket change. If you are going to address all of these series, you really need to post links on the talk pages of those templates to notify interested editors about the discussion. Personally, the cast and crew are the people who make a series possible and I think it's ridiculous to remove them from the navboxes. --Zoeydahling (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I left links on the Television and Film project talk pages, as that encompasses all of the templates. Also, please realize that if a cast/crew member weren't in a show, there would probably just be another to come along and play the part; the content of the work of fiction defines it, not who portrays/creates it. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 22:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSFICT says that we should describe works of fiction from a real-world POV and the people who create the work of fiction are a large part of that. I don't think it matters who else might hypothetically be playing a role if someone left, what matters is who is playing it now and is known to the audience as that character. Also, about your above comment about "candy cane striping" on pages, I really don't think that matters. If an individual was in a number of projects, why is it harmful to have links with more information about the projects and other members of the projects? I don't think an aesthetic reason is strong enough to negate the fundamental loss to the usefulness of templates by removing the people from them. --Zoeydahling (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The characters are linked in the navboxes, so if a reader wants to know who played that character it would take all but a second to click and find out (and read more). 9 times out of 10 the characters are only on that show (unless they do rare crossovers). Also the director and writers not only directs or writes the show at hand, but most likely OTHER shows; so why add them to that particular show, and then add them to the another show, and then another, etc? Speaking of Tina Fey, uh why does she have her own navbox? Seriously? --Mike Allen 23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the characters being linked in the navboxes, MikeAllen. For that reason, I am not seeing why their portrayers also have to be there. And the crew names? That information can often be found in the article; if people are too lazy to read, that is not our problem. I feel that Bovineboy has tackled this topic well enough. I do clearly see why both sides feel the way they do, though. Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

2-ish¢... (covers a couple of things here)

Inclusion criteria - To include actors, writers, creators, produces, production companies, gaffers, musicians, etc, some sort of criteria would be needed. the most neutral, and what has been the default to this point, is anyone in the show/film credits that has a Misplaced Pages article. That does generate long lists, very long ones when you start looking at long running shows or shows with large ensemble casts. And keeping in mind "They are particularly useful for small and more or less complete sets" (from CLN), long lists seem counter to the guidance. "Major" and "Main" are loaded words since it requires a judgement call as to the value of a person's contribution to the show or film.
"Candy caning" - As an example of what could happen to an actor's article see Stan Lee or Jack Kirby. And those are related to a project with an extremely limited inclusion for "real people". Also, the "hide the foot long collection of navboxes" just covers one issue, the mass is still hard to work through for items. An with relation to the WG such a "hide it" would also include "Works by" and awards 'boxes.
Proliferation - Two parts actually. A side from the inclusion criteria, there is also the issue of "If there is an infobox for one, there can be one for any". Most show or film 'boxes get removed because there is to few items for them - main article + episode list + character list = no 'box. Once those can add cast & crew, they become valid even if the bios barely touch the topic, if at all.
And with {{Tina Fey}}... that just moves the issue to the other articles. (shuddering at what SNL and Second City would look like...)

- J Greb (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Having seen a bunch of these come through the Templates for Discussion (formerly "Templates for Deletion") process, my take is this: The big problem with cast and crew in film/tv navboxes is the potential for clutter on articles. This has been discussed multiple times in multiple places. If you put actor/crew templates at the bottom of movie/show articles, then articles about many productions would be loaded with cast/crew templates. Examples where there are double-digit numbers of notable cast/crew can be provided easily. On the flip side, if navboxes for movies/shows are placed on cast/crew articles, then articles on prolific artists would be drowned in navboxes. Look at the filmography for Betty White, just for one example. So it is clear that any such placement can only be one-way. If there is a movie/show template that includes actors, it should not be placed on the articles for those actors.

Personally, I have no problem if the actors are listed in the navbox, with the understanding that they "don't count" in terms of the box's use for two-way navigation. There are quite a few other cases where links are included in a navigation box for articles that don't include that template, so there is precedent for it. However, in many cases the result is that a navbox that might look robust doesn't actually have enough "two-way" links to be useful. For example, if the navbox for a tv show contains links to the main article, an episodes list article and a bunch of cast articles, then there might be a dozen links in the box, but only two of them provide two-way navigation. So when that template comes to TFD, I'm going to !vote to delete it on the grounds that it only usefully links two articles. --RL0919 (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the actors, directors, etc should be included in the film navbox or any other media box. They are not specific to the work, and are already well linked. Navigation boxes should be primarily about the media work itself. Most films don't even need navigation boxes. Characters are linked because they are specific to the work, and the articles are primarily about the work. Same with episode lists, chapter lists (for other media works), and sequels. Even the based on works. However cast/crew are very peripheral and unnecessary in the boxes. For the very first question, yes, consensus has been that they don't belong. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Actors are defined by the roles they play in the sense that those roles are what they are notable for, and without them, an article on Misplaced Pages would not be merited. Additionally, not every series has character pages, so sometimes it is more work than "just one extra click." Besides, having links to character pages doesn't take away from the actor's major contribution to the series. --Zoeydahling (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. Actors are not defined solely by the roles they play, a lot of them are known for several other things, not even related to the cinema or the small screen. And every film/series article should have the main actors names on it already, so I don't see your second point. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 02:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a reality that many actors are associated with other actors and shows, if not "defined" by their role. Re, the "Bewitched" navbox, if someone is on Dick York 's page, is likely they will want to navigate to Bewitched, Elizabeth Montgomery, or Dick Sargent. Similarly, if someone is on the page for a lesser known actor from that show, let's say Casey Rogers, it is highly unlikely they will NOT want to link to those other actors, and having to go to the show page first defeats the whole reason for nav boxes. Assuming the section in the navbox is kept to relevant people, I really don't see the problem. In any case, I really don't see consensus here. Njsustain (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely they associate, but it isn't strong enough to warrant being connected at the hip to every other actor that appeared in the sereis/film in navbox. And are you saying that Montgomery's 40 other roles shown in her filmography aren't as important, and that every reader is going to want to see every actor in all of those other series/films? No, I don't think so. Actors rarely work exclusively with a select cast, which is the only strong connection I can think that would warrant a navbox, for example see {{Monty Python}}. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 14:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

99.9% of the interest in Montgomery is associated with Bewitched, and yes, I am saying that the other Bewitched actors should indeed be joined to her at the hip. Yes, I do think so! These actors do warrant being associated with each other. Agnes Moorehead said she didn't want to be remembered as the witch, but she is. Njsustain (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see you giving any good reason for them being connected other than you remembering them for one role. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 15:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And I fail to see you being able to accept that other people have a different opinon than you. I do not see logical reasons behind your point of view and certainly do not see any attempt at building a consensus.Njsustain (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This kind of disagreement makes it too subjective to claim that a person is famous for so-and-so role in film or TV. This is why there is a consensus against actor templates -- actors play roles ranging from minor to major, and it would take reliable sourcing to straighten out the most prominent role. Templates don't have room for that. A media-related template is a roof that tops a house of related elements, like films in a series and a list of characters. Such elements perpetually remain under this roof, where cast and crew are not tethered to being under this roof. Use the articles themselves to outline persons' roles; a navigation template permits straightforward navigation within a specific boundary. There are enough links to cast and crew and other elements such as locations and themes and other topics dispersed throughout the article that templates do not need to be over-populated with such elements. Erik (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I see the potential for undue emphasis creeping in. Using Agnes Moorehead as the example from the comment above, she may be best known to some people for her work in Bewitched (and her disdain for that is irrelevant) but considering that Misplaced Pages is supposed to be written comprehensively for all readers, focussing on Bewitched diminishes the significance of her 40+ year career, her multiple Academy Award nominations, and her extensive work in theatre, film and radio. Endora may be a notable role for Moorehead, but she was involved in several notable productions where her own participation was less notable. If a nav box was created for each of these notable productions, Moorehead would be included in each one, and presumably each nav box would be added to her article. So, regardless of whether she was listed first in the credits or 25th in the credits, each nav box would be presented in her article with equal emphasis. The determination of what is notable enough for a nav box is so subjective that any popular film or television series could inspire someone to create a nav box for it. If someone wants to know who else was in Bewitched or to link to the articles for the other actors, it can be done via the Bewitched article. It's not crucial that a nav box be provided to serve the purpose. Rossrs (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

People keep claiming consensus has been reached despite this very long discussion. Can someone please point out exactly where there is evidence for the alleged consensus? People are making some rather aggressive changes and using this as an excuse. To me it is clear there is no consensus, so than shouldn't be used as an excuse for slash and burn and self-admitted "trigger happy" changes.Njsustain (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Actors and crew should stay out of nav boxes. It's obvious that Joss Whedon is important when you talk about Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but given that his name appears on every Buffy related page there isn't a need to include him in the nav box. In addition, when an actor's only connection to another actor is one show, that's not that significant at all...not even if the show itself was a hit. If someone is on that actor's page, they're more than likely going to want to go to the show or film page before going over to another actor's page from the nav box. As such, they'd already be included on the main page anyway. In addition, if you did this for one show/film, you'd have to do it for all of them that these actors/crews appear on. Given that, you'd begin to clutter up actor and crew pages with dozens of nav boxes that do nothing but attribute insignificant connections to other people based solely on one topic. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the Joss Whedon example. The whole point of navboxes is to give a high-level picture of a subject. Is Joss not a central part of the real-world big picture of Buffy? His name won't necessarily be on all pages, for instance it's not on Buffy the Vampire Slayer filming locations except for its appearance in the navbox. -- Intractable (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be there, given that the lead of every Buffy related page should at least acknolwedge that the article topic is a secondary topic to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), which was created by Joss Whedon. So, the fact that it's not there is irrelevant to the fact that it should be there. Regardless, you still create a clutter for actor and crew pages. You cannot pick and choose favorites. If you do it for one, you have to do it for all and that would just create utter chaos on article pages where people have a dozen or more nav boxes because they're being listed simply because they worked on the project. The purpose of the nav box should be to link similar topics that are all part of a single foundation. An actor is, typically, not defined by one single entry of work but by the entire body of work. If an actor appears in some show or film and that's their only credit worth mentioning then maybe their page should be revisited by the WP:BLP to see if they actually warrant having one. If not, then you'd have to include them in any nav box for any film or TV show - which brings us back to the fact that it would create unnecessary clutter and bulk at the bottom of every page simply because someone felt the need to point out that Actor Y worked with Actor X on Show/Film B. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Karen Dotrice FAR

I have nominated Karen Dotrice for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 15:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments

There is a current request for comments at Talk:Jennifer Garner#Fashion/Style Section regarding content in the article. Comments are sought and welcome. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

New Member

I'm new to the project, and just thought I would introduce myself. Sean (talk || contribs) 14:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. Get stuck in! Bradley0110 (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

GAR Notification: Stephen Colbert

Letting everyone know that a good article under the scope of this project, Stephen Colbert, is underoing an individual good article reassessment. You can see my concerns at Talk:Stephen Colbert/GA1. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 15:03, 31 December 2009 (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:

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

"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.
Misplaced Pages is not censored, so the use of the term "mother fucker" is not in itself prohibited.
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[REDACTED] 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:

supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
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. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 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. Cra sh 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

90%
Year	Film	Role	Notes
1998	Dil Se	Preeti Nair	Filmfare Best Debut Award. Screened at the ERA New Horizons Film Festival & the Helsinki International Film Festival

95%
Year	Film	Role	Notes
1998	Dil Se	Preeti Nair	Filmfare Best Debut Award. Screened at the ERA New Horizons Film Festival & the Helsinki International Film Festival

100%; bog-standard-wikitable
Year	Film	Role	Notes
1998	Dil Se	Preeti Nair	Filmfare Best Debut Award. Screened at the ERA New Horizons Film Festival & the Helsinki International Film Festival

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)

As covered in the archived discussion to which Jack Merridew linked, Misplaced Pages's standard table style should be used. A WikiProject doesn't own "its" articles and lacks the authority to override project-wide consensus. —David Levy 16:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Please note that User:Jack Merridew camvassed the above comment here as well as at several other talk pages in a manner that exceeds acceptable notification. Any comments from those solicited talk pages should be viewed in that manner. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Not. I believe I notified all the significant participants in that prior discussion. You, of course, were already aware of this thread. I've also sought wider input via the RFC process. Regards, Jack Merridew 18:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely appropriate to notify participants in related discussions, provided that this is done without regard for their positions. Do you have any evidence that Jack specifically targeted editors with whom he agreed?
And what effort did you make to notify users not affiliated with this WikiProject? —David Levy 18:17/18:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll have to re-read that discussion, but my recollection is that there was unanimity in opposition to the effort to set the colour and font-size as a site-wide standard for filmographies. This could create the appearance that I notified only those opposed to the notion simply because there were no supporters to notify. I'm all for full participation by a wide group of editors. Note also, that the prior local consensus does not establish a site-wide consensus, it merely establishes what a small clique believes. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What I have is the content of the posts he made, which go far beyond a normal notification of "here is a discussion that may interest you" to "here is discussion on which I see you've commented before. I think it's time to do something and here's what I think. Hope to see you there." He laid out his own position on the topic, stating "I think the appropriate outcome is ..." which violates WP:CANVAS which says "it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages" and that he states he selected the notified editors because of their posts to that discussion. I'd also note, per his own comments on my editing, that going about and changing articles while it is under discussion here is also inappropriate, including adding a currently unused template to one article and stripping the coding under discussion from another, to the point of edit warring over it. This is completely unacceptable conduct, both in regard to disregarding this discussion and inappropriately canvassing. As for me, check my contributions. I posted notes to no one about this, nor did I post an outline of my agenda to other editors on Wikipeda. As for who he picked to notify in this way, what matters is what he did. And that discussion was not "site-wide" consensus either. Factually, there was no call for consensus. You make reference to the "site-wide" consensus on wikitables, which this heading uses, but I have asked in the past and have yet to be given a link to the page where this consensus was garnered. Finally, I again object to your minimization of the project to "a club" in a dismissive tone such as you have. It is a project, show a little respect and please stop dismissing it as nothing. You were requested to do so, and steadfastly refusing to stop calling it a "club" is inordinately incivil. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
1. You've quoted (out of context) the section on "campaigning," which is described as "an attempt to sway the person reading the message." By your own admission, the users in question already have expressed such sentiments, so how do these posts constitute "an attempt to sway" them?
2. Yes, he notified participants in a related discussion. Again, do you have any evidence that he excluded editors with whom he disagreed? If there simply weren't any participants with whom he disagreed, what does that say about your position?
3. Wasn't it you who went around changing articles (unilaterally declaring that a template would no longer be used and replacing it with hard-coded tables to force the use of your preferred style) while the matter was under discussion last year?
4.Indeed, you "posted notes to no one about this." Instead, you merely initiated this thread, thereby specifically notifying members of the WikiProject (the users most likely to agree with you), despite your knowledge that other editors (whom you made no effort to notify) had expressed dissenting views and explicitly criticised attempts to exclude input from outside the WikiProject. And then you actually complained when these users were notified and implied that their feedback should be discounted.
5. What do you mean when you state that "factually, there was no call for consensus"? —David Levy 19:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, posting his position on the topic and elaborating on it the way he did does by definition equal attempts to sway. That's part and parcel of improper canvassing. That he cherrypicked editors to notify with his biased post is another. I'm not saying that you did anything wrong by replying here, but I am saying that Jack Merridew posting the same basic message to numerous editors did violate WP:CANVAS. It's patently absurd to compare posting a discussion on this talk page, where the first consensus was made, to what Merridew did, as inappropriate cansvassing, especially after being pushed to garner new consensus by Merridew. Where the heck else would one do that? Patently absurd. A huge stretch by any term. There was no call for consensus on that page. That a template developed didn't work on a large number of articles led to not using it. You forget, I'm not the only member here and by far am not the only one who makes filmography tables, so please stop trying to make this all about me and no one else. And yet again, I have been given no link to a formal discussion where it was determined on a "site-wide" basis" that anything was determined about tables. That someone wrote it up doesn't make it a "site-wide" consensus. That various persons say it after the fact does not show anyone the consensus discussion to which is referred. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
1. How can one "sway" someone to a viewpoint that he/she already holds?
2. Again, please cite evidence that Jack "cherrypicked" users to notify. Which editors did he exclude?
3. "The first consensus," as you describe it, was challenged on the basis that a WikiProject lacks the authority to make such a decision on its own. You were well aware of this, and you nonetheless sought to validate said "consensus" via a message targeting only members of the WikiProject (and ignoring the numerous other editors who have expressed opinions). You could have notified all previous discussion participants and/or added an RfC tag (as Jack did), and you chose not to.
4. Again, what do you mean when you state that "there was no call for consensus on that page"?
5. You unilaterally determined that the template "didn't work" because other users edited it in a manner not to your liking. You then went from article to article, replacing it with hard code to restore your preferred table styling (despite complaints that this reduced accessibility). You did this while both the template's use and the table styling were under discussion (with most editors disagreeing with you).
6. Do you dispute that Misplaced Pages has a standard class for the tables in question? Do you dispute that the previous discussion (which you decided to not even mention when initiating this thread, let alone notify its participants) demonstrated strong support for such a setup and opposition to arbitrary deviation? —David Levy 21:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, I didn't remember that discussion, so each time you try and shove it down my throat, you're bringing something up I didn't even remember. Like I said, posting a request at this page is not improper canvassing, but searching for and notifying only specific editors on that page and posting what he did does constitute improper canvassing. No matter how many times you try and talk around it, the message he left was formulated to tell what he wanted and posted it to persons whom he believed, based on content from that page where he garnered his list to post was in fact cherry picking his postings. He only posted to people involved in that discussion. <shrug> Justify it all you want, it was inappropriate canvassing. There is no viable way to compare that to posting a question on the project talk page. You cannot legitimately compare one to the other. I posted no notices on Misplaced Pages to specific editors, I posted where Jack Merridew wanted new consensus. I have asked at least three times now on this page for a link to the consensus that is being touted as "site-wide" consensus, and if that isn't forthcoming, I'd suggest that stating there is one is unfounded. That a group got together and set what they thought should be the standard is no different than this group doing the same thing. <shrug> Please stop making this all about what you think I know or don't know or did. I had what equates to a minor stroke before my eye surgery, you have no clue what I remember from months ago, but that discussion was part of it. I recall the template, that wasn't workable on many filmographies because the columns were not "settable" and were fixed, coming from that. The rest becomes tl;dr when the link was posted. But yeah, persons with vision difficulties who can't see 90% already do set their font larger by default in their computers. As for the time frame of that discussion vs. the genesis of that template, it was created and existed as styled after the filmography being used. Meanwhile that discussion halted at first on April 19. David Gothberg, who made the template, did so and stated it could certainly meet what this project wanted without an issue with wikitables. It did not again become an issue until someone went in and changed it in May. It was not an ongoing discussion. The discussion stopped and did not start again until May 27, so saying I did anything to that template during a discussion is incorrect. But for now, I'm off to an Academy Awards party. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I'm sorry to learn that you suffered a stroke, and I sincerely hope that your condition has improved.

My recollection of the discussion was incomplete, so I read it today. I hope that you've acted in kind. I don't seek to "shove it down throat," but it should not be ignored.

2. I don't assert that posting a request at this page constituted improper canvassing. I'm saying that you should have also made a reasonable effort to invite participation from users not affiliated with the WikiProject.

I accept your explanation that you forgot about the previous controversy, and I'm merely disputing your accusation that Jack engaged in wrongdoing by filling in the gap.

You claim above that Jack notified "only specific editors on that page." Again, which ones did he exclude? What editors expressing opinions contrary to his did he fail to notify? You note that "he only posted to people involved in that discussion," but you aren't explaining who else he should have informed.

And again, how can one "sway" someone to a viewpoint that he/she already holds?

3. You note that you "posted no notices on Misplaced Pages to specific editors." I understand that you're referring to users' talk pages, but you must realize that a post to this talk page is directed toward (and likely to be received by) members of the WikiProject. As noted above, I accept your explanation that you did not recall the previous discussion (and therefore did not realize that this would be controversial), but you cannot claim that you weren't aware of your post's narrow target.

But again, I'm not accusing you of misconduct. I'm merely pointing out a problem and explaining how Jack's messages and RfC tag helped to rectify it.

4. Your continual request for "a link to the consensus" illustrates your misunderstanding of what "consensus" is. You evidently believe that consensus is the outcome of a specific discussion or vote. While such things certainly can come into play, consensus also can be established when the community simply does something a certain way.

You state above that "a group together and what they should be the standard is no different than this group doing the same thing," which again fails to recognize the distinction between Misplaced Pages and a WikiProject. In no way am I disparaging the latter (which does important work), but it lacks the authority to arbitrarily override the former's conventions.

In the discussion that you didn't remember, you repeatedly referred to articles as parts of your WikiProject. I don't know whether you retain that notion, which simply isn't correct.

5. I don't understand your claim regarding the template. While the discussion was underway, you responded to template edits that you opposed by unilaterally declaring that the template would not be used and requesting its deletion. You then replaced it in articles with hard code (thereby switching the tables back to your preferred style), without even supplying a class enabling custom tweaks (including those intended to increase accessibility) . All of this occurred on 28 May and is covered in the discussion that you didn't remember (but hopefully have read).

6. I hope that you enjoy the Academy Awards party. (I mean that sincerely.) —David Levy 00:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

1. The ones he did not notify he went back to notify after it was brought up. There were three whom he failed to notify. To me, that was selective - to the ones who had the most to say. I came to this page to request "new" consensus as Jack Merridew demanded. It never occurred to me to go around hunting down other editors. Had I done that, then yes, someone could say I was canvassing. I consider making a pointed post to invite individual editors to comment, when that post outlines the poster's specific point, is inappropriate per WP:CANVAS.

2. This project is also followed by various members of WP:FILM. It does not occur to me that other editors would be interested in events involving this project. At what point does one decide that enough people have been notified? That one editor involved approached individual editors specifically seems to push the bounds of canvassing. That is an issue to me, one that I was intent on not violating. Should I trot over to Rossrs's talk page and invite him in the same way? No, I doubt it.

3. When someone says "this is by site-wide consensus", then there should be a specific discussion to cite. If not, then something has occurred naturally, such as the way that filmographies evolved here. It was done that way from the start, the only thing that changed was the color used and the move from the prettytables format to wikitable. That was done because the lack of use of wikitable was made an issue. The conventions to which you refer were not an issue prior to last summer and the project was using (unknowingly) a format that was not wikitable. I'm not understanding your statement about articles under this project. The only article I notice I mentioned in specific is the use-of-color nightmare that is Rafael Nadal career statistics.

4. I'd note how many times that Jack Merridew has disparaged this project by calling a "club" and dismissing that it does anything important. That's a serious comment. As for replacing the template with the filmography table we were then using, it was not until after that time that someone gave me the wikitable style. That was done using the same style that was widely used on myriad articles in the interest of consistency. Please stop representing it as being anything but that. If 5000 articles use one style and someone has gone in and stuck a style that isn't consistent to what - 20 articles? - that effects consistency, which is a goal of most projects.

6. I was pleased with who and what won, I hated the broadcast but enjoyed the company. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I'm very sorry to learn of your continued medical problems, and I wish you the best of luck in treating them.

2. I assume that Jack made a sincere effort to contact all editors and honestly overlooked three minor contributors to the discussion.

However, having given the matter some thought, I must concede that neutral wording would have been more appropriate (though I assure you that Jack's message in no way influenced my opinion).

3. As established in the discussion that you didn't remember, this is not merely an " involving this project." It concerns the whole of Misplaced Pages. An RfC tag (along with notifications for all users previously expressing opinions on this matter) would have been appropriate, but I accept your explanation that your memory loss prevented you from realizing this.

4. Again, "consensus" ≠ "discussion outcome." I don't know whether there was a specific discussion. I just know that a standard table format exists and is accepted site-wide, and the only justification for using a different style for filmographies that I've encountered is the opinion that the standard style is "plain and bland."

In the previous discussion, you repeatedly referred to articles as parts of the "project" (referring to this WikiProject) and opined that "any WikiProject should be able to determine style in the articles under its scope."

5a. Well, speaking only for myself, I certainly don't seek to belittle the contributions of this or any other WikiProject.

5b. I was responding to your statement that "going about and changing articles while it is under discussion here is also inappropriate."

5c. Indeed, most projects seek consistency. This includes the English Misplaced Pages project, whose consistency is reduced via the arbitrary use of a nonstandard table style in one category of article.

6. I'm glad that you had an enjoyable evening. —David Levy 09:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? Methinks you should have a fresh read of it, to refresh your memory. It's quite comprehensive. Also, I've gone through it, again, and noticed a few other participants that only had a post or two and have posted a note to their talk page, too. As said, I welcome a wider audience.

A simple question:

Why do you think that, of all the myriad tables used in wiki-articles, Filmographies should stand out with a custom color heading?

Enjoy your party. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 00:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care about the format of filmography tables. Either of the two proposed versions would be fine and most readers won't care. Came to comment on canvassing though. Firstly, see WP:CANVAS#Votestacking: When you contact people who you know beforehand will tend to agree with you on a matter, that's improper canvassing (though if he really contacted everyone who participated in a particular previous discussion, that might change things, and I haven't checked to see if this was the case. nevertheless...). Even if you do know this beforehand, and you word your message to them in a way that elevates your own side of the argument over the other, that does not contradict the votestacking characterization. Rather, it's then doubly improper. Yes, you can still attempt to sway someone who you already thought would side with you, because which side they take is never a 100% sure thing beforehand. When a political party contacts its own members for support, it still presents them with reasons their side merits support. That's part of how canvassing works. On Misplaced Pages, messages advertising discussions need to merely be advertisements informing of the topic and location. This does not qualify as proper notification, whether the list of users contacted was cherrypicked or not (though again, if so, it would be doubly as bad). Jack needs to read through the policy and be careful about this next time. I'd even invite him to edit his messages on those users' talk pages to fix the problem, as a sign of good faith. Equazcion 07:17, 8 Mar 2010 (UTC)

He did not contact all of the persons in that discussion until later on, when he went back to post the same biased post to the 3 or so he initially omitted. He posted the same, or very similar posts to all individual editor talk pages where he posted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you see my question above?

Why do you think that, of all the myriad tables used in wiki-articles, Filmographies should stand out with a custom color heading?

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

Whew. Having looked at this and at the previous discussions, I'm not seeing any compelling reason to make filmography a special case (or even class). There's certainly no valid aesthetic reason for tweaking wikitable colours for the film or actor projects. I don't really see that the font-size needs to be changed either.
The important thing here is usability; for the editors, but–most importantly–for the readers. This overrides any subjective choice of which colour might best suit Miley or Johnny or Nandamuri's filmographies.
Michael Q Schmidt makes a valid point about the use of text rather than tables, perhaps it would be best to simplify. pablo_hablo. 20:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Support. If 90% is "too small" for users with vision problems, I'm sure they already have their browser font size increased. That's a non issue. It doesn't matter if we use blue, grey, pink, green, red... but if it is determine that we use the grey style, do you know how many articles we would have to change? Jesus. I can't believe people are still pushing this. Is this really a bigu problem? —Mike Allen 22:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, yes, it's a big problem. There is a considerable consensus in the field of user interface design that reducing font-size is an inappropriate action. See Erik's ref to w3.org, for example. Putting the burden on users is a profoundly unethical stance. It's much the same with color. The plain-gray is used because it maximizes accessibility and works well with all the site-skins. As to cleaning up the articles... it's a wiki, things change. I'll certainly work on it; I may even fire up a bot or two. I would hope a few of the locals would help; they did, after all, create the problem. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  - If it is indeed a "big problem" why has it gone unnoticed for so long? Yes, I'm well aware that things change—daily it seems. If it is determined to use the washed out skin, then of course I'll help update the existing tables, just as I was helping with adding the current table style. Yes I liked the blue color, it gave some color around here. However, this isn't about personal taste, it's about web standards. I hope a bot or two will come along and help. That would be nice. LOL. On second thought, we may need more than a couple of bots and what this project has to offer. There's a lot of articles with this format. —Mike Allen 00:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose because smaller text size affects accessibility. I would rather support 100% and nothing less; text resize, especially below 100%, should not be used as an aesthetic tool. Tables are major parts of articles, and they should be readable. W3C advisory techniques on text resize encourage "Providing large fonts by default" and "Avoiding scaling font sizes smaller than the user-agent default". Erik (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Again? I didn't provide a solid opinion in the last discussion, but I'm going to be quite clear this time: unless there is a valid semantic reason for differing styles, tables should not use nonstandard styling, even if that custom styling is standard across a clearly-defined group of tables. There is no such reason obvious for filmography tables, and no one has presented one yet in any discussion on the matter I have read, to the best of my knowledge (but if you can prove me wrong, please do!). Furthermore, Jack makes a good argument for forgoing tables altogether in favor of lists for filmographies. In summary, a solid oppose. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Again? My opinion remains that—if the consensus it to use a table—the standard wikitable class should be used. If you think the blue looks better—I can see the argument for that—why not improve it for every article, rather than just for your own articles? Discussion would be welcome at MediaWiki Talk:Common.css. (Not watching this page; if you want me to comment here, please ask me on my talk page.) —Ms2ger (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a project goal of actually adding such a table to all articles under this group. I can't give you a specific number of articles where this has already occurred, but the section at the head of this page here speaks to that effort. That filmography tables have been created for the preponderance of articles is the rule rather than the exception. It is an active project effort. The table we have set up does use the basic wikitable class as its basis. This project covers over 32,000 articles at last count of actor, etc., articles with the project banner in place, so despite someone dismissing it as a drop in the bucket to the entire encyclopedia, it is still a large block of articles. The table heading colors serve to identify the table as an actor, etc. specific article, much the same as the infobox heading colors specifies to what project that article belongs. This doesn't just effect a few articles that project members "own", to use your wording. Members work on new and untabled articles all the time, thus the questions that are posted about it. I was glad to see the comment that projects should strive for consistency and some projects develop guidelines for that, such as when this project decided to remove awards from the infobox because it overwhelmed the rest of the page when open and the extensiveness of many articles. We listed those decisions on the main page, however that is being arbitrarily overridden in some cases . How can a style guideline be conceived under such circumstances. No one said that this could not be covered in the article, but the overwhelming decision was that the Golden Raspberry awards were not critics or industry standard awards of the status and weight as the others, especially given that anyone can pay a small fee and vote, and there was no standard of controlling bias and margin of error or in fact, it isn't even established that this award has a vetted system of voting. Before we implemented using the blue color, it was checked with the tools listed at WP:ACCESS to ensure it did not effect visibility for color blind/impaired persons. The 90% was chosen because it allowed better fit of the awards a given person won or was nominated for. In addition, aesthetics was mentioned frequently regarding these colors and sizes. As to font size, as Mike Allen pointed out, if a mere 10% reduction is an issue for a reader, chances are highly likely that the person has already increased text size on their browsers, such as I have done. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:11, March 8, 2010

I'm glad to know that the blue color was checked to make sure it did not affect visibility. However, what does "allowed better fit" mean? Vertically or horizontally? A featured filmography is Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography, which uses 90% font size in the tables. I modified it briefly for this diff, and the presentation of tables seem perfectly adequate without shrinking the text. In addition, visually challenged readers making browser adjustments is not a good reason for editors to shirk responsibility in ensuring accessibility. Reducing text size below 100% is certainly not helping them with accessibility. What does "better fit" in a table mean? Erik (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Better fit was horizontally, which is a factor on some articles, not ones entirely dedicated to a filmography like the Schwarzennegger, but on filmographies on full biographies, although I do note that the size difference does force the 4th column to use a line break to the text on my browser, wiht the text taken down to "normal" size. That is the break the size difference is trying to avoid. And we are talking about a 5% or 10% reduction, it isn't the nearly the same as using the <small> would yield. And the color check was used for all choices on both check pages. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What are some examples of filmographies on full biographies where the font size of tables make a difference? This is what appears to me at 1024x768. The line breaks do not make the rows and individual cells any less readable. If visually challenged readers enlarge text in their browsers, then would they not deal with line breaks anyway? It just seems to me that the tradeoff is minimal. If we don't want the title column to have line breaks, then we can "lock" that column and have line breaks in other columns. Browser settings will vary with all readers and editors, who will see the tables in different forms. If 90% is not a big difference from 100%, then 100% seems an adequate and consistent default. Erik (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Offhand, Drew Barrymore comes to mind, which looks hugely different to me. I'd have to look for others, but I am running out of time to look tonight. I'd also note that while I was chastized above for going about making changes while the issue was being discussed before, that is also being done today by Jack Merridew, and the edit summaries do not reflect the changes being made, but only says "Filling in 2 references using Reflinks". Why was it wrong for me to do so last summer, and it is okay for him to do so while this discussion is ongoing? And how, Erik, did you get that screen capture to look so clean? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to get going myself, but looking at Drew Barrymore quickly, I did not see a major difference when I changed to 1024x728 and looked at the sized-100% diff. (I did remove the image to keep it basic.) How do the Barrymore tables look different to you? Feel free to get back to me tomorrow! :) Good night. (After edit conflict; the key is to have a preexisting JPEG file and paste into that. Saving from new makes it look ugly.) Erik (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. I've been up far, far too many hours and it has gone into sleep debt. Good night, Erik. Dream well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. Most of the filmographies these days are looking pretty good so I don't gve them a second thought. If I had to say though I'd have thought the table would look best covering most of the width of the page... I honestly don't really don't whether it is 90% or 95%. As long as they look something like Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography I don't care.. ‡ Himalayan ‡ 12:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What if they look like this (100%)? Is it a game-changer? :) Erik (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Some points:

Going to a bulleted format is a major step backwards and removes the organization of a LOT of information in a LOT of articles. The tables allow us to organize appearances, both major and minor, film roles and in many cases gives us an organized way to present nominations and awards or miscellaneous bits of information regarding the films or the role. I'm firmly against taking that back step.
As Himalayan Explorer mentioned, the ones that are done (the majority of major actors, etc.) are looking pretty good. To a certain degree, how those tables are arranged is flexible, regarding presenting "film" or "television" roles and other jobs such as director or producer. Quite a number of actors fill many roles and that is adequately presented. In probably over 99% of them, they do cover the width of the page, I can't remember who put the Drew Barrymore image next to her filmography, but to a certain degree, it's nice - that very lovely photo is looking at her body of work, so I've never considered moving it.'
While I think the 90% font is working, I can see that perhaps that will change out of this discussion, but fitting text onto those lines tends to fill them up and crowd the information in some cases.
On the other hand, the color of the heading meets accessibility, (which seemed to be a concern) regarding the color used and it does signify that this table is for a person who works in film and television in some capacity, and as I said, there are other projects who use color in some way to designate it is part of a given project. As someone else pointed out, we are given the tools to use color designations and outside of the argument that the wikitable basic doesn't include tables, I've seen no argument that convinces me that it cannot be used, especially given that it has been used in these tables since mid-2007. It is established, prior to my involvement in this project, so blaming me doesn't fly.
Using a template for the heading removes any flexibility in making the tables. Some actors make films that have a distinct English title and titles in other languages (specifically coming to mind are Chinese or Japanese films), while some tables may contain box office gross or directors and other various bits of information. Templates remove that flexibility from the picture and presents presentation problems for those situations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

hard-coded markup

lean, semantic, markup

the markup

{| class="wikitable filmography"
|-
! Year !! Film !! Role !! Notes
|-
| 1998
| '']''
| Preeti Nair
| ]
|}

the css

table.wikitable.filmography
{
font-size: 95%;
}
table.wikitable.filmography th
{
background-color: #B0C4DE;
}

I'd like to clarify something. Much of my concern centers on the actual code. The current practice is to hard-code markup into each page; 32,000 of them, I hear. There are two common forms I'm seeing; the older form:

{| border="2" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin: 1em 1em 1em 0; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px #aaa solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 90%;"
|- bgcolor="#B0C4DE" align="center"
! Year
! Movie
! Role
! Other notes
|-

which is valid code, but messy, and does not include a class (wikitable) for invoking site-wide standards. The newer, second form is:

{|class="wikitable" style="font-size: 90%;" border="2" cellpadding="4" background: #f9f9f9;
|- align="center"
! style="background:#B0C4DE;" | Year
! style="background:#B0C4DE;" | Film
! style="background:#B0C4DE;" | Role
! style="background:#B0C4DE;" | Notes
|-

which is more messy, includes superfluous and outright invalid code (border="2" cellpadding="4" is simply not needed and background: #f9f9f9; is invalid because it is not in a style-attribute (and is superfluous as it's the color provided by "wikitable"), and align="center" is simply not needed as the following table-header-cells will be centered anyway by the site-wide css invoked by class="wikitable"). While it does invoke "wikitable", it is intent on overriding the site-standard by embedding all that hard-coded markup.

I do not support the reduction of the font-size, the recoloring of the table-header cells, or even tables at all (i.e. bulleted lists). For the purpose of discussion, let's assume I do. A proper way to achieve those goals would be to add an additional class to the tables; "filmography" in the example at right. This approach moves the specifics of the override of "wikitable" to a single, centralized spot. If this "filmography" class were in place on the 32,000 actor filmographies, we could make all sorts of tweaks to the look of them all by tweaking the single instance of the css; we could make all the heading cells 120% but leave the ordinary cells at 100%. CSS is rich, so there are many things possible.

The inclusion of such domain-specific tweaks in the site css will not happen; it's unwarranted and would amount to a camel's nose for hundreds of other domains to seek classes for themselves. If someone were to propose a much higher level abstraction for a class to tweak the standard "wikitable", that could get a lot of support, including mine. This would have to be something of much wider applicability.

So, my primary issue is with all the poor code extant in the 32,000 articles. The ones of the first form, above, need class="wikitable" added to them; that should be uncontroversial. They also need the hard-code pared back. The ones of the second form, need the gratuitous and invalid code removed. And whatever form all these land at should be such that any customizations are centralized. Site-wide css for this will be rejected, strongly, so that leave a template approach for customization, or a recognition that such domain-specific customization is unwarranted and that the recommended format this wikiproject espouses be the 100% bog-standard-wikitable (or a bulleted list, which is far more accessible, anyway).

The Filmographies seem to me an egregious example of a wider issue of inappropriate hard-coding of markup. I will be similarly critical of the practice if I encounter it elsewhere. Anytime something is being done in such a copypasta fashion, it need addressing so that the cementing of the code-base to one form stops. At this point, with thousands of copies of the markup about, it is surely a daily practice for random editors, in all good faith, to be replicating it further. They start some new bio by copying from some other article, and this adds another instance of the hard-coded-markup to the heap. About the same would occur when someone 'updates' a filmography per the proffered norm or per some other article.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, your choice of background color for your examples is poor - to my eyes, they blend together and required me to open the page and remove your choice of background color to no background color. I don't know if that background color issue shows up on the color accessibility pages, bu it should. Secondly, the examples used themselves disregard some issues. The first example was discarded because it was not wikitable heading, per issue with it, and was based on the deprecated "prettytable" style, and the second example was given to us after that was pointed out. Thirdly, no one is disputing your issues with "border="2" cellpadding="4" background: #f9f9f9;" and "|- align="center", so that is a superfluous point. I've already addressed the problems associated with using a template, which include the lack of flexibility in the heading for which the current heading allows. There would then be an issue with needing multiple templates, which effectively we don't need. There is also no support for the statement that "hundreds of other domains seek classes for themselves." That falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL. Has that happened in regard to anything yet? There is little support for taking the giant step backward to a bulleted list. That would disregard the inclusion of valid and important distinctions that are used in the filmography table, which I also addressed. I'd comment that the advent of a template for the heading created to address the customization was also overridden along with the usefulness regarding flexibility. Actually, my experience with new articles is that many of them come to the project page for help in developing the tables, but anything can happen, including persons making up their own table specifics. Having said all that, I do wish someone would address the colors used on the Raphael Nadal article I mentioned. That has been that way for a very long time. I tagged it as the overuse of color, but nothing happens. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The points about using a class (no project-specific tweakage) are valid; this is what css is for. pablo_hablo. 21:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Akira Kurosawa

Hello to the members of the project. As most of you no doubt know Mar 23rd is the 100th anniversary of Akira Kurosawa's birth. Turner Classic Movies is featuring his films on Mar 9, 16 and 23. This gives us the potential for increased test edits and or vandalism on his page. I don't know how many editors have his page on their watchlist but if a few of you could add it to yours it would be much appreciated. Now, my worries may be unfounded as I don't have any evidence that problems on the page will increase, but, forewarned is forearmed or some such cliche like that ;-). My thanks in advance for any of you that can help. MarnetteD | Talk 15:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the pages for his films. I don't expect anyone to add all 30 films to their watchlist but if you could check on a few of them it would also be a help. MarnetteD | Talk 15:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Erik has kindly made me aware of this link this which will make monitoring the pages for the films much easier. Thus, I am posting it here for any who wish to help. MarnetteD | Talk 16:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:

Misplaced Pages requests for comment