Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 10

Filmography tables

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

* - indicates there is no filmography at all

Academy Award for Best Actor to table

Academy Award for Best Actress to table

Ginger Rogers
Jane Wyman

Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor to table

Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress to table

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

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 6/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 6/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 35,715 as of May 1. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 1660 articles to be referenced. Other project lists can be found at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates and User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Signatures / Autographs

Following an interesting discussion at Talk:Lucille Ball, I'd be interested to hear what people think about the general appropriateness of signatures / autographs in Actor/Filmmaker bios. I suppose one could argue that it's trivial and unencyclopedic, on the other hand, it is common practice to add the signature of statesmen (and -women) to their articles, and writers too have a dedicated field for this in the infobox. Does their signatures have more encyclopedic relevance than an actor's or filmmaker's? decltype (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I am one of the main editors on the Lucille Ball page and was the editor that took it to WP:GA status. I feel that if an actor or actress has an autograph card or piece of memorabilia that has been added into a biographical article about them, it's relevance should be reflected into the article. Otherwise the article would not be an article, but a showplace for memorabilia. As in the case of a writer, I could see the signature being relevant because they are after all "a writer" and their signature is of importance. In the case of this deletion, it really had nothing to do with the article, nor the place the editor inserted it in. I felt that it was not relevant to the subject and immediately deleted it. I think allowing such inclusions would open a door for random and irrelevant materials to be added into WP:BLP's as well as the need for more vandalism patrolling. Canyouhearmenow 11:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I definitely see where you are coming from. I was thinking more in the vein of how it is used in statespeople's article, rather than the autograph card/memorabilia thing. Also, some filmmakers write too (screenwriters come to mind). But even for writers, I guess it could be argued that it shouldn't be included unless it is relevant to the text - though there are many examples of the converse. decltype (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the editor who included the note card was upset that I deleted it so quickly, however I just couldn't allow it to stay with no relevance. I did however tell him/her that by adding it to Wikipedia Commons it would help other editors that may have need for such items. People who might be doing an article on celebrity autographs or the like. So they really should not feel targeted. I hope I handled it in a way that was helpful to them. Canyouhearmenow 12:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
As an editor with occasional casual participation at the Ball article (and, for the record, who owns no Ball memorabilia and has never added autographs or such, so has no dog in the fight), I'd like to say that I see both JGKlein and Canyouhearmenow's perspectives. On the one hand, simply having some personal contact or possession or correspondence from a notable person is not inherently of value to a Wikipedia biography article. On the other hand, I don't quite find the justification for authors' autographs more compelling than that for actors, or for that matter, musicians. Politicians may or may not actually write, from the standpoint of creative or intellectual pursuits beyond mark-ups on bills, and contemporary authors use word processors or even dictation. It seems that if we allow a politician's or author's autograph then there really should be a better and more compelling articulation of, and consensus on, what the difference is that disallows the same element of other notable individuals who may or may not write every bit as much or more. As to the historical or intrinsic value of a letter, or what is conveyed therein and to whom, I agree with the approach here that views that as a separate and situational issue I think should be addressed separately if at all.
Personally, I would draw a distinction between an autograph, which I would presume is a public domain creation intended for the public at large, and a signature, which is a legal mark not intended for the masses and could have legal repercussions. My thought is that an autograph of an icon of some stature is equally reasonable to consider for article inclusion regardless of what field they are in. To the Ball article, I agree with Canyouhearmenow that it was in the wrong section, "Early life", considering that she signed it late in life looking back on her career. Perhaps the best place for it would be, as with the other notable figures, within and at or near the bottom of the main infobox, and in fact I took that to be what JGKlein intended as its vicinity, that is, placing it immediately beneath the infobox regardless of the article text adjacent. Abrazame (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I am commenting as someone who has spent the last 18 years collecting autographs and have an interest in actor articles. There is a fundamental problem with adding facsimiles of actors, musicians, etc., autographs and that is authenticity. I see no real difference in whether it is called a signature or an autograph, a distinction that doesn't really exist in the autograph world. someone signs his or her name. One can go to eBay or a large number of other places and purchase what is allegedly a signature, but unless one is experienced and knowledgable about them, it is highly likely that one will be taken to the cleaners. It would take an entirely new group of editors to authenticate what would be added and it still has little to no real encyclopedic value. Politicians signatures are often published, as in passing legislation and other pursuits during the career, where on the other hand, there is a large number of persons who are involved in counterfeiting signatures for popular actors. Were we to include autograph facsimiles here, in effect, we are endorsing that what is printed here is authentic and that is well beyond the scope of this encyclopedia. In effect, I think this is a completely wrong road on which to travel because of the authenticity and legal representation aspect of it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, very good point indeed. That is definitely a big problem, especially considering that entertainer signatures, unlike politicians, are seldom reliably published. I do not collect, but I am aware that authenticity and counterfeiting issues are common. Even if an editor believes it to be genuine, it'd be impossible to verify that it wasn't autopenned, written by a secretary, or simply forged. decltype (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
As an historian I can tell you that Lucille Ball very rarely sent cards of this nature. I knew her personally and this was not something she would usually do. I do know that Wanda Clark who worked for Lucy did in fact over 95% of the time send and signed things for Lucille. However, we are missing the huge picture here. We are not talking about its authenticity, we are talking about its relevance to the article. Does such an item bring any value to the article? My point being that; should we allow such an inclusion it should at all times have first an encyclopedic value and second, it should not be added just to make the article look pretty. There would need to be some form of verbiage within the body of the article that speaks directly to the inclusion of the piece. The idea of whether it is real or fake is not the big picture. Wikipedia could not be held responsible for something that someone states as being "real" and added to Wikipedia Commons. I still feel that we should not allow things such as this type of memorabilia onto a page without having a reason to do so. Otherwise we have just become the Smithsonian or a depository for autographs and the likes.Canyouhearmenow 18:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe I addressed my views on value to the articles when I commented on the value to the encyclopedia. But a very relevant point is what the encyclopedia endorses as authentic and we cannot do that. It is entirely the responsibility of editors here to challenge anything that is "fake" or counterfeit, whether on the en.wikipedia or at the commons. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree: 1) An actor/filmmaker's autograph is almost never encyclopedic. 2) It would often be difficult to authenticate a signature/autograph. The only time an actor/filmmaker's autograph may be encyclopedic is if they are known for signing their name a certain way, or if they are also an artist, or if they are also a writer (where they may sign their screenplay/manuscript, I don't know, maybe). The point is, the overwhelming majority of the time, an actor/filmmaker's autograph would not be encyclopedic, at all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Chickenmonkey  20:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Canyouhearmenow in that some of the responses here are missing the bigger picture. My point was that we do apparently present the autographs and/or signatures of politicians and authors. The question, then, of whether we can or do attest to the authenticity of a signature is something we have apparently already found a way to address. Perhaps we don't do so in all political or author articles because it hasn't been found relevant or authentic in all cases, but there is, nevertheless, both a place and a method (I'm assuming good faith and editorial practices on the method part) to do so in those cases where it has. My question is what is the difference between the way we handle signatures in those articles where they have been found an appropriate pictorial aspect (to such a degree that it's a field in the infobox) on the one hand, and the way it is being suggested we would mishandle these on the other. Don't misunderstand, I'm not an autograph collector and I have no intention of adding autographs to articles. I'm simply saying that I find utterly uncompelling the argument thus far presented on this page as to why such detail can be encyclopedic to an iconic writer, artist, or politician, yet could never be encyclopedic to an iconic actor, businessperson, philosopher, activist, singer/songwriter...
Let me take this from the opposite angle to address some of the comments above. Is an author or politician's autograph always encyclopedically valuable? Is an author or politician's alleged autograph never inauthentic? Does Wikipedia have no standards with regard to uploading and utilizing and authenticating alleged autographs for authors and politicians? I should think we (with pols and writers) work from a position that it is sometimes encyclopedically relevant and other times not, and then either have a guideline for how to threshold that or take which is which on a case-by-case basis. The case of this particular upload by this particular user may not meet the threshold for authenticity, but we're having the broader conversation here and not specifically addressing that edit. Let's not be overwhelmed by the majority of the time autographs would not be encyclopedic; let's address those times wherein they have been and would be. That is, after all, the point here. Abrazame (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
A signature/autograph can be encyclopedic for some people. It's something that should be taken on a case-by-case basis, avoiding a blanket policy. Some obvious ones might be John Hancock, Walt Disney, Matt Groening, perhaps: people whose signature/autographs have become recognizable, for varying reasons. It doesn't seem like a big deal, either way.  Chickenmonkey  21:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Like I said above, entertainer signatures are not so often reliably published, while head of state signatures can often be sourced to an official document or similar. In some cases for writers, I think the signature has remained simply because no one has challenged its authenticity - similar to a lot of unsourced information that can be found throughout the wiki. I do believe that the signature of an entertainer could be relevant to an article, but the difficulties with verifiability can not be overlooked. Unless a reliable source confirms the signature to be authentic, we cannot treat it as such - unless a confirmation from the subject itself were received through OTRS, and I don't think there's any precedence for that. decltype (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
People, people!! Again we are missing the point! Its simple..Do we want to allow this inclusion or not? Yes or no? My opinion is that this signature whether real or fake has no reason to be placed into the body of this article because it has no relevance. This was what the original question was supposed to be about. I say NO! Now, on the issue of putting stuff into other articles that may or may not be authentic, I feel there needs to be some form of accountability to show authenticity. Otherwise people could use it to verify if something they bought qualifies as authentic. Coming to a place such as wikipedia and seeing a copy of someones signature could in essence cause a problem for their estates, identity theft etc. I think we need to look at something like this in a much larger picture. Does wikipedia want to open itself up for such liabilities? I would think not! Canyouhearmenow 13:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Canyouhearmenow, the bigger picture is not this particular autograph at the Lucille Ball article, where that specific case is being discussed. The OP here was Decltype, who posed, "I'd be interested to hear what people think about the general appropriateness of signatures / autographs in Actor/Filmmaker bios". I expounded upon that to, essentially, "What's the difference between politicians and authors on the one hand and any other notable icon on the other in that we would raise the autograph to infobox status for the former and deride the concept for anyone else?"
I'm really a little startled that the response has largely been "how would we authenticate it". We don't authenticate anything, we rely on reliable sources to authenticate things, and then we take their word for it, barring convincing conflicting evidence or other compelling rationale not to. The examples of how or why one scrawl might not be authentic, and how that could be misleading to a reader, seem to miss the point that that's the whole point of Wikipedia, to present accurate data points verifiable through reliable sources. The rawer or more exceptional or contentious the data point, the more the onus is on editors to link to a source. We mislead all the time, if someone catches us immediately after a vandal or delinquent has just been here, or if you're talking about an obscure older or newer article that hasn't had many eyes on it yet. But to use that as not only an excuse for inconsistency that already exists but justification for inconsistency as an unwritten (or written) policy going forward...what's that about? If the suggestion is that some of the autographs currently allowed at other articles should not be, then all the more reason to ask the question I'm asking: is there already a policy on this, if not why not (particularly given all the issues being raised here), and—whether there already is or we would now come up with one—what would be the difference from one sphere of notability to another?
Again to comments: John Hancock's signature is the most notable thing about him, and most people don't know who he is but for the fact that he is a signator of one of the most famous documents in history; I'm thinking the threshold as it already exists at Wikipedia is a little lower than that. Someone pointed out as a reason to prohibit autographs here that an erroneous example of a signature could unduly influence a reader to believe another such erroneous example is legitimate; but of course, the reverse would be one of the benefits of presenting authenticated signatures, again, as is true about any data point we present. Abrazame (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe it has already been said, not by me, that a politician's signature may be easier to authenticate/verify (i.e. it is more likely that a reliable source will be available for it) than an actor's signature may be. To a further degree, the fact that something is verifiable, or accurate, doesn't mean it should automatically be included in Wikipedia. That was the point of mentioning John Hancock -- who was many things beyond his signature ;), Walt Disney, and Matt Groening; they're examples of people whose signatures may merit inclusion. That doesn't mean they're the only ones, and that doesn't even mean their signatures definitely should be included. They're just the kind of people whose signatures have become a recognizable part of their persona.
I honestly think this is the perfect example of something that should be taken on a case-by-case basis. There will be some people (whether actor, politician, artist, writer, ventriloquist, etc) whose signature it makes sense to include in Wikipedia, because they have encyclopedic value. Likewise, there will be people whose signatures it makes no sense to include, because they have no, to little, encyclopedic value. The first question is whether the person's signature should be included (is it encyclopedic?); then, if it is encyclopedic, can a reliable source be provided for the person's signature (is it verifiable?). That's the order, I believe, the questions should be asked, in this instance. The fact that politicians' signatures are currently included is beside the point, in my opinion, but I suppose it can be argued (and has been argued somewhere, I'm sure) that politicians' signatures are inherently notable because they sign bills and laws. I, personally, don't see any reason to include any autograph/signature without first providing proof that such inclusion would be encyclopedic.
The threshold is, and has always been, encyclopedic value, I believe. Again, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Chickenmonkey  02:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This topic was previously discussed, briefly, regarding the infobox actor here. The article Autograph also touches on how many ways authenticity is skirted and cannot be something to rely on. I'm not aware of any point where this has been discussed outside of this project. There is no valid support for displaying signatures on this particular infobox. I don't buy that it is encyclopedic and I don't support including signature facsimiles in articles. It's simply specious and largely unsupportable regarding authenticity.

And, by the way, the question was never how do we authenticate it, the question is rather how can we post a signature alleging to be someone with no way to know if it is authentic. There is a huge difference between the two statements. Otherwise, I can start filling out 3x5 cards and allege that so and so signed it. That is essentially perpetuating a fraud and that is something that Wikipedia cannot open itself up to. My point is that also, secretarial signatures, autopens and fraud are large sources of signatures. For this project, it is entirely an impossible thing to include signatures on that basis. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Completely unbeknownst to me when I started this thread, is that there was actually a similar discussion on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_58#Re: Bianca Jagger article (no lessmore than two months ago). To quote Jimbo: In a few cases, the signature will be sufficiently noteworthy to include in the article. But for the most part, I really doubt if it is a good idea. I think that one factor to strongly consider is what the provenance of the signature is. If it is from an autographed object that ended up sold/scanned/etc., I don't think that is good cause to republish it. If it is from a published item, then that's fine. And later adds: Certainly, I think we have general agreement that signatures scanned from privately autographed objects aren't appropriate. Which I feel is pretty close to consensus in our discussion here. decltype (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Decltype. It seems that authenticity is an issue for him as well. Appreciate it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Respectfully, there is consensus on WP:V and WP:RS. Decltype's question and mine remains (or if Decltype withdraws interest, or their interest really was based entirely on the Lucy edit, I'm still interested in the broader discussion), which was how shall we determine those cases where a signature is sufficiently noteworthy to include in an article, and what's the deal with the presumption at WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers that no actor could make the grade?
As I've consistently said, there would be no less adherence to Wikipedia's policy of WP:V and WP:RS than there is to any other aspect of an article, and I've been consistently surprised to the point of amusement that the discussion keeps dawdling at that obvious point as if it weren't already a given, much less stated several times in the thread. If those involved view the consensus here as that other users should not upload their personal collections, that's fine by me. If those involved here view the consensus as that a verifiably, reliably sourced autograph from an icon of a Lucille Ball's stature should be summarily reverted on the basis of this discussion (or the other two linked above), I feel those involved here haven't even begun to do the subject justice.
As long as we're quoting Wales and that brief discussion, I'd add that he begins a post you quote from "I don't think it should be a precedent, no", that he definitely doesn't intend his comments to create a precedent against such autographs as may already be accepted at biographies of politicians and artists and such, and, not incidentally, he very sanely acknowledged my BLP point, that posting the actual signature of a living person (the wording of the request that he submit his own actually had the temerity to say "as on a check"), as opposed to an autograph intended for broader public consumption, was a bad idea in general and one he didn't cotton to personally. To the largely off-topic responses here, though, I would point out he also writes, about conversations such as the one I had hoped this might be, "I think that's a dispute that is worth having." If only some here felt the same. Abrazame (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Your condescending word choice is not necessary; I apologize if that isn't the way you meant to be read. There's no presumption that "no actor could make the grade". On a "case-by-case" basis means just that: there isn't some blanket terminology or explanation which would apply to any and all possible signatures/autographs. We should look at each potential autograph inclusion and determine if it is notable. Why does that not answer your question? Given, I'm not the authority on this (no one is), but that's my opinion. If you feel there should be a blanket policy on how to handle signatures/autographs, why don't you offer it? I, for one, do not believe a verifiably, reliably sourced autograph from an icon of a Lucille ball's stature should be summarily reverted on the basis of this discussion (or the other two linked above). I, for one, do believe a verifiably, reliably sourced autograph from an icon of a Lucille Ball's stature should be held up to our notability standards. Why is Lucille Ball's signature notable? That's the precedent that Wikipedia has, and always has had; we don't just include something because it exists. On a case-by-case basis, I believe, the argument should be made as to why "XXXX's signature/autograph" is notable. Most actor's signatures/autographs, I believe, would be found to not be notable.  Chickenmonkey  08:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
If you mean my "amusement" comment, it was roused by the one preceding it, "It seems that authenticity is an issue for him as well," which read to me as condescending, as well as both missing and overmaking the point. I'd rather find condescension amusing than offensive, so am inclined to do so; that you or someone else might not, I apologize. Two people finding one another's condescension amusing is banter. It's seemed like a lot of huffing and puffing over the most basic Wikipedia principles of V and RS, when the OP began as suggesting a much broader conversation and I certainly amplified that aspect of the request. Respectfully, whatever word you'd call that insistent focus on the obvious (without conceding that such authentication is possible, and where they stand in that case) could be seen as offensive, too, I would dispassionately note. There's not a respondent in this thread who has suggested that authenticity is not an issue for them. This is not about the Lucy edit, it's about the OP's question, which means you don't stop the discussion at the authenticity hurdle.
Though you say nobody presumed no actor could make the grade, you chose to name a politician and two animator/entrepreneurs. To seriously address Matt Groening, as before I was toying with your use of his name in the same breath as John Hancock, I guess what I've been saying I'd like to know is not who you thought was encyclopedically relevant, but your thoughts on what it is that makes his autograph encyclopedically relevant for you? (I note that it isn't actually at Groening's bio.) Is it purely from a standpoint that his notability initially arose by putting pen to paper, and signing that work, and that even though he no longer puts pen to paper regarding the production of The Simpsons, for example, there is automatically a relevancy to other pen-to-paper activities from him such as his autograph even if it is out of the visual context of that work? Or is it because Matt Groening is the most famous cartoonist of his generation? Or is it something else and/or some combination thereof?
The first part of that could be said about any cartoonist but virtually no actor; the second could be extended to any variable ("the most famous X of his/her generation") and then argued six ways to Sunday that, no, this one was the most, but of course one doesn't just include the single most famous. (Don't misunderstand me, I have no argument against Groening, I'm asking you what your argument is for him.)
For example, if all else about her were not so, Farrah Fawcett was notable for record-selling posters which featured her distinctive signature. Would her massive fame and that prominence of her signature on several million copies of a poster be a convincing argument for use of her autograph? (Again, I am not offering any such autograph, this is not self-motivated, though full disclosure I've edited the Fawcett article as well.) Unlike the "as on a check" thing, this is an example of a celebrity choosing to present their autograph as an associative mark and it appearing on perhaps the one product most associated with them.
Two posts ago, Wildhartlivie is saying that it is perpetrating a fraud and entirely impossible to allow autographs. Consensus doesn't mean unanimity, and I'm certainly not insisting anyone respond a certain way (though basing one's position on a specious argument [many autographs are inauthentic; inauthentic material is unencyclopedic; thereby autographs are unencyclopedic], robs the position of credence). But when someone keeps giving the same answer, a thread reads as if that's the main point, or that's the direction the thread has moved (from the more open comments of Canyouhearmenow), and from which point there's nothing else for anyone to discuss. I read those comments as kind of a conversation-ender (indeed, they served that purpose in the very brief discussion Wildhartlivie linked to), and I wanted to state that I, for one, am still open to a conversation about the initial broader question from editors who find themselves at this thread. Just because someone asks doesn't mean it gets answered, but I'd hate for interesting conversations like the OP's to be nipped in the bud for the wrong reasons. Abrazame (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, in that case, I object to the characterization you've made of me and my more experienced and skilled knowledge of autographs. And I'd thank you to appropriately quote when you are dismissing my comments. I said: "And, by the way, the question was never how do we authenticate it, the question is rather how can we post a signature alleging to be someone with no way to know if it is authentic. There is a huge difference between the two statements. Otherwise, I can start filling out 3x5 cards and allege that so and so signed it. That is essentially perpetuating a fraud and that is something that Wikipedia cannot open itself up to. My point is that also, secretarial signatures, autopens, preprinted signatures and fraud are large sources of signatures. For this project, it is entirely an impossible thing to include signatures on that basis." Please don't misrepresent my comments. In this world of autopens, skilled secretarial signing and flat out trace and overwriting signatures, it is next to impossible to include signatures without first paying for authentication services. And your logical progression is invalid as well. A+B=/=C. But you know, snipe away. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I can understand your frustration at a perceived "missing of the point", but not everyone replying in this thread stopped at the authenticity question. The presumption of WP:V and WP:RS adherence is a given, yes, but it doesn't hurt to point it out, anyway, in case it may not be so obvious to some.
To address Matt Groening, I wasn't actually arguing for his autograph's inclusion; I was merely implying that his autograph may be one that people could find encyclopedic. Those three names (Hancock, Disney, Groening) were just off the top of my head. Taking them in order: Hancock's signature is arguably the most recognizable signature of anyone -- certainly of any politician, his signature is used in a company logo, and his signature is so recognizable that it has become a colloquialism to mean "signature"; Walt Disney's signature was the inspiration for the "Disney" logo, which has become one of the most recognizable logos in the world; Matt Groening's "signature" appears on every piece of licensed merchandise related to The Simpsons or Futurama, you will not find a piece of licensed merchandise from his creations that does not have his "signature" on it. Notice, none of these reasons include "because the person is famous" or "because the person has a certain profession". In my opinion, "fame" or "profession" does not automatically make one's autograph/signature notable or encyclopedic, but that's something that should be determined by consensus. I believe, what matters is the notability of the autograph/signature, not the notability of the person whose autograph/signature it is. With all of that said, should these three autographs/signatures be included in Wikipedia? Should Farrah Fawcett's autograph/signature be included in Wikipedia? Should any autographs/signatures be included in Wikipedia? Maybe. I think, that decision should be made on, yes, a case-by-case basis. I do believe there would be many signatures which would merit inclusion, but there would be many more that would not. It's just not something that lends itself to a blanket policy, in my opinion.
Apparently, a consensus has been reached elsewhere that politicians' signatures are inherently notable. I don't agree with that, but I assume that consensus was found in good faith. If I were to venture a guess as to why that consensus was found, I would guess it has something to do with the fact that one of the most important parts of a politician's job is to sign their name. Does that give politicians' signatures inherent notability? I don't think so, but maybe others do. Does an actor's signature have inherent notability? I don't believe so. The point being: notability is the key. "What defines the notability of a signature/autograph?" is the question. I believe I have sufficiently made it clear what I believe defines that notability and what parameters I believe should be used in determining that notability. Perhaps others will do the same.  Chickenmonkey  18:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest that politicians signatures are more easily included because their signatures appear routinely on public domain documents such as law proposals, election documents and that they have autopens that usually do their signing for them. There are myriad facsimiles of presidential signatures that are mass signed and distributed. It may be an authentic replica, but not an authentic signature. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Response from original contributor of scan of the "Lucy" note that started this prolonged debate!

Hello all, and warm greetings from the person who first contributed the scan of the "Lucy" note that started this prolonged - and very interesting - debate!

With all due respect, I think we are forgetting that Wikipedia boasts that it is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and that it is not censored. And again, respectfully to User:Canyouhearmenow, who contributed so much to the Lucille Ball article that it was recognized as a WP:GA, does this mean that you now own this article, and have the right, at your sole discretion, to revert any edits by other contributors? I hardly think the inclusion of a portion of a scan of a letter from Lucille Ball's office, whether it was actually signed by Lucille Ball or her secretary, Wanda Clark, is in any way going to harm the Wikipedia article’s exalted WP:GA status.

In my opinion, the fact that Lucille Ball had the class and common courtesy to respond to fan letters is, in itself, of encyclopedic value. This woman was an absolute genius at managing her career and knowing in whom to place her trust, creating a multi-million dollar empire. She was the first woman to head a major television studio. (I will have to do my research on this, but I am not even sure she graduated from high school or completed her GED.) Because of her acute business instincts, her legacy will live on for eternity, due in no small part to her keen awareness that even simple gestures such as responding to fan letters would ingratiate her to the public. Bear in mind that I am a male who promotes and champions feminism, and I have extraordinary admiration for Lucy not only being a pioneer in television, but a female pioneer.

The act of immediately axing that nice note from Lucy may discourage other potential Wikipedia contributors from generously donating other items of historic and encyclopedic interest. Who knows what else is out there in the hands of someone who is contemplating donating something of unique value to Wikipedia, but may now be hesitant to do so out of fear that it will be harshly and apathetically axed, because of the opinion of a vigorously vocal and articulate minority that “it doesn’t have anything to do with the article”? It may also discourage wealthy benefactors who are contemplating making a cash contribution to Wikipedia because it is such a wonderful new and evolving medium for education. I certainly now feel less inclined to donate my other photos and scans of historic interest to Wikipedia because of what happened to my contribution. I have other unique items of historic and encyclopedic interest that I have not yet donated. I live in Los Angeles, and I have family and many friends in the film industry. Among other things, I have photos of celebrities posing on the sets of high profile films, and amateur video of high profile films being made, taken from a different vantage point from the Director of Photography’s cameras. I could make interesting still shots from these and donate them to Wikipedia, and caption them for informational and educational relevance. If Wikipedia shows apathy for things of this nature, maybe they would be more courteously welcomed by the Smithsonian Institute.

How about the following compromise for scans of documents and photos in that "gray area" of not really being directly addressed in a Wikipedia article, but are obliquely relevant, such as that “Lucy” letter? I got the terse dictum that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a museum". Would someone please explain to me how an item is determined to be for a "museum" or "encyclopedia"? It is my opinion that there is no absolute and conclusive answer; that is an issue that could be argued for years in the Supreme Court. It seems that if someone likes a picture in a Wikipedia article, it is encyclopedic; if someone doesn’t like a picture, it is for a museum.

My idea for a compromise is that we create a "Gallery" section at the bottom of the article and include the scan of that letter from Lucy’s office, and Wikipedia readers may view it and draw their own conclusions from it. Let's not split hairs over whether it belongs in a "museum" or "encyclopedia". The very definition of that could change and evolve over time, and I believe that Wikipedia will be around for many, many years to come. Like I said before, this article is not exactly cluttered with too many photographs! If other people have similar related "Lucy" media to contribute, they can also put it in the "Gallery" section. For an example of the format I am proposing for the Lucy article, see: Mural#Gallery and this photo: File:Painted mural in Boston, MA, 1992.jpg.

I think all this is making a mountain out of a molehill. We live in a very difficult, complex world with all kinds of serious problems of international proportions, and we are taking all this time to discuss the merit of including a "thank you" letter from Lucy in a Wikipedia article? Can we re-examine our priorities? We need to educate our young people who will be tomorrow’s analytical thinkers and decision makers, and I think Wikipedia is a wonderful tool for doing this. I would not be spending the long volunteer hours that I do contributing to Wikipedia, and taking the time to photograph subjects if I did not believe in Wikipedia's value to our young people. I think Wikipedia is a wonderful, informative, and healthy tool to help people learn, and it will help them develop an interest and appreciation for proactive use of the Internet. It may also help keep young people focused on the things that are really important, positive and healthy; it may avert them from visiting Internet porn, mindless chat rooms, falling for internet scams or child predators, gambling, obsessive shopping, et al.

So what do other people think of my compromise? We can just create a "Gallery" section at the bottom of the Lucille Ball Wikipedia article, put back that scan of the letter from Lucy's office with the following simple, indisputably true caption: "Letter from Lucille Ball’s office, 1982"?

I think this debate is taking on a magnitude of importance similar to Lucy playing the first TV character to have a baby on a TV series! Back then, it was groundbreaking and certainly worthy of discussion, but by today's standards, it was nothing. On the night of airing of the show when Lucy had her baby, the ratings were higher than those for President Eisenhower's inauguration.

As someone previously alluded, can we consider items like this on a "case by case" basis? And give a green light to this one?

Lucy is probably looking down from heaven and getting an enormous kick out of this debate. God bless her. JGKlein (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

First, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I would urge you to continue your contributions, if only for the fact that you enjoy it.
I haven't been party to any discussion prior to this one that may, or may not, have addressed the encyclopedic value of your Lucille Ball letter. In taking things on a case-by-case basis, one thing that would need to be addressed is article relevance. By that, I mean, is it relevant to the article? So far in this discussion, I've focused on the "big picture" of "signature/autograph" inclusion. I haven't read the Lucille Ball article, nor have I seen your letter—because I wasn't specifically commenting on it, in case someone thought it might be because I'm a dorkwang, or something. With that said, if the Lucille Ball article says something about her generosity toward fans or her popularity due to her interaction with her fans, or something along those lines: I would think a scan demonstrating said "generosity" or "interaction" may (may) warrant inclusion, such as this letter you have. Even so, the letter may still be found, by consensus, to be unnecessary. In that case, including a "gallery" of images in an article is usually advised against. I'm not a regular user of Wikimedia Commons, but you could probably add your image (or any other images you possess which you would like to contribute) to the Commons Lucille Ball page, which is linked to at the bottom of the Lucille Ball page, in a representation of interwiki interaction.
I hope this doesn't deter you from contributing in the future.  Chickenmonkey  20:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC on WP:Consensus

Given WP:CONLIMITED, to what extent and under what circumstances can individual WikiProjects and users customize article appearance with individual styles that deviate from site-wide style guidelines? Interested contributors are invited to participate there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Frat Pack?

could some one take a look at this. I am not sure its up to wikistandard as it seem WP:Synthesis, WP:NOR and WP:FANCRUFT. Something that was term used a few years ago seem to have an awful lot stuff despite being used in a few headlines. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

List of actors considered for the James Bond character

I don't know if this is the right place to raise this issue, but this article seems to me to have some serious sourcing issues. Danny Dyer, Robert Pattinson and Gerard Butler as 007? They have flimsy sources as CelebTV, Heat World and Wikipedia.

I have no interest in the Bond movies so I felt here might be the place to get some well needed attention for this article.--EchetusXe 18:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't allowed to source itself so those need to go for a start before even looking at the other sources. Betty Logan (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
See how original research and poor sourcing has crept in since I edited it last year:[1]. There's also been a scope widening to allow listing of "fan picks", which is a pretty poor move. Fences&Windows 14:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actors list for deletion

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox for additional production credits

At the talk page for WikiProject Films, I suggested the possibility of an infobox for additional production credits in film articles. Since this WikiProject encompasses individual crew members such as editors, cinematographers, and so forth, I wanted to notify members here of the discussion. The infobox would allow for greater navigation between film and filmmaker articles. The discussion can be found here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 16:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actor infobox merger

There as an ongoing discussion here Template talk:Infobox actor#Merge with Infobox person that should have more input before a final decision is made. Please feel free to post your thoughts if you are so inclined and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 01:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion mentioned above has been moved here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 20#Template:Infobox actor. Again feel free to add your thoughts. MarnetteD | Talk 11:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Awards

Given the propensity for awards of all different kinds to end up thrown into filmography tables (e.g. here, here, and here, etc.) I propose we encourage the separation of these two things (filmography and awards) into separate sections. Whether the awards should be tabled, in prose, or in list form could be decided. I just think they're snotting up filmographies.  Chickenmonkey  00:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The tables look out of whack when they receive dozens of nominations/awards for any given performance. For some actors it is even preferable to spin the awards into a separate article like this one List of awards and nominations received by Michael Gambon. Thank you for bringing up a long overdue suggestion. MarnetteD | Talk 17:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I also endorse the separation of these tables. It affects a filmography's readability when so many award-related items are injected into it. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I support that. On one hand I think having them in the filmography table gives them greater context within the career as a whole, but there are many filmographies drowning in a sea of awards, and I think that's a greater concern. If consensus is reached to split them, we would need to discuss a preferred format and provide an example on the project page, as we've done for the basic filmography table. For example I strongly feel that we should avoid using the "nominated" and "won" templates that often appear. Is the suggestion to remove all awards, or only the overloaded ones such as the examples given by Chickenmonkey. If the latter, where should the cutoff point be? Example Peter Facinelli#Filmography - only one award nomination. Does it make the table out of whack by stretching the notes column? Rossrs (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I feel we should remove all awards from filmography tables and place them into their own section. In the case of someone having very few awards/nominations (Peter Facinelli), I believe it would be fine to simply mention the nomination within the prose of the "Career" section. In the case of an established actor who's been nominated for/won many awards (Johnny Depp), the split discussion is definitely warranted. In the case of an actor with more than a few nominations/wins but not so many that including them bulges the article (Carey Mulligan), merely splitting the awards from the filmography section into an "Awards" section would aid in accessibility, readability, and presentation. I believe placing the awards in their own section would also help to encourage editors to cite awards, which is a key step I've noticed is commonly overlooked.
I don't have a preference as to whether they should be tabled, listed, or in prose. If I absolutely had to choose, I would go with a table simply because it organizes the information clearly. What we really don't want is something like Halle Berry where the Filmography and Awards sections contain duplicate information and are partially in conflict with each other—did she win an NAACP Image Award for Alex Haley's Queen in 1993 or 1995? That's the sort of situation we get when we have unsourced duplicate information.  Chickenmonkey  22:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
There's duplication in Halle Berry. Have a look at Angela Bassett - there's less duplication and I think it presents the info fairly neatly. I prefer a table for the reasons you mention, but I think it's the most effective approach for the more prolific awardees, because it allows for sorting. List of awards and nominations received by Michael Gambon is good and complete but I don't think it's very versatile, because the layout is set by award only. If you want to look at the awards for a particular performance or time period, you have to scan through section by section. The Bassett award table for example, can be sorted so you can see at a glance, whatever you want. I suppose splitting all awards from tables would at least remove any debate on specific articles. I'd be inclined to have a section below the filmography even if it contained very little. At some point I think we should also look at the relevance of some awards. I think it's ludicrous to have Jennifer Aniston's Emmy and SAG awards listed along with her dubious "Choice Liplock" type awards, which I don't think are awards at all. There seems to be an attitude of squeezing everything possible into these sections, without any critical assessment of relevance. I'd like to discuss that further at a later date as a separate issue, once the main point has been dealt with. Rossrs (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Angela Bassett does seem to be done well. I don't think removing the one duplicate nomination from the filmography would hurt the article's quality. Another reason to avoid that sort of culling of awards is: who makes the decision that an Academy Award nomination should be duplicated, while a Golden Globe or NAACP Image Award win should not? To that end, who decides an award is "dubious"? I'd think; if it's notable, it should be included.
I believe the Manual of Style advises against the inclusion of overly short sections and the integration of their content into other sections, but I would imagine this could be an exception to that; so, I would support creating an "Awards" section for an actor who has only received a handful of nominations/awards. However, would that be giving undue weight to them?  Chickenmonkey  19:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Whether it gives undue weight is a matter of opinion. I think it would go some way to satisfying people's interest in awards - the fact that they feature so prominently in so many bio articles is clear evidence that they are of interest, even when there are only very few awards. The section may place undue weight upon it, but it also segregates the information and makes it easier to find. I'm inclined to think that in order to be consistent an awards section would be appropriate rather than a case by case decision which would create an uneven effect from article to article. Another option might be to use "Filmography and awards" as the section header, and have the award table or list or prose, following the film table/s. That would satsify the MoS advice regarding short sections. The entire filmography (scant though it was) was removed from Rihanna recently. Probably a fair call, and I expect when her film is released a filmography of some kind will be added. Undue weight is often in the eye of the beholder.
Angela Bassett - I changed the awards there recently to table format. Mainly because the previous list looked very untidy to me, and it was incomplete. The duplication exists because I didn't notice it until we started this discussion. It's a good example of "bad" use of awards in the film table. It goes hand in hand with the award bias that often appears in the lead sentence. I've reverted from Viola Davis, "Viola Davis is an Academy Award nominated actress" so many times, that I am the article's top contributor. Davis has won a Tony Award. Surely that's of interest to someone, not least of all Viola Davis, but it's always the Oscar nom that people want to highlight. As for the "dubious" awards, you're right in asking who has the right to preclude them. I wasn't nominating myself. I understand that "popular vote" type awards are a good indicator of the profile and commercial viability of someone like Jennifer Aniston. They serve a purpose and I get what you're saying about their notability, but it seems out of place to me when these fun crowd-pleaser type awards are mixed with the merit-based Emmy/SAG etc awards. It bothers me but I can't suggest a better way of doing it. Rossrs (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you and I are in virtually exact agreement.  Chickenmonkey  18:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we agree. ;) Take a look at Angela Bassett#Filmography and awards please. Do you think this is suitable? Rossrs (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe that works. Hopefully others will offer their opinions, to broaden the discussion a bit.  Chickenmonkey  00:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to chime in again I think the rest of you have progressed well with this move towards separate tables for awards. The one for Ms Bassett seems to fit the bill. I think that there is one more item to be decided. What do we do for actors who also have a extensive stage career like Mr Gambon. Up to this point some (most?) articles about actors have tended to have stage awards mentioned separately from the film/TV awards. My first inclination would be to endorse having a second table devoted to theatre awards as most interviews that I have read/heard over the years talk about how the disciplines are different from each other. On the other hand, the ability to sort by year might give an interesting perspective of showing when a given actor was doing more stage work at a given point in their career. I guess I am saying that I would be okay with either one or two tables. I did think it might be worth getting your input as this conversation moves toward a conclusion. Again kudos to you all for your work on this. MarnetteD | Talk 01:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, it would be best to include the stage awards with the film awards, though I can't quite articulate why I feel that way.  Chickenmonkey  02:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
That would work for some actors, but take some of the more profilic performers, such as Laurence Olivier, he has an extensive history of stage, film and television and his stage work is equally notable on the West End and Broadway. That's quite a list. Add the awards and it's huge. I've been thinking that for some performers we could move away from "filmography" as such as regard their credits as more of a "list of works". I started something like that for Agnes Moorehead some time ago (it's languishing in one of my sandboxes) and Agnes had stage, film, television and radio. Highly regarded in each. Why did these people have to be so talented! I'd be more inclined to have film and film awards, stage and stage awards etc. If I find an example that fits what I'm trying to articulate I'll link to it, but so far, nothing comes to mind. I agree with Marnette, the ability to sort is a real plus for some of these longer lists. Rossrs (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Still thinking... the Gambon awards list could work in one table if a "medium" column was added. That way it could be sorted by film, stage, TV whatever, as well as by year, title etc. Rossrs (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Examples: I've created a sandbox here - anyone who wishes to make any changes is welcome to do so. I've added a "medium" column to a real filmography and called it "credits". The actor is Santiago Cabrera, who has done film, TV and video game voice acting. Probably not a viable option for someone as prolific a performer as Michael Gambon, and speaking of Gambon, it is followed by a table containing a small sample of his awards/nominations. The sorting allows for looking at his work by year, by award, by medium, by title of work, and by win/nomination. I think it provides a way for the reader to choose how they want to view it, and with one click, arrange the information accordingly. Rossrs (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I've made a few minor edits that I think are improvements. I like the idea of a medium column; it will cut down on having so many tables for different things. I wondered if "medium" might need to be linked, but I couldn't think of what to (wiktionary?). Perhaps, in context, people will understand its meaning.  Chickenmonkey  17:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I can see where you were heading with that but the theatrical work isn't conveyed in the same language. If "television program", "feature film" etc are to be used, the theatrical equivalent would be "play". I agree that in context people will understand what is meant by "medium" and I don't think it needs to be linked. Something I've noticed is that a lot of filmographies have a "film" column which is full of TV shows and video games..... sometimes everything but films. I think we can be generic in the column headers for the name of the project ("title") and specific in the "medium" column. The sortability really allows for individual users to view the table according to their needs and I think it's a great feature. At the end of this an example on the project page would be good. Rossrs (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
It took me a second to realize what you were saying; because, even looking for this second time, I completely glossed over the "theatre" datum, both times. You're right, "play" would be more appropriate, if "television program" and "feature film" are to be used; I do think they should be used, for clarity's sake.
An example would be be good, I agree.  Chickenmonkey  16:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, have changed "theatre" to "play". Rossrs (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
An encouraging discussion with which I am largely in agreement with. Seperate tables for filmographies and awards is a practice I have personally always followed when writing articles; the table in Rossrs' sandbox is not dissimilar to the layout I would use. I agree that sortable tables with a "Medium" column are better than having split tables (also for filmographies, though there may be a case for breaking up excessively long tables). I do think it's important that awards tables are properly cited, though I don't particuarly mind if this means adding citations to an existing column ("Result"?) or having a seperate "Ref." column. Is it necessary to link the title of a work in an awards table though? Are these not already sufficiently linked elsewhere, in the filmography and elsewhere? Also, is a combined "Filmography and awards" section such as the one at Angela Bassett going to be the preferred format, as opposed to having seperate section headings for each? PC78 (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:REPEATLINK makes an exception for linking in tables. The title is linked elsewhere, but I think repeating the link in the table would make it a little easier to navigate to that page. I agree that excessively long tables should be split, but only if there are long tables within each medium. For example, some people have a very long TV credit list and a few films and a long table followed by a tiny one looks unbalanced. I would suggest splitting them if the list is long for more than one category of work. I've seen one article that used a column for citations and I thought it looked a little odd. I'll try to remember what it was and add it here for reference. I think the citations look neater in the "result" column. The awards table at Angela Bassett is my preferred format. Simple and clear, without gratuitous colour or any deviation from the basic, but easy to read, with sortability allowing individual users to place their own value on individual cell data, rather than colours attempting to place a semantic value on specific fields. Again, I think the decision to split or not split would depend on the length of tables. Awards follow the work, and without the work there'd be no award, so placing them together makes sense to me, but if it's someone with a large list of credits and a large list of awards, splitting may be needed to make it easier to view/navigate. I don't think any of the tables at Angela Bassett are too long to be grouped together, and that they work well in one section. Rossrs (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Mel Gibson filmography contains a table with the citations given a separate column. I think it can work, but I'm not married to the idea.  Chickenmonkey  23:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It can work, yes. That's a good case for merging TV and film into one table with a medium column, as there are only three TV series. There may also be a way of incorporating his directing/producing/screenwriting credits rather than repeating them in several tables. The format for individual articles can be determined case-by-case, and I think Mel's offers more than one possible format. Rossrs (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
When I wrote that article, if I remember right, I separated the television from films because it was Australian television work that isn't well-documented (hence the need for a reference, at all). I think the director, producer, and writer tables were already present in Mel Gibson, and I just migrated them over during the split.  Chickenmonkey  23:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with the above comments; how nice when editors find themselves in agreement. :) To pick up on something that Rossrs said earlier regarding the use of "filmography", perhaps "Lists of works and awards" would make a suitable section heading for these tables? PC78 (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It is nice. I agree. I like "List of works and awards" and I've also used the word "credits" in some articles (Louise Shaffer is one), and I think tailoring it to suit the subject is much better than simply using "filmography" for everything. So, yes we seem to be on the same line of thought. Chickenmonkey, it's funny you mention his Australian TV work not being well-documented. I'm Australian, and those three programs are very familiar to me, but outside of Australia, nobody would know about them. I remember watching the series Punishment. It stays in my mind as one of the most ill-conceived, diabolically executed things I've ever seen in any medium. How Mel survived that to have any career at all, is astonishing. I may put together something about Mel in that sandbox. I don't know how to meld everything together without creating a mess. Spike Lee's filmography is the closest I can think of, though I would leave out any colour, so any suggestions would be great. Assuming anyone else wants to look any further at that, of course. Rossrs (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Haig

Hi. I am writing a stub on silent film child actor Douglas Haig. Currently the article is here. Would anyone here like to help expand this article enough to qualify for DYK? 64.105.65.28 (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Akira Kurosawa

I am pleased to announce that the article Akira Kurosawa, formerly a B-class article of interest to WikiProject:Actors and Filmmakers, has recently been nominated by me as a Featured Article. It would be appreciated if participants in WikiProject:Actors and Filmmakers would go to the Featured article candidates page and have a look.

Regards,

Dylanexpert (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Actors and other filmmakers?

I'm not really satisfied with the lead, speaking of "articles on actors and other filmmakers". The word "other" puzzles me. Actors are not necessarily filmmakers, unless they write or/and direct or/and produce a movie. I'd favor "articles on actors and filmmakers". Arguments? Catgut (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess the argument is that "filmmaker" is being used in a general, literal sense of "someone involved in making a film" rather than in the common usage of a director-auteur. On the other hand, if scriptwriters, technicians, composers are within the scope of the project, you need to find a form of words that encompasses all those involved in filmmaking. "Film biographies" might be one possibility. The current form of words, though a little unconventional, does the job, the "other" modifies the word "filmmaker" sufficiently in the description whilst still allowing a reasonably obvious and succinct name for the project itself. FlagSteward (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Not all actors are, in fact most actors are not, film actors. Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

Celebrity free license images

Since signing up for a temporary trial of IMDBPro last week, I've been able to get permission for images of Fred Willard and Katy Mixon after directly contacting their publicists. Before my trial runs out on the 28th, I'd like to send out as many requests as possible for images, so if you know of a article of an actor, director, writer, etc. that does not have an image (or has a poor one), please list it here. I'll try to send out requests in the next few days and hopefully secure permission to have an image under a free license. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 05:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment at Paul Bern

I recently opened at RfC at the Paul Bern article and would greatly appreciate additional input. Thanks! Pinkadelica 01:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Naming convention for female actors

Or actresses, if you will. What is the correct naming conventions for female actors? For example, if the disambig existed, should it be Naomi Watts (actor) or Naomi Watts (actress)? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actress, at least so far as I can tell from skimming over some of the larger actor categories. PC78 (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Is there a policy on this though? There maybe more actresses than actors for female actors, but is that the correct naming convention? Lugnuts (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about naming convention, but WP:MOS#Gender-neutral language might help. For this reason, I always write "actor" for both genders. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Personaly I always us "actress" in article text, using "actor" just doesn't seem right to me. But there is no formal convention that I am aware of. PC78 (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm a female actor and I feel more comfortable with that language than "actress", myself (though neither bother me). But I'm not aware of any specific wiki guideline/policy other than the gender neutral thing that Erik noted. I can't think of any examples but I swear I've seen it both ways on the site. For some strange reason, though inconsistencies usually irk me, that one doesn't. Millahnna (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Actor vs Actress terminology

There is a discussion thread regarding actor/actress terminology at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Actor vs Actress terminology. Basically the question is about which term to use in the opening sentences of articles about female members of the acting profession. Please comment there. Nsk92 (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hu Ge (director) can you help?

This article on Hu Ge (director), described as an "...amateur movie director in the People's Republic of China..." has been tagged as an unreferenced BLP since November 2008 (which is the current focus month of the BLP Rescue Project). From the text of the article, I think he could just pass the notability guidelines for creatives but I have been unable to find any reliable sources to support the text. I'm posting here in the hope that someone with more knowldege might like to take an interest and find at least one source.--Plad2 (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Hu Ge is known for his very first film. Here are some references: 1, 2, and 3. Additional results at Google Books Search, too. Erik (talk | contribs) 10:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Greg Hicks

If any of you have the time and the inclination would you please take a quick look at this article. It has been tagged as having POV issues and, for the life of me, I can find no POV on the entire page. To me it looks like most acting page stubs. I think a fresh set of eyes might clear things up. My thanks ahead of time to any editor who can assist in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 22:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably remove the Personal Life section, which does look like an advertisement (it now contains the sort of skills that actors post on their resumes, in my opinion, and doesn't really discuss his personal life per se (i.e., family or partner status, etc.), and is pretty non-encyclopedic in my opinion, especially for an article so short as to only discuss awards won). Otherwise, it's fine. I moved one citation to a Reference section. Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. I wasn't sure where to put it and I appreciate your taking the time to fix it. MarnetteD | Talk 16:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Theatre credits charts -- posting upcoming productions, or not?

I just deleted a provisional upcoming theatre credit (Frankenstein, 2011) on Benedict Cumberbatch's theatre credits chart. My thinking is that per WP:CRYSTAL, there's no way to know if this will ever actually pan out. It was only announced that he was cast a few days ago. Since there's no IMDB-type thing that officially lists stuff like this, what do you think about not-yet-produced plays in an actor's credits chart? Softlavender (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. A role only becomes a "credit" when it is played, and you're right in saying that it may not eventuate. Rossrs (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
This is actually a fairly big problem. There are numerous articles that have upcoming film titles in the filmographies. Ben Kingsley and Helen Mirren are just two examples. I haven't done (sorry I don't have the time at the moment) extensive research but as I remember it these are usually added by anon IP's. Whether they are simply using IMDb info or if they are people from the studios making the films is hard to determine - and it is probably a mix anyway. I can't tell you how many times that Ian McKellan and Ian Holm have had The Hobbit added to their articles. IMO these are violations of WP:CRYSTAL and should be removed. Even with sources stating that the film is being made release dates can move months or years away from the filming. I am wondering if we should decide through this discussion what we want to have in an article or table and what we don't and then add it to our MoS. Any other thoughts will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 16:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Now that I have read through my post one idea that comes to mind . A reliably sourced item about a film that is in production could be in the article but it shouldn't be in the table until a release date is announced. MarnetteD | Talk 16:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Just a reminder -- I am actually only talking about theatre/stage credits, not film credits. Film credits are a different matter, and can be confirmed on IMDB. If it's listed on IMDB, there's probably no reason not to list it in an actor's filmography chart, with the words "filming" or "post-production", etc. The main problem with filmography charts is when people list movies/roles that aren't confirmed, and are only rumors or plans (from articles and such). Softlavender (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the distinction that you are making since theatre/stage credits is your main focus you may want to raise the specific point at the Wikiproject theatre. As to films and my earlier posts don't for get that IMDb can't be used as a reliable source for any info here at Wikipedia. To my certain knowledge they listed at least two different casts and several different release dates and years for the film version of Brideshead Revisited thus they should not be used for film tables. MarnetteD | Talk 02:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
IMDB is actually the source of authority (on Wikipedia and otherwise) for the technical details of filmographies. Its information on Brideshead Revisited is 100% correct. What IMDB is not an authority on is all of the "Trivia" etc. added to it randomly by anonymous users. Softlavender (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Rossrs about the theatre credits. About IMDb: Actually MarnetteD is correct, IMDb should be used as source for unreleased films. IMDb states on unreleased films, "Because this project is categorized as being in production, the data is subject to change; some data could be removed completely". It's usually fine to use the site as a guide/source after the film has been released since it's easier to verify. If a reliable source states that an actor has been confirmed for a role and principal photography has begun, then their filmography can be updated to reflect that. Mike Allen 03:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
That's not what IMDB says. It uses that phrasing only for titles that are in development, not those that are already in production. Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
No it says it for films in production/post-production also. See Scream 4. The point is, If an actor is listed on IMDb for a film in development or before a film is release and no other reliable source supports that, it shouldn't be added under their filmography here. Mike Allen 05:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
IMDB: Scream 4. It says nothing of the kind. Compared to A Bouncy Business. I'm done discussing this; it has nothing to do with my original question. Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
My link went to the same place but just included more details. Thank you. Mike Allen 06:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Two Years before Bridehead Revistied was finally made they had Jennifer Connelly and Paul Bettany in their cast list. Thus, they were not 100% correct at that time. That is just one reason the IMDb is not considered a reliable source for wikipedia's purposes. MarnetteD | Talk 17:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Article close to GA, but nominator has been on a two month wikibreak

I had done a review at Talk:Rachel Nichols (actress)/GA1. The article is fairly close to being promoted. However, the nominator has not edited in two months. I will fail the article if no one steps up to respond to my concerns within 72 hours.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional eyes on Octavia Spencer

I'm dropping a note on the project page to try and get additional folks to keep an eye on the article for Octavia Spencer and possibly shape it. I know, most of you are probably saying "Octavia who?" <G> But the issue I got is that the article is being edited by an SPA who is Octavia Spencer and it's being pulled in a direction which I think is probably counter to how the project wishes to have actor article presented... I'm hoping I can get someone in the project to help me out here. Tabercil (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Awards section content

Ryan Reynolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor recentlly added Reynolds's People Magazine award for sexiest man in 2010 to the Awards section. I don't believe that sexy, best-dressed, and other similar awards belong in an awards section, which I believe should be restricted to the actor's work, not his looks or his clothes. However, I've been unable to find any policy or guideline on Wikipedia that squarely addresses the issue. Unsurprisingly, I've also seen inconsistencies on how this is handled. For example, Jake Gyllenhaal was named one of the 50 most beautiful people in 2006 (and he's received other similar awards), but there is nothing in the awards table about it (he has a table as opposed to a bulleted section). By contrast, Brad Pitt's article uses succession box templates showing People's sexiest awards in large boxes with preceded by and succeeded by as if it's some kind of political office or royal title. Somehow, I don't think the template was intended to be used for such trivia.

In any event, what do people think? Do these sorts of things belong in Awards sections or in big boxes in External links? I have no serious objection to describing them in the body of the article, but the Pitt and Reynolds articles seem to give the awards far more prominence than they deserve.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it from the Awards section because it doesn't belong there. Things like that (which are not awards per se anyways) are best described by prose in the body of the article where appropriate and notable. A succession box should also be fine to be used in the EL section. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 16:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for removing it as it takes some of the heat off me, but it would be preferable to have some guidelines on this issue. Otherwise, it just looks like different editors have different viewpoints. Your point that the designation is not really an award is a good one, and I'll use that in the future (although I can some quibbling with it), but why is a succession box okay?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm somewhat indifferent to succession boxes. Sometimes I see them as making it easy to navigate to another related topic, but mostly I see them as clutter. I prefer not to have them in most articles for most things but if someone removes a succession box or adds it, I generally do not revert. So, if one is already there, I'll say it's OK to stay. I'm not sure that there's firm site-wide consensus on the issue one way or another but there was a discussion related to this project that you can read here.
As far as guidelines on awards are concerned, it would be nice if they were written out explicitly for the sake of dispute resolution. The consensus has been that, when speaking of films and actors, "Awards" or "Accolades" sections usually include those major awards that are handed out by a body considered authoritative on the subject through a verifiable and transparent process. My wife may think that I'm the sexiest man alive. What makes her less authoritative than People magazine? Nothing. People is a major publication and, in some cases, a reliable source but their process for finding the "Sexiest man alive" is not reliable, verifiable, transparent or scientific. Same as being listed a "Patriot" in O'Reilly's Pinheads and Patriots is not an award that would somehow apply to an actor, "Sexiest man alive" is neither. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 18:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks much for the detailed explanation and for the pointer to the previous succession box discussion (no one in that discussion likes them).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Filmography table

What's with the ever changing filmography table? We've replace filmography tables to the ones with headers with blue backgrounds. Used rowspans on the dates. And now, we are going to revert everything we did? 58.71.79.50 (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please reply here. I don't believe in using a username. I'm here to help not boast about what I know.58.71.79.50 (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we are improving filmography tables by removing useless color and rowspans - it's called progress. - Josette (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

New article: Larry Detwiler

New article, created, at Larry Detwiler. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Filmography - When to Add

Hopefully a quick question - my initial understanding was that films shouldn't be included in a filmography until they've been released, but I've been led to believe that current policy is that films in production are acceptable for listing, regardless of whether they ever see the light of day. Could I ask what the current consensus is on this? Thanks! Doniago (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought that if a film has passed notability guidelines under WP:NFF, then it could be included in filmographies. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
This is supposedly an issue related to WP:CRYSTAL. The practice I see is, as Doniago said, most editors permit films that have started filming to be in filmographies, but not films that are still in pre-production. I believe the rationale is that if they have started filming they are more likely to happen and don't run afoul of Crystal. The same editors usually allow sourced descritpions of a pre-production film to be mentioned in the article body. As for Doniago's use of the phrase "regardless of whether they ever see the light of day," if I understand him properly, I think it would be fair to remove a film from a filmography, even if it's started filming, if it goes into a black hole and is never released, but I'm not sure how often that issue arises or how much time would have to elapse from the beginning of filming to some sort of suspension.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, mostly what brought this up was that I previously removed unreleased films from filmographies, before an editor informed me that in-production films were acceptable. Today I saw an editor remove an in-production film from a filmography because it hadn't yet been released....the rationale I would have used earlier. So I'm hoping to establish whether an in-production film is acceptable for inclusion, or whether the filmography should only contain released films.
That being said, the questions of whether a partially(?)-produced-but-not-released film should be included, or how much time should be allowed to pass before a film is considered unlikely to be released, may merit some discussion as well. Doniago (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Good luck reaching consensus on the released/in-production issue here or anywhere else. In the absence of a clear policy on this point, you'll probably get into battles on pages depending on what position you adopt. Personally, I'd love to see a policy on it but doubt it'll happen. My own view, which ain't worth much, is that tables, like filmographies and TV epsiode lists, should be restricted to events that have already taken place, but when I took that position on a TV episode list, I was trampled on by other editors. I raised the issue, I think on EAR, and although some editors there agreed with me, a weird compromise was reached (that I thought was even worse than my "opponents'" position). Then, sometime later, some editor removed the compromise without comment or discussion. Mild chaos, in my view, but unfortunately not atypical.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Damn those Wikipedia editors! (smile) But yes, a clear policy would be nice. I thought about reverting them, but I had no evidence that they were any more right or wrong than the editor who reverted me...so maybe the rule should be whenever you see someone do it one way, revert it on the grounds that the other way is correct, unless the first editor is already performing a revert? Doniago (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
LOL. We can incorporate it into WP:CONTRARIAN. Careful, though, we're not supposed to chit-chat on these pages; God forbid we should have any fun.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Ahem. My bad. Wikipedia is serious work, of course. Doniago (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)