Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Brea is a marginally notable actor who made the headlines last week, when he decapitated his mother with katana. "I didn't kill her. I killed the demon inside her", he said to the New York Daily News. I declined speedy on his newly created article, however, I'm not sure. What do you think about the article? Is his acting career or the circumstances of this unusual murder enough to meet the notability criteria? Thanks for any constructive opinions. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- FYI, it was only added to WP recently. Dates on the sources indicate the incident took place at this time last year. MSJapan (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, you are right and I apologize (it is an interesting coincidence). But my questions still stand. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would have thought my response indicating the fact that the whole deal was a year previous would have answered the whole notability question right there,. :) In short, I see a non-notable bit part actor whom no one knew about who is now apparently "known" for a WP:BLP1E item that, incidentally, had no reliable non-local coverage after a week, and no followup whatsoever on that case. Therefore, I think he doesn't meet ACTOR, and the case itself is a BLP1E violation. That's why I speedied it in the first place.
- Oops, you are right and I apologize (it is an interesting coincidence). But my questions still stand. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I am sure the creator will deny it if asked, but the impetus for the article was the implication made by a reporter in one story that there was a Masonic connection, coupled with a quote from the actor that he heard voices on the subway as he was returning from a Masonic building (which one and why he was there is unknown). Said article creator believes it his duty to imply that anyone who does anything illegal and is, was, or might be a Mason, was influenced to do so by the fraternity, and yet he claims that pattern of activity has nothing to do with the fact that he is a self-professed Roman Catholic (Canon Law specifically prohibits Masonic membership). Sounds silly, but there is a proven track record of this type of editing behavior, and it's the only logical reason why someone who has no interest in any other related areas (TV, actors, murder, swords, or crime) and not from the United States, would come across a year-old case from another country and try to create an article out of it. MSJapan (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed the alleged Masonic connection (noted in the Washington Post). In any case, I don't think it is a speedy material. If you want to delete the article, you should properly explain your objections in an AfD discussion. I recommend you to avoid speculations on the motives of the creator and focus solely on the subject and sourcing of our article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am sure the creator will deny it if asked, but the impetus for the article was the implication made by a reporter in one story that there was a Masonic connection, coupled with a quote from the actor that he heard voices on the subway as he was returning from a Masonic building (which one and why he was there is unknown). Said article creator believes it his duty to imply that anyone who does anything illegal and is, was, or might be a Mason, was influenced to do so by the fraternity, and yet he claims that pattern of activity has nothing to do with the fact that he is a self-professed Roman Catholic (Canon Law specifically prohibits Masonic membership). Sounds silly, but there is a proven track record of this type of editing behavior, and it's the only logical reason why someone who has no interest in any other related areas (TV, actors, murder, swords, or crime) and not from the United States, would come across a year-old case from another country and try to create an article out of it. MSJapan (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Would appreciate further input. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Page move
An Indian actor's page is being proposed for a move here. Would be glad for more opinions. X.One SOS 15:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Automated edits on Emmy winners
71.56.237.90 (talk · contribs) is making edits to the articles of Emmy winners. The edits do not appear to be disruptive per se, but a couple aspects concern me:
- They appear to be automated in nature, without declaration of being a bot or using AWB or the like.
- This editor is not using edit summaries.
- A link to Emmys.com is being included in all the external links sections. This seems like some unnecessary linkspam.
Your comments are appreciated. Elizium23 (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Featured article review for Katie Holmes
I have nominated Katie Holmes 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
WikiWomen's History Month
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Actors and Filmmakers will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in both areas. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
how can i do so that i can come out with a good story(movie)i am just starting writing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasaranago (talk • contribs) 13:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Looking for an answer
We are looking for help from any of you who know the ins and outs of what pictures can be used in infoboxes. My understanding is that living actors aren't supposed to have pics of them from a specific role in the infobox. This same rule does not apply to people who have passed away. On the other hand things are always in flux when it comes to pics. So if you could reply at this thread Talk:Robert Carlyle#Profile pic your help would be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 04:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Rowspans
The new format of row-spans (in filmography tables) allows sorting of tables. Is this an indication to go for row-spans? —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is it restricted to the filmography table or does it apply to other similar boxes in film related articles as well? X.One SOS 13:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- rowspans have been compatible with sorting for some months. However, a table with rowspans in more than one column is difficult to maintain. It could be reasonable to have rowspans in one column - the first column. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
New article on film director Oliver Blackburn
I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Filmos
Does this WikiProject's MOS for filmographies (the tables presented at WP:FILMOGRAPHY) override or supersede the Wikipedia MOS for filmographies (the list format presented at WP:LOW#Filmographies), or vice-versa? I ask here because this appears to be a livelier community than at WT:LOW. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
New article on music composer François-Eudes Chanfrault
I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Movies vs. TV films
I was looking for Sudie and Simpson in Louis Gossett, Jr.'s bio. When I didn't see it, I was about to add it under Louis_Gossett,_Jr.#Film when I thought of doing a browser search. It was under Louis_Gossett,_Jr.#Television
I thought "Television" was primarily for episodes of TV shows. At IMDB his actor credits are all together:
- movie (unlabeled)
- TV movie
- TV series
Are there standards for writing up an actors filmography? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sudie and Simpson is classified as a television movie so listing it under the television header makes sense. As for standards, I assume common sense applies. If it was a theatrical film, it is listed under the film header, etc. Pinkadelica♣ 08:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
New article on British actress Sian Breckin
I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Edward Norton
An article that might be of interest to this project, Edward Norton has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
New stub
In my historical research for Kansas, I came across Robert Gordon (actor) and created the article. It's more "up your alley" than mine, so I thought your project might like to jump in and ... well... fix my mistakes, normalize the aritcle, etc.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Award Sections
I know that this has been discussed before but from the searching I've done I can't really come up with a clear answer. I recently updated the Awards section for Adam Sandler. Find out a couple days later it was reverted because the section was too big. No big deal, if I need to make a new page for it I will but it was also reverted because it did not match the format of other actors. I started looking through other actors and they are all different to a degree, some completely. What I am asking is is there a set format for awards?? If there is I would be more than happy to comply to that standard. B2project (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review/Jayne Mansfield/archive2 needs participants. I promise to be good, listening carefully to the review while working accordingly and fast.
This is a mid-importance article supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers within WikiProject Biography that was reviewed by Version 1.0 Editorial Team and selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions. The article has come a long way from a fan boy mish mash to a fair enough GA. Now is the time to take it to the next level.
I have posted the WP:PEER to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Peer review. But, no response so far. I am sure this Wikiproject is not inactive yet, and participants should not be difficult to get. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Walter Hill: director or filmmaker?
I posed a question on the Walter Hill (filmmaker) talk page, because I would like to know why that article was moved from Walter Hill (director) with no discussion or explanation. The parenthetical descriptor "director" is far more common on WP. Does anyone here have any thoughts about this? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 02:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note that the page move was done in 2008, by Granpuff (talk · contribs) who only has made three edits this year, and whose talk page is full of warnings and blocks, including a warning for an inappropriate page move. I suggest you allow about a week for discussion, and then go ahead and move it back. Elizium23 (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I posted this same message over at WikiProject Film, and the feeling there is that it should be moved back. This is interesting information you have provided here, indicating that this is not an especially helpful user, so I am unlikely to catch any flack for moving the page back. Thanks for your response. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 15:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Lydia Cornell
Anyone have time to work on Lydia Cornell? It needs basic cleanup/wikifying, better references, and more even coverage of her accomplishments. There's a long-running dispute over her age that I believe we're close to resolving, but I'd like to get more editors' perspectives. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Not sure who as applied for this or not but in a recent article on a 2004 independent Filipino movie I found this to be an incredible resource and found lots of Filipino newspaper articles not picked up by google. I strongly recommend and who edits articles on films and cinema personalities to get this asap as it wil be an invaluable research tool and will often turn up detailed articles which will not appear in google. You can gain access to the full articles by applying for it at Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Featured Article Review
Please see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Austin Nichols/archive2. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 11:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I just created this article. His books may be in libraries and help your project.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
What's the project's take on production and writing credits in navboxes? I recently removed Exective producer credits from Template:George Lucas and Template:Steven Spielberg which clearly are too much (after bringing it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Executive producer roles in producer navboxes), but I'm now wondering about the other credits. And what about writer-only navboxes like Template:Peter Morgan, and directors who have also written like Template:Tony Gilroy? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with WP:NAVBOX, which essentially promotes intuition as the inclusion criterion; each article in a navbox must have an intuitive connection to all the other entries. With that I would say it's safe to include certain "auteur" producers and writers whose impact on a film's expression is usually more prevalent than the director's. The conflict arises when people have different obsessions, and sometimes when a famous name is used to market a film despite minimal actual involvement (like Spielberg's credits in your recent disputes). I advocate an allowing attitude just because people's interests vary, but I would draw the line when it starts to become routine and navbox credits are created just for the sake of it. There's also a bad tendency among fans to try to make the navbox of their favourite director larger, which among other things takes form in the addition of minor credits; I've even seen an infobox that includes "script doctor" credits, which is just insane. With the same reasoning I don't think every director can have a navbox either, regardless of how many movies he has made, if his creative thumbprints don't define the films. Smetanahue (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, fair enough. Do you think I was right to remove the Executive producer credits though? Oh and Joss Whedon and Quentin Tarantino's templates both include script doctor credits... --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, IMO you were right to do so. There is no reason to bloat a navbox anymore that there is to bloat the infobox. MarnetteD | Talk 18:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. I really applaud your work cleaning up those templates, I've tried a few myself in the past, and it's often a long way to go with fans who claim exceptions because of the particular filmmaker's genius. I would never have dared to take on the likes of Spielberg and Lucas. Smetanahue (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Haha, thanks. I have a feeling it's not quite over... --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. I really applaud your work cleaning up those templates, I've tried a few myself in the past, and it's often a long way to go with fans who claim exceptions because of the particular filmmaker's genius. I would never have dared to take on the likes of Spielberg and Lucas. Smetanahue (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, IMO you were right to do so. There is no reason to bloat a navbox anymore that there is to bloat the infobox. MarnetteD | Talk 18:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, fair enough. Do you think I was right to remove the Executive producer credits though? Oh and Joss Whedon and Quentin Tarantino's templates both include script doctor credits... --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Navboxes are collapsible, and are on the bottom of the page. They should not be treated like infoboxes. If someone wants to find an easy link to a film, even one on which the figure was an executive producer, they should be able to do so. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Executive producer roles are generally about financing, and are not usually creative roles. Some films can have a dozen executive producers, so you could potentially get into the realm of a dozen navboxes per film article. For these reasons, and for the reason we don't have actor navboxes, executive producer credits should not be included. The navboxes should not be treated like full filmography articles. The bloat on the Spielberg template was ridiculous. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I posted some suggestions for the Spielberg navbox at Template talk:Steven Spielberg#Suggestions. I would be happy to have some feedback to them. Smetanahue (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- We seem to have an issue at Steven Spielberg filmography now, also. Would appreciate any assistance. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Paris Hilton#Recent massive changes
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Paris Hilton#Recent massive changes. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 05:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Massive changes to infobox images
It has come to my attention that at least two editors are pushing their own images into prominent positions in this project's articles' infoboxes, without any prior discussion, without regard to whether the images are an improvement. I object to these undiscussed changes. Common practice in this WikiProject, and perhaps WP:BLP as a whole, is to first discuss changes to the infobox images, as these should be stable and of high quality. This problem has gotten worse as one of the editors has overridden the other one on the article Emily Deschanel. Editor 1: M.Sunshine; Editor 2: GageSkidmore. Elizium23 (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I will gladly retain all copyright for all my images in the future, and prevent their usage on Wikipedia if you find it to be inappropriate. If you do not like an image, then change it. I could care less. Gage (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I saw this new image from the Wikimedia Commons. So I put the picture in the article. But i see this picture, the best in the article. Thank you Gage, for these wonderful pictures. Regards. --M.Sunshine (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I did not say that I find the images or all their usage to be inappropriate. I simply object to the lack of communication in advance of widespread changes that mostly affect this project, and could have been brought up at any talk page. I am not sure what to say if you object to communication. Elizium23 (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I saw this new image from the Wikimedia Commons. So I put the picture in the article. But i see this picture, the best in the article. Thank you Gage, for these wonderful pictures. Regards. --M.Sunshine (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- A photographer should not just remove images to replace them with his or her own. Like editors of text who have to consider whether they can rephrase a sentence better than the editor who previously wrote it, photographers need to contemplate whether their images improve upon the ones that they seek to replace them. This is particularly true for the infobox in the lede. If they decide that theirs is best for the lede, then they should then consider whether the former lede can replace a lower quality image found elsewhere in the article. Much goes into that (do low quality images show a different aspect that would warrant them remaining over, say, another head shot, for example). The point is, thought needs to be put into photograph placement. Just because yours is "most recent" doesn't mean it should be "most prominent." There's no problem, at all, with a photographer placing their own images, but it becomes a problem when they do so at the expense of the article by taking out good images only to have their own put in. --David Shankbone 06:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The article Stephen Colletti has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- no substantive coverage in reliable sources about him other than his being listed as a (ex-)"boyfriend" to others whose notability is their being his (ex-)"girfriend"
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Question about filmography best practices
Excepting rare instances where there's some controversy, is it necessary or beneficial to provide references for acting roles? I was reading the article on Kevin Hart (actor) and, besides the fact that the references were bare URLs and that IMDb is not a reliable source, I thought it odd to see references at all. I've removed the refs, but would like others' thoughts. Matt Deres (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- A couple of thoughts. (i) IMDb is very helpful when the subject of an article hasn't attracted academic attention. I think it's fairly reliable for filmographies. Changes to IMDb that are submitted by users are scrutinized by professionals, and are sometimes rejected. At IMDb, my experience is that additions are fairly welcome, but not deletions. With that said, there is certainly no need for more than a general citation to a filmography based on a single source such as IMDb. When I know of errors in IMDb, I'll add a reference to the addition or deletion. (ii) I personally do not think listing the role played by an actor in each film is very useful. For the filmographies of editors, for each film I do list the director, who is usually a collaborator on editing; this amplifies what you'll see in the IMDb listing. The logic of inclusion or exclusion of information is different for actors, directors, cinematographers, etc.. Easchiff (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- IMDb is a mostly-unreliable source filled with user-submitted information that is supposedly "scrutinized" by "professionals", but it has plenty of errors, and we should really not get in the habit of using it to source anything of importance. Personally, I use it to double-check things, such as whether an actor has a particular film credit at all, and, not finding one, I will check Google News to make sure. I also use IMDb to check whether a particular film is in "Pre-production" or "Filming" or "Post-production", for purposes of WP:CRYSTAL when entries are added to a filmography. I do not cite IMDb as a source, period. It can be a useful external link for those seeking recreational information. But the question is citing sources in filmographies. The answer is that for the vast majority of works, filmographies do not need to be explicitly referenced, because the work itself has credits, and is a primary source for the actor's credit. The only time you need to cite a source is for an upcoming production that nobody can view yet, a film that has been lost and that nobody can view anymore, or an uncredited type role that was not listed in the work itself. For many of these, trade publications and entertainment magazines are a decent, reliable secondary source, and you should have no trouble finding those in Google News. If you really have to use IMDb as a source, then place a comment referring them to WP:RS/IMDb, which reflects consensus on how it is viewed as a questionable source overall. Elizium23 (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- I essentially never deal with unreleased films, so I cannot comment on that. I certainly never trust or cite the biographies at IMDb; I don't think IMDb itself takes those seriously. However, for something like the filmography of a film editor who died in the 1990s, I usually start with IMDb. Is there a better procedure for compiling the filmography? Or is the objection to citing IMDb at all, no matter that it was the secondary source that was actually used? Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- IMDb is a mostly-unreliable source filled with user-submitted information that is supposedly "scrutinized" by "professionals", but it has plenty of errors, and we should really not get in the habit of using it to source anything of importance. Personally, I use it to double-check things, such as whether an actor has a particular film credit at all, and, not finding one, I will check Google News to make sure. I also use IMDb to check whether a particular film is in "Pre-production" or "Filming" or "Post-production", for purposes of WP:CRYSTAL when entries are added to a filmography. I do not cite IMDb as a source, period. It can be a useful external link for those seeking recreational information. But the question is citing sources in filmographies. The answer is that for the vast majority of works, filmographies do not need to be explicitly referenced, because the work itself has credits, and is a primary source for the actor's credit. The only time you need to cite a source is for an upcoming production that nobody can view yet, a film that has been lost and that nobody can view anymore, or an uncredited type role that was not listed in the work itself. For many of these, trade publications and entertainment magazines are a decent, reliable secondary source, and you should have no trouble finding those in Google News. If you really have to use IMDb as a source, then place a comment referring them to WP:RS/IMDb, which reflects consensus on how it is viewed as a questionable source overall. Elizium23 (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Filmography templates submitted for deletion
Actress filmography templates Template:Joan Crawford, Template:Bette Davis, Template:Greta Garbo, Template:Katharine Hepburn and Template:Lana Turner are under discussion as candidates for deletion. Details may be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 30#Actress filmography templates.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Invitation to comment
Hi,
This is an invitation to "Actors and Filmmakers" members to comment on my proposal for a "Westerns" WikiProject to deal specifically with articles regarding Western movies and Western TV series', major Western actors, directors and people involved in this vast genre over the past century. This is for the fictional Wild West – such as Hollywood's idea of the Old West – so not a historical project. Comments, ideas and further support appreciated. Thanks. — Ma®©usBritish[chat] 12:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Westerns
Two articles in question
I am wondering if these should be deleted:
Many thanks for any feedback you can offer. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Any reason why you think they should be? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've been reviewing articles I started and pruning out the unworthy. Not sure they pass GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Many thanks for taking the time. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:BLPPRIVACY and non-notable minor children of actors and filmmakers
I have noticed in my maintenance of WP:ACTOR articles a great tendency for editors to include far too many details about non-notable children. When an actor or filmmaker has a pregnancy or adoption and a child, many people rush to include the full birth name of the child, the exact birth date and location, even when this child is not notable in any way. Children do not inherit notability from their parents, and it is not conferred on them by the flurry of coverage of the blessed event. WP:BLPPRIVACY comes into play here; we do not wish to disclose the birthdates of non-notable people, particularly when they are vulnerable minors, and be blamed for their harrassment or identity theft. I am posting here to seek a larger consensus and discussion, rather than continue it on individual BLP talk pages. I have already done some work on the articles of Sofía Vergara and Emily Deschanel. Elizium23 (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Much agreed. I tend to trim dates to the bare essential (e.g. "son born in June 2012"), but anonymous users ususally reinserts it within a day or two. Perhaps we can form some sort of consensus on here. Nymf hideliho! 15:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Westerns
|
Howdy, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers!Your editing history indicates that you may be interested in joining the new Westerns WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and maintain Wikipedia's coverage of fictional Wild West articles. If you are interested in participating, you are welcome to sign up at the project page. We hope you will join us!Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC) |
Well, it's not particularly well worded for non-userpages, but yeah, this WikiProject is now setup and still in the early stages of building its project area before user-participation can really begin to function. Anyone interested, please feel free to join. Note, this project not only covers film and TV, but Western novels, comics, actors, directors and authors, etc who make the fictional-Wild West possible. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Merge proposal for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula
A discussion has begun here to decide if the article Nakoula Basseley Nakoula should be merged to Innocence of Muslims. An AFD was recently closed as "Keep" with the suggestion that the article could be proposed for merger. Please help collaborate on a consensus. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
British stage, film and television database help
I'm still trying to create the Willy Loman article. If you know anything that might be analogous to www.IBDb.com for West End theatre please chime in at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Theatre#West_End_theatre_database. Also, looking for BAFTA data.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Problem as a first-time editor
Hi. I've apparently upset another Wikipedian while recently editing the article for Tony Anthony (actor). Specifically, he's left some fairly snide comments in the editing history ([1]) as well as accuse me of trying to promote a website. Why? In one of the references I listed the show's name (Zombie Popcorn Radio) in the work field and the name of the website (Zombie-Popcorn.com) in the publisher field.
Just to be clear I'm not the author of the article. All I did was add a filmography section (which I borrowed from this project) and references for the "citation needed" notices. I'm obviously not a editor here, and know very little wiki formatting, so I don't know what he's expecting from me. I'm just a fan of Spaghetti Westerns and thought it was ok to edit the page after reading Wikipedia:Be bold. I was interested in improving the article but now I'm not sure if I'm allowed edit it (or even if I want to at this point). I'm a little disappointed since this seems to be over what are really minor issues. Am I doing something wrong? 72.74.217.126 (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've been alerted that my edits are being discussed behind my back rather than on the article's talk page or my own talk page. That's disappointing. It's only fair that I be able to respond.
- The Zombie Popcorn edit involved this anon IP re-inserting a redundant mention of that website after I had removed it: He had originally put the name of the site in the article text AND in the footnotes' "work" AND "publisher" field. Fine — no big deal and I removed two of three mentions ... which he promptly re-inserted. I'm not sure why anyone except the owner of the site itself would insist upon having the site mentioned three times in the same spot. I kept the one identifying mention, which is sufficient — as I later noted, we don't list "The New York Times Company" as publisher every time we cite The New York Times — so my conclusion certainly wasn't based on thin air.
- And I'm really not sure what else this editor means: I did not revert him and I did not remove the filmography. I trimmed some wordy passages — routine copy editing — and asked for citations, which he provided. So what exactly is the issue here? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not an editor here. I was asking for advise from this project because I didn't know if I was in the wrong or not. Furthermore, I don't even know you so how can I be "talking behind your back"? I'm not going to argue with someone over the internet. I guess the "issue" is Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Frankly, I'm sorry I even bothered coming on here. 72.74.217.126 (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
the iranian cinema
Hi everyone, I work within the iranian cinema and would like to contribute to make correct pages for as many of our directors, producers and stars as possible. how do I start please? thank you. (Taztaz133 (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC))
Date ranges in filmography year fields
Is it acceptable to list date ranges in fields of a filmography? For example, "2009–present" or "2006–2008" I know that it is widespread practice in the project, but I have just been alerted to the fact that it is not treated in the MOS. Does this affect accessibility in any way? Elizium23 (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
New article on actor Robert Boulter
I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone here know or understand why the Terry Gilliam article is automatically placed in Category:Films directed by Terry Gilliam? I do not recall ever seeing a director article placed in such a category, and, in this case, it cannot be removed, at least, not using HotCat. I find this very puzzling. Some kind of answer would be appreciated. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's due to including the template {{Terry Gilliam}}, which is titled "Films directed by Terry Gilliam" Elizium23 (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- That makes perfect sense, thank you. I have removed it. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Filmography tables and awards
First of all, if a person has more than a couple of awards and/or nominations listed the table for the same film or series, then the awards should be listed in an awards and nominations section instead. But, if they are listed in the notes of the filmography, there should be consistency. In the "recommended" example shown, it has: "Winner"... and "Nomination"..., which is inconsistent and may be confusing. The antithesis of winner is nominee (which doesn't fit because this is about the award, not the recipient); the antithesis of nomination is win. And I've seen several filmographies that repeat "Nomination" over and over -- which is not in the example, and shouldn't be because it's unneeded repetition. And one more thing about the example: shouldn't it be a semi-colon, instead of a comma, separating unrelated facts? --Musdan77 (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Filmography table as template
I'd like to propose that we make the filmography table in to a template. This way it would be easier to update the fields as well as prevent inexperienced user and trolls from messing up the tables.120.28.244.198 (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
RfC: Should Darth Vader be mentioned in the lead of James Earl Jones?
There's an ongoing Request for Comments at: RfC: Should Darth Vader be mentioned in the lead of James Earl Jones?. You're welcome to state your position. Diego (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Category:American actresses
Category:American actresses, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for rename. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
21st-century actors
There is currently a proposal to split up Category:21st-century actors in some way. Participation from this project would help things to be done in a helpful manner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
RFC
A request for comment has been placed here Talk:James Earl Jones#Request for comment and any input will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 22:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Priyanka Chopra peer review
Priyanka Chopra peer review underway here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Want to apply for FAC soon. BollyJeff | talk 17:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Women's History Month is in March
Hi everyone at WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers!
Women's history month is around the corner, in March, and we're planning the second WikiWomen's History Month.
This event, which is organized by volunteers from the WikiWomen's Collaborative, supports improving coverage about women's history during the month of March. Events take place both offline and online. We are encouraging WikiProjects to focus on women's history related to their subject for the month of March. Ideas include:
- Improving biographies about women actors and filmmakers
We hope you'll participate! You can list your your project focus here, and also help improve our to-do list. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Clean up for pages on Filipino actors
Network and channels should be removed on the filmography table. Is there a away we can prevent them from putting those on the table. 112.207.177.105 (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Darren Criss
Hello! Maybe somebody has something to say about Darren Criss' history? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 18:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Actress categories
User talk:Johnpacklambert has been mass replacing our actor categories with actresses for women. Pretty sure there was consensus against this for gender equality reasons. Surprised nothing has been said to him so far.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 23:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is following the results of an RfC and specifically the CfD on Category:Actresses by nationality both of which clearly agreed that we should split the category by gender. See for example Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 4 where the category Actegory:American actresses was discussed, which also links to the early discussion on Category:Actresses by nationality. Both of these clearly closed to keep.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Improving Eduardo Darino article - looking for feedback-checking plans
Improving Eduardo Darino article - looking for feedback-checking plans. I thought I knew it but keep discovering Wikipedia has more subdivisions. Thanks for interest on my article on Eduardo Darino[1] . Looking for feedback: 1. Studied Ralph Bakshi's[2] and Norman McLaren's[3] articles and will add some comments on Ed's interest-expertise in cartoons (worked on Snoopy, Superman)and ecology-nature which will help. 2. I can ask Mr Darino to review the article, a classmate can get in touch with him, I read WIKIPEDIA is interested that live persons comment on their biographies. 3. I included a photo but it has been removed, any reason? I see that McLaren, Bakshi, has pictures. 4. Mr Darino has been a member of SAG - Screen Actors Guild [4] also, I will include his "voice over" and "on camera" work for the Satcom Digital educational series. 5. I can get help to translate it to Spanish and Chinese if this can interest although I need to study where do they go... I believe: "wikipedia.es"
Bodora (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Bodora. Feb 11/2013
Category:Indian actors by language
[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 7] has discussion of Indian actors by languuage, Punjwood film actors, and Malayali actors, three categories that may be of interest to the people in this project. Your comments would be appreciated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation of Lucy Griffiths
I see that we have two articles Lucy Griffiths (1950s through 1980s actress) and Lucy Griffiths (post-1990s actress). I was under the impression that we preferred shorter names like Lucy Griffiths (actress born 1919) and Lucy Griffiths (actress born 1986). Opinions please? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think that the first qualifier is "country born in" though I could be wrong. In any event, since both are from England the next one is, as you suggest the year of birth. Good catch on this. MarnetteD | Talk 20:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
John Rhys-Davies
John Rhys-Davies has, over some years, had a number of contradictory edits concerning his birth and childhood, often unsourced. I've tried to keep on top of them, but the page has recently been fairly heavily edited by one John Rhys-Davies (talk · contribs), who might or might not be the real person. I don't really feel up to checking the recent changes here. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for the belated reply to this post R - makes me wonder how many (or few) editors still have this page on their watchlist. Based on the fact that no sources or explanations for the edits were provided I have taken the page back to the last clean version. If it is JR-D there will also be WP:COI problems. If they return we might try posting at the Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons as that project has more editors who are still active. MarnetteD | Talk 19:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Can someone who is uninvolved please go visit Talk:Scarlett Johansson and close the discussion in the bottom section with something like {{Archive top}}? An IP keeps coming in to the conversation to be disruptive, and none of us have reached a consensus, so I think the time of useful discussion has passed. The talk page is scheduled to be protected for another month yet. Elizium23 (talk) 05:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Page move discussion
A possible page move discussion has started here Talk:John Waters (1934 Academy Award winner). Any input that members of this project may have would be welcomed. MarnetteD | Talk 22:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The article Andreas van Ray has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Per IMDB page, he has been in only one film: not notable per WP:NACTOR
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Angr (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
An anonymous user has left a note at the BLP noticeboaard about the Stephanie Black article. I've had a look at it and trimmed excessive detail about awards for the individual films, but I'm not seeing any BLP issues beyond a couple of unreferenced statements. It would benefit from attention by someone with subject knowledge though. Cheers, Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Section-headings for stages of career
There's been a long-term dispute on many pages over how to title the chronological sections for the stages of an actor's career. Should they be simple year-ranges? Or include a tag or phrase describing it? Having a descriptive word or two helps clarify or rationalize the divisions, but also gets towards WP:SYNTHESIS/uncited analysis (commentary on the already seemingly editors'-choice divisions). Here is an example (just the most recent one to land on my recentchanges...no prejudice towards this editor). DMacks (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Such section headings should be derived from cited content within the article. For example for Dhanush, 2004-06 was called a slump, but nothing in that section indicates that. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 24#Template:David_Jason --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Folks, in an e-mail to OTRS a reader has questioned whether the image used in this article is indeed Frances Marion. Our image comes from filmreference.com, but, as our correspondent has pointed out, the image at http://www.biography.com/people/frances-marion-214110 is definitely not the same person. The image here would appear to support this. Does anyone have time to research more thoroughly? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Created new article Steve Anderson (director)
I've created a new article on the film director, Steve Anderson (director).
Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be welcomed, at Talk:Steve Anderson (director). — Cirt (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Requesting help by editors (Christopher Nolan's biography)
Trying to solicit copyedits (or any kind of fixing) from editors previously uninvolved with this article. Any help is appreciated.
Sammyjankis88 (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Adam Harrington and Adam J. Harrington
Please see here. Bye! --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Discussion at WikiProject Film
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Infobox: "Influences / Influenced" regarding the "Influences / Influenced" infobox field, which has been prone to POV abuse. Additional comment are welcome. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Today is six days without a response. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film has a consensus, developed over several weeks' debate, on this problematic infobox issue. Let's leave this open for one more day on this additional Project page, so as to give it a week here. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hello T. FYI this noticeboard gets very little traffic. I suspect that anyone who would reply here as already done so at the original thread. The one thing left to decide is if we want to add a section to the MoS for this project mentioning the fact that the fields aren't to be used or to just direct anyone with questions about the situation to the thread at the film project. MarnetteD | Talk 22:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's been a week since the posting here, and since there's an overwhelming consensus at the several weeks' discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Infobox: "Influences / Influenced", it appears editors have agreed to remove this field. Request to make change has been placed at talk page Template talk:Infobox person#Edit request on 5 July 2013. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
GAR
James Franco, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Discussion at WikiProject Film
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Infobox: "Influences / Influenced" regarding the "Influences / Influenced" infobox field, which has been prone to POV abuse. Additional comment are welcome. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Today is six days without a response. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film has a consensus, developed over several weeks' debate, on this problematic infobox issue. Let's leave this open for one more day on this additional Project page, so as to give it a week here. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hello T. FYI this noticeboard gets very little traffic. I suspect that anyone who would reply here as already done so at the original thread. The one thing left to decide is if we want to add a section to the MoS for this project mentioning the fact that the fields aren't to be used or to just direct anyone with questions about the situation to the thread at the film project. MarnetteD | Talk 22:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's been a week since the posting here, and since there's an overwhelming consensus at the several weeks' discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Infobox: "Influences / Influenced", it appears editors have agreed to remove this field. Request to make change has been placed at talk page Template talk:Infobox person#Edit request on 5 July 2013. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
GAR
James Franco, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Steve McQueen
Regarding Steve McQueen (artist), I've started a discussion on the talk page asking if it would be a good idea to update the disambiguation term in the article title to "(filmmaker)". The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I've moved the article to Steve McQueen (director) and have updated the main links. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to join a discussion
Through this way, I inform there is a discussion at WT:Disambiguation about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Note this discussion is not to modify any aspect the naming conventions of this WikiProject. Thanks. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Sandra Bullock
Hey! I have a question, it is on Sandra Bullock's Talk page. Please, find some time to check it out. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.88.247.32 (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- For everyone, here is a direct link to the question: Talk:Sandra Bullock#Big star. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Problem with biographies
Hey, all!
I'm not an expert on film, but I've been readings dozens (over a hundred, I'm guessing) biographies on actors, screenwriters, directors and producers, primarily from the period 1900-1950. I've just been doing clean-up, typos, fixing some awkward writing, sometimes reorganizing the page. I'm not adding much content, mostly polishing and working on structural issues of articles, as a whole.
But what I've run into time and time again are statements that are WP:PEA. There are frequent statements like, "considered the most beautiful woman in film", "the most influential director", "generally thought of as the most fashionable actress in Hollywood," "the new 'It Girl'", and the like. Seriously, I've come across at least 20 women's biographies where they were stated to be the most beautiful actresses of all time. Statements like this make a Wikipedia entry sound more like a fanpage and, of course, all evaluations like this are not sourced.
It seems to be an especially big problem among bios of actresses during the silent film period which, sometimes, just gush about the wonderfulness of the individual. It wouldn't be a surprise to me to find the same editor or small group of editor put all of these biographies together.
I'm coming to the Film Project page because I wondered if this was seen as an acceptable way of writing a biography (both for NYC-based and Hollywood-based actors). I didn't want to edit out a lot of superfluous content if this is the standard that has been agreed-upon by those editors on your team.
I want to add that this is not an evaluation on the talent and contributions of these artists. It's just an attempt to keep a neutral POV and avoid unsourced content that is more flattery than factual. I look forward to hearing your feedback. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Images needed
Can we get some images of actor Gerard Butler, I think article needs some more and latest images of actor. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 23:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, is someone around who can help with the images of this actor? -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 13:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Massive changes to infobox images, redux
Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 8#Massive changes to infobox images. GageSkidmore (talk · contribs) is a prolific photographer with an equally prolific edit history and likes to push his latest images out to WP:BLP articles especially actors and filmmakers who appear at San Diego Comic Con. That's great, except there is no discussion or consensus achieved first. Typically the etiquette around here is that we discuss changes to the infobox image, to ensure quality, consistency, and stability. He is certainly welcome to add his photos to the articles rather than replacing perfectly good infobox images. He has been invited to discuss here, and opinions are welcome. Elizium23 (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. I am here because I noticed the change in the photo in an article I edit, and while the photo is one year newer, it does not necessarily improve or better illustrate the article, it is not a well formatted title to the file, and it seems solely crafted to garner the poster good ego boosting credit, similar with his other contributions. He may be a good photographer providing helpful and appreciated images, and contributors certainly deserve credit, but the way in which he goes about it leaves something to be desired. Is there a file/image formatting standard that may apply to his submissions in a way that may help to reduce the problem? Centerone (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Quality free images of living people are hard enough to come by without discouraging good faith contributors. Gage's edits fall perfectly inline with WP:BOLD. Yes, they sometimes might spawn disagreements in otherwise stable articles. But such disagreements can be resolved relatively shortly in comparison to the long term benefit having more free images. In short, I don't think we should be so quick to jump all over valued contributors such as Gage, who are only acting to improve the project.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- I believe they do have their place at Wikipedia (for example, Kristin Kreuk had no image for the longest period of time, before someone uploaded a Comic Con image), but when they are being pushed as replacements of perfectly fine (and often better) images, it becomes a problem. Nymf talk to me 19:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Quality free images of living people are hard enough to come by without discouraging good faith contributors. Gage's edits fall perfectly inline with WP:BOLD. Yes, they sometimes might spawn disagreements in otherwise stable articles. But such disagreements can be resolved relatively shortly in comparison to the long term benefit having more free images. In short, I don't think we should be so quick to jump all over valued contributors such as Gage, who are only acting to improve the project.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- There's WP:BOLD and then there's spamming. Unilaterally deciding to post his often-poor images across multiple articles seems more about himself than about helping Wikipedia. If his images are useful, then why not discuss them before putting them up? That would certainly show he cares about a collaborative effort of multiple voices. Otherwise, I'm not sure we need contributors like this. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- I can't speak for Gage but judging from the number of his contributions to the Commons, this might be a matter of convenience. It should be noted I have yet to see him engage in any edit-warring once his initial edits have been reverted. I think we should cut him some slack, as his contributions are that valuable. I known as an editor who frequently hunts for freely-licensed images and sends out request e-mails to photographers, which often go unanswered or simply rejected. Gage's images are by and large better than those freely-licensed images found on Flickr, and other such websites.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- I personally haven't seen him edit war, but he _CERTAINLY_ has been accused of it multiple times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GageSkidmore#Removing_my_images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GageSkidmore#Constant_edit_warring and there are certainly more examples on his talk page in addition to those two. Also, he seems to 1) not make edit summaries, 2) not utilize talk pages much if ever, 3) never discuss his changes, seek consensus, etc. before making those changes 4) posts, or has posted a lot of non-free images which were later reverted or removed (largely related to family guy as far as I have seen, without having thoroughly analyzed his history for additional examples.) Centerone (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well firstly, let's not trash the guy's work. He did go through the trouble of going to Comic Con to obtain these photos with the intent on improving the project. Secondly, I don't see any reason why the photos that are preferred, which are outdated, should be the automatic favourite. These ones are recent, and the page should reflect the current times, or the subjects current appearance. In 2008, Cobie Smulders could have been a blonde, and now in 2013, she could be a redhead, yet the picture still reflects her blonde days. And it seems the only argument against the Con photos is that "there's clutter int the way." It's not obstructing their face, so that isn't a very strong argument. Rusted AutoParts 15:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Some people change their hair color/style once a year; some more often than that. It is not a reasonable rationale to push inferior images based on looks. On an unrelated note, why have you made your sig unclickable? Nymf talk to me 16:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think anybody is trashing his work, so I don't know where you got that. Even the first example I link to where another photographer is complaining does not trash his work. As far as outdated or not. In the case of the article that brought me here, there is only one year difference in the age of the photographs, and I suspect this to be the case of the majority of his images where someone repeatedly appears at a yearly event like ComicCon. I also don't know why or where you're getting the blonde/redhead thing. Looking at the article for Cobie Smulders and references for the characters she is known for, nothing is really said about her hair color, and the characters she is well-known for do not appear to be either blonde or redhead, and she does not appear to be either a blonde or a redhead in the photos on the page or previously, or anywhere else in wikimedia commons photos. Honestly, your comments both here, and in the discussion about the Cobie Smulders infobox photo edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cobie_Smulders#Infobox_photo seem to not make much sense. Centerone (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well firstly, let's not trash the guy's work. He did go through the trouble of going to Comic Con to obtain these photos with the intent on improving the project. Secondly, I don't see any reason why the photos that are preferred, which are outdated, should be the automatic favourite. These ones are recent, and the page should reflect the current times, or the subjects current appearance. In 2008, Cobie Smulders could have been a blonde, and now in 2013, she could be a redhead, yet the picture still reflects her blonde days. And it seems the only argument against the Con photos is that "there's clutter int the way." It's not obstructing their face, so that isn't a very strong argument. Rusted AutoParts 15:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I personally haven't seen him edit war, but he _CERTAINLY_ has been accused of it multiple times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GageSkidmore#Removing_my_images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GageSkidmore#Constant_edit_warring and there are certainly more examples on his talk page in addition to those two. Also, he seems to 1) not make edit summaries, 2) not utilize talk pages much if ever, 3) never discuss his changes, seek consensus, etc. before making those changes 4) posts, or has posted a lot of non-free images which were later reverted or removed (largely related to family guy as far as I have seen, without having thoroughly analyzed his history for additional examples.) Centerone (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- I can't speak for Gage but judging from the number of his contributions to the Commons, this might be a matter of convenience. It should be noted I have yet to see him engage in any edit-warring once his initial edits have been reverted. I think we should cut him some slack, as his contributions are that valuable. I known as an editor who frequently hunts for freely-licensed images and sends out request e-mails to photographers, which often go unanswered or simply rejected. Gage's images are by and large better than those freely-licensed images found on Flickr, and other such websites.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- The hair color thing was an example, hence the use of the word "could". And the point of an encyclopedia is to update their info, and that includes pictures. We can't just keep using the same outdated picture over and over. And it seems his work is being trashed. Tenebrae constantly refers to his work as "inferior" or "poor quality". Rusted AutoParts 17:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- So, wait.. you're saying you made up an example that wasn't true to make a point that was meaningless in the first place? Who is using the same "outdated" picture "over and over"? Using a photo a few years old, or in the case of the picture that brought me here just one year old is not a problem if it is appropriately representative of the subject. Please define "constantly" or give links to examples; I see Tenebrae said "often poor" ONCE in one response to this topic. He did not post on the previous discussion on this topic, and he has no comments currently on Gage's talk page. Saying something is "inferior" or "poor quality" is not "trashing" anything if it is true. He didn't actually say "inferior" as far as I can see, but if he did, it would be accurate IF the picture he posted was of lesser quality than the one that was already posted! Centerone (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Clearly you don't understand the concept of an example. All I said was Smulders could have had blonde hair in 2008 and dyed it in the five years since the picture was taken. Editors on here are quick to become outraged. Especially you. And the point of an encyclopedia is to update your resources. I.E., your content and pictures. Refusing to update the header pic is absurd and juvenile. And what is the point of the autosign option in the editing section if people scold you for not linking your userpage? It's not like you could, I dunno, type my username into the search bar. Rusted AutoParts 14:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- When I look up the definition of example it doesn't say anything about falsified or completely made-up data. Given, your example _could_ have been a decent one if it didn't relate to a real person or an actual case of an actual edit war over photos specifically involving the very person and situation we are talking about. Furthermore, as you are actually participating in the discussion (and even initiated it) on that talk page, it comes across more like you are totally and completely misrepresenting what the problem is. In regards to editors being quick to become outraged, I think you are projecting. I don't personally think "the point of an encyclopedia is to update your resources", I think the point of an encyclopedia is to cover subjects in a complete, succinct, and accurate format; one doesn't need the newest photo to do this especially if the photo or illustration is not as clear or as good as another available and suitably representative image. I also don't think that anybody is refusing to update infobox pictures. People are objecting to the way that Gage goes about it, and have clearly stated what they find problematic about his methodology and simple ways he can change his behaviour so it is not so problematic. Also, nobody is scolding you, someone asked you a simple question which you have yet to answer; furthermore, you seem to have neglected pretty much all the questions and points I asked and pointed out. Centerone (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Clearly you don't understand the concept of an example. All I said was Smulders could have had blonde hair in 2008 and dyed it in the five years since the picture was taken. Editors on here are quick to become outraged. Especially you. And the point of an encyclopedia is to update your resources. I.E., your content and pictures. Refusing to update the header pic is absurd and juvenile. And what is the point of the autosign option in the editing section if people scold you for not linking your userpage? It's not like you could, I dunno, type my username into the search bar. Rusted AutoParts 14:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- So, wait.. you're saying you made up an example that wasn't true to make a point that was meaningless in the first place? Who is using the same "outdated" picture "over and over"? Using a photo a few years old, or in the case of the picture that brought me here just one year old is not a problem if it is appropriately representative of the subject. Please define "constantly" or give links to examples; I see Tenebrae said "often poor" ONCE in one response to this topic. He did not post on the previous discussion on this topic, and he has no comments currently on Gage's talk page. Saying something is "inferior" or "poor quality" is not "trashing" anything if it is true. He didn't actually say "inferior" as far as I can see, but if he did, it would be accurate IF the picture he posted was of lesser quality than the one that was already posted! Centerone (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- "inferior" isn't a value judgment on the photographer. It's a factual statement based on objective criteria: Is the subject's face obscured (by a microphone, water bottle, etc?)? Is there background clutter? Is there foreground clutter? Is it poorly lit? It it a side image replacing a full-face image? Is the face in shadow? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Awards in infobox
Back in 2009 per these Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 3#Infobox actor changes proposal, specifically all the supports under Proposal 4. Template talk:Infobox actor/Archive 6#Infobox Actor change proposal and other discussions consensus was reached to remove awards sections from actor infoboxes for various reasons. Too back up a bit further at one point we had decided that to only lists Oscars, Emmys, Tonys etc was too WP:NPOV and that all awards should be treated equally. That lead to 20+ fields in the infobox which lead to the discussions linked above. As a result all award fields in the actor infobox were deactivated. At some point after this the actor infobox was merged into the person infobox which does have a field for awards. While we didn't codify not putting awards in the infoboxes into the MoS it has been the consensus that we have been operating under. In the last few months I have noticed that some performers have had awards put back in the infobox by adding the awards sections for comedians into an infobox as was done here [2]. For me two things haven't changed since the decisions of several years ago. One, choosing only certain awards still violates WP:NPOV and, two, their inclusion bloats infoboxes needlessly. They also are redundant in that most of our actor bio articles include mentions of their awards in the lede, in their own separate awards sections, sometimes in the filmography tables and, ocassionally, in their own article ala List of awards and nominations received by Meryl Streep. Since it has been awhile since the original discussions and since consensus can change I have started this thread to gain new input. As I see it we have three possible solutions -though there may be more. MarnetteD | Talk 15:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
1) Keep the infoboxes free of awards sections.
This would maintain the previous consensus.
- I support this as my preference but I would also support number three below. MarnetteD | Talk 15:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support this approach over the others. I think restoring the "awards" field is likely to result in the field being used the same way as before. We would have to monitor for such excess once more. Maybe an alternative approach to linking to an "Awards" section is to have a center-aligned link at the bottom of the infobox? That way it's clearly not one of the standard fields. We could maybe do the same thing with "Filmography", so we have a center-aligned line saying, "Jump to: Filmography · Awards" with a link for both items. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Including awards here would be problematic for a number of reasons. It would require a huge oversight, as we obviously can't list every award there, and on top of that, it would just add to the cluttering of the infobox. Nymf talk to me 10:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support this proposal against infobox bloat. Elizium23 (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
2) Include awards sections in the infobox.
Should we set some parameters to avoid WP:NPOV?
- Support I am in favor of this but limiting awards to those for which there is a public network televised ceremony. (Oscar, Emmy, Golden Globes and Tonys). No SAG, MTV, Saturn, etc.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- The problems with this are that it violates WP:NPOV in at least two ways. First, you are only including those awards presented in the US - which also violates WP:ENGVAR. Second, SAG, MTV etc are also receive public network televised ceremonies. I think that you are trying to say that we should only include those broadcast on "non-cable" networks but that has the problem of assuming that these shows will always be broadcast that way. What do we do if the Tony's or the Globe's move to a cable network - go through and remove them? For those actors who win numerous awards we still have the problem of infobox bloat as well. MarnetteD | Talk 17:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
3) Use the award field but only use a link to an already existing award section.
Examples "see awards section below" or " see List of awards and nominations received by Meryl Streep"
- I would support this as a good compromise that stops the infobox bloat but gets readers to an award section. MarnetteD | Talk 15:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
Now this is just one editors suggestions and any and all input will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 15:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for you post Erik. Isn't your suggestion a sort of alternative to the third option I provided? if approved we could certainly change my wording there. I worry that these are problematic because on many bio articles by the time you've scrolled down to access these in an infobox you can also see the TOC which has links to the same sections of the article. On the other hand either of these would be useful for the few actors that have entirely separate awards articles. MarnetteD | Talk 18:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- You're right, the TOC would be there. I admit I do not use the TOC too often, I tend to Page Down. :-P Well, what about using them for linking to sub-articles? I have to admit I'm not crazy about some actor/filmmaker articles where I have to go to "<Actor> filmography" to finally see the films, the works for which the person are known. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that idea. However, that would entail adding a new field to the "person infobox" that would only be used for actor articles. To do that we would have to start a new thread at the talk page for the template and see how things go. I still miss our "actor infoboxes" even though they've been gone for years :-( If others are in favor of it we can proceed as needed. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- You're right, the TOC would be there. I admit I do not use the TOC too often, I tend to Page Down. :-P Well, what about using them for linking to sub-articles? I have to admit I'm not crazy about some actor/filmmaker articles where I have to go to "<Actor> filmography" to finally see the films, the works for which the person are known. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Anyone else who would like to join in here? Or can we assess the discussion so far, and form a reasonable consensus? Nymf talk to me 19:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- It has been open for more than a month so some resolution would be nice. Since participation has been limited it can certainly be reopened of needed. MarnetteD | Talk 21:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Eyes needed at Rohit Gupta
I don't normally edit on articles on filmmakers. I did have this one watchlisted. There are a few IPs and SPAs working on this and it looks to be getting a bit out of hand as far as what is being claimed and how it's worded. If someone has time to do some clean-up and making the article a bit more encyclopedic, that would be helpful. Frankly, I'm not sure where to start. freshacconci talk to me 12:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
American actors of ethnicity
Right now, there are several categories for American actors of various ethnicities that are being proposed for deletion. This would impact actors and actresses in the fields of film, stage (including musical theatre), television and voice. If you have an opinion, for or against, please take a moment to weigh in:
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 9#African-American child actors (this has been expanded to all African-American acting categories)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 11#Category:American actors of Chinese descent
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 11#Category:American actors of Japanese descent
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 11#Jewish American actors
Liz Read! Talk! 14:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Friends, did you know about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg?
File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg ( enwiki FP ) has been listed at Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. Thanks. --Degueulasse (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
21st-century Indian film actresses
Category:21st-century Indian film actresses, which is related to this project, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. I have also added some comments seeking greater discussion on the issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Actors and actresses by medium?
I have been wondering if it really is worth categorizing actors and actresses by medium. I have doubts. There are examples that really fight against doing so. Star Trek started out as a TV show, then later they made films using the same core cast. So lots of people were cast in both in the exact same roles. There are also a few films that were really TV show pilots. Then how do we class people who had roles in made for TV movies. On the other hand, if we ended having Category:American film actresses, we would end up with even larger categories. We can divide by century though, and if we put everyone in Category:20th-century American actresses who could go there, the category will be even bigger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series Screen Actors Guild Award winners, which is related to this project, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Superhero films actors/Superhero films and television actors/something
This is one of the most frustrating things about Wikipedia. It is much easier to get a discussion on deleting a category than creating it. So much sometimes it is tempting to just act and see if it works. But in this case, I am not convinced that is the best plan. I am wondering if we should create Category:Superhero films actors (actually probably Category:Male Superhero films actors and Category:Superhero films actresses. There is some precedent for this, since we have Category:Male Western (genre) film actors and Category:Spaghetti Western actresses. It is also clear that people like Christopher Reeve are most notable for these roles, while Christian Bale and Amy Adams probably cannot be separated from such roles, and even Kevin Spacey and Ben Affleck ought possibly to be so categorized. However, is this a distinct enough group of actors. Does it matter for people who have only had minor roles in such films. Does Will Smith get into the category from staring in Hancock (film)? Do we want to create this category, especially since what stops us from then creating Category:Fantasy films actors and such? I am not sure, but it is worth discussiong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Mexican super hero films: Mil Mascaras, El Santo, Demonio Azul
Category:Mexican super hero films: Mil Mascaras, El Santo, Demonio Azul, which is related to this project, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Actors from Bridgeport, Connecticut
Category:Actors from Bridgeport, Connecticut, Category:Actors from Stamford, Connecticut, Category:Actors from Hartford, Connecticut, Category:Actors from Fairfield, Connecticut, Category:Actors from Greenfield, Connecticut and Category:Actresses from Hartford, Connecticut which are related to this project, have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_24#Category:Actors from Bridgeport, Connecticut/this category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Need help with Ben Lamb (The White Queen)
I need your help finding reliable sources to show that Ben Lamb meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. He seems to fail WP:GNG but he's borderline with Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers criteria #1 - having major roles in multiple notable productions. He played a major character in The White Queen (TV series) and in the completed-but-not-yet-released film Divergent (film). The day Divergent is released, he will easily qualify under #Entertainers criteria 1, but until then it's iffy. If I can't get enough suitable references to make an article that will easily pass any AFD, I'm just going to clean up the temporarily-restored article, move it into main-space, then replace it with a redirect to The White Queen (TV series)#Additional cast.
Please post comments and suggestions on User talk:Davidwr/Ben Lamb (actor). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a proposal to send Brad Pitt's article to a Featured article review. Please have a look at Talk:Brad Pitt#Proposal for a FAR for more details. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Richard Spelling
Richard Spelling was a silent movie producer. Maybe he is related to Aaron Spelling? If anybody knows anything about him please message me at de:Benutzer Diskussion:Jack User, english or german. Thx. --Jack User (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have thought so based on his background: "Spelling was born in Dallas, the youngest of five children of David, a tailor at Sears, and his wife Pearl. The couple were eastern European Jewish immigrants". --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Richard Spelling was a (german?) silent movie producer. And silent movies in Germany at this time were movies from Berlin, where many eastern European Jewish immigrants worked, especially in the film industry. I know this facts, because it is my special interest. I founded on Germawiki de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Stummfilm. Stummfilm = silent movie. And this is, why i asked. --Jack User (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Infobox use for Jennifer Lawrence
There is currently a discussion going on at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence#Infobox about the recent bold removal of the infobox. Input would be appreciated. BOVINEBOY2008 13:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks BB - I'll also let the Film Project know too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- ^ [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduardo_Darino "Eduardo Darino"].
{{cite web}}: Check|url=value (help) - ^ [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Bakshi "Ralph-Bakshi"].
{{cite web}}: Check|url=value (help) - ^ [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_McLaren "Norman McLaren"].
{{cite web}}: Check|url=value (help) - ^ [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_Actors_Guild "SAG"].
{{cite web}}: Check|url=value (help)