I want to kindly seek the input of this WikiProject on the creation of a Africa-cinema related AFD list. I believe this will increase participation of knowledgeable editors in AFD discussions, aid retainment of notable topics and generally improve the quality of AfroCine articles of Wikipedia. Please how can I go about making this happen? HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
It's just my opinion, but I think it would help more if someone listed reliable sources commonly used to write African cinema articles. I sometimes contribute to Southeast Asian cinema articles. I'm sure I've seen more Malaysian and Thai films than the average Westerner, but I'm clueless about Southeast Asian cinema. The reason why I'm able to contribute to those articles (and deletion discussions) is because I worked out a list of reliable sources that I could check. It can be a lot of work to figure out which sources are reliable, which are tabloids, and which are fake news, especially for a country where English is not an official language. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedians,
Recently, Seran Kim was tagged for deletion for being a film director of short films. I believe she us notable as a film maker since her film had won awards. By comparison, Mat Kirkby is also a short film director.
Please help me with removing the tag.SWP13 (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
RfC on creating a "Cultural impact of Michael Jackson" article
Earlier today I made a fairly innocuous edit to the filmography at Ellen Page—it makes little sense to me to say how many episodes of The Umbrella Academy she was in when she's the leading cast member—but was reverted by another user. WP:FILMOGRAPHY specifically says "Do not list the number of episodes if the role is a starring or major recurring role" so I think I was right, but perhaps someone else could take a look? PC78 (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Input would be appreciated in an ongoing dispute on the page for the film director Brian Desmond Hurst. This is currently being discussed in the "Conflict on film" genre section on the Talk page, as well as the earlier Conflict on Film section. I note that the page is not currently tagged as coming within the remit of this project, but it self-evidently should be. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
RfC on restructuring the Michael Jackson article with respect to child sexual abuse allegations
Could someone from WP:FILMBIO take a look at this newly created article and assess it for notability? It's possible this person is notable per WP:FILMMAKER, but a quick google search didn't come up with lots of sources. I did, however, find this which seems to indicate he had a fairly long career in both film and TV. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
In addition to Obituaties in Performing Arts, 2010, there is also this. The fact that this person predates the Internet probably means there is more print coverage of him out there in news databases and archives. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)14:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know that this has ever been discussed. I would consider this the same as a "archival footage" situation, and in general I would agree that these probably don't merit inclusion in filmography tables, though other editors clearly disagree. So I'm not sure there's a consensus on the issue... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I do remember a discussion from long ago - though I've no idea when or where. I can't remember if there was a definitive consensus. One of the outcomes though was the way the Olivier's performance in Sky Captain... is listed here Laurence Olivier on stage and screen#Filmography which uses the "archived footage" terminology that IJBall mentions. MarnetteD|Talk14:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
That's an interesting question. Personally, I agree that these performances should not be listed in filmography tables. But I think it's perfectly fine to include a line or two about this in their biography. It should be easy to find sources that discuss it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bill Cosby until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America100002:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aaron Sorkin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America100002:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Brandy Norwood until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America100002:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the word "filmography", it appears that all dictionaries define this as a list of films. Is it really appropriate for us to use for TV and stage credits? Could we simply not do "Credits" instead? Or something similarly all-encompassing? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)23:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
If the term "filmography" isn't as encompassing as its widespread use in this site suggests, then I'm open to other ideas, though it would involve lots of page changes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Filmography should not include 'Stage' roles (that's considered to be an entirely different "medium"). How it's used on Wikipedia, Filmography can/should encompass Film and Television, and related "media" like video games and music videos; it can also plausibly include Radio, though that may be controversial. Like Snuggums, I have never seen a problem with its usage as a term, and replacing it would be alot of work. But if somebody can come up with a better word that would encompasses Film & Television, etc., I'm open to the idea. But I don't like 'Credits' as I agree with the idea that Stage roles should be kept separate from the others... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
There are things like this Rod Steiger on screen and stage. I know it is its own list article but something like it could be adapted for the 'pedia's articles. As to the editing involved to change the current usage there is such a mishmash of styles and tables on the hundreds of thousands of actor articles that I doubt there will ever be a complete uniformity site wide. I say whatever we wind up choosing just put it in WP:MOSFILM for new articles and replace the word in older articles as you come across them. MarnetteD|Talk00:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
It did not occur to me until now, but IMDb uses "Filmography" to be all-encompassing, and we probably follow suit from that. I had only checked dictionaries before and could not find "filmography" to mean anything more than a list of films. (Of course, IMDb means Internet Movie Database...) I don't think "Credits" or some variation of it is problematic, and it seems more technically accurate than "Filmography" when the table has TV credits. It is a tall order to change everything, but perhaps at least accept variations per MOS:RETAIN? I feel like I can see an editor trying to replace a variation with "Filmography" and arguing that because "everything else" has that, this section should too. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)19:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding separate pages for filmographies for some performers. Why is this a thing? While I can understand the some actors have very lengthy filmographies, the idea that a completely separate page is needed (and therefore another click) to see an actor's credits is laughable, and it creates inconsistencies amongst pages. I mean, do we seriously need a separate page for Seth Rogen's filmography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.160.61 (talk • contribs)
Child star who is subject to a notability challenges. Shouild she always be notable? Are there sources where there is more than a passing mention of the subject? 7&6=thirteen (☎)21:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
As you well know, the question is not "Should she always be notable?" – the question is: "Was she ever notable enough for an article in the first place?" And, based on what's been produced so far, it's at best questionable... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't making any argument. Simply providing notice of the discussion.
But if you want to repeat here what you said there, have at it. You are entitled to your opinion, and we know you will not hesitate to share it. 7&6=thirteen (☎)23:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Am I missing something? The bold "Newsletter directory" link takes me to Template:Newsletters rather than to a list of newsletters. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
May somebody have a quick look at the above article – particularly at the sections "Awards" (couldn't verify any of them!) and "Selected filmography" (hidden)? (Ideally, please ping when commenting – thanks in advance!)--Hildeoc (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
New media available for early 20th-century media and media persons
Dwight A. Meade, stock actor
I wanted to let this project know that I am uploading a few thousand new public-domain images to Commons that might be useful to you. The images come from the collection of J. Willis Sayre and were digitized by the University of Washington. They date from the first quarter of the 20th century and are largely portrait shots of various people involved in theater, film, and other media at that time, and shots of scenes from plays and films.
You can make use of these images in articles, and we also need help categorizing them on Commons.
There was some discussion on the talk page (and at WT:FILM) about whether or not this list should be highlighting actresses over the age of 80. It might benefit from a few fresh eyes if anyone has any thoughts. PC78 (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
That is an artifact of the ! scope="row" code, which is needed for MOS:ACCESSIBILITY reasons. I too wish that that code didn't lead to highlighting like that (it's worse if the table is not plainrowheaders, because then it's both "highlighted" and "bolded"!...), but as far as I know we're stuck with that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi IJBall, Ahhh thanks for that - I had no idea it was an accessibility thing, To me it looks silly with either the years or the titles having the grey background but like you said seems we're stuck with it, Good job I asked as already ended up reverting the coding from a good few articles (all reverted back),
Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at this article and re-assessing it? The subject might be notable per WP:NACTOR, but someone claiming to be Hutchens edited the article a few months back which might need cleaning up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Closing this shit show before we all say things we're going to regret. The proposal to have Years on seperate lines has been declined -
If anyone wants to start a new discussion on whether years should be changed from for instance "2011-2013, 2014, 2015-2019 to "2011-2019" then I have no objections. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk15:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A user by the name of IJBall is arguing on having the filmography pages naturally be "one line wide" like this: (e.g. 2005-06, 2011-13, 2018). Frankly I don't agree with his rules and his "WP:IDONTLIKE" as this contradicts and retcons several article pages for actors filmography pages such as Paget Brewster (in Criminal Minds), Joshua Leonard, to name a few that had it in this format.
The point for line spacing is due to the fact that an actor who played a specific character remains absent for years in a show which more recently are using this:
Yes, in the vast majority of cases, we should not introduce "undue line spacing", using 'br' tags', into Filmography tables. This is common sense. In the case of Dilshad Vadsaria, doing so is completely unnecessary. P.S. In your example, it should likely just be "2005–2018" for simplicity's sake: including that number of year ranges is pretty much WP:INDISCRIMINATE info. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree, cause frankly it's like saying this actor who portrays someone in a show but makes small guest appearances (like 2-5 episodes depending on the show) think about it? Dilshad Vadsaria made 2 episode appearances in Bones one in 2010 and another 5 years later (2015), it makes no sense to have it as ("2010-2015") or "(2010, 2015)" and is more better formatted as
2010,
2015 imao.
This is Especially noticeable when it comes to someone portraying a minor guest character in an episode of a show and aren't seen again like 2 years, 5 years or a decade later after their first appearance in an episode. Same can be said for actors who starred in a show that has been off the air for a decade only to return again for that said show (e.g. Gillian Anderson in X-Files) or even Sara Gilbert in The Big Bang Theory who's character hasn't been seen since 2010 up until her small appearance in 2016.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not listed as "2010–2015" at Dilshad Vadsaria – it's listed as "2010, 2015", on one line, as it should be. And as it's done the vast majority of articles. There is zero need for a line break here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Yep – I'm not sure how I'd handle that at Paget Brewster, but considering it's infrequent guest appearances, I think just "2005–present" is sufficient. --IJBall (contribs • talk)
I highly disagree with both of you IJBall and Davey2010. There is ZERO need for "One-line wide" areas for filmography tables, particularly on actors who have been aren't seen again like 2 years, 5 years or a decade later after their first appearance in an episode. I just don't want 'br' brackets to just be disregarded on the filmography pages of the actors and actresses --AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I highly disagree with you AnimeDisneylover95. There is ZERO need for "2/3/4/5-lined" areas for filmography tables. I just want 'br' brackets to just be disregarded on the filmography pages of the actors and actresses –Davey2010Talk19:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Once again Davey2010, No I don't agree with you once again. It's becoming another vicious cycle once again and not the first time I experience this. To see users just like you to just change policies and rules all because of "WP:IDONTLIKE" that they've seen on Wikipedia it has happened not just with this but with reliablesourceson voice actors, with everything in general and just have this "WP:ILIKEIT, my-way-or-the-highway" attitude. Frankly Davey2010, I say There is ZERO need for the filmography tables on the actors pages to be like this: "(e.g. 2005-06, 2011-12, 2018)" or "(2010, 2016)" and having them "One-Line wide" as it is considered WP:INDISCRIMINATE info and make the filmography tables for the pages of the actors and actresses look awkward. So I'm putting my foot down as this issue has gone way to far enough so no more of this.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
AnimeDisneylover95 I take an offense this being called "a vicious circle" .... this isn't a vicious circle ... it's called "seeking consensus for your changes", In percentages 50% is article editing, the other 50% is talking with other editors and getting consensus on things .... that's how this place works .... If you dislike getting consensus and talking to people than this place isn't for you.,
Also no this isn't about whether I like it or not - The majority of articles I've come across all use one line so why should it be any different?.....,
"So I'm putting my foot down as this issue has gone way to far enough so no more of this" - Again not how this place works, You can put your foot down hard as you want it won't change a thing ... You could even break your foot if you like it still won't change anything ... You'll just be in a lot of pain and the articles will look no different lol. –Davey2010Talk20:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
And more often than not their are users just like you who just continue to act so full of themselves on how they want it which is what you and IJBall are doing. Frankly Davey2010, I'm not benefiting from this conversation, you can continue arguing till the "cow's come home" and argue that "'br' brackets need to to just be disregarded on the filmography pages" but honestly I say to both you and IJBall that There is ZERO need for the filmography tables on the actors pages to be like this: "(e.g. 2005-06, 2011-12, 2018)" or "(2010, 2016)" and having them "One-Line wide". You made your point so STOP WP:BADGERING me.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
May I suggest you read what you cite as there's no BADGERING here whatsoever,
Also no one's arguing - You made a proposal which everyone objected too ....,
And that's the main point – AnimeDisneylover95 has made a proposal to change long-standing WP:FILMOGRAPHY practices, and has found no support for the proposed change. When that happens, it's best to just drop it, and move on. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
IJBall I'd rather say to both you and Davey2010 to drop the conflict and STOP disregarding the 'br', or better yet STOP disregarding the 'ubl' brackets on the filmography pages cause I see ZERO need for the filmography tables on the actors pages to be in this format which looks dull and not interesting: "(e.g. 2005-06, 2011-12, 2018)" or "(2010, 2016)" and having them as "One-Line wide" that's it. Do other edits on pages you like, but seriously stop treating this as you "own the thing"--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
AnimeDisneylover95 Let me make this abundantly clear to you in very simple terms that even you will hopefully understand - The next time you make edits such as this or this you will be blocked,
You made a proposal and it was rejected so therefore you don't get to GAME IT by using a template[1] (which more or less does what we told you not to do). –Davey2010Talk23:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I didn't mean ALL of the 'br' brackets Davey2010 I was meant to say on the years section not the notes. Stop rimming me a new one and twisting what I said and going to the extremes. You're literally a conniving user while making a WP:POINT. Now you're pretty much WP:INDISCRIMINATE info on the 'br and ubl brackets .--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Again you made a proposal and it was declined ... now stop pinging me and go back to productive editing (editing that doesn't involve changing years). –Davey2010Talk15:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
No Davey2010, I'd say YOU and IJBall to stop pinging me on my talk page and just go back to your own productive editing (especially on editing that doesn't involve changing years and WP:INDISCRIMINATE info the 'ubl' brackets on the filmography pages for the actors). I don't want to even think about you and IJBall going back to those pages again months or a year later from this conflict and having the same issues. So want my recommendation, "Go and smell the Roses" and do other activities and finding a real job rather than spend the rest of your lives doing edits on this site . I'm not going to continue having you and IJBall make more arguments and "rimming" me a new one at me but this is on the both of you for being making a WP:POINT.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely agree – edits are disruptive (and WP:POINTy) now, and AnimeDisneylover95 was very recently warned about doing the latter by other editors on his Talk page (subsequently removed by AnimeDisneylover95). In addition, to adding undue line breaks to both the 'Year' and 'Notes' column, AnimeDisneylover95 is also making edits that are contrary to MOS:DATERANGE as per WP:FILMOGRAPHY, so now they clearly are going against the MOS here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I definitely don't think we should be eliding something like "2005; 2007–2009; 2015–present" into "2005–present". That's literally removing and misrepresenting information. That being said, we most certainly should not be putting in hard linebreaks... let the column widths determine where the linebreaks happen. Forced linebreaks are rarely a good idea, especially in tables. That's why we have semicolons. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah that would incorrectly imply a single consecutive run throughout all of said years. We shouldn't give readers such false impressions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Joeyconnick I don't agree that having "2005; 2007–2009; 2015–present" makes ANY sense to have on the Filmography tables.
It's "generalizing" that information. Remember, there is also a 'Notes' column, where we can easily include additional info such as "(seasons 1, 3–5, 10–present)". So it really is not 100% "necessary" to do something like "2005; 2007–2009; 2015–present" in the 'Year' column. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Describing the omission of year breaks as "generalizing" would be misleading when it gives people the wrong idea of how long something ran uninterrupted. Notes column can however be helpful. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
My point is, in an extreme case, doing this for a 'Years' column could lead to something like "2004–2005, 2007, 2009, 2012, 2014–2015, 2018–present" which just gets to be pointless overkill – "2005–present" would mostly convey the same information, with the 'Notes' column available to list out the details... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
And once again, if an actor and/or actress who portrays someone portraying a minor guest character in an episode of a show and aren't seen again like 2 years, or better yet 5-7 years or a decade later after their first appearance in an episode (e.g. Gillian Anderson in The X-Files, Shelby Holiday (Gwyneth Paltrow) who remained absent after her last appearance in 2011 before her return in 2014 and especially Sara Gilbert's character in The Big Bang Theory who's character hasn't been seen since 2010 up until her small appearance in 2016) it makes sense to have the 'ubl' brackets with the semicolon instead of the plain uninteresting "(2010, 2015)" which you used on the Dilshad Vadsaria page better yet on EVERY Filmography table from the pages for the actors.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Please note: "Year" columns should be listed first and "Title" columns should be listed second. Use of rowspan formatting in "Year" columns (ex. #2) is acceptable, but rowspan formatting should not be used in other columns, per WP:ACCESS.
I don't believe that WP:ACCESS advises anymore against using rowspan formatting in other columns. If I haven't got that wrong, then, if WP:ACCESS is the sole reason for the prohibition, the highlighted portion should be deleted. If there are other reasons to prohibit rowspan, then the guidance should be modified to state them. Just my $0.02. – Archer1234 (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Then you don't understand WP:ACCESS and WP:DTT – improper use of 'rowspan' in tables (or improper use of "stacked tables" generally) disadvantages our text-to-speech readership which is contrary to the spirit of the Wikipedia:Non-discrimination policy. The only place 'rowspan' might be allowed in WP:FILMOGRAPHY tables is in the left-most column (usually the 'Year' column), but even here most editors of WP:FILMOGRAPHY (correctly in my opinion) frown on the use of 'rowspan' even there (and I'd favor removal of the "Use of rowspan formatting in "Year" columns (ex. #2) is acceptable..." part, as that is a recent addition). We certainly aren't going to throw MOS:ACCESS and the non-discrimination policy out on the basis of some editors' purely WP:ILIKEIT viewpoint on (excessive) rowspan use. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment - I inquired about this here in May and RexxS had a helpful response:
Please have a look at Graham87's comments in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility/Archive 6 #Row spans in tables. Screen readers have got better at dealing with rowspans since I wrote User:RexxS/Accessibility in 2010 to examine the issues raised by rowspans in the Opera and Lynx browsers. Rowspans are not the deal-breaker that they used to be, but it's still kinder to screen reader users if we avoid them where we can. Doing so would certainly make a table more easily navigable, and would probably improve its readability for anyone using any assistive technology. Nevertheless I'd be loathe to try to use MOS to prohibit rowspans, because of the inherent inertia in many WikiProjects who will want to do things "the way we always have". We're much more likely to get accessibility improvements across the wiki in the long term by raising awareness and persuading editors of what is best practice in these sort of cases. — User:RexxS
And for the sake of this discussion, the guideline was updated by Joeyconnick in June here to allow rowspan, with the edit summary WP:ACCESS definitely does not forbid rowspan... it just says use it judiciously; certainly it's appropriate for spanning identical elements in the first column of a table where no ambiguity is inherent). Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk00:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
It's "best practice" to minimize 'rowspan' use not just for screenreaders, but for regular readers too. If you don't believe me, take a look at some of the worst (over)use of 'rowspan' in some 'Awards and nominations' tables. 'Rowspan' use comes down to an WP:ILIKEIT-type edit, and for every editor who "likes it", there will be another editor who "doesn't like it". So we should certainly not be promoting rowspan use even if it's not an Accessibility issue (which, FTR, it still clearly is). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
And just to be clear, that was me restoring a previous version of the page which had been changed by this edit in a fairly arbitrary manner. It certainly wasn't my edit initially, although I agree with it in principle. A look at my edit history indicates I am definitely not a fan of rowspan or colspan but for Filmography tables, where the first column is "Year" and the span is unambiguous, I don't see a problem. We should maybe have a bigger discussion but my understanding of WP:ACCESS is that "simple" rowspan is handled relatively well by screen readers and other assistive techs. The issue is that "simple" rowspan is a little grey and rowspan usage can get out of control pretty quickly (i.e. some people get very span-happy). —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose removal per everything IJBall wrote, plus the use of rowspans makes it messier to sort through entries. In fact, that's why I wouldn't even use them for "year" sections in filmography tables, and if anything would recommend taking out the "Use of rowspan formatting in "Year" columns (ex. #2) is acceptable" portion along with the table using that. There once was a time when such uses were more discouraged, and it's beyond me why they got more accepted. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The issue with 'rowspan' of the 'Year' in Filmography tables is that in the vast majority of cases, the rowspan consists of spanning just 2 or 3 rows in the 'Year' column. It's different in 'Awards and nominations' tables where sometimes the same 'Year' goes 10 or more rows deep – in those situations, it actually makes sense to use 'rowspan' for the 'Years'. But in 'Filmography' tables, especially small ones (i.e. with few entries), absolutely nothing substantial is gained with 'rowspan' of the 'Year'. That's why I'd certainly be in favor of going back to the blanket "disallowance" of 'rowspan' in Filmography tables. Allowing them gains pretty much nothing, and allowing them even minimally is just going to encourage some editors to go nuts with them, turning the 'Filmography' tables into as big a mess as some of the 'Awards and nominations' tables are, and as virtually all of the 'Discography' tables are. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with rowspans for "Accolades/Awards and nominations" pages, and probably should've specified that I meant it rowspans make filmography entries messier. Not sure what to say for discography articles. As for the current allowances, I agree that even only permitting it for "year" field for filmography only encourages certain people to add more of those. We shouldn't enable that with such lenience. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I started a new draft on a american filmmaker Mark Kendall. It seems to me that SamHolt6 is just looking for reasons to decline instead of properly reviewing the draft. The draft is based on Mark's career nothing else and I think the tone is neutral. Can the project members help me get a fair review at least? Thanks and have a great day 64tsbitz (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't do much work on entries about actors or films, but I have come across some editing on Gregory Peck that I think is inconsistent with WP:SYNTH, and I'm just looking for advice so that I don't drive User:Informed Analysis crazy. The edits concern the critical reception of Gregory Peck films, but they are occurring on the actor's entry.
I think that this edit is illustrative of what I have run into. I haven't been successful in explaining, for example, that I think it's synthesis to take the individual opinions of two reviewers and then label the overall reception as contradictory. I've suggested that he find a reliable secondary/tertiary source actually describing the critical reception of these films, but in reply he cites the NPOV section of WP:OR, which says that for many ideas there is no single source that is authoritative.
The user is doing a lot of work on the article, but I do think that much of it is unnecessary (after I recently suggested that he should change an instance of "One critic said" to name the actual critic from an offline book, he misinterpreted my comments as saying that he needed to add extensive quotations from reviewers on each Peck film mentioned in the article). With that said, I don't want to cause undue frustration. Any thoughts? Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to add that the IP in the diff above is said to be this user's partner and only occasionally represents the user when he forgets to log in, but the editing pattern is the same (making broad points by combining narrower references, none of which individually make the broader point). Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
John Cena, 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. AIRcorn(talk)19:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Mamoru Miyano
Mamoru Miyano, 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. AIRcorn(talk)03:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
New bot to remove completed infobox requests
Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!
I have done recent work on both Bruce Lee and his son Brandon Lee pages.
A recurring that thing I read about while researching is something known as The Bruce Lee curse, a superstition along the line that every first male of the family will die a tragic death. Published rumors that it was the mafia who killed them, and all kinds of weird stuff.
It is not a subject I am comfortable with, and I do not seek to do it on their pages, but it is unavoidable. These conspiracies are widely published.
Bruce Lee's level of importance on Wiki bio's of Martial arts & Actors and filmmakers
I recently did some work on Bruce Lee's page.
My biggest surprise was to see his level of importance on the talk page Mid on both Martial arts plus Actors and filmmakers.
This is not right. Even if in my opinion, Lee's film are generally shallow but entertaining Kung Fu films. Lee is known to have changed the Asian image in American Cinema.
Also Lee is credited to have influenced the creation of MMA.
Another thing (may be wrong about it) that went around Wikipedia was to have more articles about women. I am not sure if that included non-whites but if it did in the featured articles about Media biography, aside from Bollywood folks and one video game developer I see no Asians.
I've noticed that too, has anyone called the editors attention to the consensus? Maybe they just don't know. If we are to not use the navboxes, why are they still active? LADY LOTUS • TALK19:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and they are self-reverting. I have no idea about the navboxes. Not in the scope of this project, but I am concerned about the other categories for the Golden Raspberry Awards, like Worst Original Song, Worst Newcomer, etc. I am not sure if there is consensus elsewhere regarding these. Jip Orlando (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm seeing more and more a Director column in an actors filmography and I would like a clear consensus before I start removing it on if this is the new norm now because I'm not a fan of unnecessary information in a table. Just makes it look bogged down. An actors filmography should be simple - year, role, title, any notes. If we add the director, whats to stop from adding producer? And sometimes there are multiples and it just makes the table look sloppy. I oppose the addition of Directors in an actors filmography but would love to have other feedback. LADY LOTUS • TALK21:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Years ago (last decade in fact) I saw a lot of these (perhaps an off shot of the auteur theory of film) and probably added to them at the time. I agree with Lady Lotus that they clutter up a table. If a reader wants to know more about a film they can simply click on the link and go to the article for the film. I would be fine with their removal and with a mention of them not being added at WP:FILMMOS. MarnetteD|Talk21:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I also absolutely oppose inclusion of a 'Directors' column in actor/actress 'Filmography' tables. This has become a real problem lately because a number of especially WP:FL 'Filmography' articles have left these columns included (once again demonstrating how the FA/GA process is still significantly spearated from the requisite WP's in question...) In a similar fashion, I also strongly oppose inclusion of the "Network" in 'Television' filmography tables. Some editors clearly do not understand why we include a link to the relevant film or TV series Wikipedia article – the link is there exactly so people can find out additional information (e.g. film director, TV network), at the film or TV series article in question. This is also why we don't have to do the "2019–present" (soon to become "2020–present) nonsense for TV series – if people want to know if a TV series is still airing new episodes, all they need to do is click on the link! they don't need to violate MOS:DATERANGE to indicate this!... But, yes – there is no substantive reason for a 'Directors' column, etc. to be included in 'Filmography' tables. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Examples: List of Amy Adams performances (WP:FL – without a 'Directors' column, though including the stupid "TV network" column in the 'Television' table: this should also be removed!), vs. Jessica Chastain on screen and stage (WP:FL – with the 'Directors' column, but without the stupid 'TV network' column...).
FTR, I also generally dislike the "title column-first" 'Filmography' tables vs. the "year column-first" 'Filmography' tables, and it's clear this is another thing that the WP:FL process appears to "encourage", if not outright "require", and it absolutely shouldn't IMO... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the examples, I am fine with both I lean a bit more in the direction of keeping the director as it is an important collaboration in which the work of art... or junk lol is produced. I also find it practical, as if I may like film that Chastain acted in, I like the ability to click on its director right away.
I also agree not an essential, nor do I want to do it. Not something to engage with until all filmography is proven to be accurate. In case of B-actors like David Carradine, some ancient actors, or actors from non english countries, it is quite difficult to do because either you need an obscure VHS for the citation to be able to present the directors name or translate it from another language. I am against people engaging into it without accomplishing a complete list of sources.
I consider having the list of directors in the box as an overall plus, but not essential. I do think it's logical to both, and if one would like to do it from Amy Adams I wouldn't mind at all. However I would understand your grief if the user can't complete it in a reasonable amount of time.Filmman3000 (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
But a single actors filmography should not be the basis of all information on that film, that's why it links to the films page where all the topic information can be found. It shouldn't be added to the filmography just for convenience otherwise more unnecessary information will try to be added it to it, like co-stars, producers, writers, etc. LADY LOTUS • TALK16:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Well said LL and IJB. In fact if we are going to list any other person in a filmography who is important to an actor being in a film then there should be a column for casting director. Yes I am being facetious as I am for reducing clutter in these tables :-) MarnetteD|Talk17:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind either way. If you guys want to delete all the directors on Chastain's page go right ahead, I won't stop you. I do suggest you engage with those who strongly support it.
I voiced my opinion on why lean more on keeping it, but can be problematic too, when it comes obscure films. I simply can't be bothered. I just don't think it is problematic because of auteur theory's opinion. Sometime a film is clearly by a filmmaker, I can walk midway into a film and know it's either a Michael Bay or a Jean-Luc Goddard film. When it comes to the Rocky franchise, the films can be quite distinctives whether Advilsen, Stallone, or Coogler directs, but when it comes to the Police Academy franchise I agree regardless of the director it seems the same. I choose to watch most films based on directors, but also with some actors that I trust their brand.
Chastain is a known actress to choose films by directors with a clear signature so it makes complete sense for her to have it. Plus they are all easily verifiable. I did some work on Stuart Whitman recently with the batch of B-movies and television movies that he did, I had to track down VHS from the pits of Cinema hell just to confirm the damn thing exists.
Oppose inclusion of directors — I definitely agree with the people opposed; film is clearly a collaborative medium and the notion that directors should be listed as the sole primary creators while omitting writers, editors, etc. is clearly not WP:NPOV. This is clear name-dropping and if the cost of that means someone has to click twice instead of once to get to a director's article from an actor's page, I'm 200% fine with that. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@Krimuk2.0, FrB.TG, SchroCat, and Yashthepunisher: Pinging users who have contributed to a number of filmography FLs of this format as the outcome of this discussion is likely to affect these lists. In summary, the discussion is around whether director columns and network/channel columns should be removed as being extraneous. Cowlibob (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I have always omitted the directors from the filmographies I have produced - mostly for the reasons given above (collaborative project, etc; director is a bit tangential when looking at a filmography). FWIW I have included the television channel/network, although there is no great reson why. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Filmman3000. Film is a director's medium and stage is a playwright's medium. Having said that, if the community agrees that it's extraneous then I won't fight anyone over it. What's most important is consistency through all filmography pages. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
We link to the relevant articles – if anyone wants to know the director, or the network, or the CinemaScore, it's literally one-click away! But actor filmographies should focus on the actor, not on extra extraneous material. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I find the "Director" column to be extraneous as a whole. For some big-name actors, I can understand why it would be interesting to indicate big-name directors they may work with. But even such actors will work with directors of lesser note (particularly when it comes to franchises), so it can seem like, what's the big deal about this director person? However, I wouldn't mind other approaches where such high-profile relationships can be highlighted in prose, whether in the lead section or even in a summary section above a credits table. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)18:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Hopefully it's my last contribution to this topic. I vote keep only if the editor can site and name all directors before that editor gets started.
The auteur theory is pushed by group of intellectual commentators, and not everyone's opinion as whole as well including the vast majority of film academics (I think). A novelist or any form of professional writing uses an editor. Should we now put the editors. Also some novelist will takes a publisher idea's of a story and turn it in a novel, should we...
I mention that because there is that previous assertion that an editor should be listed, if we went on to add the director. My reply is no because the editor is chosen by the director. Even if the editor has a signature style it is a hiring choice made by producers, director, and at times the labour union.
I agree it is more complex in films but outside of writer, producer and director, generally speaking, no one else is considered the author of the film. I want to make that clear.
I think that, keep only if the editor can site and name all directors before that editor gets started, is the best way to go. Why? If a decision is made to remove all directors from these lists. Then it is counter-productive, one goes to Chastain's page removes all the director, then the original editors sees that and is pissed because it's work in the trash, the editor is upset because he was unaware of such decision, war edits starts, a new editor comes along starts making a list he doesn't understand why, war edits starts again...
Again I agree that my process can be unfair to some subjects, a foreign actor who makes great arts house films with clear authorship can't have it because it is too hard to translate the name of these director or find a suitable citation. While some Hollywood actor who's never done art can be easily done.
I want to hear from the folks who created these list, please invite them to voice their opinion. Otherwise, I predict it is going to be a war edit gong show.
I don't think it is super important either way for me because I won't get involved beyond this thread. I also feel this whole time some are going to spend deleting these names and probably ending in a war edit situation, this time could be used to work on the development of important articles.Filmman3000 (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
External link, further reading, footnotes and so forth
Hello everyone,
I do not know if I am asking in the right place, but I am serious about several media bios that I am working on. I at one point while adding stuff to their External links I noticed that all that bottom of one of them the section didn't look right and those part of the page. I went to the featured Media bio and saw how it should look like, the difference was night and day. With footnotes and so forth. I tried to make a footnote but couldn't find out how.
If one of you would be kind enough to guide me through it and show me how it's done I would appreciate it, or simply send me to a tutorial.
I also have an account to newspapers.com so I can unlock many news articles. I will gladly trade services.
Have any of you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Cleanup listing? I stumbled upon it tonight and thought initially that it would be a good page to check for articles within this project that need help. Then I discovered that the list was last updated almost 10 years ago. ("The listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2010.) I wonder if someone might be able to reactivate the page so that it updates regularly. Eddie Blick (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree it's a good page. I would like to say that it would be good if we could have a in brackets what does the page needs like more citations, typos, general overview...
Eddie feel free to use my rule of thumb. I go through the articles of subjects that I like, if I feel that the subject needs improvement, I do it. Also let us know (or just me maybe lol) what would you like to improve. Because from that point, myself or another user can say this is a person I need by my side.
Personally, I have tried to look for a list of folks who have articles listed as high importance, and see what I can contribute.Filmman3000 (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Filmman3000, The rule of thumb that you cited is my usual approach, too. I just wanted to bring this "Cleanup listing" to the group's attention, as I wonder why it has languished for so long. Your suggestion of noting specific needs is a good one. Many editors have specific strengths and/or interests such as copyediting, adding references, etc. The kind of coding you suggested would help editors spot articles that might need their attention the most. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Something else crossed my mind and it's probably worthy of topic of it's own. While this excellent page you dug up can point out to pages which have difficulties, I believe that there should be a page for pages that are on the brink of becoming good articles. For example I stumbled Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines and The Crow (1994 film) who all seem to have all the citations needed to be good to featured article status.
I would further my point by saying that on that page I just imagined I would add good articles and a discussion on what they need to have to become featured. Just a thought.Filmman3000 (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:GOLDENRULE. Heaps of reliable sources regarding his work do not constitute significant coverage of the subject. Consensus at the AfD could easily be that the subject warrants a permastub rather than a redirect; that doesn't make it a bad nomination. VQuakr (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Bringing attention to the DRAFT for Daisy Edgar-Jones - actress has at least 2 notable roles and media coverage. Co-star Paul Mescal from upcoming series Normal People has been published. Starklinson 07:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Judy Sheindlin, 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. Nole(chat·edits)21:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion (and some mild edit-warring) over at Elisabeth Moss whether to use the term "actor" or "actress" for her. Setting aside her specific details re: this issue, is there any kind of project-wide consensus concerning whether we refer to woman actors as "actors" or "actresses"? I looked through the archives and the main project page and nothing jumped out but I am not familiar at all with this project so I could have easily missed something.
If there isn't anything then we would appreciate some help navigating these waters from more editors more experienced with the actor and filmmaker project. Thanks! SQGibbon (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, standard practice for females is "actress", with the main exception being when one collectively refers to multiple people (including at least one male) who act. To give an example, one would write "Actors Ryan Reynolds and Scarlett Johansson". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Last decade it was determined that if a person self identified as an actor then that is the term used. A bit like the situation for gender identification. Moss has clearly referred to herself by this gender neutral term. In the intervening years the move to using the term for men and women has increased. A primary example of that is the fact that on all Comcast menus the only term used is actor. MarnetteD|Talk01:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Other examples include interviews on the Graham Norton show where actor is used for both sexes and the use of the gender neutral wording for Screen Actors Guild Awards#Categories. Both sexes are part of the same species so separate wording is not needed. Authoress, poetess, comedienne and aviatrix are no longer needed. This falls into the same situation. MarnetteD|Talk01:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Sources abound about the fact that actor has become a gender neutral word. The Merriam-Webster definition here [3] especially its 1st example of usage in a sentence "my sister went to drama school to become an actor". Other dictionaries here [4], here [5] and here [6] all of which use gender neutral definitions. This writing style guide [7] agrees. MarnetteD|Talk01:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I was going through WP:FILMOGRAPHY and noticed that year column is placed before "Title". I remember that earlier the "Title" column appeared first followed by "Year". I just wanted to know the reason behind this change. I would be glad if someone pointed out to me the discussion which led to this change. Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
You can do title first, but I personally feel there's no advantage to this style (and some disadvantages) – "year first" is more logical IMO, and I dislike that the WP:FL process seems to "promote" the "title first" style. The other issue is that putting the year column second will increase instances where editors will violate MOS:ACCESS by using 'rowspan' incorrectly (something that is a major problem with WP:DISCOGRAPHY tables, for example) – by putting the 'Year' column first will at least prevent MOS:ACCESS violations from those editors that are obsessed with 'rowspanning' the 'Year' column. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with IJBall. Furthermore, in general with data tables, the first column tends to be the one by which the table content is sorted, followed by titles being sorted alphabetically. (Unless you want to be specific about when within a year a film came out, which isn't very evident from the table itself.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)16:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Use or non-use of season and episode numbers
Does this project (or Wikipedia in general), have a style rule about using (or not using) season numbers and episode numbers in lists of an actor's TV appearances? As I check my watchlist I sometimes see season and episode numbers added and I sometimes see them removed. For example, within little over an hour on April 28, 2020, one editor added season number and episode for a Mannix episode in Lee Meriwether, and another editor removed season and episode number from (coincidentally) a Mannix episode in Sabrina Scharf. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
IP's get this wrong all the time – episode numbers should not be used in Filmography tables. If anyone is concerned about this, they can add a direct link in the episode title in the table to either the relevant List of Episodes article, season article, or individual episode article. But, basically, the episode number is totally extraneous info in an actor's filmography – and this is why we include links to the show (or the individual episode): if readers want more specific info about that, they click on the link. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I have twice had this AfC declined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_Corke. The subject is my father, and this is declared on my talk page. The draft page has a talk entry saying it is supported by this project. I have worked hard to improve the language removing NPOV etc. I would be very grateful for any help to get this over the line and perhaps submit the article on my behalf. Peter.corke (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I get that, yet there is a COI process that I followed. Would this project be willing to take carriage of this AfC, modify/extend it, tear it down and rewrite it, and then submit it?Peter.corke (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Since this nomination, about an Indian actress, is not generating enough interest on FAC, it was suggested that I invite interested editors to review the article and leave constructive comments. Thanks to those willing to take part. Shahid • Talk2me14:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, if you have not checked out the Wikipedia Library yet, I recommend you do so. There are some sources (like Newspapers.com) that can help us look up coverage related to this WikiProject. We can also suggest sources, and I have suggested IMDbPro as a possibility. While we do not treat IMDb as a reliable source in Wikipedia articles, aspects of it such as getting news-related alerts can help us. You can find the IMDbPro suggestion here and upvote it. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)19:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Erik, I heartily second your recommendation of resources (especially Newspapers.com) that are available through the Wikipedia Library. I use my subscription to Newspapers.com more than any other resource when I edit or create Wikipedia articles. I encourage editors in this project to browse the library's list of partners to find other resources that might fit their research interests. Books and journals are among the items that are available. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Filmographies
Is there a reason why filmographies have shifted from the film being the first column to the year? Going by the guidelines on MOS:DTT, would it not be more beneficial for visually impaired users to have the film in the row scopes rather than the year? Seeing as that is the more important info, in my eyes anyway, shouldn't they be structured the same way as discographies and accolades list? The guideline I have linked to all has an example table of a filmography table that is in the style I mentioned. Indeed, this page also suggests the film should come first. This used to be the case as old nominations at FLC testify, such as this diff from the Tom Cruise filmography shows. Is there a reason why this has changed? I'm unable to find a previous discussion highlighting the change and why it took place. For clarity, I'm not demanding the old style be re-adopted, I'm just asking what prompted the shift from that style to the current one. NapHit (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't have a direct answer, but it seems to me that tables' default ordering should be the first column. If films were in the first column, then the default ordering would be alphabetical. Filmography tables are chronological, so I guess for me, it makes sense to have the year first. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)13:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
See 'Year before title' topic above – this question was already asked, and answered, basically along the lines of Erik's point, and others. Bottom line: IMO, the WP:FL process should not have "imposed" a table format that went against the suggested format of WP:FILMOGRAPHY (which has been that way for a long time...). Oh, and there are persistent issues with the WP:DISCOGSTYLE tables, so they should absolutely not be put forward as the "standard" of how these tables should be done... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Episode counts
Hi, I'm confused by the wording created by this edit to WP:FILMOGRAPHY by IJBall. Under Notes it curently says Do not list the number of episodes if the role is a starring or major recurring role if it is unsourced – if the role does not cover the entire run of a television program, list the seasons involved instead. I feel like the addition of "if it is unsourced" is missing a word or something, and is it supposed to suggest that episode counts are OK for main roles if there is a citation?— TAnthonyTalk13:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@TAnthony: What it means is, simply, that "episode counts" shouldn't be added, unless they are sourced. I think I added that change because the guideline was basically previously saying that episode counts should never be added. But there's no reason that should be the case if they can be sourced. The issue is that episode counts can almost never be reliable sourced, so they should almost never be added... But I can't figure out a reason why they "shouldn't" be added if it's reported in a reliable source somewhere (as per WP:V). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! Off that, I just tweaked the wording a bit without changing the intent. Thanks!— TAnthonyTalk14:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I’ve got a COI for an article, need some assistance
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Randy Olson’s wiki article has an advertising tag at the top due to promotional content and I’ve done everything I can to remove the offending material, but the editor who put the advertising tag there, Ronz, wants an independent review of the article before removing the tag. Since the article falls under this Wikiproject, I’m requesting an editor here to volunteer to look at the Randy Olson article and give their approval that all promotional content has been removed. Would someone please take a look for me? Mattmdavid (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Mattmdavid
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Filmography tables: television films should be in "Film" table, not "Television"
Hello, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Filmography_tables|]] says:
"When using separate film and television performances tables (ex. #1), television films belong in the television table."
This is really wrong! television films same as theatrical films and made-for-video/direct-to-video are a type of feature_film, their only differences are budget, production quality and distribution, but they are all called "Film" and all of them should be in one table, it is not correct to put theatrical films and made-for-video/direct-to-video into "Film" table and television films in another table! this is confusing and provide bad user experience.
Please show your agree to change this, thanks.--Editor-1 (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
We don't. This has been discussed multiple times, and the consensus is that TV movies belong under Television. Personally, that makes sense to me, and it makes sense to most of the other contributors around here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree that her notability is dubious. It seems like she does not warrant a standalone article. The references do not provide significant coverage, and a search engine test does not seem to show such coverage elsewhere. Maybe ping the primary contributor of the article? And/or put it up for AFD? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)13:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@Erik and IJBall: Thanks for your comments. I will follow IJBall's suggestion. (I also agree with the move suggestion, you should propose it!) --JBL (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
