Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. 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 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
removed from Filmography tables section: rowspan ban
The page said:
They allow for sortability and accessibility for the vision impaired.
Please avoid rowspan as it is a significant accessibility issue—as you can hear at User:RexxS/Accessibility.
The accessibility issue raised by rowspan is on the responsibility of those who maintain accessibility software. The rowspan tag element has been in the HTML standard since 1995. In the first RexxS example, highlighting text for sound rendering is a misleading argument: highlighting a rowspanned year will easily highlight all entries associated with that year. One can easily highlight one entry among several for a year, then highlight the year as a second step, if desired (with the added caveat that rowspan is not used in subsequent columns). In the other RexxS example, linearization is not the responsibility of Wikipedia, but of the software which performs the linearizing. Said software should be aware of the various HTML tags and their attributes. I see no reason why rowspan should not be used to group years together and improve overall style and readability of tables. Xaxafrad (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Don't tell me that this is more readable than this. Nymf (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Also, while we're at it, why not let people have a go at incorporating colors as they see fit, as well. Nymf (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- You should compare apples to apples. I'm not sure why your examples are compressed, but a lot of webpages are hard to read on mobile devices. The no-rowspan suggestion was added with divided decision. And without seeing your example of bad coloration, there are other tables that use colors very well to display categorical information. Xaxafrad (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Also, while we're at it, why not let people have a go at incorporating colors as they see fit, as well. Nymf (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fyi, this has been discussed excessively in the past, and what you see on WP:Filmography right now is the consensus of a long and tedious discussion over several months (maybe a year). The point of those screenshots is that people use different resolutions and varying degrees of zoom to be able to read. Tables should cater to all, including those with disabilities. Your example is a best case scenario; it won't look like that when people start stuffing awards, notes and other things in the table.
- So, to summarize:
- It is very hard to edit tables that utilize rowspans excessively.
- It is hard to read on lower resolutions or if zoom is utilized.
- It hinders sorting.
- As well as every point made at User:RexxS/Accessibility.
- Nymf (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- My rebuttal:
- Awards get their own tables with there are too many of them. Notes should be brief, and can be pruned if they get out of hand.
- It isn't very hard to edit tables with rowspans. If people are afraid of editing tables for some reason (I've seen plenty of half-efforts), they can and have put a note on the talk page asking another editor to add something to the article.
- Readability is increased, not decreased, regardless of resolution or zoom. Any problems caused by using low resolutions or zooming apply to more HTML features than basic tables on wikipedia, and those users should be familiar with those problems and how to adapt to them.
- Sorting is unaffected by rowspan.
- RexxS' two points (vocalization and linearization) are unconvincing.
- To conclude: rowspan is a useful, and ancient, feature of HTML for displaying information in an efficient and readable manner. It isn't our responsibility to cater to every single web browser out there. Wikipedia chose the HTML medium to display it's articles, and HTML is what makes our articles accessible to everyone (with internet access) in the world.
- My rebuttal:
- Now on to the archives....I see a bit of discussion over whether to use tables or not. It seems we decided to use tables. After that, what was the consensus for the data to place in the first column? The project page has conflicting examples: either film titles or years. Which is recommended? Most of the rowspan discussion seems to focus on the sortability-breaking, which is no longer the case. I think it's time to re-open the discussion on the limited use of rowspan and see what the consensus will be. Xaxafrad (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I just read this: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Column headers in sortable tables: good example. I'm uncertain how to apply it to this project. Xaxafrad (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are wrong. Sorting is still horribly broken with rowspans. See my sandbox for an example. While you are at it, since editing those tables is so easy, can you add another award for 2009 that was WON and is called TEST? I couldn't figure out what to do, and I have been editing tables on here for the past 8 years. Nymf (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The rowspan value at the bottom should have been 3, but it was 4. That's what broke the sortability. And I added the entry you asked for. That looks like a very nice table, BTW (until I sort it, now--try sorting by year before any other column for a good before/after effect). Xaxafrad (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are wrong. Sorting is still horribly broken with rowspans. See my sandbox for an example. While you are at it, since editing those tables is so easy, can you add another award for 2009 that was WON and is called TEST? I couldn't figure out what to do, and I have been editing tables on here for the past 8 years. Nymf (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I just read this: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Column headers in sortable tables: good example. I'm uncertain how to apply it to this project. Xaxafrad (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Now on to the archives....I see a bit of discussion over whether to use tables or not. It seems we decided to use tables. After that, what was the consensus for the data to place in the first column? The project page has conflicting examples: either film titles or years. Which is recommended? Most of the rowspan discussion seems to focus on the sortability-breaking, which is no longer the case. I think it's time to re-open the discussion on the limited use of rowspan and see what the consensus will be. Xaxafrad (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Any other reasonable arguments, or shall I apply the WP:MOS formatting? Xaxafrad (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- The consensus, which was formed over the course of at least a year in multiple discussions, is what you see att WP:Filmography right now. Lack of continued discussion between two people does not equal a new consensus, especially when the previous consensus was such a strong one. Nymf (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Besides, you are deliberately misinterpreting the guidelines. The MOS entry that you are referring to does not say "always use rowspans!"; it is rather an example of what a table with rowspans would look like. Big difference. Nymf (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- After searching the talk archives for this project, I found the following comments regarding the use, or dis-use, of rowspan:
- Jack Merridrew, 20 march 2010, rowspan is hard for most editors
- Chickenmonkey, 28 april, 2010, rowspan is the cause of the most common wikitable errors
- Jack Merridrew, 3 may 2010, rowspan is a chief impediment for proper editing
- Jack Merridrew, 3 may 2010, rowspan makes it harder for most editors
- Chickenmonkey, 3 may 2010, rowspan makes tables harder to edit
- Jack Merridrew, 3 may 2010, rowspan plus sortable = all hell breaks loose; rowspan is a frequent stumbling block
- pablo_x, 4 may 2010, rowspan should be preventable from use
- Jack Merridrew, 4 may 2010, rowspan is problematic
- Chickenmonkey, rowspan makes editing inaccessible; rowspan causes a high percentage of errors due to misunderstanding; rowspan make sortable not work
- pablo_x, 4 may 2010, rowspan makes the year more important
- Wildhartlivie, 5 may 2010, rowspan is not the conclusive cause of most errors; rowspan wasn't part of the Rfc
- Chickenmonkey, 5 may 2010, rowspan isn't necessary; rowspan is often a stumbling block for editors
- 58.71.79.50, 29 november 2010, rowspan usage question
- Josette, 29 november, 2010, rowspan removal is progress
- Rossrs, 30 april 2011, rowspan is not accessible to impaired readers
- Elizium23, 4 november 2011, rowspan not longer breaks sortability
- Chickenmonkey, 4 november 2011, rowspan explanation
- Vensatry, 24 february 2012, rowspan usage question
- Gimmetoo, 24 february 2012, rowspan in more than one column is hard to maintain; rowspan could be reasonable only in the first column
- DMacks, 4 october 2013, rowspan is an accessibility and sortability problem
- It seems the RfC and it's consensus was in regards to coloration of table headers:
The problem is that I have not seen any sort of conclusive study that would support that "rowspan" is where most errors are made. There have been several speculations about where most errors are made, which change depending on what is being discussed or what point someone is pushing. It's speculative to point to any one thing as the "greatest error" point. And rowspan was not part of the RfC here so consensus did not support using it. Meanwhile, the' template that was presented here did contain the color background and that is what was supported by consensus. The use of sortable tables is yet one more way Jack Merridew is trying to press forward his POV on the tables. User:Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Now that Jack Merridrew has been banned for sock-puppetry and stalking, I think we can have a reasonable discussion on the arguments for and against the use of rowspan. Those arguments have already been outlined in this discussion. In closing, I will explain how I interpret the MOS: use rowspan in cases where it will streamline the appearance and interpretation of tabular data. Xaxafrad (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- "use rowspan in cases where it will streamline the appearance and interpretation of tabular data", not sure where you have found a wording that comes even close to that in the MOS. Can you direct me to the section in question? Nymf (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- You quoted what I said was my interpretation of how the MOS can be applied to this discussion. My words aren't in any section of the MOS. You claimed the MOS doesn't say "always use rowspans!" as if I said it said that. I never believed we should always use rowspans and I don't believe we should ban the use rowspan without a good reason. Xaxafrad (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- The good reason is that it makes editing the tables extremely difficult, especially if there is more than one rowspanned column, as he has been saying. Maybe it's easy for you, but not for most of us. BollyJeff | talk 21:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- You quoted what I said was my interpretation of how the MOS can be applied to this discussion. My words aren't in any section of the MOS. You claimed the MOS doesn't say "always use rowspans!" as if I said it said that. I never believed we should always use rowspans and I don't believe we should ban the use rowspan without a good reason. Xaxafrad (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- "use rowspan in cases where it will streamline the appearance and interpretation of tabular data", not sure where you have found a wording that comes even close to that in the MOS. Can you direct me to the section in question? Nymf (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- After searching the talk archives for this project, I found the following comments regarding the use, or dis-use, of rowspan:
- support the maintenance of the previous consensus to specify that rowspans should not be used. rowspanning adds no actual value of any type greatly adds to the likelyhood of broken tables. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Xaxafrad, I'm concerned by the line, "shall I apply the WP:MOS formatting?" above. You know that editors object to this, and you probably know that the rather large Manual of Style sees fit to even mention this style only on two pages, and in both of those two pages, it's mentioned primarily in the context of warning people about how difficult and inaccessible it is. The MOS cannot be said to endorse the use of rowspan. It would be more accurate to say that it discourages but does not outright prohibit it. I think you should not use this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- We had 3 days worth of discussion, followed by 3 days of silence. I took the silence to be a lack of objection. I don't know what this project's resistance to rowspan is, but it isn't shared by Wikipedia. Other editors are comfortable editing rowspanned tables; maybe we need a table maintenance project. If rowspan is so problematic, then why not update the MOS to explicitly discourage it's use unless there's an extremely compelling case. If everybody can say there's no value to the difference between the following tables, then I can drop this issue. I can see the value in the difference:
Year Result Category Award Recipient 2008 Won Choice TV Show Drama Teen Choice Awards Gossip Girl Choice TV Breakout Show Choice TV Actress Drama Blake Lively Choice TV Breakout Female Choice TV Breakout Male Chace Crawford Choice TV Villain Ed Westwick Choice TV Show Drama Gossip Girl Nominated Choice TV Actress Drama Leighton Meester Choice TV Actor Drama Chace Crawford Penn Badgley Choice TV Breakout Female Leighton Meester Taylor Momsen Choice TV Breakout Male Ed Westwick Favorite New TV Drama People's Choice Award Gossip Girl 2009 Won Choice TV Show Drama Teen Choice Awards Gossip Girl Choice TV Actor Drama Chace Crawford Choice TV Actress Drama Leighton Meester Choice TV Villain Ed Westwick Nominated Choice Music Soundtrack Gossip Girl Choice TV Actor Drama Penn Badgley Choice TV Parental Unit Matthew Settle 2010 Won Choice TV Show Drama Teen Choice Awards Gossip Girl Choice TV Actor Drama Chace Crawford Choice Scene Stealer Female Hilary Duff Choice TV Actress Drama Leighton Meester Nominated Choice TV Actor Drama Penn Badgley Choice TV Actress Drama Blake Lively Choice TV Villain Ed Westwick
- For the record, this isn't my table, nor my rowspans. I would probably like to rearrange the columns to be truly satisfied with the layout. Xaxafrad (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Important reminder to both sides about the nature of policy and Wikipedia process
Note: Both sides of this debate are advised that they are operating under a false assumption if they believe that decisions made in a discussion amongst members of a Wikiproject can be held to be binding for any and all articles they perceive to be within the scope of that project. This kind of thinking crops up in various projects from time to time, with members thinking they are empowered to generate policy for all other editors operating within articles that have some sort of link to the topic of the WikiProject in question, but that is simply not remotely how policy works on Wikipedia. If you want to change the way a certain type of content is governed under policy, then you need to go to the relevant policy, guideline, or style page and propose then change there and seek broad community involvement and consensus on the proposed change. You cannot RfC topic-specific guidelines into effect in a space like this; that is not how Wikipedia generates policy and it is an infeasible approach for countless obvious reasons, perhaps the most significant of which would be that most articles and other namespaces fall potentially within the topic matter of many projects, meaning conflict would be incessant if each project had its own set of rules that it was trying to apply to that namespace.
All editors, until such time as they generate the broad community consensus necessary to change the relevant guidelines, should apply actual policy on any article they edit, regardless of whether it belongs to Project X or Y, and in case where the proper application of policy is debated, the editors active on each individual article are the ones who are to form a consensus relative to the specific content decisions of that particular page; canned rules created in Wikiprojects (whose topics happen to be connected to the topic of that article) are not in any sense binding with regard to content within such articles. In short folks, those who have chosen to contribute within a given Wikiproject are not empowered to create sweeping rules which could influence the work of massive numbers of editors on massive numbers of articles. A Wikiproject is simply not the place through which changes to Wikipedia policy are ultimately affected (though it's perfectly reasonable for any idea for a policy change to originate there, needless to say). Snow talk 08:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly. |
- No one is discussing changes to any policies on here; no policy is even brought into question. What makes you say that? Further, what you see on here, which is being discussed, is an interpretation of guidelines. It is perfectly fine and encouraged to discuss these things here. Nymf (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Of course discussion of guidelines is warranted here; creating guidelines is not. Frankly I thought I was being absurdly redundant in delineating that distinction in the above post, to the point of being excessively didactic, but I guess I failed to make the point as unambiguously as I thought. You can discuss what you view as the best procedure here, but you can't create a "ban" on a certain behaviour or approach to content that is not already disallowed by explicit policy, and then try to present it as the "status quo/consensus" on any article/namespace that might be connected to the subject of your project -- no matter how convinced you are that it is the most logical approach for all pages that "share quality X". You have to make that case for each and every page you want that rule to be followed on and gain the consensus of the editors working there. You can't just make up rules on the talk page for a Wikiproject and then expect them to be followed by anyone operating on an article that you believe falls within the "jurisdiction" of the WikiProject, citing the RfC as if it were over-arching policy. That's just not how content guidelines work on Wikipedia.
- You can change style guidelines for a very specific kind of content (and then that rule of thumb will apply to all content that relates to that topic or unifying factor), but in order to do that, you need to go to the talk page for the relevant guideline (a section of MoS in this case) and proposing the change (be it very narrow or broad) and then advertising the discussion broadly to the community. But what you can't do is use an RfC here to create backdoor policy that only applies to pages judged to fall within the domain of a special content fiefdom aligned with what the editors here view to be the domain of the project. At least, you can't do that and then try to take the decision to any page connected to the themes of this project and expect it to be binding upon the editors at work there with regard to their content decisions. You can always keep a link to the discussion handy as a quick way to share your thinking on the subject with them, but you can't use it as pre-determined "consensus" on the matter that automatically applies to the context of that article or space -- and trying to do so will only create disruption. Am I parsing this distinction any more clearly for you now? Are you sure you might not want to consider putting away your fish? Snow talk 10:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't started any discussions on the relevant talk pages for changes to Wikipedia policy in general (and I really don't desire to do so). My only present suggestion is to change the wording of the guideline for filmography tables. I apologize for over-speaking and causing a misunderstanding. Xaxafrad (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Then what is this thing you posted at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Tables, where you noted that that part of the site-wide MOS appears to counsel against using rowspan and then explicitly asked for that to be removed from the MOS? DMacks (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- To be honest, I had forgotten I posted that. I didn't watch the page, and it hasn't popped up as a notification. I guess I hadn't considered it a discussion because it doesn't have any replies. Maybe I deserve a trout. But still, I don't want to get into a discussion on the MOS talk pages (it's too close the high-level administrative-type stuff, while I prefer to work closer to the article level). Xaxafrad (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- More specifically, that section questions the wording and inclusion of the statement: "Sortable tables cannot contain any merged cells using rowspan; extreme caution should be applied if colspan is used." Given the fact that sortable tables can, indeed, contain merged cells and remain sortable, I thought the statement seemed outdated. Xaxafrad (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Then what is this thing you posted at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Tables, where you noted that that part of the site-wide MOS appears to counsel against using rowspan and then explicitly asked for that to be removed from the MOS? DMacks (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't started any discussions on the relevant talk pages for changes to Wikipedia policy in general (and I really don't desire to do so). My only present suggestion is to change the wording of the guideline for filmography tables. I apologize for over-speaking and causing a misunderstanding. Xaxafrad (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- DMacks Can you show me the explicit text within MoS/Tables that you feel advises against rowspan? Because that parameter is used with fair ubiquity across the project and this is the first I've ever heard such a claim or seen such broad objection to it. The only mention of rowspan that I see in that guideline is a mention of the fact that it can break the sorting in certain cases. That's true in a sense -- I've dealt with it many times -- but also incomplete; it actually only breaks the sorting on a subset of sortable tables with specific parameters, and it's almost always possible to find a way to include both rowspan and sorting in a table without issue, with enough tweaking. Regardless, it's clear that editors all across the project use rowspan in a vast array of tables, as it has considerable advantages in the right context. Each table needs to be assessed in its own context by the active editors on the relevant page.
- If you want the editors on all articles of a certain type to follow your standards, you can either A) go to each and convince them of the value or B) go the policy page in question (clearly you already know the right one) and propose a change. Frankly, I wouldn't hold my breath on the latter as a lot of people who maintain a lot of time-consuming and complicated tables are not going to like the sound of it, but it's your right as a community member to propose the change and your ideas will at least be heard out in a forum that is actually capable of creating a binding change in approach to content. If you ever do start such a discussion, do me a favour and send me a notice -- I'd like to participate. Snow talk 07:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Sortable tables cannot contain any merged cells using rowspan" is the MOS statement, so if a filmography table is sortable, that statement seems about as explicit and direct as possible in advising against using rowspan. It may be an incomplete statement (not all sortable tables might break and/or the breakage could be overcome with some sort of non-obvious hackery), but that's the statement as it stands. DMacks (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- If you want the editors on all articles of a certain type to follow your standards, you can either A) go to each and convince them of the value or B) go the policy page in question (clearly you already know the right one) and propose a change. Frankly, I wouldn't hold my breath on the latter as a lot of people who maintain a lot of time-consuming and complicated tables are not going to like the sound of it, but it's your right as a community member to propose the change and your ideas will at least be heard out in a forum that is actually capable of creating a binding change in approach to content. If you ever do start such a discussion, do me a favour and send me a notice -- I'd like to participate. Snow talk 07:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- All that statement does is provide information about one possible drawback of rowspan in one specific context. It doesn't forward any kind of direct caution, advice or guideline on how frequently this means rowspan should be used as a result. That last conclusion is meaning you are putting on top of it, but which the guideline does not in any sense speak to. Like literally hundreds of other possible parameters for tables, rowspan is simply is a factor that needs to be taken into account when deciding how to format a particular table to fit the needs of the content that goes into it, and editors across the project are quite adept at deciding how to balance clarity, sortability and organization. The bug in question does sometimes create sorting issues. So, don't use it if you can't get it to work properly for a given table where sorting is clearly more useful than having merged rows. But that doesn't mean some other editor who can get the rowspan and sorting to play nice in their table (or whose table needs no sorting) shouldn't feel free to use it if there is no conflict. That would be a rather pointless exercise in cutting off someone else's nose to spite your face. So if that's going to be your argument for getting those who maintain tables on various articles to follow your lead on this, I wouldn't expect much traction, because many are (understandably) going to interpret that as an editor who is less technically capable with tables trying to force others to utilize the same formats he or she is limited to (because of their abilities or because of the demands they are used to working within with their tables).
- Rowspan is extremely useful. It's not appropriate to all tables, but trying to ban its use from all tables of a given content type just doesn't seem to be in any way logical, since no content theme that I can imagine will inevitably result in rowspan issues. Handle this on a case by case basis, as with most formatting; if you find a table where rowspan is breaking the sorting, change it (if you don't think it's likely to be opposed) or engage the person who maintains it. In many cases if it comes down to a choice, sorting will be maintained because of it's broad usefulness. But in most cases it won't even be an issue, because a little tweaking will usually allow you to preserve both. Consequently if anyone is ever facing this dilemma because they can't get the syntax right to get sorting to work with spanning, I'm happy to assist and failing that there is always the help desk, who will often sort it out for you in no time flat. Snow talk 10:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- "rowspan and sorting to play nice in their table". That's the thing; it's not "their" table. I don't know how often you frequent actor BLPs, but a lot of anonymous editors fail to figure out the syntax of rowspan tables. Even less can figure out the syntax if there is multiple rowspans in different columns. By implementing rowspans in filmography tables, you are essentially limiting filmographies to an elitist few who has the technical knowledge of HTML tables. This is obviously not in line with the core principle that anyone should be able to edit the encylopedia. Further, you really need to keep the terms apart - a policy is not a guideline, nor is a guideline a policy. Nymf (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Each of those points in turn:
- A) Clearly one can see from context that I was just using "their" as a semantic marker to reference one user's experience of tables to another user's, not as an implication of personal ownership of content, the main concept I am explicitly opposing here.
- B) A lot of IP editors make a lot of different varieties of errors in a lot of different types of articles-- we fix the mistakes and educate the users and if they keep insisting on reverting those changes without cause, we deal with that too; this situation is no different from any other regular issue in editing in this regard.
- C) Lots of routine work is done by people all across the project that require refined understanding of markup; we don't generally accept this as an argument for limiting the options of our editors in deciding which of the most efficient and useful formatting options to use in a given situation; if you know of policy that says as much, can you share it? Because I just don't see the "elitist" element there -- any degree of editing of the table parameters requires some basic understanding of the markup and most users want to learn more if they are contributing in that area, not have their options stripped down by decree from someone working in another area altogether. There's always a balance to be made between accessibility to new users and practical flexibility, but I know of nowhere in policy where your lowest-common-denominator interpretation on these particular technical matters is supported. The parameter in question is used in tables the length and breadth of the project and I've never before heard anyone suggest that we should add only formatting elements that editors less capable in markup will understand. And I think you may be misunderstanding what we mean when we talk about the principle that any person has the "right" to contribute to the project; not everyone has the capability to contribute in every conceivable area, clearly. Of course we should keep the barrier to entry as low as possible in any given context, and we have a great deal of discussion about how to do that -- again, no different from the rest of the project, even when it comes to content (as opposed to technical) hurtles -- but as regards this specific issue, I've never seen anyone suggest this type of formatting be banned because it's usefulness is outweighed by the learning curve for new users. If that's a conversation you want to have (either on the policy page or with those maintaining complex tables) you are certainly welcome to it, but I'll honestly tell you I don't think you're going to marshal much support.
- D) Actually a guideline is a part of policy -- that is, the word policy can refer to a specific policy or its namespace, but it can also be used to reference the composite whole of all rules and guidelines followed by the community. Have you really never seen that usage on Wikipedia or in English broadly? Forgive my incredulity, but I'm certain their have been days that I've seen that usage a hundred times or more. So, for clarity, one might say "The policy I was referring to was WP:V." or they might say "WP:AGF [a guideline] is one of the most important pieces of behavioural policy we have." Snow talk 12:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, you didn't misrepresent the bounds of the discussion, Xaxafrad. My point is that the "rule" being discussed here in not a guideline (in the sense of a binding Wikipedia policy). Therefore, so long as you achieve consensus for a change to an article with the editors of that article and the change is consistent with actual Wikipedia policy you can go ahead and implement that change. Once a consensus has been reached by the editors of a given article, a user from a given Wikiproject cannot then just show up and revert the change, citing that "We, the members of WikiProject X have decided that topics connected to X are going to all use this specific approach to content type Y." For each article they want to apply that change to, they need to seek consensus amongst the active editors of that particular article.
- What I'm telling you is that in this case you are free to edit rowspan into any article where consensus (on that article's talk page) has not already reflected that it should not be used, since actual policy addresses and allows for the use of that formatting in tables and it is a ubiquitous application across the project. Just because a group of editors has held a content discussion here at WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers does not mean that the conclusions they came to are binding upon any article that has something to do with actors or filmmakers, nor upon the countless editors working on those numerous articles. That's not the way policy is constructed or consensus is formed on this project; what works for one article may not for another, even a highly similar one, and the active editors for each space are allowed to make that determination on a case-by-case basis. Consistency and coordination are nice, but they don't trump editorial discretion until such time as they have become policy by going through the appropriate process. If those who support the rowspan ban really want to make it a rule that is applied to all articles of a given type, they need to go to the appropriate BLP and MoS subpages, propose the ban as the status quo for articles of a given variety and then secure broad community consensus, not just the consensus the small group of editors active in a single project. Does that make more sense? Snow talk 05:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- If my explanation is still ambiguous, see WP:WikiProject, WP:Advice pages, and WP:CONSENSUS. Snow talk 07:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, well stated. Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
question
Several Actor BLPs have large filmographies that are split off. Awhile ago, someone went around, adding lengthy sections of info to these separate filmography pages, effectively making it a second BLP. After checking with this project, it was determined this shouldn't be done, and the info was removed, leaving only a single intro sentence and the filmography table.
I came across this very same scenario a couple days ago and removed the info as before, but was quickly reverted. I don't want to get into a needlessly protracted debate about this, and I'm looking for confirmation here. Are we adding info to these pages? If so, how much and what kind? Thanks - theWOLFchild 19:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- While it shouldn't regurgitate the BLP entirely, Thewolfchild, a single sentence alone isn't enough for WP:LEAD sections. The lead sections should specifically focus on and summarize film careers while BLP article lead sections include other aspects. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Though I appreciate the response, I was hoping someone who was involved with, or at least recalled the incident I spoke of would reply. Just the same however, I'll ask you; just how long should these intros be? What info should they contain/present? How detailed? And, how much duplication from the parent BLP can we tolerate? I think by allowing anything beyond the single sentence creates a gray area, where different people will treat different split-off filmogs differently (in fact, we already have this), and more and more info will creep in. You say there should be more info beyond the single sentence lead, but any additional info can already be found in the original BLP. I'm thinking this is why a hard line was drawn last time. - theWOLFchild 13:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've found that two or three paragraphs is generally a good amount per WP:LEAD, though it might need to be longer for those with longer lists. A filmography's lead section should describe one's role in films, prominent awards won for roles, and perhaps detail on box office and critical response. The lead section of a BLP might contain awards, but generally shouldn't go into the films' financial success unless it significantly impacts their career. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The more info you add, the more redundant it becomes. I look at the Matt Damon filmog as a great example of how it should be, as compared ro the Jake Gyllenhaal filmog which is too long.
- Again, snugg, I do appreciate your reply, but I am hoping for input from others. I see you've only been with WP for about 18 months, and I believe the last time this came up, it may have been just before that. I would like see input from others here who were perhaps involved with this issue the last time. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 20:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I was not involved with the matter (not sure why you'd only need people who were as it's a current issue), but, like Snugg said, all articles should have a lead (and references) and that lead should be anywhere from 1 to 4 paragraphs. A BLP lead discusses the person's notability, ergo anything notable in their professional and/or personal life. A filmography article should concern just the filmography and anything related to the films (critical and/or BO success, awards). The lead need only be a concise summary of major films, their accomplishments and/or awarded or acclaimed performances, really. The length of the lead only depends on how much info there is on the success that person has had. Gyllehaall's filmography article is fine, maybe a bit BLP-detailed, but it's FA so it may benefit from that. --Lapadite (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- I never said I "needed" anyone, and I certainly didn't say I was "only" looking for people who were previously involved. It just helps to have people who have been here for more than 5 minutes to respond, for continuity sake. Every 6 months we get a new group of contributors who want to do things their way, and everything changes. Said changes aren't always improvements. Once you've been here awhile you'll realize that. (you will also hopefully learn to not mischaracterize people's comments either... it's disingenuous.) Obviously nobody cares about this, so neither do I. Case closed. - theWOLFchild 00:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thewolfchild, Two editors have responded, but you obviously are not interested in our input, so, good luck. --Lapadite (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're right... I'm not interested. Bye. - theWOLFchild 08:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've been here for 10 years (not at this specific project, at Wikipedia in general). You're looking for a policy or guideline that specifically applies to the lead section of filmography articles, right? If so, I don't think such a policy exists. This project can give you suggestions, but for something official, check Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines (a long and broad page) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The latter doesn't mention filmographies, so we're left to community consensus and our own best judgement. The community consensus should be explained on this project page, but given the existence of this discussion, I think the project page is lacking.
- With that being said, my best judgement is to keep lead sections on filmographies concise, and include a link to the general biographical article. So be bold, if somebody reverts you, start a discussion on the talk page. If they become unreasonable, ask for outside input, then wait for a consensus to emerge. Eventually, move to the next article and start the process all over again. Does that sound accurate and appropriate, Snow Rise?
- Also, instead of a dismissive attitude, why not invite us to the article(s) you are concerned with, Thewolfchild? Xaxafrad (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I mean, I don't as a general rule edit filmography articles, but speaking to general policy that's basically the right approach. I'll say this much: I don't think filmographies should have been as gleefully split off from their parent articles as has sometimes been done in the past; that methodology seems like a lot more trouble than it's worth and should probably be reserved for only the most influential individuals with truly expansive careers. That being said, obvious this trend started a long time ago and has lead to many stable versions of articles, so I'm not recommending anything nearly so drastic as re-merging content, though I would suggest more caution with this approach moving forward. As to the issue at hand, I'm inclined to agree that leads for filmography articles should probably be kept (relatively) concise; I think a paragraph or two detailing the various "stages" of the individuals career are ideal, if such distinctions can be easily made based on sources, lightly punctuated by references to major awards and maybe especially monumental critical acclaim for particular roles. Otherwise there's very little to be gained from repeating in the lead that information about individual films which can be found in the prose or tables bellow (and in many cases, the BLP as well). Anyway, as you say, local consensus should prevail and I imagine many of these changes can be made without significant issue; where there is disagreement, RfC the matter. If a given issues keeps coming up on multiple articles, one can refer editors to the previous discussions and see if they are swayed, save some time. If not, seeking broader input for a local consensus is necessary, tedious as it can become.
- Putting the content issue aside, I will say that Thewolfchild could stand to be a little more patient with outside input, especially after actively seeking it; you don't always get the kind of advice from just the parties you had hoped for, but that's the nature of the beast here and everyone is entitled to contribute insight, regardless of previous involvement in a particular issue of content or policy, or lack thereof. In any event, I simply can't figure what might be gained from Wolf not just ignoring those responses which didn't fit their criteria for previous involvement (which, from a procedural standpoint are a little perplexing to me) and waiting for new input, rather than explictly pointing out that they have little use for the responses in question; other editors who meet his or her criteria (which seem to be at odds with general community standards encouraging broad involvement by any interested parties) are not going to find this place any faster just because he (or she) told other editors they don't meet those criteria; no one is "within earshot" of this conversation, after-all. Meanwhile, every one of the responses received have been, to my interpretation, perfectly polite and more or less on-point (though clearly opinions diverge a little), while TWC's responses are getting a little snappish. That may be understandable if they were literally raised by wolves, but I'd ask that they try to be a little less pointy and dismissive; they seem more than willing to discount the notion that an editor can contribute meaningfully to this issue based on length of service on the project in general, but the fact is that any truly experienced editor should know better than to discount another's input (especially overtly) based on their tenure being only a year and a half. Discussions are routinely improved and advanced towards resolution by the addition of voices who had previously never contributed their perspectives on that given issue, or even upon a similar one. It's happening right now across the the project, even as I type this, I assure you. Snow talk 04:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Unsourced award pages
Please see this. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
removed rowspan avoidance suggestion from page
As the last discussion on this issue has been stalled for the last 5-6 days, I am creating a new section for current and future discussion. See this section of a policy page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial/Internal guidelines#Avoiding rowspan/colspan. I'll copy/paste some excerps:
- from the lead: "Guidelines on this page are not meant to be enforced, and only serves as a resource for members of the WikiProject Accessibility"
- from the bonus section: "The main purpose of these bonus guidelines is to provide information and prevent mistakes. Guidelines in this section are not supposed to be enforced. It is meant to provide guidance about low priority accessibility improvements, and mostly set them aside. They can eventually be used when relevant, but with caution and prior discussion."
- from the rowspan subsection of the bonus section: "Users like those attributes for presentation and are reluctant to remove them. We should not force them otherwise they might feel disgusted about accessibility. This change can only be done with volunteer users and is fragile as anyone can jump in and disagree."
So the accessibility project says that while rowspan can be problematic, it does not say to outlaw its use. For that reason, I removed the following statement from the project page:
- "Please avoid rowspan as it is a significant accessibility issue—as you can hear at User:RexxS/Accessibility."
Xaxafrad (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure why you keep changing the WP:ACTOR suggestion when there is no new WP:ACTOR consensus. As such, I have yet again reverted you. A stalled discussion does not mean that there is a new consensus in your favor. Nymf (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- As long as this is merely a recommendation or request rather than a policy or WP:MOS stricture or even WikiProject stricture, noting the accessibility issues is fine. On the other hand, insisting anywhere that editors not use something created for Wikipedia seems senseless. If the project as a whole wants to deter use of rowspan, it should be outright eliminated and deleted from the wikicoding, not "prohibited". See WP:BEANS. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- From the looks of what Xaxafrad linked above, the Accessibility project made it rather abdundantly clear that rowspans are a bad idea. As they noted, however, people are rather zealous about including rowspans, so forcing them not to use it might make more damage than good. They do, though, recommend that people do not use them. WP:ACTOR can also recommend that people do not use them. Nymf (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- And that's exactly my point: when WP:Accessibility said to discourage the use of rowspan, they did so in the context that some editors will want to use rowspan. In cases where presentation will benefit from the application of rowspan, WP:Accessibility said "we should not force" the issue. Why you, Nymf, seem to be forcing the issue is beyond me. The only other argument that I can think of for discouraging the use of rowspan is editability, and Snow Rise has countered that argument in the prior discussion, on Jan 18th. Xaxafrad (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- No one is forcing anyone. It is a suggestion formed out of consensus here. We can still suggest things, even if enforcing (i.e. banning) is going to piss people off. This is not even the place to enforce guidelines. Nymf (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Certainly there's nothing wrong with recommendations -- so long as the language reflects that it is a recommendation and goes through some trouble to explain the context to which said recommendation is meant to apply ("Some editors may find that feature X is problematic in circumstance Y; you can always try approach Z instead.") Of course, it strikes me that the WikiProject front page is not the ideal place to do that, since in this case it's not a format choice particular to content the project works on. But so long as its worded in such a way that members of the project don't view it as an injunction against the opposite approach and try to force the issue without realizing that is inappropriate, I don't think it's a huge problem. I think, guys, that a reasonable compromise solution between your two positions is to keep the notice, but soften the authority of the wording a tad.
- By the way, Nymf, if you're won over by RexxS' reasoning regarding the accessibility issue, it really might be worth taking to the accessabiility talk page. I just reviewed the archived talk page threads on the issue going back almost fives years and it's clear they have a very nuanced understanding of the complications here and there's really no harm in keeping the dialogue going. As has been noted in those very threads, this change would require even wider community involvement than you'd find on that page to ban or significantly restrict rowspan, but even RexxS' advocates a position that is markedly more reserved than what has been forwarded in places above; He really only recommends that editors keep this factor at the back of their heads as they decide how to balance the needs of their tables and other formatted elements. Honestly, aside from being more consistent with our current policy, I also think that's a superior winning strategy for you to pursue here in promoting this position; more editors might be willing to accept a shift in approach along these lines if they see it more as a matter of a choice made in the context of doing the right thing, rather than if they feel it's a decision someone else is trying to make for them.
- But if you're certain a mandate is the better way to go, you might as well revive the discussion. And even if all you manage to win in the discussion is that the language is slightly altered to reflect RexxS' perspective and we simply say "do keep this in mind" instead of "rowspan should be avoided because..." then even that small change will probably be worth the effort, I would think. Snow talk 05:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- My gripe with rowspans, other than the accessibility issues, is the editability issues. I have been editing BLPs for the past 8 years, with over 4000 BLP articles on my watchlist, so I have seen the effect it has on tables. The current wording is perfectly harmless ("please avoid...", rather than "do not..."), and seems to be in line with the tone of the internal accessibility suggestion as well. I am not looking to change any guidelines—I am too old and do not have the energy for that—so this project is as far as I am willing to discuss this. Nymf (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- The current wording is inaccurate. After reflecting on the statements made by the accessibility project members (especially: "avoiding spanned cells is not an accessibility requirement but a bonus"), I believe rowspan is an insignificant accessibility issue. If rowspan is to be avoided, then this project should put up a realistic reason. Xaxafrad (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- After diving through the MOS talk archives regarding rowspan, I found nothing discouraging to my position. Xaxafrad (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I have to concur. MoS discussions (at the Accessibility talk page and elsewhere) have discussed this at length with fairly significant involvement. The consensus seems to be that this is not an issue. The present prohibition on the main page here seems inconsistent with this this broader community consensus and the current reading of the guidelines, at least worded as it is at present. No matter that the term has "please" in it, it is still directing people towards a specific approach that some are likely to interpret as a rule, and that rule is not found in policy. I continue to believe there must be a compromise solution here, but I do support your reading of past community discussion on both the issue of rowspan and continue to stress that WikiProjects don't have the authority for mandates above general policy and guidelines. I certainly understand why Nymf doesn't want to argue this at the policy level, as that's a lot of work for potentially limited outcome. But that's the place to take this if they want it to be a rule. I don't see that it's proper to avoid pursuing the matter through those available channels yet still insist on keeping that mandate up here with it's current wording. But I've said about everything I know to say on this issue. I suggest if you cannot accept this as the status quo that you RfC the issue. Despite strong disagreement, everyone here seems civil enough, so I believe a decision reflecting policy can be made without this ending up in an administrative forum as has unfortunately happened in the past with this topic. Best to both of you; I'll follow the conversation with interest! Snow talk 07:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- My gripe with rowspans, other than the accessibility issues, is the editability issues. I have been editing BLPs for the past 8 years, with over 4000 BLP articles on my watchlist, so I have seen the effect it has on tables. The current wording is perfectly harmless ("please avoid...", rather than "do not..."), and seems to be in line with the tone of the internal accessibility suggestion as well. I am not looking to change any guidelines—I am too old and do not have the energy for that—so this project is as far as I am willing to discuss this. Nymf (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Tisa Farrow
Tisa Farrow Hello wikiproject members. I want to ask your assistance and opinion. Is this persons film career really worth a wikipedia article? The is a section of very personal private life detail attached to the article. She only had a ten year minor acting career and for the most part has been a private person since the last 35 years, she is a nurse since that time. She has a notable sister which is perhaps adding to the reason there is even private life detail? I was thinking to nominate the Biography for deletion, any advice appreciated - Govindaharihari (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- You could nominate it for deletion, but it doesn't seem to be hurting anything at the moment. I'm not intimately familiar with the standards of our notability bar, but I don't think deletion is recommended. After scanning the notability guidelines, I think notability-isn't-temporary may be a reason to keep the article. Xaxafrad (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying. I was thinking the personal life details were an issue in regard to wp:blp - After looking deeper I have removed the personal life details that were supported by these two online links -http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/18/crimesider/entry5096433.shtml - and - http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/farrow-blames-brothers-suicide-on-death-of-soldier-nephew_1108541 the reports are about Mia Farrow, a much more public notable figure, not Tisa and as Tisa has been a private person for the last 35 years, I do not agree that these two links, one of which does not even mention her name and the other only once in passing support the inclusion of this intimate personal detail in her wp:blp article. I also note there is no mention of this in the Mia Farrow biography, so, with this removal I can agree with you, it is harmless now. There is an open discussion regarding this issue on the Talk:Tisa Farrow page, many regards to all here. Govindaharihari (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- It does appear to lack noteworthiness. However as long as the (possibly COATRACKED)BLP content is gone, the concern is alleviated. Good job Govindiharihari. Shark310 09:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Shah Rukh Khan peer review
Trying to get this to FA. Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Shah Rukh Khan/archive2. BollyJeff | talk 13:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Shakespearean actor Category tagging
This Editor Special:Contributions/121.54.54.44 has been busy adding the Shakespearean actor category to numerous articles. I don't know if its of concern or accurate for that matter, but I'm bringing it to the attention of the appropriate project. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Scalhotrod, what's the concern exactly? It appears, from the articles I scanned, the subjects of the articles have Shakespeare credits. --Lapadite (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey Lapadite77, thanks for your reply. When things like this pop up on the Special:PendingChanges list and then I spot that its fairly widespread, I like to check with Editors that are better informed about the topic. If the Category additions are appropriate, then more power to the IP making them and its too bad that they aren't getting credit for it as a registered user. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I noticed this as well Scalhotrod. Lapadite77 I think that the instruction at WP:CATDEF which states "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article" is what needs to be taken into account. A given actor appearing in one or two (or three) of Will's plays onstage or onscreen IMO does not qualify for the category being added to their article. For example Patrick Stewart has regularly appeared in the Bard's plays and it is a defining characteristic of his career, Christian Bale has only appeared in the 1999 film version of A Midsummer's Night Dream so the cat should not appear in his article. Perhaps a RFC is needed and the outcome should be put in the MOS for "Actors and filmmakers" MarnetteD|Talk 01:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Scalhotrod, MarnetteD makes a point though; Christian Bale, for instance, may not 'qualify' for the category if he's "only appeared in the 1999 film version of A Midsummer's Night Dream". I did not peruse the articles in question; If a category is inappropriate, because the corresponding info is unsourced or it is not representative of the subject then it should be removed. However, an actor doesn't need to be explicitly referred to as a "Shakespearian actor" by reliable sources to be placed in the category; if the actor has sourced Shakespearean credits, then the category may be added. Of course, without a community consensus, ultimately it's to editors' discretion just how many credits are needed. I agree it would be beneficial to have a consensus. Lapadite (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I noticed this as well Scalhotrod. Lapadite77 I think that the instruction at WP:CATDEF which states "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article" is what needs to be taken into account. A given actor appearing in one or two (or three) of Will's plays onstage or onscreen IMO does not qualify for the category being added to their article. For example Patrick Stewart has regularly appeared in the Bard's plays and it is a defining characteristic of his career, Christian Bale has only appeared in the 1999 film version of A Midsummer's Night Dream so the cat should not appear in his article. Perhaps a RFC is needed and the outcome should be put in the MOS for "Actors and filmmakers" MarnetteD|Talk 01:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, looks like it was worthwhile bringing up. What's the next course of action, article review or RfC or ?? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I checked and the cat for American actresses has the following instructions on it This category is for American actresses who made a large part of their careers from performing roles in plays by William Shakespeare so I have added to the other one. If any of you come across other variations of these cats that don't have this it is probably worth adding it. MarnetteD|Talk 02:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I changed 'large' to 'significant' for now. Scalhotrod, one can alert theater Wikiproject and film Wikiproject for input. Regarding the Shakespearean actors categories, I feel like there are unnecessary subcategories. There should be the parent category: Shakespearean actors, and just the subcategories for Males and Females. Lapadite (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that Lapadite77. It is an improvement. You suggestion about reducing the number of cats is helpful as well. MarnetteD|Talk 03:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I changed 'large' to 'significant' for now. Scalhotrod, one can alert theater Wikiproject and film Wikiproject for input. Regarding the Shakespearean actors categories, I feel like there are unnecessary subcategories. There should be the parent category: Shakespearean actors, and just the subcategories for Males and Females. Lapadite (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I checked and the cat for American actresses has the following instructions on it This category is for American actresses who made a large part of their careers from performing roles in plays by William Shakespeare so I have added to the other one. If any of you come across other variations of these cats that don't have this it is probably worth adding it. MarnetteD|Talk 02:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've posted a notice at Theater and Film and invited others to discuss it further. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Filmography
This came up in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Filmographies, not just for films anymore? IMDb does it, but since when does a filmography contain TV credits, seeing as pretty much every dictionary definition doesn't? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ummmm, since IMDb started doing it? But seriously, I noticed shorts, videos, video games, TV series, and TV movies as qualifiers to distinguish from the unqualified, conventional film credits. I would find "Videography" an acceptable compromise, or we could come up with a
policyguideline to keep non-film credits in an "Other appearances" section. Xaxafrad (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest (Selected) Appearances (or Videography) is best, with Film, Stage and TV or Internet and Video Games as separate subsections. Consider a full videography of Bette Davis. It would have movies interspersed with appearances on Johnny Carson and cameos on the Muppets all jumbled up by date. Most stage appearances would not be on video. Separating the media forms makes sense when the frequency warrants it, since each field has its own standards and awards. μηδείς (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- "Selected" appearances wouldn't really be a neutral title as it would be based on some sort of unknown (and likely unobjective) inclusion criteria. In any case, "filmography" has been used for TV credits for quite some time on Wikipedia, and stage sometimes is as included well. I personally never understood why video games or internet would be among them, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Kris Jenner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
According to the use of the Category Category:Actresses from San Diego, California and its parents Category:Actresses from California and Category:Actresses, how a person is determined to be an "actress" seems to be somewhat loosely determined. For example, Emily Ratajkowski is included, who is mostly known for her modeling and appearance in a 2013 music video. Another is Susanne Marsee, who is a singer, but had television appearances.
So is inclusion of the Category in my examples in error or is the use of it in Kris Jenner's acceptable as a subject on numerous episodes of multiple reality show series? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- IMO, Kris Jenner is not an actress. Ratajkowski is, since she has real film credits, e.g. Gone Girl. Marsee is a special case. Opera singers do act in operas, but Enrico Caruso and Beverly Sills are categorically not considered actors. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, so then anyone who is basically just a reality show celebrity should not be considered an "actor"? I'm not defending or trying to justify one position or the other, I'm trying to get some sense of consistency in the application of the Category. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's my take on it. "Reality" shows are supposed to be, well, real. Whether they actually are or whether they're staged to some extent is another can of worms. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- I second what Clarityfiend has said. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, thank you for the input... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello to the members of the project. This article for JR now has two pictures that are paintings, by his father, of him as a child. Neither is very representative of him as a man. I have little understanding of the ins and outs of adding pictures to WikiP so if any of you can find a better pic to add to the article I think that would be beneficial to our readers. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 18:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- For heavens' sake there should not be an image or painting of him as a child in the infobox. That should be moved or removed, even if nothing is found immediately to replace it. The infobox is better without an image than with that. Softlavender (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply Softlavender. The painting of him as a baby was there until yesterday. Hopefully someone who knows how to upload a pic and provide all of the needed info/documentation so that it can be used will help. MarnetteD|Talk 03:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- The trick is finding one that is not currently under copyright in the U.S., or that we can claim as Fair Use (for educational, non-profit use). It's distressing that the French wiki article doesn't even have a photo. In terms of useable photos, I'd have to go back and review all of WP's image-rights guidelines (I go in and out of familiarity with them). I don't see any legitimately released photos on Flickr. Might be able to use one of these two screen shots from a DVD featurette (cropping out the subtitles) if a good enough Fair Use claim is made: [1] (a third: [2]). This image is from Britannica and does not contain a copyright notice [3], whatever that means. There are several other images on Google [4] but would have to individually figure out their copyright status or the possibility of a fair use claim. By the way, this guy is really great and may be able to help find a fair-use image: http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org (Twitter: [5]). Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Anyway, I uploaded a photo, under WP:NFCI Fair Use criterion #10: "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely". Softlavender (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Excellent work Softlavender. Thanks so much for your efforts. MarnetteD|Talk 16:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- You're quite welcome, Marnette. Thanks for bringing that to our attention! By the way, could you participate in the discussion I started on the talk page there about how many of his father's paintings are actually merited in the article? Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Film crew navboxes
These deletion nominations may be of interest: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 11#Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe film crew; Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 12#Template:Star Trek film crew. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Producer / Executive producer navboxes
A couple of TFDs you may be interested in at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#Template:Eva Longoria and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 19#Template:Kent Smith. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Only contributors to these discussions so far are the nom (me) and the template creators. Anyone like to weigh in? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 23#Template:Rosemary Blight. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Melissa McBride
I wonder if anyone from WP:FILMBIO could take a look at Melissa McBride and possibly assess it. Any suggestions for improvement and how to move it along towards good article status would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
RfC: to amend the table layout consensus to allow rowspan in year column of filmographies
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.
Should the notice instructing users not to use rowspan in filmography tables be maintained on the main page of this project?
[Note: struck-through comments and replies removed. Xaxafrad (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)]
- Oppose inclusion per the pro-forma arguments advanced in detail in the above threads. Editors should feel free to avoid or employ rowspan if they feel it improves the function and readability of a given table. But the feature is broadly utilized in every corner of Wikipedia and explicitly provided for by policy, and, per extensive community consensus, it is not appropriate for WikiProjects to insist that specific content practices (beyond those already enshrined in MoS or elsewhere in Policy) be followed by articles that are perceived to be in their purview. The injunction here is in conflict with that broad community consensus and should be removed, or at a minimum re-worked so that the recommendation is clearly not compulsory, to avoid confusion and possible conflict. Snow talk 11:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. The RfC statement above is not worded in a neutral manner. It clearly gives weight to Xaxafrad's point of view. Nymf (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I must apologize again, I wasn't intending to gain weight, but to make a concise statement with a clear agree/disagree premise. Thanks for updating the wording, Snow. Xaxafrad (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose inclusion of this restriction in this WikiProject's style guide, for the reasons stated in discussions above this RfC (e.g. re: WikiProjects making up their own idiosyncratic restrictions), and for the simple reason that if the feature exists in the wiki-code, to prohibit it does not make sense to me. Softlavender (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose inclusion per Snow and Softlavender's reasoning. Further, rowspans are a beneficial tool in table layout: improving visual appearance and reducing repetition of data. The added complexity of markup is just one degree higher than that of template markup (that is to say, quadratic vs linear, as the linked article would say), which is not a steep learning curve in this editor's opinion. Xaxafrad (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose inclusion per above." it is not appropriate for WikiProjects to insist that specific content practices (beyond those already enshrined in MoS or elsewhere in Policy) be followed by articles that are perceived to be in their purview."(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC))
- Question... could someone explain what a "rowspan" is and does (or point us to some examples)... don't assume everyone knows. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Look above. There is an example in the section 'removed_from_Filmography_tables_section:_rowspan_ban'. It is a method of making some rows larger to 'span' several other rows. In my opinion, it can lead to table errors that are practically un-fixable by mere mortals. BollyJeff | talk 15:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Look at Julianne Moore filmography. Compare that with the table below. You'll see how 2015 is in a large cell next to two entries (until sorted). 208.81.212.222 (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Look above. There is an example in the section 'removed_from_Filmography_tables_section:_rowspan_ban'. It is a method of making some rows larger to 'span' several other rows. In my opinion, it can lead to table errors that are practically un-fixable by mere mortals. BollyJeff | talk 15:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support If I understand it correctly, the primary objection is that the year could become lost in the table when sorting. Please see the example below. As soon as the table is sorted, 2015 is split into two cells. I can't see why this is a problem. The RfC now reads allow, not mandate it. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
| Year | Title | Role | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | The First film | Gandolf | |
| 2015 | My Second Film | First Waiter | |
| A Third Film | David Stewart |
- Actually, as I understand it, the primary objections are accessibility (for assistive software) and editability (only by super-mortals, according to Bollyjeff). I think the sortability problem was fixed with a Wikimedia patch in 2012. BTW, you framed your comment as a reply to the section title, but the specific question is worded differently. I take it that you mean you don't object to the use of rowspan in the context of this discussion? Xaxafrad (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Would one of you opposers please volunteer to fix the following: Dhoom_(film_series)#Principal_cast. I need the outer Dhoom4 row and columns removed cleanly. It's hurting my brain. BollyJeff | talk 18:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Done, I believe. I also removed the "do-nothing" colspans (where colspan or rowspan=1). I'd like to replace the br tags in the table with a template that performs the same visual layout (for accessibility reasons), but I've forgotten what the template was...I'll hunt it down when I have more time at home tonight. Xaxafrad (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. BollyJeff | talk 03:15, 22 February 2015 (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.
Characters portrayed by Jenna Coleman
When one actor has portrayed characters with different names in the same TV show, should they be listed in a filmography as one character or several? Please see Talk:Jenna Coleman#Oswin vs Clara Oswin vs Clara, and discuss there. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
English, Scottish, Welsh vs. British
Please see this discussion about renaming a couple dozen actor biography articles. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Academy Awards to Oscars page moves
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Producer/writer/composer filmography navboxes nominated for deletion.
Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates, please see the following:
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 9#Template:Scott Rudin
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 9#Template:Brian Grazer
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 9#Template:Buck Henry
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 7#Template:Damon Lindelof
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 7#Template:Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 31#Template:Lutz and Smith Films
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 31#Template:Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby
Input from the project would be most appreciated. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Also:
Thanks! --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Producer/writer/composer filmography navboxes consensus
Further to the above, I have been accused on my talk page of "willy nilly editing" with the removal of writer/producer roles from navboxes and nominating sole producer/writer templates for deletion, but as far as I can see, the guideline is clear. I read it that the consensus is that anything other than director templates are not acceptable, and, I quote, "such templates should be nominated for deletion as unusable". Am I wrong to be tidying up these? Do we need a new consensus? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Some recent outcomes: Eva Longoria, Kent Smith, Rosemary Blight. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Some more recent outcomes (deleted): Bill Conti, Lutz and Smith Films & Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Doesn't anyone have anything to add? Should I WP:RFC it? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar enough with navbox issues to offer an informed opinion, but I think you're probably correct in your interpretation. Xaxafrad (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I do find your edits on removing info from nav boxes and wanting to delete producer navboxes good faith because it's probably what you're getting from Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates, however, I don't see anything where it says that information about producers films not going into a navbox or producers having their own navbox. Like the Template:Marc Abraham for example, it makes sense to me that since he is both a producer and director that both the films that he has produced and directed would be there. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Really, only the prime creative force behind a team creating a work should have that work on their navbox, and it is generally accepted that in the case of a film, this is a director, or in the case of, say a song or an album, this is the recording artist, or a novel, the author. We don't/shouldn't have navboxes for music producers, or publishers, or editors, and likewise we shouldn't have navboxes for other crew on films in order to avoid WP:NAVBOXCREEP. TV series are slightly different, where the creator/showrunner is the primary creative force. It's not generally appropriate to put TV shows in director navboxes. Of course there are always exceptions, but in the {{Marc Abraham}} case, this isn't one. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Taking the {{Marc Abraham}} example a bit further, if you look at this version (executive producers notwithstanding, as there is no doubt that they shouldn't be there), it fails a lot of the points at WP:NAVBOX. The only thing linking The Thing (2011 film) to Bring It On (film) is Abrahams, and he is mentioned about once in each film article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- The executive producer credits I agree didn't need to be there but he has more credits as a producer than he does a director. WAY more. Now it just doesn't look right. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, it should probably be deleted. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, only if consensus is reached about producer credits not going in navboxes though LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, it should probably be deleted. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- The executive producer credits I agree didn't need to be there but he has more credits as a producer than he does a director. WAY more. Now it just doesn't look right. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I do find your edits on removing info from nav boxes and wanting to delete producer navboxes good faith because it's probably what you're getting from Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates, however, I don't see anything where it says that information about producers films not going into a navbox or producers having their own navbox. Like the Template:Marc Abraham for example, it makes sense to me that since he is both a producer and director that both the films that he has produced and directed would be there. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar enough with navbox issues to offer an informed opinion, but I think you're probably correct in your interpretation. Xaxafrad (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note. I've started an RfC below in order to try to get a consensus. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Another one today Talk:Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang#Authors_in_the_navbox.3F Andy Dingley (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Pornography disputes with regard to referring to pornography stars as "actors"
I see that there is a dispute going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#Preferred disambiguator: "actor/actress" or "pornographic actor/actress"? (WP:Permalink here). And I know that some Wikipedia film editors are aware of these disputes. That stated, it seems that more help is needed resolving these matters. For example, there is a current debate going on at Talk:Chloe (pornographic actress)#Requested move 15 March 2015. And per what GregKaye and Necrothesp stated at Talk:Aja (actress)#Requested move 1 March 2015, I have alerted WP:Film to this matter, and now WP:Actor to it. Flyer22 (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please see the current discussions at Talk:Cytherea (pornographic actress)#Requested move 27 April 2015 and Talk:Hillary Scott (pornographic actress)#Requested move 27 April 2015. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
RFC: Filmography navboxes
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.
Should we restrict filmographies included in navboxes to directors for films and series creators for TV shows? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Notified talk pages at WP:ANIMATION, WP:HORROR, WP:SCREENW, WP:FILM, WP:TV, Category:Film producer navigational boxes, Category:Film writer navigational boxes, Category:Television producer templates, Category:Television creator templates, and Category:Television writer templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support as nom. This project page already has this instruction for film directors, although the backup documentation only seems to show previous longstanding consensus regarding actors. There are a number of navboxes around for other crew (writers, producers, even composers) and it is unclear to some editors whether this guideline applies in these cases. To my mind, the intention is the same: to avoid WP:NAVBOXCREEP, something you if you would get if we allowed them for any member of a film crew, the same way we would if we allowed them for actors. Only the prime creative force behind the work should have that work in the navbox, and this is widely considered to be the director in the case of film, and the creator/showrunner in the case of TV series. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support with caveat. I agree with the sentiment that navboxes should be restricted to directors or the primary creative force i.e. I can live with a George Lucas navbox on the Star Wars trilogy even though he didn't direct them all. Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, obviously there will be some exceptions, that being the perfect example. It's things like {{Brad Pitt}} where there's an obvious problem. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support One point of order though. IMO the TV show creators is only tangential (at best) to this project. It might be better to have a separate RFC at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television for them. I understand that you might disagree RS so this is only a suggestion. MarnetteD|Talk 16:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out, I've notified the TV project about this discussion. I think a TV producer still loosely fits under the "filmmaker" banner though --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I support this but would also add producers of films (ex. Brian Grazer, Marc Abraham, J. J. Abrams, Jerry Bruckheimer, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg. etc) but past that, yes I think it should be restricted. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- As I said above, there will be exceptions where the producer is the true creative force, so I can see there could be a case to be argued for {{J. J. Abrams}}, {{Jerry Bruckheimer}} and {{Steven Spielberg}}, but {{Brian Grazer}}, {{Marc Abraham}} and {{Tom Hanks}}? I don't think so... Look at some of the TV shows at {{Brian Grazer}} - Felicity (TV series) is a {{J. J. Abrams}} show, and Sports Night is an {{Aaron Sorkin}} show - Grazer isn't even mentioned on that one. And with the films - how are Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas (film) and Robin Hood (2010 film) intrinsically linked, other than they were made by Grazer's studio? (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well as long as there are exceptions to the rule but why do you say you don't think so on Tom Hanks? If you took out the Screenwriter and Television, and just left the Director, Producer and Related, that would still be a decent size navbox. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's about whether the producer is the main creative input. Some, like Spielberg or Lucas clearly are, but how much influence do you really think Hanks had on My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Where the Wild Things Are (film) or Neil Young: Heart of Gold? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, forgot to watch this page. But Hanks was the backing of My Big Fat Greek Wedding it was his idea to turn into a movie. I'm not sure about the other two though LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's about whether the producer is the main creative input. Some, like Spielberg or Lucas clearly are, but how much influence do you really think Hanks had on My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Where the Wild Things Are (film) or Neil Young: Heart of Gold? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well as long as there are exceptions to the rule but why do you say you don't think so on Tom Hanks? If you took out the Screenwriter and Television, and just left the Director, Producer and Related, that would still be a decent size navbox. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- As I said above, there will be exceptions where the producer is the true creative force, so I can see there could be a case to be argued for {{J. J. Abrams}}, {{Jerry Bruckheimer}} and {{Steven Spielberg}}, but {{Brian Grazer}}, {{Marc Abraham}} and {{Tom Hanks}}? I don't think so... Look at some of the TV shows at {{Brian Grazer}} - Felicity (TV series) is a {{J. J. Abrams}} show, and Sports Night is an {{Aaron Sorkin}} show - Grazer isn't even mentioned on that one. And with the films - how are Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas (film) and Robin Hood (2010 film) intrinsically linked, other than they were made by Grazer's studio? (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support with the understanding that there are some producers whose navbox definitely belongs there: Spielberg on Poltergeist, Burton on Nightmare Before Christmas, Lucas on the Star Wars series, etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support Per nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose because we are already in agreement that many producers should have navboxes ({{J. J. Abrams}}, {{Jerry Bruckheimer}} and {{Steven Spielberg}}). It is as if people are saying "I can think of a several producers who should have them, but lets have a rule to delete them because those are the only ones I can think of right now".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe we should keep some of the more notable producers like Brian Grazer, George Lucas, Marc Abraham, Jerry Bruckheimer & such and leave out the rest. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is a real slippery slope. What about the older producers whose notability may be forgotten? Also, how do you suppose this RFC will be interpretted for someone like a {{Lorne Michaels}}?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)
- Perhaps we can improvise on which one that is more notable and leave out the ones that are less notable. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is a real slippery slope. What about the older producers whose notability may be forgotten? Also, how do you suppose this RFC will be interpretted for someone like a {{Lorne Michaels}}?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)
- Oppose Film producers and writers are also creative forces behind a film. I can't think of other crew members who would require similar categories. Dimadick (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't think all producers and writers need navboxes. But many should, as they are key creative forces behind many films. And there are many such key creative forces that have not been listed in this discussion yet (e.g., Samuel Goldwyn, Louis B. Meyer, Irving Thalberg, Darryl Zanuck). And so the proposal as stated is too restrictive. Perhaps there should be a requirement that the writer/producer in question has won a major award (e.g., Oscar) for such work or that s/he is noted in a reliable source as being a key creative force behind at least some of the films in the navbox. The latter should actually extend beyond writers and producers to encompass the likes of George Lucas for Empire Strikes Back (although I suppose story could count as writer there, though I would think of writer mostly as screenplay) or Harold Lloyd for many of his films where he was not the writer, producer or director but often regarded as the auteur. Rlendog (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think this is the problem. There's a trend where the most unimportant of writers and producers are getting navboxes, yet some which would count as an exception are not. By implementing a guideline against these navboxes, any exception would have to be justified. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support, no need to duplicate categories. Frietjes (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Timeout Frietjes, do you realize how illogical what you are saying is. Just about the only people at issue who have categories such as Category:Works by Steven Spielberg that could replace the works templates are the most important people at issue. The works templates that should most seriously be considered for deletion are by the least important people who don't have such categories as duplicates to the templates. Are you saying we should only delete the most important Directors/Producers/Creators/Writers who have such categories? I am quite sure even Robsinden would tell you that almost all of the templates he has attempted to delete and would like to see deleted are for people who don't have such categories and the few that have these types of categories are for people whose templates should be kept.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think that categories are far more appropriate for screenwriters and producers than navboxes, so I think exactly the opposite of what you are saying Tony. This is about WP:NAVBOXCREEP. Categories are fine. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Robsinden, Supporting creation of categories as a preferable presentation of the content is an entirely different point. Frietjes is saying that he supports deletion of these templates to avoid duplication, when almost no duplication exists. Looking at Category:Works by American filmmakers, I see Category:Works by Steven Spielberg and Category:Works by J. J. Abrams, which are 2 of the 3 that you said were O.K. at 07:51, 23 April 2015 have duplication of content. However almost none of the ones that you feel should be deleted have categories (duplication). Saying that he wants to avoid duplication seems to suggest deleting templates where duplication exists (like Spielberg and Abrams). It is not a statement about creating new categories.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- You mean Category:Films produced by Brian Grazer, Category:Films produced by Marc Abraham, Category:Films produced by Brad Pitt, Category:Films produced by Tom Hanks, etc, etc, etc...? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, given Category:Films produced by Jerry Bruckheimer exists, all the templates that you think should be kept as exceptions have duplicate categories and many if not most of the ones that you think should be deleted do not. An argument based on duplication still leads us to deleting templates that should be kept, while it does not help with many of the templates you have nominated recently for deletion. E.g. Category:Films produced by Scott Rudin, Category:Films produced by Buck Henry, and Category:Films produced by Damon Lindelof among current nominees, as well as Category:Films produced by Kent Smith, Category:Films produced by Eva Longoria, and Category:Films produced by Rosemary Blight among recent nominees.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- The point is that the category is more appropriate than the navbox. This is well-established practice and isn't controversial. The navboxes are the issue here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Incidentally, think you are looking for Category:Screenplays by Damon Lindelof and Category:Screenplays by Buck Henry. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Aren't you looking for an argument that distinguishes producer templates from director templates and makes the producer templates more deletable. All the guys that do a lot of directing have the duplicative categories, while some of the guys who only produce do not. Frietjes' argument means that the director templates are the ones most in need of being deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, given Category:Films produced by Jerry Bruckheimer exists, all the templates that you think should be kept as exceptions have duplicate categories and many if not most of the ones that you think should be deleted do not. An argument based on duplication still leads us to deleting templates that should be kept, while it does not help with many of the templates you have nominated recently for deletion. E.g. Category:Films produced by Scott Rudin, Category:Films produced by Buck Henry, and Category:Films produced by Damon Lindelof among current nominees, as well as Category:Films produced by Kent Smith, Category:Films produced by Eva Longoria, and Category:Films produced by Rosemary Blight among recent nominees.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- You mean Category:Films produced by Brian Grazer, Category:Films produced by Marc Abraham, Category:Films produced by Brad Pitt, Category:Films produced by Tom Hanks, etc, etc, etc...? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Robsinden, Supporting creation of categories as a preferable presentation of the content is an entirely different point. Frietjes is saying that he supports deletion of these templates to avoid duplication, when almost no duplication exists. Looking at Category:Works by American filmmakers, I see Category:Works by Steven Spielberg and Category:Works by J. J. Abrams, which are 2 of the 3 that you said were O.K. at 07:51, 23 April 2015 have duplication of content. However almost none of the ones that you feel should be deleted have categories (duplication). Saying that he wants to avoid duplication seems to suggest deleting templates where duplication exists (like Spielberg and Abrams). It is not a statement about creating new categories.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think that categories are far more appropriate for screenwriters and producers than navboxes, so I think exactly the opposite of what you are saying Tony. This is about WP:NAVBOXCREEP. Categories are fine. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's about duplication, it's about templates of certain producers and writers that have a list of producing credits in their careers. Producers like Steven Spielberg. Brian Grazer and such with a lot of producing credits should have those templates and other producers should be left out. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's not about the size of their production output, it's about whether they make a substantial contribution. And we're talking about allowing producer navboxes as an exception, so contribution would have to be demonstrated. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Timeout Frietjes, do you realize how illogical what you are saying is. Just about the only people at issue who have categories such as Category:Works by Steven Spielberg that could replace the works templates are the most important people at issue. The works templates that should most seriously be considered for deletion are by the least important people who don't have such categories as duplicates to the templates. Are you saying we should only delete the most important Directors/Producers/Creators/Writers who have such categories? I am quite sure even Robsinden would tell you that almost all of the templates he has attempted to delete and would like to see deleted are for people who don't have such categories and the few that have these types of categories are for people whose templates should be kept.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I think produces and writers are also notable plus useful to have in navboxes. Debresser (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. No thoughtful argument against screenwriter navboxes presented. -- Wikipedical (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - I see no compelling argument being made for this change. Jusdafax 20:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose ban per Rlendog's reasoning above. The problem does not seem to be that some people other than directors are getting navboxes, it is that there is no guidance on which crew members need navboxes. Some do, some do not. I would agree that especially distinguishing awards is a potential qualifier. Mamyles (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2015 (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.