Jump to content

Talk:Al Pacino on stage and screen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 29 November 2024

[edit]

– CNC33 attempted to move several of these pages at the end August/beginning of September but was reverted with the rationale that the moves had not been discussed. I'm proposing that these pages be renamed for consistency with other pages. 101 pages uses "on screen and stage" whereas 19 use "on stage and screen"

The 101 articles that follow "on screen and stage"

As such, it makes sense to have the pages follow a consistent naming scheme. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Each such list is dependent upon the content, and not all have the same thing. In some people, their legitimate stage work is more prolific, and in some it's films ... or radio, or other category. And anyone who has taken such lists through review process, such as Good Article, or Feature List, can tell you that the reviewers themselves can request the style of the end product ... or fail the review itself for any list. Yes, process consistency would be nice. But the various review projects are diverse in that regard. Changing everything now will just result in a lot of complaints and general messes of style and etc. — Maile (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where's this documented @Maile66? I'm quite active at WP:FLC and this isn't a naming convention I've seen brought up. In fact, the more I think about it, I'd likely request the rename as a reviewer myself if similar titles were brought there simply based on listing them alphabetically making more sense.
As for failing the nom based on the format of the title, I can tell you as someone who does the promoting of candidates to featured list (FLC delegate), I wouldn't fail a nom for a title being factored differently than a reviewer prefers, even if I personally have my own preferences. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a minor WP:TRAINWRECK. The proposed format generally works, but I agree with the above comments that some peoples' stage careers were more notable than on stage so I feel these would be best discussed individually. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're well within your right to oppose for whatever reason you see as appropriate, but I certainly wouldn't think of this proposal as anything close to a train wreck of an idea. I spend a lot of times on lists as a regular nominator at WP:FLC and as a delegate there, so list naming conventions are often on my mind. Again, fine if others disagree, but a consistent naming approach certainly isn't what I'd call a train wreck. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh I agree, seeking consistency is a noble endeavor. I just think that each of these could require more nuanced discussion as to whether each actor is more notable for being on screen or stage. IMO mass moves of 10+ pages are generally best reserved for when there's a clear policy or guideline to apply and not just a precedent to follow, but that's just my personal opinion. I'd support most of these individually, but I think there's a relatively high chance of diverging opinions that will make it hard for any consensus to be formed. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Especially given Pacino and half of the other names on this list here are more closely associated with screen than stage anyhow, so that flimsy argument is moot.
--Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 21:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Having a consistent naming pattern seems desirable (see WP:CONSISTENT and WP:CRITERIA), and having a title that talks about "A and B" does not necessarily imply that A is more notable than B. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Among the mishmash of oppose !votes—which includes non-arguments such as "this is a trainwreck" and "one editor gets to choose the long-term title" (!!!)—the sole/main reason for opposing—that occasionally the actor's stage work is more significant to their notability—is not even true for many of the relevant articles. Pacino, Lee, Walken, Murphy, Douglas, Dalton, Malkovitch being just a number of standout examples of actors who did notable stage work but who are nonetheless known primarily as screen actors, as the articoles already make clear. It means that there's a tiny minority where stage should take priority over screen, but clearly insufficient to outweigh WP:CONSISTENT... which is policy (and not just a "noble endeavor", whatever that means). ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified relevant projects and parties: WT:AT, WT:THEATRE, WT:FILM. SerialNumber54129 10:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oppose the original naming approach and the proposed one. These are all lists and not full-fledged prose, so we should apply WP:LISTNAME by naming them "List of..." And in this case, I am assuming that these are all acting credits, with other credits mentioned supplementarily, so something like List of Al Pacino acting credits or List of Al Pacino's acting credits. (EDIT: Or we could just drop "acting" to make it cover all credits. Or List of works by Al Pacino. Anything WP:CONSISTENT and encompassing.) This pretty much throws the whole screen/stage distinction out of the window. I don't know if others are open to that, though, and this may not be the best thing to hash out in a RM discussion. Maybe it should be a RFC at WT:ACTOR to establish a precedent by community consensus. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur regarding "List of…" then—in which case, we've got 120+ articles to rename. Well, some of you do, not all of us. The rest of us can just correct piping and such. But then we'll just have to come to some consensus regarding wording, whether it be "List of credits/works (from/by/for) _____" (since some actors do have those minor forays into writing/directing, for example) or what have you all. But I'm certain we'll all be able to figure this little conundrum out sooner or later. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 14:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All I want is consistency, I don't care how many articles have to be renamed, I have zero problem helping with that. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here, I'd like the consistency and the fluency. So I think this perhaps may have lead to, hopefully, a clearer consensus? If need be, could repoll the original opposition.
    But as mentioned below, credits/works from/by really has the additional bonus of encompassing autobiographies, radio, video game voice acting, plus even music albums for some, and so forth. Why limit them to confining article page titles, right?
    =============
    Also, keep an eye out for any actor/actress/talent who do not have their own separate awards page. As Josh and I had discussed yesterday, there were a few with ______, roles and awards which became "List of roles and awards of ______".
    I notice, for example, Vivien Leigh has a small handful of awards noted on her main page, on the last section with a hatnote redirecting to her credits page. Meanwhile, Joan Crawford has hers as a section on her Joan Crawford filmography page (entitled just that, so another one to add to the list). Both of those ladies might better fit the same bill as Alan Bates, John Gielgud, Ralph Richardson, and more:
    I don't know if this makes things more or less complicated for some? I just thought I'd bring it up now, rather than later. "Roles" is a general enough blanket term. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 02:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – List of works by... seems appropriate to use. Works encompass full credentials, i.e. book releases also, rather than just stage and screen limitations. If someone wrote a book, autobiography, or something, its title could very well be included under list of works, not erroneously under stage and screen. Stage and screen presents only a limited account of what one has done, whereas works encompasses the entirety.
Some things that would need to be moved — take Angela Lansbury for example. Under Publications, her article shows this:
Lansbury, Angela; Avins, Mimi (1990). Angela Lansbury's Positive Moves: My Personal Plan for Fitness and Well-Being. New York: Delacorte Press. ISBN 978-0-385-30223-4.
This (her article's publication section) could be moved into something like List of works by Angela Lansbury.
Also, some screen and stage articles erroneously list video games, which are not of that medium, though [correctly] can be placed under works. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great point regarding autobiographies/publications and video games' voice work. I mentioned some of that in the comment reply above, but wanted to know how you felt in regards to those two categorizations when it came to combined pages (which had awards sections transcluded at the bottom, because they weren't notable enough for their own article) and how to title them. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 02:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to "works", I simply want consistency. I do not believe it's reasonable for everybody to be assessing whether a person has more credible work on stage or on screen, and that doing so inevitably leads to issues because people will not be bale to agree on that. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:CONSISTENT. There should only be one pattern for these articles. Theparties (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. According to ngrams, "stage and screen" is an overwhelmingly more common phrase than "screen and stage", so if we are to standardize to one of those terms it should be the former. Some actors may have done more notable work in one medium than the other, but litigating individual cases to determine the order of "screen" and "stage" could be hugely time-consuming. I'm also opposed to the pattern of List of works by Angela Lansbury; actors aren't generally the authors or creators of the works in which they appear. The patterns of List of Al Pacino's acting credits or List of acting credits by Al Pacino (the latter is closest to the "List of works by..." convention seen elsewhere) would be good ones if we're sure that "acting credits" works for theatre as well as for film and television (and also voice acting for video games).

    W. Somerset Maugham on stage and screen is different from the others because it's about plays he wrote and screen adaptations of anything written by him, so "acting credits" wouldn't work there. The Plays section duplicates List of works by W. Somerset Maugham § Plays (a section of a featured article), so perhaps that section could be removed and the article could be retitled List of W. Somerset Maugham screen adaptations, as with List of William Shakespeare screen adaptations. Ham II (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I missed Noël Coward, whose case isn't an exact match for Somerset Maugham's because Coward was an actor, among many other things. A split along the lines of List of works by W. Somerset Maugham and List of W. Somerset Maugham screen adaptations therefore wouldn't work for Coward, but perhaps a split of Noël Coward on stage and screen into List of works by Noël Coward and List of acting credits by Noël Coward might. (Another suggestion for the titling of the latter Coward list, if "acting credits" doesn't work for the stage: List of acting roles by Noël Coward.)

    It happens that the main articles for both W. Somerset Maugham and Noël Coward are featured articles either nominated or co-nominated by Tim riley, while List of works by W. Somerset Maugham is a featured list nominated by SchroCat. (The co-nominator for the Coward article in 2009 was Ssilvers, who is already in this discussion.) Tim and SchroCat, what would you think of (first) changing the scope of W. Somerset Maugham on stage and screen to screen adaptations only, because of the duplication of its Plays section with the Plays section of List of works by W. Somerset Maugham, and (second) a split of Noël Coward on stage and screen into List of works by Noël Coward and another page listing his acting roles (title to be determined)? This would all be in case the naming convention for most of the pages nominated here, about people who are/were primarily actors, moves away from "on stage and screen". Ham II (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that phrasing would work for Coward ("List of acting credits" is horribly forced language and rather restrictive too). Given it is not a long list, splitting to 'creator' and 'performer' lists would leave two very short pages, which doesn't seem to be the best outcome.
    Splitting Maugham I think would not be a good outcome. He was a writer who wrote in multiple formats, and we list all his works in one place: novels, short stories, essays, plays, non-fiction, the lot. Splitting off one part of his output doesn't seem to be beneficial to anyone - I don't see the logic on this part.- SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat: Thanks, but I'm not proposing any change at all to the scope of List of works by W. Somerset Maugham, where all his works are listed in one place; I'm proposing to change the scope of W. Somerset Maugham on stage and screen because of the duplication of the first section with part of the other list. Ham II (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake - sorry, I misread what you'd actually written. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "X on stage and screen" to "X on screen and stage" for several reasons. Firstly many began their career on stage before moving to screen, so many of the pages which run chronologically have stage roles followed by screen. As others have said, many are known for their stage roles above their screen ones, so highlighting 9by having listed first) their minor activity seems odd. The phrase "stage and screen" is far more common and standard English than the rather forced "screen and stage" (think, for example, of the descriptions "X was a star of stage and screen": an overblown phrase, but it's the natural flow of the language, which is what I think we should be aiming for). As someone who was deeply involved in writing featured lists and as a former FLC delegate, I'm not sure this is an issue that needs making uniform, particularly when it's probably to the "wrong" wording. Why so many of them are named with the (to me) unnaturally sounding "X on screen and stage", I don't know, but I would suggest that it would probably be better if many of them were moved to the more common and suitable "stage and screen". - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that "stage and screen" is more natural linguistically. So if that is the consensus, I'm fine with swapping all of the articles as such, so long as they remain consistent.
    I reverted back to what Richardson and Gielgud were, per what @Erik stated about WP:LISTNAME and @Hey man im josh's title change the other day. I had also adjusted every single anchor and wikilink on the main pages to correspond with that new title, so I guess if a new phrasing is decided upon, here I go again!
    Continuing below, since it's a slightly separate-but-related topic. If unnecessary, merge back together.----Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 10:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved Gielgud back to something in line with Olivier. It should not have been moved in the first place, but as it had, let's keep it similar to the similar actors of the time. LISTNAME does not mean list pages need to begin with "List of" - that's not in line with either policy or practice. - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for these reasons:
  1. For our readers' sake, ease of finding is of the most importance: the performer/director/writer's name should come first
  2. A title starting "List of works by XYZ" is not helpful: for instance, if you type "Somerset Maugham" into the search box the results are "Somerset Maugham, "Somerset Maugham Award" and "Somerset Maugham TV Theatre" but the List of Works by ... article doesn't show.
  3. I agree that "stage and screen" rather than "screen and stage" is the natural word order (a quick trawl of press archives shows 2,321 occurrences of the former and 148 of the latter) but where performers are principally known as film actors, varying the usual phrase to "screen and stage" is not foolish.
  4. On the other hand it would be foolish indeed to use the latter phrase for a performer such as Coward, who had the leading role in only one major film, but starred in the West End and on Broadway in numerous productions of his own plays and those of other writers.
  5. Where a performer is well known both as a stage actor and film actor I don't imagine our readers will care which way round the "stage and screen/screen and stage" phrase appears. – Tim riley talk 11:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just typed in "Ingrid Bergman" and List of Ingrid Bergman performances appears in the infobox, so I think #2 is an erroneous claim. But all of the other reasons are valid arguments. I understand especially regarding Coward.
    That's why I think the option of "List of credits" arose. However, while I think it's one of the best options for an across-the-board consistency, I have to admit it does lack ~elegance~ which for whatever it's worth, irks me.
    My only gripe right now, however, is @SchroCat if you're going to revert it, I'd rather we revert them both back to "John Gielgud/Ralph Richardson," (comma) "roles and awards", so that the Awards was in the page title. That's how it was to begin with, and for those with combination pages, I am aiming to find a solution where those particular names can have that consistency with regard to both their acting/directing/writing (whatever) roles + their accolades.
    There are still several names out there with combo pages—some with titles that acknowledge that, but others that I'd like to involve in the discussion about consistency. Especially if readers were to do a search, it's vital that they see that. (Although the redirects from superfluous attempted separate pages will at least take them to the right place for now.) --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 12:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Just considered the fact that re: Ingrid Bergman, her page might have appeared due to their being a redirect starting with "Ingrid Bergman performances" perhaps. (ETA: Now confirmed.) Probably oftentimes the case for such redirects, whether it be due to past page disputes or just simply as a precautionary, helpful tool. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 12:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then type in "Daniel Craig" and see if you can find his awards and nominations page in the drop down list. Rather ridiculously you have to type out (in full) "List of awards and nominations received by Dan" to see him appear seventh on the list, which directs you to List of awards and nominations received by Daniel Craig. He doesn't appear after typing "List of awards and nominations received by Da", but the 'n' is what tips it over to appearing. Are we going to make life that hard for readers that they either have to type it all out, or go into the Craig article, scroll down to the relevant section, then click on the link? - SchroCat (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Ease of finding isn't an issue due to the existence of redirects.
2. Disambiguation pages
3. I might disagree that it's more natural but I don't think it particularly matters from my perspective, I'll take either one
4. I think you're giving too much weight to the idea that the most important aspects of their career comes first in the title.
5. No, I agree with this, but WP:CONSISTENT is important Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Important, but neither the driving force, or the dominant reason for naming. One of the reasons for inconsistency in naming is that there is sometimes no consistency in articles, with different content provided in some that differentiates them from the rather dull and soulless "list of boring titles" - possibly the worst choice of title that there can be. Either way, "X on stage and screen" seems to be a much better English than the oddly phrased "X on screen and stage", particularly as it leads with the name of the individual, rather than losing it so far down a sentence people are lost before they get to it. - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there's no consistency in some article subsets, but when it's simply refactoring of titles, there should be consistency. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Combination Awards/Credits Articles

[edit]
  • As far as that goes though, I think COMBO pages need to have slightly different but consistent names under their own guidelines, i.e. both "list of" and "roles and awards". If there is a slightly less clunky way of avoiding a second "of" in the article title that suits everyone, please.
  • That's why I kind of fancied @Discographer's idea—albeit not so much "List of works". I prefer "List of credits". Which would encompass books written by Lansbury, Gielgud, etc.; BUT those are on Gielgud's main article, not his credits page. And I presume those involved want it to remain that way. No objections here.
  • But basically, if there is another preferred phrasing for the combo pages of "roles and awards", please suggest it. "Awards" NEEDS to be in the title though, because it is a component of the list akin to others. And that is part of the consistency we are all seeking here. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 10:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lists with both credits and awards don't necessarily need different names, and they certainly don't need to have "awards" in the title. People don't have "credits" for writing books, to "List of credits" would not naturally include books - that's not a logical extension. - SchroCat (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your perspective, which is fine. Btw, I definitely don't want to propose separate pages for everyone, like some editors have attempted in the past. Not everyone has enough awards to warrant their own page.
But I hope some of the others who've weighed in on the above can share their thoughts on this too, be it they agree or disagree. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 12:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Pacino_on_stage_and_screen&oldid=1260957144"