Do not merge. Separating this filmography from the Seymour Hicks article allows information to be included here for which there is not enough room in the main Seymour Hicks article. In my opinion, this article should be retained as a separate article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "not enough room"? Most actor/director/film-makers (including those with significant interests outside of film) have filmographies in their main article. This article contains a great deal of duplicated information for no discernible benefit to the reader. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The below talk was taken from Cassianto's talk page:
Maybe you are right but personally I think a list belongs in a separate article. I will be conducting a major build on Seymour Hicks in the next couple of weeks and I intend to leave out an embedded list and filmography; instead listing films in a prose format as I think this is better. I dont think WORKS insists that a list be incorporated into an article - it merely acts as a guide for those wishing to add such a filmography into an intended article. As an example see Stanley Holloway; An FA article which is listless. -- Cassianto (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously adding good content to the site so I've no strong objections. On the other hand I cannot see a justification beyond your personal preference. FYI, I did a quick scan to see what is considered normal. Only a few exceptionally famous individuals seem to have separate filmography pages, such as Tom Cruise, Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd. Most film-makers and screen actors seem to have the filmography within the main subject... here are a bunch of names I picked at random: David Lynch, Emilio Estevez, Barbara Windsor. --11:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the above examples prove that the general consensus relating to embedded lists and filmographies in articles is evenly divided. Stanley Holloway is an example of what can be achieved with a discography / filmography omitted from the final draught. Incidentally, all the above you mentioned are below GA standard so this proves that having a list and not having a list has little or no effect on determining the articles quality. I'm sure that if messrs Cruise, Chaplin and Lloyd sat GA or FA; the fact a list was not incorporated in them would have no negative effect on the article's promotion. Same could be said for Windsor, Estevez and Lynch, which, again, proves lists are of a 50/50 persuasion. I intend to take Seymour Hicks through a PR, GA and FA in the coming weeks and I will see if the missing list has a detrimental effect on the articles promotion. If so, I stand corrected. -- Cassianto (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hicks's career was primarily regarding the stage, not in film, so a long bulleted filmography in his article makes the film portion of his career too prominent - gives it too much ink. This is much like the case in Stanley Holloway. It is better to have a narrative discussion of his most prominent film-related activities in the main article, and then this article can have a more complete list with any notes that are of particular interest to people interested in Hicks's film career. Also, as articles increase in length and quality, it becomes helpful to move listy information into sub-articles like this. So, I think that Cassianto made a good decision to separate this article from the main article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
