User talk:Xcentaur/Sandbox2

Hey there

Hi!

Whoever you are reading this page, I'm glad you are! Please do add your opinion here on this talk page. Who knows, discussion on these topics might help clear out the confusion seen so often on filmbio talks. Take care!

xC | ☎ 10:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shshshsh's - Comment on Only Bollywood related

Here are my opinions:

Dance performances Agree. For an Indian actor there is nothing special in performing. Every actor appears in such events every month. They perform everywhere. There is nothing special. Of course, when it comes to participate in a world tour around the globe (like Temptations or Heat), this should be mentioned be mentioned. --Shshshsh 17:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guest of honour Agree. Actors like Zinta, Mukerji etc are some of the most appreciated artists today. It's apparent that they are invited as guests of honour to this or another event. However, I believe this deserves to be discussed by some other users. Brand ambassador. Still don't know. My explanation for Zinta's GoAir was the media speculation that came as a result of this representation. In general, I also think that the brand ambassador for itself is unnecessary. --Shshshsh 17:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film Festivals For an Indian actor/actress, it's an honour to represent his/her country in an international festival like the Cannes. Among hundred of actresses, Zinta was the one who came from India. I believe this should be kept. --Shshshsh 17:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Event host Filmfare is not notable. It is the most notable. It is parallel to the Oscars in India. If she had hosted the Zee Cine awards, I wouldn't have added it from the outset. As you see, the mentioned Hollywood artists Ellen DeGeneres and Jon Stewart have entire sections for their hosting. I don't intend to make such a big deal with Zinta's hosting. One line of mention is quite sufficient. What do you think? --Shshshsh 18:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That's all for now. I'll comment latter on the other things we have. Best regards, Shshshsh 15:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I edited your post a bit to reduce the quoting from the article, it took too much space - the original post can be seen here.

Dance performances - Exactly. Bollywood stars turn up everywhere, I strongly believe only international stage performances, world tours, etc qualify. The rest, such as performances at weddings, award shows, etc should not be included. An exception to this would be a performance which is notable due to what happened during, or after it. For example: the Rakhi Sawant performance which landed a court case against her, or the Mallika Sherawat performance at a hotel which had wide media coverage and ended up with the hotel suing her. Things like that might warrant inclusion, but again, a few more opinions on this would be better.

Guest of honour - I personally believe this shouldn't be in the article. If it isn't one celebrity, it would be someone else, so actually theres nothing notable about it. But I'm in two minds over brand ambassador coverage. On the one hand, it makes for blatant advertising for the said brand. On the other hand, it shows the brand that the actor was associated with, and that does make a difference. For example, a model associated with Gucci and Prada would be valued more than one appearing in a random poster of some small store. Media value, basically.

Film Festivals - I oppose this being kept in any filmbio, although I would strongly support any such details being added to the seperate article of the film festival itself. There are simply far too many film festivals, with far too many actors attending each, to make a note of.

Event host - I'm undecided here. Dunno. xC | ☎ 18:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EnemyOfTheState - Some thoughts

Cumulative gross

I don't think cumulative gross should be mentioned, mainly because it says very little about an actor's actual box office draw. Movies are extremely franchise driven today (all the kids from the Harry Potter movies have a domestic cumulative gross of over $1.1 billion). If anything, it should be the worldwide cumulative gross.

Fame

I do think an actor's prominence and importance should be pointed out in the lead, because the text – and especially the lead – will be read by people who might not even know the person. There is no need for too many references imho, because everything pointed out in the introduction should be mentioned in the text elsewhere, and can be referenced there.

Criteria for films in career section

There is a difference between an actor with only a handful of films to his/her credit and a veteran actor with maybe up to 100 films. In the first case, I believe every film needs to be mentioned, because all of these films have contributed to both the career and the public's perception of this actor. An article on a veteran actor on the other side should focus on the highlights, since mentioning all films would make the text extremely long and listy. Jolie might be on the verge of having too many films to her credit, but to satisfy the FA criteria of comprehensiveness, it's probably still better to mention a few too many.

Polls

Unlike the Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia can't make general statements like "he is famous", therefore the introduction of references such as polls is necessary. I don't think all magazine listings should be mentioned, especially all these countless lists from magazines like FHM, Maxime, etc. On the other hand, there should be a reasonable hierarchy; if an actress is mentioned for the first time or just once on a 'hot list' like FHM it might be notable for that person and should be included, however if an actress appears regularly on these lists, there is no point in putting all these polls in the article. Lists from respected sources (such as the Time 100) and scientific polls or studies should be mentoned though.

Awards and Nominations

Again, I think there should be a certain hierarchy; awards like MTV Movie Awards, People's Choice Awards, etc. should only be mentioned if these are the only awards won by that person. All awards listed in the actors infobox template should always be included. However, it might be reasonable to mention a People Choice Award to point out a person's popularity for instance.

EnemyOfTheState 15:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response.

cumulative gross- strongly agree with you, it shouldn't be there, for all the reasons mentioned on the page itself. Your point about worldwide gross is spot on.

Fame - I believe this line should be allowed in. The only problem is that it can easily lead to over hype, although I guess in going through a thorough copyedit (say during assessment/GA nom/FA nom)that would end up being toned down.

Criteria for films in career section - This is one of the major problems, imo. I would rather err on the side of over-inclusion. WP isn't paper, and we aren't bound by the usual constraints of an encyclopedia. I would rather have (if not all) the majority of the movies mentioned. All it takes is one line, acknowledging the role and critical/commercial reaction to the movie. Exceptional roles or movies which proved to be turning points can be discussed in detail, of course.

Polls - By themselves, I support having polls in the article. They are a reasonable gauge of the popularity/fame of the actor, audience sway, critic opinion, all of that, yes. But not in the way things are going in right now - random polls thrown in, each one more obscure than the next. We need quality control. Until theres some guideline about which polls are notable (and why), I would strongly oppose inclusion of polls in any filmbio.

Awards and Nominations - Again, we need more ideas regarding this as well. What decides notability? In making a case-by-case decision to include or not, dozens of edit wars and discussions happen. While there are definitely some awards which do not deserve mention (nn), that may change over time too. For example, a lesser known award/honour over time may turn coveted. Some guideline regarding this is the need of the hour.xC | ☎ 18:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shez 15 - In General

In general, I agree with both your viewpoints. It's something we should have a consensus on. But I totally rule out the mention of brands since Bollywood stars endorse a multitude of them, some of them, not even popular. However, Amitabh Bachchan made a shocking Rs. 19 million last year from only advertisements. And he is India's biggest brand. Sachin Tendulkar, Shahrukh Khan and Aishwarya Rai come after him. But they launch more than a dozen brands. So do we mention them all? It's just something not even career-defining. It's just a source of money. So I don't know. I believe it creates clutter on wikipedia. Dance performances, again not worth mentionning when they do occur in India or at award shows. But I don't know about the Commonwealth Games since the actors represented their country. So, it's something associated to their prestige and market value. World tours again promote them. Important. Hosting is truly integral. It marks talent besides acting. I think it should be mentionned. Polls just need to be integrated into the article instead of having a whole section to them. Film festivals are not important and are mentionned in filmography but Cannes deserves mention since it's the biggest in the world. Again, Rani's achievement in Morocco with 50,000 foreign people watching her movies is notable since it's a big number. It's not just showcasing Indian cinema but more than that, it's marking the actor's achievement. And for awards and nominations, let's just update everyone of them since a whole page is dedicated to them. The page will look empty if only 5 different award ceremonies were kept. That's all for now. shez_15