Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Harry Potter films cast members
Already been rated A-class by the Harry Potter WikiProject but just needed a bit of tweaking to reach FL status, although I thank Fbv65edel for cleanup and referencing through the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix article. I believe it meets all the criteria, and will be updated as soon as more information is revealed about Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support - I have always liked this page, even before what it is now. Well referenced, useful, clear and complete. Only two slight objections: The page could do with an image, but this may be difficult to get one that serves a strong purpose. Maybe of Dan Radcliffe? And, the links to the films at the top of the table. COS an POA have cast on the end of the link, where as the others don't, could use some continuity. Gran2 20:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've fixed the "cast" issue. As for the image, I've added it but I'm afraid it might not be very informative to the list and therefore violate WP:FUC. I would like to see what the others think about the issue. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't feel qualified to vote (because in addition to referencing I completely redid the page to make it appears basically as it appears now from its old version), but I'm wondering if this is okay to be featured considering it is known not to be complete? I've also removed the image as I don't think it's appropriate for the page logistically nor within the guidelines of FUC. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- It will become more complete as the movies will be released, same for many featured elections lists we have. Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support Excellent point of reference. Pulls together an incredible amount of information into an easy to read reference page. Truly something by which other lists should be judged. John Reaves 02:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support Well put together, featured quality list. Hello32020 00:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support with a suggestion: if I were you, I would center the names that need to appear in more than one column. i.e. Daniel Radcliffe would be centered over Chamber of Secrets - Order of the Phoenix columns. Renata 13:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've centered all the names, just to be uniform (and since it was easier), and I'm having slightly mixed feelings about it… it seems to me that somebody like David Bradley, who appears right in the middle of a bunch of names that don't span all five columns like he does, might be mistaken for only appearing in the center film, namely Prisoner of Azkaban. I'd suggest reverting it to left align, so you see the first movie they appeared in and then follow their name all the way to the end of the cell, as opposed to finding two ends of the cell when the name is centered. Any other thoughts on this? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I like centered because visually it is a lot easier to locate the name. Renata 19:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've centered all the names, just to be uniform (and since it was easier), and I'm having slightly mixed feelings about it… it seems to me that somebody like David Bradley, who appears right in the middle of a bunch of names that don't span all five columns like he does, might be mistaken for only appearing in the center film, namely Prisoner of Azkaban. I'd suggest reverting it to left align, so you see the first movie they appeared in and then follow their name all the way to the end of the cell, as opposed to finding two ends of the cell when the name is centered. Any other thoughts on this? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support A well put together list, massively improved compared to the mess it used to be. RHB 01:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Very well put together, I see no problems with it. --Wizardman 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The last column(s) need to be filled in so that lines dividing rows appear all the way across the table. Otherwise, well done. Waitak 11:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do you mean that, for example, the Bloody Baron's row doesn't stretch to the right of the table? That's explained in the lead: the character doesn't appear in the book, and thus "shouldn't" be cast in the film. A grey cell under Movie 5 shows that a character appears in the book but has not yet been cast in the film -- "not yet cast" status. See the difference? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- That seems a bit backwards, and therefore confusing. All the actors are listed in white boxes, while all the roles that don't exist in the earlier films have corresponding grey boxes. If a role has not yet been cast, shouldn't it also be in a white box? Eg. I'm looking at "Grey Lady" and "Moaning Myrtle" and there appears to be a white box connecting them under "Phoenix". I would be tempted read that as saying both roles exist and will be played by the same actor. Is that not what is intended?Gimmetrow 00:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I suppose it is a bit backwards. Both the Grey Lady and Myrtle don't appear in "Phoenix" and their row doesn't stretch that far (you'll notice there is no line at the very right edge of the table in their row): they don't appear in the book, and thus shouldn't be cast in the film. The purpose of the grey boxes in the Phoenix column is to show you what characters appear in the book, have had an actor play them in previous films, but haven't yet been (re)cast for "Phoenix." However, I see how this can be confusing if you don't know it. :-) I'm changing it now so that all actors stretch to the right, and those who "should" be cast in "Phoenix" will display an "uncast" in the fifth box. If this isn't liked we can revert it. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- That seems a bit backwards, and therefore confusing. All the actors are listed in white boxes, while all the roles that don't exist in the earlier films have corresponding grey boxes. If a role has not yet been cast, shouldn't it also be in a white box? Eg. I'm looking at "Grey Lady" and "Moaning Myrtle" and there appears to be a white box connecting them under "Phoenix". I would be tempted read that as saying both roles exist and will be played by the same actor. Is that not what is intended?Gimmetrow 00:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I do see the difference now, but I don't think the way you chose to represent it before did it justice. What you've got now is better, but perhaps could be improved on a bit yet. One other possibility might be to use a different shade of gray, or a different color altogether to indicate that the role hasn't yet been cast? Encoding information in more than one mode (gray/white, empty/not empty, cast/not cast) is tricky for the user. Something like:
- White == cast
- Dark gray == not cast
- Light gray == role not yet cast
- Do you mean that, for example, the Bloody Baron's row doesn't stretch to the right of the table? That's explained in the lead: the character doesn't appear in the book, and thus "shouldn't" be cast in the film. A grey cell under Movie 5 shows that a character appears in the book but has not yet been cast in the film -- "not yet cast" status. See the difference? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- for example? Waitak 13:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I see that. I've made the changes but just switched around what you said. I made dark gray not yet cast, since it would make sense to keep light gray the same throughout, which is not in the movie. I've also added some notes for characters confirmed not to return, but left those in dark gray. Just wondering if the lead fits okay with the changes I made. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)