Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Christopher Walken filmography/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was delisted by SchroCat 08:31, 7 November 2014 [1].
Christopher Walken filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is far from meeting the featured criteria in its current condition. The biggest issue is how it is very under-referenced for FL standards with only five inline citations. The "filmography" and "other media" sections are entirely unreferenced. I was shocked to see that the version that was promoted to FL back in February 2008 only had six. As for the lead itself, the first two sentences read he is "an American actor in both theater and film. Walken is a prolific actor who has had a career which has lasted over 50 years."..... very fluffy, and I doubt the term "prolific" or things like "This list includes the most popular of them" (included in "theatre" section) are neutral. This could easily be reduced to one sentence. Statements like "Christopher Walken also stars in some TV series and theater plays" could be written much more professionally, too. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist This filmography needs extensive work in referencing.--Skr15081997 (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. The filmography is definitely under-referenced, and honestly looks pretty unsightly overall. The listing of dates isn't even consistent and the opening needs work on phrasing and necessary details. Ss112 23:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Needs loads of work on referencing. The lead and most of the prose needs to be rewritten to meet FL criteria and all the tables need to be MOS compatible which they aren't right now. Cowlibob (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- keep What kind of references would you find for a filmography? It's a filmography... -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- References that mention his roles and accolades. Every role should be sourced per WP:Verifiability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see the accolades requiring appropriate references but the roles itself? I would imagine the source of the role itself (i.e. movie) is reference enough to validate the claims legitimacy. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the movie article itself is NOT a sufficient reference. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not trying to be cute or rude. But that if the credits of the movie lists "John Smith" as an actor in the film, that is not to be considered a reliable source? The question here is "What is verifiable" is it not? The actor credited with the role in the film itself should provide this verification. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone cited the credit scene, that might or might not be accepted, but I see no use of credits being sourced. What I meant is that the Wikipedia article itself is not enough as those can potentially have unsourced/poorly sourced information. It would be better to use other refs to ensure verifiability more easily, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:FILMOGRAPHY, "Source- This is an optional field that is to be used when a work may be obscure or difficult to confirm." -Xcuref1endx (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That applies when tables are used in bio page, since works are previously sourced in bio article bodies. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It mentions nothing about "works being previously sourced". It explicitly says "This is an optional field that is to be used when a work may be obscure or difficult to confirm." -Xcuref1endx (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What I neglected to mention is how the page you linked to describes actor/filmmaker bio pages (which is why WP:FILMBIO also links to the "Actors and Filmmakers" WikiProject page). Interestingly, there isn't yet a separate page for filmography pages. I certainly wouldn't expect a bio page to list a film in their filmography section without discussing it in article body, and by no means would expect roles to be discussed without sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That sentence I quoted couldn't be more explicit about when a role actually needs to be sourced. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why a role wouldn't be sourced is beyond me (especially for BLP's) when it would fail WP:Verifiability without being sourced. Never underestimate the importance of using citations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are insufficient citations in place to support the information. Xcuref1endx, I'd take on board what Snuggums is saying here about citations. If the information is unsupported on the page (as it is here), it is not at FL standard, and certainly breaches our BLP policy. I'm delisting the page as a result of the consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been delisted as a featured list, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.