Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Request for Comment - Include unreleased films in Filmography sections?

There is a clear consensus, that films, where principal photography has begun, should be included in "Filmography" sections of articles, but they should be removed if the film is shelved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we be including unreleased films in the Filmography sections of articles?

!vote

do not include WP:CRYSTAL / WP:UNDUE. despite longstanding bad practices against policy, it does not improve the encyclopedia to continue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Include per long-standing and widespread consensus. Commencement of principal photography is the best metric we have for ensuring a film's release. If a film is subsequently shelved or cancelled then it can be removed, simple as that. As long as these films are permitted to have an article following WP:NFF then I see no possible policy violation. Elizium23 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Do not include. Every filmmaker's career is full of unfinished projects. Filmographies should not become a dumping ground for every suggested or discussed project. Notable unfinished films can be discussed in the body of the article cited to reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: The film in question is Finding Fanny Fernandes, which finished filming by November 2013. This is not a film that stopped midway through production. In other words, this is not an "unfinished project". Can you reconsider based on this? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Including films where principal photography has commenced does not strike me as unreasonable, as long as we drew the line there and did not include every conceived project that was discussed by the director at some point. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: Yes, this is the source of the debate. Finding Fanny Fernandes started and finished filming, and the article for it is neutrally written per WP:NOTADVERTISING. We're not talking about films that never finished finishing here, so "non-completed" or "unfinished" is incorrect here. Better to say "unreleased", which indicates that filming is done, but it has to be released ultimately. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks like I may have assumed the discussion was broader than it was. If the discussion is limited only to specific cases like that one, then I support inclusion as well, as long as it is cited to reliable sources and the fact that it is unreleased is clearly indicated. Gamaliel (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Include as long as principal photography has begun, per WP:NFF guidelines. This is also the long-standing consensus in articles on actors. Nymf (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Include. Films actually in production are relevant to the subject's career, and (usually) remain relevant even if they aren't released. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Include per Elizium23. BollyJeff | talk 20:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Include Sometimes the unfinished films are as much importance as the completed ones. See Orson Welles filmography, for example (albeit, poorly formatted). And WP:NOTPAPER applies here. This is an encyclopedia and as such, we should include all the relevant information in these lists, with the necessary sources as needed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Include per Elizium23 --Loeba (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Include because Wikipedia permits articles about upcoming products (films fall in that category) as long as they are neutrally written, and the filmography is a list that readers can navigate to identify an actor's films that are verified to be in production. The vast majority of films that are produced are released, so unless there is a verifiable claim to the contrary (e.g., will be shelved and never released), it should be included. For the small set of films that may be shelved during production or afterward, I think if a given film is notable enough to have its own article, it is usually worth including in an actor's filmography. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Include – There is precedence of including not-yet-released-but-confirmed-product across the whole of the encyclopedia for not only films, but music albums, singles, tours, videos etc. Remove only if it is shelved. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Include Again per Elizium23. Soham 13:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Include - As long as they have been verified by a reliable source I do not see why not. If not then you shouldn't be able to assume anything will happen until it does, or refer to it on Wikipedia. Plus, personally, I have always found the upcoming films section of filmographies useful and interesting. Cls14 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Include the unreleased films. But if i.e. the actor was initially on the film, but they later got fired or cut off and replaced and/or the film was unreleased, a mention in the career section is enough. Provided of course that there are reliable sources.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Include per Elizium23 and Raykyogrou0. Corvoe (speak to me) 13:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

discussion

See the discussion above. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Please justify how you believe that WP:UNDUE applies, because as it is a subsection of WP:NPOV I can't for the life of me see how it governs inclusion of films which are always covered in WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply, because a film is not an "event." A film is a job. Actors are workers who make a career in films, so to document that they have been hired and begun work for a particular job is perfectly acceptable and makes no prediction about its subsequent disposition as a released or shelved film. Elizium23 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Documenting in the text that they have been offered or started a project is acceptable and not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Presenting a not film as if it were a completed film IS WP:CRYSTAL.

Re: UNDUE: Under the "Balancing aspects" subsection: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Presenting a film that has not been release under the equal presentation as films that have been released under the Filmography is to give it inappropriate weight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a completed film. It is just unreleased. In addition, a filmography is a list. We do not sort the films in such a list by any kind of weight, like most prominent role to least prominent. We list them in chronological order. It is verifiable that this completed film is next in the filmography. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If it is a completed film and we have documentation of completed filming is one thing. That all we have is documentation that the project has entered principal photography and the press office has issued a "release date" is a completely different kettle of fish. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Google shows that there was a wrap-up party celebrating the completion of filming for this film. This is one headline. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought the subject of this RFC was a general question about films which have commenced principal photography but not yet been released, not an extended discussion of one particular film. Elizium23 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That is what I thought too. If not, the RfC is misleading. My "include" above is not in regard to a single particular movie. Nymf (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

yes, the RfC is to determine general guidance on if/when in the process of the creation is it appropriate by the general Wikipedia policies it is appropriate to include a not yet released project in a filmography. (It started at one particular article, went to DRN who said they thought there was general guidance not to include and said to bring the discussion here to gain overall clarity on the subject with broader discussion.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Elizium23 and Nymf: I meant that this discussion is because of one film, in the sense that the wider consensus is resoundingly obvious, as reflected above. I suppose it helps to make it more concrete; I just felt like this was a rather wide discussion because of one editor's disagreement with everyone else. Anyway, I've said my piece above as well. :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree that this is a tempest in a teapot. TRPoD cares enough to make an RFC out of it though, so I guess it will have to run its course. One thing that I would stipulate going forward, for this practice to continue, is that any film that is yet-unreleased must have a notation in the "Notes" column indicating its status, i.e. "Post-production", "Completed", "Unreleased", something descriptive so that everyone knows at a glance it is an unreleased work. Elizium23 (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Elizium, that is how it is done generally. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I know. I am mentioning it for discussion because pending the positive outcome of this RFC, we will want to enshrine the consensus in the appropriate MOS guidelines for the project, and I suggest that we mandate a notation as I suggest, as well. Elizium23 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This same editor has come out against the "Notes" section as well, so yes, let's make sure that it is documented what is desired/allowed in filmography tables. BollyJeff | talk 18:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

On the Notes subject, instead of "Completed", I put the date of release. What do you think? --Musdan77 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be a better way to display the yet-to-be released films and would confirm their notability in the table as well. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You do not always know the release date of an upcoming film. I think we are close to done here. Can someone from the film group please craft the proper language? I suggest something like "any film that satisfies WP:NFF can be included in the filmography table of the related actors, directors, or other filmmakers. The film's progress status (filming, post-production, release date, etc.) should be included in the notes section of the table with a source." BollyJeff | talk 23:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

we NEVER know the actual date of release of a upcoming film. we may know a scheduled or announced date of release and the article content must always be framed that way. WP:CRYSTAL -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lots of actor sidebar templates at TfD

Click here for the discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy FAR

I have nominated Cillian Murphy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Artoasis (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

User TRPoD's edits against consensus

There have been a lot of discussion on this talk page on whether unreleased films should be included in the filmography table or not, and consensus had been reached. However, flouting this consensus TheRedPenOfDoom has been repeatedly removing sourced information from a handful of articles. See this edit. He has also been adding 'citation needed' tags to the scheduled release years of Shraddha Kapoor's films here, after trying to remove the in-development films altogether, refusing to engage in any form of healthy discussion on her talk page. He is also actively demanding for inline citations on the filmography table when sources are clearly provided in the main body. He was involved in a long discussion on Ranveer Singh's page here, where it was unanimously decided to include films that are in post-production or are currently filming. I would, thus, request users to establish consensus on two things, so it can be uniformly followed for all pages and not just the ones TRPoD targets:

Do we need inline citations for films in the table when sources are provided in the main body?
Does WP: V and WP: CRYSTAL deny us from mentioning the scheduled release year for projects, that are currently filming, in the filmography table?

Thank you. --krimuk ⁹⁰ 04:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know why TRPoD is still reverting these edits if a consensus has taken place. TRPoD, you need to learnt to accept inputs from others, and not enforce what you personally think is right all the time. You are also trying to put the "guest appearance", "cameo" and "special appearance" label in the ROLE section. Here it states the best layout for the table. Please follow it!

As for the 2 points above:

Don't think we'd need to repeat sources in this case.
That Crystal page says Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. In the case (Shraddha and Ranveer's pages), this is definitely the case, as these films have gone through principal photography already. Also, they are notable films since they are reasonably high-budgeted and anticipated due to A-List actors, producers, directors working in them. For this reason, this also makes them almost certain to take place. AB01 (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think its time to topic ban him seriously. I have never seen such a nuisance of an user before. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If the films are sourced in the prose then I agree that they should not be removed. However, I don't see the harm in adding citations in the table also for unreleased films as some people might go straight to the filmography and want a link to a mention of a film to be released.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, of course there is no harm in that. But removing the films altogether when sources are present in the main body is unfair. --krimuk ⁹⁰ 09:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah if it's sourced in the article then removing it is unwarranted. Probably best though to also source unreleased films in the table to avoid people who don't bother to read the articles removing them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I would really appreciate comments from other editors here, on what to mention under the 'years' column for in-production films in the filmography tables. Come on people, please reply so that we don't have to keep arguing over this! This might be a joke to TheRedPenOfDoom, who despite previous discussions on this page, is still hell bent on pushing his agenda. What's funny is that he cites policy and then adds stuff like "upcoming" under the year column and "filming" under the role column; just ridiculous! I do not want to interact with this user again, and thus wish that this matter be resolved once and for all. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 18:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

If a WP:RS states a film is being released in 2015, for example, I see no problem in adding that to a filmography table, with the relevant cite. I think WP:COMMONSENSE applies here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE does not override WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. We cannot present a future release as if it has been released. and in any manner, it is not COMMONSENSE to attempt to predict future events. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Read the first part of my post about WP:RS, which equates to WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, that says a lot about your common sense when you quote a policy and do not abide by it. Consensus has been reached on this issue long back, you are simply being a disruption to the normal editing of these articles. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

"Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution." seems to be the basis of all of your complaints, and yet not one has ever ever ever even come remotely close to articulating how ignoring the rules helps improve the encyclopedia. Not once. Not even close. Wikipedia does NOT gain from prophesying about future events rather then stating what can actually be verified: a proposed/scheduled release date. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If your issue is with future events, then you are targeting wrong articles. Take those all blue-linked articles to AfD. Once they are deleted, they would be excluded from filmographies. Until then i see no reason to exclude blue-linked articled whether future-planned-releases or past-unreleased or past-banned-films, etc. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Nail. Hit. Head. I think TrPod should drop the stick and walk away from this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am baffled that TrPod won't drop the stick, despite the unanimous RfC. It is getting disruptive and pointy now. Nymf (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, please answer this question for once: When the notes section mentions "filming" or "post-production", how can anyone think that the film has released? We would be deceiving the readers only when the notes section is removed, which you have done on multiple occasions. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have NEVER removed sourced content that would leave a mis-impression that a film was released when it has not been. Do not lie. The RfC result was "where principal photography has begun, [an unreleased film] should be included in "Filmography" sections of articles," but there was not and there cannot be at a wikiproject level a valid consensus that we should misrepresent a film as being released in a particular year until it has actually been released. Your precious "filmography" guidance clearly says the "year" column is the year of release of a film. until it has been released no one can verify the actual year of release. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in case of in-production films (mentioned clearly in the notes section) it automatically refers to the reliably sourced scheduled year of release. You would understand that if you could read the also-precious ("My own! My love! My precious!") WP: COMMONSENSE. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 10:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I have read the commonsense and quoted it above. have you actually read it? There is no improvement to the encyclopedia by pretending that we know for certain when a film is going to be released when we can accurately reflect a "scheduled" release. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, God! Who is pretending here? How can a film be "filming" if it has already released? No one is misrepresenting the fact that a film has released. If that's not commonsense, then what is? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 10:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

there are multiple ways to address the content and represent it factually. but placing a plain year in the "year of release" column when the film has not been released is not one of them. There is absolutely no benefit to the encyclopedia from such "we are not telling you accurate information here, you have to look over there to find the whole truth". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious, having seen yet another misplaced warning on TRPoD aka TRiPOD talk page. Are you guys actually showing actual release of a film before the film is actually released? That is daft. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

"Look over there". We can't assume that our readers are lazy enough to not look "so far away". And no Roxy, we are not showing actual releases of a film that hasn't released. We are showing that the film is currently filming and is scheduled to release in that particular year, something that is followed in all filmography FLs. If this is unfair, then it should be changed in "all" the articles including the high-quality ones and a handful of articles should not be targeted. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 10:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Show me a page that is in dispute please. Thanks. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Several. Some of these are Shraddha Kapoor, Ranveer Singh, and Sonakshi Sinha. I would also request you to see FA-quality articles such as Reese Witherspoon, Deepika Padukone and Preity Zinta for comparison. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 10:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Here is one of them [1] and [2] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(e/c)The Filmography sections of those three pages all show films from this year that haven't been released yet, and yet the table implies that they have been released, yes? Is that the issue? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, according to TRPoD, he believes that it implies so. But according to the rest of us, we have mentioned that they are "filming" or in "post-production" so it in no way implies that they have released, but are scheduled to release in that year. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 10:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

So what do you do when a Film was scheduled for say July 2014, and gets delayed to March 2015, and you had it in Wiki's voice that the film was released in 2014? Seems wrong to say that authoritatively until it happens. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

We did not say that the film "was released in 2014". When an RS publishes that the scheduled release year is 2014, we mention it. If it later changes to 2015, we change it. What's wrong in that? If we follow this chain of thought, then we might as well not mention the films that they are filming for now, in case they get shelved. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look at the filmographies on the Reese Witherspoon, Deepika Padukone and Preity Zinta pages as well as the original three above, and looked at TRiPOD's diffs too. I feel that those filmography tables are a little misleading as they do imply that films have been released before they actually have, but the column heading just says "year". If it said "Scheduled release year" it wouldn't be an issue, but what is extant is ambiguous. You are correct that we do not say "was released in 2014", but the implication is strong, and I think we could do better. I'd like to note that not until today have I looked at this area of wikipedia, I just have TRiPOD on my watchlist, and he gets a load of "final warnings" and I followed this one up. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, we could do better. What do you and the other editors propose? We need to come with something that can be uniformly followed for all articles to avoid such disputes in the future. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that the "year" column isn't used until a film has actually been released, per TRiPOD. Alternatively, relabel the "Year" column "Scheduled" simples. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Both have their cons. If we remove the year, then readers won't know when the film is scheduled to release in. The second one cannot work because the table also includes films that have already released. The third alternative, which TRPoD uses, is writing "scheduled for 2014" in the year column which completely ruins the format of the table, and also doesn't make sense under that particular column. Honestly, I believe that when "filming" and "post=prod" are clearly mentioned in the notes section, we really cannot be accused of misrepresenting the fact that a film has released. Because no film can be filming when it has already been released, right? The only alternative that works is using a key to explicitly state that the film hasn't released, as is done in Jake Gyllenhaal filmography.-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This is such a beating of the dead horse, a simple mention of the line "scheduled to be released on XXXXXX" on the notes column is easy breezy. Our readers are not dumb or illiterate that they would not understand it. If a 2014 film is delayed to 2015 release date, we change the year column and the wording in the notes section. As Krimuk90 said, post-production is also a good way of presenting this fact. One user's sudden (read as ridiculous) reservation to understand and comprehend simple situations like this is not a reason to disrupt all the other editors and their normal editing when consensus was reached. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

again going around the same thing and beating a dead horse wouldn't happen if you sorted out the problem. Change the table column heading to "scheduled release" or stop implying a film has been released when it hasn't. This issue will come up again and again if we keep implying that a film is released when it isn't. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Roxy, could you please reply to my previous comment? Thank you. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 17:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(→) @Roxy the dog: I'm sensing you have completely missed what Krimuk wrote above my post. Who exactly here is saying that unreleased films are represented as released films would you enlighten me? We are talking about adding a comment in the notes column which all of us here agree that solves the case once and for all. And here in lies my assertion that our readers are not dumb enough to believe if 2014 is mentioned in the year column, the film has already been released. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, IndianBio. I see no response to the comment on whether we should follow the format used in Jake Gyllenhaal filmography. Instead, we receive a snarly reply on how "we" are to be blamed for a format that has been followed on all FA-class biographies for years now. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 17:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the page to me Krimuk, I see that is an even better change than what I was suggesting. Let's ask the other participants of the discussion, @Lugnuts, Nymf, Bollyjeff, Soham, Dr. Blofeld, and Dharmadhyaksha:, what are your thoughts on this change per Krimuk? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the format used in Jake Gyllenhaal filmography can prove to be quite effective in showing "future releases" that are not released yet. Another suggestion that might prove to be just as effective would be mentioning either "TBA" or "TBD" in the year section. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 19:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think TBD will work, because people will claim that they know it, and insert the year repeatedly. The different color and key marker from Jake Gyllenhaal filmography is a good idea, so long as we do not adopt the rest of that article's table style. We should keep the stable that we have now for ICTF tables and just add the key. That said, what we collectively want does not seem to matter in the least to one particular individual. We need to hear his thoughts on this idea now. BollyJeff | talk 00:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Real life can get in the way sometimes. The Gyllenhaal solution works very well, and using "TBA" (To be announced? what does TBD mean?) would also remove ambiguity. You ~~guys~~ people with enthusiasm for the subject need to decide. I only came here because of the rather childish final warning on TRiPOD's page. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

To Be Determined. BollyJeff | talk 12:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously if the film is years in the future then its not a good idea but if they have commenced filming then I think it's appropriate to mention it even if it hasn't been released. And if the mention of the films are in the prose and sourced, I'm not sure you really need to add them to the filmography although I don't see any harm in it. Either way if films are known to be being released then I think it's useful for the reader. If reliable sources have announced it then we should probably mention it, we're only here to reproduce other sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Roxy and Blofeld. But this discussion remains incomplete without TheRedPenOfDoom's valuable comment. Are you okay with using the key to explicitly indicate a film hasn't released? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It funny how one editor can hold us all hostage like this (such power!). Anyway, I see that someone is going ahead with the change. BollyJeff | talk 12:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I changed it on a couple of articles. Atleast now TRPoD can't mess around by saying that we are misleading our readers. Or can he? Let's wait and watch. I wonder why he hasn't replied here as yet. He is always so quick to revert my edits otherwise. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The disruption already started. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This is cheap, disgusting behavior that is not acceptable. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have lost any faith of a professional editing pattern from him/her. A pathetic show and misuse of editing privileges. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! Why should I spend so much time starting this discussing when someone is not going to be bothered with it and do his own stuff? Can anyone else help with this? I assume not. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Administrative intervention and blocking, since he/she chooses to edit against WP:CONSENSUS, which has been achieved here unanimously. Krimuk, file a WP:ANI if he/she continues this disruption and edit warring. There are enough examples of disruptive editing pattern the user has shown. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The insertion of gymnastic markups to provide "clarity" for some future event just to include an unadulterated year in the release date column is about as silly as they come. If it is determined that there is value for including works that are not completed (although it is like insisting on calling a man a "father" at the time he shoots his load then placing stars and red highlights to caveat ***there are a whole bunch of other things and time that need to happen, but he did his part!!!*** rather than waiting the 9 months until there is an actual baby before using the term) there ways to simply and factually reflect what the reliable sources say: dont include a year at all, clarify the year with "Scheduled for XXX (ref)" among them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have bothered to read the comments above, you will see that no one above shares a similar sentiment. So the fathers can shoot their load up someone's ass for all I care! If an RS publishes a scheduled release year, it should be mentioned. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

LMAO, I'm done with you TRPoD. Consensus is against you and you will stop the reversions. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

what i see is at best a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that does not have any policy basis but is rather built on ignoring basic policy standards without meeting the important clause that shows there is an improvement to the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see multiple regular editors don't agree with you Red Pen on this. Obviously you can't ask hundreds of people about the issue but Id say the fact that a number of people disagree on this it is indicative of what the sort of outlook on this is. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The majority of editors here indeed look like they are against TRPod. I do not mean to offend him in this statement, but his actions here make him look like a typical "Bollywood hero", i.e. taking on several men himself, albeit unarmed and unsupported. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure why there is such a kerfuffle over this. If a reliable source provides a release date, then why on earth should that date not be used? We do this in numerous pages with upcoming films and it's not contentious in most circumstances, so it shouldn't be a problem. - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly SchroCat, but if you see TRPoD's contribution history you will see how vicious he gets regarding this! And that too, only for a handful of articles. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

To stop me having to drag through the edit histories, has reliably sourced information been removed? If so, then that shouldn't happen. If material has been removed that is not reliably sourced, then it shjouldn't be re-added without such a citation, as per WP:BURDEN. - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat:, it has been done time and again by the user, complete and utter disregard for consensus and refusal to stop edit warring. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat:Most recently in Varun Dhawan if you have a look. And he has targetted that, Shraddha Kapoor, Ileana D'Cruz, Ranveer Singh multiple times. More specifically, see this edit in which he has removed reliably sourced info, after all this discussion. I am definitely not going to include release dates if they weren't reliably sourced. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

while there are often times reliable sources for scheduled release dates, for films that have not been completed, there obviously are not reliable sources for any actual date that the film has been released. My intentions have been to show what can be verified by reliable sources in a plain and simple manner that does not require markup gymnastics or readers after seeing a date in "Released year" column to jump to a "notes" column to see that we have presented them not an actual release date but merely a projected release date. Verifiable information presented simply and where the verification would be needed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Films in post-prouction nearly always have firm release dates attached to them. If this is reported in reliable sources, then removing the supported information is not helpful. Perhaps an RfC would be the best way to settle this, rather than your seeming one-man battle against consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

We have already been through the RFC route, see rfc and it is still not enough for him. BollyJeff | talk 17:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If there is an editor deliberately ignoring the consensus of an RfC for their own preferences, and ignoring a discussion about their actions, then file an comment at ANI asking for assistance in curbing the disruptive behaviour. You will have to ensure that the editing that you are discussing is in contravention of the RfC and provide diffs that show the behaviour in question. - SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

again, they have planned/scheduled/announced/projected release dates, but until it is actually released it is just planned/scheduled/announced/projected and should be clearly presented as such. Wikipedia does not need to prophesy when we can clearly and simply present facts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no prophesy: there is the reporting of what a reliable source has to say: that is supposed to be what we are all about. - SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. Wikipedia:V#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion. WP:IINFO. There is reporting of projected dates, which by policies Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball WP:V must be reported as projected dates. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes. Your selective cherry-picking and synthesising of sections of various different policies is all well and good (if terribly misleading), but your deletion of selected material is against consensus, against all good practices and against policy. I suggest you curb your instinct to delete cited material (especially in the face of an RfC), or someone will slap you straight into ANI. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Cherry picking core content policies. now that is rich!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Which can easily be done - and without the need to remove correctly supported material. That seems to be the worst of all possible avenues and isn't helping anoyone. Removing seems to be going against the consensus here, which also isn't helping anyone. - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If he doesn't remove (which he does mostly) he writes "scheduled for 20xx" in the year column, which is ridiculous under that particular column. "Scheduled for 20xx" is not a year, but a note. So if you want to include that it needs to done under the appropriate column.-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 17:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Violated consensus again. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

For Action Jackson I don't see anything in the sources that state the film will be released in 2014, ditto for Tevar. The citations for Holiday carry a date and the information shouldn't have been changed. - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bollywood Hungama source does provide the release date, SchroCat. :) I presume that was removed by some IP user, but I have added that again. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Didn't we just agree to do that by the use of color coding and daggers? But you had issues with that too. Why? Oh, because you are allergic to make-up! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If you take pains to read the discussions above, you will see that each and every one of these points have been discussed, and commented upon. If you still repeat the same things, then it is very difficult to take you seriously. Can't you understand that you are the only one fighting this battle for no apparent reason? The reason I started this discussion was to avoid these issues; and now that we came to a decision, you go ahead and repeat the same things again. Why? Does this mean nothing to you? Why are you assuming you are always right? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, we can have a separate table for upcoming films where we can do away with the 'year' column. -- 117.208.198.0 (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That is one of the possibilities, yes. Also check out the other possibilities that have been discussed before. Thanks. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a wikipedian with a registered account. I chose to be anonymous in this particular discussion to avoid any personal vendetta whatsoever from TRPoD. And I have completely gone through the discussion here. -- 117.208.198.0 (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If we establish consensus to follow this on all the articles, then I have no issues with it at all. My issue here is the targeting a handful of articles without establishing any sort of consensus. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 17:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached, and what one man/woman feels about it has no candle or weightage whatsoever, especially when that person is heavily biased, does not read or give importance to other's points, and strongly abides by WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I guess trout slap the editor and report for vandalism if it continues. Close this discussion already, and TRPoD, its high time you stop being a complete dick. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this still going on?!? I thought it was cleared by now! :/ Red, come on...why can't you be a little compromising? You're making such a big deal of something so trivial! We've been taking in your arguments and responding appropriately to your Crystal and V blah, but when other editors have cited principles from other Wiki pages, you have refused to even consider them. It seems that *in the words of Ross Geller* you "don't give a tiny rat's ass" about anybody else's opinion. The world doesn't revolve around you, you know?! Literally every editor here has disagreed with you. Doesn't that set off alarm bells? AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 13:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. Going through the discussion, I'd say if the films (future) are adequately sourced in the prose then there is no harm in adding that in the table too. WP:CRYSTAL clearly doesn't apply here, given an article on the film exists in WP. Having said that, I don't think there are any issues in extending the idea to having citations in the tables as well. For yet-to-be-released films we may possibly add a key item and add an explanation in the "Notes" column of the table. But using phrases like "Scheduled for XXX" in the year column is a bad idea as it becomes an MoS issue severely affecting table sortability. —Vensatry _(Ping) 03:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure how it "adversely" affects table sorting - any sorting would keep the not yet released films separate from the films that have actually been released -which is if anything a benefit in favor of doing so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

However you play this, some of your edits are still against the consensus of the RfC. I do agree that where there is no supporting citation to cover the information this should either be removed or,a,{{cn}} tag be placed on it. - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Annie Hall

Input on the talk page would be warmly welcome. I was about to promote it to GA but an editor insists that the lead doesn't have to be a decent summary of the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The Gloria Foster bio says that she and Clarence Williams III met doing the mod squad but they did s movie together in 1964, were married by 1967 and the mod squad ran beginning in 1968. Explain or correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:8E80:E48:715B:1A45:E430:8D14 (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Miley Cyrus proposal

Just a reminder that there is an ongoing discussion regarding the potential creation of WikiProject Miley Cyrus. All comments are welcome and appreciated! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review request

I've been working on the Demi Lovato article for a while and am hoping to get this from GA to FA. A peer review I requested can be found here. My goal is to have it be the "Today's featured article" for her 22nd birthday on August 20th. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC).

Anyone seen a filmography table like...

this? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No. I see no need for fellow actors lists and rotten tomatoes links here. That belongs in the film articles. Even the director is not common. BollyJeff | talk 23:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely an overload of info. As B says other actors in a given film are only relevant in the article for the film. Also concur that we don't need RT. Directors were somewhat common when I started editing but that was over nine years ago and, again, a reader can go to the article for the film to learn that info. "Film name", "Role" and "Notes" are sufficient. If we don't have this written into MOSFILM we probably should. MarnetteD | Talk 00:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

For filmmaker bios is the talent agent/agency encyclopedic?

Since most of the article regarding the top actors and directors do not list a talent agent or agency, I presume that by default we do not consider this information to be encyclopedic. However, if there is a guideline or MOS which discusses this, I can't find it. I can see where it might be notable when it is mentioned in a reliable source and it has some important effect on the subject (a lawsuit, a close social connection, etc.). However, in most cases, the fact that a filmmaker has an agent does not seem particularly notable; if you're working in Hollywood, you probably have an agent. Listing every filmmaker's agent in their articles would seem to fall into the Wikipedia is not a directory category. Am I on the right track? Thanks, --GentlemanGhost (converse) 20:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@GentlemanGhost: It looks like the {{Infobox person}} template has an "agent" parameter, so that could theoretically be filled out. It may not be valuable information to most readers, though. In regard to prose, I think it is fine to identify an agent if it is relevant to an actor or a filmmaker's career. For example, an actor's change in agent may be considered a turning point (either up or down) in his or her career. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, Good catch! I was thinking of the prose section in this case. I think I will split the difference and add it to the infobox. It doesn't seem to deepen the understanding of the subject. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 20:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Actors and Filmmakers At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Melissa Joan Hart#Official WP:PRIMARY source

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Melissa Joan Hart#Official WP:PRIMARY source. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Help needed on Walt Disney

I need willing editors to help me on these things:

Doing peer review for the article (I requested the review)
Discussion about a new section

These are for improving this article of a very important figure in modern entertainment history. I will push it to GA and ultimately FA. Every comment helps!Forbidden User (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

David Lynch

Please see the talkpage (there's only one discussion as of typing this). Trying to find a reliable source for the term "Lynchian". Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles related to LGBT actors and directors may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis

The following individuals who are in the scope of this project are showing to be alive on the English wiki, but deceased on another language wiki:

Please help to find reliable sources to confirm if these individuals are alive or dead, or correct any mis-categorization on the relevant foreign-language article(s). Please see WP:LIVINGDEAD for more info and raise any issues on the talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleting articles on actors

For anybody who is a project member. If you spot an actor or filmmaker article you believe isn't notable please at least ask the original creator to expand it first or report it here for other project members to assess if you're unsure instead of taking directly to AFD. That an article might be unsourced isn't a sufficient enough reason to delete an article. Also a lot of google book sources are only available in snippets so won't show up when clicking the link. Please take the time to look in a google book search to source or verify information in an article. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Need help on Ian Charleson Awards

These are very highly regarded, very prestigious theatre awards in the UK; however there is little publicity and no glitz (serious actors/theatre-goers actually prefer it that way and feel it adds to their greater legitimacy). Because of the low publicity, there is less information easily available about the awards as a whole (e.g., no official website). Also, the Sunday Times, which sponsors the awards, is behind a paywall. For all of these reasons, the Wikipedia article on the Ian Charleson Awards is greatly lacking -- much information is missing, and most of what is there is uncited. If anyone would like to help out with expanding the article, please help! Even just the basic information for many years is incomplete or missing. Any additions to the article would be greatly appreciated. It would also help if you have a subscription to The Times (I don't, currently), but it's not necessary because the award information is out there on the web in other more scattered places. I also just spent many hours cleaning up the format of the article, which was a mess. I'm not 100% convinced that the format I came up with is the best one, so other opinions on that are welcome, too. Thank you very much! (I've also posted this on the project talk pages for Theatre and also Awards. If there is anywhere else I can ask for help, please let me know!) Thanks again, Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Belated followup: I managed to get a one-month subscription to The Times, and a three-day subscription to The Times' digital archive, and printed out all of the twice-yearly Sunday Times articles on these awards, and updated and corrected and expanded the Wikipedia article accordingly. No further help needed. Softlavender (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion notice

There is a proposal about rewording the first notability criterium for actors, from "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" to "has had leading/starring roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Discussion here. --Cavarrone 19:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Diana Serra Cary

Should Diana Serra Cary be at [[Baby Peggy Montgomery]], following the precedent of having Marie Osborne Yeats article at Baby Marie Osborne? Paul Austin (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. All of the ELs and most of the citations list her as Baby Peggy. So, given the precedent that you mentioned, I think you are onto something and it should be moved (plus redo the Baby Peggy redirect). If anyone objects, can always have a discussion to move it back. Softlavender (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Paul took the courtesy of asking me about this earlier this week. I noticed that Diane and Marie both had careers after their "Baby" films where they were credited under their adult names. I have no objection as to which articles get moved and which redirects are performed. I just want these facts taken into account. Thanks to those that add their input. MarnetteD|Talk 05:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In that case, maybe all the variations of the names need to redirect to the adult names of both actresses. Because in reality, neither female was known by "Baby _____ [SURNAME]", so the full adult name is more correct than that, and the childhood stage name one step less definitive because there may be future "Baby Peggy"s or "Baby Marie"s. Softlavender (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that both of them were _most famous_ as "Baby Peggy" and "Baby Marie". It was "Baby Peggy", not Diana that got millions of fan letters in a year. Paul Austin (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's debatable, which is why this debate is good. But even if the consensus is to leave as is, anyone searching for "Baby Peggy" still automatically and easily finds the article via the redirect. Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Hammer

Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Comprehensive filmographies

Is there any consensus on how comprehensive an actor's filmography should be? For actors with long careers, this could create very large tables which would seem to do little more than repeat imdb. If we do decide to trim them down to something more manageable, how can we best decide what to include? If there is already a policy on this, please feel free to point me towards it. Thank you in advance.Euchrid (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember if there ever was a firm consensus one way or the other. I do know that many actor article with lengthy filmographies get spun of into their own list style article. Boris Karloff filmography is but one example. I am sure that other editors (like @Erik:)will be able to fill in the gaps of my faulty memory for you. MarnetteD|Talk 23:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My advice would be to look at the Featured Articles and Featured Lists here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Articles. As Marnette says, lengthy/full lists are often spun out into their own articles (as with Charlie Chaplin, whose biography article and Filmography List article are both FA class). Since as you note, for most American actors at least, IMDB has a comprehensive listing of their filmography, there is actually no pressing need to present their entire filmography; a "Selected Filmography" of their major film and possibly TV roles could be used. It really depends on how lengthy/complete the article aspires to be (for a short article, a lengthy full filmography seems de trop) and also how significant the roles are. Other things to bear in mind are: (1) Many non-American actors' filmographies are incomplete on IMDB, especially if the actor is a minor one or no longer alive. For instance, for British actors, BFI is often a more complete source, or a source to combine with IMDB. (2) Many actors also have a great deal of theater work -- so the question is, how complete are you going to be on that? In many cases it seems wise to use "Selected" for each of them: screen & stage. Softlavender (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Aashish Mehrotra Biography

I tried to move the article Aashish Mehrotra Biography to Aashish Mehrotra as this would then conform to the naming of bio articles. Instead, I got the message "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: You cannot move a page to this location because the new title has been protected from creation". Any known issue here? I don't believe that the "Aashish Mehrotra" page exists, but I may be wrong. Folks at 137 (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of Rupesh Paul (Productions Limited)

Contributors to this WikiProject are invited to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Rupesh Paul (Productions Limited). Cnilep (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ute Werner

The article Ute Werner has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject does not appear to be notable per WP:NACTOR; no significant coverage found from multiple reliable sources. Most cited sources talk about the movie Opie Gets Laid, and not about the subject of the article. The closest there appears to be significant is this 14 paragraph interview here, and its primary subject is on modelling and not the subject of this article herself.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Vera Vanguard

I'd appreciate uninvolved editors commenting on whether this actress is notable. The creator has confused a web series with a tv series (fixed), and the best I can find about B.O.G.E. seems to be [3] which doesn't make a lot of sense. @Bearian: @Softlavender: @RightCowLeftCoast:. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Normally I would opine when pinged, but in this case I am not able to because I'm not a horror fan (I loathe it) and the actress seems to have somewhat of a specialty in that genre. The horror film genre has its own specialization and its own subculture and its own notable/reliable sources & sites, which I am not aware of and am not able to judge one way or another because of lack of knowledge. I suggest involving some editors familiar with that genre. I applaud your decision to seek outside opinions in a case where you have had some previous dealings with the editor who created the article. Just as an aside, based on what I'm able to determine from the article, I do not personally believe the actress meets either WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Vera Vanguard was fourth-billed on a web series, B.O.G.E., and had a small part in the YouTube series, Goth Girl. Until consensus changes, web series and even YouTubers are not accorded the same value as cable or broadcast TV. Her Imdb page does not offer much more information. I'm afraid that it would be deleted speedily if re-created without more credits or media. Bearian (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment

I don't know what other editor experience is of User:Light show but he's unwelcome in this project. When I founded this project it was supposed to attract members who work together in a spirit of collaboration. He exists on wikipedia purely to troll the work of others and add quote farms. Light show, I'm asking you to take your name down and disassociate yourself with this group, it's embarrassing that you've even got the project user tag on your user page which I created.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

John Miljan

Can anyone help with the biography of John Miljan? Several edits have said he's of Serbin origin. Others state Croatian. There was a source in the article, but I was unable to verify this, so I've removed it. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Walken FLRC

I have nominated Christopher Walken filmography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Woody Allen filmography FLRC

I have nominated Woody Allen filmography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1

I need comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1 to guide editorial improvements.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Eddie Cahill

Hello, do not know if this is the correct place to ask for help. But anyway. I would like to know if it is correct to use colors in tables of the filmographies and placing external links. As they have done here. Similarly, in the "career" section, there are external links. I say, I don't know, but shouldn't these links in the "External links" section?. I removed that, because I thought it was the right thing. But several users have restored everything as it was before.--McVeigh / talk 21:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability of retired child actors?

Comments appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Terry (actor)

Is notability achieved for an actor who has one major role?

Is the situation the same for a child actor who does so, given the relative likelihood of a child actor retiring after childhood. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked at the AfD, but WP:Notability is not temporary. At the same time, one major role is borderline in terms of WP:N, WP:GNG, or WP:ENT. Softlavender (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Gillian Kearney

Hi. I am needing a bit of help and not sure where an appropriate place is to ask. Basically I am hoping an administrator or someone with rollback rights has a few minutes to go take a look at the Gillian Kearney. I have been slowly taking the material there and putting it into wikitable format, doing it chronologically and adding references and a few new credits that were missing. 2 edits have been done by an IP editor that have resulted in the tables all being mixed and mingled. From what I can tell the IP is from ITV and they were trying to remove material about an ITV show. I can not undo their messing with the table. And I don't really want to copy and paste my table in again as I am unsure if that is appropriate. Thanking you in advance and apologizing for not being able to find the right place to ask for such help. Jemmaca (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Jewish actors at AfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Oscar nominated individuals up for deletion

Tchaliburton has nominated a ton of Oscar nominated individuals for deletion. These are people who were nominated in the minor categories (Visual Effects, Sound, etc). The full list is everything south of here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Florence Lee

User:Clibenfoart has pointed out a problem in Talk:City Lights#Double Florence Lee????. I haven't been able to make much headway. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Emily Ratajkowski FAC

Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)