Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Filmography

The current filmography guidlines are at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(lists_of_works)#Filmographies. It's a simple example that doesn't cover many issues. Issues include how to name section headers and subsections, what type of dates to use, and how to order the credits. This is an attempt to find a consensus on how to deal with all the issues created by making useful filmographies. Feel free to add comments or bring up new issues.

The current example:

* year - Title, acting-role - notes

e.g.:

• 1956 - The Ten Commandments, Moses
• 1957 - Three Violent People, Capt. Colt Saunders
• 1958 - Touch of Evil, Ramon Miguel 'Mike' Vargas

Section headers

There are three common titles for the filmography section in WP articles: Filmography, Selected filmography, Partial filmograpghy. We should decide on one.

Filmography

Comments:

• Preferred. —Quiddity
• Also preferred. However, it may be noted that this requires the most work out of the three, which typically leads to only the more prominent actors getting a full filmography. -PhantomS
• Preferred. If the list is known to be incomplete, there should be a {{expand list}} there that tells people it is not a complete list. The added bonus is that it invites people to complete the list. theroachman^TC 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Filmography. Partial Filmography for incomplete lists. --Antrophica 11:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Selected filmography

Comments:

• Too POV. Eliminate. —Quiddity
• POV. However, when people do not add a full filmography, this is what they end up with. -PhantomS
• Selected by who? Eliminate and replace with just Filmography and {{expand list}} theroachman^TC 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Just Filmography. Better a full list than a partial one. --Antrophica 11:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Partial filmography

Comments:

• Leave as an optional alternative? For known-incomplete lists. —Quiddity
• This has been equivalent to 'selected filmography' in all of the articles I've edited so far. The problem with using this option is that it adds the appearance of being more NPOV than 'selected filmography', when there really is none. -PhantomS
• Sounds NPOV but isn't. Eliminate and use {{expand list}} theroachman^TC 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Partial is better suited to WP than Selected, I reckon. --Antrophica 11:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Subsections

Some people work in more than one area of film and TV. They may direct some television episodes while acting in others. Should their credits be seperated by job performed, or lumped into one list?

Writer, Director, Actor, etc. subsections

Comments:

• Preferred. —Quiddity
• Also preferred. This is an aspect of IMDB that makes sense organization-wise. -PhantomS
• Clearer than mixed list, but might make the article seem more list-heavy. I'm for though. -theroachman^TC 02:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Subsections over a single list. Neater, easier reading. --Antrophica 11:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Put in one list with (actor), (director), (writer) appended

Comments:

• Messy. —Quiddity
• This becomes hard to read, especially when a person regularly has multiple positions. -PhantomS
• Against. -theroachman^TC 02:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dates

The current guideline specifies unlinked dates in parentheses. Many WP actor, director, etc. pages currently link to year in film or year in television pages, though.

Ex. 2004 in film, although it looks like this (2004)

Comments:

• See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists of works)#Years and parentheses for a related question. —Quiddity
  • I agree on the format #3 listed there. Ex. 1968 - Planet of the Apes -Fistful of Questions

Link to normal year page

Comments:

• Strongly against. —Quiddity
• Against. There are more specific options available. -PhantomS
• strongly against Zzzzz 13:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Against. Generates out of context linking, WP:CONTEXT —theroachman^TC 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Link to year in film or year in television

Comments:

• Leave as optional. —Quiddity
• I like the idea of linking to these, since they are more specific than normal years. -PhantomS
• strongly against Zzzzz 13:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Optional. If lists containing only films, or only tv shows, preferred. —theroachman^TC 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Leave years unlinked

Comments:

• Preferred. —Quiddity
• Optional. IMO, the best solution would be if films released in a particular year were linked to in that year's film list, while the film's article and the respective articles for its cast and crew appropriately link back to that year in film. -PhantomS
• strongly preferred Zzzzz 13:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Optional. If TV-shows and Films are in a mixed list, preferred. —theroachman^TC 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Credits ordering

Other biography related lists of works go from oldest to newest, but many current WP filmographies follow the IMDB style of newest to oldest.

Newest to oldest

Comments:

• Non-standard with the rest of our site (confusing), and only seems to apply to living/working actors (doubly-confusing). Eliminate. —Quiddity
• Against. IMDB does this to focus on an actor's films, telling little else about the actor on that particular page. In contrast, Wikipedia tells the whole history of the actor before even listing his/her filmography; therefore, it would seem appropriate for the filmography to be organized the same way - oldest to newest. -PhantomS
• strongly against Zzzzz 13:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• against. —theroachman^TC 02:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oldest to newest

Comments:

• Preferred. —Quiddity
• Also preferred. See my comment above. -PhantomS
• strongly preferred Zzzzz 13:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• preferred —theroachman^TC 02:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Other comments and discussion

• Suggest a simple transparent table used to present a filmography, i.e.

Year	Film	Role
Year	Film	Role
etc

Hopefully this would not deter too many editors. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC) (via WP:RFC/STYLE)