Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Filmography: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:15, 20 February 2007

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 ^T ^C 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Filmography. Partial Filmography for incomplete lists. --Antrophica 11:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred. Rossrs 12:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred. violet/riga (t) 17:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred. Ekantik ^talk 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^T ^C 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just Filmography. Better a full list than a partial one. --Antrophica 11:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too POV. Who is qualified to "select" what goes into the list? Rossrs 12:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
POV. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Against - POV-concerns. Ekantik ^talk 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^T ^C 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial is better suited to WP than Selected, I reckon. --Antrophica 11:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shade better than "partial" but less suitable than "filmography". Rossrs 12:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only when incomplete. violet/riga (t) 17:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be employed in certain circumstances per violetgal. Ekantik ^talk 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^T ^C 02:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subsections over a single list. Neater, easier reading. --Antrophica 11:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred. Tidier, easier to read, more structured. Rossrs 12:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred. Ekantik ^talk 02:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^T ^C 02:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't like this format at all. Rossrs 12:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disorganised. Ekantik ^talk 02:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Against. Generates out of context linking, WP:CONTEXT —theroachman ^T ^C 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the context, what that part of the article is discussing. If it dicusses the actor's year of birth, before he got into film, then it should link to the normal year page. --Antrophica 11:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Against. Linking to normal years is not relevant. Rossrs 12:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to link to this. violet/riga (t) 17:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Against per Fritz. Ekantik ^talk 02:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Optional. If lists containing only films, or only tv shows, preferred. —theroachman ^T ^C 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional is OK, but I don't think it's necessary. Rossrs 12:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No - this goes against good linking guidelines as it is not obvious that it links to the in film article. violet/riga (t) 17:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the easter egg linking. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional. Ekantik ^talk 02:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Optional. If TV-shows and Films are in a mixed list, preferred. —theroachman ^T ^C 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred. Rossrs 12:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred. violet/riga (t) 17:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Preffered. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred. Ekantik ^talk 02:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
against. —theroachman ^T ^C 02:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Against - History flows forward - this is an encyclopedia not a acting agency or promotion of artists recent work. It is a record of achievements so far with a story to tell. Stories flow forward. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Against. Our articles are constructed in chronological order, so it seems odd to suddenly reverse the order for one section. Unless the article starts with the death of the actor and works forward to his birth, in which case it's fine. ;-) Rossrs 12:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly against; runs counter to all other policies regarding non-film work. Sorry if that makes IMDb copying harder. Girolamo Savonarola 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Against it. We write their biograpphies oldest to newest, too. Plus, it just makes everything look like it's copy-and-pasted from IMDb. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For. People are more likely to encounter the newest work first.Whether material looks copy and pasted from IMDB ( and some probably is )is irrelevant.Only rationale I can see for oldest to newest first is that in a paper based system , where this style arose , it was easier to add a new film etc at the end of an existing list.Wikipedia is not paper based .Garda40 19:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly For. Actually more than 60% of Edits are done by New Users or Anons and these people know little or nothing about Wikipedia and if they like to add new movies into Filmography sections of Actors , they might get confused by the setting because we all know that if there are changes to be made it should be at the top of the page and thats where the edit section button is .I have seen many anons and Newbies make a hash out of Editing Filmography sections because they arent aware of what to put and where. The IMDB format is the one that we should follow because it from my POV is the correct method...--Cometstyles 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly For: in filmography, the item one is most likely searching for is usually the latest, and should be near the top. doing something 'just because it's always been done like that' is really a weak argument. usability should be the primary factor.

Oldest to newest

Comments:

Preferred. —Quiddity
Also preferred. See my comment above. -PhantomS
strongly preferred Zzzzz 13:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
preferred —theroachman ^T ^C 02:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly preferred - for reasons mentioned in "Newest to oldest" entry. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly preferred. It seems logical to me that all sections within any given article should progress in the same direction, and I personally prefer from beginning to end/oldest to most recent. Rossrs 12:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly preferred. Reverse chronology has no place in an encyclopedia, and it is generally only permitted for articles which are acknowledged to have perpetual high-turnover (such as the Recent Deaths sections). Even in these cases, the archive files are always returned to normal chronology once the information stabilizes. Girolamo Savonarola 23:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly preffered. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree (not preferred) - OK, I'm convinced about the case for earliest-to-recent after intial reluctance in favour of newest-to-oldest. If WP biographies generally follow a chronological orer then there is no need for filmographies to be different. Ekantik ^talk 02:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is evil. :) But I do strongly prefer oldest to newest. It looks more professional, plus it's more consistent with other discographies/bibliographies etc on wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think most articles currently use a non-transperent table that also lists roles and notes (Eric Bana and Lindsay Lohan, both FAs, for example) and I prefer that (which currently is a semi-standard anyway) to the transperant one suggested here . --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 *For. People are more likely to encounter the newest work first.Whether material looks copy and pasted from IMDB ( and some probably is )is irrelevant.Only rationale I can see for oldest to newest first is that in a paper based system , where this style  arose , it was easier to add a new film etc at the end of an existing list.Wikipedia is not paper based .[[User:Garda40|Garda40]] 19:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 *''' Strongly For'''. Actually more than 60% of Edits are done by New Users or Anons and these people know little or nothing about Wikipedia and if they like to add new movies into Filmography sections of Actors , they might get confused by the setting because we all know that if there are changes to be made it should be at the top of the page and thats where the edit section button is .I have seen  many anons and Newbies make a hash out of Editing Filmography sections because they arent aware of what to put and where. The IMDB format is the one that we should follow because it from my POV is the correct method...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">[[User talk:Cometstyles|Cometstyles]]</span> 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
+*''' Strongly For''': in filmography, the item one is most likely searching for is usually the latest, and should be near the top. doing something 'just because it's always been done like that' is really a weak argument. usability should be the primary factor.
 ===Oldest to newest===