Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Filmography

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

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)[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]
• Preferred. Prolog 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Preferred. Garion96 (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ideal. Agreed. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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]
• Subjective and possibly confusing to the reader. Prolog 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial is preffered. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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]
• Not perfect, but still suitable for incomplete lists. Prolog 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I seem to be out-of-synch -- I think full filmographies are better left to IMDB or other sources and don't belong in articles. They tend to be too long and verge on violating the policy that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I am in favor of partial (or selected) lists.--Vbd | (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It can be extremely difficult to get a full filmography in many cases, this is a solid title. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

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)[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]
• preferred. Garion96 (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Most definitely. Minimizes confusion. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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]
• Too messy. Garion96 (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Enhances confusion. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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^TC 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]
• Against, since it is against the MOS. Prolog 21:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Against. Linking to a solitary year is almost always pointless. Garion96 (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No value in that. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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^TC 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]
• Optional; not necessary but it does provide context. Prolog 21:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Optional, sometimes, but unlinked is generally better. Garion96 (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No value in this either. It's available in each film articles lead and even there it's the only link I'm sure to never click. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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^TC 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]
• Preferred. Prolog 21:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Preferred. Garion96 (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The better choice. Agreed. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Preferred, in line with WP:MOSDATE 86.31.151.119 23:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Preferred. User:Tastywheat/sig 05:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Other biography related lists of works go from oldest to newest, but many current WP filmographies follow the IMDB style of 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^TC 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.--emerson7 | Talk 01:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Against. When I look at an article about an actor (or writer or musician), I'm not looking for the newest, I want an overview of his life and of his career, both in a chronological order from old to new. And the argument that the newest entry should be at the top for ease of editing is a bit strange, since I didn't know that "all new entries should be at the top" (not on talk pages, AfD listings, ..., and certainly not in articles, where you edit where necessary, not only at the top or the bottom).Fram 09:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Against. This is not a very logical ordering, as we do not go through biographies by starting from death and ending to birth, either. Prolog 21:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong against. Garion96 (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Unprofessional. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Against. Standardize with bibliographies and discographies please. 86.31.151.119 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly For. Aside from the fact IMDB uses the same sorting order, I believe it is more likely for someone to visit an actors page because of a recent movie they were in. Filmographies can be extremely long for popular actors so it is better if the more recent films were at the top. Not to mention upcoming films are better located at the top. It's definitely more likely for someone to lookup a movie an actor is making as opposed to a film they made 20 years ago. User:Tastywheat/sig 05:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly For. I'm much more likely to look up films that are more recent. It's much more useful if the newest films are placed on top. IndulgentReader (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Preferred. —Quiddity
• Also preferred. See my comment above. -PhantomS
• strongly preferred Zzzzz 13:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• preferred —theroachman^TC 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]
• Strongly Against: 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.--emerson7 | Talk 01:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly preferred, to make the filmography consistent with the biography section. As mentioned above, it is simply more logical. Prolog 21:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The encyclopedic choice. Yes. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Preferred. What makes filmogs different from bibliogs and discogs? Seems consensus is decided here. When can it be made policy? ;) 86.31.151.119 23:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

Agreed – thanks for spotting!  David (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tables can also be made sortable, leaving it up to readers how they choose to view the data - oldest to newest, newest to oldest, alphabetically, etc. — WiseKwai 13:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created one at Template:Works of Seijun Suzuki which has spread around a little bit. Tables are perhaps too complex to use for living people (Suzuki's alive but has pretty much retired) but I'd be curious if a template could be created to highlight every other item for easy reading. It would be great to have a template to do that automatically. Looks classier, I think. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in the filmography for America Ferrera that a commercial that she appeared in is listed. It seems pretty trivial to include commercials in filmography. Does anyone have any opinions on whether or not commercials should be listed? Cogswobbletalk 22:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]