Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries - Wikipedia


Article Images

Consensus/discussion summaries

edit

Succession boxes discussion

What are people's opinion on those, to me excessive, succession boxes about awards. Previous winner, next winner etc. Previous Q (James Bond), next Q etc etc. Compare this with this. Which one is better? Garion96 (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never use any of this crap that's supposed to facilitate navigation. Who would? It's overwhelming. Plus it's buried under a whole column of unnecessary detail: even now there's approximately ten screenfuls of crap separating the logical end of Streep's article from the bottom of the page. Re the succession boxes, you realise that if we outlaw those there's going to be a load more navboxes created in their stead, right? Unfortunately it's a lot easier to create a navbox than it is to get rid of one. Personally I don't see why a navbox grouping all best actress oscars between 1961 and 1980, say, is better than a simple link to a complete list of winners, but such is the obstinacy of the editor set on pushing his particular interests into every conceivably related topic, and he's adopted the navbox as his polluter of choice. It's not even as if this practice is confined to the more vulgar areas of interest, just look how we treat Winston Churchill or Julius Caesar. You sometimes come across pages where all the navigation cruft is nested into a single show/hide box. I'd like to see that happen more often. Flowerparty☀ 19:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of those inane succession boxes at all. My distaste for the excessive use of those only is seconded by the nav templates. These awards are linked in the article, they are linked in the filmographies of the majority of articles now and these just seem to me like overkill. Then again, I have no idea why anyone would want to use more than one nav template for one award. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why the awards use the succession boxes. After all, next years winners don't succeed this years winners, they just get next years award. As for the "Next Q" business, I tend to agree with having navboxes for television or film roles that are notable for having many different actors (e.g. James Bond, The Doctor) but don't see the point of doubling up the info with a succession box as well. Bradley0110 (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, and one which I've overlooked. I actually did see one not long ago that indicated in the next year's space "incumbent". Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bleurgh! Bradley0110 (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even for Q I don't see much point. It already is/should be mentioned in article text, in the filmography section, (probably a category as well) and then also a succession box? Garion96 (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion, I mean Q shouldn't have an s-box or n-box (only two actors have played him for goodness sake). Bradley0110 (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was clear enough, I just misread your comment. Garion96 (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Meryl Streep was a good example to choose, and I greatly prefer it without the succession boxes. I detest the succession boxes. I feel that they look untidy (as they are various sizes and take up a lot of space) and the clutter looks tacky and unprofessional. I don't see how they are useful. If you want to follow the succession of winners you have to load articles one by one. On the other hand if you go to the Academy Award for Best Actress page you can immediately go to any of the winners or nominees and you can avoid any you don't want to look at it. I'm all for making things easier, but the list page is about the easiest thing I can imagine, even easier than the navigation box because you can also click on the film if you wish. Rossrs (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And why don't those navtemplates have the films?? That's precisely the reason I've never clicked on names in them, I click on the award page link. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. They should be fired. Why should we care who won the award the previous years.
But I must confess I often feel filmographies look too loaded with so many awards. Look at Meryl Streep, it's huge and confusing. I just don't get what films she got nominations for from, say, the BAFTA. You loose it in between. Isn't it better to organise awards per groups in separate tables, like it's done so nicely on the Angelina Jolie article? Shahid • Talk2me 09:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't stand them and I see absolutely no value in them at all. Neither the ones for people, nor the ones for "top box office" often shoved on films. As Rossrs noted, they look unprofessional and tacky, and they just are not useful (and often remove them when I come across them). Frequently, especially for the film ones, the claim isn't even sourced in the article. I'd favor their firing across the board. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never have understood the need for these boxes and wouldn't miss them if they were eliminated. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I find that they really clutter the articles. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julianne Moore is another good bad example. Much prefer a collapsable nav-box! Lugnuts (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, complete agreement. What a novel thing!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am as amazed as you are. :) Is there any specific MoS for this project to add this to? Or perhaps in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines? Since usually, if you can't point to a specific page in an edit summary, you get reverted. Garion96 (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not in specific, although it has been discussed a bit off project. I don't know if WP:FILM has a stance on this, but we could add it to the "to-do" list on the main page and link to this discussion as a reference, That's what was done with awards in the infobox. which I thought I had done, but have done now. That's also where we put the note about removing "_______ Award-winning" in the lead sentence. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) SOOOooo, folks. Should we go ahead and implement this decision? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it have to be done manually? Bradley0110 (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm less than bot savvy, so I don't know if one could do that. They don't have a template. However, it's certainly something that can be put on a to-do list and be worked on in the same way that we've gone about removing awards from the infoboxes. I do that routinely while working on filmographies and awards in them. It's just one more step in my process, at any rate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Implementing works for me. A link at the project page to this discussion then? Garion96 (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That in an addition to the to-do list, I think. This time, I would prefer if someone else changed that! Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography navbox templates

edit

Filmography navbox discussion

At the templates for deletion discussions, it was noted that perhaps it would be beneficial to include a guideline here reflecting the wide consensus that actor filmography templates are not helpful additions. After being asked, I compiled links to the wide number of previous deletion discussions to delete these templates and I am posting them here for convenience and consultation.

What we have is from about a 3 year period, covering 18 separate template deletion decisions for 86 separate templates, all of which were deleted. I'd like to move forward with incorporating this consensus on our main page under guidelines. I think the overriding opinions include that they are redundant to the filmography and that if such templates were used routinely, we'd have a tremendous overabundance of such templates on film pages, which do not help anyone. Take for example the following films and the number of templates for prominent stars only.

Razzie Award templates

edit

Razzie Awards discussion

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding a Request for Comment. Please do not modify it. To voice your opinion, start a new discussion topic.

The result was never to use the Razzie Awards navbox templates in Actor and Filmmaker articles. – Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the purpose of gaining WikiProject consensus, and in conjunction with WikiProject Films, I am starting a discussion so that editors can weigh in on whether they would ever want to have a Razzie Awards template at the bottom of a film-related article. The Razzie is an uncomplimentary parody award, formally called the Golden Raspberry Award, and given to various "worst" actors, actresses, directors, films, etc. Templates under discussion are any future Razzie-related ones and these six existing ones:

Discussion

The two options I am proposing for discussion are 1) Never to use the Razzie template at the bottom of an article, or 2) Sometimes use one or more Razzie templates per article based on editor consensus for that article. Option one bans the Razzie templates for all film articles, and begs the question of the existence of the templates. Option two gives each article individual say regarding the inclusion of the template. I am not proposing a third option of forcing the inclusion of Razzie templates on all related articles. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At present there are at least two and possibly three regular editors who are involved in this project who are on holiday through the end of this upcoming weekend. Please allow time for the editors who are away to make their comments. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an outsider here, but it seems to me that this discussion isn't really clear, as some people seem to be addressing whether or not these awards should be mentioned at all, and some seem to be discussing the specific use of these templates. Perhaps some clarification is needed? kmccoy (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure when a call for a project consensus became an issue for a Wikipedia-wide RfC, or why that is necessary. How about asking those who are around if everyone thinks a formal WP:RfC is necessary. I would observe that it wasn't so until more opinions not to use them began to appear. Making a formal WP:RfC extends the comment period excessively until well after Thanksgiving in the US. Or, hey, I've got an idea. Since the two who want these templates to be used, try joining the project and helping out on all the tasks we have to work on while you're at it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having the discussion for an appropriate length of time helps to ensure a greater amount of participants are involved. :) Cirt (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that there is a majority of consensus not to use these templates on WP:BLPs. I think I will close this discussion, and nominate those particular templates for deletion. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never
  1. No. And for clarity's sake, this project does not have the provenance to make any determinations regarding a film article, thus including Worst Picture here is invalid. I do not think that there is much guidance in saying this particular group of templates should sometimes be used, it seems to me that either they would be used or they would not. At the point of entertaining sometimes, it leaves far too much unstated. There is no reason that articles for the few actors and directors who "accepted" their awards should not contain mention of it, nor has that ever been an issue, although it should be mentioned that the Mother Jones article claims that Tom Selleck and Bill Cosby attended the awards, which I cannot verify anywhere. Even the Razzie forum post by the founder of the Razzies said that Cosby didn't appear nor did they attempt to get the real Razzie award statue to him and verified that Selleck didn't attend. Just sayin'. These awards aren't given by an organized group that is acknowledged as legitimate in bestowing industry or film critic awards. It seems to me that they are more of a slur than any legitimate critical commentary. The Razzie awards are basically run by one individual and anyone who is willing to pay $25 to join the site is eligible to vote, and there is no way to determine if theoretically, one person could sign up and vote multiple times. There is no known vetting process for how the awards or nominations are determined and no oversighting of the nominations or voting process to clarify that the votes are actually legitimate themselves. These aren't film awards in the general sense of the term and I don't believe using navbox templates for Razzies lends an article any validation. There are far more notable legitimate awards that don't yet have a navbox template that are far more relevant to an actors career than an award that advertises itself as the ones who BITE Hollywood's butt instead of kissing it! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand which you are saying is better: kissing or biting Hollywood's butt. Me, I'd prefer to stay away from that question altogether. About the Razzies, it doesn't really matter how they are organized if secondary sources see fit to comment on them. We go more by the presence in secondary sources of commentary on the Razzies than we go by any analysis of how they achieve their votes or whether they are considered "legitimate". This discussion thread has nothing at all to do with the "far more notable" awards—there is nothing stopping editors from creating templates based on those awards—and besides, "other things exist" is not an argument. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted that to illustrate the tone in which these pseudo-awards are given and in regard to this discussion, all points are valid to consider. This hasn't anything to do with secondary sources, of course there are secondary sources to support such content in the article. Once again, no one has argued that mention in the body of the article is unacceptable and it is a bit disengenuous to suggest that is the case by referring to sourcing or notability. I did not say that Razzies were not notable, otherwise I'd nominating the articles for deletion. This discussion is about whether this project considers this specific award in a class that would merit supporting a further addition of a navbox template. In that regard, this is a style issue, not a sourcing or notability issue and that, in fact, is about how an article is organized, and that does matter. It is at least a matter of undue weight given to Razzies in comparison to myriad other major awards where templates aren't present or created. Is a Razzie more important than a BAFTA Award?
    Since this is a discussion regarding style, and no argument has been presented that Razzies are not notable, for what they are, or that there is a lack of sourcing, I see no reason why comments and points need be curtailed by quoting policy or essays. Other than the question of undue weight given to Razzie Awards vs. major film industry and critics awards, I am unaware that style discussions are required to adhere only to policy points. There's nothing of which I'm aware that delineates how style is determined, except by whatever points a given editor wishes to make. That also is a germane point regarding "analysis of how they achieve their votes or whether they are considered "legitimate"." That is a frequent complaint regarding other pop culture awards such as MTV Awards and People's Choice Awards and certainly is a factor in how the project regards them. I am a bit perturbed that the point about discussion regarding Razzie templates for worst film not being part of this project was unaddressed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have made it more clear that this discussion thread was immediately announced at WikiProject Films so that they could come and weigh in. Sorry about that. We're all here to discuss each of the Razzie navbox templates. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nope I think the templates are useless as we have various categories that cover Razzie wins for both actors and films. If the Razzie win is somehow important, it can be mentioned in the article body. Pinkadelica♣ 04:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nope - But the same counts for the other templates. There is a category Raspberry awards winners (or something like that), the award is mentioned in the article prose, the award is usually also mentioned in the filmography table. To also have a template for that is overkill. It already is overkill for the Acadamy Awards but for the Raspberry awards it's even worse. Garion96 (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, "sometimes" almost never works on Wikipedia. If it's there it will be used on every article about a raspberry award winner. Garion96 (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No I for one am completely opposed to including the Razzies in anything, apart from their principal article. Like the point raised in a previous post, they lack a rigorous consistency or veto process, with winners picked, essentially, for how funny the win or nomination would be. Moreover, the nomination and winning of the "award" seems more dependent on the notoriety surrounding the actors involved (the Paris Hilton nominations, for example), rather than the true merit of the film. I refuse to include any reference to the awards in any articles I work on. My position on this issue is not set in stone however. If the organisers were to include an impartial judging panel, then that would change a lot. At this point, I think it would be a disservice to the quality of Wikipedia to include them as fundamental to the writing of articles. For me, Razzie mentions are something akin to "Trivia" sections. Mainly.generic (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No. I am very skeptical to dedicating so much space to this award on our actor pages. If coverage warrants it, then by all means mention it in the prose (per WP:DUE), but I think the template is too much. As others have pointed out, the categories make them redundant in terms of navigation. decltype (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Don't include I don't see why the template is necessary. The awards are indeed notable, but each actor doesn't need to have coverage of every single possible award they have received (whether positive or not). Also, it seems unorthodox to include this template on George W. Bush's page (he's listed as the 2004 winner for Worst Actor) especially since he's not a professional actor. Mention of the award can be covered within the prose of the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Never The Razzie is a minor aspect of a film's reception or a filmmaker's career, and thus I consider a Navbox to be a distraction from more notable aspects of the article. More broadly, it seems to me that the establishment of a new Navbox should require a strong affirmative consensus. They clutter the bottom of an article, and (here is an issue I don't think has been mentioned yet) they lead to useless hits from search engines. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Never This template and others like it add nothing but clutter to articles. I'd like to see all of them eliminated. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Never. A bad faith award with very little consistency in the methodology of selection. They add trivial clutter to the article, and are unnecessary - if someone wants to jump from one "winner" to another, that can be done by accessing Golden Raspberry Award and choosing the appropriate category or year. I also think that "sometimes" is doomed to fail because we'll end up having to discuss the template on a person by person basis, and it should be all or nothing. I say nothing. If some "actors" (and let's face it, many of them are not "actors" but are celebrities who have attempted to branch into film) want to gain some extra publicity by accepting the award and demonstrating their sense of humour, good for them, but that can be covered more successfully in prose. Rossrs (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes
  1. Sometimes. I think the templates can be useful to some of the articles that have been awarded a Razzie, especially ones where the people involved have appeared to accept the award or have commented on the award, as well as ones where the award was given wider coverage in the media. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Clearly there are actors that view this as a sort of amusing comedic parody distinction. See Golden_Raspberry_Award#Stars_who_have_accepted_the_award, some of which is actually properly sourced. :)
    I fully agree with this proposal by Binksternet (talk · contribs), to include the templates on articles of individuals that have themselves accepted their awards in person, or directly commented on them, and in instances where independent reliable secondary sources have given significant coverage to the fact that they have received these awards. Cirt (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support--Sometimes: I definitely feel that in instances like the aforementioned, it is worthwhile. It's a tongue-in-cheek award and when the actors or whomever poke fun at their own misfires, it can be considered worthy....How about for some of the most notoriously infamous wins, such as Faye Dunaway's, Kevin Costner's, or anything Showgirls? Do those fit the bill as well?--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 23:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say those fall under instances where independent reliable secondary sources have given significant coverage. Cirt (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support the inclusion of the templates, subject to case-by-case discussion and consensus at the relevant article talk page. As noted, above, there are instances where the template might not be appropriate - and also instances where it adds some value. A blanket discussion doesn't deal with those nuances, and I think it would be better to look at each article individually, judging on the merits. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

You can put me down as a "never" if you want, but I actually don't think we should use these types of navboxes at all in actor articles, from the Raspberries right up to the Oscars. Take the "Academy Award for Best Actress" template at Meryl Streep; why do we need links to Hilary Swank or Julia Roberts in that article? What is the relevance? Links to the award and award ceremony should be sufficient, and readers should navigate elsewhere from those articles, plus you've got the categories. It's all navbox overkill if you ask me. PC78 (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike that, too. Her navboxes should be the ones that show her as the winner of said award, with only the prior and following winners wrapping the box.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 15:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it.
  • Actors by films - Mass deletion of categories at CfD, related to the actor navigation consensus, above.