Category talk:Filmographies

message: [Name] | performances and awards
Without punctuation, isn't it ambiguous in some cases? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: With punctuation, it's ambiguous in some cases, right? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally , I think the format "List of [Name] performances and awards" or "List of [Name] awards and nominations" is best, if the article is more than just a filmography, otherwise "[Name] filmography" is preferred. I understand that the "List of..." format may not be agreeable to some, but it would be the most consistent. And I think that any use of punctuation is inappropriate, if the name of the actor is ambiguous, we already have a system in place for disambiguation (e.g. "List of [Name] (actor) performances and awards". Fortdj33 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also the naming convention for lists, so it's agreeable enough. WP:NCLIST -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What ambiguity arises from punctuation? Doesn't seem accurate. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, "[Name], roles and awards" may be interpreted as a list of three subjects covered in the article: (1) the actor by that name; (2) roles; (3) awards.  "[Name] roles and awards" cannot convey this interpretation and is consistent with the established formats (e.g., "List of [Name] awards and nominations").  —sroc 💬 15:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the parameters set down in WP:NCLIST, which I think takes priority over the other interested parties in this discussion (such as film and bio), I think Fortdj33 and JHunterJ make the most persuasive arguments.  I think the addition of "nominations" adds nothing to the title, since in the article it would hopefully differentiate between awards won versus nominations.Onel5969 (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately this won't cover a number of the 'career history' style lists we have, which include things that are not performances, including interviews, personal appearances, etc. The format of "[Name] on stage and screen" was an attempt to get round this, although it is a format that is also criticised - as the move logs can demonstrate. Unfortunately some of the moves were undertaken by Fortdj33 after he commented here, but before any consensus was reached. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

text: The pipe in option #10 is unusual, unexpected and does not help to resolve ambiguity.  In fact, pipes cannot be used due to technical limitations anyway: WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS.  —sroc 💬 15:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Name] | performances and awards 

message: ::Punctuation helps resolve ambiguity so it's a little out there to say it's inappropriate without a complete explanation; what is "inappropriate" about making it immediately clear? There are many names that are adjectives, which is the reason to divide the name from the specification of what follows. ('Tricky roles and awards' scans poorly.) I guess I would say it's inappropriate to leave out a comma that is useful. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Cases where an actor's name is also an adjective need to be treated with added care and may need to be treated as an exception in the rare case where this arises.  It is already a rare situation, AFAIK, where an an article covers a list of roles and a list of awards (otherwise we could use Tricky filmography or List of awards and nominations received by Tricky—as it happens, these are handled by Tricky (musician) so it is a moot point).  The arbitrary insertion of punctuation does not serve to "resolve ambiguity" and can introduce new ambiguity.  Punctuation is uses for specific purposes and we should be following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in the format we use for titles.  It is also unhelpful to insert punctuation where it doesn't belong to resolve some theoretical ambiguity that might arise in some other case (e.g., "We have to use 'John Gielgud, roles and awards' not 'John Gielgud roles and awards' because 'Tricky roles and awards' would be confusing").  —sroc 💬 01:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punctuation helps resolve ambiguity 

message: ::I am sympathetic to the idea of calling a list a list. 
::12a. [Name], list of roles and awards
::12b. [Name], filmography
::--Ring Cinema (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have well-established formats for "[Name] filmography", "List of [Name] performances", "List of [Name] awards", etc.  Why then do we need to fabricate formats such as "[Name], filmography", "[Name], list of roles and awards", "[Name]: roles and awards", etc., which introduce punctuation where it is not needed.  This goes against one of the principles in WP:NC: "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles."  Let's be as consistent as possible with the existing formats, not invent unfamiliar ones.  —sroc 💬 16:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Name], list of roles and awards; [Name], filmography 

message: *Whatever we do, can we avoid mixing "roles" and "awards" except where one or the other would not be long in and of itself? It hurts to see such dissimilar things lumped together (especially in cases where a single role receives 10 or 15 awards...). Personally I use the "List of [x]" format (though I usually focus on literature when doing this), but I believe we don't have to force everything to fit the same template. Rather, we should look on a case-by-case basis, as an individual's career may include aspects (say, audio recordings) that are not numerous enough to create a new list for, but significant enough to include in a list of their works. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right.  Perhaps there is some neutral terminology that we could adopt that encompasses roles and awards without having to explicitly specify both, such as "Career of [Name]" or simply "[Name] performances" (as we already have) rather than awkwardly jamming "roles" and "awards" into the title, these being quite different things.  —sroc 💬 16:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Career of [Name]" suggests a biographical article to me, rather than a list. "[Name] performances" just feels wrong without some possessive involved. - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Separating a list into two separate lists seems like the right way to deal with this (avoiding cases #1–#3 and #6–#12a). Roles and awards are very different things. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Separating out into two pages strikes me as utterly counter-intuitive. Why would we separate the awards for roles from the roles themselves into separate pages? We just end up with a massive fork problem. And to do it just because there isn't a clear-cut title? That is no reason at all. – SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *My concern is that there may be individuals such as Lupita Nyong'o, where one or more role has garnered so many awards that it would look absolutely terrible to have them all in one table, with the list of roles. Nyong'o's performance in 12 Years a Slave received something like 30 awards and nominations... can you imagine the table size required to list all of them? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's a judgement call for individual cases.  I concur with SchroCat that splitting an article just because we can't agree on the perfect title is not a good reason to split the article.  There might be other reasons to split such articles, but that's not the issue here.  —sroc 💬 02:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agree, no splitting for the sake of splitting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Trying to bring this mini-thread back on track, these suggestions using "career" and "performances" were only examples to avoid trying to shoehorn "roles" (something done by the actor) and "awards" (something awarded to the actor) into the title.  Any other suggestions?  —sroc 💬 00:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

text: *"Career appearances by x" and "Awards received by x"? But that could be read to be sports talk. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid mixing "roles" and "awards" 

message: *Also whatever we do, we need to avoid using commas in titles except for things that are comma-separated. , or  or , but not  or . The desire to have the search-box-predictive dropdown yield all of these articles is not paramount; that approach does turn them into subarticles, and is contrary to WP:TITLEFORMAT (and is ungrammatical, unless "roles and awards" or "list of roles and awards" describes John Gielgud as an appositive phrase). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *"Is  grammatically correct in BrEng?": yes, of course it is - I didn't think anyone had questioned otherwise? As to the other form, I've already shown the correct use in the previous thread, so there's no point going back over the same ground again. This thread isn't as much about that title as possible other ones. - SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, as much as you have repeatedly said that  is grammatical in BrEng, I have not seen you (or anyone) demonstrate this to be the case (e.g., by referring to a style guide, grammar text, etc.).  The distinction between BrEng and AmEng also ignores all the other varieties of English, by the way.  Let's not get caught up in that again though, and instead look for a solution that we can agree upon.  There are plenty to work with.  —sroc 💬 18:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid using commas in titles 

message: While I agree that the discussion is long enough to break into sections, I'm not sure that the divisions that have been made adequately reflect the thread of the conversations that have taken place: the breaks are not in the right place and the bits of conversation are all over the place, way away from the titles that have been put in place where they weren't originally intended... - SchroCat (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Debatable divisions