Wikipedia talk:Filmographies

message: __TOC__
I think the acting filmographies should be pretty solid as it is right now.  I'm "seeding" a few actors so that real people can see it and hopefully leave their comments here.
However, the non-acting filmographies are kind of a mess, so I haven't implemented them yet.  I'm looking for comments about the best way to handle them here.  There is obviously no "role" when you are a writer or director, but there is lots of other bits of useful information that would be nice to include (whether the person was the original creator, a screenplay writer or adapter, a story writer or the actual credited script writer; episode names and links for television; etc., etc.).  Perhaps we just leave a table cell open for the "Role" and let the author fill in as needed but with some guidelines.  Any thoughts?
RADICALBENDER★ 00:58, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
::Acting categories - I looked at Scott Foley and Jennifer Garner.  They look good but I like violet/riga's suggestions. Firstly "Acting filmography" heading is not needed - section header should suffice.  I think three column headings such as "Title", "Role" and "Comments" would be better. (I've tried to make a test to demonstrate but I'm not good at tables - I'll try again when I have more time).  Also I think the Garner one is a good example of why the images would be neater and cleaner if all on the left - or there could be a column between the title and the role, if you think the title should come first.  I don't think that would be as clean visually, but it would be less random.  I like it though. Rossrs 14:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

message: Should the images be placed on the left to maintain consistency, such as:
Acting Filmography	Acting Filmography          	Acting Filmography
                  	Alias: The Video Game (2004)	Sydney Bristow (voice)
                  	Daredevil (2003)            	Elektra
                  	Alias (2001-present)        	Sydney Bristow
I think it works better, particularly with the smaller images.  Also, lists don't take up much room, and I'd worry that this would create quite a bit of extra vertical spacing.  I think it is a very promising idea though.  violet/riga (t) 20:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I'm thinking about some of the potentially longer lists, and having the image on the right after the title is going to cause a very random, cluttered, unstructured appearance, although in the examples given where there are only a few titles/images it looks good.  Prefer the image on the left as a standard format.   Rossrs 14:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image placement

message: Does it need the title?  Since the table will usually be under an appropriately titled section I think it might become redundant.  violet/riga (t) 20:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: This might best be a subsection of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) - please read the discussion page there for more discussion on the topic.  violet/riga (t) 20:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been looking for this for a while. These pages should be Merged in some way. I was specifically looking for a guideline on how to format bibliographies, and your MoS(list of works) was the closest i could find. --Quiddity 20:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)

message: I like the idea, it's a really good layout and all... It's just that it's very code intensive.  If you look at List of people in Playboy 2000-Present you'll see that there isn't as much code to deal with.  It's not hard for someone to just come along and add the next month to the table when the next month's issue comes out.  Granted, you don't have the little icons for video games and TV and such but it's clean, neat, easy to update, and is not very code intensive.  
To me the idea of an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" means that you have to keep it simplistic enough so that we can have just that, "anyone" doing the edits.  For some the task of putting their entry in the right section or in alphabetical order is nothing short of daunting.  For example, look at List of famous redheads and especially at List of vegetarians.  In the first, people come along every few days and have been throwing names in with a disregard to the fact that the list is in alphabetical order.  With the second, names would be added to the bottom of the list whether they belonged there or not.  Politicians are listed last but we end up with Leo Tolstoy, and Nikola Tesla under that category.
Anyway, I've gone on about this long enough and belabored my point.  Basically, I think it's a great idea and looks really good, it's just too code intensive.  Dismas 21:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A very good point and a worry of mine.  If we could streamline the code it might be a good idea to use the templates with "subst" - that might make it easier to update and more elegant too. violet/riga (t) 22:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very code heavy 

message: Please take a look at this older proposal... . Radiant_>|< 21:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading material 

message: Is it good for a biography article to have an exhaustive list of films the person has worked in ? Or should the filmography have only the list of successful/notable/special/milestone films of the person's life ? It goes without saying that films which have an own  article on it should be included. The user can get the complete list from an external link which is almost always IMDb. I removed a list of 100+ films from Amjad Khan's filmography, as the article was more of the filmography and less of other content. Does an exhaustive filmography be considered the same as an indiscriminate collection of information (with reference to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information) Jay 19:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd advocate completism as far as filmographies, bibliographies, and discographies are concerned. If a list becomes excessively large for a page, then split if off into a seperate article (eg Amjad Khan (filmography)). Some may argue that this is what imdb is for, but that relies upon imdb being around/free/reliable forever. The scope of a person's work is as important as the best parts of that person's work. "information is any difference that makes a difference". --Quiddity 20:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a reason to not list everything.  I would consider an indiscriminate things as # of things on my desk or locations of trashcans in the white house.  A list of films an actor has done doesn't seem anywhere near that caliber.  A list of films I own would be indiscriminate.  Cburnett 04:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that as soon as you begin shortening a list to make it a "selected filmography" you are placing some kind of POV onto it.  A film that you or I might eliminate from the list, may be considered noteworthy by someone else.  Some films are notable not for only for their commercial success or their impact on popular culture but for conveying a completeness of a career or for illuminating the highs and lows of a career. These lists are finite and where they become long they can be broken off to create their own article.  Rossrs 13:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point!  Though, we could put an arbitrary line in the sand if we want though (I think there's one for web comics in that it has to have existed for such a period and have such a readership).  Say, if a film had $5 mil in gross sales or has won some kind of national/internationally recognized award.  Not that I'm proposing it (I actual deplore doing so) but just saying it.  I see no problem in a full listing.  Cburnett 00:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All films or some ?

message: I just found  and  that deal with a similar issue. - The DJ 22:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More templates 

message: I've overhauled Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) based on a 2nd round of feedback. Feedback (at it's talkpage) or improvements welcome :) --Quiddity 02:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)