I was just wondering if there was some way to standardise the pages we have for actors. I love the links with other 24 actors, but I think they sometimes get lost in a big paragraph, especially if there is other biographical information about the person. I dunno how anyone would feel about perhaps working the actor links into the filmography? Also, the rules for starring with someone else - for films it's easy, but for TV does it have to be the same show, same series, or same episode, or same scene? And just to clarify, are we in favour of italics for titles of films and shows, rather than "inverted commas", in the filmographies and biographical paragraphs? I just think it's be good to get a consistent standard!--Acer4666 08:04, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Well I had 2 reactions to the idea of putting "fellow 24 actors" actually inside the filmography. My knee-jerk reaction was "no, other verbiage was rejected from there in the past" (referring to instances where the actor was also a writer, director, producer, etc. in a film). The filmographies are supposed to be a quick, clean reference and over the years I've removed extraneous stuff from them.
- However on second thought, I realize there is a good argument for moving fellow 24 actors down into a small-text parenthetical note next to that respective film or TV show. First, a list of other actors inside the ==Biography== area is not actually biographical information on the guy we're writing about. It's information of interest, yes, but it sheds no light on the person we're writing about. And Acer you're also correct when you mention the stuff looks like a giant blob paragraph. Perhaps this proposal is a way to fix it.
- Before we proceed, let's try to: 1) get more opinions because this is a big change especially Simon's, and 2) implement the idea on Sandbox versions of the actors' pages, to see how it looks. The experiments should be for those actor articles who have very long lists of "fellow 24 actors", because I want to make sure the filmogs don't get too bloated horizontally.
- I've tried two temporary experiment pages (1 and 2) but I don't like either version. The second version is worse. The first might be acceptable if we changed the color of the text. 19:31, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I also liked the fact the filmogs were a clean list of work, so I did think about a separate section for 24 actor links, but I think in a lot of cases we'd be repeating lots of information if we do that. But I think an actor's filmog should only list their acting work, (and yes i suppose if kiefer has done other executive-producing then that may be acceptable), and any extra-curricular stuff (directing etc) probs belong in biog.
- I think ur first sandbox idea isn't terrible, I may have a play around myself. I don't know how horizontal the filmogs would get - is Air Force One still the "film with most 24 ppl in"? I guess that would be the test.
- And yes, definitely more opinions before anything. Perhaps the actor pages are fine already, as a change like this would be a big one, but I just thought that perhaps a standard way to add new 24 actor links when they were found.
- As for the TV thing, my vote would be if 2 actors are in the same episode, then they count as being in it together, but no more than that. I think about 90% of 24 actors have been in Law & Order, for example! I can't remember how the 24/lost thing is currently being done, but isn't there a special note at the bottom of the biog for that?--Acer4666 19:47, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
My initial reaction was, "NO! That's the way it's always been, and Memory Alpha does it this way, and I like it this way!" But none of those are valid arguments, of course. While I personally have no problem with the way it currently is, I do understand your issue with it. Looking at Rook's alternatives, I kind of like the first one, although I would much prefer the word "with" (or at least w/) rather than "see:". --proudhug 19:50, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I thought 'with' too. Ooh I shall have a look at Memory Alpha to see what it's like there. I don't mind if we keep it like it is, I don't wanna rock the boat haha!--Acer4666 19:54, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
- I specifically was avoiding the word "with" because in most of the TV series it is not an episode crossover. You can't say Actor-1 was "with" Actor-2 when they may have been in two separate seasons, and possibly don't even know the other one exists. 20:09, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Do I take it that means ur in favour of linking actors if they've been in the same show, full stop? (ie for every walk on part in Law& Order, they have a list of every other actor that's been in the 20 seasons of the show?) How do you feel about the many incarnations of CSI - are they one show or different ones? Also I did Wiki 24:Sandbox/Albert Hall 3 but think thats not great either--Acer4666 20:23, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, this needs to be restricted to actors actually appearing together in the same episode. They can still not be in any scenes together and have never met, but as long as they're in at least one episode together. --proudhug 20:35, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
- If we're going to be as strict and specific as proudhug is saying about TV series crossovers, then I'd be okay with the word "with".
- Also I like Acer's idea for the format. A new section seems most appropriate since it respects the look we've always had for Filmogs, and gets rid of bio paragraph bloat simultaneously. Might as well start nitpicking about the verbiage of it: I don't know if "24 Collaborations" is the most precise. Perhaps something like ==24 ___ crossovers== where the ___ is a word like "people" or "personnel" or even a phrase like "actors and crew". 21:15, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Alumni? I also don't like the word crossovers, but can't think of anything I like more, except collaborations. --proudhug 21:19, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
- I personally don't have a problem with "crossovers", but agree that "collaborations" isn't very accurate. If we don't mind sacrificing brevity, could we have "appearances with 24 alumni", or "work with 24 alumni" for crew? Also Blue Rook I think perhaps for the dedicated section we could be as strict as same-episode TV appearances, but for other interesting links (see Michael Madsen and John Terry), such as appearing in the same season etc., then these could perhaps be worked into the biog as long as the biog needs fleshing out anyway, and there's not a shedload of actors to list (like with lost, law & order, etc). I have two small issues of precedent which don't seem to be consistent at the minute:
- Italics for TV and film, every time they're mentioned. I guess this is a work in progress, but I think we shouldn't have "inverted commas" for names of media anywhere, it should all be italicised.
- Listing 24 in their television filmog - although it is obvious that they appeared in 24, I suppose including it here does put it in the context of their other work.--Acer4666 17:50, March 19, 2011 (UTC)