My argument is that each director's films are properly subdivided according to format or medium, which is standard for Wikipedia. In contrast, User:Picsovina argues that Kenneth Branagh is well known for Shakespeare adaptations so therefore his Shakespeare adaptations as well as his Agatha Christie adaptations (which have nothing to do with Shakespeare so I don't understand how Picsovia's argument about Branagh being famous for Shakespeare adaptations justifies subdividing Agatha Christie adaptations into a separate group as well) should both be subdivided into separate sections in Template:Kenneth Branagh, leading to an unwieldy and highly confusing structure according to each film's subject matter rather than format. Other directors famous for directing Shakespeare adaptations include Laurence Olivier and Orson Welles yet their director templates do not subdivide their Shakespeare adaptations into separate sections. John G. Avildsen is famous for directing the Karate Kid movies yet his director template is not divided between Karate Kid films and Other films. George Miller is famous for directing the Mad Max films yet his director template is not divided between Mad Max films and Other films. Guy Hamilton is famous for directing four James Bond films yet his director template is not divided between James Bond films and Other films. There is therefore no real standard established precedent for doing so. Each director's films are properly subdivided according to format or medium, which is standard for Wikipedia. Agree or disagree. --Nicholas0 (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While it is possible for such templates to use sub-groups well, I do not find the sub-groups ("Shakespeare adaptations" and "Christie adaptations") useful here. While I understand recognizing the Shakespeare adaptations as a sub-group in general, the average reader cannot tell if the sub-group exists because the person is "known" for it or if an editor decided to separate out films with a common theme. For example, Branagh has directed works based on classics Frankenstein and Cinderella, so theoretically there could be a sub-group for that. It's not necessary to engage in separating-out in navigation templates. It makes more sense to recognize a sub-group of films in prose in the article body, in the context of the person. One sub-optimal effect of separating out is that it does not organize all of his feature films in one chronological order. One has to go back and forth between the main group and the sub-group to follow a chronology. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. You make another excellent point regarding Frankenstein and Cinderella. --Nicholas0 (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nicholas0: I don't see any evidence that WP:RFCBEFORE has been followed, so why have you gone straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
