Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Woody Allen filmography

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 08:42, 6 July 2008 [1].

Woody Allen filmography[edit]

previous FLC (02:53, 5 March 2008)

2nd time's the charm? The last FLC failed mainly because I was unable to address comments made in a timely manner. The main sticking point being that the list of awards was not complete. So, in the interim, I've realized that a complete list of awards would be quite big, and therefore more appropriate in its own list: List of Woody Allen awards. So, now that that's taken care of, hopefully the filmography is up to snuff. As always, any comments and suggestions are appreciated. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Looks good, but shouldn't the table also include text along with graphics? So shouldn't the checkmarks have something in there along with it? Gary King (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good point! But what could I possibly put in there that wouldn't look silly? "Yes"? "Check"? Neither strike me as all that great. Drewcifer (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I switched the checks to the {{yes}} template. Let me know what you think. Drewcifer (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • WP:MOS#Images allows for a lead image to at least 300px - you can expand Woody if you like. DONE
    • "...a three-time Academy Award-winning American film director, writer, actor,.." - could be confusing i.e. that he's won the Oscars for writer, actor etc... suggest a subtle reword. REWORDED
    • "Allen has worked on many..." - just "He has... " is better since you currently have "Allen" in three consecutive sentences... FIXED
    • "which he wrote and performed in" not keen. Get it, but not keen, ending with "performed in" just reads clumsily.
    • "completely new, comic dialog" new and comic? emphasising that the original dialog wasn't comic perhaps? REWORDED SLIGHTLY
    • Consider linking first $ to US $ just to be sure. DONE
    • Image caption doesn't need a period as it's a fragment. DONE
    • Again, several repetitions of "Allen" or "Allen's" when "he" or "his" would improve the flow a lot. FIXED
    • Why no articles about the documentaries?
      • I dunno, I guess because they weren't so popular. Drewcifer (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hotel Terminus: Klaus Barbie, His Life and Times" with no ticks and a footnote saying he was producer is a little anomalous for me. Does this imply he didn't "produce" anything else ever? I'm not convinced it should be in the list since your lead talks about the combination of three (actor, director, writer) and doesn't mention he produced anything at all.
      • There's actually two films footnoted witht he producer thing: the hotel teminus, and what's up tiger lilly. I just didn't think that two films warranted an entirely seperate column. Drewcifer (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if it stays, should Producer just be producer in the footnote? DONE
    • I've got a scientific background so in my mind the table of grosses should use a consistent number of decimal places.
      • I think .0 would be a little unnecessary don't you? The only reaons there's some decimals is to differentiate which made more money when two films are so close in gross.
    • " in which Allen has written, directed, or acted in," - last "in" is redundant. DONE
    • "he had a minor role" - what's the definition of "minor" here?
      • It's however Box Office Mojo defines "minor" I suppose. Reworded slightly to emphasize this. Drewcifer (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything you wanted to know... has a different title in each table. I would suggest consistency here. DONE
    • Television table - two non-italicised, one italicised title. Why? FIXED
    • "(listed above in Filmography)" - don't make that point here, make it in the Filmography section.
      • I actually relocated it into the Lead, which seems to make the most sense. Cool? Drewcifer (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interestingly (for me more than anyone else I guess) your Broadway link points to "Broadway theatre", not "theater". I guess it has no impact here but how odd that the US premier theatre article doesn't spell it with US English.
      • I dunno, I presume it's just because Broadway takes itself so seriously. Drewcifer (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I mentioned some time ago, why aren't the venues of three of the four Broadway plays included? If they are notable plays then it should be possible to source this information.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Basically because for three of the four listed, he was the writer. So he had nothing to do with the physical performance of the play (who, when, where, etc). Additionally, the difference of an actor requiring a venue specified is that the actor performs as the character for just one run of the player. Therefore it's possible to pin down to a venue. As a writer, he's still the writer for every time the play is performed no matter where it is and who is doing it. Drewcifer (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This seems to be a moot point now. See below. Drewcifer (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments TRM's got most of it it looks like, so only a few from me.

  • Sections are "Filmography", "Television" and "Theatre" Perhaps "Filmography" should be simply "Films". DONE
  • AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies Is this a film? I thought these things were TV documentary type things
    • Yea, pretty much one of those things. Though it was released as a "film" (straight-to-DVD kind of thing I believe).
  • Further to TRM's producer comments, I'd like a producer column so we can see what he produced.
    • Please see my comments above.
  • As the -- now removed awards -- are related, a link should be provided in a See also section. Or you could have an awards section with {{main}}, and give a paragraph or two of prose detailing "major" awards.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not so sure about mentioning "major awards" because it becomes a slippery slope: "major" is difficult to define. But the "See also" section was definitely needed. Drewcifer (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still unconvinced as to whether theatre roles should be included as part of a filmography. For me, because they're not recorded onto film or tape, or available as a physical entity such as a VCR cassette, DVD, etc, they shouldn't. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you mention it, I suppose you're right. Moved it to the main Woody Allen page. Drewcifer (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch for your help and your support. Drewcifer (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Woody_Allen_filmography&oldid=1087974648"