Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Woody Allen filmography/archive1

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 not promoted 02:53, 5 March 2008.

Woody Allen filmography[edit]

Fresh of the heels of the Christopher Walken filmography being promoted, I've nominated two more: Woody Allen filmography and Vittorio Storaro filmography (see above). This format of this list is a little unconventional, since Allen typically does more than just one thing per movie. As always, any comments and suggestions are appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) before I can support... I missed the Walken filmography promotion so I'm coming at this with fresh eyes, apologies if I re-open old wounds "inadvertently...!
    • "either the writer, director, actor, and any combination of the three" - either/and? I would expect either/or... reads a little strangely to me.
 Done Good catch. Drewcifer (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "From A to Z ," remove space.
 Done Drewcifer (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second para of lead is a little clunky, it start with "Allen..." in all three sentences.
 Done, kind of. It's a little awkward, but I just changed the second "Allen" to "His". So now it reads "Allen" "His" "Allen's". Not perfect, but I couldn't think of a better solution. Drewcifer (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where Allen is uncredited, I suspect it's worth providing a citation that backs up the claim otherwise there's no evidence to say he did appear in the film in question.
 Done I took the easy way out and just removed the note that it was uncredited. Now the All Movie Guide source takes care of those three as well. Kind of went against the title of the column anyways. Drewcifer (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor point but the dir. act. and wri. should have a key (or be expanded - there's width availble!).
Wouldn't you say the wikilinks take care of that? If I spell each out I think the columns would become a bit messy/inconsistent width-wise. Drewcifer (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Awards and nominations tables should have similar appearance (i.e. column widths should be forced to the same for each table) - at the moment the section is quite messy.
They are... aren't they? I'm not sure how it's displaying on your screen, but all the Awards tables look identical to me. And looking at the code, each table starts with
! width="33"|Year
! width="200"|Film
! width="100"|Result
! width="100"|Award
! width="200"|Category
Think I fixed it. EI strikes again! Drewcifer (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • " According to the same site, Allen's films have grossed a total of more than $424 million, with an average of $12 million per film." - actually provide a reference for that.
The source for all the box office data is provided in the "General" references section. Drewcifer (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "mil." for million? Why not just "m."?
I'm not sure if just "m." is very clear. Drewcifer (talk)
    • "Allen has written and performed in a number of Broadway theater productions." yet only one run (uncited) is metnioned - did the other three no actually make it to Broadway? Needs clarification for me.
I assumed this would come up. Allen wrote all four, but only acted in one. I figured that for a writer of a play, venue and runs don't matter, since the same play could be, and usually is, performed numerous times in different places by different people. So for the writer, the time and place of one particular performance is kind of irrelevant. For the actor though, they'd probably only act in one instance of this play, at one venue during one specific run. So that information is relevant. Does that make sense? Drewcifer (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a couple of minor things we'll agree to differ on but only stylistic so nothing to stop me supporting. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks so much for your help and your support. Drewcifer (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional support - The "Award" columns in the "Awards and nominations" section should be removed for the Oscars, Globes, DGAs and BAFTA awards. It doesn't look very good to have an entire column when it's all the same. Perhaps it could be mentioned at the top of the table, ie. "Academy Awards (AKA Oscars)" or something along those lines. -- Scorpion0422 01:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I'd rather keep the tables as consistent as possible, within the same section but also across all filmographies. I think it would look sloppy if some tables looked different from the others, all in the same section, one after the other. Drewcifer (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of some more suggestions along the same lines, I've redid the section a bit. Let me know if you like the changes. Drewcifer (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think the one-sentence paragraph in the lead should be merged with the first paragraph. I don't like the repetitive "throughout his career" part, either.--Crzycheetah 23:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Merged the sentence to the paragraph before it. Though I'm not sure if I see anything wrong with "Throughout his career." Drewcifer (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I don't see any changes. Saying "Throughout his career" once is enough, I don't like when more than one sentence begins with the same phrase. --Crzycheetah 20:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Woops, didn't hit save. And I understand what you mean. fixed both. Drewcifer (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's better.--Crzycheetah 22:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose While this is overall an informative list, I have some concerns that can be addressed.
    • The lead does not appear to properly summarize the article per WP:LEAD - it repeats some information (3 Academy Awards) and omits other tables (DGA, Saturn, Berlin International Film Festival, American Comedy, as well as highest grossing films). I think if it is important enough for its own separate table, it should at least be mentioned in the lead.
    I'm not sure if I see a point in rehashing all the awards he's won in the Lead. I figured it would be good to be mention the most notable (Oscars, BAFTA, Golden Globes), but not to give an exhaustive list. Also I split up the awards into seperate tables simply because making one massive table didn't look right. So I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that every table in the whole article should somehow be mentioned in the lead. Drewcifer (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks for the explanation of the separate tables. WP:LEAD says The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. If you do not think these other awards are as important, I guess they do not have to be mentioned explicitly in the lead. How about changing the current sentence by adding a generic mention of other awards, i.e. Throughout his career, Allen has won numerous awards, including three Oscars, eight BAFTA awards, and one Golden Globe Award[, and many others].? Similarly, could there be some mention of the fact that this article lists his top ten grossing films be added to the sentence on box office grosses?
    I am also concerned about relative emphasis in the Lead. Quoting WP:LEAD again: ...in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text. So his theater work is one table with four rows of information, but gets a long sentence at the start of the the second paragraph (Allen has also written four plays for the stage, including contributing sketches to the Broadway revue From A to Z, and the Broadway productions Don't Drink the Water (1966) and Play It Again, Sam (1969).[1] ). In contrast, the awards not mentioned at all by name are four tables with a total of fourteen rows of information. So the awards sentence could be: Throughout his career, Allen has won three Oscars, eight BAFTA, one Golden Globe, two Directors Guild of America, one American Comedy, and two Berlin International Film Festival awards. with the added words still less than those already there about the theater. Note this does not include the awards not mentioned in the article (see additional concerns, below) i.e. WGA, Cesar, Cannes, and Venice. Television work would also have to be addressed here if included, see below. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved items from Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also like it when the lead or introductory text summarizes the information from the lists (as is already done for Oscars, BAFTAs and Golden Globes won). For example, why not summarize the filmography by saying as of 2008 he has directed X, written Y and acted in Z films? (This would also be a way to make the Lead a better summary, see above). Specifics are good too - in the Theater list it now says In addition to directing, writing, and acting in films, Allen has written and performed in a number of Broadway theater productions. Why not give the number In addition to directing, writing, and acting in films, Allen has written and/or performed in four Broadway theater productions.
    My only complaint with your suggestions is that I really hate it when an article says "as of ___" because it needs to be constantly updated. So if I take that little phrase out of the equation, then a running total of his films doesn't really work since it too is going to be out of date sooner rather than later. Does that make sense? However, Allen doesn't do many plays so a running total of plays seems like a good idea. Drewcifer (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume the list itself will have to be updated each time he does something for a new movie or is nominated for or receives a new award anyway - he seems to only make a new movie once a year on average (some years none, some two). Be that as it may, the numbers of films as director etc is just a suggestion (not required). However, the lead still needs to be expanded and somehow mention the subject of each table. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment above concerning the mention of each table in the lead thing. Drewcifer (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's just address all of the LEAD issues in the first section above. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure why abbreviations are used in some places - none of the tables comes close to filling the screen in terms of width (at least on my browser), so why does this have to have "Dir.", "Wri.", "Act." and "Mill."?
    The abbreviations in the Credited as column are to keep all the boxes with the check marks the same size. I think it would look really messy if they were all the lgnth of the words (and there would be alot of white space around the check graphics. The mil I can't really explain, I guess it just felt right. But you're right, there's no need to abbreviate there, so I fixed it. Drewcifer (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if you know it, but you can specify the width of columns. I just made it Director, Write and Actor and set the columns to the same width (then did a Print Screen and checked that they were exactly the same width, at least in my browser). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, I don't really like the way it looks, but I guess I can deal with it. It's definitely a bit clearer. Drewcifer (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am quite concerned about the lack of specific references - I realize the list does not absolutely have to have foornotes, but if I wanted to find out more about his Theater work (as one example), which of the refs would I use? Where would I find out more about his specific awards? I think this is the most serious problem - this list needs to be verifiable.
    I did my best to make sure that the general references covered as much ground as possible. The AMG source is meant to cover the filmography itself and the awards, but since the awards are on a slightly different page, I added a seperate AMG reference for that. The box office stuff is from Box Office Mojo, and the play stuff is from Hollywood.com. Everything seems to be covered by just a few general references, so I didn't see the need to have a bunch of in-lines where one general would suffice.
    I have no problem with one ref per table for example, or descriptions added to the references themselves, but I think there needs to be more specific reference information (a reader should not have to guess which of four sources is needed). I also wonder if the Broadway Database External link is not really a reference. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To make things a bit clearer, I added an explanation for each general source. Drewcifer (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, the list still have some major reference problems. 1) The theater source does not list the run dates given, role, or theater for "Play It Again Sam". 2) Box Office Mojo lists the movie Antz as earning $91 million domestically and $81 million more in foreign markets for $172 million worldwide total ref is here. The table of film grosses does not mention Antz at all (it says This is a list of the top 10 highest-grossing films in which Allen has written, directed, or acted in, according to Box Office Mojo. This does not include films in which he had a minor role, or appeared as a cameo., but he was the lead character in "Antz"). The list also does not clarify if the grosses are domestic or worldwide. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Think I took care of your concerns. Added Antz to the grosses, specified that the data was domestic, removed the "Run" column in the theatre section (wasn't really all that necessary), and added a citation for the venue. Drewcifer (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is clearer. I assume you have checked every film he made for its box office gross? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Double checked all the films he's worked on through Box Office Mojo, and the top 10 is as it should be. I guess they just didn't include Antz, for some reason. Should be fine now though. Drewcifer (talk) 07:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't like the one entry columns in the first four awards tables and find they make it more difficult to read the rows (since there is a break in the row, it is harder to read the row across, especially in the Oscars where there are a lot of rows). I am also not 100% sure I understand the last row in the American Comedy Awards and Berlin Film Festival tables. Are these general awards or associated with the films or what? Would it make sense to have an introductory sentence or two explaining these instead? I also wondered if the last two columns in all the Award tables could be made into one column, with the heading "Award, Category"? Then the Academy Award could be "Academy Award for Best Director" or "Oscar for Best Director" and the ACA and Berlin rows would be clearer. If the concern is to make the tables the same width, that can be set as a parameter.
    I redid the section a bit. Let me know what you think. Drewcifer (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is much clearer, thanks. I am striking concerns that have been addressed satisfactorily. Some other concerns remain, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional concern 1: Despite the title being "filmography" I can understand including the theater work, but why is his television work excluded? He does the same things there (write, direct, act) as he does in films or theater. Allmovie lists several television entries, including some short films made for TV.
    Think I took care of your concerns. The only things I left out are archival appearances. Let me know if the changes are satisfactory. Drewcifer (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is still not addressed. Here is my argument - the list is a Filmography, so I can see either excluding both his theater and television work (not films) or including both (all his work), but not including theater and excluding television. I do not see where you made any additions of television material to this list, but the sources you provide list much (all?) he has done in TV. Either get rid of the theater work (and make the title correct) or include the television work. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you're saying, but I think I've covered everything (except archival appearances, as I mentioned above). Is there something in specific you think I'm missing? I went through the AMG source and added in anything that wasn't already included. Am I missing something? Drewcifer (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand what "archival appearances" are. Looking here in the Allmovie biography it says he worked five years in TV as a writer for Your Show of Shows and Pat Boone and was nominated for an Emmy. It also says In 1969 Allen directed two short films for a CBS television special: Cupid's Shaft, a satire of Charlie Chaplin's City Lights, and an adaptation of Pygmalion in which he appeared as a rabbi.. Here at Hollywood.com (Full Biography) it says he also wrote for The Colgate Comedy Hour at the start of his TV career, and notes Allen returned to TV to adapt, direct and co-star in a small screen remake of "Don't Drink the Water" (ABC, 1994). He and Peter Falk filmed a TV version of Neil Simon's "The Sunshine Boys" for CBS in 1995, that finally aired in December 1997 to generally unfavorable notices. Under Milestones it notes he was in 1964 First guest-host to replace Johnny Carson on "The Tonight Show" (NBC). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional concern 2: Why are some of his awards not listed? He won a Cannes Film Festival Palme des Palmes Special Lifetime Achievement in 2002 [1], Writers Guild of America awards, Venice Film festival, French Cesar. I think these are as notable as some of the awards listed already. Perhaps a miscellaneous list of awards? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify here - if you inlcude the Directors Guild nominations and awards, I think you have to include the Writers Guild too. If you inlcude the Berlin Film Festival, you have to include Cannes and Venice. If you include the (US) Academy Awards (and nominations) and (British) BAFTAs, you have to include the French Cesar stuff. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope this helps, overall good work, but needs some improvements for FL status. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Good work so far, but the lede section is a little bare. At a minimum, can you add some citations for his awards and nominations? JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I expanded the lead a bit to include domestic gross total/averages, as well as to mention non-fiction appearances. However, I'm not sure what you mean by the article needing more citations. The awards and nominations are covered by the general references listed at the end of the page (namely the AMG source). Drewcifer (talk) 20:24, 28 February 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/archive1&oldid=1210512461"