Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:33, 8 January 2006

I've been saying that I would do this for ages. Here it is, all rough and ready. We need a template, and some discussion of guidelines/conventions. Have at! Zora 22:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

To do list

If you are planning to create a 'to do' list, remember to add V.Shantaram. Tintin Talk 01:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

External Link

Should the actors page have external links to his/her latest movies(official or unofficial) or to review pages of the movies?--Raghu 14:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My first thought is YES, it's useful to readers. My second thought is that it involves us in lots of housekeeping. If it's only the latest films that get this treatment, then we're going to have to keep fussing with the article to remove the old links and add new ones. So my second thought is NO. I could be swayed either way by a good argument. Or bribes. Preferably chocolate. Zora 06:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There's the chocolate for you Zora :D --Raghu 07:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not that greedy. A barnstar would do ;) (or even two) :-D --Gurubrahma 06:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess if the movie is important enough, it should have an article. The individual movie and review links should go there. Tintin Talk 06:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point! I'm swayed. I enjoyed the chocolate, but I don't stay bribed. So we just make sure that the filmography is kept up to date. Zora 07:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures, external links and template - random thoughts

• Pictures - Among fair-use images, the earliest one stays unless it has not been tagged properly or the picture is not of a great quality. Other fairimages can be added if and only if they add substantial value to the article. Hypothetical example - A Time magazine cover can be added if it ranks Aishwarya Rai as #1 in Asia's Heroes of 2006 in that cover story etc. Even in such cases, it may be a good idea to retain the previous image.

• External links - IMDB and official website should suffice. Some of the South Indian stars seem to have given up on their official websites. In such a scenario, links to fan sites may be encouraged but limited to a maximum of 5. If it crosses that number, the links that add nothing or very little to facts stated on the article must be chopped.

• Template - I find that the link is red. Are we waiting for some inputs? --Gurubrahma 14:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I copied that from code for another project. I spoze we need a template. What should it be? A reel of film superimposed on the dharma wheel from the Indian flag? The Yash Raj symbol? <grin> Zora 18:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Have rendered a fresh fresh moniker (svg) for the template. Hope that helps. --ΜιĿːtalk 10:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Once the article size of an Indian actor/actress becomes near Featured Article length, more pictures (with proper licences) have to be allowed than one. DaGizza 00:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some guideline about column inches of prose versus column inches of picture? Prose to be at least twice as long as pictures added together? Any other way to do this? Zora 03:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• A minor point. From the experience in WP:Cricket, we should make sure at a very early stage that the categories that we have are sufficient and correct, so that three or four recent changes list like the actors and movies cover everything. Tintin Talk 19:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Why not just look at recent changes in Category:WikiProject Indian cinema? --Gurubrahma 20:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Should do - they will have to be added to the article pages as well. Currently only talk pages are included in this cat. Tintin Talk 21:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• that's 'coz they aren't supposed to be added to article pages. Though only talkpages are included in the cat, changes to the article would also get reflected, check it out...Gurubrahma 22:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Links to fan sites

I disagree with not allowing fan sites. Official sites are often not updated and some stars do not even have official websites thus one or two fan sites in external link IMO are helpful for fans looking for more than just a biography and filmography.--Faizan 18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Why can't they just google on the name if they want more info? Letting a fansite link means giving it a Misplaced Pages stamp of approval. "Misplaced Pages thinks this site has useful info." There are many many fan sites out there and we can't vet them all. IMDB is an established source of info, and an official site is notable for having the artiste's imprimatur.

I'm a Browncoat and a slavering Nathan Fillion fan, but I found the FOUR Nathan Fillion sites that I've bookmarked through googling, following links, etc. I don't expect the Nathan Fillion article to point me to the right ones (and I just went there and deleted one link that said it was "official" but wasn't -- it was one of the worst of the Nathan Fillion sites).

If your sites are good, fans will find them. You can't expect Misplaced Pages to funnel fans your way. Zora 22:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Allowing fan sites will lead to an overflow of links in the External link section. We can't say this site can be allowed and not that, criterion of allowing a fan site becomes difficult.--Raghu 04:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

External links - IMDB and official website should suffice. Some of the South Indian stars seem to have given up on their official websites. In such a scenario, links to fan sites may be encouraged but limited to a maximum of 5. If it crosses that number, the links that add nothing or very little to facts stated on the article must be chopped. (copied from the section above). Abt googling, I can say the same for any article; why have an article on Misplaced Pages? Why not just google for the info? <g> --Gurubrahma 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)