User:Xcentaur/Sandbox2

There are no uniform policies/guidelines to refer to while writing the leads of actors/actresses. This becomes quite a problem sometimes.

Diane Keaton is a featured article. Its lead has the line - Keaton's films have earned a cumulative gross of over USD 1.1 billion in North America.[2]. A similar line is noticeably absent from Angelina Jolie, another FA.

There have been arguments over stating cumulative gross in the article.

The most important argument for keeping this in is that the film's gross ie. commercial success is what establishes the actor/actress as a bankable star. Having details of the gross indicates the commercial success of the artist, and so is neccessary in the article.

Arguments against keeping it in-

1. A film that does well cannot be considered to have done well purely on the basis one actor/actress. In other words, we cannot give the individual full credit for the film's cumulative gross.
2. The gross does not indicate critical success. A film that did not do well but earned the actor/actress awards or praise for his/her performance can also be considered success for the artist.
3. Lastly, the gross will have to be continously updated in the case of living stars. For actors such as Amitabh Bachchan, with more than five films released a year, verification of the film's gross and continous updation is a bothersome task for the editors.

While both sides have some valid points, we need a uniform policy regarding this. Also, as pointed out by EnemyOfTheState, the gross should be worldwide cumulative gross (if mentioned).

In the lead of Jolie, there is a line - has established herself as one of the best known and highest paid actresses in Hollywood. The line does not have a reference. Several articles have had similar lines removed from their leads as it seemed too POV. As an encyclopedia we are supposed to make verifiable factual statements that allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. On the other hand, such a statement (where true) allows the article to better assert the notability, fame and/or success of the individual. It can be noted here that there is no such line in Diane Keaton.

The debate over which films to have in the career section is repeated in every cinema related article. While most editors are of the opinion that only notable films should be included, which films are notable is something that noone is all that clear about.

Let's look at Angelina Jolie. Its ranks in second on Google(search results), right under her IMDB listing. Such an article should definitely be representative of WP's best work, hard work, edit edit, click click - lo and behold - Jolie was awarded FA in November 2006.

Here it is worth asking - Should the artist's page mention all his/her movies? Or only notable ones? And what decides notability in such cases?

For example, Jolie's role in Love Is All There Is is given a one line mention in her article. But neither the article Angelina Jolie nor Love Is All There Is asserts why her role in the movie was notable.

Further, the film Playing God (film) in Jolie is a commercial and critical failure (as noted in its own article). Yet it is mentioned in the article. Why is it notable then?

In the section International Success, there is a line referring to Life or Something Like It stating - The film was poorly received by critics, though Jolie's performance received positive reviews. The thing is, nothing is mentioned there about how well the film did commercially, nor does the article have any details. The reader is left to imagine whether the film did well inspite of being critically trashed (example Lara Croft) or was the film unsuccessful on both counts?

I have raised concerns above for Jolie. To be honest, I was overwhelmed looking at the career section of Diane Keaton, and so haven't gone over it with a fine-toothed comb. In future, as time permits, perhaps. However these problems aren't isolated, and apply to all of the cinema related bios.

Summary of questions which need a look at-

• Should all films of the actor/actress be included?
• If not, what is the criteria for inclusion?

We definitely need some discussion regarding this and some clear guidelines.

Polls related to the actor/actress remain a bone of contention on several pages, especially the Bollywood bios. Should they be in the section In the media or in a seperate section of their own? All polls are definitely not notable, so then what decides how notable they are?

For example, Scarlett Johansson ends up in the top ten of dozens of polls for most desirable/sexiest/most beautiful. However only a handful are mentioned in the article. On the other hand, Jolie has an entire paragraph devoted to polls and media listings in the section Jolie in the media. And Diane Keaton simply makes no mention of any polls at all.

Another issue brought up sometimes with polls is what do they classify as? Media coverage - yes. Popularity - yes. Award - yes (Since positions on a poll listing are awarded to/won by the individual based on performance/looks/whatever) Which section do you put them in?

• Jolie has a section on media coverage, so they go there.
• Tom Cruise has a popularity section, so they go there.
• Beyonce has a one line section on popularity, stating her coming first in a poll with a sample size of 8.5 million. Earlier she had a paragraph in Beyoncé awards and nominations dealing only with polls.
• Scarlett Johansson - has poll results sprinked under section Other works

• • So where do polls go?
  • How many polls are too many?
  • How do we decide which polls are notable?
    • Sheer number of people polled?
    • Which people were polled? (For example, an actress topping a poll conducted amongst movie critics for Best actress may have a result different from a mass poll, but both results are notable in their own right. Then what?)

The awards and nominations recieved by a popular actor/actress are usually added in at some point. Almost every filmbio has seen heated arguments over whether or not nominations should be included or only awards. This question is actually a sub-question of something more important to consider - which awards are notable?

For example,

• Angelina Jolie - single section under filmography listing six awards
• Diane Keaton - one section above and one under filmography table, mentions Academy, Bafta, Emmy and Golden Globe.
• List of Johnny Depp's awards and nominations - seperate page to deal with awards
• Rani Mukerji, Preity Zinta - Bollywood bios with seperate pages to deal with awards

The question here is - should WP include all awards? The obvious answer is no - while WP is not constrained by the paper limitations of conventional encyclopedias, no doubt there are small awards which may not deserve mention. So then which awards are notable?

I believe the award's notability depends on -

1. How old it is ie. how far back the award was established.
2. Who the judges are ie. how well qualified the deciding jury is.
3. Whether only critical feedback is taken, or is commercial success(/failure) also a factor.
4. How independent(/transparent) the process is ie. a reputation for being impartial.

There might be more factors, of course, but these are the most important in my opinion. We should also note that simply handing an actor a trophy does not make it an award, how respectable it is is also important, but then this is difficult to quantify. Popularity should not be in the criteria either, because establishing popularity is a strange task indeed.

This is a problem not faced by the Hollywood bios, but is a definite issue with the Bollywood pages. In the Bollywood articles, details about dance performances come up all the time. Bollywood stars are often roped in to dance/perform at events. Are all such events notable? The amount they are paid for it, is that notable? One example of an article where such details are found all over the page is Rani Mukerji.

Bollywood stars are often invited as guests of honour to functions/art events/inaugural events, etc. How many such special appearances should the article note? What decides how notable the event is? If the actor/actress is the brand ambassador for a particular product/service/etc, do all appearances as the brand ambassador deserve note? One example of an article where details of special appearances are found all over the page is Preity Zinta.

Should celebrity appearances at a film festival be noted on the celebrities page? Or are such details better off in the seperate article about the festival? Please note, this is different from a film released at a film festival (eg.A Mighty Heart released at Cannes) and is more relevant to an actor/actress appearing at a film festival either for individual publicity or as a representative of the industry (eg.Preity Zinta and Karan Johar at Cannes 2006 representing Bollywood).

Bollywood stars are often called to host high-profile events. No doubt they are paid for this, but are details of their remuneration notable? Is their hosting the event notable? Film award ceremonies are the best example of this, where anyone from models, TV actors to mainstream stars are all found as the compares, so is it really important for the article to note if the actor/actress was the host for the evening? Contrast this with Ellen DeGeneres and Jon Stewart, who have entire sections devoted to their hosting the Oscars. So the same question comes up - which events are notable enough to mark details about who hosted it?