Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Elvis Presley filmography/archive1

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 by PresN via FACBot (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Elvis Presley filmography edit

Featured list candidates/Elvis Presley filmography/archive1

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about a guy who needs no introduction, Elvis Presley inspired a generation of musicians. His film career began with great promise, but soon became little more than a profit gimmick for both his manager and the studios. The bulk of this list was created by an IP many years ago, but was in need of being brought up to Wikipedia standards, which I believe I have done. Within the lead, I've endeavored to explain how the promise turned to disappointment for Presley. — Maile (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Frankie _talk

Comments from FrB.TG

Do you think it's a good idea to have an image of a poster of a film he has starred in?

@FrB.TG: Can you explain why this might be in error? — Maile (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the lead somehow goes into discussing his singing career when it should discuss only his films.
Alternative texts for images shouldn't use wiki-markups like [ ] ' as they do not display any results and remain as is, which does not make any sense at all.
Use the subject's full name in the ALT#2.
I honestly think that the article has a very very long lead for a career less than 20 years. It discusses his music career way too much when this is not the right place to do so.
I find a bit of trivial info in the Notes part (the table) of Feature films, such as "Presley's personal favorite", the adaptation info, and awards and nominations, especially for the films' albums.

Any chance you could look at my one? -- Frankie _talk 22:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frankie: I was concerned that the lead was too long. When I started to improve this list, it was an article with 5X the amount of prose, and much, much more trivia in the table. I'll do a rewrite on the lead, and work on getting the trivia out, but it might be a few days before I get to it. Same thing with your nomination. I'll look it over when I get a chance. — Maile (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frankie: I've made the edits. Although, I think you can't get away from the singing altogether, since the last theatrical releases and TV broadcasts were concert related. — Maile (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's relevant to add the HWoF award? Even though I know this was for his contributions to the industry, it can very well be added to his awards and nominations page.
There is a consensus not to include info like Producer, production company, box-office gross and such in an actor's filmography. I am not sure about the directors, but the producers and Studio/Distributor definitely can not be here [2].
Why are the years bold in the Feature films section?

~~I have no idea why those years are in bold. Something odd in the formatting, I think. I'll see if I can figure it out, but in the meantime if you have any ideas, please pass them along.~~ — Maile (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Oh, hooray!, I figured it out and took care of it. — Maile (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two irrelevant braces } at the end of of ref 37. -- Frankie _talk 17:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frankie: I have taken care of everything, I believe, and also re-edited the lead. I think you'll like the lead a lot better now. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better. One final thing: make sure you use {{sort}} for titles that start with 'A' or 'The' so that they are ignored. I know you have already used the template but it is missing in The Trouble With Girls, — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrB.TG (talk • contribs) 14:26, 6 November 2015

— Maile (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should have no problem endorsing the list once the televised interview query is resolved. -- Frankie _talk 12:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews removed. — Maile (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – now that everything has been taken care of, I can gladly endorse it. Good job! -- Frankie _talk 13:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and guidance. — Maile (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Oppose for now

"other cast members" and the TV listings (except for the specials) aren't necessary.
As for photos, just the Jailhouse Rock publicity shoot will suffice.
No need for his military service; that belongs in his main article.
There is nothing on the levels of critical or financial success his films had

What I've check above was taken care of. Per what Frankie linked above, there is a consensus that budget and box office do not belong in a filmography. I've looked through Julia Roberts filmography, Ronald Reagan filmography, Charlie Chaplin filmography, James Cameron filmography, Amy Adams filmography - there doesn't seem to be budget and box office (financial success) in them. I don't see "critical success" in these either, unless you are talking about winning an Oscar. Elvis didn't win awards for his acting. I think what you're asking for here really belongs on the articles for the individual films. — Maile (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awards not withstanding, what I mean is include whether critics liked or didn't like his films. See Madonna filmography for a good example. I should note that the link FrB.TG gave pertains to tables, though, does not say anything against including box office figures in lead's prose. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I understand what you mean, but I don't see that in the Featured Lists I've linked above, or in any number of others. I still believe that kind of information belongs in the individual articles for the films, and is otherwise covered in the Focus on movies section of his biography article. — Maile (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Just remove all the TV listings prior to The Frank Sinatra Timex Show: Welcome Home Elvis since talk shows and radio shows aren't supposed to be listed in filmography articles (unless hosting them), and this will be good to go. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make sure I am clear on your concerns. You are asking that talk shows and radio shows be removed. Well, there are no radio shows, so that takes care of that. Hy Gardner was a televised interview where Elvis and Gardner were the only people involved, not exactly a talk show, but I think it fits into what you are getting at. The Teenage Dance Party was a local version of American Bandstand. The only clip I've ever seen about that, is where Elvis and Wink are talking about a ring Elvis has donated for auction, and maybe that's all Elvis did there. So, maybe on a technicality that's something you are referring to. The other shows were musical variety shows with Elvis as the entertainment, no interviews involved, same thing as the Frank Sinatra show. Those shows have been out on DVD for a long time. I question whether or not anything but the Hy Gardner and Wink Martindale should be deleted. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Televised interviews and variety shows don't really belong either. What sets the Sinatra show apart from those is that it was a television special. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we get everything in a row, so there is no later question about this. I will delete what you ask, if you can provide links to policy or guidelines that back this up. This being Elvis, I can see later edit wars, maybe even during this process, if there is nothing to substantiate this. — Maile (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through WP:FILMOGRAPHY, it seems only films, TV shows (with episodes), and TV specials (which include TV films) are included. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe it might be more prudent to move the article, because we have Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record with "Television: guest appearances of Peter Sellers" (one of which was Steve Allen); Lauren Bacall on screen and stage appearing on 3 episodes of a quiz show and voicing a character on an animated episode; Terry-Thomas on screen, radio, stage and record on Toast of the Town, which was the Ed Sullivan show , and a whole slew of variety shows; Ralph Richardson, roles and awards whose credits look to include variety and/or awards shows; David Niven on screen, stage, radio, record and in print appearing on Jack Benny's variety show and an awards show; Stanley Holloway on stage and screen same thing. So, maybe this might work better if I just move the article. What do you think? — Maile (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have brought up a valid concern here. For lack of any policy or guideline to substantiate it, I've posted a question on WT: FLC Elvis Presley filmography - TV appearances. — Maile (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With or without variety shows, at least get rid of televised interviews. They're not exactly television credits and pretty much anyone can give an interview when on TV. What makes me inclined to remove them is that simply appearing on such shows doesn't really count as TV roles in the same playing playing/voicing a character on a TV show. Hosting such shows would be different since one is known to be running the show as opposed to just making a guest appearance on public TV. Essentially, "host" is a role, "guest appearance" as oneself on such shows isn't. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews removed. — Maile (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur with all of what FrB.TG says (especially with music career not belonging here). Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

~~Ref 4 has a page range with a p. which should be pp. (the second one in the cite)~~
~~Unwanted quotation mark at the end of ref 17.~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Taken care of. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~For the second comment, you'll want to have a period at the end of the cite, for consistency with the other references.~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 19:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Done. — Maile (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - But you should change Ref(s) → Ref. Thank! TheFame08 (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. — Maile (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delegates, take this thread into account if you end up making a decision on this FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Thanks for catching. Credibility of account being the question, I've also reverted the change to the list suggested by this editor. — Maile (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note

Trying to keep this moving along; with the holidays everything around here is slowing to a crawl (happens every year). @SNUGGUMS: are you still opposing this FLC? --Pres N 01:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am until the TV listings prior to The Frank Sinatra Timex Show: Welcome Home Elvis are removed Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN and SNUGGUMS: My position is stated above with links to FL articles that have such listings in them. I see no reason to remove it for this one FLC when others have been passed without television shows being removed. — Maile (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF not withstanding, they aren't officially TV credits, at least not in the sense that the other listings are. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this nomination has now been open for 2 months without garnering a lot of (valid) support, so in order to keep the nominations queue moving I'm going to have to close it. No prejudice against re-nominating at a later date. --Pres N 03:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination spent 2 months in the FLC queue and only received notice from two editors. One supported it, and the other did not. The process itself was helpful in getting this list into better shape. At the end, I moved the page from Elvis Presley filmography to Elvis Presley on film and television. It is a more appropriate and descriptive title, in keeping with other successful Featured Lists. Also in the process, the editor who did not approve the nomination did so because they believed certain television shows should be removed.

At the end of the day, how much is any editor willing to sacrifice for the possibility of sticking that little gold Feature List star on the front of the article? I felt resolute in my decision in keeping those TV shows on the list. The dissenting editor was insisting on the removal of the Dorsey shows (Stage Show), the Milton Berle shows (Texaco Star Theatre), the Ed Sullivan Shows and the Steve Allen Show. Aside from the fact that there are legitimate precedents on successful Featured Lists for keeping those, these shows were ground-breaking and of historical significance acknowledged by music critics and historians. One lone editor out of the millions on Wikipedia was not enough to make me erase that ground-breaking history as though it never happened. I have restored the two removed at the request of the editor who did approve the nomination, the Hy Gardner Calling exclusive interview with Elvis, and Wink Martindale's Teenage Dance Party. — Maile (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: I understand your frustration; it's really annoying when a list gets archived just because it didn't get enough attention, rather than because it had problems. It's, in my opinion (and the opinion of many others) the biggest problem by far with the featured processes on Wikipedia- that far too often deserving articles/lists just don't get attention from reviewers. The fact of the matter is that there's just not enough reviewers- to break even each nominator would have to review at least 3 lists, and preferably not limit themselves to specific fields; those criteria aren't met by too many nominators, so things fall through the cracks. I'm glad that the process was at least helpful for improving the list, though, even if the end result wasn't ideal.

As far as the editing dispute, only you can say what reviewer changes you want to follow; part of the reason that we have delegates to close nominations instead of just a vote count is because sometimes the nominator disagrees and gets opposed for it, and we have to decide what to do about it- it's not supposed to be that you blindly follow all reviewer commands. Just the other day I closed a review as a pass even though it had an outstanding oppose, because the specific issue left was something that was done at other FLs. At the end of the day, it's "your" list, so you have to decide what you want to do with the reviewer comments. --Pres N 01:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.