Not Tropeworthy: Franchise Actors

You can, but we didn't say anything about you. In fact, a brief glance through your editing history looks pretty good. Creating Creator.Carol Kane, Creator.Emily Mortimer, and Creator.Emily Mortimer are all great. The only correction I'd make is that we want all of their filmography. That includes making a Red Link if the work page doesn't exist yet. It isn't; you tried to submit it as an Appeal to Pity and they reacted only by judging it on how much it applied to the mission of TvTropes. Nobody singled you out and decided to go after pages you created because the vast majority of your edits have been "keeping the wiki cool!"

---

Having too many indexes gets in the way. Remove the indexing tags and it's the same sort of list as a Characters page, which is why the information should be on the work pages, not in a namespace dedicated to correcting media stereotypes.

---

Yes. As we've said, that's what this wiki is for.

---

~Synchronicity, ~klausbaudelaire, ~Khugol, ~SpongeBat1, ~JamesAustin, ~Saveelich, ~nirao01, ~Kitchen90, ~lakingsif, ~DaFlabbagasta, ~cwf123, ~unclejack, ~CorahsUncle, and ~MarshyShonen; get over here! Defend your decision to make lists of Creators without tropes!

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I don't know. Including someone's entire filmography is what IMDB does so including it here would be duplicating that. Oh wait! Aren't we supposed to avoid duplication which is what this whole pointless discussion is allegedly about in the first place?

I was informed about this discussion. I think that page is useful. I mean, there are several awards indexes here as well as for Directors, Producers, etc so viewers could see/learn which is which. I do, however, think that we should trim it. In fact I took it upon myself to moderate over the page if I have time and delete actors pages that are not franchise-related. In fact I asked that on a different discussion thread a few months ago. We should just keep the relevant franchises on the franchise actors page.

I feel franchise actor pages are a good way of quickly finding certain actors, especially considering character pages tend to be huge and sometimes foldered by character group rather than individual characters.

Came for the tropes, stayed for the cleanup.

Exactly

I agree that it makes finding actors easier, so I say keep it.

Troper Wall — DeviantArt

By the way, I wasn't trying to dispute before that other tropers did care about these indexes. I wasn't trying to ignore anybody. I just legitimately hadn't known all of these other tropers were involved in the indexes and wanted to know what you were talking about by mentioning them. Now that they've all been summoned here, I'm satisfied on that point.

So you guys want to keep it so people can more easily find specific actors? Just checking to make sure I'm correct about the current argument.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Agree.

"So you guys want to keep it so people can more easily find specific actors? Just checking to make sure I'm correct about the current argument."

Yeah, but at the same time I think we should trim its entries.

Trim how?

I'm starting to think the two compromise suggestions (putting this information in it's own namespace or adding it to Trivia) aren't so bad after all. I still don't see why the indexes themselves need to exist, and if the helpful information can be moved elsewhere, it's the best of both worlds. Right?

I don't know. We don't need a million indexes for every single creator, but I can see the benefit of having these pages to find specific actors more easily.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

There is always that the option that if you do not like the Franchise Actor indexes, you can also not look at them and not use them.

I mean... yeah, but that's not a great argument because you can say that about anything. "Don't like the misuse of Five-Man Band? Don't look at the subpages then!" ect ect ect. Different sure, but it doesn't solve any problems...

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

As someone who often makes Creator pages and have contributed to a few of those, I do see their value if only as a catalogue or a tool of navigation, similar to pages like American Series, Video Game Movies or Sportspeople.

Edited by BlackMage43 on Jan 25th 2019 at 10:34:26 AM

Don't you? Isn't that why you're making your indexes?

I guess I don't see how anyone is learning anything from any of these indexes. Who's learning anything from Miss Marple Actors? And that's not "actors who have played Miss Marple", either, that's "anyone who's ever been in a Miss Marple movie." Somebody named Richard Briers was in a Marple movie called Murder, She Said in 1961. Well, ok. What use is that to anyone? Who is gaining value from it?

It also clutters pages. Ian McKellen is on fourteen indexes, including Shakespearean Actors, which, somehow, is in Main and not Useful Notes.

Trim as in keep only those that are related to larger bodies of work. For instance take out the " [insert name of work] Trilogy" actors (or at least merge some, like the Spider Man Trilogy Actors and Dark Knight Trilogy Actors, into the larger Marvel and DC Comics Films Actors pages).

I think the ones we should keep are the related works that are in the public domain like the the aforementioned Marvel and DC comics, Jane Austen, Jules Verne, Archie comics, Charles Dickens, Hercule Poirot, Land of Oz, Peter Pan, Narnia, Dr. Seuss, Shakespeare, Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes, Stephen King, Victor Hugo, King Arthur, Dracula, Dark Horse comics, Disney, Looney Toons, and Dreamworks actor pages. I also think that long running series franchises like the Law & Order and CSI actor pages warrants a place.

Hence, why i suggested trimming them to more "mainstream, public-domain" works. I actually suggested the trimming months ago in Ask The Tropers.

Edited by makarovak47 on Jan 25th 2019 at 10:56:27 AM

I guess I'm in favor of keeping these actor pages, if only because I've extensively contributed to multiple of them. Though I'm not certain that they are strictly necessary. Personally, I think that we could try to integrate these sorts of lists better into a work article; like making lists of cast/crew members on a work (sub)page (and I don't mean Character pages, since those are dedicated to listing (mostly in-universe) tropes and information).

If we really were to mass-delete these pages (which I think would be an easily avoidable pain-in-the-ass), the least we could do to compromise is adding actor lists as Trivia items, or making a new namespace for them (like I suggested earlier, Cast/ could fit this purpose).

I disagree. These indexes are even worse than, say, Marvel Cinematic Universe Actors. Marvel Cinematic Use Actors is pointless, but at least it's a continuing series of films that shares a continuity (I guess, I've never seen any of them). Charles Dickens Media Actors is just a list of people who at some point in their careers appeared in a film based on a work by Charles Dickens. Well, OK, James Mason was in a 1974 version of Great Expectations and Claude Rains was in a 1935 version of Edwin Drood and Lon Chaney was in a 1922 version of Oliver Twist and Burn Gorman was in a 2005 version of Bleak House. All true facts, presumably, but why they're all listed together on a Useful Notes page and what use they have for anyone escapes me.

Yeah, maybe move them to a different namespace but don't (mass)delete them.

My argument about these works is that they are thought in schools. They could serve as catalogs for references. I mean for all we know there are students here who need them. They could, directly or indirectly, serve as an Unconventional Learning Experience for them too. Didn't you mentioned a while back that this site is for storytelling or learning experience or something?

I dunno. A student who wants to know about Great Expectations or David Copperfield can read those work pages. Reading work pages might lead them to film adaptations. I guess this goes back to the central puzzle, namely, what purpose these indexes serve.

There are Role Association pages, and those indexes are very useful for it. I know, it's Just for Fun. There was once a suggestion to regroup all the actors pages under the namespace "Actor/", I think it's time to put it on the table again.

Edited by Khugol on Jan 26th 2019 at 4:00:45 AM

I find them to be indexes of actors that may not have an overt use when character pages exist, but ultimately several of them (perhaps not all) do have a use - why I support them. This use is similar to the indexes of actors from Oxbridge, for example. Starring in certain franchises gives the actor a level of provenance, if the franchise is well-respected, and that's what I see the indexes being useful for.

OH MY GOD; MY PARENTS ARE GARDENIIIIINNNNGGGGG!!!!!

Started At Oxbridge

Also needs to be cut.

Now finding out that there's something called "Started at Oxbridge" drew my attention to other weird indexes.

• Comic Actors. In Main, for some reason. And randomly assembled, with people like Amy Adams and Jean Arthur and Shirley Eaton that aren't particularly "comic". And very very long.

• Double Acts and Groups. Getting past "why does this exist", and "why is this in Main"...some of these are actually double acts. Laurel and Hardy, two comic actors who starred together. Ditto Cheech & Chong. But some of these are neither acts nor groups. Levinson and Link, the writers who created among other things TV show Columbo. Not an act, not a group. And many of these are potholes! A listing that says "Peter Cook and Dudley Moore" is actually a pothole to the TV show Not Only... But Also. A line item that says "Bob Hope and Bing Crosby" is a pothole to the Road to ... series of films (Bob Hope and Bing Crosby have their own pages.)

• Shakespearian Actors, I have already complained about more than once for being in Main. And now that I look it is, yup, a really damn long list of names...presumably Tallulah Bankhead was in a staging of a Shakespeare play at least once...Lloyd Bridges, I guess...Charlton Heston? No idea.

• Scream Queens. Is Helena Bonham Carter a Scream Queen? Why? Kim Novak? Is this really "List of actresses who once starred in a horror movie?"

All of these can be found listed on Actors.

I think this indexing has gotten way out of hand.

EDIT: "Notable New Hollywood Actors" is "People who were working in the 1970s."

Edited by jamespolk on Jan 26th 2019 at 5:25:01 AM

No. I care about actors because they're real people with real impacts on art/media/pop culture. I thought I made that clear in an earlier post but I guess you weren't paying attention.

To take that example, Richard Briers was a fairly well known and beloved character actor with a decades-long career. Who's gaining value from it? I'd say anyone who's interested in the careers of British character actors and/or fans of Agatha Christie. Just because you don't think it's valuable doesn't mean others can't find value in it. Also, a number of these indexes include actors who started out playing small roles before gaining fame for leading roles (i.e. Retroactive Recognition). I'd bet not many people know that Jennifer Lawrence guest starred on Cold Case or Krysten Ritter was in an episode of Law & Order before they hit it big. So the indexes help people to get a sense of the full scope of actors' careers, not just what they're best known for.

Edited by LarryMullen on Jan 26th 2019 at 9:22:15 AM

You mentioned personal attacks before. This is one.

And that's why he has a Creator page. That's not justification for a Useful Notes page listing everybody who's ever been in an adaptation of an Agatha Christie Miss Marple story.

Similarly, people would know that Jennifer Lawrence guest-starred on Cold Case if it was on her Creator page. People would know that Krysten Ritter guest-starred on Law and Order if it was on her Creator page. That's what Creator pages are for.

Edited by jamespolk on Jan 26th 2019 at 6:27:30 AM

Ok, I went too far. I'll admit that. But you haven't exactly come across as the nicest person in this thread so you shouldn't be too surprised when others respond in kind.

I've given you my arguments and you've rejected them so it's clear we're never going to see eye to eye on this. Maybe we should just stop engaging each other altogether because we're going around in circles at this point and it's getting rather tiring.

Well, they aren't on their Creator pages. I don't think it's necessary to list every single role an actor has played on their pages. For some people, that would make their pages excruciatingly long.

Edited by LarryMullen on Jan 26th 2019 at 9:34:41 AM