That's what I'm wondering too. See, what we're trying to say is that, although these roles might not be on their page, they do belong there and anybody can go and make the change to include those roles. If the length is a problem, just use a folder.
I never really gave much thought on the practicality of making an index just for listing actors involved in specific franchises, I simply went and added pages to applicable indexes after I created them.
I am unable to choose a side here, so it makes no difference to me whether the Franchise Actor indexes should be cut or if they should be here to stay.
Edited by crazysamaritan on Jan 26th 2019 at 12:49:40 PM
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.I guess what I take issue with is just because some works aren't featured on creator pages or not every actor in a franchise has a character blurb means we absolutely need these indexes. The problem here isn't that there's information we desperately need, but that the information hasn't been added to the proper places. Saying that it'll make the page too long or that "nobody wants" to add minor characters to pages is not an argument in favor of these indexes but rather an argument against doing the work to add this information to another place.
These indexes could very well be helpful, but they shouldn't exist if they only exist because people would rather have indexes than expand the actual pages.
We just kinda need some more convincing arguments than that. The best argument I've heard so far is that it helps people to find certain creators, and if that's the case then I still think we can find a way to put this information somewhere helpful that isn't an index, or else the clutter'll get out of hand.
Edited by WarJay77 on Jan 26th 2019 at 1:18:28 PM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI'm not saying that listing every obscure work is bad. Just that not many people might care enough to create pages for those works. But if they want to, then I have no problem with that. As for the argument that these indexes make actors' pages look "cluttered", well, they're at the bottom of the page for a reason. The most important stuff is at the top. I think you'd have to conduct a survey to see how many people are bothered by what's on the bottom of a person's page before declaring it "cluttered".
@ James Polk, post 72
:
I think there's a difference between Comic Actors etc and these Franchise Actors pages. Actors exists because we need to index creator pages for actors. If indexes get too long, we create subindexes that are more specific. Just as we split Film into Fantasy Films etc, we can split up Actors into different "styles" of actors.
To get down to it, the reason for indexes (in my opinion) is to find pages that are similar to the page you're on. Comic Actors, Shakespearean Actors etc describe a style of acting, analogous to genres for media. Actors who share those indexes are likely to have some similar tropes across their body of work, and so these indexes take info on a trope list and generalize it. And if you want to find out what what that style is/means, the index description will tell you.
Whereas for Franchise Actors, the only thing the index implies is that the characters were in a single work together. Which says almost nothing about what the actors are like, as some of these indexes like Tarzan Actors combine different media and span 70 years. And if you actually want to find out about tropes involved in these roles, the index doesn't tell you, you have to go to the works page.
Comic Actors etc. generalizes a pattern over a creator's body of works, in line with our mission of cataloguing trends and conventions in media. Franchise Actors does not do that.
"It's just a show; I should really just relax"Most actors have had roles in works that aren't part of a franchise. Just because an actor is listed in a lot of these indexes doesn't mean that we've covered every role they've ever played. There is no hypocrisy here so please stop trying to pretend that there is.
They're still on the long indexes, though. Shirley Eaton is on Comic Actors and Actors. (She's also on three work-based indexes.).
![]()
Why not list all of their works? There's no such thing as notability. Any work an actor has been in can be listed on their page. Again, you're using the fact that currently not all works are listed on the creator's pages and using it as a reason why we should have these indexes, while rejecting the point that those works can be added to those pages by claiming, subjectively, that they don't need to be.
Edited by WarJay77 on Jan 26th 2019 at 3:32:08 PM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallLet me make this clear: I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other as to whether obscure works should be listed on actors' pages. But I do have strong feelings that these indexes should remain in one form or another because of the effort myself and others have put into maintaining them.
Speaking of which, I see that the cut list has just been cleared and the cut requests have been declined. So it looks like the people in charge of TV Tropes have spoken and they say that the indexes should be allowed to stay.
Edited by LarryMullen on Jan 26th 2019 at 3:40:32 PM
![]()
True, but you can't completely assume that they were declined because people want them around. It might be because the reason for cutting them was insufficient.
I agree. This discussion is going nowhere. Let's get a crowner.
Thank you, Larry Mullen.
Also crazysamaritan, you seem to be more interested in picking and choosing to listen to certain things I am saying and harping on it until I give you an answer? That's not how it works.
I realize that Kimberly Elise and Why Did I Get Married? are in the same Tyler Perry universe, that more of his work needs to be expanded on and let's say that I do create pages for characters for more of his (and others) work. Am I expected to list every single thing they've ever done on their Creator page, red link or otherwise (and not just them, but other creators' work)? I'll ask again to bring up if an idle, barely updated work is superior to a red link? Isn't that an example of cluttering up the wiki? I'm not understanding what your argument/hostility with me is here to point of calling me a hypocrite, especially in the hopes of getting me to hear out your point of view. Plenty of people have made decent arguments on both sides of the issue without resorting to name-calling.
Are you adding to the discussion on this site, or just taking away from someone else's contributions?It's not, because having red links may inspire people to make pages, and just because a work page might be small or underwritten doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that we can just brush them under the rug. And no, we don't have to list every work a creator has ever been in, but there's no good argument for not, especially since it can all be hidden in a folder. Indexes clutter up the bottom and there's nothing to do about it.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallSuggestion, if we're having a crowner: all of these indexes and main space pages should be gone. All of them.
Where to put Creators? On general indexes: Actors, Music, and the like. On individual work pages. Possibly on franchise pages, but that should be avoided if possible—in other words, don't put Emma Watson on the Harry Potter franchise page, put her on the Harry Potter film page.
And yes, put everything on an actor's page, everything with a TV Tropes work page that is. If Krysten Ritter guest-starred on some TV show before she got famous, put it there. Elijah Wood is in Back to the Future Part II for 30 seconds? Put it on his page.
I can see the logic on Franchise Actors cluttering up indexes (and that seems to be the main point of contention of this discussion), but wanting them completely gone seems too extreme. Couldn't they just stop being indexes and existing Just for Fun?
And I do feels like some Creator indexes are worth keeping. I don't see the problem with Comic Actors or Scream Queens for example.
Edited by BlackMage43 on Jan 26th 2019 at 3:46:35 AM
It should be noted that the moderators have declined to delete this page.
In my personal opinion, while I can understand the skepticism that there should be so many different indexes that list actors for a franchise, I think that lists of these nature can still be very useful and interesting. However, I don't think that they should necessarily be Useful Notes pages. Also, they need to be subpages of work articles; as I've already proposed before, I think "Cast" would make a good new namespace. It would be a convenient way to list cast and crew members for a work.
Crown Description:
Franchise Actors is being declared Not Tropeworthy.

So listing all the roles (which can easily be condensed into a folder) on a creator page is bad, but 10+ indexes is a-okay?