Jump to content

Talk:Al Pacino on stage and screen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 29 November 2024

[edit]

– CNC33 attempted to move several of these pages at the end August/beginning of September but was reverted with the rationale that the moves had not been discussed. I'm proposing that these pages be renamed for consistency with other pages. 101 pages uses "on screen and stage" whereas 19 use "on stage and screen"

The 101 articles that follow "on screen and stage"

As such, it makes sense to have the pages follow a consistent naming scheme. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Each such list is dependent upon the content, and not all have the same thing. In some people, their legitimate stage work is more prolific, and in some it's films ... or radio, or other category. And anyone who has taken such lists through review process, such as Good Article, or Feature List, can tell you that the reviewers themselves can request the style of the end product ... or fail the review itself for any list. Yes, process consistency would be nice. But the various review projects are diverse in that regard. Changing everything now will just result in a lot of complaints and general messes of style and etc. — Maile (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where's this documented @Maile66? I'm quite active at WP:FLC and this isn't a naming convention I've seen brought up. In fact, the more I think about it, I'd likely request the rename as a reviewer myself if similar titles were brought there simply based on listing them alphabetically making more sense.
  • As for failing the nom based on the format of the title, I can tell you as someone who does the promoting of candidates to featured list (FLC delegate), I wouldn't fail a nom for a title being factored differently than a reviewer prefers, even if I personally have my own preferences. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a minor WP:TRAINWRECK. The proposed format generally works, but I agree with the above comments that some peoples' stage careers were more notable than on stage so I feel these would be best discussed individually. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're well within your right to oppose for whatever reason you see as appropriate, but I certainly wouldn't think of this proposal as anything close to a train wreck of an idea. I spend a lot of times on lists as a regular nominator at WP:FLC and as a delegate there, so list naming conventions are often on my mind. Again, fine if others disagree, but a consistent naming approach certainly isn't what I'd call a train wreck. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh I agree, seeking consistency is a noble endeavor. I just think that each of these could require more nuanced discussion as to whether each actor is more notable for being on screen or stage. IMO mass moves of 10+ pages are generally best reserved for when there's a clear policy or guideline to apply and not just a precedent to follow, but that's just my personal opinion. I'd support most of these individually, but I think there's a relatively high chance of diverging opinions that will make it hard for any consensus to be formed. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Especially given Pacino and half of the other names on this list here are more closely associated with screen than stage anyhow, so that flimsy argument is moot.
--Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 21:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Pacino_on_stage_and_screen&oldid=1260330829"