Talk:Sideshow Cinema

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination: no consensus, March 20, 2007, see discussion. no consensus, March 4, 2006, see discussion.

[edit] Sideshow Cinema and it's actors

I have reverted the article back to including the actors because I think the list of actors adds to the article as opposed to taking away from the article. The actors are in a sense Sideshow Cinema. Legge uses the same actors over and over again both on stage and in his movies and television productions. The actors listed have all worked multiple times for Legge and Sideshow Cinema. Sideshow Cinema is a known production company among the cult cinema buffs. This article and these actors have been under attack for two years by people who either don't know anything about independent films and Sideshow Cinema or people how just don't like these cult indie films. Let the article be voted up or down but don't remove pertinent info that does nothing but enhance the article and inform people about Sideshow Cinema and its major actors. Plank 21:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, as I stated in the AFD, "please revert me if my change goes too far". Even with the list of actors, I believe the article should be kept at AFD (whether the list is included and/or how is an editorial issue). Could you suggest a way to integrate the sections on the actors and actresses into the article instead of listing each as a separate biographical section? I think that's the main problem the AFD nominator has with the article: not the subject per se, but rather the level of detail of content and its presentation. -- Black Falcon 23:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Black Falcon hit the nail on the head. The problem I had with the article was that the actor list overshadowed the actual subject of the article so much that it seemed non notable. When I looked at it in shortened form I felt that it was sufficiently sourced. I realize that considerable effort was put into sourcing these bios, but I do not think they should be kept in the article in their present form. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The nominator stated this, "Appears to be a list of mostly non notable actors. Seeing as this went up for deletion a year ago (no consensus) and hasn't improved much I figured I would nominate it again." He said he would remove the nomination originally if there were sources for what was stated in the article. Then, of course, when I spent a great deal of time sourcing the article, he backed away from that and came up with some reason to not follow his own statement. I don't really see what the problem is. Now that the article is thoroughly sourced and every actor listed has worked with Michael Legge as an actor multiple times why is there such a problem with these actors who make up Sideshow Cinema from being discussed? I know there was a bitter battle a couple of years ago over many of these actors because a couple of editors claimed they were non-notable and did not warrant article entries. The compromise was these actors being discussed within the confines of Sideshow Cinema, which did not seem a problem until the current nominator reasoned that he'd nominate it again because it had been nomitaed a year ago with no concensus. As stated, not really a very good reason to nominate an article for deletion. I am keeping out of the vote because I have done a lot of work on this article and some users like to use me as a reason why people should vote against an article. I hope it will stay and be inclusive of the cast members of the Sideshow Cinema productions. I encouraged the nominator not to withdraw his nomination based on the removal of the actors who make up Sideshow Cinema and he has not. Dwain 00:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify I was referring to sources that backed up the notability of Sideshow Cinema itself, on further inspection it appears half way notable. However the actors listed on this page are generally not notable and I cannot see why they should have little stub bios listed on the page of a production company. If you look up Paramount films you don't get a list of every actor who has worked for them, nor should you. I realize that Sideshow Cinema is smaller, but I still think the comparison is valid. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, ... if "Legge uses the same actors over and over again both on stage and in his movies and television productions" and this is a relatively small group (about 40 people), then a discussion of these actors would seem to belong in the article. However, it may be appropriate to restrict discussion of the actors largely (but not entirely) to their involvement with Sideshow Cinema rather than separately presenting each actors' biography. In one sense, the article already does this by limiting biographical information mostly to career history and focusing specifically on involvement with Legge and Sideshow Cinema. On the other hand, by presenting each section separately the degree to which the article is a coherent whole is diminished. -- Black Falcon 00:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the seperate headings was for linking persons from the various Sideshow Cinema film articles instead of giving actors brief backgrounds within each of the films that are included in Wikipedia. Dwain 10:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

It seems to me that about half of the article is taken up by "External links" for each actor and the large-font section headings. In most cases, biographical information about the actors is only a few sentences long and focused toward the actors' involvement with Sideshow Cinema. So, I have this proposal: merge all or most (see below) of the biographical sections into one section, format the external links as references, and keep only biographical content that is vital to the identification of a person (e.g., date of birth, famous roles) or is directly related to Sideshow Cinema. This should cut the length of the article by about half.

If there are any persons on the list who have a particularly noteworthy affiliation with Sideshow Cinema, it may be better to allocate a separate section to each. I do not think this proposal would take long to implement. However, as it would constitute a fairly substantial change in the appearance and organisation of the article, I feel it ought to be discussed. So, ... comments? -- Black Falcon 00:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Sounds good to me. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe one of the reasonings for the seperate section headings for the actors was so that in the articles on the films of Sideshow Cinema instead of refering to the history of the actors repeatedly in those articles it was very easy to link to the Sideshow article under whatever actor the person is linking from. Dwain 10:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the section headings into subsection headings; they can still be linked but take up significantly less space. Also, I have formatted (almost) all "External links" as references. The article appears much shorter now, but could still use work (removing trivial biographical information, deleting redundant references, etc.). I see it survived the AFD with 'no consensus', but think further trimming would go a long way toward addressing the concerns raised in the AFD. Please feel free to revert any changes if you disagree with them. I will limit my future changes mostly to altering the appearance of the article and minor removals of surplus content. I will note any significanct removals of content here before implementing them (and, obviously, not implement them if there is no consensus for the change). -- Black Falcon 16:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)