Talk:John Wayne filmography

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Westerns Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Western genre on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WesternsWikipedia:WikiProject WesternsTemplate:WikiProject WesternsWesterns articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Posthumous[edit]

Is it really appropriate - or even fair - to include a 'Posthumous' movie that simply uses extracts from his films to make fun of him? There is no new material, and he was not involved in any other way? Heenan73 (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars[edit]

John Wayne provided the voice of the character Garindan in the original Star Wars film. He was uncredited though. - User:1morey September 7, 2013 1:41 PM (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.247.189 (talk)

My research shows that John Wayne didn't provide his voice in the sense that he willingly recorded it specifically for Star Wars in some studio booth, instead his voice was sampled and processed into a synthesised voice for the character from some trashed recordings, which means Wayne's voice wasn't used directly and being uncredited I doubt Lucasfilms even sought permission or paid him a fee. It would be hard to credit him as being part of Star Wars career-wise, it seems rather trivial though and is perhaps more notable from a Star Wars point-of-view than Wayne's. Source: http://www.online-mixing.com/2010/08/the-sounds-of-star-wars-new-book-written-by-ben-burtt-and-j-w-rinzler/ Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you're right John Wayne did provide the voice of Star Wars a New Hope for the alien character Garindan ezz Zavor who informed the storm troopers of Luke Skywalkers whereabouts.

Anyways can we still put Star Wars 1977 in John Wayne's Filmography wikipedia page since it was his final role? I'm aware he was uncredited. By the way here's an article for John Wayne at Slash Film website link

[1]https://www.slashfilm.com/713904/the-john-wayne-cameo-in-star-wars-you-probably-never-noticed/ CrosswalkX (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Table formatting[edit]

Moved from User talk:Robsinden § John Wayne films

– Better discussed in full view. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS supersedes personal opinions. Please read WP:DTT before trying to undo months of hard work to sloppy 90s standards, and show a little respect for WP:WAI. Separate tables are better for navigation, one lengthy table is ugly and less accessible, especially for that many rows. Your opinions in the edit summary are purely subjective, whereas the MOS is a tried and tested set of standards. The split tables format has been there for over a year, without disruption – no need for you to start now. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the MOS goes, please advise where at WP:FILMOGRAPHY it says to break the table down into each year, and add useless columns regarding co-stars. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note the title "Project style recommendations" – recommendations don't exceed MOS, they merely give direction. WAI are designed to make lengthy tables easier to read, few actors have their complete filmography on Wiki, they are usually short selected filmographies. Also, WikiProjects don't own articles, custom project MOS are not replacements for wiki MOS or WAI. I don't use WP:FILMOGRAPHY because wikiprojects aren't boss here, and neither are you. Quit invoking your personal opinions. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have WP:OWNership issues here, and have asked the relevant project for opinions. The fact remains that splitting into years is pretty useless, and makes the article over 50% larger than it needs to be. You are not "boss" here either. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're breaking WP:AGF and have a stick up your arse. WP:WAI is a useless requirement? I don't think so... you are however. Enjoy your canvassing. 14:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

How does showing as a single table break WP:WAI? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having the information as a single table, such as Spencer Tracy filmography is a far more useful way of presenting the information than the sprawling mess we have currently. Perhaps you'd like to make your concerns known at the project talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's 176 f-king rows long and 9 columns wide, and harder for a reader so get the required rows when it's all clumped together in your 90s-fashioned "clump" of mud. In separate tables its navigational. That is what WAI is designed to do.. make things easier to navigate. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd rather it was accessible to screen readers than humans? I appreciate the accessibility concerns, but the information is useless to anyone like this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Did you ask "everyone" to determine that, or did you pull that rabbit out of a hat? I think I smell WP:IJDLI, rather than a sensible argument. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial#Column_headers:_good_example suggests breaking things into separate tables, this is where the current design originated. WP:FILMOGRAPHY doesn't consider even WAI standards, and does not supersede the overall MOS. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm - that example is for "avoiding column headers in the middle of the table" - not something that is an issue here. Nothing to do with the length of the table, so I'm not sure why you decided the splits were necessary. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"So you'd rather it was accessible to screen readers than humans?" – name me one unimpaired human who can't navigate the page, besides yourself? Over 600 people hit this pager PER DAY: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/John_Wayne_filmography and in a whole year, you're the first to complain. Bureaucratic, that's what you are – people like me strive to create accessible but visually impressive articles, and people like you bring sledgehammers to them and turn them into Lego, all grey and bland with no appeal, thus reducing the audience's interest. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our purpose isn't to make things pretty, but to present the information in the most useful way - this seems to be the only filmography to adopt this method, and it jars. Were the table sortable, we could see all the films directed by Don Siegel or John Ford (for example), or all the films he made for RKO grouped together. If we reduce this to a single table, perhaps you'd like to do the necessary cleanup that you seem to think is missing from the plain-form table. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, when the articles were merged the tables were top-headed and would have been split horizontally. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Wayne_filmography_%281926%E2%80%931940%29&oldid=516790216 for how it did look. So yes, the link is relevant. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I can see the logic as to how it happened, but the information is still better presented in a single table. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and the UK is better in the EU, if you enjoy a dull life without distinction. In short, I disagree.. and as no one else has sought reason to complain in over a year since the merge, I think you're mistaken. WP:IAR when the going is good, and until you decided do drive a steam roller into the square, the article was 100% free of bad edits. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's clear we're not going to find a compromise between the two of us - let's see what the relevant project think. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it, I'm not partaking in it – far as I'm concerned, everything is good and has been for 13 months; I'll just wait and see if you either get sufficient consensus to do otherwise or form an irksome WP:RANDY in your favour. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for something similar, I had a look at Spencer Tracy filmography and Christopher Lee filmography. Other than the rowspan (which I purposely avoided when merging these tables), I fail to see how anything like this can break a screen reader. The plain and simple approach reduces the page load time dramatically. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rowspanning doesn't "break" anything – once you begin sorting the spanned rows split into single cells. The page load time isn't slow, as there are hardly any images and the tables are not complex because there is no nesting and some widths are fixed. That's a fairly desperate excuse.. there are far bigger and bulkier tables on Wiki which are slower yet survive scrutiny: List of castles in England – try that for "size". Note also, it has a custom TOC, a "Natural TOC" isn't a requirement, else they wouldn't give us means to create them, again it was degrading the content to the basics; far removed even from FL. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to a "natural" TOC after merging the tables, as there were no longer all the section breaks for each year. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great. FYI I have no issue with removing "leading lady" columns, I didn't add them in the first place, I just never took time to remove them either. It's more finicky than productive, so it's on your clock. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you once already, WP:Filmography does not take priority over WP:MOS, as WikiProjects custom MOS are only meant to ~~support~~ supplement formats, not replace them. I find it pretentious that you think otherwise. I will also note that we are BOTH likely to have breached WP:3RR by now. I suggest you run along to your Wikiproject and await the conclusion of the discussion you started, as you are jumping the gun by attempting to enforce standards that contravene MOS, reducing the article in question to war editing over lesser-MOS layouts. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is removing the bolding and centering of the first column against the MOS? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Correct table captions shows a filmography uncentered and unbolded! Please demonstrate that the centering and bolding is not just your personal preference. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section you gave is about the caption not the content. I highly doubt they created a full representation of the MOS when the focus is on the caption. Also, there are hundreds of tables in Wiki, many of which use bolding and centering for the primary column. It's a matter of "first come, first served", similar to WP:ENGVAR – if a table is created by an initial editor in a certain way that is not contrary to MOS, there is no good reason for other editors to impose basic styles on it. The examples you are giving don't state in the prose around them "X must not be bold, Y must not be centered" – you are simply using rhetoric to create a false illusion that all tables must be a facsimile of that particular example, which you have cherry-picked. Again, MOS:TABLES is father to WP:FILMOGRAPHY and it does not enforce the draconian practices which you follow. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, per MOS:TABLES, the filmography example table shows the film title unbolded and left justified. Now, I appreciate that this is not a hard-and-fast rule, but generally, all the examples in the MOS for filmographies are like this, and to my point of view, it's certainly a more pleasing format. Why should we not follow all of these examples? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, regarding the split of the table into year-by-year sections is against MOS:TABLES also "Splitting lists and tables per summary style is advised against". --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This page discusses when and how tables should be used on Wikipedia." – the example on MOS:TABLES is of a table vs a list and how the data can be better presented; the page pays no mind to any form of styling, only how a table can be used in a list's place.

You also need to learn what "summary style" actually pertains to: It involves creating a short summary in a main article and then placing the full topic of that summary on a separate page. i.e. John Wayne filmography for 1928; John Wayne filmography for 1929; 1930, and so forth. One page embodies an entire filmography, it does not link to several summarised per year. So you're wrong there. The term "pleasing format" is a subjective one, I for one don't like grey walls of films treated like data on non-scientific articles, when the genre is entertainment. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, the styling here seems unique to these particular filmography tables. WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, for the sake of consistency, there's no reason not to go down the left-aligned, unadorned text route. It's also the only filmography table I've seen that splits year-by-year. What makes this one any different? However you want to interpret MOS:TABLES, a single, simple, non-aligned and unadorned table is still the best way to present the information. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of alignment, the cells still contain English words, and your average reader has no trouble reading the content of a cell because it is self-contained, alignment would only make it had to follow if there were no cell boundaries to unconsciously guide our eyes to the words. Left-alignment does nothing special, in fact it just clumps the content to the left making the appearance rigid. These basic styles have been around since the internet began, they're not unusual to anyone. It's not a matter of consistency, but presentation. The data is presentable without doing anything controversial. There is nothing inherently wrong with centering or bold. In essence, you're creating a storm in a teacup which reeks of WP:IJDLI. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 17:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be my personal preference against your personal preference, but as ALL other filmography tables follow a particular formatting, which happens to coincide with my preference, and there is no good reason not to follow the examples and precedent, it seems that your argument could also be considered WP:ILIKEIT. Admittedly my initial merge of the table was clumsy, but we can create one single table that addresses your initial WP:ACCESS concerns. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As director section?[edit]

It isn't obvious, from the way the tables currently are, that Wayne directed any films - we should find a way to make this obvious, perhaps in its own section. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going by Category:Films directed by John Wayne – and I haven't checked if there are more – but there weren't many, he produced more. There was one film he directed but refused to take credit for, as he had taken over from the original director who had become ill, Raoul Walsh if my memory serves right, and completed the film for him, but I can't recall which title. He's also uncredited for co-directing The Undefeated, North to Alaska, and perhaps a couple more. They're probably detailed in my The John Wayne Filmography (or Encyclopedia of Westerns if it was a Western) book, which is as good a source as any. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 12:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Studio column[edit]

I don't see the point of having the Studio column on his filmography? It's unnecessary when almost all the films have their own page for anyone who would want to know what studio it was filmed with and certainly goes against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]