Template talk:Christopher Nolan
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christopher Nolan template. |
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Structure of template
[edit]All others are seperated by years, why should this one be any different?--TheMovieBuff (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with TheMovieBuff. Unless someone has only directed a few films, then I could see the current template as acceptable. However, Chris now has seven films to his credit as of this writing. There is absolutely no reason for the template to not be like all others. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Splitting these director templates up by decades is a completely arbitrary structure. It works for directors like Woody Allen who has scores of films, but at the moment splitting it up for Nolan does not help readers navigate. Nolan, at the moment, has too few films for this structure to be useful. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I’ve been splitting up the decades, and I agree with TheMovieBuff and Cartoon Boy. There is NO reason that his template should be any different from those of other film directors. 67.238.37.237 (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Splitting these director templates up by decades is a completely arbitrary structure. It works for directors like Woody Allen who has scores of films, but at the moment splitting it up for Nolan does not help readers navigate. Nolan, at the moment, has too few films for this structure to be useful. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Nothing is being accomplished by repeatedly reverting each other's edits. --Boycool (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Is there an in-between solution that could be used? I understand how Following is oddly presented as an outlier. What about combining the 1990s and the 2000s and leaving the other fields? If The Dark Knight Rises begins production, it can be in the same row as Inception. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Distinction between short films and feature films
[edit]I see no benefit in grouping short films and feature films together. Nolan is known primarily for his feature films, so readers would be misled to think that Doodlebug and Quay are also feature films until they find out otherwise. Do we need a third opinion? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Categories:
- Template-Class film pages
- Template-Class British cinema pages
- British cinema task force articles
- Template-Class American cinema pages
- American cinema task force articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- Template-Class biography pages
- Template-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) pages
- NA-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) pages
- Actors and filmmakers work group articles