Talk:List of Recurring Actors

Deletion request

A clearly personally motivated deletion request, by Nerdtastic, since I disagreed with them on another matter.

It is a commonly made claim that few actors appear in different roles in Bond films. This page disproves that.

Also some of these actors currently have no pages of their own disproving Nerdtastic's claim.-RayBell (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

If there are missing actor pages, it would be an actual benefit to the wiki for you to make those... As I've previously told you, you should ask permission from admins before creating lists like these, as admins should give you permission, that's just good manners if nothing else... And it's not "personally motivated", it's just me knowing how these wiki's work, please stop taking everything so personally.--Nerdtastic1221 (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It isn't of benefit to this wiki to chase people off, and that's not the only shenanigans I've noticed. It is increasingly obvious that's why this wiki has so many short term editors who don't stick around. Over a thousand people apparently... Even Wikipedia has better coverage of James Bond in most areas. It should be the other way round. It's not good manners either to tell people it is "dull" if they disagree with you, it's juvenile and bad mannered. If you go round trying to delete articles which have actually had some thought put into them... and then wonder why someone is disputing it.

You want actor pages for these folk, but I don't see you creating them yet. In fact you're lucky if most actor pages on here are three paras long, and then category for them has now been given an ambiguous name.-RayBell (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

And, just to be clear, if an admins decides that they want to keep the page, that's fine with me, you're just adding pages without consulting with anyone first... There needs to be discussion first.--Nerdtastic1221 (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You contradict yourself. There is also only one admin on here, so you are creating a lot of work, going through thousands of articles. But if you think that, it would explain why this Wiki is lucky to get one edit on some days. (I'm on one which is even slower, but that's because it has under ten editors in total.)

"please stop taking everything so personally" - I think you need to apply that advice elsewhere. Your timing suggests that. There is an "actual benefit" to this page, i.e. all this info together isn't to be found elsewhere. -RayBell (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not a contraction, there is only one admin yes, but they are welcome to appoint more admins if they choose to... and currently I only see you making new pages that would need approving, so that's not a great deal of work... And I'm not taking anything you say personally, I'm not attacking your character at all, I'm just explaining how wikis should work.--Nerdtastic1221 (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You're giving a personal opinion, and I doubt your sincerity with it in this instance. The timing and focus are a bit too specific. -RayBell (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC) p.s. I said "contradiction", not "contraction", but I'll put that one down to your autocorrect.

Whether it debunks a claim or not does not merit the article's existence. For the most part, its pretty much the same as Wikipedia's article on the subject and we tend to operate differently than that particular site. We really need to scale back the number of lists we have - this includes gadget lists, which are all barely maintained. Instead we need to focus on creating quality standalone articles; in this case, of the actors themselves and collect them in a category (as has already been done). If an actor article does not exist, create one and fill it out to a decent amount. AndyTGD (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This Wiki could do with more content, not less. In several instances, you can find more information on Wikipedia than on here, when it should be the other way round. The articles on actors, even very notable actors, are often extremely short, or non-existent in some cases.

"Whether it debunks a claim or not does not merit the article's existence." - The unique selling point of this site should be the fact that it includes info not to be seen elsewhere... otherwise it calls into question the purpose of this entire thing. It should be ahead of the game, not walking ten paces behind it.-RayBell (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC) p.s. I notice the total recorded number of editors on here is in the four figure range. I know some of these will have been here for only one or two edits, but it does beg an obvious question. This isn't an obscure subject.