Talk:Al Leong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Initial notes

The funny thing about the Fametracker web site is that I created the Photoshopped image they use for my (long since defunct) Golden Horde: The Al Leong Fan Club web site. I don't begrudge them using it, of course: I'm glad someone out there is paying Al the respect he deserves.

I have put all of the filmographic data I have online. Note: some of this is written tongue-in-cheek, and may need a bit of revision to be appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. There are a few gaps. Maybe someone can fill those in. My next step is to go through and Wiki-link the more interesting cross-references (e.g., Andy Sidaris, Rambo, Genghis Khan). Anyone who would like to help with that has my blessing. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This article fails to explicitly point out a very important detail: Al Leong's Bacon number is 1! (71.233.165.69 05:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Cleanup?

This article has been tagged for "cleanup", but no mention of what may be needed has been discussed. Let's discuss the article before we go tagging it with things. If the article needs changes, what are those changes? -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-01-17 T 19:22 Z

For starters, the tone of most of the filmography is waaay too informal and very unencyclopedic. dfg 21:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
This isn't an encyclopedia: it doesn't have fact-checking or a real editor. Real encyclopedias don't let any moron edit any article they want. This is a glorified blog, not an encyclopedia. That being said, if you want to re-write some entries to make the prose tighter, be my guest. I said when I posted all that stuff that I knew it needed work. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-03-11 T 22:35 Z
I checked your userpage, and knowing that you're familiar with Wikipedia saves me some typing-of-the-obvious. So lemme cut to the chase and ask, if you're so worked up about how unprofessional this project is, why are you getting offended about someone stating the obvious in that "Way to go, Al!" doesn't belong in an entry? Why not create a private webpage where you can write all the slavering fanboy prose you want? You burned out on WP, fine, you're not alone, but WP isn't yours exclusively and you don't have the right to subvert the last remaining articles in which you have interest.
One solution to "improving" this article's POV and unencyclopedic violations would be to remove all the offending sections until someone comes up with something better. That has the potential to start an edit war, and I read that you're tired of that kind of bs, and I have no interest in it either. Instead of that, I'll keep it confined to this talk page, and hope that another editor comes along and realizes that work needs to be done here. Lots of it. dfg 16:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
As I said, if you want to re-write some entries to make them cleaner and less informal, be my guest. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-03-23 T 04:21 Z
I removed the clean up tag. As long as this page stays in its current incarnation without irrelevant masses of information, I don't think it warrants any more attention. Vesperholly 08:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tables

I can't for the life of me figure out why those first few tables don't work and the rest of them do. I've gone over it with a fine-toothed comb and I can't find any difference that would account for it. Oh well... Felicity4711 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding a left brace at the beginning of the first table seems to help, but then the table is way too wide and for some reason everything from Black Rain onward is boldfaced, if I do that. Adding a space after the final pipe in a table seems to help, too, but not enough. I'm stumped. I guess I'll RTFM -- that is, when I have time. Right now I have to go to work. Felicity4711 22:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't go replacing normal apostrophes and quotation marks with HTML tags. I've changed them back. As for the table thing, I reverted it to the version which was legible, and added the They Live entry that you contributed (good entry, too -- I had no idea he was in that). -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-01-26 T 02:46 Z

[edit] Good article

Hi,

The GA tag was added to this article without going through the nomination process. It has now been removed, please don't re-add it without nominating the article at this page.

Thanks,

Cedars 13:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article

This article offends my eyes. I'm not good at sounding serious, so someone please fix this. To whoever wrote the article this way, fall in a well and stay forgotten. Ace ofspade 18:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is language so informal? ' battling yellow turbans (and winning!) in the alleyway' '(Hey, it's an impressive scream.)'. 14:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Because that is how it was originally written. Feel free to re-write some entries to make them cleaner and less informal. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well...

Okay, cute and clever and excellent for a blog sort of thing, but not for an encyclopedia. I dunno if User:Bblackmoor is still reading this at all, but perhaps I could move whatever scant dialogue he had in films to wikiquotes? I'll remove the synopsis of the films and instead make a filmography section. Basically I'm asking for a radical reduction. Sorry. Tamarkot 19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to delete anything that is not verifiable. Feel free to rephrase anything that is not NPOV. Feel free to delete anything that isn't notable and relevant to this article. However, Leong's dialogue is notable, because it is one of the distinguishing characteristics of his roles -- his dialogue, or lack thereof, is part of what makes Leong himself notable. Removing Leong's dialogue from the article would be like removing the paintings from the article on Vincent van Gogh -- it would eliminate a major portion of what makes the article relevant to its subject. As for removing the synopses, that would be acceptable as long as the verifiable information contained in them is moved to another Wikipedia article (one for each film, presumably). However, be aware that since one of Leong's signature attributes is that he is a bit player, Leong's appearance in a film might not be notable in an article devoted to that film, while it is notable in an article devoted to Leong himself. Ergo, much of what is currently contained in the film synopses may be notable only within the context of this article -- and thus, should stay in this article. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work!

Good work by user:ONUnicorn and user:Ace ofspade on the article. Thanks. Your efforts are greatly apppreciated. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work by user:PlatinumX and user:Gator MacReady. Your efforts are appreciated. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work by user:Sumahoy. Precise categories are a joy to behold. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2006-12-28 20:03Z

[edit] Wholesale deletion of article content by AspiraDude

user:AspiraDude deleted most of the article's content. I would not characterize this as vandalism, per se, but at the very least it was not the result of discussion and consensus, nor was any valid reason given for the deletion of the article's content. I have therefore reverted AspiraDude's changes. Feel free to delete anything that is not verifiable. Feel free to rephrase anything that is not NPOV. Feel free to delete anything that isn't notable and relevant to this article. Feel free to discuss anything else. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is WAY TOO MUCH INFORMATION. ITA with dfg in the Cleanup section. That depth of information simply does not belong on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Article_size. I'll "feel free" to delete what I think is inappropriate for Wikipedia, not the fans of Al Leong, thanks. If you think people care to know all that information about Al Leong, create a website and link to it from here. Don't shove his entire 20-year career down our collective throats. Vesperholly 08:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
You do not think Wikipedia is an appropriate place for detailed, verifiable, NPOV information? I will respectfully agree to disagree. As for "shoving something down your throat", no one is forcing you to read an article in which you clearly have no interest. There are much longer articles on Wikipedia than this one, which do not interest me. Should I go and delete large portions of them for that reason? I think not. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I have an interest in relevant information. Entire lists of dialogue and descriptions of characters which don't even have names are completely irrelevant and make this article very difficult to read. A minor character actor like Leong does not justify a page that is the same length as Steven Spielberg's article. I'm interested in why you think Leong's article should be as long as Spielberg's. Perhaps you can elucidate me. Vesperholly 21:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to defend this article's length in comparison to the length of any other Wikipedia article: that is not a relevant concern. However, if you would like work on Spielberg's article to make it longer, then of course you should feel free to do so. Incidentally, "elucidate" does not mean what you appear to think it means. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this article. Seeing every death of a career villain listed in a row is a kick, and a chart like the one on this page would fit in very well on a "bad movies" site. However, it doesn't really belong on Wikipedia, even if it's verifiable, interesting, and funny. It's not about length so much as whether the content is encyclopedic or not. I have no problem with the Al Leong article being as long or longer than Steven Spielberg's, but if the content is a chart of funny quotes, lengthy descriptions of roles, and causes of death, then it really belongs on a humor/movie buff site rather than an encyclopedia. Snurks T C 21:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Providing a comprehensive reference is an encyclopedia's raison d'etre. There is no precedent, as far as I know, for excluding verifiable information from Wikipedia simply because the topic is related to pop culture. I could be mistaken; if so, please provide a reference so that I may correct my error. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That suggests to me that the inclusion of minutae is inappropriate, and best left to a fan site. Pruning, to the extent of just listing the filmography, and a section higlighting the bit part nature of his roles would seem to be a satisfactory resolution. -- Princess Tiswas 18:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" does not appear to apply to this article. Other than the "plot summary" example, the examples given in that section generally have to do with "how to" type subjects. And while this article does contain (very abbreviated) plot information, it is used here "as an aspect of a larger topic". -- BBlackmoor (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The list is indiscriminate, in that it makes no attempt to put the filmography into any context of notability. This goes against the letter of wikipedia, and perhaps, more importantly, against the spirit. The inclusion of a synopsis for each film is redundant - this is covered in the the entry for each film (where there is one). I've cleaned up the section inline with my previous suggestion :: Princess Tiswas 19:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Leong's filmography is not indiscriminate -- the discriminating factor is that it's a list of films in which he has appeared. Nor are the synopses of the films redundant with the listings for the films themselves: as has already been pointed out, one of the earmarks of Leong's appearances is that he plays minor characters who nearly always die, and who would ordinarily not even be mentioned in a film's conventional synopsis. The content you deleted is relevant to this article, the subject of the article is notable, and the content itself is written from a neutral point of view (although of course it can be improved), it is verifiable, and it is not original research. That you do not find the subject of the article interesting has absolutely no bearing, and that is not sufficient reason to go deleting half of it. I have reverted your ill-considered and wholly unnecessary deletions. -- -- BBlackmoor (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted the changes back to the previous version, for the very reasons given above. The inclusion of pedantic minutae to illustrate a point merely adds bloat. It's apparent that you have an issue with wikipedia in general, inasmuch as can be garnered from your user page, and this article has become your own private sandbox. I suggest this article be tagged for review by a wider audience. - Tiswas(t/c) 16:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
"I've reverted the changes back to the previous version, for the very reasons given above." Reverted back. The arguments to which you refer have been addressed. If you have anything new to add to the discussion, please do so here before unilaterally deleting valid, verifiable, relevant neutral content. -- -- BBlackmoor (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asian American

I have reverted Mr Tan's edit, where he replaced the "Asian-American Actor" category with "Chinese-American Actor". I reverted it because although Leong looks Asian (and I suppose that's important to some people), we have no evidence or references to verify the assertion that Leong identifies himself as "Chinese-American". Personally, I find the introduction of categories like "Asian-American" and "Chinese-American" offensive and inappropriate. On the one hand, he was born in the USA, and he's a US citizen. That makes him an American. No hyphen. On the other hand, categories like "Asian-American" are meaningless: the vast bulk of the people living in the USA have ancestors from numerous continents. The whole concept of "[whatever]-American" is inane, in my opinion. However, I have simply reverted the category instead of deleting it, because I know I am outnumbered by those who think such a category is relevant. -- -- BBlackmoor (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edit by HongQiGong for the same reason. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-02-04 08:28Z

I find it really rather strange that it should be "offensive" to point out that someone is Asian American or Chinese American, as if it should be shameful to be Asian or Chinese in the US or something. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Racism is shameful. An American is an American. However, if you cite a source that verifies that Leong identifies himself as "Chinese American", then that assertion can stay in the article. Until then, it does not belong in the article. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-02-04 18:33Z

[edit] Small changes made

I know that Bblackmoor cares deeply about this article, but in the process of adding wikilinks, I had to change some of the more tongue-in-cheek and colloquial turns of phrase. Wikipedia is actually an encyclopedia and should be written as such, but the language had to be slightly cleaned up, while I left the format and spirit of the article intact. JesseRafe 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said back in 2005, "some of this is written tongue-in-cheek, and may need a bit of revision to be appropriate for an encyclopedia entry." I think you have done excellent work. Well done. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-01-08 03:55Z

[edit] Request for feedback

I've posted a request for feedback on this article, to address concerns regarding overall style and content. The aim is to achieve a more rounded consensus, from a wider audience. - Tiswas(t/c) 12:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted your inappropriately-placed "examplefarm" template ("inappropriate" in the sense that it has no bearing or relevance to this article). If you wish to improve the article, then do so: delete anything that is not verifiable; rephrase anything that is not NPOV; delete anything that isn't relevant to this article; add verifiable information where it is lacking; etc. In other words, improve the article by improving the article. It is clear from your user page and your edit history that you are a great fan of templates, but perhaps you ought to be more judicious in their use. Arbitrarily inserting irrelevant templates into an article merely defaces it, to the detriment of Wikipedia. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-08 19:54Z
On the contrary, templates flag articles that can otherwise be improved, inviting editors with a more vested interest in an article to make such improvements. The relevance of the template, in the context of this article, is that it highlights the indiscriminate listing of all of Leong's appearances, for the purpose of providing examples of his characters' deaths. If this article were to be considered a good article, which I am sure you would like to see, judging by your continued and conscientious monitoring, it would appear prudent to trim the section to list each appearance, going into detail in the more notable and pertinent examples. My personal may be for predilection for tagging, but I do so advisedly, and with due consideration - I will freely admit that, in this case, a comment in the talk page would have been wiser. In the meantime, I am re-adding the tag - You may, of course, revert this as you see fit, but I would prefer to seek some consensus, as opposed to it becoming a bone of contention. The {{tone}} tag, I would agree, is now all but redundant. - Tiswas(t) 22:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The tag is inappropriate. The filmography is not simply a list of examples, such as might be found in an article on the Pythagorean Theorem. In such a case, one or two examples is sufficient to illustrate the theorem. On the contrary, the filmography in this case is a large part of the point of the article. A seeker of knowledge who wished to learn more about Leong might well wish to see for themselves how and when Leong's character died in, say, They Live. Due to the nature of Leong's roles, it would be very easy for someone to miss that, even if they knew he appeared in the film. Ergo, a person investigating Leong -- for a research paper on pop culture in cinema, or on stuntmen, for example -- would begin looking for information on Leong's roles in the first place many people look for relatively obscure but verifiable information: Wikipedia. Your preferences for gutting the article notwithstanding, Leong is a notable figure in American cinema, having appeared in dozens of films; the distinctive nature of his roles is that they are for the most part nameless and short-lived (thus rarely meriting a mention in an article devoted to the film itself), and information on those roles belongs in an encyclopedia article ostensibly devoted to Leong. I say to you again: if you want to improve the article, then improve the article. If you do not have anything worthwhile to contribute to this article, I am sure there are other articles which would be more productive recipients of your efforts. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-09 20:44Z
The tag is entirely appropriate. I'm not suggesting that a list of Leong's filmography is inappropriate - I'm flagging the fact that it is is being indiscriminately used to illustrate the point of the article. A more judicious us would be, as I have already suggested, to offer pertinent examples from his more notable appearances. As it stands, the filmography is entirely a list of examples to illustrate a synthesised point, which is, in itself, unsourced and original research.
Insofar as research is concerned, Wikipedia is, as you state, a starting point. By the same token, it is not the finishing point. It is a repository for third party information, not for synthesised work or for original research. Neither is it intended to be exhaustive and indiscriminate. Wikipedia reports on other peoples conclusions that Leong dies in all his films, and cites references to these conclusions - A researcher would go further than Wikipedia to draw their conclusions.
My preference is not to gut the article, per se, but to improve it (or, rather, flag it for improvement, which is equally as valid an edit, and not a reason for reversion on its own). Perhaps you should be reminded that you do not own this article. If you feel that my continued edits are inappropriate, you should seek to obtain a wider consensus. In the meantime, I have replaced the tag, both as a constructive criticism of the article, and as an invitation to others to make the necessary improvements. Neither the article nor its talk page is the place to discuss the merits of tagging as a practice - Tiswas(t) 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is a starting point -- and you appear to want that starting point crippled. This is not appropriate. Nor is the "example" tag appropriate, as the filmography is -- as I have already stated -- not merely a list of examples to illustrate a concept or process, but are themselves the point of the article. Your assertion that any reference to the purpose of an article is "original research" is simply fatuous. The purpose of every article is to provide information on the article's subject, and the Wikipedia requirement that an article's subject be notable is evidence enough that we are supposed to think in terms of what is relevant when constructing an article. Leong is known for a particular type of role, and that assertion is supported by external references. Q.E.D. And no, of course I do not own this article -- numerous people have worked on this article, and I am merely one of them. That does not mean I will sit idly by while a lone-wolf editor defaces an article that a number of people have spent time improving and cleaning up. A good article is a good article, and just because it doesn't belong to me (any more than any other Wikipedia article) is no reason to allow it to be made worse through the well-meaning but misguided efforts of an editor who apparently thinks that Wikipedia articles should not be informative if the subject pertains to pop culture. I won't even address your attempts to short-circuit discussion and consensus through the use of ad hominem attacks and other fallacies, other than to say that they won't work.
I have now addressed your points, such as they are, at least twice. If you have anything new to discuss with reference to the article, or you have any improvements or additions you would like to make, feel free to discuss them. Or be bold, and add new content on your own, and we can discus them afterward if they are controversial. Inappropriate tags, however, are neither new content nor are they improvements, and if you insist on adding them without consensus or discussion, they will be removed. I say to you again: if you want to improve the article, then improve the article. If you do not have anything worthwhile to contribute to this article, I am sure there are other articles which would benefit from your efforts. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-13 13:17Z
By the way, I happened to notice that the Olympic_medals article lists every city in which the Olympics have been held, along with the number of tims that the city has hosted the games. Perhaps you should rush over and tag that with your "examplefarm" tag. More people monitor that article than this one, and you would soon get "wider consensus" on the appropriate use of this tag. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-13 13:26Z
In no way does the tag cripple the article. If that were the case, it implies that the use of cleanup templates would not be tolerated on a wider scale - if you wish to make a point regarding the value of tags in the context of defacement, this should be dealt with at the village pump.
On which note, accusasations, such as that of being fatuous are both uncivil and against the spirit of the wikipedia community. The notion that I have made any ad hominem attacks is equally baseless. If you wish to maintain that I have done so, you should note it at WP:ANI, or one of the many other channels that administrators monitor. Equally, this goes for accusations of defacement, and suggestions that I am short-circuiting wikipedia practice.
Improvement may also come by means of subtraction. The article has too many examples, of films which are covered elsewhere, and which do not materially add to the article after a point, and diminish from the article's quality. An exhaustive example list is fine for a fan page, but not for an encyclopaedia, as the tag states.
You appear misdirected in drawing a parallel with the Olympic Games - The host cities are listed, but not used as examples to support a synthesised conclusion. I have no objection to this article including a list of appearances, with the more notable appearances being used to illustrate the roles for which Leong has become known (Which, in itself, needs to be cited - along the lines of an article or reference along the lines of "Al Leong - he's always dying". It's not enough that this conclusion is drawn from examples or references - The assertion must be from a third party, reliable source).
I have replaced the tags. If you still feel that they are inappropriate, again, please feel free to take this to a ""wider audience"". - Tiswas(t) 14:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
In the interests of avoiding 3rr, edit warring & the page becoming battleground, I have requested a third opinion- Tiswas(t) 14:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to be drawn into some pointless argument with you, despite your goading. I plan to stick to the basics: making the article better and sticking with the core Wikipedia policies of notability, verifiability, and NPOV. If you want to discuss improvements to the article in order to better abide by those policies, I will be happy to discuss it. If you wish to continue your ad hominem attacks and utterly irrelevant complaints, you will be talking to yourself. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-13 21:32Z
If I am goading you, please be sure to point this out to an administrator, as it is against the spirit of wikipedia. If I am making ad hominem as well, you should definitely take this issue to WP:ANI. In the meantime, I'm going to replace the tag, and leave the article, and this talk space, alone for a time, if nothing else to allow us both a little space and time for due consideration - Tiswas(t) 08:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


Here from third opinion. The article is a trainwreck and the list needs to be scaled down a LOT with far fewer examples than it currently has. Leave the template and clean it up. --132 17:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to contribute to the article, by all means do so. Do you have more information? Better sources? Would you like to improve the clarity of the text? Have you suggestions on how to make the point of view more neutral? I look forward to reading your contributions to the article. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-13 21:32Z
Please go to WP:3O before questioning my knowledge of the subject or ability to edit the article. Third Opinion is a page where someone can place a request for a...third opinion. The third opinion should come from someone who is looking in from the outside and has no vested interest in the article or the argument that way their third opinion can be as neutral and objective as possible. A request was made for a third opinion, I came in and gave my third opinion, and you are welcome to take that how you wish.
However, questioning whether my opinion was valid because of my lack of knowledge or inability to find sources has nothing to do with the WP:30 request and your clear sarcasm is, indeed, rather uncivil. The argument was about the style of the article and the inclusion of a particular tag. I looked at the article, saw a trainwreck, decided that the tag was much needed and stated that opinion. If I had an interest in or wanted to edit the article, I would not be a neutral third party and, therefore, should not give my opinion about this argument when a third opinion is requested. Since I am not attached in any way, my third opinion is entirely valid.
If you still have a disagreement, please take it to dispute resolution. --132 21:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
To whom are you replying? Certainly not me, as I never questioned your ability to edit the article nor the validity of your opinion. On the contrary, I welcome your constructive input and look forward to your contributions. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-14 12:10Z

[edit] Cleanup and tone

An extensive amount of work has been done on this article since the "cleanup" template was added in June of 2006. Among other improvements, a number of editors have gone through and cleaned up intra-wiki links, improved the tone to make it consistently encyclopedic, and fact-checked the filmography. Has this article been improved sufficiently to remove the cleanup/tone template? (I think it has.) -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-08 19:35Z

[edit] "Unencyclopedic lists"?

Unlike the tag that Princess Tiswas kept adding to this article, the "unencyclopedic list" template that Tikiwont has applied is, at least, used correctly and appropriately. However, unlike the previous templates applied to this article (concerning its tone, primarily -- template tags which I wholeheartedly supported as being useful and constructive to the improvement of the article), I disagree with the goal of this tag and with the assumptions on which it is based. I disagree with the premise that lists are somehow "unexcyclopedic". I would posit that lists of relevant, verifiable information about notable subjects is precisely encyclopedic, and sometimes that is the most practical way of structuring such information. From reading the talk page devoted to that template, I can see that I am hardly alone in this opinion. Based on the precedents set by other articles on Wikipedia, I would go so far as to say that this "lists are bad" mentality is in the extreme minority. But I will let someone else remove the template. I have done enough cleanup on this article lately. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-15 03:03Z

I don't have such a strong opinion on lists in general. It's the second time that I apply this particular tag and I wasn't so aware that it may be understood in the sense that lists in general are unecyclopedic nor would I want to say so. I think there is a problem with the template and have explained that further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Laundromat. I added the tag to defuse somehat the dispute about the other tag and because the section certainly needs attention in my opinion. On further consideration, what we have at Al Leong#Filmography is actually an unformatted table with a lot of unreferenced text and I've removed the tag for both reasons. To move beyond taggging, I've summarized below a proposal for this section.--Tikiwont 09:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC), expanded on 14:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation and Writer's Reel

I have removed the citation tag, because the vast majority of the content of this article is thoroughly documented. "Wikipedia:Verifiability says that attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." That certainly does not apply here. In fact, there is only one passage in the entire article that is not directly supported by reliable references, and that's this:

In 2003, Leong lampooned himself as well as the Hollywood tradition of actor and director 'reels' by starring in screenwriter Dave Callaham's "Writer's Reel." In the five minute short film, Leong portrayed Callaham going through a typical day in the life of a writer. The 'reel' was accepted into a number of short film festivals.

I have not been able to find any references to support this passage, anywhere. Per Wikipedia policy, "All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately." I wouldn't consider this contentious (no one has contested it, Q.E.D.), so I do not think this warrants immediate removal. However, if some kind of supporting documentation is not provided in a reasonable amount of time, I do think it ought to be removed, at least until supporting references can be found. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-15 03:32Z

Well, the tag was asking for better and more sources. Right now there are only two published sources and both of the type that we call today a blog. Moreover, we cannot cite the Al Leong website directly in the text, because it is citing Wikipedia itself![1] --Tikiwont 14:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's content is published under one or more open documentation licenses (GNU FDL and CC-SA, primarily). It's perfectly acceptable for other sites to use Wikipedia's text: if Wikipedia's text is accurate and reflects the site author's intent, why would they want to waste effort re-writing what has already been written and reviewed by numerous editors? It would be perverse to then refuse to consider that site an acceptable reference simply because it says the same thing that Wikipedia says. What makes an external reference a source of supporting documentation for Wikipedia's verifiability purposes is that one or more independent experts have reviewed the information and declared it accurate, outside of the free-for-all "Wikiality" here on Wikipedia. That the text in question comes from, was inspired by, or did itself inspire the content of a Wikipedia article is irrelevant. You are saying that if an expert on recombinant DNA publishes an article on stem cell research, using an open license like CC-SA, and that if all or part of that article were then incorporated into Wikipedia, that the article could then not be used as a cited external reference in the article. Do you see how absurd that is? You would be discouraging people from releasing their work under open licenses, and crippling Wikipedia in the process. That's positively Kafkaesque. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-20 14:46Z
Kafkaesque maybe, but not in the sense you're intending. It just shows what can happen if we publish insufficiently sourced material. We shouldn't confuse licensing and attribution and what you imply above with the DNA example is not what I am saying at all. Wikipedia text can of course be reused, but has itself to rely on published sources so that the text that we're encouraging to be reused is anchored somewhere. The Al Cheong site does not fit this criterion in the first place. They can of course reprint a Wikipedia paragraph without ctiations, but we don't know in as far it has actually been reviewed and verified, so it is better to avoid this then as a citation here. At the end it has to be clear who says e.g. that Al Cheong has a Cult following or why this is asserted. Moreover, good external sources are also dated as our Wiki versions, so if attribution is done properly, there shouldn't be any circular referencing and no reason to fear crippling Wikipedia. Aren't there any old printed articles on Al Cheong. Including them here and the relaying the distilled version would be something useful. Meanwhile we can sue the site to add - as indrect claim for a cult following - a note regarding the campaign for an award.Tikiwont 08:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Filmography: A proposal

Beyond labels and tags, the current format of the filmography section has been criticised repeatedly. As am actor, Al Long should have a filmography section similar to that of other actors here in Wikipedia. Looking at featured articles, there seems to be a wide consensus for having a table with the four columns Year, Title, Role, Other notes. With respect to the current structure this would mean.

  • Highlight in the main part that Al Leong’s character usually says little or nothing and after a short appearance dies.
  • The list should feature all films that have an article in Wikipedia or where it is likely to be created
  • There is no place for a synopsis, not even form the Al Leong character point of view. Any meaningful content may at the discretion of interested editors moved into the film article (unless there is no consensus at the target page)
  • The notes section would report anything unusual such as e.g. a major talking role or a case where he is good guy or does not die.
  • This is not the place for a quote collection. Maybe some can be saved into wikiquotes. Maybe so some fan site.

This has been tried alreayd once in the past. I understand it would remove some material that is uniquely arranged, but it this amounts almost to originally arranged to somehow amplify the fact that Leong has routinely been casted for a specifyc type of role. Comments, endorsements, opposes below please. --Tikiwont 20:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I will repeat what I said almost precisely a year ago: Leong's dialogue is notable, because it is one of the distinguishing characteristics of his roles -- his dialogue, or lack thereof, is part of what makes Leong himself notable. This is not original research -- it is referenced in every significant mention of him in external sources (the number of which is diminishing, sadly, as his heydey recedes into the past). As for removing the synopses, that would be acceptable as long as the verifiable information contained in them is moved to another Wikipedia article (one for each film, presumably). However, be aware that since one of Leong's signature attributes is that he is a bit player, Leong's appearance in a film might not be notable in an article devoted to that film, while it is notable in an article devoted to Leong himself. Ergo, much of what is currently contained in the film synopses may be notable only within the context of this article -- and thus, should stay in this article. Again, this is not original research -- it is merely the placement of verifiable information in articles where that information is relevant and notable, all of which is directly supported by Wikipedia's core principles.

You make a valid comparison to articles devoted to other actors. However, the observation that other actor's filmographies are incomplete is certainly not a reason to remove verifiable information where it currently exists. Under that rationale, every article on Wikipedia would be reduced to a stub. It is my opinion that neutral, verifiable, notable information should never be removed from Wikipedia unless there is some truly extraordinary justification for it. I find it quite odd that any editor would disagree.

As for the article having been criticized, this is so. On the hand, it has received nonconstructive criticism from a small number of people who have neither provided a coherent basis for that criticism nor contributed anything to the article themselves. (Suggestions that the editors of the article should "fall in a well and stay forgotten" and observations that the article is a "train wreck" are typical of such editors' comments.) However, the article has also received constructive criticism from editors who have cleaned up, clarified, expanded, and just generally improved the article. It is my opinion that the latter form of criticism should be given the most weight. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-17 14:33Z

Well, I am certainly having a hard time finding in above discussion actual endorsements of the current format of the filmography. With respect to mentioned filmographies of other actors, I actually checked some featured articles and they all feature the mentioned format. So having a Wikipedia standard representation already counts for quite a bit as does the underlying consensus about the level of detail we're aiming at. But why would many think that something that looks incomplete to you is good quality? IMO, mostly because the plots, the dialogues and the deaths belong to the characters and the films, i.e. to fictional worlds. And it is here in linking all the details form the differtn films to the real person that the original aspect comes into place. Having little dialogue does not imply that the plot few lines are notable when put into the actors article or that there is something Al Cheongish about them or the plot parts, nor are there currently sources for that. And of course Al Leong himself is not dying at all in the films as the current table implies. Not to mention that I would not knwo how to verify most content if not by whatching the scene.
So there was a year of time to go through the plots and will be afteards, Wikiquotes is the place for quotes and if I look e.g. at the quotes of Jeff Goldblum, it might be acceptable to enter content by characters there. For the rest, it has to talk about the film from the actor and not the character perspective, e.g if Leong also did stunts.--Tikiwont 09:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to change it now. Above are suggestions what to do with the removed parts. In case you're still not convinced, please consider to split off the previous version as Al Leong filmography. --Tikiwont 07:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So, you're set on taking the amply-documented information (it's practically all on DVD) that makes Leong notable, and removing it from the article, for no other reason that what makes Leong notable is not what makes other actors notable, and therefore should be removed. And once that is gone, of course, Leong himself will cease to be notable enough to warrant an article (it will be labeled fancruft or some such thing), and the article will be nominated for deletion. And why not? What made the article worthwhile will have long since been removed. Whatever. I tire of fighting the endless battle to keep Wikipedia sane. This was my last battleground; I surrender to the barbarians. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-26 19:03Z


It saddens me to see this - the article in its previous format was a wonder, and contained all the information I required when I looked into Al Leong a few months ago. To see it deteriorate to its current level is upsetting. Hopefully, someone can do something to improve it to at least a fraction of its former glory.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.15.8 (talk • contribs)

Am I the only one who thinks it's HILARIOUS that someone who kept calling the guy "Al Cheong" is the one who seemed hell-bent on cutting this Wiki post down to nothing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.46.56 (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)