Template talk:Peter Jackson

	Film: American Template‑class
Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

How about having the "Director" and "Other" rows but not the "Associates" or "See also", which are a little more tangential? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the years on the sides should be there.--Yankees10 17:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need them... looking at the revision, it is not overwhelming to have all the directed films on one row. If he was {{Clint Eastwood}}, it would be a different story. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well why should they be different. I think there should be consistancy with the templates--Yankees10 17:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument for making everything a clone. Jackson's not as prolific as Spielberg or Eastwood, there is no reason we can't fit things in unlike {{Steven Spielberg productions}} Alientraveller (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

(edit conflict) The difference is the number of films. A good goal is to use template space wisely. When we look at {{Clint Eastwood}}, he has enough movies to stretch across the row for each decade. What about this as a possibility... have 1980s-1990s for the first row? Also, I think that the other works by Peter Jackson should be included, though I am not as concerned about associates or the "see also" items. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I note this edit summary: were discussing please dont revet again until the discussion finishe was inappropriate since Yankees is the one who changed it in the first place. If I can suggest a compromise, the third field could be called "Companies" and link all three divisions of Weta. Alientraveller (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inappropriate, yeah ok, everyone is allowed to edit so it doesnt matter that I changed it in the first place--Yankees10 17:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I just think that the films he directed and produced should be on here. Not the game, associates, or see also. His associates and the Cinema of Australia dont directly have anything to do with him so thats why I dont think they should be there--Yankees10 17:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's work with the above template... it's roughly in the middle of two sides. Alientraveller, do you really think we need the associates or "see also"? Yankees10, do you really think we need separation by decade or excluding the video game for which Peter Jackson has a prominent role? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm agreeing perhaps Jackson's colleagues probably shouldn't be linked here, since I just remembered Spielberg's templates doesn't link John Williams, Kathleen Kennedy or Michael Kahn, but being a filmmakers means being a businessman as well as an artist, and I feel Jackson's companies should be linked. Alientraveller (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now may I note that this user clearly has a control and ownership issue over this template, considering if you look at the history he reverts edits nearly every time someone other then himself tries to edit it. Just thought I would let people be aware--Yankees10 17:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks good now, but why isnt Forgotten Silver in the direction section.--Yankees10 17:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a TV movie co-directed by Costa Botes. This is where "Director" becomes vague. I was only able to compromise to including Duel, a TV movie that was shown in cinemas in Europe, in Spielberg's template by placing it in "See also". But we can make an exception because it's likely no one cares. LOL. Alientraveller (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yankees10, let's try to work out how this template would be laid out. AT, for Wingnut Interactive, could it be implemented into the "Works" section with the other projects? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. :D Alientraveller (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you did seems fine to me... Yankees10, any more thoughts about tweaking it? We're finding some middle ground here... :P —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am satisfied with it--Yankees10 17:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, glad we could work something out. In the future, both of you try to avoid edit warring. :) It just raises pulses and does not accomplish much at all. Just remember the

BRD cycle and to at least attempt discussion at some point. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I propose we seperate the other projects into their own group depending on the role he played in the film - "Production credits" , "Writer" , etc. Thoughts? - Cartoon Boy (talk) 6:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the official website and I saw that Peter Jackson has nothing to do with with it's ownership and leadership of Weta Workshop.And that is why I am asking if the page Weta Workshop should be removed from the template about Peter Jackson or not and if not, why. Γιάννης Ευαγγελίου (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]