Template talk:Judd Apatow

Justification for reverts and discussion relating thereto.

Unless there are template formatting guidelines I haven't seen, I don't see why the text can't be centred, I think it's more aesthetic. But that's just me.

As for the recurring actors section, I think this is useful to include, however if it seems too arbtirary or inclusive or exclusive, then discussion should probably be had as to what critera they need to meet. Or whatever. I'd also like to do a recurring crew list for writers, directors and so on at some stage too. Other templates have similar sorts of things, so I don't see why this one can't. Nova Prime (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a recurring cast/crew section working unless it's really inclusive (and, thus, would take up a lot of room). The only criteria for the people in the recurring actors section now seems to be that the person has somehow been involved in a work produced/directed/written by Apatow at least twice. And as it stands, there are a good handful of actors that are not included that meet the same criteria. Martin Starr, for example, starred in the Apatow-produced Freaks and Geeks. He makes cameos in the Apatow-created Undeclared and the Apatow-produced Superbad. He has a small role in Knocked Up. So, by the flexible criteria we have now, he should be included, right? Off of the top of my head, Samm Levine, David Krumholtz, and Carla Gallo also meet this criteria. So do Bill Hader and Kristin Wiig, apparently. The fact of the matter is, Apatow works with a lot of the same people over and over again. Not just actors, but writers and directors, as well. If we included every person who has worked with Apatow in some capactiy on two different projects, a ridiculous amount of space would be taken up. Unless we can come up with a reasonable way to include a select number of people, I don't think the section should be there at all. And I can't think of any objective way to include some people and keep others out. Until someone does, I'm taking it down. Pele Merengue (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And, just to clarify, I realize the little tag above the section mentioned it wasn't including "bit parts or cameos". That kind of sends mixed messages about having a "recurring" anything. Pele Merengue (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Touché, I'll concede, at least for now. Nova Prime (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)