Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Removal of Find-a-Grave and IMDB from external links

A discussion can be found here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Behind the Voice a reliable source?

Apologies if the answer is already somewhere in this Project. Do you consider Behind the Voice as reliable source to verify existence and roles of voice actors? Content appears to be scrutinised and edited. Voice actors are quite hard to source as they rarely attract mainstream news coverage.--Plad2 (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pooky Quesnel. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

project help

Hi, can this WP help with the following article: James J. Thomas, which may or may not meet notability guidelines. Note: I have a feeling the main contributor is the subject's publicist/agent. ccwaters (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Will Smith article really needs to be expanded

I believe that since Will Smith is one of the most well-known actors of the past 20 years, I think that his article needs to be more comprehensive. It does not say a whole lot about his career. What has the world come to? Haha just kidding. But it would be wonderful if a few people could help me with his article. Thank you! Basilisk4u (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Help regarding Filipino actors and actresses' filmography

I recommend that we issue an {{editnotice}} on the articles about Filipino actors and actresses.

You may have notice the editors, especially those from the Philippines, are replacing the the Notes column to a Network column. I believe it should not be included in the filmography table. Wikipedia should be free from the on-going network wars in the Philippines. I believe we should work together with the WP:Tambayan Philippines to accomplish this task.

Please see Filipino actors and actresses' filmography.Carl Francis (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Films in the future

Hi, I would like everyone's opinions about adding films that have not been released to the public. There seems to be a lot of filmographies sections that have movies being added that are supposed to be released sometime this year and sometimes going as far into the future as 2014 or further. I've been removing them per WP:Crystal. I got reverted only once and got a talk page notice telling me I was wrong to remove them and that wp:crystal didn't cover the removals. (you can see the discussion on my talk page). Now this is becoming a big problem and I really believe that movies should not be listed if they can't be watched. A lot of things can happen to prevent a release of a movie. The films Avartar 2 and Avatar 3 are good examples of this at the James Cameron article. What are the opinions here about this? Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Most articles about upcoming films should only exist when filming has started (with the exception of some high-profile projects). This threshold can apply to filmographies because when a film begins production, it is much more likely for it to be released than before the start of filming. To at least mention the projects that actors are attached to, maybe encourage a paragraph or two after the filmography table? Like to say, "John Doe is attached to star in director Roger Smith's film adaptation of Thomas Remington's novel The Hero"? The challenge with such prose is that an actor can be attached to multiple projects, and there is no reliably sourced closure if an actor moves on. For example, Will Smith and Nicolas Cage were attached to star in Time Share, but there was never any follow-up. So perhaps an expiration date on the planned films would be appropriate. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
See I think they shouldn't be mentioned until the films are done and released because so many things can happen to stop the film or actors, plus sourcing is quite difficult though sourcing isn't done in the filmography tables which brings on another set of problems. --CrohnieGalTalk 23:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's unrealistic to only add films when they are released because 1) films are very, very likely to be released if production takes place, and 2) there is generally pre-release interest, either through "first look" coverage (like USA Today sometimes does) or advertising itself. Readers can still learn a bit about a film before it is released, so I think it is worthwhile to provide that kind of access. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
This has been brought up a few times before and we never seem to finalize anything or to alter the MoS. I think that Erik has a point that mentioning a future project - as long as it has a source - makes sense. On the other hand I do not think they should be placed in filmographies. First, projects take years to get to actual filming with The Hobbit as exhibit A. It was entered numerous times with various release dates in both Ian Holm's and Ian McKellan's articles as the years of its development dragged on. Second, projects that get started can be delayed or scrapped. Third, projects that are finished can still be delayed for years before having a theatrical release. I would suggest that a ==Future projects== (or some such title) section, properly referenced, is an entirely viable addition to any actor article. As to placing a given film in the filmography - I don't think that should occur until a release date is set. Again that should be referenced. Finally, even if these suggestions get rejected, the final consensus should be added to our MoS for filmmakers and actors. Thanks for your time in reading this and for any feedback or other suggestions that you may have. MarnetteD | Talk 00:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I just realized the "Future projects" is a misleading title. Maybe "Unreleased projects" is better. Please add ideas for this section if you approve of its idea. MarnetteD | Talk 00:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed, from Colin Firth#Filmography a 2004 entry - yes 2004 - that said "in development". I couldn't find anything about it at all, so I thought 5-going-on-6 years was enough for something to develop. I agree with User:Erik about pre-release interest. The Avengers (2012 film) is another example. I would like to see the filmographies contain only released films. In fact, I would like to see it renamed to make it more accurate too, something like "List of credits" or similar. Making the heading more specific would make it easier to keep out anything that is not yet a credit. The pre-release interest is important and should be reported. The film doesn't just suddenly appear; the action of working on the film accounts for part of the filmmakers' biographies. For example James Cameron is working on Avatar sequels and a 3D release of Titanic. They don't belong in his filmography but they definitely belong in his article, lest we think he's lazing around his pool instead of working. I like the idea of a prose section, impeccably sourced - "Unreleased projects", (I'm not sold on the name, maybe that needs to be kicked around a bit). The articles are fluid enough to allow for the material to be integrated into the filmographies as the films are released, or deleted if they're not. This separation of information would make it much, much easier to explain what's going on rather than just adding a line to a filmography Project X .... pre-production, which is not very useful or illuminating. Rossrs (talk) 07:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

(od)I agree with what is being said here. Putting films that haven't been releases in a section with being sourced is better than just plopping the movie into the filmography section. Names for these don't matter to me so whatever you all decide is fine with me. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The way we deal with it right now is fine, in my opinion. If a movie has entered production, i.e. when principal photography has begun, it can be included in the filmography. Including anything other than that in the filmography is obviously crystal balling, as there are often casting changes during the development and pre-production period. Nymf hideliho! 22:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Screen Actors Guild Award templates

Most of the new templates for 2010 have not been created yet. People just tacked on 2010 awards to the 1994-2009 templates for the most part. I have done Template:ScreenActorsGuildAwardsTVEnsembleDrama 2010-2029.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, when these templates were set up they were set up to be on the same 20 year cycle as many of the Golden Globe awards. The Emmys use a 25 year cycle and the BAFTA and Oscars use a 20 year cycle that is staggared by 10 years from the GGs and SAGs. See Category:Golden Globe Awards templates, Category:BAFTA Awards templates, and Category:Academy Award templates for further details.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

New article: T. Arthur Cottam - film director

New article, created, at T. Arthur Cottam. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

New article = Richard Smith (Silent film director)

New article, created, at Richard Smith (Silent film director). Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Quentin Tarantino filmography and awards in his films

Erik at WikiProject Film suggested here that I bring this article to the attention of this WikiProject. I do not know if the article has come to the attention of anyone here, but someone might want to take a look. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Politics and Government relationship should be removed

Celebrities should have no more voice than normal Americans in Government or in Wikipedia. Having an article in WikiPedia should not allow for celebrities to have a platform for political opinions *unless* they are actually running for political office. The Office they run for should be clearly indicated. If no office, then their voice should be no more than any other average citizen.-- (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kavindar Singh

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Kavindar Singh has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. No reliable sources found. With one minor role in a TV soap series subject does not meet the notability guidelines for entertainers

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CharlieDelta (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Snazin Smith

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Snazin Smith has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Long term unreferenced biography of a living person. No indication as to why this voice actor is notable. I've added one credit as a reference but that's not enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines or the notability guidelines for entertainers.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CharlieDelta (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Steven Kunes

Apparent autobio. As this is not really within my expertise, I'd appreciate the attention of some of the editors here. --Crusio (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

deletion discussion for Micheal Fitzgerald

The deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Micheal_Fitzgerald has been started to determine notability of an actor that is based only on IMDB, and address other concerns with building the Frankenstein WP:DBTF. You are invited to help reach consensus. Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Your assistance would be appreciated

I have worked very hard with a Wikipedia editor/contributor to make sure that my page conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines regarding neutrality and sourcing Graham Ludlow. Yet, there are still warnings and threats that the page will be removed. Any assistance would be appreciated. I am not interested in anything other than verifiable facts and am open to your help and suggestions!

Grahamludlowca (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

FAR for Anthony Michael Hall

I have nominated Anthony Michael Hall for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Artoasis (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Filmography tables - possible updates

I see that there is an understandable reluctance to modify how tables have been presented in the past, but I thought I'd test the water by suggesting that you might like to examine what your best practice filmography table would look like if it were optimised for a screen reader:

Films and roles
Title Year Role Notes
Dil Se 1998 Preeti Nair
Soldier 1998 Preeti Singh Winner, Filmfare Best Female Debut Award (also for Dil Se)
Premante Idera 1998 Shailu
Raja Kumarudu 1999 Rani
Sangharsh 1999 CBI Officer Reet Oberoi
Dillagi 1999 Rani Guest appearance
Kya Kehna 2000 Priya Bakshi Nomination, Filmfare Best Actress Award
Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega 2000 Jahnvi
Mission Kashmir 2000 Sufiya Parvez

As you can see, I've put what I think is the key field in the first column. The title is the key field because it uniquely identifies the row. I've made the titles into row headers, which means that a screen reader user who wanted to know (for example) what roles the actor played could navigate down the Role column and hear "Dil Se, Role, Preeti Nair", "Soldier, Role, Preeti Singh", and so on, which is most likely to be what the user wanted to know.

The result of creating row headers would be to make the titles bold and centred (as the column headers are already). Using the class "plainrowheaders" in the first line of the table definition restores their display to normal, left-aligned text.

I've also used {{ubl}} (= unbulleted list) to make the multi-line comments into lists which would be rendered as separate items by a screen reader (rather than all one thing, which is what you have now with the html <br /> tags. A quick FAQ:

  • Does it do anything for the vast majority of viewers? – No, it makes no real difference for sighted viewers.
  • Does it do anything for the very small number of viewers who use a screen reader? – Yes, it has the potential to significantly improve the experience for some.
  • Is any or all of this worth adopting for the future? – I believe it is; YMMV.
  • Do these changes have to be made? – No, the articles within your scope are under your guardianship and everyone editing Wikipedia is a volunteer.

For anyone interested there are more details at WP:ACCESS#Data tables. Hope there's something in this that you may want to take on board. Happy Editing! --RexxS (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

When the {{ubl}} was being used in Film infoboxes, we were told it didn't work in Internet Explorer 6, so the project chose not to use it. Why Wikipedia (when most all other major websites aren't) is still supporting IE6, I don't know... Is that still a deal breaker from using it? —Mike Allen 23:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
There was a problem with the template, but seems to have been fixed by User:Anomie in September 2010. The discussion is at Template talk:Unbulleted list. To be honest, the last version of windows that installed IE6 was Win2000, and even Microsoft is no longer supporting that. It's an astonishing tribute to the cussedness of users that Statcounter shows 5% of users are still using IE6. I'd strongly recommend using {{ubl}} – after all, a list of things is semantically a list, not a single element with a number of newlines embedded. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd support this. It looks like it's easy to edit, and it's certainly easy to read. Most importantly, it's more accessible than the styles used in a large number of film tables. I have been editing numerous articles lately to convert existing filmographies to a standard wikitable sortable style, and I will continue to do so, but if this gains wider support, I'll also be happy to help with any work that may need to be done. Having the film title as key is the biggest visual change as most filmographies use the date. I assume that's because most are drawn from IMDb. But we have something IMDb doesn't - we can sort our tables, and therefore view the data by date if we choose. Rossrs (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that consensus is growing against putting a list of accolades in the filmography table itself. In fact, it was cited that accessibility was a main reason why not: the screen reader would spend too much time reading out those cells when you really wanted to know the nitty-gritty about the film. And lists of awards can sometimes get huge. So I would be against again codifying this in the filmography table. At any rate, there is enough to be said about accolades that they can be placed in their own table, with proper {{won}} and {{nom}} templates for the status. Elizium23 (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that RexxS was specifically advocating the codifying of accolades, but rather the codifying of a complete table that includes a "notes" column. How the "notes" column is used is another story, and it's certainly an issue that merits further discussion. The example RexxS has given is a pretty accurate representation of how a large number of filmography tables are currently used. You're absolutely right in saying that the value and relevance of an extensive awards tally is being discussed elsewhere, and support for it seems to be waning, especially for those tables that are currently overwhelmed by list upon list of awards. So much gets down to personal perspective. For example when you use the word "proper" to describe the {{won}} and {{nom}} templates, I feel that they are highly improper, by forcing gratuitous colour and undue weight upon one element out of the total data presented, without adding anything of significant value, but that too is a side issue. My point is that it shouldn't be assumed that they are universally accepted or considered proper. Ignoring the content of the table as presented by RexxS, just for the moment, do you feel that the basic structure is something useful? I'm glad that finally, after 9 days, someone else has commented on this, and I would like to see it discussed further. Rossrs (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody, of course, cares what I think, but having seen this implemented at Hank Azaria I'd just like to say that in my opinion, this looks absolutely atrocious. If I was trying to "access" this information, having TV and film together and the date not as the first column would not be useful and instead would have the opposite affect. But this is Wikipedia, where 'if it ain't broke, fix it anyway' rules the day. Gran2 09:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't assume nobody cares what you think. I'm more than happy to discuss this with you. I note your edit summary at Hank Azaria - "This design is truly terrible, it's not easier to read or edit". The simple answer to that is - it's not meant to be easier to edit. I don't mean that in a disrespectful way at all, but when I mentioned WP:ACCESSIBILITY in my edit summary, I was specifically meaning the accessibility issue that's discussed at the page I linked to, not editors having easier access when editing. (Although I don't think any difficulty has been added.) Accessibility is about end users of this project who may be vision impaired and rather than reading articles with their eyes, are using screen reading applications. The previous version, with its rowspans, was not readable and not accessible for those people, while my edit has not made the table inaccessible for any editors without vision impairment. This is more encompassing. It's not a question of making articles easier to edit. The project is for people to read more than to edit, and these changes in format make the tables more accessible to more people. You can still read and edit it, but it's not in your preferred format. The point is that you aren't being denied access to it, in a way that the previous version denied access to some who may care to access it.
To comment on other points you've raised - the table is a listing of projects that Azaria has been involved in. It's not a table of years in which Azaria was employed. The title of the project is the key point, however it is still presented in chronological order, and placing the date in the second column does not change the sequence. It's sortable, which means that it can be viewed in different ways by different people, thus giving individual users a choice. Previously there was no choice. Merging the TV and film work is part of that. If you want to view TV or film work in isolation that can be achieved by using the sort tab. In the previous version, if anyone wanted to look at his overall body of work in sequence, they couldn't. They could get a sense of it by reading back and forth between the two tables rather than being able to simply look at data in a sequence of their own choice. This is more versatile in that regard, and again broadens the accessibility. That it "looks atrocious" is a matter of opinion, and I respect that you hold that view, but my edit was intended to be a practical change and an improvement in line with our manual of style rather than an aesthetic or cosmetic one, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyway. The one part of your comment that I disagree with in the strongest possible terms, is your reference to Wikipedia being a place where 'if it ain't broke, fix it anyway'. The entire point of my edit was that is was broke in Hank Azaria and it is broke in numerous other articles, and when something is broke, it should be fixed. Rossrs (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so this has now been magically implemented? Three people agree on something and suddenly it's consensus? That seems ludicrous. While the spirit behind this table design is commendable, the design itself is an overall negative, in my opinion. We should list the credits in chronological order, yet that isn't the prime set of information? Then what's the use of listing them in chronological order? This may increase the accessibility for vision-impaired users, but it decreases the accessibility for everyone else; it's not only a reading comprehension problem, but also an editing problem, as this design further complicates the editing of filmographies. Has there been a consensus elsewhere that I'm not aware of? If there is, that's how we work and it's fine; if there isn't, this seems like something that needs to be discussed by more than a few people before we start telling editors this is how it should be done, and it ends up spread across a ton of articles, without consensus, especially considering that we're telling editors that either table is acceptable. This project needs more consistency, not less.  Chickenmonkey  04:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it has not been "magically implemented", I have not told anyone that "this is how it should be done", nor have I claimed there is "consensus". I've expressed my opinion in response to an editor that criticised my edit to Hank Azaria, and although that editor is free to challenge my comments, the editor has not replied. The problem with this project page is that suggestions and discussions attract the attention of a small handful of editors, usually the same people, and the discussions stagnate and languish and we miss opportunities to evolve. There's nothing wrong in being bold and making edits in articles in an attempt to stimulate discussion. I attempted to answer User:Gran2's criticism in good faith, and Gran2 hasn't replied. So much for discussion. This table follows the exact format of the recommended Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)#Filmographies. That's also in chronological sequence but with the film title first, and the only difference here is that this is in table form. I agree that consistency is important, and the lack of consistency in various aspects of filmographies is a problem, but this is actually a step towards consistency and towards the MOS recommended sequence, but with additional flexibility. IMDb also uses a chronological sequence with the title listed first. People are used to seeing the information presented this way, at least in lists. If this is correct for lists, I don't see why it becomes incorrect when the data is in table form. It is after all a list of works, not a list of years that Azaria found employment. The key data is the title, and should be presented first, and as the table is sortable, the sequence can be adjusted. Rossrs (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
My comment may have sounded more abrasive than I meant it to, sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you, personally, had told anyone that this is how it should be done, however, this example of how to format filmography tables has been added to this project page's "examples of current best practice" along with the previous year-first example. Both of these should not be recommended; that promotes inconsistency.
The tables can be sorted vertically, but not horizontally. To me, it doesn't make sense to organize information chronologically yet not use that chronological system to aid in the visual understanding of that information. In my opinion, if the information is to lead with the titles, it would be more sensible to organize it alphabetically, which wouldn't make any sense. IMDB tables are more simplified than the table we use; less information. IMDB tables use two columns: title and year. With IMDB's use of just two columns, they can place the title first (grouped with the role), because both columns serve as absolutes; both columns are at a far side of the table (am I saying this clearly? I don't feel as though I am). What I'm trying to say is, if we are going to place the titles first and still organize the tables chronologically, it would be more end-user friendly to place the year in the far-right column. At least, that way, the reader can easily read the table and discern why its information is organized the way it is.
Films and roles
Title Role Notes Year
Dil Se Preeti Nair 1998
Soldier Preeti Singh Winner, Filmfare Best Female Debut Award (also for Dil Se) 1998
Premante Idera Shailu
This way, too, the films and roles are grouped together, as is the case with IMDB. It doesn't make as much sense as the current year-first table, but it does make more sense, visually (which is why tables are used, to make information easier to understand visually), than cramming the year into the middle of the table. I do think part of our aim should also be to reduce the difficulty of editing these tables, which neither of these options do.
I would also point out that IMDB's tables are listed in reverse chronology, and we do not do that, either.  Chickenmonkey  19:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Many moons ago we listed them in reverse order like IMDb does. Then we switched to chrono order. One question I have is what is the use of making the "year" column sortable. As long as the entries have been put in correctly when you click on the sort symbol it isn't going to change anything. Now I can see some value in having the "title" column sortable since, if a reader is looking for a specific film, it can be easier to have that column in alpha order - but what benefit is there in having the "role" title sortable. Rare indeed is goin to be the reader who wants to look up something by character name. Another question is if and actor has played someone named "Tom" in six different films what is going to be the default for how these arrange themselves after the sort? IMO we are adding bells and whistles that are there for show rather then of any real benefit. But that is just my opinion and I know is not widely held. I do have one suggestion - if it isn't already there - we might want to add a section in the WP:TUTORIAL on how to edit these tables. All too often I see a newbie or an IP that makes a new entry into these and the end result is a mess that someone else has to come along and revert or cleanup. If this is already in there my apologies for taking up your time. MarnetteD | Talk 19:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The "year" column is sortable so that someone who has sorted by another column can click it to get back to the original sort order. Having the "role" column sortable allows for such things as grouping together all films done as one role, for instance Emma Watson had two roles in the middle of her Harry Potter appearances. Elizium23 (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much E23. D'oh that's what I get for only going forward and not remembering how to get back. That "roles" makes sense to but its useful will be minimal. In any event I would not recommend there removal. I would still recommend either a spot in the tutorial or perhaps a dedicated sandbox where editors could learn how to add items to these without leaving a damaged table in an article. Thanks again for taking the time to explain things. MarnetteD | Talk 21:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the year column being sortable, I think that also accommodates those who prefer the reverse chronology. I also see only limited usefulness for the sorting of the roles, especially as there has been no effort to distinguish between one-named characters such as "Tom" or two-named fictional characters such as "Tom Sawyer". If someone plays "Winston Churchill" should it sort by "W" or by "C"? A tutorial would be great - even basic tables get mangled. To Chickenmonkey - I think the table looks better with the date in the right column as you've shown as an example. Rossrs (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rosie O'Donnell#Does the "Chinese language parody" merit inclusion or not?. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Courtesy notice: suggestion via e-mail

Hi. :) The WMF received an e-mail (Ticket:2011040910017563, for those who have access) first letting us know how much he appreciates the work you guys do on filmographies, to which he evidently refers often. He wanted to suggest that it would be helpful if filmographies could also include roles in television commercials. I explained that we can't handle suggestions directly, but told him that I would pass his idea on to you. Along with his compliments. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember if we ever had a full discussion on this or not though it does ring a bell. IMO commercials have some inherent problems in going into filmographies. First, there could be notability and undue weight problems as most ads are not a major part of an actors career - though the money can be good. Now, I'm not saying that some ads are not notable. Some like the coffee ads featuring Sharon Maughan and Anthony Head or the camera ads with James Garner and Mariette Hartley did become notable at the time they were broadcast but both of these will have dating problems which I will mention later. Second, ads mentioned will need sourcing as they are not listed on most (any?) other websites or bios. Third, even if a source can be provided how are we going to tie them to a specific year if the source doesn't state one. This would have even larger problems if there is a series of commercial over a number of years. I'm not saying that we should exclude them entirely. If sourcing can be provided they could certainly be mentioned in the text of the article (and I have come across an article or two that does mention them) but care will need to be taken so that they don't read like new ads for whatever product was being sold. Of course, this is just one editors opinion and other thoughts are welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 20:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that most commercials are too minor to be included in filmographies. We already exclude things like one-time talk-show appearances. Perhaps they could be mentioned in the body of the article if appropriate. I believe that filmograhpies should be reserved for major, even selected, works as an overview. Elizium23 (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
For example, Karl Malden made numerous commercials for American Express. Do we really have the ability to list them all, even if we wanted to? Robert Morley promoting Heinz, is another one. Both were a long series of commercials over several years. Then we have commercials made for one market only - Japanese marketing makes use of American celebrities, but those commercials are not screened outside of Japan. Then, there are the filmed commercials, that are complimented by magazine advertisting tie-ins. Can we or should we mention one without the other? I think we're better off mentioning them in prose, where necessary, but otherwise it seems like excessive detail to me. To Elizium23 - I think "selected" filmographies can carry a POV problem, as the "selection" comes down to the viewpoint of the editor or editors making the list. The only list that is devoid of POV, is the complete filmography. Rossrs (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Year added to title

I have added year ranges to many award template titles. Please comment at the centralized location if there are issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Patrick Billingsley

I've created a new article titled Patrick Billingsley. Billingsley died recently at the age of 85.

The article is imperfect. Work on it! Michael Hardy (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Need help with Pare Lorentz (Roosevelt era / WWII documentaries) for a DYK

The Pare Lorentz article looks like a big part of an DYK now under review, Oil on Ice. I've been spiffing it up so it's ready to go if it makes the front page, but it still needs a lead, and a few cites pulled from the external links, and I'm out of time. Trilliumz (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs - the final surge

Since early in 2010, many editors have assisted in the referencing or removal of over 90% of the Unreferenced Biographies of Living People, bringing the total down from over 50,000 to the current 4,861 (as of 15:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)). We are now asking for your help in finishing this task. There are two main projects which are devoted to removing UBLPs from en.Wikipedia:

All you have to do is pick your articles and then add suitable references from reliable sources and remove the {{BLP unsourced}} template. There is no need to log your changes, register or remove the articles from the list. If you need any help, or have any comments, please ask at WP:URBLPR or WT:URBLP.

Thank you for any assistance you can provide. The-Pope (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Lila Kaye

Please could someone write an article on her? Kittybrewster 11:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

General portals in actor articles

Matthew Bomer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is almost the same post I made to BLPN yesterday, but I haven't received any responses there (not as interesting as BLP violations), so I'm hoping editors here may be more interested.

There's a fairly aggressive IP who believes the Bomer article should have a See also section with the following links and portals: Lists of actors, List of people from Texas, Portal:Biography, Portal:Film, Portal:Television, and Portal:Theatre. Without knowing anything about guidelines or policy, my immediate reaction was the whole thing was screwy - or to put it more formally, unhelpful to the article. So, I removed the section. The IP put it all back in with an edit summary that read: "portals are standard on artticle; take to talk page before removing again. or take up at"

With respect to the links (not the portals), they are duplicative of the categories in the articles, which include 20th century actors, 21st century actors, Actors from Texas, American stage actors - and the list of cats goes on. So, what's the point of having pointers to these generic lists?

As for the portals, I looked at WP:Portal, as well as some brief discussions about the use of portals and found nothing illuminating. Certainly, the IP's claim that it's "standard" is totally unsupported. I've seen very few actor articles with these portals.

What do others think?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say they don't add anything to the article (certainly not the List of... links). It's only really worth linking to a portal if the subject of the article is closely associated with it, which I'd say isn't so in this case. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you think of an example of when any of the four portals (biography, film, television, theatre) would be appropriate to list in an article? I can't because the portals are so broad. If we were to include them in BLP articles, then, for example, anyone who is a TV actor would have the TV portal, and that can't be right - it would clutter up every TV actor article at Wikipedia. The biography portal is even worse.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking of those four portals. I was thinking of specific portals like members of The Beatles having links to the Beatles Portal. However, after looking at those articles, they don't link to that portal, so articles like Matthew Bomer definitely shouldn't be linking to such general portals. Bradley0110 (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I concur. The lists definitely don't add anything. The categories are enough. As for the the portals, they are certainly not "standard" but rather infrequently linked to actor pages and are too general to add any thing to the article. GcSwRhIc (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
categories and lists are two very closely related things, but serve different distinct features in a database (see non-policy essay at both a list in a "see also" and related portals are there as navigational tools. the ones that were inserted were as finely honed as possible given the current incompleteness of wikipedia. what one user may see as "clutter" can be a helpful tool to others.-- (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Even assuming there are differences between categories and lists, the lists in the Bomer article are useless. Like the categories you'd like in the articles, they are container lists with bunches of sublists. Again, they illuminate almost nothing about Bomer.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe that adding the portals is fine; it doesn't necessarily "clutter" the article, and many biographical articles do contain the biography portal. The same is true for the film, television, and theater portals. It appears, to me, that the editor may have added the "list of" links because it is recommended that the portals be added to the "see also" section, and adding the portal to an empty "see also" section results in the section looking empty. In the event that an article doesn't have a "see also" section, the portals can be added to the "external links" section.  Chickenmonkey  05:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
There are, of course, articles that link to just about anything - that doesn't make it reasonable. I agree with you that if such portals were to be included, they belong in a section where they don't stick out so much. But I'm curious why you think such broad portals are useful as article links. For example, why wouldn't the biography portal be in every single article about a person? Why wouldn't the television portal be in every single article about anyone or anything associated with television?--Bbb23 (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I would say the biography portal probably should be in every article about a person, and the television portal probably should be in every article associated with television. Why else do portals even exist? If the biography portal shouldn't be in every article about a person, what articles should it be in? Articles about people are the only articles it makes sense to add the biography portal to. The purpose of portals is to aid both the reader and the editor in navigating between similar articles to either read or edit. Between portals, navboxes, and wikiprojects; I'd say we're overlapping, just a bit, but each thing serves a slightly different purpose. With regard to portals, I don't believe they clutter articles; they're neatly nested to the side, out of the way but easy to access, when needed, just like interproject links to wikiquote or commons. All of these things are there to provide the reader and editor with the smoothest possible experience.  Chickenmonkey  10:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
According to Portal:Contents/Portals, "A portal is an introductory page for a given topic. It complements the main article of the subject by introducing the reader to key articles, images, and categories that further describe the subject. Portals also help editors find related projects and things they can do to help improve Wikipedia." I confess I don't completely understand those three sentences, but my take on it is that a portal about biographies might belong in the article of a biographer or an article about writing biographies, but not in all articles that are biographies. How does the biography portal "further describe" Bomer (our example)?--Bbb23 (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The "main article of the subject" refers to the main article of the portal; for instance, the "main article" of the biography portal is biography, and that article is linked at the top of the biography portal. The portal isn't meant to "further describe" the articles that link to it; it is meant to "further describe" its main article. In the case of the biography portal, it introduces the reader to various biographical articles, images, and categories. If someone is reading, or editing, our biographical article on Bomer, it could stand to reason that they might wish to learn about more biographical articles that they can read or edit. That's what portals are meant for. Like I said, they somewhat overlap with navboxes and categories, in that way, but each of these things serves a unique purpose. Categories simply categorize similar articles; navboxes provide quick navigation to closely related articles; portals provide a gateway to a broad array of articles under a single topic.  Chickenmonkey  19:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for such a full description of how you think this is supposed to work. Frankly, I don't know how it was intended to work, nor do I necessarily agree with your interpretation of the language (which I find unilluminating - the language, not your interpretation). In the absence of other editors contributing to this discussion, I'm not sure where to go on Wikipedia to get more input on these questions, but the idea that we should be putting these portals in to every article strikes me as crazy.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The closest thing I think this comes under is WP:OVERLINK. It might be an idea to consult some people there. Bradley0110 (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You could try WP:Portal guidelines, if you haven't checked it out; it might help give you an idea of a portal's intended use. Broaching this topic at WT:Portal could get some interested editors' input. Perhaps you could try the WP:Content noticeboard (or another noticeboard, or a village pump), to ask other editors to join this discussion, if you still feel unclear about portals.  Chickenmonkey  02:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I prefer "unhappy" to "unclear", but thanks for the suggestions.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article nominations currently has a backlog!

All editors willing and able to review articles are needed! Please contribute to the consensus of these articles by choosing 3 or more nominations to review in any of the catagories of interest to this project! There are a great deal of Theatre, film and drama articles needing attention. We could use the help of all interested project members! Any articles that fall under this project or that may interest you!

Please visit Wikipedia:Good article nominations now and begin! Thanks you! --Amadscientist (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have chosen the article: Stanley Kubrick' as one my reviews for this project.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1

Hi, Harold Pinter has been nominated for featured article status. I would be grateful for comments at the discussion. Thanks. --Jezhotwells (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Needs a spotcheck on sources, close paraphrasing and a prose review. cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Spotcheck done but further input welcome. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sounak Mukhopadhyay

Lower standard than notability. WBRi interviews/reviews are the only independent reliable sources for this article. Other sources are produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. The Director may not be a notable one. Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Katie Holmes

I just happened across the Katie Holmes article while checking the filmography formats in our FAs, and, erm, it's got a touch of the promoted-in-2006 about it; lead that doesn't summarise article, incomplete citations (e.g. ref 9 - Graham, "What Katie Did."), journalistic tone ("I'm a lot like Joey", said Holmes....). The Dawson's Creek section appears to be mostly about the series itself rather than Holmes' role in it, the Film section has stubby one-sentence paragraphs, the In the Media section is undefined, and the Personal life section is unfocused in some places. Broadly, this article needs some TLC or it will end up being demoted. Does anyone have the time and resources to take it on, or would a few people like to make it a collaboration for improvement? Bradley0110 (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree the article isn't up to snuff - I've put more information on the Talk:Katie Holmes page. --Malkinann (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sharon Tate at FAR

Sharon Tate is currently being reviewed at WP:FAR. Please join in the discussion. --Malkinann (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Splitting actors by gender

There is a discussion about the appropriateness of splitting singers by gender at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 15. i mentioned that I think its time we split actors into actors and actresses, what do you think? E.g Helen Mirren categorized as Category:English film actresses just seems right don't you think? For browsing purposes I think more editors would find it useful with an English actresses and English actors categories separate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to keep using gender-neutral language on this one. Traditionally, "actress" was a term used for a female actor who is either too young, inexperienced or not good enough to be called an actor. There's no need for us to apply those labels within this project. The gender-neutral word "actor" describes both sexes equally as well as the gender-neutral word "thespian" or "singer". Big Bird (talkcontribs) 13:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: perhaps if your proposal is simply categorization by sex rather than the usage of the word actress, I may not object to a creation of a category titled something like "<nationality> female actors". Big Bird (talkcontribs) 13:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
In olden times perhaps, but for me it is more common than not to refer to Angelina Jolie as an American actress or Judi Dench as an acclaimed English actress than referring to them as an actor. I think its politically correct to refer to them as actresses. As Lugnuts points out below all of the film awards recognize actors and actresses as being separate categories. My feeling has always been that we should too, in fact I remember once being astounded in my newbie days back in 2006 when I found we didn't have a Category:American actresses!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
There is enough of a feeling among female actors that the term actress is pejorative that it should supersede our personal preferences when referring to them. Like I said, categorizing male and female actors separately is fine by me. The above mentioned discussion about singers being categorized by gender follows the same lines - referring to performers of different gender as male and female singers. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 15:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support assuming the other categories are going down that way (eg the reworking of the singers categories). I think actor applied to a woman is incorrect (with an old-school feeling). It would also follow the logic of all major film award and festivals having distinct actor and actress categories (Oscars, Cannes, Berlin, etc). Lugnuts (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
    Maybe most of them but not all of them. Screen Actors Guild Award present awards for male actors and female actors. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 14:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
In the five plus years of these discussions here at wikipedia the movement to the gender neutral term continues. Interview shows like The Graham Norton Show now refer to males and females as actor. In the US documentaries on the Biography Channel (as well as Tru TV and others) now use the term actor when identifying the profession of both males and females. We now have style guides like this one [1] as well as numerous dictionaries [2], here [3] and here [4] all of which use gender neutral definitions. Most notable is the fact that the Merriam-Webster definition uses as it example "my sister went to drama school to become an actor". DVD commentaries on shows as divergent as Mad Men and Dr Who have both those in front of and behind the camera using the term actor for both genders. These sources would seem to meet wikipedia's requirements for reliability and verifiability. The related essay mentions avoiding "unnecessary reinforcement of traditional stereotypes", and I think that this is applies here. I would Oppose the use of the terms actor and actress in setting up the categories. On the other hand I would Support Big Bird's suggestion of using the terms male and female actors in this situation. This is would also follow category naming conventions that already exist. Along with the singers one that BB uses as an example (which avoids the use of the gender specific term songstress) we have categories like this Category:Female aviators. Moreover, we have numerous categories like this Category:American poets and this Category:Writers from Massachusetts and "People from" which are populated be members of both genders without any resulting confusion for readers and editors. MarnetteD | Talk 16:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
But doesn't the idea of the Academy Award for Best Female Actor etc not seem weird to you? like Julia Roberts won the Academy Award for Best Female Actor for her performance in Erin Brokovich in 2001. If the Oscars, Golden Globes and other reputable people in the cinema industry generally refer to female actors as actresses shouldnt we? Where is there universal approval that the word actresses is no longer appropriate? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Judi Dench will always be an English actress. Referring to her as a "female actor" just strikes me as strange.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Blofeld here; as long as the major acting organisations continue to use "actor" and "actress" respectively to men and women, we should reflect that. If we're saying "male actor" and "female actor", why not say "male actress" and "female actress"? Bradley0110 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No it doesn't seem weird. As BB already mentioned the Screen Actors Guild (and it would be hard to get a more representative group of reputable people in the industry than that) uses the gender neutral term and if you watch their opening from any or their ceremonies you will see the women introduce themselves as actors. Indeed the point is that from the evidence that I can see those within the industry are moving to gender neutrality. As to the other question the flip side is also applicable - where is the universal approval that actress is the only appropriate term to use. Outside references have already been supplied illustrating that it isn't. As late as the 1950s Emily Dickenson was called a poetess. Amelia Earhart an aviatrix and Agatha Christie an authoress all of those terms have faded away and wikipedia's policy of gender neutrality would indicate the appropriateness of moving away from the term actress. I know that this is unlikely to occur completely anytime soon but there is also no reason to apply this to wikipedia's categories when there are so many examples of gender neutrality being the norm for their naming. MarnetteD | Talk 16:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
As referenced in the actor article the term actress did not exist for 100s of years. As to "male actress" and "female actress" their are no verifiable reliable sources that anyone is using that terminology while there are plenty that support the opposite. MarnetteD | Talk 16:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Personal preferences aside (it matters not that something may seem weird or strange to you or me), female actors prefer to be called actors rather than actresses. Since acting became a profession and all the way to the time of Shakespeare's plays being performed during his own lifetime, all of the roles in a play were performed by men because it was considered inappropriate and a taboo for women to engage in a man's profession such as acting. When women were finally allowed to start appearing on stage in minor roles, they were referred to as actresses so as to not give them the same credit as actors. It was a derogatory designation from when it was introduced in the late 16th century and it still is although we are so used to hearing it. Note that female singers, painters, poets, writers, etc do not suffer this distinction because there wasn't such a taboo surrounding a woman in those professions as there was for women in acting. The Academy created awards for actresses about 10 years after women were first allowed to vote in the United States so there wasn't much consideration given to political correctness and they (for whatever reason, we can only speculate) have just not changed it yet. The World English Dictionary states this about "actress": "Use of the word actress to refer to a female who acts is old-fashioned. The modern gender-neutral form is actor". If you check each and every modern dictionary definition today, you will find that actor is defined as either male or female perfomer of stage and/or film. Similarly, the Screen Actors Guild, the labour union representing just about every actor (male or female) you or I have ever heard of mentions only actors in its mission statement. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 16:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
If what you two say is true, why is it virtually every article we have on female actors says ... is an English actress or .... is an American actress? Why don't featured articles like Angelina Jolie, Preity Zinta etc say ... is a female actor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Short answer to that question: because they're incorrect and need to be corrected. That such-and-such already exists on Wikipedia does not prove anything. In the same way, I might ask "if English actress category is needed, why doesn't it already exist"? Big Bird (talkcontribs) 17:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The other answer is that this has always been a contentious issue here at wikipedia. There are those that can't give up the old terminology and those who embrace the change and others who fall in between. Just because the move to gender neutral terminology is not universal does not mean that it should be ignored. I don't expect that I will be around to see the change completed but - to use the example again - if there had been a wikipedia in 1930 we would have had to use the term poetess for Ms Dickinson. We don't anymore. MarnetteD | Talk 17:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
My point though is that there appears to be a consensus of using actress instead of female actor as evidenced by the a fact hundreds of editors on here have created/written articles saying xxx is a .... actress. I'm not disputing your claims that this term should no longer be used, all I'm saying is that there is clear evidence that the majority of users refer to female actors as actresses. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that there is clear evidence of obvious preference towards actress; examples of both can be easily found and, again, they prove nothing. Gender-neutral language is encouraged by WP:MOS#Gender-neutral language as it states to "use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision". Big Bird (talkcontribs) 17:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:MOS#Gender-neutral language then perhaps we should start referring to Queens as Female Kings? How about Female King Elizabeth I?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
If queens of the world start asking to be called female kings and their official governments start referring to them in the same way, then I will be 100% supportive of this change. Currently, that's not the case. That and the word "queen" has different origins and meaning from "king" compared to the words "actor" and "actress". Big Bird (talkcontribs) 17:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Blofelds earlier point point has some problems and the evidence is not that clear. First, Consensus can change. Next 1000's of articles were created before the move within the industry to gender neutrality so editors would not have known any better. Again reliable sources have been provided that there is a move away from gender specificity. You may want to peruse the lead of Helen Mirren's article. She is on record as preferring the gender neutral term and it has been used for several years on that page so it would be incorrect to add the term as a new category.. Gotta run to see Harry and Hermione and Ron - enjoy the rest of your day all. MarnetteD | Talk 17:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As with the "male actress" comment as soon as there are reliable sources that the term "female king" should be used then that will require further discussion. MarnetteD | Talk 17:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
If there is genuinely a "move within the industry to gender neutrality" then the word actress should be changed to actor in every female actor article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it should be changed. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 17:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
As an FYI, please see this article about a major publication's editorial policy not to use the term "actress". Big Bird (talkcontribs) 17:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts are summed up in one of the comments, "Well, I'm a woman and (whisper it) a feminist, but even I think the policy of referring to women as "actors" is a bit daft. It's not the same as manageress, poetess, sculptress etc, because it doesn't matter what sex a sculptor or a manager is. " The greatest of all awards in the film industry though still use the term Actress. Could you imagine a Hollywood actress rejecitng an Oscar because they were offended by winning Best "Actress" rather than Best Actor? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, actually I could. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 17:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Imagination is not reality, however. Reality is that "actress" is the common term, and therefore the proper term for Wikipedia to use. To use anything else would result in Wikipedia pushing a WP:POV. Resolute 19:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
And actor is a common term as well that is gaining more momentum for usage when referring to female representatives of the profession. Personal opinions aside on which term we prefer, it's absolutely incorrect that calling them actors would violate any kind of neutrality policy on Wikipedia. As per the name of the Wiki project on whose talk page we're discussing this issue right now, we already commonly use actor and filmmaker for female members of the profession as WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers represents male and female artists alike. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 20:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm kind of confused by how the discussion here has veered toward nomenclature. What would be the substantive rationale for dividing female and male actors (/actresses) into two categories to begin with? Is the issue that it doesn't sound right that actresses are included in an "actor" category? That could be solved by simply renaming the categories to be "actors and actresses". I haven't really seen any justification for dividing the category into two - all I see are justifications for renaming a category. (And for the record, I slightly prefer actor to actress, but don't feel strongly one way or the other. I do feel somewhat strongly that the categories should not be split by gender but am open to being convinced--though I haven't seen any argument so far here that would explain a split.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Its based on the discussion over singers in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 15. Somebody wanted to merger male and female singers into one category.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything there that really addresses why they should be in separate categories, and in any event, discussion about the differences between male singers and female singers is not applicable to the differences between male actors and female actors/actresses. So far there has been no discussion that would justify splitting the category in two, only renaming it to "actors and actresses". Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Count me as one who opposes the notion that we adopt "Actress" as a pejorative term. Frankly I have never heard this assertion until today, in this thread. More importantly, I do not see it as a role, or even goal, that Wikipedia should endeavor to lead any politically correct trends which often lose their own momentum when left to garner their own support. That "Actress" should be relegated to antiquity in favor of "Female actor" is certainly a fringe theory and not a thing we should endeavor to teach. My76Strat talk 20:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  • In order to even-out the use of perjorative terms, I believe we should use the terms "Male actresses" and "Female actors". Although, as a testicle-bearing earthling, I am, quite frankly, offended by the term "male", and wish it would be deprecated... along with the last faint whiff of common sense at this project... Dekkappai (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a movement to suggest we stop assigning our perception of sexual identity to a new born child opting instead to consider them as infants and children up to and until they identify their own sexual identity. Surely you can see where these concepts develop when you feed the trolls of tolerance and change. My76Strat talk 23:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it also extremely demeaning to give infants gender-specific names? And shouldn't we, as Wikipedians seek to correct this historical injustice? Heading our articles with blatantly sexist titles like "Joseph" or "Josephine" is like rubbing the subject's pudenda right in the reader's face. Isn't this illegal in some jurisdictions? Wouldn't "Jo Stalin" and "Jo Baker" be much more appropriate titles? Images, obviously, are also problematic. I would recommend first deleting any images of humans of either obviously male and female gender (although I believe this project is already well underway), and, if this cannot be managed, at least cropping these images so that only the eyes are visible, thereby preserving the subject's private sexual identity. Food for thought, certainly... Dekkappai (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'm disappointed to see this discussion has degenerated into ridiculing American v British terms, and implying SAG is some official international organization when in fact it's only the American union. Dame Judi Dench, being British, describes herself as an actor. I am relaxed about an American actress category, if that's the American term commonly used, but 'English actress' is a nonsense. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the United States Wikipedia. A bit of mutual respect would be helpful. (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is intent to differentiate between English and American actors nor between terms used primarily in British or American English. Blofeld, I believe, used a random example of someone well-known when speaking of an English actress. Any changes to guideline/policy or any consensus would, obviously, apply across the board and would affect US and UK subjects the same way. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 17:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why. We use British spelling in British articles, and American spelling in American articles. Same principle, in my book. Judi Dench was named best stage actor of all time, so it doesn't appear random at all, just pointless summer whingeing. (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
See the opening sentence of this re: an American female thespian being called an actor in an American publication. I disagree that this dispute is a misunderstanding (or intentional disrespect) of a difference in British and American English and it has nothing to do with spelling. Actor and actress are valid English language words in both countries, the debate is which one is more appropriate. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 20:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, would there be support them for new Female actors categories? E.g Category:American female film actors?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)::::I would support that. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose: gender-neutral language is appropriate. The important thing here is the profession or trade, not the gender. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I also oppose this as the worst combination of ghettoization and political correctness. Why on earth would we give them the same name but then separate them into two categories? We should establish whether there should be one or two categories first, before we consider what the names for those categories should be. There so far has been zero rationale for putting them in two separate categories ("female actor" or "actress" aside). Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe article plus other actors

For example, in the Filmography section there are several 'uncredited' roles listed, all of which are completely unreferenced. Is there a policy or guideline about what 'roles' can be claimed within an actor's biographical article? It seems to me that all uncredited roles should be deleted unless perhaps there was a mention of the role in the press when the movie was released, as in the role was small but got noticed by the public and/or contributed to the actor's career. Shearonink (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no policy or guideline on the matter but I believe all uncredited roles should be referenced. As long as they're referenced, I see no reason why they shouldn't be listed in the filmography; the roles still form part of the actors' careers and listing them means having a complete record of their performances. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, the issue is getting these claims referenced at all... If I see some unnamed extra in some scene from a movie and I think they look like Goldie Hawn or Gwenyth Paltrow or whomever, can that work then be added to their article or their Filmography? Persistently, uncredited extra work is added to actors' articles, I'm open to having my mind changed in this regard but I agree with you - the assertions must be referenced from a reliable source. Regarding professional credits - most extra work for many actors up until a more recent era wasn't under SAG jurisdiction but people were hired either completely as non-union or under a contract from the Screen Extras Guild (now a lapsed organization). Another consideration is that non-speaking people in a scene are usually not looked upon as 'roles' (they normally don't get any kind of mention in the credits) but are regarded as 'filler' on movie sets. Shearonink (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
If someone as high profile as Goldie Hawn or Gwenyth Paltrow had an uncredited background role in a film, I'm sure there would be reliable sources that prove it (in more modern films this might be mentioned by participants in a DVD commentary). Extras in the UK are still hired in the way you've described above - they register with an agency and are then informed of nearby productions. Sometimes if there is location filming in a small obscure village, the studio will let the residents be extras even if they're not members of an extras organisation. Of course, if extra work is the only work someone has done, you'd have to question whether they're notable for inclusion on Wikipedia at all! Bradley0110 (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Length of filmography section

The filmography section at Jenny Gago is enormous and includes every appearance she has ever made, no matter how minor. Is there a list of criteria that should be used to help determine the content of a filmography?--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 02:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, was I too harsh here? Is there a guideline for this, or are we meant to duplicate IMDB and list every role these minor actors have ever had? The-Pope (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I think a full filmography helps for cross-navigation. It's tedious for someone to go to IMDb, look at a person's filmography, then come back to Wikipedia to look up a film. What you could do instead is have a "Select filmography" section that highlights major roles. If you really want, you could create a sub-article like Rick Jones filmography where it's treated as a detailed list, while the biographical article itself will have select examples. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Actor ref quality

I'm working on List_of_entertainers_from_Montana, hoping to get it to FL soon. I'm having trouble with lots of those listed, especially the lesser known people, in that they don't seem to have quality refs for every point in the list (year born/died, Montana connection, notability). What sources are considered suitable for a FL/FA? Some of the ones I often come across are filmreference, Rovi/All Movie Guide (which I've seen used by NYT),, TV Guide, imdb, fandango, classicreels, ovguide, starpulse, etc. What sources could I use and probably not have to worry about them getting beat up at FLC? Thanks PumpkinSky talk 02:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

So much for asking questions and getting help.PumpkinSky talk 09:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken Loach

Suoer-over linked in the text with these IMDB hyperlinks. I'm just out the door but wanted to flag it before I forgot. I suggested on talk that they are removed? S.G.(GH) ping! 10:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the links as they can be accessed through Loach's IMDb page in the external links section. It were probably that oppressive bloody Thatcher what put them there in the first place. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thanks, sorry about dumping that in your lap I was halfway out the door but it looked ugly! S.G.(GH) ping! 09:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Peer review on Katharine Hepburn

Katharine Hepburn is listed as top importance under this project, so I thought I'd let everyone here know that I've opened it up for a peer review. I've completely rewritten the page lately, and think it may be close to GA status - come on over and help get it there! Page: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Katharine_Hepburn/archive2 Thanks. --Lobo512 (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

sorting in filmography tables

I have a question on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Filmography_tables. Is there a very good reason to not include sortability on the notes section? I find it very useful for making sure similar notes are worded the same, for counting and verifying the number of awards won, the number of special appearances, the number of uncredited appearances, the number of films in a particular language, etc. I propose that we change one of the examples to include sorting on the notes section. BollyJeff || talk 03:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think that it is useful to make the "Notes" column sortable, you can go ahead and do that. I assume they did not make it sortable in that example because the notes can be so varied in most cases. (FYI, I'm not really part of this WikiProject, but I keep it on my watchlist.) Erik (talk | contribs) 14:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree with Jeff that there must be consistency in notes. Having said that, very few of them actually do follow a regular format and, as Erik said, I agree they are essentially varied. Notes generally include awards which are listed alphabetically, so sorting the column may result in nothing helpful. But I don't think there's any problem with making the column sortable if one finds it useful. ShahidTalk2me 11:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think applying sortability will be useful for that column. "Notes" will be incomplete most of the time, and we list only the major awards there. If an actor/actress had won the same award more number of times, sortability makes no sense. --Commander (Ping Me) 12:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
In fact it does; it groups them together. Often times the role column is not complete, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't sort it. These other editors said it was okay. Why are you so adamantly opposed? BollyJeff || talk 12:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Not a big deal! Sort it. But remember to not merge any cells beforing using sorting for any column. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist for the project?

Hi, could someone point me in the direction of a watchlist for articles tagged by this project? We have a persistent IP using a dynamic New York Verizon address (including but not limited to 71.183.*, 72.229.*, 74.73.*, and 96.224.*) who has been adding unsourced information about living people (with an obsessive focus on Becky Gulsvig for some reason) to many articles for more than a year. If anyone can help comb through these edits and revert them that would be most appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You could probably look at changes related to articles that use the {{IMDb name}} template; see link. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking for recent changes filtered by Actors and filmmakers work group articles. Does this group use User:Femto Bot? It updates watchlists. Anyway, it turns out that someone by the name of User:JeanColumbia has been dealing with this editor for a while now. I suggest that something needs to be done because it has been going on for far too long. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

Would someone please have a look at this ANI report and offer an opinion on whether the edit in question (namely this) is removing a copyvio. It seems likely that a script at may be copyvio, but I am not really qualified to judge. Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Orestes Matacena

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Orestes Matacena has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not Notable. See Wikipedia:Notability#Self-promotion_and_indiscriminate_publicity. Hard-working actor, but nobody special. Also: No reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Question about appropriate detail

When mentioning a film someone has starred in, is it appropriate to very briefly describe the film in a sentence? Or is this unneccessary when each film has its own page? I feel like it is a nice thing to do, since a lot of people won't be bothered to look at each individual film page, but is it frowned upon as too much detail? --Lobo512 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends on the actor's prominence. Biographical books about prominent actors probably describe how they go from one project to another, and these transitions can be summarized in a Wikipedia article. However, for the majority of actors, there is probably not enough transitional information out there, and that information may not be interesting anyway. In such cases, it's probably worth highlighting films where the actors were noticed (such as being nominated for an award or developing a following). Hope that helps! Erik (talk | contribs) 18:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Well the article I'm personally working on is Katharine Hepburn, who is obviously a major figure in film and in general. She does need a good, thorough biography. I think I'll leave it as it is, with some detail on each film, until told otherwise (someone can go ahead and 'tell me otherwise' if they think its needed). Thanks for your quick response! --Lobo512 (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Alex Pettyfer

I was wondering. There's sourced info in Pettyfer's article about roles he didn't get. I'm tempted to delete, since that kind of stuff, even when it's sourced, doesn't seem notable. What do others think? Thanks. --Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 16:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Seeking input at The Playboy Club

Hey all. There is a bit of a debate going on right now over the use of an image of Gloria Steinem in the "Protests" section of the TV series article The Playboy Club. The editors discussing it have hit a bit of a standstill so anybody who could chime in their opinion at Talk:The Playboy Club#Steinem photo, we'd appreciate it. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 17:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

BLP "gossip"

I've brought up an issue at User talk:Jimbo Wales as an editor is removing all information on actor's relationships in articles even if they dated somebody for 4 or 5 years and it is well sourced to RS. He claims "unnecessary gossip". Some inout please as he's affecting an awful lot of articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Peter Bogdanovich

I'm sure this isn't the right place to post this but recently the page Peter Bogdanovich was moved to Petar Bogdanović. I personally think this is nuts.-- (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that should be reversed. He is known as Peter Bogdanovich, doesn't matter what his birth name is. I just tried undoing the edit but it didn't work - I think an admin needs to be involved. --Lobo512 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I've now changed it back. --Lobo512 (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

rowspan, sorting, and accessibility

It appears that using "rowspan" in tables no longer breaks their sortability, since the MediaWiki 1.18 upgrade. Sorting on another key other than year breaks the rowspan cells up into individual elements and populates them properly. Should rowspan still be avoided due to accessibility issues? Specifically, this edit added a lot of formatting I don't normally use; is it a good edit? Elizium23 (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not a good edit, but the reason is no longer "rowspan". That edit introduced a lot of other markup that is unnecessary (e.g. "width" and "align"). I also noticed that "rowspan" no longer breaks sortability. Since noticing that, I have yet to begin adding "rowspan" to filmographies, but I have ceased removing it; I think that is the correct approach.  Chickenmonkey  22:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Jessica Lange

I chanced upon this article and was surprised by how much POV it had (it still has) and the fact that so much of it was mostly unreferenced. The lead looked particularly exhausting. It was full of POV, redundancies, and some fansite language. I took half an hour to work on it. Here's the edit I made. I removed all the POV and weasel words (like "iconic performance", coveted award", "the highly successful and hugely popular", "one of the best actresses of the modern era", etc.), the redundancies ("Her victory placed her in an elite group of women who have won both Best Supporting Actress and Best Actress Oscars; they include Helen Hayes, Ingrid Bergman, Maggie Smith and Meryl Streep" - which is sourced to a WP article!).

Right after I made the copyedit, I was reverted by (a clear Lange fan) MarkAlexisGabriel (talk · contribs) whose edit summary said, "I like the lead". I started a talk page discussion, sent him a message, and considered taking it to WP:DRN, but later he did not continue reverting me, saying he was not "in the mood to argue." But now I got reverted again by what probably is his own IP. He was reverted by someone else, so clearly his edits are not acceptable but what's next, and could you please check the revisions and say which one is more appropriate? ShahidTalk2me 08:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)