Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

RfC at WikiProject Film

For anyone not already aware, there's a discussion that also concerns this WikiProject at WT:FILM#RfC: Do list items need their own WP article in order to be sourced in list articles?. More input is appreciated. Lapadite (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Mention of non-notable awards in pornography articles

There is a discussion on how to address non-notable awards in pornography articles: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography#Mention_of_non-notable_awards_in_articles. We'd appreciate help creating consensus on when and how such awards are mentioned in pornography biographies and related articles. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Samuel L. Jackson GA Reassessment

Samuel L. Jackson, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Participation in requested move - Phylicia Rashad

A requested move discussion Talk:Phylicia_Rashād#Requested_move_13_May_2015 could use input from members of this wikiproject. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Adam DeVine

This article has been the subject of several hoaxes and misinformation. Can you all watch this one? Bearian (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Bearian, what are some of the hoaxes/misinformation you're referring to? Can't seem to find much in his article history. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Lady Lotus, it goes waaaaaaay back from 2011 to 2015. It appears that the article was created by himself (or an agent) in violation of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, see this SPA contribution history from 2011, and disappeared shortly later. It has had many spurious details, such as:

• his year of birth [1], [2], [3], such that it's not clear to me whether he was born in 1983 or 1984 (the only cite is his Twitter account), but certainly not the 12th century.
• that his career started with a look-alike
• That he was born in Iowa [4] and [5], probably also the subject, now named Pendivine and possibly a sockpuppet; see also [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], which has never been verified by a reliable source.
• two hoax films [11], [12],
• run of the mill vandalism: see ,e.g., [13] and [14].
• many obscene jokes [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] ( a possible SOCK there), [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], etc., etc. - but the links are NSFW.
• that he was born in Nebraska (no reliable sources) and attended Fordham University (verifiably false), see [29], [30], [31] (I was alerted to this off-wiki).
• Trezjr tried to clean this up back in 2011, see [32].
• In my opinion, this article needs to be on long-term full protection; the vandalism has been ongoing for many years. I just ran out of time cataloging all the vandalism. DGG, please comment.Bearian (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow, that is quite extensive. With all of this, have you ever gone to request full protection? LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I may not be the best person for dealing with vandalism in an area where I can not tell truth from plausible fantasy. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus clairification

In spite of several discussions over the years which are summed up here Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries#Filmography navbox templates there is now some WIKILAWYERING taking place here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 1 stating that acting team havboxes are not covered by the previous consensus. Thus, I would support adding the necessary wording to Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates to state that there should be no filmography navboxes for actors individually or in teams or groups. Once "special circumstances" start to be carved out for one set of factors it is hard to deny them in other situations. MarnetteD|Talk 22:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not convinced we should be pandering to wikilawyering: the guideline states navbox templates containing filmographies are not supported by this project, making an exception for directors. Wikilawyering aside, how can that be reasonably interepreted as to not applying to regular collaborators or acting "teams"? If we start saying the guideline applies to this and that, then you end up with a guideline that does not apply to this and that because it doesn't explictly state something. I'll support the revision if editors feel such an ammendment would help clarify the guideline but please consider that we could be digging a bigger hole. Betty Logan (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all that you have written BL. I am reacting to the last two editors set of posts at the TFD's. Since I have no way of knowing how the closing admin will react to those statements, I wanted to get the conversation going earlier rather than later. Thanks for your input. MarnetteD|Talk 20:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Randy Newman

Per this earlier discussion, should we be including films scored by Randy Newman in his navbox? Input requested at Template talk:Randy Newman#Films scored. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Years in actor filmographies

For filmographies in actor articles is the year based on:

• when the actor did the work?
• when the filming was completed? or
• when the film was released?

I think it's probably when the film was released but I've seen a couple articles where the years are all over the place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd go with when the film was released, with the clarification that localized dubs are when that language version is released. Same with television: first episode that the actor participated or appeared in, and if not known, the first episode of that season. This allows for some posthumous and upcoming appearances. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Released. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say that unless you're specifically discussing a different context, it should be the release date. For example, "In 1985, Michael Rooker completed Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, but the film was not released until five years later." This might be important to note in his article, as the role was still known in the industry, and it got him roles prior to its release. Then, in a filmography section, the film would be listed under 1990. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC) edit: Turns out Henry played the festival circuit prior to its theatrical release. But the advice stands: if a film remains unreleased for years, then it's identified by the date of first public release rather than date of completion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• It is the release year Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Filmography in {{Madonna}}

Despite being pointed in this direction, editor will not accept that we do not have actor filmographies in navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I see it's now resolved. I was going to cite the edit I did a while back on the Lindsay Lohan template (which I now think has been reverted)! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems I'm about to get in an edit war at {{Jennifer Lopez}}, {{Diana Ross}}, {{Lena Horne}} and {{Michael Jackson}} too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You may want to bring this up with other projects that have already determined layouts of there templates. Best to read over WP:Advice pages before too many people get upset . Got to remember your not the only project around others have advice pages too. Best not to claim policy or guideline when there is not one. -- Moxy (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen the extensive deletion discussions establishing prior consensus for filmographies? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, you might like to take a read of Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language/FAQs#There, their or they're? and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language/FAQs#Your or you're? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have seen the talk about no filmography templates...but what does this have to do with other templates from other project that have there own advice on what to do ? Got to remember there are lots of projects out there...most have there own advice pages like here...but they are not a policies or guidelines. Last think this project would want is to be isolated like Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers...that also has an advice page that the members believe is a consensus....but is not and has gotten them into lots of trouble with the project advise page being ignored by most because its so far off the norm . Think people will go for not listing movies all over - as in no movies in any tmeplate? Bring it up at WP:PROPOSAL see if the 2000 other projects agree. Until then best not to point to a page saying its a guideline when its not (Wikipedia:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy). I will not revert any thing at this point ...see what happens here. -- Moxy (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that because an entertainer is a primarily a singer as well as an actor, that somehow exempts them from the consensus extended to other actors. Don't you think it would be a bit strange if the only navboxes containing filmographies we had were for singers who also act? You need to be mindful of WP:UNDUE here (which of course is a guideline POLICY), discussed further at point 4 of WP:NAVBOX#Disadvantages (a guideline). --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok so to be clear here your saying no films can be listed anywhere...in other words your saying there is concusses to never list movies in navboxes everywhere. Your going to need a real proposal before you push this odd POV...so far I dont see it at all.... In no world does this or any other project have the right to say a certain type of article cant be in navboxes. Best you think about what your saying before the project gets a bad reputation for doing wrong by our readers. To think you have the right to tell other projects and editos that movies can be listed is way off the norm....pls think what is best to keep the project on the right path. -- Moxy (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Imagine we allow filmography navboxes for every actor. Then imagine what every film article will look like with navboxes for every actor on the bottom of each one. That's why we have a prior consensus not to have filmographies in navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure why you think movies should not be listed in any navboxes.... but this has nothing to do with specific navbxes devoted to films. If this project thinks its best not to have navboxes devoted to films thats fine...but its not the same as going to other projects navboxes and removing links to films (this is not the same thing at all). Like here other projects have also talked about whats best for there topic at hand...they make articles and make navboxes to link those articles they see worthy of inclusion. Those editors that work on film articles have the same right as anyone to have there articles listed in related templates to been seen by others . Best you get real consensus to not list any movie anywhere before you get into many edit-wars all over. Can explain to us why only films cant be included in related templates? I will fix all the templates later this week as there is no consensus to orphan all movie articles from templates ....pls gain consensus somewhere stating that movies are not to be listed in related navboxes...until then best to not blank all moves from all templates as you have been doing. Your pissing off those that write the articles your removing from navigational templates. -- Moxy (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not navboxes devoted to films, it's navboxes for actors we're talking about here. There is real consensus for this, as you can see at the project page, which documents this. This is related to WP:NAVBOXCREEP, as once you start listing acting roles in navboxes, you'll end up with way too many navboxes on each page. Do not confuse a WP:NAVBOX with an article. Do not restore acting roles to navboxes, as you will be editing against consensus. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I dont know how I can word this so that you understand  ?? perhaps WP:Local consensus explains better then WP:PROJPAGE. Again I will say this....fine if your project thinks they are not wanted...this does not mean that you can remove all films from unrelated topics...especially the ones created by consensus by others projects. I will not revert any that I have seen thus far as others seem to fixing the problem. I wish you all the best of luck reverting and deleting the work of thousands of editors and navboexs created by unrelated projects. Dont send your project or yourself down the wrong path....best not to claim wide consensus when its only project advice...last thing all would want is another problem like the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox debates....try not to cause conflict with other projects and good faith editors especially the new ones over this projects preferred way of not displaying links. - Moxy (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think that these are unrelated topics, and the advice here is not project-specific, it just summarises prior consensus from elsewhere. Tony explained it all to you here as well. A case of WP:IDHT I think. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you purposely trying not to understand what is being said here? Your editing many navboexs against the consensus formed by other projects on what to include in there templates. Again no policy or guideline saying no films should be in navboxes anywhere. Ponting to an advice page that talks about a specific type of navboxe is not the same as films are never to be seen in other types of navboxes created by other projects to navigate the topics at hand . What we need is goodfaith efforts to help content editors....not maintenance editors thinking they can tell other projects what they can and cant have in there topic specific templates. -- Moxy (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Moxy, but you've got it wrong. Actor filmographies should never be included in navigation templates, for all the reasons you've already been shown. Musicans who've been in a few films aren't exempt from this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Again no policy or guideline to push this groups POV that films should never been seen in any templates ever. As has been said before this projects advice has no binding on an other projects decisions as has been shown by our polices and guidelines on the matter Show us just one policy or guideline that says you can tell other projects what they can and cant have in the templates from the article they created. Your project is getting a bad rep!!! -- Moxy (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hardly. One person going against consensus such as yourself gives WP a bad rep. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC) right

I take it by that evasive reply your still not able to link to any policy or guideline that states films (articles about movies) are to be exempted from all navboxes? Best to deal with all this case by case as stated by our policies on the matter. -- Moxy (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this matter should be readdressed; while having navboxes solely dedicated to films one appears can be problematic, there's nothing wrong with including works that are part of one's career with other life/career-connected subjects in a navbox. In fact, there are often films that become a very significant part of one's career, and Madonna is one of many people whose films do make up a big part of her career (even if not as prominent as her music). Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem with this approach, is that it means that singers will get actor navboxes, and actors won't, which gives WP:UNDUE weight to them at the bottom of each page. For example, I have just removed {{Lady Gaga}} from American Horror Story: Hotel for this very reason. None of the other actors get a navbox included, why should she? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Why do we have to add the template at all to the bottom of the page at all? Just remove the template from the movie page if your project thinks its best not to have navboxes of this nature....no need to deface the template of other projects that have the templates for there main articles? Use some common sense.. best not to edit war with other projects when there is ongoing talks . If your reverted please follow or basic behavioral expectations and talk it out...dont just keep reverting especially when those at the tlak page are pointing you to policies on the matter. I understand you think your in the right ....but this does not give you the right to editwar in many places. -- Moxy (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Rob, in the politest way possible, stop. You are vehemently edit warring over this, when multiple editors have reverted you citing that there is NO clear-cut consensus on this. You cannot dump a local consensus at a film wikiproject over how other wikiprojects would conduct their navboxes/articles. As Snuggums rightfully pointed out, it makes absolute sense to have one's work added in their own navbox template, removing which is detrimental, and well, plain idiotic. And I concurr with Moxy as well, onus lies with you to raise a proper discussion/RFC/proposal at council and take it there as a policy. There is no guideline when it comes to adding content in navboxes. So edit warring and trying to impose it on other aritcles is becoming a clear-cut case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Which is actually worrisome. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You are the ones who are ignoring a clear, long-standing documented consensus that has been pointed out to you many times. You are chosing to ignore it, which is disruptive. The onus lies with you to seek a change to the consensus. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

We have to get others involved before those involved in the editwars get blocks. All I ask is all to stop the edit wars until this is resolved. I understand Robsinden you think all is fine ....but the fact 4 editors have raised a concern is a concern that needs to be addressed. If only BRD was followed...but o well.....I will work on a course of action and inform all 6 involved where the talk/RfC is. To all involved lets not report to the 3revert board....lets try a third option first.-- Moxy (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Concur with, well, everyone but Moxy. Rationales against this idea are multiple and clear.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• It's very odd not to see the film role 'Evita' on Madonna's template. She was born to play that role (literally, her doctor would not let her out of the womb until she agreed). One of the highlights of her career, there should be some way to include the few movies she appeared in within the face of the template and not just a link to 'Films'. I see listing documentary roles is accepted, so that's at least something. Randy Kryn 10:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Youngest to win Tony Award for Best Actor in a Play

It seems that a record was set this year for youngest winner of Tony Award for Best Actor in a Play. I am unable to find a source to support this claim though. Help would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#RfC: Should a person who has appeared in exclusively pornographic films be described as "(actor/-tress)" or "(pornographic actor/-tress)"?

Go there and discuss: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:FILMOGRAPHY section – advise using a different example

I suggest we may want to go with another "example" filmography for the WP:FILMOGRAPHY section, rather than Sharon Tate's – optimally, we'd like an example filmography that includes both "film" and "TV" movies (Tate's example filmography includes none of the latter...), and TV series appearances. Anyone got any suggestions?... --IJBall (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but I think the reasons why that one was chosen are: 1) It's short, 2) she's deceased, so it wasn't going to get longer, and 3) it's done "old-school", with the Title first and the Year column second. That doesn't mean that it can't be changed. I'd like to hear what others think. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that's why Tate was chosen, after I thought about it. Originally I was going to suggest, like Tony Randall or Rue McClanahan as potential replacements, but then I realized their filmographies would be way too long. So then I tried to think of someone that also died young, but did movies, TV movies, and TV series... One possibility I thought of as a replacement who meets the criteria was Dana Plato (though, currently, the filmography at her article is not "split out" into movies and TV, but that would be easy enough to do first...). --IJBall (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW is it "supposed" to be "title first, year second"? Or is that optional? --IJBall (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's a rule about that. I used to do "title, year, role" in everything, but then I noticed that other people were doing the year first. After that, I switched to doing year first, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's funny – I'd only ever seen the "year first" version, but now that I've seen the "title first" version I think I like it better. I'm wondering if an RfC should be held on this: 1) Should filmography table formats be "standardized"? 2) If so, should the standardized format be "year first, title second", or should it be "title first, year second"?... But that's probably best saved for a separate conversation. @NinjaRobotPirate: any thoughts on the original question – should we switch the WP:FILMOGRAPHY example table(s) to another person's filmography that has movies, TV movies and TV series roles? And, if so, any suggestions on whose we might want to switch to? --IJBall (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Many people dislike standardization, so I wouldn't get my hopes up about that. As far as example filmographies go, Dana Plato and Sharon Tate both sound like good choices. I guess Dana Planto has more media diversity in her roles, which could be useful. I don't think it's pressing that the example be changed, but I wouldn't oppose it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm working up a version of Dana Plato's filmography to see how it might look before doing anything drastic here – it can be perused at User:IJBall/sandbox2. It's not done yet (I will probably replace the separate section heads with table titles instead, and so some further tinkering), but anyone here is free to take a look, and maybe say "Yay, or nay"... --IJBall (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: I am getting pretty close to switching in a new example for WP:FILMOGRAPHY (i.e. one that has a greater variety of example "types" (e.g. TV movies) than the current example used) – this version can be seen at either my sandbox or at Dana Plato... If you have any comments or suggestions (e.g. like a strong desire to switch the new example to "title first, year second" table format), etc. please either reply here, or let me know at my Talk page. If I don't see any comments soon, I'll assume there are no objections, and will make the switch in the near future. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is the Source column removed? That's a key item for verifying entries these days. Also the table titles for "Television" and "Film" are not needed if the filmography has subsections. Some of the filmographies can be split between feature films and direct-to-video/television films/specials. Similarly, video games are usually placed in their own table/section and don't need to be listed as "video game" under the Note. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm also not a fan of counting how many episodes they participated in as that would imply lots of original research unless a decent media database is cited to do the counting. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A few comments:

• First, most Filmography tables don't have a separate "Source" column anymore (I find that kind of table formatting is very "old school" Wikipedia...) for the very simple reason that referencing can easily be put elsewhere in the row (e.g. either with the 'Title' itself, or with the 'Role', or most likely with the entry in the 'Notes' column); also, I intend to leave the second example table that is currently in WP:FILMOGRAPHY, and that one includes the 'Source' column (which I do not intend to change), so there will still be an example of a table done that way included at WP:FILMOGRAPHY.
• Second, I purposely didn't subdivide this into "subsections" by design – most actor BLPs do put them into subsections, but some do not, and trying to do an example with the subsections included would be awkward to do on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers page. (If there's an overwhelming interest in doing it that way, we can try, but it'll probably take a little bit of trickery and work to pull that off...)
• Lastly, the video games table can be cut, but I think it might be a good idea to leave it in, as an example of a Filmography with "Other media" included as well (as this comes up fairly often with actor BLPs these days...).

So, basically, I'm just trying to get a more "well-rounded" (and therefore "useful") example table (which, granted, can't possibly include every iteration of formatting possibilities...) there, as the TV movie thing seems to have been especially confused at the BLPs I've looked at lately, so an example at WP:FILMOGRAPHY that actually includes those should be useful.

Thanks for taking a look, though! Let me know if you have any other thoughts or suggestions! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and on the number of episodes thing – again, that can be cut, but many of the actor BLPs I look at (certainly those for current actors) do tend to include those, and I'm not sure how "WP:OR" that really ends up being, as between IMDb and Wikipedia's own "List of [TV show] episodes" articles, the number of episodes that anyone appears in (esp. "main cast" people) can usually be sussed out pretty quickly... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you thinking of transcluding the new example or copying it? If it's just a copy as it is now, then it doesn't have to be up to date but just demonstrate some good examples of how to fill in the entries so they are useful. The splitting of tables will depend on the body of work. Since I've been focusing on voice actors, I've found that it's been useful to separate out voice roles from their on-screen "live-action" appearances, and also have the separate video games table. For someone like Dana Plato who doesn't dabble in those categories much, then I agree that video game entry can be noted among the other media table. I like Aubrey Plaza's filmography too where it shows her awards with the major roles (assuming she doesn't have her own Awards section). Again, suggest staying away from number of episodes as that depends on citing IMDb which isn't a reliable source, unless maintaining that count is critical to the actor's role in the series. We're not trying to duplicate IMDb. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I was not planning on transcluding this (I could probably figure out how to do that, if there's real interest in that, but it'll take a little "learnin'" on my end!...) – just copying the version now at Dana Plato, after any additional changes requested here. Also, as per the discussion above, because we want the example to be "static", it was decided to use an actor who is dead (as the actress used for the current filmography (Sharon Tate) is; that's why I came up with Dana Plato as the replacement) – so Aubrey Plaza wouldn't be a good choice here... On the number of episodes thing, I'll wait to see what others have to say on it – it think I'd prefer to include them, but I can easily remove them if the consensus is for that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, a few notes. The IMDB is not a reliable source. It's user-generated. Filmographies are often copy-pasted from there. Most of the time, I just let it go because it's not worth my time to fix every minor copyright violation from an unreliable source. However, if we're going to use this as the official example for a WikiProject, we should at least cite the uncredited role(s). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I know IMDb's reliability is controversial – I'm the most recent editor to edit WP:Citing IMDb. But that issue is somewhat nuanced – while I'm totally on board with the IMDb being pretty useless for either very current or future projects, or for very obscure entries (a year or two ago, I actually had to put in a submission to IMDb so that the lead actresses for the old 1992 TV series, Dangerous Curves, were actually included in all the episodes and not just two of them!), it is actually pretty reliable for "higher profile" and "older" entries (e.g. something like Diff'rent Strokes or CHiPs). All that said, sourcing much of Dana Plato's filmography, esp. the uncredited appearances (like CHiPs), is probably going to be tough... On my end, I have access to Leonard Maltin's 1996 Movie Guide and Brooks & Marsh's Directory to TV, but I'm not sure those will be enough to get cites for a lot of those entries... But if the consensus is to scrupulously source Dana Plato's before using it as the "example filmography", I can try... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Credits in film articles are generally understood to be cited to the primary source itself. If the film is unreleased, it requires citations for the credits, as the primary source is not available for verification. In the case of uncredited roles, the source is available, but it can't be used for verification. Thus, uncredited roles require a citation. Since the IMDb is an unreliable source, it can't be cited, but there are many reliable sources listed at WP:FILM/R. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

OK (that first part is good to know – I think I implicitly assumed it, but I'm glad to have some confirm that that's correct). As for the uncredited stuff, I'll try my best... But I'm going to guess I won't be able to source it. If that's the case, I'll come back here and ask what the next step is. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Relations?

Are David Feige and Kevin Feige related?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with this projects guidelines and policies. Please try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. MarnetteD|Talk 22:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Notices at top of pages

Hi everybody, please forgive me if this is the wrong place to ask but I can't find any guidance for this issue. I have recently done major updates to the "Dennis Heaton" page, which bears a notice at the top as follows:

"[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (July 2010) This biographical article needs additional citations for verification, as its only attribution is to IMDb. (August 2010)".

I believe my recent edits have fixed all of these problems. What is the process for having this notice removed from the page? Who do I need to talk to? Any helpful hint would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! Bczogalla (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• I removed the IMDb tag here, Bczogalla, since it has more references than IMDb thanks to your additions. All a user has to do to remove a tag is simply delete it. Whether it meets notability criteria or not will need closer assessing. See WP:Notability (people) for the criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS Thanks so much for the help! As for simply deleting the tag... I've tried that before after doing extensive reference adds on a page and I got slammed as a vandal for removing the tag, so needless to say I'm scared to do that now! I guess we're in wait-and-see mode now. In the meantime I will add many more references; I plan on having refs for all the awards as far as I can find online stuff which should help with the notability issue. Thanks again for your kind assistance and advice - it is very much appreciated! Bczogalla (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help. Just remember to explain your reason(s) for removing tags in articles within the edit summary, and you should be fine. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I would add one thing to SNUUGUMS post Bczogalla. You might post on the talk page for the article the steps you have taken to answer the concerns of the notices. I hasten to add that this is not required but it can be useful for other editors who look at what is going on with the article. MarnetteD|Talk 03:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD Thanks you so much for the advice! I will be happy to do that. Really appreciate the input!! :) Bczogalla (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Bczogalla

Bibliographies of works about filmmakers

Please see Talk:Woody Allen bibliography#Requested move 31 July 2015. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Future films

There is a discussion at Talk:Tom Holland (actor) as to why the not-yet-filming Spiderman movie can't be added to Holland's filmography table, but can be added to a list of upcoming MCU films. I'm thinking it's in part due to the standards for living persons. I cited WP:CRYSTAL, but that didn't seem to settle the issue. Could others who have a better grasp of this explain it better there? Thanks muchly. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 15:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Photos in the lead/infobox

I know at one point there was a feeling among several editors that the most recent reasonable quality photograph of an actor should be used in the lead/infobox on articles about living actors, as opposed to a "career peak" photo. Was this issue ever resolved? The reason I ask is because of this edit at the Julie Christie article. It's a nice photograph, but it replaced a 20 year-old photo with a 50 year-old one. Basically, I would like to know if this project has a uniform stance on this issue? Betty Logan (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I would also like know if there's an official stance on this. I've come across several BLPs, such as Meryl Streep, favoring career or appearance peak photos (normally portraits or stills), which to my understanding are appropriate for deceased individuals. Lapadite (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, there isn't any official stance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This is one of those things that was discussed at least once before. If anyone is searching for it you might try the "Wikiproject Film" archives because I think the discussion might have taken place before "Actors and Filmmakers" project got going. As I remember it recent photos were preferred over pics from any specific roles. Whatever the outcome was it did not get put into WP:MOSFILM or this project page. Elizium23 did lay out one argument for recent pics in this thread Talk:Robert Carlyle#Profile pic. Now the discussion is two and half years old (and E might not feel the same about the situation) but it might be a place to start in formulation a policy or guideline that gets added to the MOS this time. MarnetteD|Talk 01:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Characters portrayed by Jenna Coleman (II)

The issue described at Talk:Jenna Coleman#Oswin vs Clara Oswin vs Clara has flared up again. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Revisiting the WP:FILMOGRAPHY and use of 'rowspan' RfC

This issue has kept coming up for me lately, and I wonder if we need to revisit banning the use of 'rowspan' in WP:FILMOGRAPHY tables.

An RfC was held on the issue early this year, but I'm not sure that RfC can be considered "valid" as it included no argument or rationale in the RfC about the prohibition on the use of 'rowspan' being WP:ACCESSIBILITY-based (and was originally non-neutrally worded, to boot). As a result, the RfC basically became an exercise in "WP:ILIKEIT" and "'rowspan' exists in the HTML code, so why shouldn't we use it...?" rather than a meaningful discussion about how the use of 'rowspan' actually discriminates against a segment of our readership. And, it should be noted that WP:ACCESSIBILITY very clearly contains the following text:

The WMF's Non discrimination policy... "is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to apply to all Wikimedia projects. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies". and says: "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users... on the basis of... disability".

So I am wondering if we need to revisit this issue. The use of 'rowspan' in anything other than the 'Year' column becomes a real problem for our text-to-speech readership, if I understand the issue correctly.

Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Spanning the year is useful only if the works listed are singular in nature such as with feature films. When it comes to serials such as television shows or groupings as with video game series, there's a wide range of start and end dates which complicate the table if something like 2004–05 is rowspaned across two entries of shows that have nothing to do with each other. I've been seeing cases where someone would have "Additional voices" in several releases and that would be rowspanned, which gets really confusing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, and it's those latter examples that are really putting our text-to-speech readership at an unfair disadvantage, if I understand it correctly. That's why I believe either a blanket prohibition again 'rowspan' use, or allowing the use of 'rowspan' in just the "Year" column, needs to be restored to the FILMOGRAPHY guideline A.S.A.P. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As a related note, I have been listing the dates in the filmography using {{dts|yyyy|mm|dd|format=y}} as it best shows when the actor's work has been released and more precisely sorted. That method would of course favor no rowspanning. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Rowspans shouldn't be used at all in these tables for accessibility concerns. I fully support re-adding the "do not use" bit for them at all in filmographies. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for accessibility. But what kind of problem do screen readers have with rowspan? I don't like the idea of a blanket ban unless I understand what the exact problem is. Also, this wouldn't really be a binding rule per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. A better solution would be to seek a change to MOS:ACCESS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Why would we change MOS:ACCESS here?! The issue is that 'rowspan' messes up text-to-speech readers. Basically, let's do this version of Bella Thorne's table:

Television

Year	Title	Role	Notes
2010–13	Shake It Up	CeCe Jones	Co-lead role
2011	Good Luck Charlie	CeCe Jones	"Charlie Shakes It Up" (Season 2: episode 13)

A text-to-speech reader (I think...) will read this thusly: "2010 to 13" -> "Shake It Up" -> "CeCe Jones" -> "Co-lead role" -> "2011" -> "Good Luck Charlie" -> "CeCe Jones" -> "Charlie Shakes It Up" (Season 2: episode 13)".

Television

Year	Title	Role	Notes
2010–13	Shake It Up	CeCe Jones	Co-lead role
2011	Good Luck Charlie		"Charlie Shakes It Up" (Season 2: episode 13)

A text-to-speech reader will read this: "2010 to 13" -> "Shake It Up" -> "CeCe Jones" -> "Co-lead role" -> "2011" -> "Good Luck Charlie" -> "Charlie Shakes It Up" (Season 2: episode 13)", making it more confusing (i.e. because it "skips" the "role" cell in the second row) and harder to follow. The more 'rowspan' is used (esp. after the "Year" column), the worse this problem gets, and the more confusing the tables will become for text-to-speech readers... Then, beyond all that, there's the issue that many of the rest of us don't think the use of 'rowspan' adds any value to these tables, and is leading to just general editing conflicts between those who want 'rowspan' and those who don't. Combine that with the far more important ACCESSIBILITY issues, and I'm not sure why its use is allowed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree that your example is a good example of poor usage, but on the other hand something like this (with clearly "scoped" row entries) would probably be ok:

Year	Title	Role(s)	Director(s)
2003	Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life	Lara Croft	Jan de Bont
	Beyond Borders	Sarah Jordan	Martin Campbell

If a screenreader read that it would be fairly intuitive that both films belong to 2003. I agree that care needs to be taken, but it is possible to use row and column spanning in a way that facilitates screenreaders. The MOS should ideally give some guidance on good and poor practices and perhaps provide a few examples for common filmography layouts. Betty Logan (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes – the "Year" column is the one place where it would seem like 'rowspan' could be used without unduly taxing our text-to-speech readers. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Filmographies on other pages

Where an actor has a separate filmography page, how many films should be on the actor's page itself? Is there a guideline for that? I ask in regards to Ben Affleck, who currently has 44 films in the filmography section on his page. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 15:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no official number. It seems to be based on size the tables take up and that they get split into a separate page when they get really long. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Also relative to the size or length of the article. Lapadite (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Input requested re: Raven-Symone category changes

(This is crossposted at WikiProject Biography) Hi there, I need some learned guidance. An IP editor changed the categories of Raven-Symoné with the explanation Replaced all references to "African-American" with "American". Race is a political orientation, not a taxonomic grouping. I reverted on the basis that it needs discussion. The IP reverted again with the explanation There's nothing to debate. If the subject doesn't identify as African-American (which she doesn't), then she's not. SHE decides, not Wikipedia. I figured I'd come here to get some education for how this should be treated. I note that in the article there is sourced information about the subject not wanting to identify as African-American or gay. Is that sufficient to warrant the removal of these categories? (Oddly, the user didn't remove all of the LGBT cats, only the African-American one.) Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

After some searching, it looks like MOS:IDENTITY would be the applicable guideline. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is a point of contention for some, erm, African-Americans, since white Americans are not routinely described as European-Americans, and it isn't a native white country at the end of the day. That's not really an answer to the question though. Ultimately MOS:IDENTITY is just a guideline, but WP:V is a policy so that takes precedence, and if credible sources identify her as African-American then it is a legitimate categorization as far as I am concerned. Betty Logan (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Erik II thanks for the link. I'm still not quite sure where this puts me. The first part of the guideline reads: When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources; if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses. Is the guideline suggesting that the burden mine to establish that the majority of sources have historically referred to her as African-American? (BET does here) Or does the guideline suggest we should be using the term African-American to describe her, because that's the term most reliable sources would use to describe an American of African heritage? Further confusing the issue, is that she also said, "I never said I wasn't black". I'll point out that we don't have cats for Black American singer or Black American actor, we only have cats prefixed as "African-American" for people who are American of African heritage. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Errors on the page Emir Kusturica

Errors on the page Emir Kusturica when viewed without a wiki account (if logged into Wiki, will not get errors).
Thanks, Marasama (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Try purging the page when logged out: add ?action=purge onto the end of the page's URL in your browser, and then hit return to reload. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

On the deprecation of the sortname template

WP:FILMOGRAPHY avocates the use of {{sortname}}, but that template's documentation says it's deprecated. nyuszika7h (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. There does not seem to have been a discussion regarding deprecating {{sortname}} and its likes. For now, we should keep using sortname for ease of use. Nymf (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Doubts

Well, I am here to see if anyone can answer me this question I have, to where you have understood the notes column, should be used to name episodes, prizes or if such series or movie was dubbed into another language. But in this respect, I have my doubts. The notes should be used to mention that role had every actor in every project?. For example the word "Main protagonist and Main antagonist". It makes me very odd and strange. Because I have seen in other articles of other actors in the US and in many others not these methods are used to describe what role each actor plays. For example in The Walking Dead, I see that in the articles of the protagonist are not mentioned "main protagonist". For example the character that made David Morrissey as The Governor was antagonist of Season 4 and I see that in his filmography is not mentioned as such. I wonder why this is correct ?, or is it different notes for each stakeholder articles used ?. And in fact while in the article by Vanessa Villela. The user TheRedPenOfDoom remove this information saying they were trivia.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

For film articles, there was a pretty strong consensus against protagonist/antagonist labels, as seen here. Similar logic could be applied to actor articles. I am not sure what the best way to use the "Notes" column, but you could review Featured Articles for actors or their filmographies and see what items are included (probably not protagonist/antagonist). I think these terms are best excluded. Maybe just say "Starring", especially in contrast to "Supporting"? Though we'll need specific criteria to determine a starring role vs. a supporting one. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess you could seek consensus for "lead role" or "supporting role" (or "main cast" for a TV show), but you should definitely stay away from labeling roles as "antagonist" or "protagonist". Besides the original research involved in labeling characters as such, I think there are legitimate concerns that it's trivia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion I think it would be better to use "Co-lead role or Lead role" instead of "Main protagonist", as they do in the article Zendaya. But if something seems inappropriate to mention what the role each actor in each project as shown in the article by Sergio Sendel or ignore this and just use the notes to name episodes or important things. As you can see in some filmographies of famous actors. And as for "Main antagonist" seems an inadequate word, because that would come to be the same as protagonist. For the stars of a television series are displayed accredited in opening theme. For example in the series Shake it Up, characters Kenton Duty and Caroline Sunshine, were as antagonists, but his articles are credited as protagonists. It is my opinion, but I think using the Notes column to name an actor who had roles in each project seems irrelevant, you'd better mention that appeared in few episodes actor.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, using "Recurring role and Lead role", not argue, what worries me is that if the word "Main antagonist or Antagonist".--Philip J Fry • (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I would stay away from the labels entirely as they are subjective. Why do we need special indications of "lead role" vs "supporting role"? Who decides what a supporting role is? If IMDb doesn't bother to label the roles, neither should we. If the subject wins an Emmy/Oscar for best supporting actor that might be worth noting. Otherwise, it's WP:OR. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be better to make a consensus to decide whether or not to use these descriptions.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

We already have a consensus in the form of WP:V. If you say the actor had a lead role, find a source that supports "lead role". If you can't find that source, consensus says that we can't just use our personal analyses to arrive at lead or supporting. That's WP:OR. Consensus already exists. And we also have WP:PROTAGONIST/WP:ANTAGONIST which says explicitly Interpretations in the form of labels (e.g. protagonist, villain, main character) should be avoided. because A well-written plot summary should convey such roles. What's confusing? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitely no on "protagonist", "antagonist", "villain" for the filmography. The notes column is more for things like the awards and nominations, assuming there is no separate section for that, for specifying episodes if they are a singular guest star in the series, for clarifying those uncredited but notable roles. Recurring or starring would only be notable for that section if they were promoted/demoted across seasons and it was a big deal for such an event.

I'm also against counting number of episodes in that section as that would require sourcing an attendance record (16 episodes = potentially 16 sources?), and is not really helpful. The filmography would have a span to indicate how long they've been acting in that show anyway. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you guys don't like "lead role", you're really going to hate the last 50 or 100 edits to Dolph Lundgren. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at it this way, I think you should ignore the use by specified are. Because there have been series and telenovelas where the protagonist become evil. So what should be done, using "Protagonist / Antagonist" ?, and these cases have seen enough articles actors in telenovelas, which usually always happen this, that good becomes bad and bad becomes good. And I think it is unnecessary to specify this in the filmographies of the actors, I think mention his awards and nominations or names of episodes I say that is enough.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

For example here. clearly showing how the user uses words like "Main antagonist, Protagonist, Co-protagonist and Adult protagonist". And with regard to the roles that had the actress in the 80s and 90s, it is doubtful there are no reliable sources that say the role played in such telenovelas, also it happens with other articles telenovela actors who began their careers in the years 60. And as I said before, in telenovelas tend to be many changes regarding the roles of each actor. For example is the case of Aarón Díaz in Santa Diabla, since the telenovela premiered two years ago, the actor was the main protagonist, but then became the main antagonist.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Philip, I have no doubts that the problems exist in hundreds or even thousands of articles. That doesn't make it ideal. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh no! You're not going to trick me into looking at that article, NinjaRobotPirate! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I prefer using the accolades the actor received on,that particular show May it be a nomination or an actual award.Or you can use the the production company he worked for at that particular moment.Am not totally convinced with the use of episodes appeared in as they are very difficult to count as that cannot be offered by reliable sources.I love how the article of actress and singer Lucero is well established I think that's the most Ideal article for a Mexican actor I've seen.Why haven't I ever emulated it?nyanchy 22:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyanchoka (talk • contribs)

A way to name episodes may be shown as the in Ryan McCartan, instead of putting article if appeared in 20, 70, 80 or more episodes.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

For an actor article listing credits and the notes being extra related information about a credit we should be totally out of any fictional universe perspective. This is about the actor. *gonist stuff is purely an evaluation of the type of role and is generally some editors personal opinion so does not belong. What is appropriate is level of credit that can be derived from watching the credits display in the film or TV series episode itself. Any official poster as well. The first person listed is lead and is appropriate to list as such as that is a fairly major detail. Starring or main cast is supported by opening credits or listed as such in a poster or film credits. Guest star is credits as guest star, recurring if guest star in multiple episodes. Other credits are minor and not generally notable. The level of credit is important information for an actor article as it separates major from minor roles. In-universe details about the role is trivia at this level of article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's see, if you allow this, then also must be allowed the use of "Main protagonist, Adult protagonist, antagonist or Main Protagoist/Antagonist" and this really seems irrelevant, I think that naming that role had every actor in each project in a section separately as it is the "career or biography" sections would be correct. As said Cyphoidbomb if IMDb is not taken the trouble to put this type of notes, because Wikipedia should do it?. Maybe if it is important, but then it should allow the use of describe also the villains. In my opinion I think that name just the name of the episode and awards obtained such actor, would be sufficient. In such a case if the actor participated in a single episode, and there is the name of the episode believe that if it would be correct to name it, as for example the special participation of Dove Cameron on Austin and Ally.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have never seen listed in any official credit details like protagonist, villain or any such wording. That is in-universe plot detail and doesn't belong in an actor article. What matter is that the actor was in the project and the level of credit received, not details about the role itself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC of a subject which may be of interest to this Wikiproject

Please come to the RFC at Talk:Peter_Dinklage#RFC_on_the_inclusion_of_his_dwarfism_in_the_lead if it interests you to do so. --Jayron32 03:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

List of women in film

Please see this AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to add draft, file and redirect classes for WP Biography

I started a proposal to add draft, file and redirect classes for all WP Biography here. This would first help split out the five or six drafts from the 100 or so articles at Category:NA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles so we can identify the draft articles more easily. Please comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting using a different WP:FILMOGRAPHY example

• Previous discussion: WP:FILMOGRAPHY section – advise using a different example

Back in June, I suggested that we go with a different first Filmography (which is currently Sharon Tate's) for our WP:FILMOGRAPHY table examples. At the time, I suggested going with Dana Plato's as the replacement, but ran in to some problems with that (mostly sourcing Plato's uncredited roles for the table), and so kind of abandoned that idea. (Plato's Filmography tables may also be a little longer than we want in an example, in any case...)

Since then, I've sort of been looking for other potential examples that meet the desired criteria: 1) separate tables for Film and TV, and a mix of film, TV series and TV movies roles (it's the last that is missing from Tate's Filmography which is causing problems, as many editors have been putting TV movies in the 'Film' tables by mistake, so I'd like us to have an example that does it right...), 2) relatively short tables (so the example isn't overwhelming to readers), and 3) a deceased actor (so that the example Filmography table(s) won't be subject to further changes). Well, I think I've found three potential Filmography table example candidates:

• Bridgette Andersen (advantage: relatively short and sweet; disadvantage: few film roles, so it's "overweighted" in television roles, but I'm not sure that's a deal-breaker...)
• Lee Thompson Young (advantage: more film roles, and a better mix of all (incl. short films); disadvantage: overall longer, and still "overweighted" in television roles)
• Jonathan Brandis (advantage: best mix of film roles and TV roles; disadvantage: likely way too long to be a good "example")

Right now, I'm leaning towards switching to Anderson's as the best choice as the new Filmography table(s) example, but I'd like to solicit feedback on this before doing anything. (And, pinging NinjaRobotPirate, as someone who had good suggestions in the previous discussion...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I just thought of something. You know who might be a good choice? Heather O'Rourke, the actress who played the little girl in Poltergeist. She's got a short mix of TV, TV films, and theatrically released films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've cleaned up O'Rourke's Filmography tables so that they're correct and usable now. You're right, that's a good suggestion – it's nice and short, and has the correct mix of roles. My only concern is that O'Rourke never had a "main role" on a TV series like Anderson did. But I think the tradeoff of that for the brevity of O'Rourke's is probably worth it... Anyone object to using O'Rourke's Filmography as the WP:FILMOGRAPHY example? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

So, no further comments?... OK, I will likely be switching the example to Heather O'Rourke in the next day or two, then, as no one has proffered any objections. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done. The new Heather O'Rourke filmography example has been added. If I've done any of it wrong with the new tables, please feel free to "fix" it. I've also added somewhat to the text of WP:FILMOGRAPHY, so others may wish to take a look to make sure that they don't find any of what I've done objectionable. Thanks again for all the feedback on this! But I think it all worked out for the best, in the end. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Scope of FILMOGRAPHY sections?

No complaints here. I do have a question so long as there are people discussing the filmography: What is the intended scope of the filmography section? Should editors be logging everything that the actor has done, a la IMDb, or should we be presenting a representative picture of their notable works? I run into this a lot, particularly with voice actors who do a lot of video game work. Yuri Lowenthal is a prime example, especially in the video games section. Fans of his seem devoted to the constant addition of new roles, especially vague and presumably non-noteworthy roles like "Additional voices". I think it would be helpful to have some clear guidelines on the matter. I personally feel that we are not here to replace IMDb but that opinion doesn't seem to be shared by these zealous editors. Logging everything doesn't seem to be a sustainable model. If Lowenthal works consistently for another 30 years the list is going to be ridiculous. I also note the style disclaimer here—maybe I should raise this query at MOS:FILM instead? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That huge filmography should probably be spun off to its own article. I usually prefer to stick to roles that can be easily sourced, and then I describe them in the "career" section. The filmography section then lists whatever I was able to source from their career. For example: David Bruckner. For some articles, I guess I was pretty lazy, and I didn't bother to create a filmography section, like in Screaming Mad George. I'll get around to that eventually. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a good question. Another issue I've come across is people sticking "Stage" or "Theater" work under the "Filmography" header, when to my thinking "Filmography" should only cover film, television, web series, music video, and video game work. It's also worth asking whether "voice" work should often get its own separate table (i.e. separate from "live-action" roles – I was seriously considering this issue last night, when I was editing Clancy Brown's Filmography tables)... I don't have an answer on many of these questions (aside from feeling strongly that "Stage" work should not be included under "Filmography"), though on Cyphoidbomb's specific question, I would lean in the direction of only including voice roles that are specifically credited (e.g. "voice of Jafar", not just "Additional voices"...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

As I've mentioned on that discussion, the Extras, Additional Voices, and bit roles should only be noted if they have demonstrated significance to the actor's career or are covered by a notable news source that has highlighted their participation in rounding out the cast. The problem comes when there are tens or even hundreds of additional voices, or loop groups as with Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII, Skylanders: Trap Team, Disney Infinity 3.0, and Adventures in Voice Acting. Also splitting off Yuri Lowenthal's filmography (or other voice actors of the like) presents a significant problem when the parent article is barely a stub. I've run into hundreds of voice actor articles that only say "X is a Japanese voice actress" and then presents a detailed unsourced filmography of hundreds of roles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

As for having a split voice acting table, that depends if the person has a significant voice acting career. I do that all the time for voice actors. I also separate their direct-to-video, TV movie, and redub work from feature films. Stage and live-action theater should not be in Filmography unless it is for a television/video presentation of a stage/theater act. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, an ideal filmography section is a comphrehensive listing of all reliably sourced roles that are previously mentioned in article body. I wouldn't go so far as to say "various voices" or "additional voices" are "non-notable" roles when one person voices many characters on a show. As an example, Mary Kay Bergman voiced the vast majority of the female characters during the first three seasons of South Park (both major and minor), and it would be impossible to list them all by name in a filmography section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

FTR, "reliably sourcing" all TV guest star appearances would be difficult (to impossible, in some cases). I agree that sourcing for "major" roles in TV and film should be a no-brainer. But it'll be substantially harder to do that for guest roles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Some might be more difficult than others, but add anything supported by good references. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The ultimate source for all credits is the project credits themselves. If the project has been released it is the published reference for all its content including credit info. It may be hard to find but it is verifiable. Further references may be necessary to show notability but are not necessary to show if credited. If the credit info lists "uncredited", then need something to back that up. The credits that should be listed are those that are significant and notable to this actors acting career and will vary based on the actor in question. I see no need for everything except in a separate list of credits article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I was talking about when filmography hasn't been split into a separate article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Accessibility concerns

Previous discussion

I'm confused, because in the second example on WP:FILMOGRAPHY, the titles aren't using row header markup. Isn't that bad for accessibility? nyuszika7h (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC) You mean the "scope="row"" code? As far as I know, including that is redundant (I've seen it used in almost none of the WP:FILMOGRAPHY tables I have edited...). I don't think its use (or not) has an WP:ACCESSIBILITY component. I guess somebody will be along to tell me if I'm wrong... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC) @IJBall: Sorry, I mean they aren't marked as row headers at all. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm moving this here. There are a couple of accessibility issues with the filmography tables:

• Titles should be marked as row headers rather than plain cells, so that screen reader users don't always have to navigate through the entire row. I'm not sure whether it's necessary, but it may be more logical to put the titles first if we make them row headers. I don't really mind either way, though.
  • To answer IJBall's earlier comment, the scope attribute is not strictly required, as screen readers may be able to guess whether it's a column or row header, but it's best to make it explicit. And if we're making the titles row headers, we'll need scope="row" for plainrowheaders anyway.
• Single-word table captions such as "Film" and "Television" are inadequate. It should be something like "List of film performances" and "List of television performances".

This is what I mean:

List of film performances

Year	Title	Role	Notes
1982	Poltergeist	Carol Anne Freeling
1986	Poltergeist II: The Other Side	Carol Anne Freeling
1988	Poltergeist III	Carol Anne Freeling	Released posthumously. Dedicated to her memory.

nyuszika7h (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no objections to either of those changes, if you wish to make them to the example(s). I personally would like a an update on whether the
"! scope="row" | [year]" code is really necessary or not (I suspect it may have been more necessary a few years ago, but may not be necessary any longer...). But I don't think it's necessary to include a "Title-first, then year" example though – I added links to two examples of Filmography tables with that formatting in the intro text, so I don't think we need to include one here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@IJBall: I already explained above that scope="row" is needed to get the plain format provided by plainrowheaders, otherwise they would be bolded and centered. That aside, screen readers may be able to guess that it's a row header, but it's better to be explicit, and also for consistency, include scope="col" as well. The title is the one that should be the row header, though, not the year. Screen readers such as JAWS have a mode where it reads the column and row headers, and then only a particular column. [33] For example: "Title, Dil Se, Role, Preeti Nair; Title, Soldier, Role, Preeti Singh". I wasn't suggesting listing both examples (year before and after title), but rather picking one of them. Actually, I think it looks better with the year first and having a row header in the middle shouldn't cause a problem, but somebody can correct me if I'm wrong. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"Single-word table captions such as "Film" and "Television" are inadequate. It should be something like "List of film performances" and "List of television performances"."

MOS:DTT also says "Captions should be concise", and to say "List of" is basically redundant. It's obvious it's a list. And I would say that "...roles" is better than "...performances", but either way works. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind retaining "List of" when there might be other tables in the article that seem to be a list but are actually trying to show something else. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

AfD for Owen 'Alik Shahadah

Hi, I have opened an AfD to the article Owen 'Alik Shahadah. Interested participants may like to comment here. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sachin-Tomar

Hi,

could the members of this project determine if Sachin-Tomar is now meeting your notability criteria? No idea if this is a substantial copy of what once was Sachin Tomar, but at least there might be some serious WP:COI issues involved, see also the revisions of the article. Cheers! – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

These belong to a profilic WP:SOCK farm. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsachintomar. --Drm310 (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Rowspan still deprecated for filmography?

An edit note in Kim Kardashian deprecates rowspan. Is rowspan still deprecated? I searched the archives here. Do I just remove them? Checkingfax (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The last time this came up, someone said that screen readers can't properly parse rowspan. There was consensus for allowing it in the "year" field, but beyond that it just became contentious. Personally, I'd like to hear from a person who uses a screen reader, as all of our information seems to be second-hand. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The earlier discussion about this (I think it's in the archives, possibly mid- to late-2014?...) included a link to someone who seemed to know the details on the WP:ACCESSIBILITY concerns. And the subsequent RfC on the issue, that removed the long-standing prohibition on 'rowspan' from Filmography tables, completely ignored the Accessibility issues (and, thus, I believe should be considered invalid). (Aside from that, I think in most cases the use of 'rowspan' in these tables is less than aesthetically pleasing, and I'd probably still oppose its use on those grounds; but the Accessibility concerns clinch the case against it IMO...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography

I have nominated Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood filmography

I have nominated Clint Eastwood filmography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe

Hi, any chance somebody could give this a review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Marilyn Monroe/archive1? A core article if ever there was one which really needs a good review.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)