Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 18

Lizzy Caplan

I am editing her page for a class and I have found quite a bit of information to add to her early/personal life sections from various interviews and articles like this one in The Rolling Stone. I also wanted to add a section about how she really enjoys doing nude scenes which she has reported in several interviews that I'm going to pull from YouTube. Unfortunately, most of my sources will be primary sources, but I think it will add a good amount of information to the article. Finally, I have found at least one movie she was in,From Where I Sit (2000), that is not listed. I'm going to explore more titles because I know she has been in many films and television shows that were quickly forgotten. Please let me know what you think. Hollylsample (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you've got solid ideas on how to improve the article. One thing I'd be wary of is focusing on titillating aspects of interviews. Wikipedia is certainly not prudish about such topics, and nudity does indeed seem to be a common topic in a few interviews I found on Google. However, it never hurts to be a bit cautious when you're editing a biography. Like anything else, YouTube videos can be reliable sources, but you need to be careful that you don't link to copyright infringement. Many videos were uploaded without the permission of the copyright holder. As long as you stick to interviews and newspapers articles, you should be fine. Primary sources can be problematic, and I would avoid anything that looks like a public record or government database, which are disallowed by our policy on biographies. Otherwise, primary sources are a legitimate supplement to secondary sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, after further research this is what I would like to add to the page:

A few small edits to her early life section including information about her siblings, that her mother died of an illness, that she played soccer in high school, and did not attend college because it was too much of a "time suck." Also a little bit of information on the extent of her role on Freaks and Geeks. This information will mostly be tacked on to existing sentences to flesh out the sections a little bit. These will be the sources -

I am also going to add a movie that is missing from her Filmography - From Where I Sit (2000) - this was her first film role and it was a made for TV movie.

My main contribution will be adding a full sub-section under "Career" called "Masters of Sex" which will outline her casting and signing procedure, her role in the show, her study and portrayal of Virginia Johnson, award nominations, role as a serious actor, comfort with nude scenes, and the impact the show has had on her career.

Lizzy was immediately favored by casting producers as she "embodied Virginia" but was not officially signed for several months but Lizzy turned down many other potential roles while she waited because she wanted it so bad. All the characters read the book that the show is based off of and Caplan also spoke with consultant, Thomas Maier (author of the book Masters of Sex), and was allowed to listen to some of her actual interview tapes. Caplan's role as Virginia Johnson is not only her first major dramatic role, but she is also portraying a major feminist icon. In many interviews Lizzy has stated that though the amount of nude scenes in the show were uncomfortable at first she has gotten "as comfortable as possible" and actually enjoys shooting the scenes. Here are some of the sources for this section, but I hope to find stronger support before everything is finalized-

(This reference includes biased material which I will avoid and only use the factual portions.)

In response to user NinjaRobotPirate, I will be reducing the emphasis on her nude scenes as part of her personal life and instead include a little information in the "Masters of Sex" section because I still believe it is an important theme in her work. After doing further research, I found that Caplan takes many measures to keep her personal life a secret. There is little information to be found concerning her personal life. For this reason and out of respect for Caplan I have decided to leave this section alone altogether.

Hollylsample (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Navboxes for film score composers?

Additional opinions welcome at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Navboxes for film score composers? and related deletion discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Navboxes and WP:BIDIRECTIONAL

Please see the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navbox requirements regarding consensus for WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tashiana Washington

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tashiana Washington is taking place. Softlavender (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Show Luo

Hi, I'm working on editing Show Luo's Wikipedia page. He is a Taiwanese singer, actor and host. Does anyone have some suggestions or comments about it? Thisislily (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for working on this article. I looked over it quickly. Although it looks good, I think the biggest problem is that it needs more sources. See WP:REFB for a guide on how to add sources, WP:RS for our guideline on how to identify a reliable source, and WP:V for our policy on when a source is required. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a main issue with the article is insufficient cited sources (most sections are unreferenced). It then needs some copyediting. Lapadite (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I looking for more sources about him. Thank you for your advices.Thisislily (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Jean-Claude Van Damme's first film

Recently, there have been edits to the film Woman Between Wolf and Dog to state this was his first film apperance. They were all unsourced, and I've reverted them. Now a Youtube clip has been used a source to back this claim up. I'm not convinced this is a) reliable and b) verified. This source has also been used to update the main article too. Has anyone else encountered something similar before or have comments on if this source is OK to use? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Does this answer your question: [1]. Betty Logan (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Not really. How reliable is answers.com? Isn't it just the same as a messageboard/blog? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Well thats all Youtube is really, except with the facility to post up media files. A clip from a 1979 film with a cameo only substantiates that he was in a film in 1979. It doesn't corroborate that it was his first appearance. Betty Logan (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Participants here are often really good core content creators, can spot copyvios, have to know what is notable what what is not, and routinely check sources for reliability. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Conor Donovan

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conor Donovan (actor) Joeykai (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Actor template at TfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Golden Raspberry 'awards'

Can someone refresh my memory as to the current project-wide consensus, if any, concerning the Golden Raspberry Awards. They were removed from Adam Sandler some time ago but were recently reintroduced. There is no talk page discussion at the article and am not finding any here either. My recollection as that these were not to be treated like ordinary awards for a host of obvious reasons. Coretheapple (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There hasn't been any consensus on the matter that I know about. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember a consensus, either. Sometimes people argue they should be separate from normal awards, and that strikes me as reasonable. I don't like the idea of removing them entirely, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, no consensus was made, and although I am one who believes that they don't really belong with the others, I only remove them if there's no source. And, I see that on the Sandler article (which I haven't watched before) it's not cited, so unless someone beats me to it, I will be removing them from there. (And that's not the only problem with that particular section BTW) —Musdan77 (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It's possible this subject was discussed previously in the films project. Coretheapple (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Scotty Bowers

A new documentary on Scotty Bowers, the Hollywood sexual fixer to the stars, entitled Scotty, has been in the works for a while, and appears to be heading for release soon. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cannes-two-hot-hollywood-themed-796551) Scotty Bowers currently reverts to 'Full Service', and a page for his autobiography of that title. It would make sense I should think for the entry for him to be under his name, rather than his autobiography, and the book and documentary info listed there. I did this redirect last year and rewrote the page (my suggested edit is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Full_Service_(book)&oldid=684716974) but two editors who are against this for unaccountable reasons appeared out of the woodwork, and reverted both the edit and the redirect so consensus will need to be sought on both. I don't think it's worth creating two pages, which is only more to edit and admin. Also: both editors are sensitive to the claims made in the book, so that's another issue. You can view a recent revert of someone's else proposed inclusion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Full_Service_%28book%29&type=revision&diff=699345811&oldid=699327514 Your thoughts please on (a) page being under Bowers name (b) its content. I'm posting the request here to because the article is a sleepy traffic one, and am hoping to gain some interested parties. Thanks Engleham (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC regarding navboxes for Actors, etc.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Banning articles from navigational aids. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Listing Commercials in a Filmography

Hello! New to this whole editing on wikipedia thing and actually became a member partially because of this issue. I've found that on a couple of filmography sections on certain actors pages there are advertisements included along with everything else. I take issue with something like this because I myself am an actor (albeit not a notable one) and the general consensus within our industry is that commercials are not on the same level as Stage work, Feature Films and TV...it isn't even in the same ballpark.

Now, they should definitely be mentioned in the articles, they're stepping stones for every actor and it's interesting to read about a time when the superstars of today paid their dues like everyone else. But they shouldn't be given their own tables and put with all the other higher class work that these people have gone on to do, it puts too much undeserved focus on them that way.

Like I said, I'm new here, very new. So if anyone has anything to add or maybe has a better point to give towards this issue than I do, please, go for it. O'Kylo Ren Ishii (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree on exclusion since some commercials can become big parts of one's career. Take for example how J. K. Simmons is a recurring character in the Farmers Insurance Group commercials, even after he had become famous. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with exclusion as well. I think that, if included, they should typically be in their own table, and not mixed in with "Film" or "Television" credits. This is in line with the way we sometimes make separate tables for Internet video or video game appearances. I think that keeping the tables separate would partly address the OP's concern, by showing that these are in a separate field altogether. Elizium23 (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that they should be in their own table and not mixed in with either film or TV appearances. However, the table should not become an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of any commercials that a given person has been in. There should be WP:RS WP:SECONDARY sourcing mentioning the ad campaign. MarnetteD|Talk 22:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, if someone appears as a dad or mom in some random commercial, who cares? But if there's actual coverage, such as The Man Your Man Could Smell Like, then it belongs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think putting them in their own table would indirectly result in them being mixed in with the rest of the filmography because a spotlight is being projected onto them that I think is undeserving of that type of work. To be clear I only think they should be excluded from table's or from the actor's filmography/list of works section. A few pages of the pages that I've noticed that include commercials in this fashion and that I think should be changed: Jake Gyllenhaal, Christian Bale, Wes Anderson, James Dean and Peter Sellers. So based on the examples provided, let me hear you opinions.

Also I think it is worth noting that the pages of J. K. Simmons and Isaiah Mustafa do NOT mention their ad campaigns in their filmography sections. O'Kylo Ren Ishii (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors do not make value judgements on the worthiness of a particular type of work for actors or any other figure we write about on Wikipedia. It is therefore completely unfair of you to judge commercial work as a "ghetto" that should not be documented in a neutral fashion. Indeed, we have whole articles on commercials and their actors, such as Stephanie Courtney and her character Flo (Progressive Insurance). What we do on Wikipedia is document what reliable secondary sources have to say about a topic. Now, oftentimes commercial work is not notable and not mentioned in sources. That's just fine for us, we would have no reason to mention it on Wikipedia and indeed a basis to remove unsourced material. But if secondary sources do comment on an actor's work in commercials, there is every reason for us to include it here per WP:DUE. By comparison, I would also say that pornographic actors and films are disreputable and not widely considered respectable work. Yet they are well-documented here on Wikipedia, because there is coverage by sources and there are editors devoted to that field of interest. I don't care to work in that topic area, but as a volunteer, it's easy enough for me to avoid, and I don't have any delusions about dictating to those editors about what is and is not respectable work. Elizium23 (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

This is reasonable. I don't know how I feel about putting commercial advertisements in a "filmography" section, but if there's sourced commentary, it should be at least discussed in a "career" section. And, if people do feel the need to list notable advertising campaigns, I'd probably just let it go. As long as the Wikipedia article isn't being used as a resume, I think it's alright. You have to watch out for "rising stars" and the "next big thing", who sometimes have overeager agents. I keep a few of these articles on my watchlist to make sure they don't become too promotional. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I am all for them being discussed in the career section in the page, it's when they're listed out in the filmography section that I think it's shining too much of a spotlight on them. There are far more pages on this wiki that follow that very criteria than ones that don't. For instance, i'll use the page of Stephanie Courtney (which was used as if to argue against my point) as an example because I LIKE the way that page is laid out, I think it could even be touched up to mention her commercial work MORE in her "career" section. All of the examples provided for actors that have taken part in ad campaigns and should have them listed on their pages DON'T have them listed on their pages. Especially since some of those people are known more for their commercial work than anything else, it shows me that most editors on here don't care to list that work in the filmography section of a persons page. These pages (Jake Gyllenhaal, Christian Bale, Wes Anderson, James Dean and Peter Sellers) stick out like a sore thumb to me because they DO have them listed in these sections. So please, look at the examples provided rather than bringing up pages that I agree with. O'Kylo Ren Ishii (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to include it in the filmography if it has achieved notability in the advertisement world as with Ridley Scott filmography and 1984 (advertisement). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Metacritic link for actors

Hi. I have a question: is there a Metacritic template for actors? I've never seen one used. If not, should there be one? For what it's worth, we've got {{Rotten Tomatoes person}} for RT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't have any template that I know of, but it could be viable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Elisha Cuthbert

A group of newer editors who don't seem to understand English or Wikipedia policies very well have been editing Elisha Cuthbert extensively in the past few weeks. The article could really use attention from veteran editors, especially if they're willing to assist in cleanup. I've been doing my best to perform copy edits, add sources, and keep out the citations to social media sites, but it's a lot of work for one ninja to handle. This was, at one point, nominated for GA, but it's rapidly degenerating into a poorly-written fan site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning birthright citizenship

Please see this discussion. Lapadite (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

GAR

Eminem, 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. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Daniel DeWeldon

This article about an American actor could use another look by a topic expert. Especially the sections "Critical acclaim" and "Industry reviews" are cherry-picked promotion, and lack factual encyclopedic details. I have already trimmed a lot of unsourced puffery (see history), but more could be done if anyone is interested in the topic. GermanJoe (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Horvath (actor)

I want to thank you to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers for your support on my article about this young but talented actor Daniel Horvath, thank you very much again and really hope that you will help me to continue with this labor to do the best for a community of wikipedia.--Anonimoushh (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

While most contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. As is typical of autobiographies, the article that you created has significant problems with a lack of reliable sources. I suggest that you please familiarize yourself with the guidelines at WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

CactusWriter thank you very much for your comment, but as I spoke with you in other articles, there is no right to suspect about it, please have a look of the actors career and be more helpful in order to add some more additional information instead of suspecting. I know that I am new in this society of wikipedia but I appreciate totally all the labor of other people same as I want them to appreciate my small adding to this. Therefore thank you and hope to speak with you in future. --Anonimoushh (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Anonimoushh, my above comment is in response to the statement that you wrote at Commons: Hello, thanks for your note, the is my photo and I am Daniel Horvath an actor and I allows this photo to be on the Daniel Horvath WIKI page. So please take out the restrictions of copirite because this photo is taken from my web page . Thank you, (by Anonimoushh (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)]]))). Good faith was assumed when you declared that you were this person. However, that also created an immediate problem with Wikipedia guidelines on Conflict in Interest and the policy on Self-promotion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

CactusWriter as I have explained before that was a mistake and that post was deleted, because the problem was that I didn't know exactly how to use it before, and now I know, therefore the problem is solved and now when you explain the problem of the photo I admite that you are right but I would not admit your statement even after I have explained everything. thank you very much for your explanation.--Anonimoushh (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Bette Davis

I have nominated Bette Davis 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. DrKay (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Documentary and pre-release status (Filming, Post-production, etc.) in filmographies

Hi, Is there any consensus on how to display whether a work is a documentary and/or display its pre-release status (Filming, or Post-production, etc.) in actor filmographies? (Or indeed whether to include that information at all?)

Often I see the Notes column used for this: Amy Adams filmography, James Franco filmography, however I've also seen a separate Key table in use: Gillian Anderson filmography, Angelina Jolie filmography.

Thanks - Henrym (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The former is more commonly used (mention in Notes column). I think highlighting documentaries is unnecessary unless the individual has done multiple documentaries or is notable for doing them. Lapadite (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

BLP summary headings

Lately, I've seen a number of summary section headings added and removed, e.g., [2]. Is there a consensus on whether they should be used? (posted on WT:FILM) Lapadite (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

In re to Erik and NinjaRobotPirate at WT:FILM:

Many do seem promotional, redundant and/or have issues with WP:WEIGHT. It is difficult to partition a life and career, which tends to be non-linear, and attribute a blanket label to every period without encountering the aforementioned (except with concrete or objective headings like notable works in a given period or sections covering a particular event). Yes, I think WP:STRUCTURE along with WP:WEIGHT are the most relevant policies here. Lapadite (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it could make sense for some articles. However, it would have to be neutral in tone, and most of the headers I've seen have been insistently promotional. I also don't understand why we'd want to break someone's career into such small chunks and label them, especially when it's basically one or two films per chunk. It seems like these editors are trying to turn the Wikipedia biographies into poorly-sourced fan sites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

PR

Lady Gaga is currently up for a peer review. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Lady Gaga/archive4. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Actor category at CfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library

I've proposed something about approaching some of the film companies to make agreements with screenshots from films which could potentially greatly benefit actor articles. If interested please add some input.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Film director categories at CfD

A relisting of a discussion, please see this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Notability: Luigi Pane

Hello, I'd need help with Luigi Pane's page, it looks more like a promotional online CV than an encyclopedic page. Should I add a Notability Tag? Artafinde (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Freida Pinto FAC

I've nominated the article for FAC. Constructive feedback would be appreciated – Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freida Pinto/archive3. Thanks, —Vensatry _(Talk) 17:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Johnny Mack Brown

A great athlete, and a funny guy, but I am ashamed to say my knowledge of film stops long before one who would know about his career. I tried to clean up the other parts of his article. If anybody knows anything to add, peace be upon you. Cake (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Find a Grave template listed for deletion

Might be relevant to some members of this project. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Gustaf Skarsgård, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Invitation to an online editathon

You are invited...
	Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red June 2016 #wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Berlin Film Festival award categories at CfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Filmographies: title order?

Hi all, in looking at the instructions for filmographies, it's unclear in what order titles should be presented within a year. Note the example below from the guideline:

List of film performances

Year	Title	Role	Notes	Source
1998	Dil Se	Preeti Nair	Winner, Filmfare Best Female Debut Award (also for Soldier) Nomination, Filmfare Best Supporting Actress Award
1998	Soldier	Preeti Singh	Winner, Filmfare Best Female Debut Award (also for Dil Se)
1998	Premante Idera	Shailu	Telugu film Dubbed into Hindi as Dulhan Dilwale Ki

The titles are not arranged in alphabetical order, but they also don't seem to be arranged in chronological order either:

Dil Se: 21 August 1998

Soldier: 20 November 1998

Premante Idera: 30 October 1998

Some kind of clarification on this would be appreciated. Michael Caine filmography has a ton of information, but it's unclear what order any of it is in. If the preference is to sort chronologically, then including a release date in the table might make that more obvious. Or perhaps a parenthetical underneath the table's title like:

List of film performances

(chronological)

Year	Title	Role	Notes	Source
1998	Dil Se	Preeti Nair	Winner, Filmfare Best Female Debut Award (also for Soldier) Nomination, Filmfare Best Supporting Actress Award

Otherwise it looks like a random jumble of titles. Thoughts appreciated, thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

To me, it seems like an honest mistake that someone had made while organizing the table on Preity Zinta's article. As far as I know, films have always been organized in chronological order irrespective of what language they're. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 20:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I support the need of a clarification on the guide, and the order should be chronological based on the release dates – like it is in this kind of pages –, even though sometimes it might be difficult to find them (for example in some movies of Alfred Hitchcock filmography, which is not properly chronologically ordered). However, I'm not sure about the addition of "(chronological)" in the table name, because it should be obvious. --Almicione (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The only way it would be obvious is if we had the additional information of a release date. Alphabetical order is obvious because we have the additional information of knowing what alphabetical order looks like. With no dates, we are assuming they're in chronological, which may not be the case, and which makes it difficult to spot errors. So if chronological is the preference, I'd propose either encouraging a release date, or a note that will give readers (and people adding to the list) an idea of what the table's expectations are. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it is listed based off of presumably chronological releases, though I would support the idea of specific release dates based on the above. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I usually use {{dts|1998|08|21|format=y}} for the entry, and then I can sort by the release date while still showing a year in the column. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Filmography contention over splitting entries over multiple lines.

I'm having some contention with an editor who is insisting that filmography entries in tables be split over multiple lines, for example: [3]

I think this is a waste to do when the filmography is not complete. By keeping the entries all in one line, it makes it easy to take the entries and sort them by release date: [4]

I'm hitting 3RR on this, but I would like some help as the other editor thinks that is the standard to split over multiple lines, but I don't see such a thing here. Also the one-line filmography entry is a lot easier to maintain. Example of recent sorting effort [5] The editor is also not being cooperative, and just deleting any of my thoughts that I posted on his talk page.

Any thoughts and help would be appreciated. Thanks. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I never stated that single bar cells are "standard", just that they are easier to edit with. Per Help:Table they are both accepted. As I stated in the blanked of MY OWN TALKPAGE, WP:OWNTALK states "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages." You state my edits "unconstructive" (the correct usage is "nonconstructive" BTW), but I would disagree. My edits remove the unnecessary Whitespace while also cleaning up the code & on Micah Solusod removing the CSS styling to the tables to align them with the standard wikitable styling (see MOS:TABLES). You state you "sort the entries using a word processor", well the word processor can most likely replace specific string of texts, so you can easily convert the table to the gaudy double bar cells, sort by date, and convert the table back to the single bar cells so its much easier to edit. So ya...  #FF9600  talk 02:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I've just sorted a filmography within 2 minutes of throwing in the updated release dates. [6]. It is far more difficult to convert to the double bar format from the single one. If you can explain to me how to do the substitutions from multiple-to-single line, I will think about it, but this scheme won't do while the filmographies are in progress. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see if this version is easier to sort by date than [7]. The first scheme would have to involve a lot of manual cut-and-paste, while the second you can paste and sort, and sub in the line breaks. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Via Notepad++, open the Replace window (CTRL+H or Search » Replace...). Set the Search Mode to Extended. For Find what use ||  (that's vertical bar, vertical bar, space), and for Replace with use \n|  (that's backlash, "n", vertical bar, space). To do the reverse (single bar cells to double bars cells), you would do Find: \n|  (that's backlash, "n", vertical bar, space), Replace:  ||  (that's space, vertical bar, vertical bar, space). (You can also remove trailing spaces at the end with Find:  \n (that's space, backslash, "n"), Replace: \n (that's backslash, "n"). Notepad++ can also be used for sort as long as the TextFX plugin is installed. (You may also need to set you line ending format to Unix/OSX {Settings » Preferencs » New Document}).  #FF9600  talk 03:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

May I ask that you don't apply this scheme on filmographies in progress where there's still a lot of content to plow through? It is simpler to move around entries when they are compact in one line. The ones that are finalized in GA and not likely to change except for very recent items, then sure, whatever. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I can't comply with this. If I'm making any improvements/corrections to the table, e.g. converting the table to a standard wikitable, cleaning whitespace, etc. I'm going to convert the table to single bar cells. They are cleaner and easier to edit in general.  #FF9600  talk 05:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the multiline format is cleaner, I'm not sure what's the issue with sorting here as it already seems to be sorted right now, and inserting new entries shouldn't be that complicated manually. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I didn't see the whole thing. It wouldn't really hurt to keep the single-line format for now until it's "complete" then, I guess, it's not worth edit warring over and causing extra work for Angus. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Music videos?

Are they listed in filmographies? How about guest appearances in talk shows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.112.71 (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Music videos sometimes are (particularly for people not credited as a main or featured artist), but guest appearances on talk shows are not from what I've observed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Brendan Hunt

An article at Brendan E. Hunt was recently created – it seems to me like that is not the WP:COMMONNAME, so it wouldn't work for WP:NATURALDIS. Then there is the other Brendan Hunt which was renamed to Brendan Hunt (actor, activist) which seems unnecessarily long to me. Suggestions for page names? Perhaps Brendan Hunt (writer) and Brendan Hunt (activist)? If anyone has a better idea, I'm open to it. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps (comedian) and (activist) ? They both have done theatre acting but Brendan E. Hunt has done more comedy and won awards for it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Gender titles: Actress? or Actor?

Hi, I'm trying to figure out if there is a community preference for gender-specific titles, for instance, would we refer to a female actor as an actress or an actor? I'm aware of WP:GNL, which seems to suggest we go with the gender-neutral "actor", but I wanted to double-check. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

From what I can tell, "actress" is preferred for females unless used in plural with a male (i.e. "the actors Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez"). Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Input requested on use of cast/crew names in navboxes for TV/film

I've started a discussion on the inclusion of cast/crew names on TV/film navboxes here at WT:Navigation Templates. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Some further voices would really be appreciated here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

New WikiProject

I've long thought it would be a good idea to tie Sinatra-related material together, it's a big topic in its own right really, and one which overall badly needs an injection of quality. You're invited to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Frank Sinatra!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC of possible interest

There's an RfC requiring attention at Talk:Gary Cooper#Anderson Lawler regarding whether to include a mention of Anderson Lawler in Gary Cooper's biography. Comments are welcome. Diego (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

George Harrison

Shouldn't the biographical article George Harrison be of interest to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers? I ask this because Harrison was a film producer. He co-founded HandMade Films and served as an executive producer of such notable films as Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979), Time Bandits (1981) and Mona Lisa (1986). Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would argue with that. You could just be bold and tag whatever article you think is applicable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Help with Bollywood film

You might be interested in this material. Any help is Welcome.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

A Golden Hollywood Contest

I've set up a page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Golden Hollywood Contest. The idea would be quality improvement on our core articles for this period, improving actors, directors, films and related content and expansion work on stubs/undeveloped content which should be much better by now. The system would be partly based on the successful Awaken the Dragon and current West Country Challenge contests, with points and prizes allocated to certain tasks. If you think you might be interested in participating in the contest or editathon, or at least support the idea add your name to the Interested section at the bottom and we'll see how it progresses. I think it's time an annual contest was held for WP:Film/Actors. Potentially the film project could be running a few each year targetting different areas, one could be on French/Italian neo-Realist cinema etc. I wouldn't have the time to run them all but potentially I could help set things up and attract people to help run them. The Wales and West Country contests so far have seen 1400 article improvements, I think the same mechanism could be applied to film and potentially we see more participants and contests improved. The thinking would be a daily prize for most work, like a DVD, or book, something related to film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Performance navboxes (aka cast and crew in navboxes)

This topic again! An attempt to codify the consensus of not including cast and crew in navboxes, and not having filmographies in navboxes is at WT:CLT#Proposal for WP:PERFNAV (or similar). --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Rachel Bilson

Rachel Bilson, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

RFC on Louis CK sexual harassment allegations

There is currently an RFC open at Talk:Louis C.K./Archives/2016#RfC on Sexual Harassment Allegations --Jpcase (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Please verify

[8] Xx236 (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Gabrielle Union#Personal life needs work (I think)

The section is poorly laid out, at the least (most of the top section would more probably belong under "activism" or maybe "politics"), but appears to contain text that was copy-pasted from sources and edited enough so that it didn't technically violate copyright, but with no concern as to how it might read in the middle of a Wikipedia article (and until my recent edit it also contained a blatant factual inaccuracy/misinterpretation of the source).

I don't want to check all the sources (the amount of extraneous advertising stuff that clogs up my screen every time I click on most them is almost enough to crash my poor old browser), so I'm just leaving this note here in the hopes someone else will. I don't want to be pinged or messaged about this, though. I don't like editing popular culture articles. I just occasionally find myself reading one and noticing a glaring problem that I mistakenly think could easily be fixed.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Asking about suggested WikiProject(s) for Takuo Miyagishima

Does anyone have suggestions for any WikiProject(s) appropriate for Takuo Miyagishima? He does not seem to quite fit in as a filmmaker. He won the special Oscar for technological contribution to the motion picture industry because of his lens inventions. See more at the section on his career. Peaceray (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Actor birth dates and California law

New accounts are starting to complain about and blank actor birth dates in BLPs, citing a new California law in the United States (example 1, example 2). As far as I'm aware, neither the Wikimedia Foundation nor its servers are located in California, so I don't think this applies to us. WP:BLPPRIVACY does address this issue, but it frames the issue in terms of identity theft rather than ageism. At some point, this may require an RFC or discussion at WP:BLPN to resolve. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The key bit is "if requested by the actor". Is the editor from example one the subject of the article they edited? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

That article says "subscription entertainment database sites". It doesn't sound like Wikipedia falls under that, but I'm not sure. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know. I guess actor requests would probably have to go through OTRS to authenticate their identity. According to our article on the Wikimedia Foundation, the WMF is in headquartered in California after all. My memory was wrong, and I struck out what I said above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It's mostly those public accounts like IMDb, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, where they required the actors to register their birthdays for authenticity. Given WP:DOB, I don't think we'll have much of a problem since we don't consider those places as reliable sources anyway, leaving the places for newspaper articles, television shows, and books. And public search records are off limits for us too. I'm not sure how to treat copyright.gov (I'm assuming that's not in California) though which lists author birthdays if they have published books or music. I have had actors correspond on talk pages here to correct or remove DOB information and that's worked as well as OTRS. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• California law has jurisdiction only in California. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a "subscription entertainment database site", it's an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Maurishka for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maurishka is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurishka until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

"actor and voice actor"

Is it just me, or does anyone else think "X is an actor and voice actor" is redundant? It's like saying that someone is an "actor and motion capture actor". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

A few decades ago there was separation between the two but in this era the terms are redundant to each other. Animated films of all sorts are being voiced by "A","B" and "C" list actors :-) Now there might be an argument to use "voice actor" for someone like Frank Welker who specializes in voice work but IMO we could reduce the use of both terms in WikiP articles. MarnetteD|Talk 19:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. "Actor" covers live action as well as voice work plus it's repetitive to use "actor" twice in an opening sentence. I've found it's typically best to reserve the "voice actor" description for people whose filmography consists mostly if not entirely of voice roles like Jim Cummings and Grey DeLisle. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Help needed with an article that has Spanish-language sections

Could someone who understands Spanish take a look at Miko Hughes? There's an Argentinian IP editor who's adding a lot of content there, and most of it is in Spanish. The questionable stuff is near the bottom, in the "Album" and "Próximo Album" sections. I don't know what any of that stuff is, and I can't even judge whether it's vandalism. Thanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

"producer director"

Would folks who are savvy in the film industry please look at the discussion at Talk:Nisha_Ganatra#Lead? We have a person demanding that Ganatra be described as a "producer director" for Transparent and saying is a big deal in the industry. Thx Jytdog (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 in film

Ettore Scola, Jacques Rivette, Guy Hamilton, Alexandre Astruc, Michael Cimino, Abbas Kiarostami, Héctor Babenco, Garry Marshall, Arthur Hiller, Curtis Hanson, Herschell Gordon Lewis and now Andrzej Wajda. Its been a very bad year for directors.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Tamannaah filmography/archive1

Currently active, the candidate shall gain some benefit from few constructive comments. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Shannen Doherty filmography/archive1

I have nominated Shannen Doherty filmography , and I would greatly appreciate it if any of you could take a look and leave your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Ann Prentiss

Is there anyone out there with access to newspapers.com? The article on Prentiss till recently made mention of her going to jail for solicitation to murder her brother-in-law Richard Benjamin. The only sources I can find for this all fail WP:RS and I couldn't find a newspaper article on it either, so I removed it from the article. To me it seems inconceivable such a crime could go by without some media coverage. A google news archive search comes up with nothing. Can someone check newspapers.com? Ann Prentiss maiden name was Ann Ragusa....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Is Dwayne Boyd notable?

Xx236 (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Xx236, I don't see the lead roles to meet WP:ENT. Sending to AFD. Please discuss there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Cant seem to get a page live

 theres all kinds of press on Mark christensen.....  e.g.http://hollywoodflip.com/events.php?subaction=showfull&id=1309446749&archive=&start_from=&ucat=3&

 Movie out this week...TV etc yet some gatekeeper for wiki in Vietnam says its not enough????  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.137.107.81 (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC) 

Marci Liroff

Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at Marci Liroff. The article has been around for quite a while, and Liroff seems to be associated with lots of Wikipedia notable people and worked on lots of Wikipedia notable projects, but the only sources cited are to IMDb page for two other individual which is trivial coverage in nature. Lots of content in the article, but none of it supported by any sources and there's nothing showing that Liroff has received any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Is there anything like WP:NACTOR for casting directors? Googling her gets lots of social media pages, but I did find this, this and this so maybe this is just a case of WP:NEXIST. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 13 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red

WikiProject Women in Red wants your biographies

I have taken the liberty of adding a navigation box from this project's main page (diff), to a redlist of Actresses for whom we have no biography article. Right now, there are five times as many biographies of men as there are of women on wikipedia - see the Wikidata Human Gender Indicators page. I hope this project will lend its support to addressing this imbalance by creating biographies for women within your project's scope. More generally, WikiProject Women in Red has very many redlists covering perhaps 100,000 notable women for whom we have no biography. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

FAC open

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jennifer Lawrence/archive1 is open. Hoping to gain input. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Family members in nav boxes?

I am wondering about the appropriateness of the recent addition of family members (albeit, notable individuals with their own articles) to {{Carrie Fisher}}. Feels wrong to me.— TAnthony^Talk 17:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting. My only issue with it is that it will require more effort to police to ensure that the folks added are actual family members, but if we AGF, I don't see that as much of a problem. I'm fine with it. We currently allow family members in the infobox, so I don't see much of a difference. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Onel5969. Not that worrisome aside from ensuring they are in fact family members AND have their own articles in accordance with WP:EXISTING. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

If they're all notable and linked to the subject, I see no issue. It helps navigation for the reader, so that can't be a bad thing, right? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 20:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it's kind of important that they be notable enough for their own wikipage. Forgot that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Project page main image

File:Golden Hollywood.png is currently being used on this WikiProject's main page, but there is a problem with image that needs some attention. Basically, some of the individual images in the collage have been deleted as copyright violations, so technically they also need to be removed from the collage. Please see c:COM:VP/C#File:Golden Hollywood.png for further details. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Judy Garland

I have nominated Judy Garland 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. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Kristen Stewart

Over at Talk:Kristen Stewart#Infobox, it's strange. People are having this be long debate whining about how she doesn't need an infobox and are using WP:BRD as an excuse to remove it and ward off anyone that puts it back. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 17:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hold an RfC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Or better still, accept that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Cassianto^Talk 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Chika Ike

Would someone mind taking a look at Chika Ike and assessing it? The article needs to be cleaned up and it looks like there might be some COI editors primarily adding content to it. Ike probably satisfies WP:NACTOR, but the sources are not very good for establishing her Wikipedia notability. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Isabelle Huppert award bloat

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment of Joss Whedon

Joss Whedon, 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. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

IMDB is deleting its message boards in a couple of weeks

IMDB is deleting its message boards, and all of the content therein. The deletion will be on February 20, but it's not clear what time zone, so I would err on the conservative side and say February 19th (or 18th in case they mean zero hour Feb 20). If there is data or information on any threads on any IMDB message boards you wish to save, make copies now. (It seems the actual data pages for films and people will remain, but any and all message boards will be deleted.) On some of the boards I see a petition being floated to stop the deletion; if you feel strongly about it you could look into signing that. Softlavender (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Directors column in actors' filmography tables

Do we have a consensus on whether a "Director" column is acceptable for a filmography table? The best practice examples do not show one, and the linked examples do not either, but I'm getting resistance to removal at Jessica Chastain on screen and stage. Personally, I don't think it serves any purpose, especially when there is no longstanding relationship between an actor and a director (I'm thinking Clint Eastwood/Don Siegel, Johnny Depp/Tim Burton, etc), but even those collaborations could be marked in a separate section or in the "Notes" column. I'm sure this was discussed before. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the list of filmographies that are Featured Lists (as is this one), it seems the majority of them do include the director column for actors and actresses. On an aesthetic level, the tables without the director's column look a bit bare to me. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not think there is any consensus for or against certain columns. I would find the "Director" column more valuable than the "Role" column, though. The challenge is that it may or may not be pertinent to recognize a director (like if they have final-cut privilege or are just a director for hire), and I don't know what criteria could be used for selective inclusion. Still, due to some recognitions being worthwhile, I'd rather do all rather than nothing in that category. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

And looking at Chastain's filmography, I as a reader would be more interested to know that The Tree of Life was directed by Terrence Malick, rather than knowing what character she played, for example. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"Director" parameter more valuable than role or being more of interest!? That's crazy talk! The role is what someone is noted for above all else when performing in something. Like Rob, I personally don't see any particular benefit in including "director" (except perhaps for frequent collaborations like the examples he gave), but definitely haven't seen consensus for or against its use. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I see it included in the music video filmographies and on the actor's resumes themselves. It's useful if the movie isn't Wikipedia-notable but the director or producer might be to give it some context as with other notes like "Lifetime television movie". Some television shows have multiple and episodic directors. Also some filmographies the actor assumes crew roles as with Colleen Clinkenbeard. So I suggest not including it in its own column except in music videos where it definitely sticks out and shapes the media presentation for the singer/music group. The relationship stuff can get ridiculous though as with Justin Lin and actors in The Fast and the Furious franchise, like this crufty table [9] , which has since been removed AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You mention Malick, but just how relevant is it to Jessica Chastain's filmography that Eric Darnell, Tom McGrath and Conrad Vernon directed Madagascar 3? The role she played is all that is relevant here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

And then for animated features, do you list the voice director or the overall director? The voice one is more important for dubbed features. I agree it detracts from the actor's article. But if there's a relationship between the actor and the director that gets them cast in a lot of media together, that can be discussed up in the biography in prose sections as with Tim Burton and Johnny Depp. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem with making that assessment is that it is our POV. Your examples are good instances of opposite ends of the spectrum, but what about a director that falls somewhere in between, where some readers may find the recognition useful and others are clueless about the recognition? If we have a "Director" column, we should expect everything to be populated. If some cells are empty, passerby editors will attempt to be helpful and populate them (like they do with relatively new film infobox fields). Some cells will have more value than others, so what is the tipping point to warrant the column itself? The column is not outright detrimental for Wikipedia to have (especially here where we don't even have that many columns in the first place). Essentially, we're not necessarily pressed for space (I think). Not necessarily a full endorsement of having a "Director" column, but I am more asking, what is the big deal including if there is some benefit derived? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess it depends, to some extent, on how you feel about auteur theory. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The director may be significant if there is an ongoing collaboration, such as with DiCaprio and Scorsese, but that is not limited to just directors. For example, you could be interested in knowing which films Spencer Tracy made with Katharine Hepburn and so forth. Just listing directors for the sake of it seems a little bit arbitrary to me. Betty Logan (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether there is even a real consensus to use tables at all nevermind what columns they might have.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Editor adding film not yet in production to filmographies

An editor is adding the film Fighting with My Family to filmographies, and edit-warring to keep it there, even though the film is not yet in production and this violates WP:CRYSTAL. In addition, that article itself is not entirely reliably sourced. Softlavender (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

As I've said countless times now, The film starts production today. You stated it can only be added when IMDB states it filming. IMDB is not reliable. Quite frankly I'm starting to think you're just ignoring me considering you refused to correspond with me on your talk page despite me directly asking you a question. Rusted AutoParts 06:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

IMDB is reliable for the production status of a film. The film is not yet in production. When it is in production, and this is confirmed by an independent reliable source, then can add it. See WP:CRYSTAL. Discussions of article content need to stay on article talk pages, not on usertalk pages. Softlavender (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

IMDb really isn't appropriate by itself to use for anything, including production. Wait until a confirmation comes from a truly reliable (and preferably independent) source that filming has begun before adding into tables. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

...or before creating the film article, per WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That too, Rob. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability / AfD -- Joanna Haartti

There is a question as to whether this actress is sufficiently notable to meet WP:NACTOR.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanna Haartti
• Joanna Haartti

The is also a disagreement at that WP:AfD about whether these three films she has been in are notable and whether her role was "significant":

• Do I Have to Take Care of Everything?
• A Man's Work (film)
• The Happiest Day in the Life of Olli Mäki

--David Tornheim (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC of interest to this project.

See Talk:Natalie Portman#RFC on the inclusion of Portman's Erdos-Bacon number in the text of this article. Contribute if you have an opinion. --Jayron32 04:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding multiple episode appearances in TV series

Hi! I was interested to know the consensus on listing multiple appearances in TV shows in an actor's filmography. Currently, some actor's filmography's list the episode title for a single episode appearance, and then '2 episodes" etc. for multiple appearances. Others show episode titles for up to two or three appearances. I know the guidelines shows to use '2 episodes', but as this is only a recommendation, I was wondering if there was a consensus view on how this should be displayed? Many thanks. AutumnKing (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I personally don't see a reason to list titles for two or three episodes (or even for one) unless either the actor was a major guest star, and/or the TV show consists of self-contained stories with varying casts rather than a continuing storyline with a continuing cast, and/or the episode was quite noteworthy for some reason. IMDB is included as the top EL for most actors, so anyone who wants to find the specific episodes can do so easily. There really is no need to clutter up a Filmography table, in my mind. One thing that could possibly be useful is to list which season/series the episode occurred in, for a long-running show, although the year date will cover some of that. Softlavender (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Edited to add: Of course, if the actor is in the main cast or a series regular, that should of course be noted in the Filmography chart. Softlavender (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think they are needed if the actor is considered recurring or has an entry in a characters list, or the actor has a utility role (e.g. voices multiple background characters) in the show. If the character appears in a series of episodes in a short arc, you can list a range of episode numbers or the titles. Another option would be to say 3 episodes with a footnote to which particular episodes if folks are really that interested. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

As I explained at Talk:Katie Cassidy, for 1–2 episodes it is common to list the episodes titles (e.g. like "Episodes: "Fulcrum", "Hot Sauce" ") – the only time it is preferential to list "2 episodes" over listing the episode titles is when the episode titles are unusually long (and thus tend to mess up the Filmography table). However, for 4–6 episodes (or more), at that point it's common to switch to "Recurring role, 5 episodes" in the Filmography. That's how it's done at most of the actor bios I traffic, and it seems to work fine. As to Softlender's point, listing the season in which an actor appeared in a guest role is the thing that really clutters up Filmography tables – in those cases, it is highly preferable to link directly to the episode listing (e.g. like so – "Episode: "Wild Flowers" "). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

If what we are specifically talking about is Katie Cassidy, I think it looks fine as is. I wouldn't however personally want the episode title in the Filmography chart where the actor, say, had a non-speaking part and was only onscreen for less than two minutes. That would seem to be misleading, unless the fact of it being a non-speaking (tiny) role was also mentioned. Softlavender (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: This isn't written into a guideline anywhere, but it's generally an "unwritten rule" that only "notable" roles should be included in Filmographies, which means at least a significant speaking guest role. (IOW, roles as an "extra" should not be included in Filmographies, but could be mentioned in article text if there's sourcing for it.) Now, sure, there are articles that don't follow this, and do silly things in their Filmographies like include instances of "archival footage" appearances. But, generally, we shouldn't be doing things like that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

If they have a background actor role, that would depend more on whether they were still officially credited rather than whether their part has lines. It's those uncredited cameos and the archive footage that shouldn't be listed without sourcing to show notability. Same with appearances on the talk show circuit, interviews, or in the audience at events. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When I create a Filmography table for an actor that isn't complete, I clearly label it "Major filmography" or "Selected filmography" (to differentiate it from a complete filmography which can be found on IMDB, or a complete Filmography as is usually found on FA articles/lists). Many if not most actors have roles, especially in the earlier stages of their career, that are so minimal that they usually don't deserve mention in an a non-FA extensive filmography chart (sometimes that's because the role was later gutted in the cutting room) and would amount to clutter. On-screen–credited walk-on or non-speaking roles that actually have real names (as opposed to "Man in crowd") are sometimes not "extra" roles -- they are specifically cast with that specific actor -- but they are certainly not major roles. Softlavender (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The common practice in tables that I've observed is to list the number of episodes when appearing in multiple unless it's one or more full seasons, in which case the seasons should be numbered or perhaps signified as "lead role". Also, "notable roles" is a highly subjective description, and there's nothing to even suggest that tables should be cherry-picked (which can lead to neutrality concerns when unclear/biased criteria is being used). Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not "biased" if you following crediting levels – for example, with TV series, there's main cast, then "guest starring", then usually "co-starring", and then sometimes "also starring" or "appearing", and finally sometimes there's "featuring" credits. The last several categories are often non-notable and can be left out of Filmographies, esp. the "Featuring" one which is usually just for "walk on" parts. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Crediting levels aren't excuses to cherry-pick in tables. If the tables are getting long due to extensive roles, then that's when separate filmography pages come into play and the tables list all (credibly citable) roles. Remember that "notable" or "non-notable" roles is a POV description, and Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree – crediting levels are an objective way to determine role importance. That's not coming from us editors, but from the production itself. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I have edited the given example to reflect inclusion of two episode titles, as it seems to be agreed as acceptable practice. Many thanks. AutumnKing (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Actress AfD

There is an article for deletion discussion underway @ AfD Aleksandra Alač. Tapered (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

GAR

Members of this project might be interested in Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Demi Lovato/1. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

One Puja Gupta or two?

We have articles on Puja Gupta and Puja Gupta (actress). They both are Indian actresses who seem to have acted in different roles in Samrat & Co. but otherwise have distinct careers. Can we confirm that they are two different people and if so, think of a better way to disambiguate the article titles?: Noyster (talk), 13:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Non Wikipedia-notable shows and films for filmography?

Should appearances in non-notable shows and films be included in the actor's filmography? This would include stuff like local productions, web series, indie films, video games, and Kickstarter projects. Exception would be if the actor has a significant crew role (developer, producer, director). Would WP:CSC #1 apply then in most cases? For foreign films and shows, I suggest the notability would suffice if the entry can be found in the related language Wikipedia. And if there are secondary/independent reliable sources to discuss that role, as most of what I see is primary. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with including works in filmographies as long as they're credibly referenced, even if they don't warrant Wikipedia articles. CSC#1 doesn't apply here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

"Singer" if they ever sang for any reason?

This User is adding "Singer" or "songwriter" to actors who don't seem to have any significant singer or songwriter credits. I assumed this was subtle vandalism because of the deceptive edit summaries, ("Makeing page look nicer") but the user has put his changes back, and I'm not confident enough to edit-war with him. Perhaps someone more fluent in actors and filmmakers can take a look? Thanks. ApLundell (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

With anything like this, the burden is with the editor to source what they are adding. I don't know the subjects they've edited from their contributions, but remind them of WP:V and WP:RS, esp. when it comes to a living person. The lead of the article is meant to show the defining attributes of the subject, so if they only sang once (or not very often), then they're not really a singer. I cut my lawn at the weekend, but that doesn't make me a gardener. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I echo Lugnuts' comments. It should be reverted (or kept) on a case-by-case basis. If none of them seem to have much (if any) significant recognition for musical endeavors, then it isn't worth noting in opening sentence. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• That's textbook trolling, right down to the edit summaries. Softlavender (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I go with WP:BLPLEAD: "However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." Singers should be folks who have made it career to sing, recorded singles and albums. An actor singing in a film or show doesn't make them a singer. Singing cover songs on YouTube for fun doesn't make the person a singer nor writing lots of tweets make the person a blogger or a bunch of generic merchandise make someone a business person. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Max Botkin

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Max Botkin and assessing it? It's a new article which has already been BLPPRODed. Sources were added when the prod was contested, but they were later removed, so now all that is left is a single sentence citing IMDb and Allmovies. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

You can send it to AFD if you still don't think the person is notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)