FAC Laura Harrier is currently in a standstill. One editor supported the promotion to FA status but the current editor believes the article is too short to be a Featured Article. Could anyone assist with this article or quickly look over it for a review, or if not interested in reviewing it, let me know if it is indeed too short please? Factfanatic1 (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
alteration of the WP:FILMOGRAPHY guideline to apparently win an argument
Davey2010 recently made this removal from WP:FILMOGRAPHY, claiming (with no discussion) that there's no consensus for it. (I'm pretty sure that part of the guideline has been around for years.)
It's pretty transparently a reaction to me pointing him to that section of the guidelines during a discussion at Talk:Victoria Justice#sorting tables properly in my attempt to get him to explain his revert of my restoration of some data-sort-values at that article. I'm not sure in what circles excluding articles when you sort titles alphabetically is considered "controversial", but I assume if there are such groups, they don't mind a quarter or more of the titles of English-language works being listed under the letters "A" or "T". (I assume they also go around removing {{DEFAULTSORT}} values from our articles.) Also, last I checked, none of us get to just go to a long-standing guideline and change it because we don't agree with it.
I would revert the removal myself but I figured it was worth seeing if I'm totally missing something. My understanding was that this is a very standard practice, both in the wider world and at Wikipedia, and hence the guideline reading as it does—I mean, did. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I would support the restoration of that language to the MOS. While I don't think use of that should be "required" (in fact, I don't think it should be "required" that Filmography tables should be "sortable" in the first place), I see no harm in just allowing for sortablility and for allowing for proper sorting with sortability, and including such in the MOS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
As explained at that talkpage these don't go in alphabetical order tho, Our readers have to simply imagine "The" isn't there which is ridiculous and rather quite stupid, Ignoring the removal for a minute I don't understand the actual point to the data-sort,
Also no I don't remove the Defaultsort - That probably does the same thing I'm complaining about somewhere but I don't know where that somewhere is so don't care about that, I simply care about tables not being in alphabetical order. –Davey2010Talk11:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I support restoring this sorting mechanism. That should be applied to table listings the same way we use DEFAULTSORT to sort categories properly. For example, we would expect to see Victoria Justice's The First Time under "F" as "First Time, The". In the table itself, if we are able to click to sort the title, the title should be properly formatted to actually sort it correctly. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)14:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:SORTKEY explains about leading articles, "Leading articles—a, an, and the—are among the most common reasons for using sort keys, which are used to transfer the leading article to the end of the key, as in {{DEFAULTSORT:Lady, The}}." I see no reason to ignore this practice. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)14:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
If coding can be added that basically sorts it in alphabetical order then I would happily restore it myself with that coding added, If "The", "A" etc etc are all problematic then shouldn't they simply be linked as [[The First Time|First Time]] ?, Maybe it's my complete lack of understanding here but I simply cannot understand why these would be added which in turn messes up the sort part of the table ? –Davey2010Talk14:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
If you go here and sort the films to A-Z you'll see that at face value they're not in order - Technically they are however readers that aren't aware of data-sort will simply believe these aren't in order ? That's my entire problem - We're expecting our readers to be mind readers and expect them to know "The" has been "omitted", Thanks, –Davey2010Talk14:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the assumption is that the readers should know that leading articles aren't considered in sorting. When it comes to sorting categories on Wikipedia, it is universal to adjust the leading article. Like for The First Time, in any category, it will never be under a "T" page because it is categorized as "First Time, The" even when that is not directly seen. It will always be under an "F" page. With this universal assumption, I don't see why the same sorting can't be done for tables. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)14:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Having looked at the categories you're indeed correct "The", "An" etc are all omitted, Thank you for kindly taking the time to explain it, I simply assumed all tables at face-value were A-Z but guess not, Given the consensus above and given your explanation above I've gone ahead and reverted, Thanks again for being patient and taking the time to explain this to me it's greatly appreciated, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk14:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
RfC on tagging BLP with template messages signaling COI and OWN
Hi folks, if there's anyone around who's familiar with Spanish TV or cinema, some help researching and citing the claims in Daniel Guzmán (actor) would be really helpful. I translated it a little while ago from eswiki, but many of the claims there are incredibly difficult to back up, from what I've seen. Thanks! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Cinematographer categories considered for deletion
This is related to the deletion discussion for actor Sam Jones. He doesn't have an extensive amount of coverage that focuses on him (ie, articles about him the person) but he does have coverage in film reviews. For context, he's been in three films and of them, two of them have been in pretty major roles. In one it seems like he was one of the lead roles and in another, a major supporting role. The roles were large enough that he was consistently mentioned in reviews from reliable sources. To me this shows that the roles were notable, if the film was notable enough to get reviews and he's covered in that coverage.
In the AfD the nominator (TamilMirchi, tagging so they can participate as well) stated that to establish notability there would need to be coverage outside of the reviews. I can understand this to a point, but it's kind of confusing since it seems like that doesn't mesh with the first point of the notability guidelines for actors. (For example, this same argument could be used to say that book reviews can't count towards an author's notability.) I'm not looking for anyone to participate in the AfD, I'm just curious as to whether or not reviews can or can't count towards an actor's notability, as I've seen articles saved by this in the past. I admittedly haven't been as active on Wikipedia in the last couple of years so I was't sure if this had changed. (And if there hasn't been a discussion over this, then this likely should happen so there's a bit of a record to point to regardless of how it closes.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)03:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Your argument strikes me as perfectly congruent with our guidelines: significant discussion in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:WHYN says in the first bullet point, "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Since actors' articles are biographical articles, it may be more appropriate for that significant coverage to have that nature. For example, if we had a corporate person who is on the board of several companies, and the news covered that person's roles and actions on various boards, does that necessarily warrant a standalone article? I'm not trying to make the case for Sam Jones either way, just trying to provide food for thought. Wikipedia doesn't really have guidelines for at least listing credits for a person if their biographical background is slim. For example, Tom Richmond (cinematographer) was nominated for deletion, and it was really hard to make a case beyond the obviously prolific number of films he contributed to. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)14:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Best source for an actor's/director's filmography?
Hey everyone, I'm wondering what the best source is to add an actor's or director's filmography to their Wikipedia page. I've seen that IMDB is not considered a reliable source. Is the best practice, then, to have a separate news article source for each film or TV credit, as is done in the featured list List_of_Amy_Adams_performances? Or is there any website that lists all of an actor's or director's credits that is considered reliable? Thanks for any help you can offer this relative newbie. Grn1749 (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
RfC on content in Notes column of filmography tables in Singapore artistes BLPs
How do others feel about statements about roles actors "almost" played? I don't consider them notable. Also, they're tough to verify, even when there are "sources", due to the nature of these private discussions. In general, are these comments good candidates for deletion?
While these details could belong in the films' articles, I'm hard-pressed to find them noteworthy enough for actors' articles. There is only so much text we can put into an actor's article before spinning off sub-articles, and I don't see these audition details as pertinent to one's biography compared to the performances they actually gave. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)19:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I concur with Erik for the most part. If they had filmed scenes that later got cut, then those could be worth a mention, but not even getting any role ever at all is better reserved for film pages when it's merely someone in talks for that before declining or being rejected for a project. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I would also concur. The exception would be if an actor missing out on a part causes so much controversy that it leads to substantial WP:RS coverage, then it might be justified to adding to the actor article. (e.g. "Being Eric Stoltz'ed") But I would think examples of this would be very rare indeed... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mango (Saturday Night Live) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Right cite (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Texas (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Right cite (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Payne (actor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Right cite (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd love to have a good answer for you, but the best I found was two essays that offered contrasting advice. I'll be curious to see whether anyone can respond with something more definitive. DonIago (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
MOS:IDENTITY has been cited in discussions about using "actor" versus "actress". Reliable sources can vary in whether or not they use the gendered term when covering women. It can be ingrained in institutional ways, like the Academy Awards having "Best Actor" (referring to men) and "Best Actress". (In contrast, the Screen Actors Guild Awards has "Male Actor" and "Female Actor".) Another consideration is how the figures want to be identified. For example, Cate Blanchett wants to be called an actor instead of an actress. But what if someone uses MOS:IDENTITY to make the case that Blanchett has been called "actress" in reliable sources to trump the fact that she wants to be called "actor"? I suspect the scales won't tip toward gender-neutral terminology until the Academy Awards (and the BAFTAs) change to "Male Actor" and "Female Actor". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)14:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Yup, but I'm not in it for the edit war. That would really be a global wiki-wide change, wouldn't it? The above edit is a revert to 'actress' on a preveiously stable article. My research shows very mixed usage in WP:RS, some of which may be housestyle related. I can't find her proclaiming her own view one way or the other. I'm thinking withoutt a clear steer, just leave it. Fob.schools (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC).
On Years Active in an info Box is it from the filming of a Pilot or Broadcast of first actual Episode: Maisie Williams
On Years Active in a actors info Box is it from the filming of a Pilot or Broadcast of first actual Episode. I go from the actual broadcast of a notable show, not when she got cast or acted in trial pilot (for the same show) which was not notable apart from it was not that good and things/people had to be changed. Asking regards the Maisie Williams article. ~ BOD ~ TALK14:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I have proposed some updates about Shira Piven, the director of Welcome to Me. They are here: Talk:Shira Piven#Request Edits October 9 I’d appreciate any help with a review of these proposals for the live article, as I have a conflict of interest. I have also added these to the official Request Edit official queue, but it appears that almost no one is answering this queue anymore. Please feel free to reach out with questions. Thanks! Bobcat8730 (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Help updating article on Erika Thormahlen
Hello,
I would like help updating Erika Thormahlen's article to reflect the latest Talk Page item on the article, below for reference:
Please add that she is the co-creator of Michelle and Barack Obama's latest kids show, "Listen to Your Vegetables & Eat Your Parents" which is a show about food for Netflix.
November focus on women in behind-the-scenes occupations
This November, wp:Women in Red is focusing on women working behind the scenes in theatre and broadcasting. As filmmakers are an important component here, we hope members of WP Actors and Filmmakers will be inspired to participate. You can find further details at Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast. The Women in Red invitation for November is copied below. Please feel free to send it to any potentially interested participants or projects.
Women in Red| November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181
Erik: That's just the kind of article we're aiming for and is indeed a good example for those interested in participating. I see you were virtually the only editor involved in developing all the interesting details. Maybe you could devote just an hour or two of your November editing time to make a start on one of the other women who deserve to be covered. Others might be interested in collaborating with you. In any case, it's good to receive such a positive response from WP Actors and Filmmakers.--Ipigott (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Erik: Thanks for the tip. I've added Joan Churchill to the editathon page below the redlinks. If you find any more, please add them, if possible with a source. If you want her to be included on the Wikidata redlist, then she should be added to Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure if this is the best venue to raise this issue, but in my Watchlist sphere, I've seen an uptick in actor biographies of people including dubbing roles. (One such example with this editor's changes.) At Sahil Vaid there is a list of dubbing roles that this actor has had. While I understand there are dubbing artists who are talented, I'm not entirely sure what the community's appreciation is of this skill, or its noteworthiness in the broad scheme of acting, since so many major works get dubbed in languages across the world, and if dubbing significant roles in significant shows would make someone notable, then we'd have thousands of articles about people who dub.
In addition to this, I'm also not sure how to verify this content, since broadcast shows usually only include credits for the native cast. (Indian TV shows don't even always include credits for live-action actors, if you can believe that. If you can't believe that, please read this article.)
Sometimes streaming services will include a litany of dub credits in their expanded closing credits, but if someone is claiming that So-and-So did the Gujarati dub of Monica from Friends, how would that be reasonably verifiable? And yes, I know that verifiability doesn't always have to be easy, this seems like a unique intersection of dubiously noteworthy and generally impossible to verify. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Under the principle of "not IMDb" (aside: and, one of these days, I need to go back and finish this essay of mine and more it to WP space for exactly situations such as this...), I would say it's basically WP:UNDUE/WP:INDISCRIMINATE to include "foreign dubbing" (esp. for TV series) in an actor's Filmography. I would say it would be OK to mention this in prose, if it's covered in WP:RS(s) somewhere. But this is too low-rung a role to include in a Filmography... We really need to get away from the idea that we should list everything in Wikipedia Filmographies – really, Filmographies should be reserved for truly notable roles, and for some journeyman actors, we should really cut them down to 'Select filmographies' of just the most notable roles... My $0.02. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Things get a bit murky to me because there could possible be people who are notable for dubbing, like Bhagyalakshmi or Angel Shijoy maybe? (I am not familiar with either, but they have articles...) It's a little confusing to me how they operate. The Bhagyalakshmi article says that she mostly works in Malayalam films and dubs for Shobana, who has acted in a shitload of Malayalam films. So does that mean that Shobana doesn't speak Malayalam? If she does, why does she need to be dubbed. If she doesn't, why is she working in Malayalam films? So confusing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What are the criteria for including awards in actor bios? Where I edit, I constantly see people stuffing actor award sections with every accolade the person has received: SBD Stardom Awards, Iwmbuzz Style Awards (Iwmbuzz is a press-release outlet), Gold Glam and Style Awards, Techofes Awards, etc. (Techofes is a cultural festival held by a technology school that for some reason gives out awards to actors and films and stuff.) Then there are the mom-and-pop award mills, which are everywhere. Sometimes these mills will try to piggyback on the recognition of another award. For instance, there are numerous mills named after the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, a lifetime achievement award issued by the Indian government for a person's work in film.
I know that WP:FILMCRITICLIST exists, but that's under MOS:FILM and not MOS:BIO, so I can't say with 100% confidence that this represents consensus about biographical entries. Does it? Are we supposed to just be logging everything as long as it is sourced, or should there be a requirement that the award is notable, i.e. either that it already has an established Wikipedia article, or that the award could have an article because the GNG could be met. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb this wikiproject has become stagnant and/or moribund (yes I am working too many crosswords during this pandemic) so if you don't get an answer in a timely fashion you might want to try the filmproject talkpage. I do seem to remember at least two discussions that decided that awards were to be limited to organizations that had articles on WikiP. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk17:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I didn't know that WP:FILMCRITICLIST exists! 1) It definitely needs to be cited or "pasted" into MOS:BIO and MOS:TV as well. And, 2) it is definitely missing a sentence on making sure tables are accessible, and as readable as possible – the biggest issues with awards tables, aside from proliferation of non-notable awards listings is – surprise! – awful use of rowspan that makes these tables harder to read. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
@IJBall: Hey, I too learn new stuff about Wikipedia every day almost. I'd love to hear input from others, but would also love if we could put this in as many places as possible (MOS:TV?) if it does actually represent community consensus. I've seen it cited by people for years and not just for film awards, so it feels like there is a practical consensus (or whatever the community calls that). Per MarnetteD's suggestion above, what do you two think the best approach is: invite people from WikProject Bio to this discussion, or re-open it there? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
My WP:OR is that inviting editors here will get fewer responses than opening a new thread there but, as in so many things, I could be wrong. If WP:FILMCRITICLIST criteria is going to be added to more than one MOS IMO it's better to get as much input as possible. MarnetteD|Talk18:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I'll open it at the MOS:BIO talk page. In the interim, I'll close this discussion just so there's only one open at a time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Subject ostensibly falls well short of notability guidelines. The only references I can find to her are the words "Safia Monney, actress" in a self-published text called the World Heritage Encyclopedia (no connection to UNESCO; I can't link it here due to the spam blacklist, but the encyclopedia entry is entitled "List of Iraqis"), a reference to her having COVID-19 in an opinion article by Russian dezinformatsiya outlet Sputnik (deprecated source; title is "French Suspected of Having Coronavirus Can't Get Tested for Three Weeks"), and her name appearing once in https://www.google.com/books/edition/MOVING_CAMERAS_AND_LIVING_MOVIES/k5rFBgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Safia+Monney&pg=PA129&printsec=frontcover a massive list of names in another self-published book. Moreover, none of the roles on her short list of credits on IMDb are actually prominent within the series or movies in question outside of one obscure French short called Vanille.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I really can't find anything that would justify saving this article, but the inclusionist in me says that I've been wrong before and that I should put it out there to other people who e.g. might speak French and could therefore find sources I wouldn't even know were out there. I'll be sending this notification to the article's creator as well and linking to this page, but it seems they haven't made a contribution since 2008. TheTechnician27(Talk page)05:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Greetings! I was made aware that a reader/donor noticed how the pictures on this person's page are all pretty old. I uploaded File:David Hasselhoff at Fedcon26.jpg, the most recent free image I could find. Would anyone consider putting it in the infobox or somewhere else in the page? TYVM, Elitre (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Not a great portrait image – fine for down-page, but not good for the IB portrait image. You want a centered, face-on headshot for these. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Reference centering
Davey2010 removed code that centered references as seen here, writing in their edit summary, "RM center for refs as no consensus for this." It looks like this code has been there since May 2019, with MatthewHoobin including it as part of adding an example here, after discussing it with IJBall. I don't necessarily see the presence of the code to mean that it must be aligned that way. Is there any reason to opt or not opt for left-alignment or center-alignment? If not, should we make it clear that either approach is acceptable? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)20:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I think Davey2010's edit to the MOS should be reverted on the basis of WP:STATUSQUO. I also agree that showing it centered in the example doesn't mean it has to be centered (perhaps just that it might be "preferred", but not "required"), so I think the centering should be left in the example. For more context, please see this discussion at my Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Editors coming across this page will obviously assume this is how the table has to be - Ofcourse this is an essay not a guideline however for those using this as a guide they could add the center stuff assuming that it's needed when it obviously isn't.
As I said in the edit summary there's no benefit to centering them nor is there benefit to uncentering them however given no one (other than one editor I know of) centers these personally I don't see a reason to include it here.
I would have no objections to my version staying with wording being added stating centering can be done if wanted,
Apologies I'm not trying to be awkward but I simply see no benefit to this and as I said I have major problems with the table considering most if not all editors here obviously use it as a guide (just like me using the DISCOGRAPHY table as a guide). Thanks, –Davey2010Talk21:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Centering looks better for a 'standalone' Refs column. We now effectively have three different editors saying this, with just you opposed. In addition, every time there is an "In the news" actor death, they pretty much require that a 'standalone' Refs column be added to the Filmography (which is something else I don't agree with, but that's a separate issue...), and I think they mostly want those refs to be centered too, before they will add them to the 'Recent deaths' list. Again, I am not interested in "requiring centering" here. But I would say there likely is a consensus that the "example" version include the centering. So your edit should be reverted, unless there is clear consensus against the centering. And, frankly, I'm pretty sure consensus is the opposite. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Case in point - it's a preference thing, Obviously I think left looks much better and certainly more professional, That editor agreed with you because they took an offence to me adding an article they created to my "rescued list" so I'm pretty much ignoring their comment, I read Erik's comment as them basically asking the same question as me but isn't fussed over one or the other (although I could be absolutely wrong on this). So at the moment there is no consensus for one or the other. Even if Erik did agree with centering that still isn't a consensus especially when it concerns something as major as this.
I actually do prefer centering references, but I haven't been consistent about using that approach because it isn't so important to me. I don't feel strongly that it has to be one way or another. If anything, I'd prefer that either approach be acceptable and maintained in the spirit of MOS:RETAIN. As for what this MOS should reflect, I'm fine with keeping the example that has existed since May 2019 without qualms, but to have language saying that editors can present variations of the tables within guidelines like accessibility and color-coding. (For example, I like graying out empty cells, but again, not consistent with that.) However, not sure if any guideline explicitly opposes right-alignment, though, if some editor was crazy enough to want that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)13:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Haha "crazy" would be far too polite , Thankfully I've never seen right-aligned refs but I suppose I'll come across it one day lol, If the change or edit benefits our readers then sure I'm all for it 110% but without sounding like a broken record I'm just not seeing that here. –Davey2010Talk21:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I suppose I'm saying in a nutshell, that we shouldn't be prevented from reference-centering unless there is some guideline/accessibility reason to prevent it. For me, the example can show the centering or not show it, as long as there is language mentioning allowing some variation within tables. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)21:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I notice that in multiple articles about actors and actresses in video games, the infobox contains extensive "notable works" lists which border close to listing every single role they've ever had. Examples (all of these in particular I've had to hide temporarily for source checking) include Eri Kitamura and Mara Junot. Other examples of which I've seen anon editor debate over notable works in the lead as well include Miyuki Sawashiro and Ryōhei Kimura. Is there an established consensus for limiting how many works should be listed in this parameter? Thanks in advance! Jalen Folf(talk)16:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
We should completely stop using the parameter ASAP. It's an inherently POV description and I've often seen people cherry-pick listings (likely based on their favorites and/or what they feel is most important). That can easily give a false impression that nothing else the person did matters. Instead of needlessly overstuffing infoboxes, we're better off simply discussing works within article prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree in general. However, it is a parameter that's part of the overall {{Infobox person}} template. I would say that inline citations should be required (though it could be done in the lead section, and the parameter would only copy the cited titles). Perhaps the citation should also be singular, where one would name a set of notable works, particularly in an authoritative biographical piece. I doubt such a set will often be that long. That way multiple citations aren't bundled to list more and more notable works. As for an arbitrary cutoff, not sure... it will depend on the person. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)18:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Many moons ago when there was an "actor infobox" that field was deprecated and removed. It is inherently POV and prone to bloating. I particularly remember Olivier's extending way down into the article. It can also be repetitive to the lede as numerous actor articles have a "known for" section in the first or second paragraph. The merge of the infoboxes brought these (and other problems) back. I suspect that there would be pushback in removing the field completely but it should be possible to discourage its use the WP:MOSFILM. MarnetteD|Talk04:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Interpretive infobox fields have always been a problem. Genre was deleted from Infobox film, the notable works and key works and similar should probably be aced. Nobody is ever going to agree on what should be in them, and they're all cruft magnets. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thoughts on including channels in TV filmographies?
Anyone have thoughts on whether TV channels/networks should be included in television filmographies? I don't see these at WP:FILMOGRAPHY, nor do I see them in the various featured lists on actor filmographies.
I don't think that's beneficial for a filmography table, unless by some chance an actor appeared in something titled similarly that appeared on different networks. But then, that could be stated in a potential "Notes" column. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: You may want to post this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. But the answer is pretty much "Definitely, no" – they should not be included. We don't include film studios in the 'Film' filmography tables, so why would include TV networks in the 'Television' ones?! (Similarly, film directors should not be included, regardless of what some WP:FLs do.) Again, this is why there's a link to the "work" article in these tables – if people want to know things like TV network, studio, director, etc. they click on the link and read the article on the specific work. All of this kind of information is totally superfluous and unnecessary in an actor's Filmography table. So, yeah – this kind of thing should always be removed (IMO). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
A bit tangential, but we really should stop using "filmography" to encompass anything non-film. I've checked a few dictionaries and encyclopedias (general and film), and all of them refer to films only. IMDb (which used to be the Internet Movie Database) uses "Filmography" for everything screen-related, so it's most likely vestigial. I think "Credits" can cover film, TV, web stuff, even stage. As for the main question, I don't think we need to bother with corporate information. Anything additional should be related to the person themselves in some way (like saying they also had this role on the given work). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)22:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
On this tangent: I might support renaming it "Mediaography" or something (though I don't think it's strictly necessary). But I don't like "credits" or "work" because I don't think 'Stage' work should be lumped in with film/TV/radio/video games/music videos – stage is a different medium, and should be in a different section. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe networks could be mentioned within article prose, but I say certainly not for tables. It's just clutter there and such information is better for the program articles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Certainly yes. Firstly, the way the television industry works is that production companies associate with a channel. Either the producer(s) or the channel begin offering roles to the actors and actresses. The addition of adding these channels provide 2 pieces information at the same time:
1 - on which channel this show airs on. (which is important since it informs what channel is broadcast on)
2 - it informs the readers where the actor/actresses have worked for (For example, are they typically seen being offered by channel X or are they typically seen being offered roles by channel Y).
The user Erik, recongozation that we really should stop using "filmography" to encompass anything non-film. is a comprehensive understanding regarding the use of filmography with television work. The statement that Uer IJBall|talk made that We don't include film studios in the 'Film' filmography tables, so why would include TV networks in the 'Television' ones?! is not the statement that should end this discussion. We cannot compare apples to oranges. Films and television vastly differ in production. The addition of the channel with television serves to provide readers on where they worked, how often they been accosted with the channel, where are they most often seen, and so forth. A film studio does not capture these questions.RYLELT7 (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Which completely ignores the salient point I made above – if people want to know more about the work an actor was in, they simply click on the link. But which TV network airs a TV show that an actor stars in, or who directed a movie that an actors stars in, is completely incidental and irrelevant to an actor's filmography. There has been pretty much universal agreement on this point here, and you are pretty much the only person that has ever claimed that what TV network a TV show that an actor stars in is somehow relevant to an actor's filmography. Because it isn't. As to your other point – that "X" actors has primarily appeared on TV shows from "Y" network – that can be adequately addressed in article prose. It certainly doesn't need to be included in the Filmography. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
"there has been pretty much universal agreement on this point here, and you are pretty much the only person that has ever claimed that what TV network or a TV show that an actor stars in is somewhat relevant to an actor's filmography." First off, there are a number of issues with this statement: A universal agreement with who? The users that have participated in the discussions, right? How can you make the claim that it is a "universal agreement"? Secondly, "pretty much the only person...that has ever..." is where this begins to be rushing to the end. By putting the spotlight on me by saying the only person implies that you are avoiding to consider the rest of the post. Thirdly, you seem to have a misconception with what I said with the channels "X" and "Y". It is certainly not incidental and irrelevant to include the channel network in television work; Television networks with television work is relevant. I don't understand how the inclusion of a network becomes irrelevant. However, I do agree if it's mentioned in prose, it can become redundant in the filmography. RYLELT7 (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think it’s necessary to add tv channels in because Wikipedia have already said this. This user should stop arguing about it to anyone and should just leave it there. If this user still don’t this than the other option is to just block this user permanently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:41:2AA:99C2:573E:D55B:9F1E (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Anon, you cannot request users to "block me permanently". There is a reason why a discussion has opened and there is a reason why Cyphiod said "thoughts". I am participating in a discussion and there is nothing wrong with that. I do not understand where you are coming from and why you took offense to this, lol. I did say if it is mentioned in prose, it is not necessary in filmography. Happy? RYLELT7 (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Anon, relax. I need you to calm down first. There is no need to get heated on this. Yes, I have read that, thank you. Thanks a lot for referring me that several times, because apparently once was not enough. I did also say that if channels are listed in prose form, then it is NOT necessary to list them in the filmography since it then becomes redundant. Please approach people while being calm. Read the top of this page. ("Smh" means "Shaking my head".) RYLELT7 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Including channels/network info is unnecessary and crufty, and often results in network overlinking, which is aesthetically unpleasant. But the more significant issue for me is that the network detail is totally tangential to the actor. Actors typically work for a studio, and the studio sells the show to a network. If an actor appears on a television network multiple times, that only points out a relationship that the various production companies have with the network. It really doesn't tell us anything about the actor. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Totally agree: that was exactly my point – TV networks and film directors have nothing to do with an actor's filmography listing, and should not be included (regardless of whether this is currently done with some actors' filmographies or not). The links in the filmography to an actor's various "works" will contain all these kinds of details there (as, often, will the prose of the actor article itself) – these ancillary details don't need included in an actor's filmography. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Height?
Was there a discussion on removing actor's height from infoboxes? I saw 7 or 8 yesterday and wondered whether or not to revert, but it seemed specifically about removing their height. Did not see anything here in policies and/or anything in the Talk archive? Mjquinn_id (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Height is considered "trivial" bio info for actors. It is considered relevant info for models, and some atheletes (and I'm not sure who else). But for actors, height is not considered to be a key characteristic of their craft/work. Also, in truth, it is extremely difficult to find WP:RS sourcing for most actors' heights – what is generally attempted for this is various flavors of WP:NOTRSs which don't cut it in any case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with IJBall. It's generally not pertinent information for actors. If height has to be discussed, it should be done in prose and interwoven with other aspects of their career. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)17:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I consider height largely irrelevant with some exceptions, i.e. actors known for either gargantuan or diminutive stature. For Peter Mayhew, height would be relevant since he's known for playing a 7 1/2 foot Wookie. Or perhaps a Peter Dinklage and any other actor named Peter who is at either extreme end of the tall or short spectrum. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Marci Liroff
Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Marci Liroff and possibly help Selsid (who is claiming to be Liroff) sort things out and make the changes she's trying to make? A lot of recently added content needed to be WP:REVDELeted (see User talk:Diannaa#Marci Liroff for more details) per WP:COPYVIO. Selsid has also edited the article in the past, and those edits might need to be assessed as well. Finally, a recent paragraph added to Marci Liroff#Early career about Liroff testifying against Harvey Weinstein in 2020 by another editor might need a closer look since it seems out of place in that particular section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Let's just say he has a habit of telling tall tales. He's quite notorious in the organized crime fandom for this reason. Trying to reconstruct his actual honest to goodness biography of his life is probably a difficult task to say the least. I have only found one newspaper article discussing his 1988 shouting of a man as well. Reconstructing the article using only newspaper articles would be a start. He and his writings on himself are not reliable sources. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Viriditas: Hi there, yes, it's fairly common. Ivy appears to have a litany of acting projects to her name, but may not be independently notable. (Or maybe she is.) If someone were to search for her, it might be reasonable to have a redirect point to one of her significant acting roles, but it wouldn't be out of the question to target the article of a notable family member. For instance, a non-notable socialite might redirect to their notable parent. Hope that helps. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
This isn't exactly my area of expertise, but maybe a sentence or two about her work in television/film and maybe one or two roles listed. Doesn't have to be much. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Happy to help. I wanted to add a little bit more, given that she was highly active as a civil rights advocate for actors' unions, to the point that they named an award after her ("The Ivy"). During the second red scare in the US, she was apparently blacklisted for some time (Troupers documentary), but I'm still trying to find good sources. If anyone has access to obscure sources about the labor history of acting, the Actors' Equity Association and the Hollywood blacklist, they may be able to help me. Viriditas (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Unless they're credited as a lead or featured artist on the track, Fizconiz, I would say yes. This would also exclude times where someone part of a band appears in their band's videos. There are many times where people act in videos for songs they otherwise have no affiliation with. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, though I don't consider it a great practice to include music videos in filmographies (IMO, they should only be covered in prose, and then only if secondarily sourced). But doing so is widely done. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
First, a filmography is for listing films, per every dictionary definition I've found. It is incorrect to list works other than films, and this is unfortunately a widespread and unaddressed issue on Wikipedia. I suspect it is because IMDb (naturally, the Internet Movie Database) used and still uses this heading for everything, and Wikipedia copied this approach without question. We should be using something like "Credits" to be broader to cover works like music videos, video games, stage performances, etc. To answer your question more directly, I think it can be either presented in its own table (it helps if there is more than one credit) or part of one table in which there is a "Medium" column. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)19:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree. The word "filmography" itself is self-explanatory and readers would expect to see a list of films only. Similarly, if an actor appears in commercials, it would be ridiculous to shove it into the filmography. Works other than films should have their own distinction. Fizconiz (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
TV ads should not be included in filmographies in any case. Neither should most short films. Filmographies are supposed to contain just an actor's notable works – they are not designed to be "all inclusive" (this is Wikipedia, not "IMDb")... Aside from that, I still am puzzled by the hand-wringing over the word "filmography" – it's nothing more than a "term of art" that is supposed to contain pretty much all "filmed" works (which includes film, TV, music videos, and video games). That covers most everything, aside from 'Stage' which should just be put in its own separate section. I prefer this arrangement to a 'Works' or 'Credits' section which just lumps everything together. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
To exclude works just because one doesn't find them "notable" (in other words, an editor doesn't think the work matters) would go against WP:POV. We shouldn't use personal taste as a criteria for inclusion within these tables. As long as all entries are accurate and can be verified, the tables actually should be all inclusive to avoid neutrality/cherry-picking concerns. Regarding ads, what about times when people are known for starring in various commercials for a product or service (such as J. K. Simmons with Farmers Insurance)? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, uh, no, because what you are suggesting goes against WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE. People seem to be genuinely confused by our purpose here – we are literally not IMDb, and we don't exist to list a catalogue of every work ever done by every subject we cover. (Not, also, that in addition to excluding ads, we always leave out "talk show" appearances our of filmographies as well, for some of the same reasons.) What determines the content we include should be just those works that contribute to the notability of the subject. In the case of ads, if there are one or two ads that actually do contribute to the notability of the subject, you include that in the prose of the article (properly secondarily sourced). That's also how we should handle short films. Filmographies should properly focus on just film and television works (and, IMO, just those), even though many editors insist upon cramming music video and video game works in there as well, despite the fact the latter two rarely if ever garner any sort of secondary coverage. Again, exceptions to this should be covered in the prose. (And, FTR, the same issue is present with WP:DISCOGRAPHY too, except there the issue is even worse!!...) But we really need to start getting away from the idea that some of these gargantuan filmography tables are appropriate, and start asking ourselves if 'Select filmographies' wouldn't be a much better approach for some of our more prolific WP:FILMBIO subjects. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Such inclusions wouldn't at all be undue or indiscriminate. Talk show appearances are left when not really acting/voice acting (one possible exception for being left out is when they're credited as a writer/producer/host), but commercials and video games are another story. The problem with trying to have a limit of "just those works that contribute to the notability of the subject" is that people will often impose their own criteria for what is/isn't important, which appears to involve mentalities of "let's just keep in my favorites" and/or "remove the material I don't like". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
If we start to approach filmography tables as selecting what the notable works are only, this is where the filmography section will begin to falter. Any reliable sources that confirm the verifiability of someone's filmography should be included in Wikipedia. After all, this is an encyclopedia where people would expect to get an adequate amount of information, not general. We can't pick and choose what is notable or what's not as this will terrifyingly, be decided by Wikipedia editors. I can already picture edit wars if we choose to go with that approach. Fizconiz (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Of course, we can – we do all the time. The purpose of this encyclopedia is clear – it's not designed to be an all encompassing "index". Nor should it be. We should focus on that which gets extensive secondary coverage. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Side Comment: I prefer the section heading 'Acting credits' to Filmography, unless the actor has only been notable in films. First it is very simple English and secondly it can cover a much wider body of work ~ Theatrical work, web series, commercials, video games, music videos, TV acting (series or plays) and short film acting as well as feature films, and probably the next medium that comes along. ~ BOD ~ TALK14:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
No. We don't. And, we don't do that all the time by choosing what we think is notable. That's closely related to personal opinions and that isn't welcome here on Wikipedia. And neither should we practice doing so. Drive-by editors don't decide what gets included and what does not. As for what gets secondary coverage, anything that does should get included. If music videos get secondary coverage, we should include that. Under filmography, film gets its own section, television gets its own section, music videos gets its own section, commercials gets its own section, and so forth. It can't get more simple than that. If it's supported by reliable sources, that's fair game for inclusion. This is an academic encyclopedia. Fizconiz (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Abigail Klien
I don't edit in this space much. Does someone of the profile of Abigail Klien (That's my boy, Transformers) meet the criteria of notability for actors? Dhalamh (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Source check for Tom Miranda
There was a massive amount of unreferenced COI content (pre-cleanup) at Tom Miranda that I cleaned out, but now there's not much left. My search for significant coverage in independent RSes turned up basically nothing. There might be some offline sources though, such as the cited South Dakota Hall of Fame magazine from 1992 to which I don't have access.
If anyone wants to take a second look and see if there is actual notability here, that would be much appreciated. — MarkH21talk18:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Are citations required for every project in the filmography table? I found the examples under WP:FILMOGRAPHY contradictory, as example #1 uses no citations, example #2 uses many citations, and example #3 uses citations for every project. All of the citations in examples #2 and #3 are placed under the Ref. column, which is called "an optional field for sourcing that can to be used when a work may be obscure or difficult to confirm." The Notes field is to include "sourcing if there is not already a separate column for citations". Does that mean citations should only be used for obscure projects? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
It depends on whether the content was previously referenced within article body. If roles are already sourced there, then the tables don't need to cite them again. Otherwise, add citations for roles not backed up elsewhere. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
There's no set opinion on this. I can tell you this – in order to get into the "In the News" section of Wikipedia, they will insist that every listing in a Filmography be secondarily sourced. My take – it is good practice to secondarily source acting roles at least somewhere in the article (e.g. in the prose), and if so it's trivially easy to also reference these roles in the Filmography (e.g. using WP:REFNAME). But a good chunk of editors will argue that Filmography roles don't actually need to be sourced, because they will be covered under WP:PRIMARY by the films' and TV shows' own credits. Now, uncredited roles must be secondarily sourced to be included, because WP:PRIMARY will not cover that (as there won't be a listing in the film's or TV show's credits). As for the "need" for a separate 'Refs' column, I dissent from that – it's a great idea for 'Awards' tables, but Filmography tables already have a 'Notes' column and I can't for the life of me figure out why that's not good enough for references and why so many seem to insist that a separate Refs column is needed on top of the 'Notes' column!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
They should be. We have to remember that most actors and filmmakers are not household names. For someone like Tom Hanks, the majority of his career is not something likely to be challenged. However, there are many more actors where their credits are not so obvious and should be verified. It's very likely that editors use IMDb as a quick lookup, but that website is not considered a reliable source and sucks up a lot of indiscriminate details to the point that it is not clear if the work is worth noting even in passing outside of IMDb. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)21:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
That's a separate issue – exactly what should be in Filmographies. But, if it's done right (e.g. listing an actual episode title for a TV show guest appearance), it should be easy to find the work in question (well, "easy", for a lot of things these days, but not everything...), and check the credits to verify that the listing is correct... Note: I am not disagreeing with the idea that it's better that everything be secondarily sourced (and I generally shoot for that in my editing). But I do think a WP:PRIMARY case can be made for a lot of Filmography content, esp. if the Filmography listing is complete enough that it's easy enough to verify the role (from credits). The trickier parts come with verifying certain info (e.g. "recurring roles") without a secondary source, and figuring out what should be listed in a Filmography and what shouldn't (as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and the general idea that we are "not IMDb" and shouldn't be trying to duplicate what IMDb does...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I think it's a related issue; if you can't find a secondary source for a role at all, the work likely won't pass GNG and if the actor was only in that work then they clearly wouldn't pass actor notability, so it's presumably not notable enough to include when they do have a bio. But I think primary sources can be suitable for recurring/guest when this is made clear in credit format, though secondary sources of course preferred. Kingsif (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I hope everyone is well. I nominated this article for deletion couple of days ago. But not many users are participating in that discussion. I would like to invite the members of this WikiProject to participate at this discussion. As a result of clear consensus, it will be easier to publish the result of the discussion without any doubts. If notability can be shown through significant coverage and reliable sources, I will be happily ready to withdraw my nomination. Thanks. — A.A Prinon Conversation12:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Dorothy Gordon (Australian actress): Student project
Hi there! I'm a student new to Wikipedia and I am contributing to the Dorothy Gordon (Australian actress) page as part of my course. I have made significant changes and will be editing the page over the next few weeks, and would really appreciate any feedback and/or advice to improve the article!
Jolisjoujou (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Is "voice actor" a separate role from "actor"?
A new user 152.0.140.129 (talk·contribs) has edited a large number of actor articles to remove the term "voice actor", mostly without edit summaries, but occasionally stating "the term actor already covers his voice over work". (Examples: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14])
I had thought that "actor" and "voice actor" are two different professions, and we should use one or the other or both as appropriate. Is there a consensus for this one way or the other? CodeTalker (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
That IP is correct. When somebody is known to have done both live action and voice-over work, the encompassing terms "actor" and "actress" cover both fields. I personally would just recommend using "voice actor" or "voice actress" for people whose performances are almost entirely voice roles or exclusively those (e.g. think Jim Cummings or Grey DeLisle). Using "actor" or "actress" twice in opening sentence would also feel repetitive. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I completely agree with this – listing both "actor" and "voice actor" for somebody who does both is yet another example of the really regrettable tendency that some editors have for doing "resume padding" in the ledes of our WP:BLPs. Simply "actor" fully encompasses this. This is also why we should never do variations like "film and television actor" or "stage and film actor" – again, just "actor" covers all of that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I also support the use of just "actor" or "actress" in the lead and in the infobox. The text of the article should make clear the types of acting in which the person was involved. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
MOS:FIRST would probably be the most applicable guideline: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject." The opening sentence isn't supposed to be a resume. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
And it's frankly amazing how much this particular MOS is ignored, especially at BLPs... But thank you for pointing out the shortcut – that will be useful going forward. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know if anyone else has noticed an IP editor adding lots of images to actor's biographies. I haven't paid that much attention to the IP address and/or range, but I'm guessing it's the same person each time. Rose Dione is a recent example. So apart from the infobox, what's the guidance on adding random images to a biography like this? Thanks. LugnutsFire Walk with Me18:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't know about policies that apply, but I don't think images should overpower the text of an article. I also dislike seeing text disrupted or squeezed into narrow widths, which often happens when images are placed on the left as in the Dione article.Eddie Blick (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
If the interruption of the images is the concern, (as on left), issue maybe they could be added as a gallery, or added on the right in corresponding with the article. The extra added photos was considered as "no purpose", really i cannot see many articles especially on actors, musicians etc, that just have "one picture", most contain more than just an infobox main photo or portrait, especially next to filmography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.140.121 (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Much of this is not correct. You probably should review WP:IMGCONTENT and WP:GALLERY. The existence of images is not an excuse to indiscriminately add them to WP:BLP articles. Most BLPs only contain one or two images (one of which is usually a portrait image in the infobox) – a longer BLP article might contain 3–5 images (if available). And putting an image next to the Filmography table is generally a terrible idea, as it will "squeeze and narrow" the Filmography table which will make it harder to read. In general, image(s) not in the infobox should be within "prose" sections. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
