Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

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)

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)

"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)

Proposed deletion of Ihsan Daadouch

The article Ihsan Daadouch has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Incomprehensible gibberish.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Note: Article was created by a banned sockpuppet who uses other accounts to remove {{Prod}} notices. Mathglot (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion (2nd nomination) of Adrian Țofei

Hello! Can we have some help here to decide whether actor and filmmaker Adrian Țofei should stay or not? Thank you! 86.120.254.110 (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)