Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

Filmography in {{Madonna}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus clairification

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

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

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

Years in actor filmographies

For filmographies in actor articles is the year based on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Randy Newman

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

WP:FILMOGRAPHY section – advise using a different example

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Youngest to win Tony Award for Best Actor in a Play

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

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

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

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

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

Relations?

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

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

Notices at top of pages

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

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

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