Talk:Melissa Errico

Untitled

I think the new page looks excellent and accurately shows the artist's various categorical interests. I will add to this new structure over time. I think it is neutral. I will see what I can offer over time when I have time. GretaMay (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Greta

I appreciate your efforts, but I disagree. There are still far too many WP:PEACOCK words, and a great deal of extraneous trivia which promotes the subject through WP:UNDUE weight. The level of detail in "Roles of particular significance" is especially absurd. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, per WP:NPOV, but this article reads a bit too much like a publicists bio, or fan-site rather than an encyclopedia article.

The sources are also very messy. In addition to being bare URLs (see WP:LINKROT) they lean far too hard on interviews, and a number of them are not reliable. Unusable sources include blogs, IMDB (see WP:ELPEREN), and similar. The article still needs a ton of work. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback is invaluable - appreciate the steer which I'll take on board for future improvements. Broadway1107 (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC). — Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melissa Errico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518084128/http://www.antonnews.com/manhassetpress/60-manhassetnews/19457-melissa-errico-remembers-where-she-came-from.html to http://www.antonnews.com/manhassetpress/60-manhassetnews/19457-melissa-errico-remembers-where-she-came-from.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Potential COI

This article has been subject to edits by a handful of IPs which are determined to promote Errico as much as possible. WP editors should keep in mind that the article should accurately reflect Errico and her career, but should also not be used as a promotional platform or as a hagiography. Grandpallama (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I think COI concerns are a bit overblown – they may just be fans. OTOH I also think it's an overreaction to call a single sentence, Errico has appeared as Alex Bartoli on the Darren Star show Central Park West, and has also guest starred on several television series including Billions, The Knick, Blue Bloods, The Good Wife, Law & Order, A Gifted Man, Ed, and Miss Match. "disruptive" and "marketing a career". Discographies, filmographies and stage appearances are a normal part of Wikipedia articles for performing artists. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

There is good reason to suspect it's COI. And all of the shows that are being listed are single appearances; we do not generally list every minor appearance that an actor has made on every show spanning their entire career. Grandpallama (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes thank you, Michael, that is exactly what I think. Adding a simple sentence with accurate/sourced information is hardly disruptive. Thousands of other performers have way more credits in their Wiki, with even more detailed info about all aspects of their careers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.77.245 (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you declaring here that you do not have a conflict of interest? Adding a simple sentence isn't disruptive; repeatedly re-adding it without discussion, after it has been challenged, is the definition of disruptive editing. Separately, you might find WP:Otherstuffexists informative. Thousands of other performers have way more credits, but those are also more likely to be television and movie actors whose roles have been more prominent in those media. More importantly, that's an argument that those articles might require a bit of trimming, rather than justifying additions here. Grandpallama (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, I'm sorry but she played "roles" on those shows is an accurate statement. Why did you change it back to minor? That appears to be a negative biased edit on your part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.189.145 (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this IP the same editor as the other IP? The roles noted as minor roles were, in fact, minor roles on those shows in which she made only 2-3 appearances. This article has been subject to attempts to inflate the television and film roles of an actress who is mostly notable for her theatre and musical performances. It's not a negative biased edit but a more accurate description. Considering how minor the appearances were, their mention should be anecdotal at best. Grandpallama (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama: Per WP:V and WP:RS, are there any reputable sources describing her roles as "minor"? If not, your edits seem WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough on the RS point, although there usually isn't a need to produce sources that call a role a "starring" role, that call a role a "supporting" role, etc., except when there's a legitimate content dispute over whether or not a role is minor; I haven't seen the IP claim such. I'd say it's more suspicious (as are the other IP edits to this page), that it's somehow critical not to characterize roles/appearances as minor. I know you earlier questioned whether or not COI editing was occurring, and I would suggest that one classic sign of such editing is trying to load up a page with as many credits as possible (e.g., the IP's insistence on placing every single theatre and musical performance in this article) while downplaying the notion that any role was anything other than critical. If you want to remove "minor" as unverified, I'm certainly not going to quibble with you, but those two television roles are so objectively minor that the insistence by the IP on the removal of that word isn't great. In fact, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, they're so minor that it's rather questionable as to why they belong in the article at all, unlike the Central Park West role. Grandpallama (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)