Talk:Marissa Lenti

Facebook/Twitter sources
I'd like to discuss this edit, as an edit war does no one any favours. Particularly in cases of anime voice acting, not all projects are credited, with some lost to time as well - leaving self credit as the only option for some credits. While some could be validated via Template:Cite episode, there are several anime-specific issues with doing so, and not all are verifiable that way. So, WP:TWITTER-EL, WP:FACEBOOK and WP:A&M/RS indicate that Twitter and Facebook primary sources are allowed to be used if verifiable, which they are - Marissa Lenti's twitter and facebook pages are verified as Lenti's via a secondary source: http://voyagedallas.com/interview/meet-marissa-lenti/ and all credits save for a handful can be validated by the resume reference, Lenti's website - also validated. By outright purging all tweet and facebook sources you also purged sources outside the filmography, which include statements about Lenti joining Sound Cadence Studios and Lenti's preferred lack of pronouns; and some tweets from like fellow voice actors, who identified the role was Lenti's, not Lenti personally. If your concern is that the tweets/facebook sources are unduly self serving or another reason that they are unreliable, please lay out the argument and give me some time to do research to either improve sourcing, or verify them as they are. In the interim, while this discussion is ongoing, please consider allowing the edit be temporarily reversed so that other editors do not act and remove parts of the article - in effect, implementing the consequences of removing this many sources while their removal is still being contested. I will state upfront that I will understand if you decline, especially if this defense (at least so far) is dissatisfactory. Thank you for raising your concern about these sources, and I hope we can reach a swift and amicable solution. Canadianerk (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, in reviewing the article I added the tag that there are too many primary sources and that secondary sources are preferred where possible, so please replace if you can, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the article. As unfortunate as it is for me to admit, I strongly doubt there are reliable secondary sources to replace them. Believe me, I have looked. Link20XX (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hopefully some new sources will emerge in due course, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, . While I agree that sometimes social networks may be used to back some statements, generally they are considered unacceptable. In this particular case what bothered me was the amount of them - the ref section looks like the subject's twitter feed - I believe this should be avoided. I will not revert your revert as I truly believe in communication and consensus, but something has to be done. I know that sometimes it's hard to find IRS or they just don't exist depending on a sphere, but there are guidelines here we have to follow. I hope you will continue your research and improve the sources. Have you tried emailing the subject? Maybe they can help out. Best, Less Unless (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey - please do note I didn't revert, it was my intention to wait for your reply, but it isn't a big deal now given how this has resolved. To put that aside - first, I would like to point out that an initial glance at the reference section is likely misleading, and perhaps generating higher concern than necessary. At first glance, tweet and facebook sources number 27 out of 62 sources. But I'd argue it's worth accounting for using the same reliable, secondary source multiple times, more accurately painting a picture of how reliant an article actually is on a type of source. By my count, there's an additional 31 times that non-twitter/facebook sources are actually utilized, on top of their first use. In terms of sources utilized, cite tweet/facebook is only utilized 27/93 times. This could just be my naivete talking, but is this difference between the number of listed sources, vs the number of times they are utilized and relied on for information, not worth taking into account? It's not a gigantic difference, 29% vs 43.5... but it's not insignificant. I'll once again thank you for raising the concern, and will do what I can to reduce the percentage of tweet sources over time - for now, I'm shifting focus to a different article for a bit. But I will commit to shifting focus back to this one, at some point, as soon as possible. I'm not just going to sit back and leave this article as is, I can promise you that. The only thing I will ask from either you or  is obviously not an exact figure, but roughly what % would be a target for me to aim for, for this concern to be resolved. Whether it's the # of sources being a tweet overall, or with my point about considering overall utilization - either would be helpful. If that isn't feasible, would either (or both) of you be willing to revisit this concern down the road to reassess whether the concern/tag, is still warranted? Thanks, Canadianerk (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , we always aim for the best, but settle with what's really possible. I will also try to look for the sources to improve the article. Thank you for contributing, keep doing that :) Less Unless (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - Very well, understood - and I will! Canadianerk (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Cristina Vee filmography for examples of what tweets are appropriate. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)