Skyrim talk:Voice Actors

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives
Archive 1: Oct 2011 - Jul 2013

Anthony Skordi[edit]

Anthony Skordi does the MaleDarkElfCommoner voicetype (Includes Garyn Ienth and Slitter)

He told me on Twitter he voices Garyn Ienth. Garyn Ienth has the MaleDarkElfCommoner voicetype. Can this be put on the page? Dragon Guard (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2013 (GMT)

Link to the tweet? He would need to have been previously verified on twitter I believe for us to be able to use it. Jeancey (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2013 (GMT)
Sure, here is the link: https://mobile.twitter.com/AnthonySkordi. The tweet on page says something like; 5'23' is me. Dragon Guard (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2013 (GMT)
Hmm, he isn't verified by twitter, so we might not be able to use it. Jeancey (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2013 (GMT)
He said he voiced Garyn Ienth in the video posted. So how is he not verified? Dragon Guard (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2013 (GMT)
I think what Jeancey is saying is that we don't know whether the person running that account is really anthony skordi. Celebrities can have their account verified by twitter which puts a check next to there name (like here. That page doesn't have that. --AN|L (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2013 (GMT)
(edit conflict) yep! (you beat me to explaining that) Jeancey (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2013 (GMT)
Why would he say who he voiced if he was oblivious to fact about who he voices then? It is his account. Dragon Guard (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2013 (GMT)

() The issue is verifiability. You can read more about identifying reliable sources on wikipedia. Jeancey (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2013 (GMT)

Come on, let's not be ridiculous here. Why on earth would someone create a fake Twitter account of Anthony Skordi? If he's been polite enough to confirm his role in Dragonborn, we might as well use it as a source when lacking any other reference. —Legoless (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2013 (GMT)

Johanna Torell[edit]

What is her voice type? Female Nords is vague, especially since she didn't do the FemaleNord voicetype. Vicano (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2013 (GMT)

We don't know yet for sure. The "Female Nords" is on there because that's exactly the information given in the game's credits. — ABCface 20:42, 6 August 2013 (GMT)
She plays FemaleCoward. Process of elimination is a fun thing, but I doubt it's enough to get it listed — Unsigned comment by 110.22.166.2 (talk) at 07:37 on 7 July 2014 (GMT)
According to an imdb user, she voices Viola Giordano and Colette Marence, among others, although the credibility of the source is questionable. Unless there's some way of confirming it (voice comparison, information in the game's files, etc.), we can't list it on the page. Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 12:43, 7 July 2014 (GMT)

MaleDrunk voice[edit]

Who does the voice of the "maledrunk" type voices, like Sanguine, Brenuin, Degaine, etc? I didn't see that listed and it wasn't listed on IMDB, either. 172.12.96.55 04:35, 16 February 2014 (GMT)

The only answer is no-one knows. Bethesda haven't released the relevant information, nor has it been revealed elsewhere. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 04:40, 16 February 2014 (GMT)
While not necessarily conclusive, Wikipedia credits William Salyers as voicing Sanguine in his page, and Salyers lists Skyrim as one of the games he voiced on his Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/pages/William-Salyers/162370267136417?hc_location=timeline 192.189.128.13 21:28, 18 February 2014 (GMT)
That doesn't appear to be a personal page the way it is worded. An email is provided so perhaps you could email him. Wikipedia has no source for the Skyrim listing, and most of the info comes from imdb, which is a wiki and isn't a certifiable source (which doesn't list Skyrim as one of his works anyway). Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 21:44, 18 February 2014 (GMT)
Since my previous post of him confirming he was Sanguine was removed for no good reason, so I'll explain why I think the Facebook page is him and not a 3rd party. He's got all sorts possessive pronouns about being interviewed, wanting to do a Reddit AMA, working with people, participating in the Ice Bucket Challenge, going places... It definitely looks like his Facebook page.172.12.96.55 04:08, 17 October 2014 (GMT)
That means nothing. Anyone can write it pretending to be him, and we wouldn't know for sure. They could even be pulling stuff from real things he puts out. I'm not saying it isn't him, but we have to have some sort of official confirmation. Twitter verifies accounts of celebrities and well known people so that a person looking at it can know for sure they are who they say they are. Facebook doesn't do this, so we just can't use it as a source. Jeancey (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2014 (GMT)

() Actually Facebook does verify some musicians/bands/celebrities. Verified accounts on Facebook have a blue check mark next to their names, very similar to Twitter. This account for William Salyers isn't verified. •WoahBro►talk 13:39, 17 October 2014 (GMT)

What would be a verifiable way to have Willliam Salyers credited as Sanguine? Because when listening to interviews with Salyers, you can definitely tell its the same voice.172.12.96.55 04:35, 8 December 2014 (GMT)
If you can manage to get in contact with William Salyers via email or verified Twitter, Facebook, etc. and get confirmation directly from him, then we can credit him on the site. •WoahBro►talk 04:42, 8 December 2014 (GMT)
Or you could contact his agency? You're more than welcome! DG#:) 23:35, 23 December 2014 (GMT)

Neloth[edit]

Noticed there was a bit of contention in the archived talk page about who voice acted Neloth. I don't know how much stock UESP puts into Wikipedia, but Dwight Schultz's page there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_Schultz) lists him as being Neloth's voice actor. Arthmoor (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2014 (GMT)

I just spent an hour sifting through the references in the Wikipedia article, and I can't find any mention of Skyrim in his credits. His official fansite doesn't include TESV in his bio. Unless I missed something, I would consider this unconfirmed. --Xyzzy Talk 00:19, 9 September 2014 (GMT)
Interestingly enough, this info was added to Wikipedia by a user named Ufd43765, which is the same username as someone who was blocked for adding false info to our pages. Food for thought. --Xyzzy Talk 00:26, 9 September 2014 (GMT)
I'm almost 100% sure that Neloth's voice actor is indeed Dwight Schultz. If you listen to most of Dwights other characters its way to similar to not be him.(Speedythecat (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2014 (GMT))
You are more than welcome to contact Dwight Schultz regarding this matter. DG#:) 18:11, 3 December 2014 (GMT)

Dremora[edit]

Aside from anonymous goodwill, the Dremora voices in Skyrim should be instantly recognisable to anyone who has played Oblivion. I think we can bend a little here and list Wes as the actor. —Legoless (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2014 (GMT)

And it's also stated on imdb, and I don't see why that would be wrong (if we ignore the obvious as said above) ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2014 (GMT)
IMDB is a user created content site, just like UESP. We cannot use anything they have as a sole source for anything. I think it would be best if someone else emailed the actor to at least double check. If we are going to use an email confirmation as proof, I would at least like a second person to receive that confirmation. Jeancey (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2014 (GMT)
I just wanted to throw it out there that even wikipedia has him voicing something in ESO. Even though they are just as much user created as us, they are still one of the most reliable user created sites out there. Lorenut (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2014 (GMT)
This is about Skyrim, not ESO. The ESO page really only has the main people right now, so we have a lot more work to do on that. If he gave confirmation once in an email, I don't see why someone else emailing him asking again would be an issue, and it would at least provide us with two separate confirmations. Jeancey (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2014 (GMT)
Well that's embarrassing! Well in any case on the same page it also says he voiced in skyrim. I am all for getting more confirmation however Jeancey. Thought i would just point that out. Lorenut (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2014 (GMT)
No worries! :) We do know he voiced things in Skyrim. I believe the only thing at issue here is the Dremora. Jeancey (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2014 (GMT)
Well i just got proof that he did in fact voice them in Skyrim. Here is a link to a tweet he sent me on twitter. Hope this helps out. Lorenut (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2014 (GMT)
Works for me since the account is twitter confirmed. Jeancey (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2014 (GMT)
Glad i could help! Lorenut (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2014 (GMT)

Organize by voice type or by actor?[edit]

The Silencer claims that it is more logical to organize this page by voice type than by actor. I don't understand the reasoning there. The name of the page is "Voice Actors", not "Voice Types". If it makes sense to organize by voice type, let's create a "Voice Types" page for that purpose. It seems hard to justify the organization of the "Voice Actors" page by anything other than actor. — Unsigned comment by 68.6.123.36 (talk) at 08:58 on 24 October 2014

I don't know what sort of logic you are using, but swap "Voice Types" for the word "Characters" and then look at how any media informs who played/voiced them, it is always by character. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 21:43, 24 October 2014 (GMT)
Silence is Golden, I believe it is more appropriate to organize the "Voice Actors" page by voice actor than by voice type. To rebut that, you claim that whenever a media presents its cast, "it is always by character". I don't see how that is relevant. Are you implying that the purpose of the "Voice Actors" page is to present the cast of characters in a traditional way? If so, then why not call the page "Cast" or "Characters" or "Cast of Characters"?
I'm not trying to be critical. I'm just trying to tease out a very simple principle of organization. If you want to present information about a character (such as who voices that character), put it on that character's page. If you want to present information about an actor (such as which characters are voiced by that actor), put it on that actor's page. The "Voice Actors" page is clearly either a page for actors, or is misnamed. If it is a page for actors, then my edits were appropriate. If it is misnamed, let's rename it. 68.6.123.36 01:41, 25 October 2014 (GMT)
Honestly, I thought it looked cleaner and was easier to find info when organized by voice actor. That way everything is in a single, sortable table. Aesthetically, I think that option is the best. I think that the point about the page name is also valid. It is called "Voice Actors" so it should be primarily about the voice actors. — Unsigned comment by Jeancey (talkcontribs) at 02:53 on 25 October 2014
This page is correctly named and presented. "Voice Actors" is the "cast" list, which is always presented by character. It is an extremely simple premise that allows for information to be found easier than the other way. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 11:10, 25 October 2014 (GMT)
Silence is Golden, if this is the cast list, then wouldn't it be better named as "Cast List"? You have made it clear that you think a cast list is more useful than a list of actors, but you have not made it clear why a cast list should be titled "Voice Actors". Why do you believe this page is correctly named? 68.6.123.36 15:46, 25 October 2014 (GMT)
Well 68.6.123.36, I explained how it is correctly named, I shall spell it out for you. Media presents a cast list, a list of who played who in a film presented via the main characters down to the bit part players, this allows people to see who played those characters because they will know who the character was but not always the actor. Voice actors is simply an alternate and more accurate name for the cast of a game, just as Voice Types is the alternate for characters. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 16:50, 25 October 2014 (GMT)
I must dispute your assertion that "Voice actors is simply an alternate and more accurate name for the cast of a game". "Cast of Characters", "Cast List", and "Cast" all describe a game's cast of characters more accurately than "Voice Actors". Precedent seems to be on the side of calling it "Cast" -- that's what the game itself does in its credits. Ultimately, this comes down to a question of judgment. I respect your judgment, but I'd also like to know what others say. Is a game's cast of characters best referred to as "Voice Actors" or as "Cast of Characters"? 68.6.123.36 17:44, 25 October 2014 (GMT)

() I would say Voice Actors for a game. However, if Bethesda calls them the "Cast", I think it is only proper to go with what Bethesda says (I haven't read through the credits so I don't know what it says). ~ Ad intellige (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2014 (GMT)

I would call the page "Skyrim:Voice Cast". This main point of the page is not about the "Actors", it is the "Cast". Sorry if necroposting or posting a (possibly) pointless comment. DG#:) 15:45, 23 December 2014 (GMT)

What does it mean to describe "many actors" as "notable"?[edit]

The page currently says that the Skyrim cast includes many "notable" actors. My understanding is this page exists to give credit to all Skyrim actors, and not just a subset of those actors. In other words, the raison d'être for this page is that all actors are worthy of notice. And if all actors are notable, then the "many notable actors" phrase means nothing. WoahBro disagrees and says "sure it does". Would you care to explain that position, please, WoahBro? ThuumOfReason says Christopher Plummer and Von Sydow are notable. Yes, but so is everyone else. How does "many notable actors" contribute any information at all? — Unsigned comment by 71.102.129.113 (talk) at 20:10 on 10 November 2014 (GMT)

I believe it was supposed to convey that of Skyrim's voice actors, a number are also known for their work in theatre, film, and television (and may be better known for that work than Skyrim). I've altered the article to hopefully clarify this. Croaker (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2014 (GMT)

(edit conflict) It sounds like you may be reading too much into the meaning of that sentence. It's not referring to all the actors in the game. It's referring to actors who are notable in their own right (i.e., famous or well-known for other roles). Christopher Plummer and Max von Sydow are both actors with long, storied careers. Michael Hogan is another one with a lot of roles under his belt. All the sentence is saying is that they got some well-known actors to provide voicework in addition to the rest of the cast. And to be fair, you can't really compare the fame of guys like Plummer with guys like Popeye Vogelsang, who has about 8 minor acting credits to his name. Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 20:41, 10 November 2014 (GMT)

Croaker, Thank you for that edit. It resolves my concern with the original sentence. However, it introduces a couple of new ones:
1) If the sentence is supposed to convey that a number of actors are also known for their work in theatre, film, and television, then why not say "many of whom are also known for their work in theatre, film, and television"? Your actual edit, "many of which are notable actors in theatre, film, and television", is different (notable≠known) and ambiguous (what are they notable for?).
2) As it reads now, the page says the cast features "more than 70 voice actors, many of which are also notable actors in theatre, film, and television". Then it immediately proceeds to list actors. Do you see the ambiguity here? With that construction, it is unclear whether the list following the sentence will consist of voice actors, or voice actors who are also notable actors in theatre, film, and television. 71.102.129.113 22:06, 10 November 2014 (GMT)
Zul se onikaan, Notable means "worthy of notice". It does not mean "famous or well-known for other roles". Without context, it does not, as you suggest, refer to actors who are notable in their own right. If "famous or well-known" is what we want to say, then let's use those words, not "notable". 71.102.129.113 22:06, 10 November 2014 (GMT)
Being famous makes one worthy of note. The sentence is semantically correct and serves its function. I will agree that the wording of the previous version was a little redundant, but it wasn't incorrect. To be honest, I really don't see this as being too big an issue. Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 22:44, 10 November 2014 (GMT)
Every voice actor is worthy of note. Otherwise, why are we noting them on this page? And if every actor is worthy of note, then the wording claiming that many actors are notable is worse than "a little redundant"; it is confusing and inappropriate, and deserves removal. If you wish to call special attention to famous or well-known voice actors, be my guest -- but don't pretend that the adjective "notable" does so. (I agree with you that this isn't a big issue, but I tried to make a simple edit and it was reversed twice by WhoahBro and ThuumOfReason, so my only choice was to plead my case on the Talk page.) — Unsigned comment by 71.102.129.113 (talk) at 18:33 on 10 November 2014
I'm going to jump in here and throw my two cents in. I think every single voice actor whose role(s) is/are known should be mentioned here. Of course, actors who are notable for things other than just being in Skyrim should be mentioned for that. Perhaps a table would be the best? Personally, I don't see why this is an issue. Either version looks just fine to me. This is going to seem a bit harsh, but this seems more like a case of "I want my way to be the way". If I offended anyone, I'm sorry. ~ Ad intellige (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2014 (GMT)
You don't have to apologize, Dom, you have every right to voice your opinion, and you made your point in a polite and reasonable way. Personally, I think it's fine as is. The purpose of the page is to list the voice actors for Skyrim, not to list the careers of the actors themselves. That falls outside the scope of this wiki, which is why we link to the imdb pages for each person. If I may be permitted to be blunt myself, we could argue all day about the precise meaning of words, but when the words in place now aren't wrong, I feel it would be more constructive for editors to focus on other issues.
Anon, you also have a right to voice your concerns, and you did the right thing by bringing this to the talk page for discussion. Croaker and I answered your question about the meaning of that phrase, and while I can't speak for him, I think I've answered it to the best of my ability. Our intent isn't to discourage you from editing or make you feel you're not valuable, but we have a set of guidelines on this wiki that dictate the preferred writing style for our articles. If there's anything about our editing style that confuses you, I would be happy to give you a few pointers. Hope this helps! Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 00:15, 11 November 2014 (GMT)
Ad intellige: This isn't an "I want my way to be the way" type of thing for me. I don't care whose edits prevail. I just want to make sure people aren't just trying to defend a knee-jerk response to reverse edits they don't understand. With the thoughtful responses I've been receiving here (including your two cents), I think I can see that isn't what is happening.
Zul se onikaan: Right on. No complaints here.
All: I honestly thought that when I pointed out the flaw in the original sentence, everyone would immediately see why "notable" is completely inappropriate, and they would be grateful for my input. But instead, people are saying that the original sentence "wasn't incorrect" or looks "just fine". That is baffling to me; I'm a native English speaker with a minor in English, and to me the original sentence was painfully wrong. I suppose everyone is reading "notable" as "famous" or "well-known", and who knows? -- maybe the word is evolving to mean that. But the dictionary and I haven't caught up with that meaning yet, and there are others like me, I'm sure, who will stumble over any sentence on this wiki which uses "notable" in that way. 71.102.129.113 00:48, 11 November 2014 (GMT)

() Well, the meaning of any word will always be subjective to some degree. You may not think of a famous actor or two as being particularly notable in this context, and maybe that's true. But I consider fame to make someone noteworthy in their own way, even if it's more general noteworthiness than context-specific noteworthiness, and I'm guessing whoever wrote that initially felt the same. Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 01:05, 11 November 2014 (GMT)

Now I think you misunderstand my point. The question is not whether a famous actor is notable. The question is whether the word "notable" identifies famous actors (or any other meaningful subset of actors). I believe it does not. 71.102.129.113 01:30, 11 November 2014 (GMT)
The point is that this incredibly minor issue has been discussed and a consensus has been reached, so there is no point in continuing this conversation. I reverted the initial edit because there really wasn't anything completely 'wrong' about the removal of the sentence so it was therefore pointless. The solution that Croaker implemented is perfectly fine as it is and that should be the end of it. I'm pretty sure every editor who has responded here is a native English speaker as well and know what the word "notable" means. It's best to just drop it as there really is no need for further discussion. •WoahBro►talk 01:56, 11 November 2014 (GMT)

Brandon Ellison[edit]

His IMDB page lists him as voicing MaleCommander (Aslfur, Imperial Legates, etc.) and hearing the voices of other characters in other things he's done (like Mr. Sparkles in GW2) I'm confident that it's him

No matter how supervised IMDb may be, we cannot use its info on here. Dragon Guard  (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Credibility[edit]

Legoless, is an unverified Twitter account a verifiable, legitimate source? DRAGON GUARD(TALK) 23:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't think an unverified Twitter account is credible enough. At least that's what I've always gone by. •WoahBro►talk 02:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Ever since that time I destroyed the page with guesswork and that. DRAGON GUARD(TALK) 10:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Twitter's verification process is not the be-all and end-all of legitimate citation. For example, Pete Hines does not have the Verified badge and yet that account is repeatedly used as a source in the media and on UESP. If you take the time to do even the briefest of scans through the James Lewis account, you'll see plenty of evidence that he is who he says. —Legoless (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Are we still working on finding official sources for the voice actors. With no sources on the page, I think we can afford to create a sandbox, or even delete the page it is intended to overhaul during the work in progress. Actually, no. Make that every game's voice actors page. Cheers. DRAGON GUARD(TALK) 17:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
What? We won't be deleting a page just because it's a work in progress. Adding references might be good though. —Legoless (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I completely agree with references. Unofficially, unverified Twitter accounts aren't a credible source. So I want to ban all unverified Twitter, Facebook, and, maybe even other 'sources'. And by banning, I mean to outlaw them on the site's informational pages, as they are not officially verified, and don't deserve a mention to acknowledge their existence. Whether or not we choose to go through with this, however, is another matter. Personally, the primary canon for Skyrim voice actors would be the credits. If a voice actor is said to do a character's voice there, it's outright canon. That being said, video games aren't not immune to errors, some of which are ignored at the time, and, in some cases, today. Verified accounts do have the added weight, as they are the real official people. And about who operates them and proper information, well, that's a whole 'nother post in itself. In short: some sources are grey areas, let's Idenfity valid and non-valid sources. Speaking of which, while on Google a little while ago, I found a solution. By a 'solution', I mean ... use the way Disney treats things as 'Canon' and 'Legends'. WDYT? DRAGON GUARD(TALK) 18:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you actually have a reason to doubt the legitimacy of that Twitter account? This is not an issue of canonicity, this is real-world employment. Only notable Twitter accounts get that verification label. If an account doesn't have one, it certainly opens up the possibility of impersonation, but the detailed record of James Lewis' employment and personal life on that account removes all doubt. I would recommend against tampering with this page without a firm grasp on what constitutes a reliable source. —Legoless (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Edit: This discussion is not too dissimilar to the above Anthony Skordi issue, which died without reaching any sort of conclusion. Since Jeancey linked to Wikipedia at the time, I'd like to point out Wikipedia's rules on social network self-sources. Personal Twitter accounts can be used as reliable references if they concern the person themselves. —Legoless (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

() So it's more a case of "I do not need verifiable evidence, my instinct is enough" when it comes to those sources, and it's their fault if they sound legitimate, to the point where using them runs the risk of false information? I can start a CP discussion at a moment's notice.DRAGON GUARD(TALK) 20:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No. Please read the Wikipedia criteria. In particular: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves [...] so long as [...] There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". —Legoless (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Is the site happy with using the WP criteria? We can always adapt it if necessary. DRAGON GUARD(TALK) 20:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Since they have far more experience dealing with external sources like Twitter, we should probably defer to their policies where we can. —Legoless (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm starting a discussion on the CP; is is getting beyond the scope of a talk page discussion. DRAGON GUARD(TALK) 14:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

() I disagree. The issue is specific to this article and should be sorted out here to avoid having it come up a third time. I've added it to the Active Discussions section of the CP so people know to give input. —Legoless (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a blue tick mark as the end-all for whether or not a source is credible or not, if I am following the discussion correctly. The source is credible if the person or an agent for that person can be reasonably confirmed as the operator of the account. That is the real concern. Whether or not the account can be reasonably assumed to be legitimate.
If we were to look at my favourite winger Callum O'Dowda's Twitter account, it doesn't have the blue tick mark, but since we see his club, Oxford United, following him (well, I can, because it shows mutual followers and I follow him, another would have to search his follows list), and we see posts related to his playing for OUFC and Ireland, we can see that he is who he is. I think that's how I think we should handle it. Not everyone has the tick, but that doesn't mean the account is instantly fake if we can't find it.
Having a blue tick is not the end-all. It takes nothing more than a simple look, and it's easy to establish that an account is legitimate. I have to side with Legoless that we can't discount a page simply because it's not "verified" by Facebook, Twitter, etc. They don't hand out those ticks to just anyone like pieces of candy, and you have to look at more than just a tick mark to see if it's legit. And, I consider any source that, after due diligence is given, can be considered to be legitimate, is a valid source. We should defer to the Wikipedia link Legoless gave and use common sense as to what is considered "legitimate". -damon  talkcontribs 22:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the general sentiment that Legoless and Damon have expressed. While having guaranteed sources like the game credits and actors' verified accounts is the ideal, it may not always be feasible for lesser known voice actors. Account verification is usually only done for highly recognizable people ([1]). Given that fact, I'd say that we should accept info from unverified accounts, as long as there's no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the account. I think the more important thing here is that we document where any information comes from. That way, if there is doubt about the authenticity of an account or the accuracy of a specific piece of info later on, it's easy to track down. Robin Hood  (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Although I already posted a rant on the CP, I'll just repeat here - I agree with Legoless, Damon, RobinHood. Tib (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I've started a reference section, since I think we all agree on that. —Legoless (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Just one question - can we put in big red letters "UNVERIFIED" for the Twitter source? DRAGON GUARD(TALK) 17:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

() That's daft, and it will be an eyesore on a list, and lists, despite their usefulness are eyesores as it is. Why? Do you have any standout reason to believe it's not credible, aside from the lack of the blue tick mark that is not given out to just whoever wants them? -damon  talkcontribs 18:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Primarily the lack of a blue tick mark. The expression "words mean nothing" applies here, I'd be damned if we had to go through tweets just to find exclusive content to reveal a credible source. So actually, by Twitter supplying accounts with blue tick marks, it holds more value due to the fact it's an action: a process accounts of 'notable' people undergo. But, as it seems, we're not gonna stop finding sources for additional voices - even if it means riddling the wiki with them. I mean, I honestly fail to see why on earth we should be meting out special treatment to unverified sources. From now on, we should just delete them from sight.DRAGON GUARD(TALK) 20:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Read this link. The blue tick is reserved for the msot high-profile of names. Not any old actor, musician, or person can be eligible for a tick mark, and many don't even bother to request one. That is the same with any social networking site. Holding up the process over a mark that few people of the internet world are eligible for will be more of a hindrance than good.
We have no evidence to say that this account isn't valid. If we can question the authenticity of the source and put forward genuine evidence that it's lacking legitimacy, then by all means delete the reference. However, without any dubious evidence to say that the account isn't legitimate, and with an IMDB link to the actor's account on the page, which references voice work in Skyrim and other games, we have plenty of reason to take his word that he is Isran's voice, and we have no reason to believe it isn't, aside from your insistence that a completely arbitrarily given out tick mark isn't placed on the account.
If you can give me an argument that the account is illegitimate, then by all means start talking. I'm all ears to that, but if you don't have any real evidence to that other than the tick mark, then I feel that you're arguing for the sake of it. I'll just go out and say it, I feel like you're arguing for the sake of it, because you're hung up on that blue mark. -damon  talkcontribs 20:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Users will click on the source and notice that the blue tick isn't there. That's the purpose of a source: to show where we got the info. Making outrageous statements like "just delete them from sight" isn't constructive. I'd really recommend you read those Wikipedia criteria before continuing with this discussion. —Legoless (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Since we're on the topic, shall we devise a criteria list, stating what conditions have to be met in order for the 'unverified' source to be used on the wiki? Or will we use it if, for whatever reason, it is blatantly obvious that if the source is the real person, even if not verified. About the account, I'll outline things again: it is pretty interesting to read, right? But, as you can see, there is one problem. It's one thing for it to not have a tick mark, but the story didn't stop there. When spotted by you-know-who, he suggested that the possibility of James Lewis voiced Isran should remain on the article, on the basis of the Twitter source. So who's at fault? Twitter for indirectly not streamlining the page's development, or Legoless for using it as a source? It is outrageous, and, dare I say it: controversial. I'll explain why - we cannot say for definite if it is real. I know it may appear legitimate and everything, but until and unless we ask James Lewis himself, we will never know for certain. Funny but true.
For the sake of argument, let's just imagine that somebody compiles a voice actor guide? Would they positively inundate the creators with "who voiced who"? I don't think so. They would most likely check IMDb (which we say is unreliable as anyone can edit it) and/or compare the characters' voices with other characters from TV, film, video games etc. If unsure, they would phone a friend to obtain thoughts on the matter. Coincidentally, that's almost what has happened here, but they voluntarily made a contribution to the discussion. Speaking of IMDb, since anyone can edit it, and I don't see official sources on pages, there is a doubt as to whether the content is true. I guess you'd find that rather controversial, because when I destroyed the voide actors page with info from what is essentially a wiki, it in turn made work for others, who voluntarily created a sandbox about the subject. That was definitely outrageous and controversial, so... dun dun dun! lTherefore let's make three wishes and make one of them "eradicate IMDb", since me and thousands (dare I say millions) have at least become temporarily brainwashed by that site. DRAGON GUARD(TALK) 21:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
At this point, this has gone from a reasonable debate to wikilawyering and refusing to get (or perhaps concede) the point. The concern was raised that unverified Twitter accounts would be considered unreliable, counter-points were made, and while there was some support for the original concern by others, in the end, the consensus seems to be to assume good faith. This is completely consistent with WP:TWITTER, which says that information from social media can be used when someone is speaking about themselves, provided that there's no reasonable doubt about the authenticity. Since we generally use Wikipedia's rules when we don't have one of our own, I see no reason to write this up as a specific set of criteria or rules. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
lWe can neither prove that it's untrue nor can we say it is true. DRAGON GUARD(TALK) 22:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
This is exactly what I was referring to when I was talking about refusing to get or concede the point. What you don't seem to have understood, Dragon Guard, is that we all get your point. Every last one of us. You don't need to repeat it in every last message you write. That's called tendentious editing, and with enough of it, it's considered grounds for blocking. Our point is that we're not concerned about this fact, and that our lack of concern is consistent with established rules, and forms a consensus in its own right. Please drop this line of discussion and find a more productive use for your time on the wiki. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

() I'm not trying to start a heated debate or anything here, but if you think about it, there is a way to settle this so everyone "wins", as much as a paradox it may seem. For instance, editors can choose when to contribute, therefore the people who don't think unverified Twitter accounts are credible sources: me (along with WoahBro) can choose to stand aside from editing voice actor pages if it comes from the source I just mentioned. Both ways are right in their own way. The problem is that whenever a source appears somewhere, people see it differently and, as exemplified in this discussion, conflict ensues.

Again, I would like to avoid another debate about the matter, as my way to settle things doesn't break the rules and enables each user to be true to themselves. DRAGON GUARD(TALK) 00:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)