Editorial standards

These standards apply to every roster entry and subpage. Editors use them to decide what belongs in the index, how it is phrased, and what we show as supporting evidence.

We order evidence roughly as follows:

• Official and primary: statements, credits, and materials from the person, their representatives, distributors, or award bodies, when clearly attributed.
• Primary press: interviews, profiles, and reported features in outlets we treat as first-order for the claim in question.
• Industry databases: dates and credits where databases are used cautiously and cross-checked when stakes are high.
• Reputable secondary: mainstream and trade reporting used as synthesis, not as a substitute for a primary trace.
• Community reference: fan-maintained or social evidence, shown with an explicit label and never confused with confirmation.

A strong claim needs a strong tier. When only weaker material exists, we downgrade language, add uncertainty, or omit the line.

Errors that affect meaning, dates, credits, or legal sensitivity are corrected in place when verified. The record of what changed may live in internal notes; the public page should always read as current.

Use Submit with kind Correction and as much primary evidence as you can share.

We welcome tips on projects, press, public references, and community sources. Editors review queues; not everything is published. Duplicate or purely speculative items are closed quietly.

An email is optional but helps if we need one clarifying question. We do not use the inbox for marketing lists.

Portraits and stills follow licence and credit rules of their hosts. If you represent rights in an image or text block that should not appear, use Takedown with enough detail to locate the asset and the basis of the request.