User talk:Jonathan F

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Jonathan F, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 00:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Blade Runner

Excellent work on the lead; I've made further tweaks. While the article undoubtedly can be tightened please be bold and add the information. Wikipedia is not paper and bloat isn't a critical affliction as length requirements are increasingly lax as fewer browsers encounter problems with large articles. I wouldn't want a key meme to be left out because of my rambling prose. - RoyBoy 800 22:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] n+1

Not sure why n+1 site is slapped with the NPOV sign, not totally familiar with wikipedia rules though so you must have good reason. I thought the style was engaging without reading like an advertisement. Criticism also seemed to balance it well. Not affiliated with the magazine either... Could you link me to a page you think is a worthy model of emulation?

n+1 was tagged because it has stylistic and organizational problems that cause it to read sympathetic to the interests of the magazine founders. The entry should instead explain the "importance" of the magazine. By importance, I don't necessarily mean value, but rather definition, nature, history, influence (or influences), etc. The New Yorker entry might be helpful in guiding revisions in these areas (bulleted items discuss TNY):
  • Lead
    The first sentence gives a concise definition of the subject. The definition provides context for the article, which is further established in the lead. The lead also gives an overview of the article to follow. See also WP:Lead
  • Structure
    The article successfully expounds on topics introduced in the lead. Its organization is sensible, in that the unique features of the magazine (cartoons, short stories) are tackled in subsequent sections.
  • Writing style
    Generally clear and unbiased. The contributors have typically gone only as far as indicating commonly held views of the magazine and its contents.
Also, from glancing at Scott's New York Times Magazine profile of n+1, it looks to be a feature story, so pulling out a quote to give an example of "harsh criticism" may be taking the words out of context (the overall tone of the article is appreciative). Otherwise, thanks for your research and for your contributions to the Benjamin Kunkel and n+1 articles. I was going to add a link to Kunkel's Salon interview, but I noticed you took care of that already. Jonathan F 06:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conor Oberst

I see you substituted instances of Oberst with Conor on Conor Oberst. Please read the following for proper usage and try to correct any mistakes you might have made. Thank you. Elvrum 00:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

To disambiguate between siblings or other well-known relatives with the same surname, use the surname of the article header to indicate that person, and use first names or complete names to indicate siblings or others. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names
Oh right. I just got that. Thanks for pointing that out. :) I guess we're editing many of the same articles, so nice to meet you. Looking forward to working with you. Elvrum 01:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a list of templates available?

Just wondering. Being new here I was not sure what is available. Sayanora

Piercetp 07:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Un flic

Thanks for your message. I removed the reference to its being a policier largely because I was unsure about translating it as "police procedural"; that's a specific kind of (usually) novel in which the details of police procedure, usually expected to be accurate, are given, often at length. Policiers are surely just the genre of crime films/thrillers, whether in print or on film. (Moreover, though it's a while since I've seen this film, I must admit, I don't remember it as trying accurately to depict police procedures.) Calling it a policier, therefore, is just to give the French translation of what's already said in the article.

Mind you, I'd have thought that we should have an article on "policiers", as – in film, at least – they're a significant genre in French film. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wajda, world reknowned

Limiting him to post WWII makes him seem less universal. John wesley 13:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletions

Please read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. A7 applies to "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Real, so fictional characters don't count. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That was an improper deletion. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Because of the quote I gave above. An admin can't just delete any article he doesn't like. There are rules. It's the community that decides whether other articles are deleted. Otherwise, there could be mass deletions of valid articles. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donnie Darko

Jonathan, James Duval played Frank. Frankie Feedler is a different character who is discussed but does not appear in the film. -- I@n ≡ talk 13:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That's OK, Regards -- I@n ≡ talk 01:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ellen Pompeo

Thank you for your attention to Ellen Pompeo. While I'm not sure if the Andrew Rosenthal comments qualify as off-topic, I agree that they are unsourced. I searched for a source myself, and could find none. For now, I have put up a citation needed tag so that the facts may be verified if they are true. If it goes too long with no change, it will probably be safe to remove the lines altogether. --Danaman5 05:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United 93

Regarding your edit to United 93 (film), I actually have no real preference, both versions seem appropriate (although I agree that the quote about Ben Sliney having "star presence" doesn't match the source). I just don't want to see an edit war (which it appears is starting to happen). Perhaps we can try to get consensus on the talk page, and if that fails take things to WP:RFC? -- MisterHand 21:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northstar (comics)

Uh, could you look at that again? I think you removed the wrong one. CovenantD 04:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind. I was looking at it cross-eyed. CovenantD 04:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kid noir

How lovely to be reminded of Fallen Idol, a wonderful film. I think I agree with you as to its film noir status; of course, it's not a "kid noir" in the sense used in the article and generally meant--young Philippe never assumes an adult role, never protects his young friends or paramours (!); rather, he observes and is baffled by adult behavior. It's a noir told from a kid's perspective, but it's nothing like Veronica Mars and Brick, the touchstones for "kid noir"/"teen noir" in the article.

As for your comment about removing the reference, I'm baffled. It appeared to be completely bogus. The reference was to the most recent, 1992 edition of the Silver & Ward encyclopedia (and actually, even the year was wrong--it's 1993; I just corrected it); obviously Silver & Ward couldn't have been talking about Veronica Mars and Brick. Judging from the 1988 edition sitting in my lap as I write this, I find it virtually impossible to imagine they would have launched five years later into any discussion of "kid noir", and certainly not in the sense relevant to the described films. I confess I haven't eyeballed the 1993 edition, but a Google (and Google Book) search for the authors' names and either "kid noir" or "teen noir" turns up absolutely nothing but those very same antique versions of the Wikipedia article we're talking about. Again, seemingly bogus. So...if you can positively verify the 1993 reference, please put it back in, while explaining how it relates to the TV series that began in 2004 and the film that premiered in 2005 the article mentions. If you can't, but feel strongly that "kid noir"/"teen noir" requires a reference, by all means locate one that is satisfying and include it.

Best regards--DCGeist 09:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You inspired me to do a little more research, and I could find no reputable source describing either VM or Brick as "kid noir." They're clearly "teen noir," as a variety of sources suggest. "Kid noir" seems entirely plausible for Fallen Idol, as well as for The Window (to which a couple people attach the phrase) and maybe two or three others. Not sure there's enough there at any given time or of any particular note to raise it as a concept. (Unless Night of the Hunter is "kid noir"!) What are your thoughts?--DCGeist 09:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It sounds like Silver & Ward's usage of "kid noir" simply lumps together a set of movies that happen to feature, um, protagonists under the age of 30 (Drugstore Cowboy??) that hardly constitute an important current in the history of noir, let alone an observable trend of any particular time. About par for their course as intellectuals. "Teen noir" as used in the article--though, as you explain, ultimately deriving from S&W's "kid noir" definition (which was not enquoted when I began editing, which of course it should have been if it is was literally theirs)--does actually describe what appears to be an emerging trend. Best, DCGeist 20:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pulp noir

Hello, I have rewritten this article and provided references. Please review my changes and consider revisiting your nomination. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response offering criticism of my rewrite. I will attempt to briefly address your criticisms and then work on the article later today. First of all, I misplaced the Renzi reference - it clearly does not belong after the lead paragraph. I only meant to include it after the phrase mentioning the book, as that phrase represents material that is contained in the book. I may just remove it, as it may not support the term "pulp noir" as we are outlining it in the article. As to the reliability of my other references, I think it is open to interpretation whether the term is a neologism at all, and whether it is appropriate to apply that particular guideline. Clearly the other editors who participated in the discussion agree with my assessment.
However, I have no desire to include an article that does not belong here. I will remove the questionable Renzi reference, and see if the article stands without it. I maintain that the term is not a neologism, and that the references I provide support it. Thanks again for your constructive and good-natured review of my changes! --Aguerriero (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confused about CIVIL usage

This is not an attack, really. I'm just find that a lot of people use WP:CIVIL in strange ways, and so notice references. And so I got really confused by your mention in the AFD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freeborn (intended movie). I couldn't understand the context? Did I miss a nasty edit when reviewing later? Shenme 03:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/n/User_talk%7EJonathan_F_9433.html"