User talk:Zadignose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Nice job merging the articles! With a little Wikifying, the new article will be much improved! Kafziel Talk 17:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the encouragement! zadignose 17:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Belated welcome

By the way, since nobody has officially welcomed you yet, I figured I'd give you a few links you might find helpful. You obviously have the sandbox thing down, and a good bit of the syntax, too. But these are good to keep for reference, especially if and when you start branching out into other areas.

A lot of them are pretty dry, but they may come in handy at some point. There's a lot more to Wikipedia than just the articles everybody sees, which you will find if you stick around long enough. And again, if you ever have a question or need help with anything, don't hesitate to contact me. Kafziel Talk 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WP Films

Hi Zadignose, I saw your comment in WP Films. I answer here, because we have tried to deal with the problem several times but no important step could be taken. There are some minor discussions in archives 2 & 3, but the first important effort to address it is here*. Then we had this problem here* (also see 3 sections above it). You may also want to see the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article, where I try to give some notability criteria, although the by country lists are a potentially serious problem. It isn't easy to limit a contributor who thinks that every film with some (subjectively evaluated) notability factor should become part of Wikipedia and who has the enthusiasm to work hard for it. I will be glad if you come up with a good idea, after you take a look. You are welcome to check my collection of general and Films-specific informative links. I hope they can be of help. Cheers! Hoverfish Talk 15:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, Hoverfish. I'll try to read through as much as I can, to get caught up on this discussion. Meanwhile, I've opened up a discussion at the Village Pump [[1]], to see if more opinions will flow. I reckon I've been a bit contentious, but I guess that's how it goes.zadignose 15:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any trace of contentiousness in what you wrote. Some things do need to be discussed. By the way, the "Importance" rating has more to do with the Editorial Team for the distributable Wikipedia Version 1.0 than anything else we could benefit from in Films. I do try to rate some few films as Top, if they are considered masterpieces, or High, if they are important films of an important director, but anything under these ratings is still obscure and undefinable. Maybe "Low" could have also a good use, but I haven't attempted to use it yet. The opinion I find usually is that Importance is mostly POV. Hoverfish Talk 16:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ocean's Thirteen

I'm curious what your opinion is on other articles related to scheduled events. Should nothing that is planned to take place in the future ever be listed? Nothing is 100% certain. This is why I feel it's necessary to take things on a case by case basis; the reliability of only the sources of the article in question should be examined, not every source for every scheduled event in the encyclopedia. I think your concern is more with the notability requirements for movies, and I believe that it would be more productive to discuss the guidelines (and possibly changing them) rather than simply nominating them for deletion without prior discussion. It's one thing to promote discussion, it's another to thrust it upon a notable subject when the argument is about non-notable ones. Leebo86 05:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

But I maintain that I did not thrust the discussion upon a notable subject, as I consider Ocean's Thirteen not-notable. I am also attempting to engage the community in a discussion of notability standards for films at the Village Pump an in the Notability guide for Film. I'm starting to think it's a lost cause. I'm glad that you've shown an interest in discussing it with an open mind, and thank you for the consideration.
I'm not sure whether I can generalize to articles outside the field of film, but I believe that generally all articles about films not yet released should be considered not-notable. That's because we're not really talking about an "event," we're talking about a work of art, or if you prefer a work of entertainment, which is the subject of an article penned before the work's creation. Such a work can not be deemed notable prior to completion and being viewed by critics and the public. And it's certain that a prematurely scribed article will be based largely on rumor, speculation, and hype which makes it extremely questionable as a quality encyclopedic article.
Also, I think that many people have a distorted notion about the nature of the film business. Many films fail, the inability to complete or release a film is not so unusual an event, and most films that fail do so not as a loud "bomb," but as an inaudible fizzle. The public quickly forgets what was being so vocally hyped a few months before. We certainly can't presume that a film will be "notable," whether it succeeds or fails, before the fact. Again, at the risk of being redundant, most failures are not notable.
I might also be skeptical about other "future" articles outside the medium of film, but I think I'm more able to make a reasonable judgment regarding film articles at this point. My ideas seem incompatible with the larger Wikipedia community, but I feel someone needs to speak up about the apparent lack of notability standards.
I think one of the concerns that some editors had (including me) is that there was very little discussion concerning the sources of the Ocean's Thirteen article specifically. There was mention of your opinion that all sources for unreleased movies should be considered as unreliable (I'm guessing regardless of the quality of their other coverage?), but not the way that the sources of the article up for deletion were unreliable in particular. Just as you have to cite your sources in an article to prove its verifiability, you need to cite them and explain why they shouldn't be used to prove its non-noteworthiness. But, I believe you are going to have a difficult time discrediting sources that are considered reliable fact-checking third parties. I don't think it's enough to say, "Well, they're reliable when they talk about other stuff, just not movies." Leebo86 12:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course, there would have been plenty of time to discuss the specifics of The Ocean's Thirteen article and its sources, had the "discussion" not been terminated prematurely. Rather than allowing a discussion of these relevant points, the nomination was abruptly dismissed. There's no way to give a full discussion of the points relevant to a deletion in just the first paragraph introducing the nomination, and it's not possible to preemptively answer all possible objections. Unfortunately, the necessary dialogue was not permitted to occur.zadignose 12:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Cobra verde still 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cobra verde still 1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Films Newsletter

The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams2020 06:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rejs

Thanks for adding the infobox about this film. However, I see you have made a cut and paste move from The Cruise (film)‎ to Rejs. This is not allowed, please take a look at WP:MOVE about how to move pages properly. It takes an admin help to fix this but somebody will come along, I suspect. It is a brilliant film by the way. Stefán 06:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Notability (films) nominated for deletion

Wikipedia:Notability (films) nominated for deletion

This is a courtesy notice: Wikipedia:Notability (films) has been nominated for deletion. --Kevin Murray 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films February Newsletter

The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 00:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March WP:FILMS Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by Cbrown1023 talk 01:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/a/d/User_talk%7EZadignose_aee7.html"