Talk:Cats & Dogs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cats & Dogs article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Breeds, animal actors

I think this article needs the breeds cause I have a dog that looks exatly like Ivy (ironicly his name is Ivan)execept for his face which looks like an alaskan malamute instead of a greyhound, and I was wondering what mix she was.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.212.117 (talk • contribs) 18:11, July 14, 2007

Answer: Ivy is not a mix; she is a purebred Saluki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarrieOkie86 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Class

The article as it reads at this moment qualifies for start class. Please do not remove pertinent, referenced data - including reviews and awards info and infobox details - and then downgrade it to stub. Thank you for your cooperation. MovieMadness (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Try actually waiting for and reading the response I left you in the film project as to WHY the "pertinent" data was removed, and try actually looking at what you are putting back. The film is still a stub, even with the copyvio stuff back in. Your reverting when you didn't even understand why it was done, and continuing to revert without waiting for an answer is what is nonconstructive.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

These were the reviews inappropriately quoted that were removed. They can be used to write a proper reception section, just without just "copy/paste" from each one.

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved discussion

I recently came across this, I was looking for criticism section, but instead I found an article so encyclopedic I can't believe it. Yes it does need cleanup, so I was wondering if somebody that actually watched the movie recently or owns it on DVD can fix it up. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done the clean up, though it doesn't leave much article. The poster being used is missing a source and a FUR, and the editor who uploaded it has not been around since September so not sure how to find out where it came from :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
For future reference, you can do a search via Google Images. I found it immediately and added a rationale to Image:Cats & Dogs film.jpg. MovieMadness (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, I know you can do a Google search for images. However, in reality you don't know for sure that the source you added is the real one. You don't know that the original uploaded found and used the exact same image you found in your Google search conducted three YEARS after the original image was uploaded. Throwing up a source because you found the same image online does not mean it really is the source unless you also reuploaded the image to use the one taken from the source. In essence, you'd put a false source on the image.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it hardly matters if the source I found for the image is the "real one" used when it originally was uploaded. It now has a proper rationale with a source that really can't be disputed or called "false," given the existing image is exactly the same as the one I found. MovieMadness (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It does matter and the source is obviously invalid. It is not exactly the same. The source you gave is a little tiny 100x150 pixel image. The uploaded one is a much larger 414x600. Putting that in like that is just giving incorrect and invalid information that is valid grounds for the image to be removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Collectonian, why did you remove pertinent data - including reviews, awards, and infobox details - that was added earlier today and revert the article to a stub? Since your edit does not appear to be very constructive, I would appreciate it if you could justify it. Thanks! MovieMadness (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It was constructive. Did you carefully check the IPs edits? They removed infobox details, added irrelevant ones, and removed appropriate wikification. I did not remove the awards, however I did remove the "reviews." All he did was copy and paste large quotes from four reviews and shoved in a bulleted list. That level of quoting just tossed in like that is too borderline WP:COPYVIO for my taste. The reviews themselves can, and should, be used to write a proper reception section that doesn't consist of just stealing other people's words. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
How is [1] a better article than [2]??? As far as I can tell, relevant infobox details (such as all the music credits) were added, not removed. Furthermore, to suggest quoting reviews constitutes "borderline WP:COPYVIO" makes no sense. All quoted reviews have been referenced. Is your objection that they are presented as a bulleted list? If so, remove the bullets, not the entire section. MovieMadness (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the bulleted list that apparently bothered you. You keep adding [citation needed] following the second paragraph in the opening section when in fact those figures are referenced in the infobox. You also keep removing music credits from the infobox for no apparent reason. I would appreciate hearing from others re: this issue before the article is edited again. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict because some people can't just discuss) No, my objection is that all they are is large quotes, nothing else. We use selective quoting, not grabbing a bunch for different places shoved in one section. If you had bothered to ask me before you went around reverting, I'd have explained that I was going to rewrite it to properly incorporate the sources later today, but with that much quoted material, yes, its too close to just copy/pasting for no purpose to let it just sit there. As for the infobox details, he REMOVED producers, added musical credits that have no source and are not supported by IMDB nor AllMovie, dewikified the release date, added an unnecessary UK one, removed the appropriate USA template (last time I checked, we're still doing flagicons in the infobox), removed the refimprove template, removed Goldblum's name from the plot when it belongs there per the MoS, stripped out all of the formatting of the character list (which was again formatted per the MoS), added awards ganked from IMDB, and threw in a bunch of contextless review quotes with no rhyme or reason. Again, as a whole, they were bad changes. I partially reverted, keeping the awards as they can be resourced, and removing the review quotes until it can be rewritten PROPERLY. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Correction, it is now PURE WP:COPYVIO. He just straight copy-pasted the entire thing from dfx News and threw in some wiki markup! Still think it should stay? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
How can you say "He just straight copy-pasted the entire thing from dfx News" when the reviews he or she quoted are more detailed than the ones at that source, the Washington Post review he or she quoted isn't there at all, and all the reviews he or she quoted were linked to their sources, which means he or she had to have read each one individually? Yes, I still think it should stay.
More importantly, how can you go to my discussion page and accuse me of engaging in an edit war and threaten to have me blocked when it is you who started it in the first place and continued it after I suggested we hear from others re: this issue? MovieMadness (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
~sigh~ You started it by reverting my partial revert without bothering to ask why, then kept reverting without waiting for any answers instead of letting the discussion finish first. You aren't even giving me time to answer, much less anyone else, instead you just keep reverting. Let the discussion run its course already. You have reverted 3 times, and have edit warred. If you had bothered to check, you'd see I also left the same warning for myself. He copy-pasted. He may have added more, but it started as stolen content and its far to close to be considered good. Better to air on the side of caution and just remove for later rewrite than giving an impression of it being stolen. And even if its just sheer coincidence that he happened to grab the same quotes from the same sources (sans the addition of one), the length of quotes used without context still violate the fair use policies: "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited" and in the unacceptable uses section "Excessively long copyrighted excerpts". The quotes used here are excessively long, especially when taken as a whole. Also, the first one I have to wonder about all together, considering two different editors in two different news papers are claiming to have written it, but that's another topic all together. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure you can accuse someone of starting with "stolen content" when it's clear his or her sources were the original reviews, since they all are referenced to the newspapers in which they appeared, and not dfx News as you surmise. And even if he or she had used dfx News as a starting point to lead him or her to the original reviews, how does that constitute "PURE WP:COPYVIO"? I would agree with your assumption ONLY if the reviews quoted were exactly the same as those at dfx News without any variation whatsoever, which would suggest it was nothing more than a cut-and-paste job, which this obviously wasn't.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your statement "Also, the first one I have to wonder about all together, considering two different editors in two different news papers are claiming to have written it, but that's another topic all together" at all. Can you please clarify what it is you're trying to say? Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Its excessive quoting and totally unnecessary. Really nothing more than laziness, but oh well. I notice you have not said anything about the many other reasons for my undoing his edits? It was a copy-paste job, just from different pages. Nevermind on the second as now I can't seem to refind the article I saw a little while with the same opening but different papers and names. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I tried to say several things about your many other reasons for undoing his edits but kept getting the edit conflict response, so I finally gave up. Among the issues I was trying to raise were:
  • The listing of an excessive number of producer names in the infox. Are we not supposed to limit these to producers and not include executive producers, co-producers, and associate producers? If we follow your lead, some infobox producer credits could be longer than the article.
  • The music credits that were added to the Cats & Dogs infobox are listed in IMDb, contrary to your assertion they are not.
  • According to a recent discussion re: flagicons in the infobox of a film article, the general consensus seemed to be they should be excluded.
  • The box office figures cited in the opening of the article are referenced in the infobox, so why are you adding [citation needed]? In how many different places must the same fact be referenced?
  • Where does it say cast lists should be in boldface type?
Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered your request for temporary full protection of Cats & Dogs at [3] was declined. In your request you stated, "The material being readded is partially WP:COPYVIO from [4], and excessively fair use violations from the individual reviews. Doesn't that get an exemption on the 4 revert rule?" The mediator disagreed with you because "the quotes are properly attributed." Under these circumstances, why shouldn't the reviews be reverted? Also, why didn't you alert me to your request for temporary full protection since I was the other editor involved and therefore entitled to offer my opinion as well? In good faith I will assume that was an oversight on your part. The bottom line is, the article as it appears now is a mess compared to [5]. If you don't like the manner in which the reviews were presented, may I suggest you constructively amend the section instead of removing it outright? How does such a deletion improve the article? Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why should I alert you? That is not a requirement, and with your starting your revert by calling my edits "unconstructive" after I did the initial clean ups, I have no reason to want to inform you of anything. The article was a mess before with that stuff just randomly shoved in and the other bad edits. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Woah, all I asked for was a little cleanup, but this whole section is getting bigger than it should be. I hope it's ok if I move this section to the Cats and Dogs talk page, would that be alright guys? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL, see what happens when you ask for help ;) *j/k* Alas, MM has asked for other opinions, so its fine to stay here. In either case, I'm going to dewatch list it. Not worth the hassle to bother doing the rest of the expansion I'd planned. Hopefully MM will make the effort to write up all the production info I found, add in a real reception section, fill in the plot, etc and get it up to B class by the end of the weekend. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
At any rate, isn't it obvious what the solution is? If I'm correct, you needen't but remove the current unknown-source image, and re-upload the other one MovieMadness found, provided it has a good fair-use rationale. Of course, I may be wrong; it's probably much more complex than that (I no nothing about uploading images as I've never done it), but it's just a notion. Best, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC).
Normally, yes, but the one he found was too tiny to really be of use in an infobox. It should be replaced with a properly sourced one, and hopefully MM will actually make the effort to do so.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I see. I'll try and help find one, also. I just lack information as to how one would find the rationale from google images. You just click on the image, and it'll show you the licence (i.e., it will show whether or not it's fair use?)? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 21:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Like this? Will it do, or is it too small? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
That's the one he found :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Considering the size and quality, I'd suspect the original image actually came from here (and if not, it can be used to source and reupload, since the current image is a bit big. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No kidding? Meh, we'll find one. I'll go look some more. :P --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)