Talk:Multiple Maniacs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 Picture 2 Links 3 Request for Comment: John Waters Image 4 Vandalism

[edit] Picture

It appears that there is some issue about the photograph placed on here of John Waters. I would suggest that the photograph STAY until there has been a consensus reached as to its appropriateness for the article.

My opinion is that the fact that the editor who posted it took the picture is irrelevant; with the tough guidelines we have for fair use, etc. it's clear this is an image we can use, and it illustrates the filmmaker. I am failing to see the issue here. However, if there is an ongoing content debate, please seek consensus or use arbitration to resolve it. Thanks. NickBurns 21:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• • As it happens I agree with you, Nick, that comment would be best and that the image illustrates the filmmaker - which is why the image is correctly placed on the filmmaker's article and why there is no need for it here. I am going to remove the image for now though as, putting the merits of otherwise of it being here at all to one side, it has just been dumped onto the page without any thought for which text it is supposed to be linked to or illustrating (there is in fact no discussion whatsoever about the director or writer on the page, which seems to me to be a pretty pertinent point) and anyone interested in Waters can of course click the link to his article - where the image appears in betetr quality and more appropriately. StuartDouglas 16:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• The image is found under the info-box, which is appropriate. Since Water wrote the movie, his image on the article illustrates the content. --DavidShankBone 16:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've just left the image as is, since I see you've taken to auto-reverting and your talk page suggests you have previous for doing this. Life's too short, so I'll just ask for comments StuartDouglas 16:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

On a different note, my understanding was the one link per page to actors etc was correct and that the link is best placed in the infobox. Is that not the case? StuartDouglas 16:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: John Waters Image

This is a dispute about the need for an image of the director on each of his movie pages, with this movie in particular being an example. 16:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

There is already a link to Waters on the page and the image, in larger size, is prominently and correctly featured on the director's own article. There is no need for an image of the director of a movie on each of his films, nor for the the writer. Additionally, on each page (twenty different pages) on which the image is placed it has simply been dropped onto the page without thought for the section of text it is supposed to be illustrating. The image merely clutters the article and is not required. StuartDouglas 16:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• John Waters is the writer and director of this work. I took a high-quality image that shows Waters not only as he is today, but as he looked back when this work was created (the photo in the poster in the background). The image is open-use, a contribution to Wikipedia and the common good. There is no limit to how many pages a relevant photograph can be placed. If that was the case, the George W. Bush photograph (or the Oprah Winfrey, or a host of others) would be relegated to only his article page, and not to his other "work." This issue has only come up on the Multiple Maniacs page by one user, and other photographs of Libba Bray, Ann Brashares, Al Franken, Ralph Nader, Mark Z. Danielewski, et. al. is also found on the pages of their work. These have not been controversial, and it is relevant to have a graphic representation of the author/creator of a work on that work's page. The image doesn't clutter, but is found appropriately under the infobox, next to text describing work that John Waters himself created. --DavidShankBone 16:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong in having a picture of David Waters on this article, but where it is at the moment is unsightly. Find somewhere else to put it and put on the left hand side of the page. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually I'm the editor that complained and, on reflection, it's really not worth the hassle of arguing about an image on a page for a film I don't even like. I do think it looks bad (although placing it more sympathetically in the text would improve that) and think any user of Wikipedia looking for info on John Waters moveis is soon going to get bored of seeing the same picture on every page, but really, it's a minor thing compared to all sorts of pages on Wiki which are just plain nonsense. It's too easy to get a bee in your bonnet about little things on the internet and I may well have been guilty of that here, for which apologies. StuartDouglas 12:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

It appears that somebody is vandalizing this page quite often in a short period of time. Should it be protected?

The DarkArcher was here 21:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you protect please? I've been expanding it and it's taken quit a lot of work.Mike P ^talk 23:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I only wanted partial protection. The article is getting vandalized repeatedly by same person while I'm trying to expand it.Mike P ^talk 00:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Partial protection is needed for the Plot section.Mike P ^talk 00:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This problem seems to have resolved itself. Thanks. Mike P ^talk 14:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)