User talk:ReadQT
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have been a consistent fan of Wikipedia starting in April, 2005 and have made numerous edits without a user name. I recently started editing under a user name, ReadQT.
Contents |
[edit] Solomon Bayley and Mark Whitacre
They both look great so far, the first one has a bit of a problem in that only his autobiography is used as a source, and autobiographies aren't secondary sources. As regards the second one the section titles are fairly long see WP:MSH. I'll look them over further tomorrow, but they look great considering you're fairly new (aren't you?) Quadzilla99 15:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Robert Adamson
Hi ReadQT, I notice that you have been doing some great work on Robert Adamson. I did a little bit of work on him a few months ago when I was working on Poetry Awards. You've done some good stuff but I have a comment/question. When I was working on the article, there was the heading Works and then subheadings for Poetry and Autobiography. (These weren't mine - they were already there). I notice that you have changed Autobiography to Bibliography. I'm not sure why you've done that. My understanding is that for a writer's works you can use the heading Works or Bibliography, but here you've used the heading Bibliography for a subset of his works? I don't know much about Robert Adamson and so there may be good reasons for your editing, but I just thought I'd ask these questions in case there's a misunderstanding. You can ignore me and I'll go away without being offended! Cheers, Sterry2607 (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Replied to above question on Sterry2607's Talk Page.ReadQT (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good on you for adding references. That's important. However, I think I will change that bit back to what it was, to be more like the Australian writers I've been working on. Have a look at it and if you think it doesn't make sense, let me know. Thanks Sterry2607 (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. I appreciate your letting me know. Cheers, Sterry2607 (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Informant
Hello, I noticed that you created The Informant (2009 film). I wanted to inform (heh) you that the notability guidelines for future films stipulate that there shouldn't be a film article until production has actually begun. This is because there is a false impression that the film will be made, when there are actually various factors that could interfere with production. I was wondering if you could take one of the approaches suggested under the future films department's processes. I think the best approach might be to create the book article and place condensed information about the project in development there. See what I've done with Frankie Machine (film) and Shantaram (film). If production does begin in April, the article can be recreated. This is a pretty simple process, and it's just to establish a threshold between films that will be made and films that linger in development forever, such as Logan's Run (2010 film) and Fahrenheit 451 (2009 film). Let me know if you have any questions! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe that the film is technically in production. From what you've said, it's undergoing the pre-production stage. Filming is not scheduled to begin until April, which is still a month off. WP:NFF states that shooting must have begun because there are numerous films that have come close to production but did not start as intended. See The Fountain and Watchmen (film) as a couple of examples. We can't really say beyond personal opinion that filming will begun unless it has already done so -- we can't account for true certainty. I ask you to reconsider, as I don't think it would be too difficult to create a stubby book article (for which the plot summary would actually belong, since the film is not guaranteed to follow the book perfectly) and have a Film adaptation section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Great, you took care of it well! I've changed The Informant into a disambiguation page, and The Informant (2009 film) will redirect to The Informant (novel)#Film adaptation for the time being. A small suggestion for the future -- you can create the novel's article separately and change the film article into a redirect. That way, if filming begins, the redirect can be undone, and you'll have the old layout back. Other than that, though, nice work! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see you kept up with the film! I just moved it to The Informant (2009 film) because that's the proper title per naming conventions. I would suggest trimming down the plot summary to just the premise because we don't know how closely the film will follow the novel. Also, you may want to go to The Informant (novel)#Film adaptation and revise it to be shorter and point to the film article using the {{main}} template. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
