Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:56, 24 June 2012

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

A brownie for you!

Armbrust has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread more WikiLove, install the WikiLove user script.

Notice

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Fluffymoose_disruptive_editing. Thank you. Calabe1992 20:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRIME

If you think that, you haven't read all the way to the end. Yworo (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator (or including material suggesting that any named person has committed a crime in any article), when no conviction is yet secured."

I did read it and I think you have misinterpreted it; the policy relates to article creation, it does not govern the content of the article. The main Misplaced Pages:Notability page explicitly states These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list. If Misplaced Pages really is against documenting arrests that result in charges being documented, then this issue should be directly addressed under the appropriate policy i.e WP:DUE. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP treats notability differently. In any case, that language is at the end of the section on alleged perpetrators and clearly suggest not including material about unconvicted crimes in any article. It's no longer talking about a stand-alone article. That addendum is a content inclusion guideline and no longer a notability guidelines, otherwise there would have been no reason to append the comment. Yworo (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept the addendum; it was introduced only a week ago and there is no discussion about it on the talk page. I have raised this issue at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Suspicious_alteration_to_WP:CRIME. Betty Logan (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

RBinPerson

Hiya, Sorry to pester you once again but I wonder if you could advise me on a problem I am having with an editor, RBinPerson (RBinPerson talk), on List of James Bond novels and stories. They have removed a good piece of well-sourced information and replaced it with information that even they admit is more positive about Benson. I have reverted it twice and can't do so again for a while but their badly sourced information is still there. I asked them to take it to the Talk page before the last revert and they didn't, claiming they didn't know how to. They subsequently posted on my talk page claiming to be Raymond Benson themselves. Any thoughts as to what steps I can take that will keep the well-sourced info there and get rid of their badly written and sourced info? Many thanks in advance! - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't respond to this more quickly, but it's unusual so I have been thinking about it. First off, the information RBinPerson added in its place isn't properly sourced so should probably come out; secondly, I notice these claims are sourced to The Guardian, and while it's a reliable source it is not an authority on Bond, and it wouldn't be the first time a newspaper has got something wrong, or just plain made something up. Whether this editor is really Benson or not is irrelevant, but he is asserting that this fact is wrong using the books as a primary source; for instance, if The Guardian declared that James Bond had group sex in Eon's Goldfinger, we could legitimately argue this is not the case by going and watching Goldfinger, because the film itself is a reliable source for its own plot. Similarly, someone who has read the books can contest a plot point from the same standpoint. In accordance with WP:AGF we must entertain the possibility the editor is being truthful, has read the books and Bond did not have group sex or visit a prostitute. On that basis we should probably remove the information until someone who has read the books can confirm whether this is the case, or another independent source (preferably higher quality than a newspaper) corroborates the claim. It may be worth posting the query on the James Bond Wikiproject, and seeing if anyone has read the books. Betty Logan (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me on this. I've left in the new additions, although added the much needed sources to them all. Whether or not the Guardian is right or not, the new material still provides a good balance in there anyway. I've taken one of the novels out of the library to read too as I want to make sure of the facts myself (the various fan fora all seem to suggest the Guardian has a point, but I'll speed read the book myself to see who is right.) It is actually Benson behind the edits—I contacted him through his website and we've had some very good email correspondence on the matter, so I'm happy to leave it as it is until I've finished reading the book! Thanks (again) for all your help on this: you are a font of huge amounts of knowledge for me! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Merger

Hi Betty, do you want to do the merger as disscused here? SH 08:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that much about the topic, but I can "dump" the material in and sort out the licensing. Once it is in the article someone else will have to copyedit it and make it more "integrated". Betty Logan (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've done the merge, but the article is going to need some work and that's down to you now. Betty Logan (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Your red link

Hi Betty, I noticed your thread at WT:LINK. You can turn your signature blue by writing even one character on your userpage overleaf. Thanks. Tony (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Contributions to List of highest-grossing films

		The WikiProject Film Award
		I, Haseo9999 (talk), hereby award Betty Logan the WikiProject Film Award for his/her valued contributions to WikiProject Film. Thanks for your numerous contributions to the article List of highest-grossing films. Keep up the good work! Awarded 01:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! Hopefully it will have a decent shot at FL status now we've filled in some of the blanks and it's fully sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions in the article List of highest-grossing films. Jhenderson 21:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Thanks a lot for your help, in the correction of the Box Office amount data of Avatar. Really Appreciate it! - Namanbapna

But there is just one problem. I wondering if someone might undo these edits, and say that they are non-constructive. What happens then?

I am going to add an explanation to the talk page, because it isn't immediately clear what we have done. Betty Logan (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Betty, I guess you are right. Lets wait for sometime and then see what to do. Thanks - Namanbapna

Thank you!

Thanks for helping out during the GAN; Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a GA! --Sp33dyphil ©_ontributions 23:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That's great! You worked hard on it so well done. Betty Logan (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You think it can reach FA? --Sp33dyphil ©_ontributions 23:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why it can't, but for FA your sources have to be watertight and they expect "full coverage". In this case, since books have been written about Terminator 2 then a reviewer would expect to see one of them used as a source for the article to demonstrate that the article is as broad as possible in its coverage. Betty Logan (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Quantum of Solace

Hi there, I wonder if you could just settle something in my mind for me? (Yet again!) I've had to revert someone a couple of times for de-linking the references from Quantum of Solace, despite me pointing out that it's against WP:REPEATLINK. I've followed this up in the talk page, but I just want to check that I am right to revert in this case? Thanks (yet again!) - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

References are just one form of footnote. The editor disputing this should maybe read the Misplaced Pages article on footnotes. But I can do much better than that, since I actually started a discussion on this issue following one of your article reviews: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Repeat_linking_in_reference_sections. The discussion specifically focused on references, and as a result "footnotes" were added to the list of exemptions. Now you can see from the discussion there isn't an outright consensus for linking the reference section, but neither was there a consensus for strictly enforcing WP:OVERLINK, so it was added to the exemptions that is left to editorial discretion. Betty Logan (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's great - I thought I'd read that bit right! Another user has also added to the talk to reiterate the situation, so I guess that the editorial consensus on QoS is to keep them! Thanks again - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

List of snooker players by number of ranking titles

Had changed the "List of winners" section from this to this. What do you think? Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 17:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks great, it's certainly much clearer! Betty Logan (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

One suggestion I do have, is that in the data entry it might be better to have tournament codes i.e. For Stephen Hendry, wc=7, uk=5 like we have on the ranking article; otherwise we will end up with IP editors putting numbers in the wrong places, because it isn't immediately clear which number is for which tournament. I think overall though it is much clearer and will be much easier to update. Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, since the collapsible format makes all players bold, the differentiation between active and retired players is lost. Maybe add some background shading to players on the tour, or perhaps grey out the ones that are retired. Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Good ideas. I think I will code it on Monday. The template also needs a documentation (on Monday too). Currently I'm concentrating on the Welsh Open. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 20:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 21:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not following your edit summarry

You wrote "As per WP:ENGVAR" but did not expalin how the use of tyre instead of tire works on this article. It's an equally American project as it is British and Australian. So how dos that explanation work? Is there other uses I am not aware of for consistancy? Since I am the major contributer I have been consistantly using the American english on purpose becuase I am American and that is the language use I know. To make this outside my ability as the one who wrote the majority of the article is not appropriate in my opinion. Thoughts?--Amadscientist (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As I understand you go with the phrasing that has the strongest national ties to the topic, and The Rocky Horror Show was originally a British stage musical, which suggests we should probably go with the British variant over the American one. When you can make a case for either variant then the MOS says we should go with the variant that is chosen by either the editor who started the article or the editor who first had to make the decision about which variant to use. Being the "major" contributor doesn't really come into it, MOS:RETAIN is quite clear on how to handle this. Betty Logan (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've checked the earliest edit history and the American spelling was used first, so in view of that I've reverted my edit. I still have resevations given that it was a British stage musical, but that is for the editors of the article to decide. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case. So let me try to at least convince you of a few things. (but thank you for the revert) The Rocky Horror Show is considered more Australian than British (see recent research at that article. Because it's author is from New Zealand and it's artistic staff is mainly Australian, including it's director and production artist. However as a film it was produced by an American (Lou Adler) and released by an American film company. It's location was the UK and filmed at a British studio (when not on location). But I did think about this and the reason I mainly defend American English is because set in America, the two main characters are American and I think someone mentioned somewhwere that the credits seem to be using American English...but Ai am not sure about that (for the original choice...as this has been brought up before). Anyway thanks for the input.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole subject as to whether Rocky Horror is British, American or Australian has lead to some great discoveries though so it's always good to get outside input.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The AFI considers it a UK/US film so we can probably rule out Australia. Personally it's not a big issue for me I'm familiar with both varieties to the extent I can't even remember which is which anymore; however I do believe in the rigid enforcement of the ENGVAR/MOSRETAIN policy otherwise you end up with the most tedious edit wars on Misplaced Pages. I really should have checked the earliest version first before changing it back, but no damage done. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes! Absolutely! No damage done! As a film absolutely, it was an American/UK project with no affiliation to Australian film companies, But then again....the same people who did the play, made the film. But we go by the companies involved and it was strictly US/UK. I must keep you in mind when the issue of American verses UK english comes up. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - saw this as I was passing and thought I'd comment. RHPS was produced by Michael White Productions, a British company. The BFI show it to be a British film, not a joint production. (Even the AFI site lists only Michael Whiter Productions as the only production company. This article really should be in BE, not AE. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd always understood it was a British film, but in truth I don't really know much of the background; since there is some discord between the BFI and AFI on this matter, it's probably better to leave it as it is until someone knocks it into shape. Betty Logan (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere I Have Never Traveled

I have a bit of a problem with you tagging the Plot Summary as original research.  The plot summary is by definition original research unless I transcribe the screenplay or quote a 500-700 word review verbatim, in either case it would be a copyright violation.  Please see:  WP:FILMPLOT

:- ) DCS 06:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There is always a fine line with plot summaries, but the trick is to describe the film rather than evaluate it. I've tried to explain in more detail at Talk:Somewhere_I_Have_Never_Traveled#Plot_summary. Betty Logan (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies.  I just this morning saw the talk page.  I understand some of your reasoning and will see what I can do to improve the article.  When I first saw the page late last night, I assumed some runaway tagger had hit me.  I'm also concerned about verification of information of the film's production.  This information is not normally available from any source except the people involved. :- ) DCS 17:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I tagged the article because it was submitted for review at the Film Project. Normally there isn't any point tagging articles that are in development, but since a grading was requested then it needed to be clear what the issues are. Betty Logan (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I requested a review, because I wanted the opinion of a experienced person on films.  I made some edits shortly before your visit, but they probably made it worst.  I have made another 50 or so edits since your visit intending to address the issues.  I hope that you can take a look at it sometime in the future.  Thanks a lot for your time.  :- ) DCS 00:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate your thoughts... (yet again!)

Hi there, I'm struggling through updating the List of James Bond films cast members article with half an eye on it becoming a Featured List, but not feeling terribly good about what the result is. I've done a second version without the notes on each actor, which still needs a bit of work updating each film's intro, but looks a lot better. As an impartial witness, which of the two seems a better list to you? Thanks as always! - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to be honest, is there much point to this list in its current form? All the ground it covers seems to be pretty much covered by the film articles themselves, so it just looks like it is duplicating content. I think the main problem is that it is ordered by film rather than by cast member i.e. it is a "List of James Bond film cast lists" rather than a "List of James Bond cast members". If it were limited to a list of recurring cast members, and each section tracked an actor's role through the series I think that would be much better. For example, a section on Lois Maxwell would address all of her participation in just one section, rather than having to trawl through each film section to see what her involvement was; you look up Ursula Andress and you can find out she was involved in Dr No and Casino Royale i.e I think a list like this should focus on the involvement of the actor rather than the cast of each film. I think that is why you are having problems deciding which list style is better, because the current overall structure of it is a bit weak. Betty Logan (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from - and that's probably the reason I don't like the look of either of them! The recurring characters thing has been tried, but it's a bit of a mess because of the number of films involved! Have a look at List of cast and characters in the James Bond film series; it's way too wide for most monitors as there are 24 columns involved - and there are 18 rows becuase of the number of characters. I suspect the editors went for something like the List of Harry Potter cast members page, although they only have eight films to sort out. I've knocked up a third version, but I don't think that's much better than the previous versions. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

PS. I noticed the Rocky Horror chat and left a message there too - it's a British film! - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the third version is the best of the three, because at least you can organise it by actor or character. Betty Logan (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that version is that it would bring in a huge table. The sortability is the key part of it, however. I've done a couple of other versions to try and get the format right before doing the whole thing. See Version 2 here which is unsortable, but breaks the characters into categories. Although unsortable, it is able to navigate round to the pertinant sections. The other possibility is this one: a series of tables breaking the list into character categories. The problem I have with this one is those characters whose motives are unclear or who fall into more than one category. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the one in sandbox2 is the superior version. It supports sortable navigation which I think is pretty important considering it is a list of cast members rather than characters. Betty Logan (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll start sorting them out into the correct tables shortly: could be quite a long page in the end! Thanks again - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI report

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

RockyIV

Hello. You reverted an edit of mine on this article without any summary. That being said, in the process you also took out a line that has been there for quite awhile, and had nothing to do with my most recent addition. I appreciate the work you've done on the page, but if you are going to revert edits so quickly, please have the courtesy to provide an edit summary. Moreover, I really don't see how adding "subsequently" was controversial or not appropriate. Thanks.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, a lot of the stuff you have been adding is either original research or unreferenced. This doesn't really improve the article. If you have a source that says it is a "fan favorite" then by all means add it so that readers can corroborate the claim, otherwise it has no credibility. Betty Logan (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

2001 A space odyssey

Hello Betty, You revert the addition that I have put on 2001 A space odyssey page about "Influenced by artwork" telling that it is a Mix of WP:Original research and WP:SPS sources, but the sources that I referred to are publications by independant third parties, so I don't understand your action :

• The site http://greatfilmdirectors.com is not published by myself or by Georges Yatrides
• The booklet International Who's who in art is a publication done by the "organization and counsel sociecty for Plastic Art" In Geneva, Switzerland
• This publication itself refers to a book writen by Arthur Conte , A former french minister of culture ISBN code 978-2950704900

There is also numerous other references (books,websites,publications) that are speaking about the same topic that I can add, if these one are not enough.

Thanks for your feedback

There is a discussion about the material at Talk:2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)#Yatrides_material. If it can be sourced to published research by experts then there should be no problem including it. "Self published" in this case doesn't refer to the editor that adds the material to the page, but any site or source that is not published by a professional organization. http://greatfilmdirectors.com looks like a fansite which means it is not an eligible source. Betty Logan (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

1973 in film

Hello, Betty. Please note that the "top grossing" section of each film year ranks films by total gross, not net sales or theatrical rentals. If the box office figure is unknown or is not verified by a credible source, then it is simply not included on the "top grossing films" list. Ldavid1985 (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that a film's total box office gross is unknown does not disqualify it from the list when we can actually source where it ranks on the annual chart. It's misrepresentative and inaccurate. There has never been any criteria initiated on the chart stipulating films must only be ranked by their total gross. In fact, that chart was ranked by theatrical rentals up until a couple of months ago when you changed the figures: Betty Logan (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, the problem is easily solved by limiting the chart to the top 10. Betty Logan (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Betty. It's not necessarily misrepresentative or inaccurate to rank the films by gross (especially when the section of the article is concerned with "top grosses"). The film articles 1980 onward all rank the films by domestic gross (not theatrical rentals) which is why I revised the pre-1980 articles. This article I've read helped me clarify the difference between the terms "box office gross" and "theatrical rentals" when I first began editing these "____ in film" articles. And, due to the "rule of thumb" discussed in that article, I've reverted the page back to your original revision. Thank you for the clarification. Ldavid1985 (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are trying to do, but I have serious misgivings if by converting rentals to gross it means we drop films where the gross is simply unknown. If the Devil in Miss Jones earned $15 million in rentals, that will be roughly around $30 million in gross, give or take a couple of million, so it is simply misleading to say Serpico is the 11th highest grossing film, when in fact we know this is probably not the case. Could you just imagine the absurdity if only the rental gross of Star Wars were known? We wouldn't drop it from the chart and promote the number 2 film to number 1 because it would make the chart inaccurate. Even when the gross is unknown, we should still try to make the chart placings as valid as possible. Betty Logan (talk) 05:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rule of the shorter term

WikiThanks

Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.15 (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ra.One nominated for Featured Article

This notice is to inform you that I have nominated the article Ra.One for a featured article promotion. The nomination can be viewed here. Any comments are welcome at the article's or my talk page. Thank you. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Critical reception for 3D

Ms. Betty, will you consider my points about the newest duplicate heading? 31.193.133.160 (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with your sentiments, so I will look at reworking the section. Betty Logan (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

YouTube vs 2nd hand journalism

Hi Who can i talk to about this policy of preferring 2nd hand journalist accounts to first hand footage of snooker matches, I agree that the policy makes some sense but to apply it rigidly seems absurd. Snooker journalists make mistakes all the time. I would much rather see first hand material wherever possible.

I take your points on the Davis article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keefr (talk • contribs) 22:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Generally I think uploaded BBC footage on Youtube is probably reliable for the most part, provided it clearly shows what you are claiming. I personally don't have a problem with those types of sources, because I don't think it is very likely that someone will create fake and elaborate snooker footage. However, some editors do have problems with it since Youtube footage techically violates policy, and could result in the article being stripped of its "Good article" rating simply because it violates a technicality. The Steve Davis article failed to get a "Good article" rating because we used sources that Wikiepdia don't count as reliable, so to some extent we have to jump through the hoops and sometimes omit good information from the article. You can question the logic of making your article "worse" to get it rated "good", but that's sometimes how it goes. If you have a source, you can enquire about it at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Betty Logan (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying. It is clear to me the YouTube policy is being misapplied in this case. It's there to prevent spoof videos etc. however as you say first hand footage footage provided by Eurosport or by bbc is unlikely to be spoof footage. How can I get this point across to Armbrust? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keefr (talk • contribs) 22:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not Armbrust that is the problem, it's the how the policy is worded and and what consequences that has for the article rating. If you think the policy is being misinterpreted, then you need to take your source to the reliable sources noticeboard to get a ruling on it. Secondly though, the Youtube footage you provided just showed Ronnie winning the Masters, it didn't actually show Neil Robertson talking about it, so it's kind of a moot point. Betty Logan (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your Davis point and I agree with your Robertson point. These are separate. I agree I have not provided good enough sources for these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keefr (talk • contribs) 22:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Titanic merge

Hi Betty - much as I agree that a merge is the only sensible outcome of the discussion, it's generally best not to close a discussion in which you have participated. pablo 10:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't close it, it was closed by an ininvolved editor. After it was closed I archived the discussion and performed the merge so it looks like I did it but I didn't. If you check the edit history of the article and compare it to the times on the talk page you can see I just did the clear up work. Betty Logan (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I just saw your name in the close header and assumed you'd closed it. Ignore me, carry on ... pablo 11:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It's ok, I should have made it clear when I archived the discussion that someone else had merged the articles. Betty Logan (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added a note. pablo 11:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.2.96 (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Trolls can't see the forest for all the trees

Just want to say the only reason I commented was because I saw you had changed your mind a bit back and forth as you found new links. You're most probably correct: I've been in the "discussion" too long and can't see the logic any longer. You're also the first to actually question my logic, and explaining why, instead of just saying "I'm wrong, I'm a kid, I don't know anything, and that there is nothing to discuss." So I guess it all got kind of repetitive and too personal. You're also the first to look at the move request from an outside view when the article page wasn't being modified back and forth. For the a refreshingly clear point of view I thank you! (Even if you should decide you change your mind again if you find something new.)
Anyway, rambling aside, thanks for those two excellent links you provided. They can come in handy. -Laniala (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots

Hello! The article on 2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots has been suggested to be merged with 2010 Kyrgyzstan crisis which is a broader topic. Why can't we have a separate article on an ethnic riot in which over 400 people died and more than 400, 000 people were displaced? Can I manually remove the suggestion? Nataev (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you've got the right person? You would be better asking an admin about this, but the article has been tagged for merging since November 2010, and merge discussions are usually decided in a week so I would say that it is ok to remove the tag. Betty Logan (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I just needed an opinion from an experienced user. I have removed the tag. Nataev (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, Betty. Thank you for doing such a fantastic job keeping the Titanic (1997 film) article tidy while I was away. My brother should not have been posting to the article talk page or contacting you about the article, but I also thank you for helping him to help the article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It was fine; I agreed with him anyway so it's not like it caused me any trouble. It actually gave me a discussion I could link to, since some editors seem to want a fresh sub-section for every new paragraph. Betty Logan (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema & ANEW

Hi. While I disagree with your assessment at this recent 3RR report, I appreciate your attempt to give context to User:RC's edit warring. So, perhaps you can impress upon him the importance of collegial editing -- and that his bullying behavior is detrimental to WP. I believe this incident is indicative of larger problems with his editing as he continues to bully other editors at film articles, like The Godfather. In my follow-up response at the report I pointed to 2 posts on my talkpage from another editor involved in a dispute with RC. I don't know what level of overall contributions he has contributed to the film project, but nothing is worth putting up with such a disagreeable attitude. If his talkpage comments at No Country.. are any indication, he has discouraged at least several other editors from contributing. That is a net loss. No single editor is more important than the project. El duderino 07:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not really my place to instruct an editor on how to conduct himself in talk discussions. All I can suggest is that if you have disagreement that you can't resolve between yourselves, then post an RFC at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film; if one editor is isolated in his viewpoint he will be quickly overruled. Betty Logan (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Passion of the Christ

Ok guys we've added more references/cites & even softened some points but our points are in the historic record for both changes & the point at the beginning about Catholics questionning where we added "some" is just modifying another opinion which by the way you said were irrelevant. Tell us what was wrong with using Reilly, Weigel and Nagle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.128.44 (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the section on the 'devotional writings' just putting a Jesuit's position from the Jesuit magazine 'America' leaves an incredible slant. First off his view of the movie was as a film critic not a theologian. Second every Catholic knows that 'America' and the Jesuits are so anti magesterium that a balanced article would conversly quote the other side which I did w/ a quote from the Cardinal Newman Soc. I assume the author of the magazine quote was taking advantage of laymen, non-Catholics & ignorant Catholics. Either way the deletion of a legit quote doesn't seem Wikipdiesh or can I also assume that my source isn't considered legit? If so please recommend a more palatable reference.

Regarding the section on ancient languages used under the 'Controversies' section, now this is totally in the relm of purely objective facts of history. As a phd in Roman history and the work I cited, it is well known that Latin was used, albeit in a limited manner which is what I changed the wording from "improbable" to 'limited'. And not only is it well established that some Latin was used in doing business w/ Rome but it's safely assumed Christ himself was semi conversant. To lable this as a controvery belies certain misleadings of the general laity to heap on so called issues w/ the movie from various academic and clerical fields that just don't exist in an effort that through shear weight the public can be brainwashed. Please tell that at least on this totally objective, well established fact on language this can't even be corrected. I'll contact the other administrator as well about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.128.44 (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please resolve these issues at Talk:The Passion of the Christ. User talk pages are not the place for discussing article content. Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Titanic box office

Hi! I noticed you've been quite busy lately with the Titanic article. Concerning boxofficefollower.net, it has a source for the data published: news.mtime.com for which there is a link after each chart that goes to the page that shows the grosses. The only differences are that it is in Chinese (easily translated by Bing, Google Chrome etc.), it is not a chart, so boxofficefollower.net makes it into a chart, and the grosses are in yen, so boxofficefollower.net converts the grosses to US dollars. I don't think there is a reason for mistrusting the source. I think it's OK to use the data from boxofficefollower.net. What do you think? Spinc5 (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo provides figures for the Chinese box-office too, so I don't see the point in using another source when we can just use BOM. BOM may lag slightly but they update every week so I don't think that is such a problem. Also, by sticking to the BOM figures all the different grosses add up to the totals in the box-office summaries which is preferable IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.0.212 (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

Please sign your remarks at WP:NPOVN. I had to look at the history to work out who wrote it. Barsoomian (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious it was an oversight, and given the amount of time I have given to helping you and Gothicfilm resolve your dispute, then a simple reminder is probably the order of the day. Betty Logan (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

List of vegans

Hi Betty Logan, could I ask you, please, to stop reverting at List of vegans? It has been going on for some time. I have every respect for you wanting to keep the list free of nonsense (i.e. I don't mind some OWN), but you're also removing people who are vegans, removing acceptable sources, and reverting people's choice of images or formatting. So the page is not developing as it needs to. SlimVirgin 02:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Just noting here that your response was to leave a template on my talk page. Look, if you keep reverting people at that page, I'll report it to the editing-warring noticeboard. I'd very much prefer not to do that, but you seem to have been reverting everyone and anyone for months, and extending this even to reverting me at the RSN. I'd very much prefer to work with you on the list, rather than against you. SlimVirgin 02:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I saved you the trouble. You are ruing in the article by going against the consensus on the styling and using poor sources. Betty Logan (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If anyone has any further views on this, then I have opened a case at Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_vegans. Betty Logan (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin dispute

I'll see what I can accomplish.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but really, what is the point? These procedures should be mandatory, I shouldn't need an admin to stick his neck out. I really appreciate you coming to my rescue, but I've been to AN3, dispute resolution, the main admin board, and all I wanted was a fair discussion to set the direction of the article with somebody impartial deciding what the consensus is. That should be the norm in a consensus based project, I shouldn't be having to go from board to board from admin to admin just to get that. These procedures should be in place, and dispute resolution should be mandatory when there is a dispute, otherwise what is the point? It just seems so obvious to me. Maybe I've made a few mistakes along the way, but the net effect was always positive on the articles I developed. My main collaborator on the snooker project has gone now, and I think maybe things have just run their course. I've always put a lot of stock in wikiprojects, having somewhere where editors can bring their issues and can find someone to give them a fair hearing. If people aren't willing to submit to and to support a fully impartial review process, well I don't really see my place in something like that. Betty Logan (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope you have a change of heart and mind over your decision; either that or I really hope that you miss it too much in a month or so and come back to us—you are too good and balanced an editor for us to loose, especially because of the actions of one or two mindless idiots! I know where you're coming from, however, as I've found out with my recent adventures into admin territory! All the best and I hoe you'll re-consider. - Gavin, aka SchroCat (^ • @) 07:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I can give you a very good reason not to leave. Your contributions outway the inability of one admin to do the right thing on your behalf. Leaving ony serves to show that they win and ecourages others to use this tactic or sililar to drive others out. You can't win everything but you can fight for your right to continue discussion if your concerns are not addressed. If the other side refuses to discuss, there seem to be policies that would address this.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

For editors that are wondering why I left

Background

There was a content dispute at Talk:List_of_vegans#Reverting, with User:SlimVirgin in which she claimed she had a consensus. I challenged that interpretation. As you can see from that discussion, I was quite open to accommodating her wishes in regards to the structural format of the article, and myself and another editor had previously initiated a discussion last year to implement changes which would have removed the templating format that SlimVirgin disliked. It is curious as to why there was a complete breakdown in discussion at the article, since I only insisted on two things in that discussion:

1. Since the existing format had been installed by consensus, we should have a full discussion involving all the article editors to establish a new consensus, before making any changes to the structure.
2. The discussion should broadly encompass the whole direction of the article.

I thought this seemed reasonable. We should have a discussion, we see what everyone agrees to, and in a couple off weeks we can start to implement these changes. What happened then becomes curious. SlimVirgin suddenly decides she has a consensus (the only editors being involved in that discussion at that point being myself and Muleattack.

I took this issue to the edit-warring board, following her reinstalling the changes after I had reverted them, where the case was taken up by User:EdJohnston. Due to the continuation of the controversial edits, I thought dispute resolution would be a more productive process so filed a DR case also: . I then returned to the 3RR board and requested that I would prefer to see the 3RR case closed. EdJohnston contacted SlimVirgin and asked her to co-operate in the dispute reosultion process, noting that he did not believe she had a consensus for the changes she was undertaking: . She still insisted she did, and refused to participate in DR. EdJohnston closed the case noting that neither of us had a consensus, and that we should both refrain from reverting. He also advised me that ANI was an option to me.

I decided to pursue the ANI option, requesting administrator intervention to compel SlimVirgin to participate in dispute resolution: . I received a response from another administrator, User:Jehochman that my complaint was invalid and I was "forum shopping". At this point I felt totally disillusioned with Misplaced Pages, but in the end the system proved that it still worked to an extent, thanks to another administrator and reviewer who looked in the case; however, no editor should be left to the mercy of friendly administrators, the safeguards should be part of the process.

The questions

First of all, in all of this it does not actually matter who was right and wrong between SlimVirgin and myself. The process of consensus editing assumes a balance of right and wrong opinion, within a debate, and across every editor's editing interests. What matters is how right and wrong is determined, and I believe this is where Misplaced Pages went spectacularly wrong in this case. The most central issue is who determines the consensus? If all the editors involved agree, then great, no problem. If this is not the case, then Misplaced Pages needs mechanisms that decide consensus impartially.

1. Why did SlimVirgin insist on making changes after a discussion that involved only three editors? Why did she not contact all the editors involved in the previous discussion setting the previous consensus? Why did she initiate these changes so quickly, and not give it a week say, given that the structure of that article been stable for over a year? Whether her eventual edits were right or wrong, this behavior is not consistent with stable editing. As an administrator she should have been aware of this.
2. Why did she insist she had a consensus? A consensus cannot be claimed. The outcome of the 3RR discussion was that she had not obtained a consensus. Considering that the administrator who had taken on the case had judged that she did not have a consensus, and requested she participate in the DR process I had initiated, why did she dismiss the administrator's findings and request?
3. Why did EdJohnston only forbid reverting on the article while closing the case? Since initiating structural changes are not actually reversions, the sanctions would only have applied to me if I had reverted her. Since SlimVirgin had refused to participate in dispute resolution, and he had judged she did not have a consensus, why didn't he simply prohibit her from initiaing the changes, or even editing the article until she complied with a process that would have resolved the issues?
4. Despite the 3RR board being the legitimate board to report edit-warring, and EdJohnston pointing out that opening the DR case was actually the most productive step I had taken in trying to resolve this issue, and then advising that filing my case at ANI was an option that was open to me, why did User:Jehochman then say my complaint was not valid and that I was forum shopping. Surely the correct course of action would have been to at least familiarise yourself with the case, and what the admin at the 3RR case had considered legitimate further action for me to take.
5. Why did User:Ched Davis accusing me of canvassing, due to me taking the case to 3RR and then initiating a DR case, and also for requesting a third opinion for a selction of sources at RS/N. As I explained at 3RR, after filing the edit-warring case I felt that dispute resolution would be a more productive option, so I started that case, and returned to the 3RR case asking for a close of the edit-warring case. EdJohnston did not consider this canvassing, he seemed to consider it the most productive step up to that point. As for the RS/N request, I do not see how this is even relevant. The 3RR/DR case was a direct response to dispute over an interpretation of consensus and SV undertaking structural changes to the article. While the RS/N case related to some of her sources, the motivation for filing that case was so I could determine if there was a case for removing them. They are completely different issues. The RS/N case was upheld in regards to many of the sources, and also in the case of the source that SlimVirgin restored to the article; but RS/N was about the validity of the source, 3RR/DR was about her conduct in restoring the source. Two entirely different problems.
6. Why did User:Ched Davis suggest other options, such as WP:3O, an RfC, WP:CENT and WP:MEDCAB after just censuring me for "canvassing"? We had a third opinion anyway from EdJohnston, who determined she did not have consensus. An RfC is only going to work if the editor is willing to accept there is not a consensus, and is willing to wait to obtain one. And really, why are these acceptable when dispute resolution is not? What is dispute resolution for if not for resolving cases such as these? Since by that stage I was at my third board requesting assistance, would sending me off to yet another board really have achieved anything, or would I have been just chastised again for "forum shopping"? Why not just instruct SlimVirgin to participate in the open DR case?

The findings

The central problem here was that I was not offered a process in which the consensus could be impartially determined. It is the primary function of the administrators to facilitate consensus editing i.e. for this to work then they should provide processes so that in disputes a consensus can be impartially decided. It is worth noting that I was not offered this process of impartial review until I encountered a fourth administrator, User:Kww. In a case like this an administrator should ensure that an editor involved in a dispute is provided with a mechanism for the consensus to be impartially judged.

• Being an admin, SlimVirgin would have known she was not editing using methods compliant with consensus. She displayed such a warped misunderstanding of the process I question her suitability as an admin. An admin should not be claiming a consensus after a few hours of discussion between three editors, with one editor clearly opposing her proposal and another unhappy with it.
• EdJohnston basically washed his hands of the case. Before closing the case he should have insisted on a process that ensured that consensus would be impartially reviewed. As an admin, this is his job! Dispute resolution offered us such a process, and while he cannot compel editors to participate he can certainly prohibit further editing on the article.
• What can be said about Jehochman? He was rude, insulting, assumed bad faith about me as an editor, and clearly had not familiarised himself with the specifics of the case. While Ed at least tried but ultimately didn't handle it too well, this admin was negligent. What was the point of his comments? If you really cannot be bothered to look into the case, then just keep your obnoxious comments to yourself.
• Kww – the fourth admin involved in this case, and the first to impose impartial review.

The solution

It is very simple, if an editor is involved in an editing dispute, the first administrator to take up the case should ensure they are placed into a process that ensures an impartial review of the dispute. Palming them off from board to board, and closing cases without an obvious process in place for pursuing impartial consensus is just not acceptable. If you take SlimVirgin out of the equation, Ed was the first weak link. We had a process available to us with the open DR case, and he could have insisted on her participation as a condition of her further involvement with the article. Ultimately this was left to Kww to impose, but the 3RR board is usually the first port of call, many editors aren't familiar with all the avenues for resolving disputes, so an administrator who feels that consensus is not clear in a case should ensure that further involvement in an article is a condition of being part of a process in which the consensus can be impartially determined. I had to go through three boards and four administrators to get there, and even then I think I hit lucky with the admin. The processes on Misplaced Pages are clearly not working if it takes that many admins to get an impartial review of a problem.

Most of my time on Misplaced Pages has been spent in article development and peer reviewing, and I haven't been involved in many contentious issues, possibly 3/4 in as many years. As a consequence I have never really required admin intervention on an article, in fact this has been the only time I have. I have been staggered at the frustrating level of inaction I have experienced over this weekend. It's an experience I am no hurry to put myself through again, so that's why I'm calling it quits. Betty Logan (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Replies

Betty, I'm torn here. On the one hand, I really think this is a case of "least said, soonest mended." On the other, I also feel the need to defend myself. And on the third, I don't want to look as though I'm ignoring you.

Suffice to say, there was a minor disagreement that is easily resolved. You don't want the colour-coding either, so that's not an issue. You think the source for Heather Nicholson wasn't good enough, but did you notice I'd added a second? So I'm guessing (or at least I hope) that's not an issue anymore either. Perhaps you want to discuss sourcing standards for the page in general. If so, I'd have no problem working on a set of parameters with you.

Bottom line: please just come back and start editing again. I'm sorry you got so upset about it. Part of the problem is I think you misunderstood the idea of the dispute-resolution process, or if not misunderstood, turned to it too soon. The point is not to intensify disputes, which can happen really easily if too many boards are involved at once. So in this instance, the first place to discuss was the talk page and to do that for several days if necessary. Then if issues remained perhaps ask for mediation, or choose just one of the boards, or an article RfC, to ask for more input. But to report two editors to several boards within a few hours causes people to feel swamped. When I see that kind of thing happening, my instinct is to withdraw, because otherwise we're reduced to a forest fire of "he said, she said," which makes everyone look bad.

So, please – accept this olive branch, consider taking a couple of days away from the page to get some distance (as I'm doing), then come back and let's work on it together. I'm not a huge fan of lists on Misplaced Pages (or at least I wasn't), but it would be fun to take this to FL status. I've looked around at some recent FL promotions, and I'm really impressed by the quality. So it would be a new Misplaced Pages experience for me, and I'd be really happy if we could start afresh and do it together. SlimVirgin 02:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't buy this. SlimVirgin onlly apologizes when the heat is on. This case has blown up in her face and now's she's scrambling, but you're not the first and you won't be the last. So many editors driven away by her. Don'tBelieveHere (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I do believe this teacup is broken beyond repair. So many beautiful teacups dashed to the floor carelessly over the years. Are there any left in the set? Would anyone appreciate their beauty if there were? Is this a place where beauty and creativity can be held in the hand and appreciated? Any more? Was it once such a place? Rude hands, mistakes, and carefully chosen places to dash hopes... →StaniStani  02:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I just came to tell you that WT:NPOV is discussing the NPOVN backlog and found this debate I had only observed tangentially. Sad to hear. My takeaways are: (1) There is no impartial rule for determining consensus. Sometimes we have a metaconsensus that there is no consensus on the basics. Everyone decides what they think consensus is. It's built by (long) discussion and is not forced. (2) There is no forcing another editor to behave a certain way. Staying in the dispute-resolution track is always optional and misbehaving is always a tempting alternative. Trying to force resolution on an editor does take the long multiadmin route. (3) These first two principles are relatively fair for the libertarian Misplaced Pages community, but they do require great creativity. (a) When you first find yourself first facing a new instance of "that type" of editor, the type you come to recognize only through experience, instead of letting yourself behave typically, back off and be very circumspect in interaction. Start documenting everything and being unstintingly polite. Certainly back off from your hopes and dreams about balance in the articles and look for other areas that can be tweaked more easily. (By "that type" I mean the type that you, whomever you the reader are, believe to be the class of editors that require special treatment; no more.) (b) Once you're in the thick of it despite plan (a), overcommunicate your expectations. Indicate the one or two pages you anticipate the dispute should continue on, with almost every interaction where the other editor proceeds on a different page. If there is a lot of movement, indicate your desire not be called a forum-shopper for following the advice given. This won't prevent you from fallout dealing with "that type" of editor, but it will give you the good graces of the community. These principles also scale IRL. I appreciate your help bringing the discussion I was involved in to a sufficient conclusion. JJB 21:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Oh, and as to 3RR: the brightline is, restrain yourself so that you never ever have more than three edit sets to an article in 24 hours, where a set is any number of your edits surrounded by other people's edits. If you see that you've gotten to 4 edit sets of any kind in any 24-hour period and there's any hint that anyone whatsoever is offended, make the first attempt to distance yourself from 3RR, immediately, such as by self-reverting or distinguishing your content as completely new (nothing whatsoever built on any prior content) or mentioning your desire not to breach 3RR at talk. This brightline should formally protect you if you're working in good faith no matter how gross the charges; the exception, Rouge Admins at AN3, does involve a little pain and is dealt with by more community-based means of course. JJB 21:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I've only just come across this but I'd like to add that this same thing has caused me to retire from Misplaced Pages as well. Especially as my final complaints were left unanswered and then the automatic archiving of the chat was changed to an unnecessarily short period for which I can only assume was to hide the discussion. Muleattack (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Mmm...relaxing tea...

Hi Betty...while I certainly disagree with some of your views here, I've not for a moment questioned that you were operating in good faith and were doing what you believed was best for the project, and I certainly believe losing you as an editor is a loss to the project. Can't say I blame you...I was shocked when that 3RR filing resulted in a note that you might also deserve a block. Hope you'll come back at some point. Doniago (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Templates

I am no longer involved in article development, but if you need technical assistance in regards to a template I authored or developed then I will help where I can. Many of the snooker templates need to be updated every season, and with User:Armbrust indefinitely blocked I appreciate this could cause a problem. Leave a message for me and I will check in before the new season starts. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

A few days ago I decided, that if O'Sullivan wins the World title, then I retire from retirement. And now I'm back. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 22:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I took your name off the Snooker Project so you will need to re-add it. I think you should consider reducing your workload though; one example of how you might do this is to just have one article per season for the Players Tour Championship such as Players Tour Championship 2011/2012, and just externally link to webcited results for each PTC event at WWW Snooker. Obviously it is your decision, but you shouldn't let Misplaced Pages take over your life. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hoodwinked

Hi. I see that you have retired from Misplaced Pages editing, however I have also noticed that you are still active to some degree. A while back you helped me out by assessing the article Hoodwinked! and giving me suggestions on how to improve the article. I believe that I have addressed these issues and was hoping that the article could be reassessed. I posted it on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film/Assessment#Requests for assessment, but it seems that it might take a while to get an assessment from there, and I was wondering if you would be willing to help me out. If not, that's fine. I don't mind waiting. I just thought that it would be worth asking. :) --Jpcase (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm retired from active article development, but I've been sticking around to make sure that everything I have done doesn't regress back into the primordial soup. However, if no-one reviews your article by the weekend I will do it for you. Betty Logan (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!--Jpcase (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I know you're retired, but...

Next time you're popping by I'd appreciate your opinion on something that I know you've written about before: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film#Infobox issue : USA distributors of foreign films. Many thanks, if you get the chance! - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on this point—it's a shame it seems to have ended up unresolved again. I suspect that the question will come up again and again in future! - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

X-Men: First Class (film)

Hi. I've restored the plot to WP:FILM guidelines length, which Robert Gustavson had plot-bloated. Just wanted to give a head's up since we're both discussing with him on the article's talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Plot bloat is the single greatest problem on the film articles; I fully support any efforts to bring them within the guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're not retired, a reassessment of X-Men: First Class (possibly pointing out possible GA issues as well) would be nice to hear from you. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 04:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I'm retired from article writing, but I can do a bit of reviewing, it's less stressful. I promised Jpcase above I would do Hoodwinked this weekend, so the GA review may well start before I get around to it. I'll try to get on to it in a couple of days though. It looks like a pretty thorough article and I don't think there will be any serious issues, but one that jumped out is that some of the reference dates use different formats i.e Failes, Ian (2011-06-16). "Making mutants for X-Men: First Class". fxguide.com. Archived from the original on November 29, 2011. Retrieved 2011-10-29. There are several sources like that which need to be sorted i.e. just one date format should be used in all references. Also the Yamato source (Yamato, Jen. "Rose Byrne on Bridesmaids, X-Men: First Class Sequels, and the Films That Made Her Career". Movieline. Retrieved 2011-10-01.), currently ref 17, seems to be dead. Betty Logan (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I have gone through a lot of your contributions. You happen to be an original editor, team-effort editor, tireless editor. Therefore, I think you truly deserve this Special Barnstar. Surge_Elec (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Country description infobox

Hi Betty, not much has been replied to out information on re-phrasing the infobox. I'm pretty bad writing rules to make sure everything is good, so would you be able to try and stab at it? I need to clear up some confusion with people who still aren't 100% on the new rules for that section. If you can't, that's no problem either...you just seem generally pretty good at these kind of things! Thanks!Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure what I can do. The problem with the country guidelines is that they are very protracted and over prescriptive. The reason they are like that is because no-one really agrees on how the field should be used, so the guideline was re-written so the field would only be used in clear-cut cases. Personally I don't have a problem with using the equivalent field on the AFI/BFI sites, but Ring Cinema obviously does and so does Gothic Film, who don't think a film produced as a 4/5 country co-production really carries a national identity. I mean, Ring isn't opposed to just the rewording he is opposed to its sentiments. Generally my view on this if editors can agree on a country then that's great and it should be sourced, but if editors don't agree it is probably best just not to use the field and cover it in the prose. It is an ambiguous field. Maybe we have to have to consider renaming it to something more specific, such as "copyright nationality" or something, which you can get off the credit blurb at the end of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

But wasn't there already consensus for it to be changed? It's just needs re-wording because right now it's not even what I suggested. I don't mind contrary opinions but they don't seem to be really based on anything other then "well, I don't like it". There's no school of thought surrounding their ideas, none that I can see anyways, and it just frustrates me that for a infobox based on the wiki's film project, that we can't even base it on industry standards of labeling countries. Well, I don't know. Your better at sorting these things out than I am. Thanks for helping!Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to pester you again....

I know you're sort of trying not to get too involved in certain things, but can I ask your advice on this whole distributor thing again? It involves the same editor as before and the same issue as before, this time with Atonement (film), where we again have three distribution companies listed:
Universal Pictures (worldwide except US and France)
StudioCanal (France)
Focus Features (US)
To my mind it looks wrong having so much info in that field (especially when there is no US release date etc in the rest of the box). Am I barking up the wrong tree on this, or is MaryChan right in adding this info? Thanks (again and as always!) - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Coo lumme - it's all gone to project talk again for another circular argument that doesn't advance us terribly far forward! - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just getting around to replying, so I left my comment there. It's a shame the other discussion fizzled out, because it clearly needs to be resolved. I think I have pretty much convinced myself now that only the home distributor and distributors that undertake an international operation distributing the film should be listed, since most films maybe only have one or two international distributors with locals distributing it in the remaining territories. An international operation is inherently more notable than a local operation regardless of the territory, so I think inclusion should really be based on the scale of the operation. Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for that—much appreciated! I'd tend to agree with you, although with the caveat that, rather like WP:FILMRELEASE, it included domestic as well as international. I'm not entirely sure why I feel it should be added, but maybe it's because if a film is contributing to its nation's cinematic history, then the distribution element of that should also be noted alongside the largest player. Either way, I'm not too over-fussed about the domestic element as long as the US distributor isn't included on European films for no other reason than "just because"! - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Licence to Kill

Hi Betty, Can you have a look at a couple of recent edits made on Licence to Kill for me? (I've already reverted twice, so can't do any more) If you think the edit is ok then let me know and I'll let it stand. There's some nonsense on the Talk Page about it too. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the IP. They don't provide a source to back up the claim the equipment is rare, nor do they provide a source to establish its relevance to the article. The fact that they name a brand as well makes me question its legitimacy; looks like an attempt to slip some advertising into the article. The addition looks pretty pointless to me. You should give him his token edit-warring warning and shop him if he does it again. Betty Logan (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

GA concerns.

I am still not sure we have addressed every concern on GA. The only one I can think of is you mentioning the comparisons of the other film in the film series and still some citation problems that we might not have done. Let me know of the others thank you. Jhenderson 14:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Left some comments on the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

RSN Help!

Hi Betty, I'm, really sorry to come knocking asking for your opinion again, but I have a rather troublesome editor trying to cause waves at the moment (I think there is a personal agenda going on and he's about one more posting away from an ANI complaint at the moment. One of the two issues I have with him relates to a self-published work he's the Talk background, which went to RSN for comment. Only one editor has commented to date, confirming that the source is acceptable. Can I ask your independent opinion on whether you would consider this work to be reliable, based on the points I've outlined at RSN? Many, many thanks as always… - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I've temporarily reverted the edit, because good source or bad, you don't pull an entire section from an FL rated article unless there is a consensus to do so. I will take a good look at the source and post my opinion at the RS/N board. Betty Logan (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The source isn't particularly strong, but I think it is acceptable for what is essentially an "in universe account", which has been recognized as an authoritative account by the copyright holders. I've reverted Jack a couple of times and asked him not to remove the section again pending an outcome at RS/N. I'm not going to be dragged into an edit war, but this is why I've decided not to develop articles anymore on here; if admins won't get off their assess and put a stop to disruptive behavior on Featured Lists and Articles then one has to question whether it is worth the effort of developing them. If editors want to challenge content then there are many avenues open to them: various noticeboards, project pages, dispute resolution, and if opinion goes against you then you have to live with it I guess, but until then the FL/FA graded version i.e. the peer reviewed state should be enforced as the status quo. Betty Logan (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. I've always known Griswold was self-published, but with the IFP endorsement (not to mention their connections with the forward) it raises it from fan-fiction to something more concrete. The academic citation is just the cherry on the cake. I saw you edit to JS (since deleted with the summary "she wasn't paying attention, apparently. 2 people make a consensus now? This should be fun") He's a real charmer and has something personal against me, I think: that is the only reason I can think of for some of his actions on this and the other matter. I suspect this will rumble on a little longer before he finds some new toy to play with. I knew why you left before, but not really appreciated the rationale fully until now: you have my sympathies and understanding! - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

And another request!

Sorry—I know I pester you too much, but it's your own fault for knowing everything and being incredibly fair and balanced! I was looking over the Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (film)#Accolades article and saw an award for the film from Felix, the in-house student newspaper of Imperial College London. It got me thinking a little more generally about the nature of awards and who decides and on what basis. When it's lined up against the Academy Awards, BAFTAs, London Film Critics Circle Awards etc etc, then Felix looks kind of out of place, as it's not known for its specialist film coverage or deep insight into film-making etc. Are there any guidelines you know of which would point towards which accolades are preferred in such a list? Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a judgement call really. The Film Project doesn't really offer any guidance, but I took part in a similar debate when the issue came up at a Harry Potter article, when people were adding the Wizard's Academy best film award and all that shit: Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_–_Part_2#Non-notable_awards. I tried to put it into the context of other policies i.e. awards from national (BAFTA, Oscar) and international bodies (Golden Globes) are generally notable, while regional and magazine awards generally are not, except in cases where their notability is established by being reported in independent reliable sources. I would say that awards issued by a student paper are almost certainly not notable, unless the result was reported in other reliable sources. Personally I would say ditch it (if you decide to retain it though "Dicember" needs to be corrected in its entry). I mean, it's basically a form of film criticism isn't it, and generally we wouldn't cite reviews from student papers. Betty Logan (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I was thinking along the same lines as you, but wasn't entirely sure why I thought it was out of place (if that makes any kind of sense!) Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

And another...

Hi there, Thanks for putting the shell round the criteria—it looks much better now. I wonder if I could ask for a suggestion on a section title for the Ian Fleming article (or even any thoughts as to the section itself!) It relates to the "1945–1953" section, which is something that came out of the GA review as it was originally a bigger "Personal life and death" section which was split in two. The problem with 1945-1953 is that some things, such as his book collecting, fall outside the dates. Would "personal life and interests" suit?

The reason for the nit-picking is that I want to take this through the FA procedure (once I get Thrilling Cities sorted out!), although I'll need to do a bang-up copy edit on it too—even though that's not my strongest suit! Sorry I seem to be asking 1001 things from you at the moment, but I'll try and limit it to 2 or 3 a week in future! ;) – Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I would have called it "Postwar years" or something to that effect (as per T. E. Lawrence) to remove the date specificity. I know some things fall out of that range but it roughly covers events in that period of his life. Betty Logan (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Another approach would be the Winston Churchill approach, where they cover his personal life, military service and political career separately. That approach would work on the Fleming article by substituting the writing career for the political career. Betty Logan (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for these: I'll have a spin over them in the morning to see what fits best. I've just made it a little more generic for the time being with "Personal life and interests" sort of in line with Churchill, but I'll see how I feel about it in the morning! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Snooker world ranking points 2012/2013

I have seen you have began to create the article, but please don't forget, that according to this every player outside the top 64 begins the season with 0 points. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{The Undertaker 20–0} 01:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know about that. World Snooker doesn't exactly make this easy does it? I have to add in the rest of the tour qualifiers so I will sort it out tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Snooker stance.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Snooker stance.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 10:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

WP Snooker in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Snooker for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A Matter of life and Death

No, don't worry: I'm not being overdramtic - it's only ther title of the film... Could you have a look at a small situation that has arisen on A Matter of Life and Death (film) for me? I did a number of edits yesterday on the article (it's in very poor shape and deserves better treatment) and found that 3/4s of them were reverted today by someone claiming to have "stewardship" of the article. I'm not that fussed by most of them as he's already made up my mind not to even bother editing further, but the question of WP:FILMRELEASE has come up again as not only is the UK release there, but also the US and LA ones! He claims that as FILMRELEASE is a guideline, it does not need to be followed and that, '"should" means that it is not mandatory', as he puts it. The editor is being an utter idiot over all changes and seems to think that stability (ie not allowing any changes at all) is rpreferable to having something worthwhile. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I've had altercations with this editor before, the most recent being the Powell and Pressburger article ironically. He doesn't have a collaborative approach to editing, and if I go over there and take your side I guarantee we will end up in an SPI witch-hunt, after he goes through our edit histories and compiles a list of every single article we have in common. If you "meddle" with his articles too much you can expect a tit-for-tat retaliation on the ones you regularly edit too. Obviously you can get your edit pushed through by raising the issue at the Film Project. Everyone there will say yeah follow the guideline, but please realize that he perceives the Film project as one big tag-team, so even then he will probably only accept a decision from outside of the Film Project, and even then someone he hasn't had a disagreement with. Personally I think he should be booted off Misplaced Pages. I'd probably let it go if you are not actually intending on getting it up to GA standard and putting it through a review, because he will pretty much resist every single change you try to make; if you are determined to push the edit through then prepare yourself for a world of pain. Betty Logan (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks: I was worried you were going to say something like that! I've never had such a large amount of edits reverted in one sweep and for absolutely no good reason but that an editor doesn't like them. I was hoping to get this article up to GA as it's such a wonderful film, but with idiots like that sitting on them, life is too short! - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that article has bigger problems that the FILMRELEASE violation. When I assess for the Film project I never insist on guideline adherence for 'Start' and 'C' class article anyway. I think sometimes the guidelines can hinder the natural development of the article, and coverage and sourcing is more important in the early development stage. Betty Logan (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right - it's a total and utter mess, which is what I was trying to improve. FILMRELEASE was the obvious first battle to try and gain ground after all the ridiculous reverts he's undertaken. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

List of highest grossing films is incredible

Love how important it is (very high view) and how long and well researched and constructed. Also, nice to have a scattering of tables and text. Something different in construction from the norm. Kudos! 64.134.168.97 (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! Obviously I can't take all the credit, but I did write a lot of the exposition and tracked down loads of refs :) Betty Logan (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)