This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Novaseminary (talk | contribs) at 20:58, 11 March 2012 (→SAG Award Nom: what?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:58, 11 March 2012 by Novaseminary (talk | contribs) (→SAG Award Nom: what?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)"Legendary"
While the term "legendary" is obviously subjective, it was sourced. Comments? X4n6 (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Notability
If anyone has questions/concerns about this article, please discuss them here. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC).
Canyon News
I don't think the Canyon News articles cited in this article are reliable sources for Misplaced Pages purposes, at least for establishing notability, if at all. Per this "Specials page" and another dating back to at least 2008 on their website it looks like the paper sells profile-type articles. I will tag them accordingly. Novaseminary (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree completely. Have fully explained at AfD. However, even IF there were an issue, the question is moot as there are ample other RS sources that essentially provide the identical info - thereby confirming - and conferring - notability.X4n6 (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
SAG Award Nom
Why does X4n6 continue to rm this official source that actually announces Tait's nomnation as part of an ensemble. Because it also list the 130+ plus others who worked on the same ensemble and were co-nominees for the same film? Novaseminary (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- The reason I continue to remove it should be obvious. It blatantly violates WP:UNDUE. The better question is why you continue to insert it - and remove the actual link to the definitive SAG Award database itself, in order to do it. X4n6 (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- How? Rather than linking to the actual nomination press release, you link to a blank page on the same website. Why? It also lists the winner. Anything else violates UNDUE, at best, or is misleading at worst. Novaseminary (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Still wrong. The link isn't to a "blank page on the same website". The link is to the actual, searchable database the website provides. For a reason! There's no way you can plausibly claim the searchable, definitive source is less desirable than an easily misinterpreted press release about that source. That claim is transparently indefensible on it's face. X4n6 (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- How can the SAG's own press release be misinterpreted? Novaseminary (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Still wrong. The link isn't to a "blank page on the same website". The link is to the actual, searchable database the website provides. For a reason! There's no way you can plausibly claim the searchable, definitive source is less desirable than an easily misinterpreted press release about that source. That claim is transparently indefensible on it's face. X4n6 (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- How? Rather than linking to the actual nomination press release, you link to a blank page on the same website. Why? It also lists the winner. Anything else violates UNDUE, at best, or is misleading at worst. Novaseminary (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)