This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pinkadelica (talk | contribs) at 00:49, 26 October 2008 (Reverted to revision 247665018 by Pinkadelica. using TW). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:49, 26 October 2008 by Pinkadelica (talk | contribs) (Reverted to revision 247665018 by Pinkadelica. using TW)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
(Click here to leave me a message)
A River runs through it
I think that section is getting to be a bit unwieldy. The article is close to 32 kb, with about 5.5 kb of it in that section. Little of it is referenced and it is turning into the list of death. I'd recommend using the focus we used on Charlie Manson or Lizzie Borden - use the most known as examples of how he's in popular culture. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you know my opinion on the matter, so if you need support on it, let me know. Meanwhile, I'm dealing with something I really don't care about - crap on a killer's page. Sheesh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not nearly as much as I love Weekend Warriors. I had another issue early today, someone didn't appreciate my merging two disparate tables into one on a page (filmography table in the nice format with an awards table in what I think is an ugly format). I spent two hours this morning arguing over that, then I said chuck it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The Foundations
I, for one, would fully agree with your comments about the state of the current article. You are right that the wording, and what should or should not be included, has been the subject of hot debate, and you may stir up a hornet's nest. However, the current article is a shambles (even allowing for your recent editing attempt). Be bold - I am certain we will end up with something that far exceeds the quality of the present situation. Very best wishes,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Neven subotic
Hallo pinkdelica, please have a look at user 83.248.165.157 he has faked my reference Oct. the 8th article ==Neven Subotic==? Pls. see discussion. Mit freundlichen Grüßen --Speidelj (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Joschi Speidel
Michelle Pfeiffer
I've probably really annoyed someone, but... Someone who seems to have a huge thing for Pfeiffer added some things to the article, a multi-colored awards table, bolded out the won awards in the filmography, and rainbow hued the succession boxes. The awards table is totally redundant, it has nothing that isn't present in either the filmography, succession boxes or infobox awards. I worked it over, but I have some issues with the references he or she has added. The majority of them are from a fansite - http://www.pfeiffertheface.com/, which is used as the source for published articles that are available on the internet from their own publisher sites. That wouldn't be such an issue, except that the first thing I saw on the front page was a note that part of the material on the first page came from Misplaced Pages. I ran a search and this is how much Misplaced Pages is used on the site. How can it be reliably sourced if parts or all of it is circularly referenced? Then there is the POV. "She is considered one of the most beautiful women in the cinema, having appeared on the cover of the first People Magazine's '50 Most Beautiful People in the World' issue in 1990, and re-appearing a record six times during that decade, making the cover again in 1999." Yeah, but still, isn't that a bit of peacockery? There are cites from IMDB from the trivia page, and what's this "The Garbo of the Nineties" crap heading?? Let me know what you think. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I thought too. I know it's gonna really P.O. the guy who did it, but those rainbow tables were annoying. The trouble with the fansite is that it's used to ref about a dozen things in the article. I'll work more on it tomorrow. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Template for deletion
Hey, would you pop over to Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 23 and weigh in on the Mel Gibson template deletion? I nominated it because it only has 4 films on it, all of which are on the other Mel Gibson template. It's redundant. (I love that word.) Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Holly Madison
Hey, thanks for the comment on my talk page. Nice work with the filmography chart and vandal-watch. :) Queer Scout (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)