Misplaced Pages

User talk:Before My Ken

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Before My Ken (talk | contribs) at 04:41, 31 October 2008 (→Image copyright problem with Image:Slim-pickens riding-the-bomb enh-lores.jpg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:41, 31 October 2008 by Before My Ken (talk | contribs) (→Image copyright problem with Image:Slim-pickens riding-the-bomb enh-lores.jpg)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
User talk
  • If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
  • Please click here to leave me a new message.


Believers (film)

My bad. Learning. Schmidt, 02:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

So if I read this correctly, I may use "Critical reception" to place succinct quotes reviewer's comments, citing then the souces of the remark? Schmidt, 06:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Understood. Good or bad, a review is a review... and critics do not always agree. It is the amount of coverage, pro or con, in reliable sources that may be indicative of notability. Since I am much dealing at AfD's with films and people I have never heard of before, I'll be best to keep reviews down at external links like you showed. Thank you very much. Schmidt, 06:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Just was also agreeing that I should not give one review more weight than another simply because it is "better" for the article, and that I must be very careful to myself be neutral. Regards, Schmidt, 06:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Dietrich

That works fine. I didn't like how they overlapped the sections. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

RfCs

The reason editors who have already debated the subject should generally not take part in the RfC is because of that very reason, they've already discussed the issue. The point of an RfC is because you are trying to generate a wider population of editors, with fresher opinions. If the people that had already debated the subject take part in the RfC then they're just going to be rehashing the same argument in a completely new section of the page. RfC's look to attract third-party editors that have not been caught up in the previous debates. It allows for more neutral reactions to the issue, and hopefully create a more clearly definted consensus line.

But, to clarify, it isn't that previous debators cannot comment in the RfC section, it's mostly that they shouldn't be restating the same arguments over again (that is why we provide links to the previous discussions for the RfC'ers, so they can see what we all said prior to their arrival). That being said, if someone brings up a new argument (something that wasn't discussed previously...some new way of looking at something), anyone is welcomed to provide a rebuttle to that argument. Again, it's all about trying to create an environment that isn't just a copy/paste job of all the old discussions. Did I do a decent enough job of explaining?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The page certainly isn't the clearest thing. You could make a request that it better explain its rationale for "outside input" for the discussions for editors that are not familiar with that concept. lol. That would be funny to do...requesting comments on a request for comment page. lol. Anyway, that actually might be a good idea to look into. Right now, I have Termer threatening to call the RfC invalid because Garion96 made a comment a month ago that he wanted to remove all of the links from all infoboxes (it was on the discussion about the Actor Infobox and not the Film Infobox, which means he never actually participated in the discussion about the Film Infobox).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Pink Panther articles

Please do not just rename those trivia sections as "Production notes" and think that solves the problem. They will still fall under the description given at WP:TRIVIA as a "lists of miscellaneous facts". Work them into a cohesive prose "Production" section or leave the tag in place so someone else can do so. Rhindle The Red (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Marketing

Hello, I'm working on a "Marketing" component as you can see at WT:MOSFILM, and I was wondering if I could ask your expertise on something. The new component feels a little bit contemporary since I tend to work with recent and upcoming films on Misplaced Pages. I was wondering about the history of marketing when it came to older films. Are there any specific marketing topics that may warrant such a section? I'm not familiar enough with older films to know, but it seems like there have been some interesting promotions (posters controversial at the time and whatnot). Do you have any familiarity with the matter? (P.S. Nice to see that we haven't been on totally opposite sides of the fence with some of the recent discussions!) —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to the infobox in MOS:FILM, I'm not sure if using {{fy}} for the release dates has the built-in intuitiveness. The dates are specific, and at a glance, I don't think people would know that it's a "year in film" link. (Making it Easter Egg-ish, as some would say.) Like I've mentioned before, I think there needs to be clearer context for utilizing {{fy}}. Can we talk it out on the MOS talk page? —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
No real need to talk about it, let's just change it to a "year in film" link, if that's OK. Ed Fitzgerald 00:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC Infobox

Just wanted to let you know that since it has been made clear that comments by previous participants in the dispute on the RFC are welcome, you should feel free to comment on it as well.--Termer (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Metropolis

Can you elaborate on this please? Aside from the obvious effect of more white space (which shouldn't be there, hence my edit), I see no difference in IE without or without the extra lines. Perhaps there is a specific circumstance (IE version, OS, etc) that creates some sort of severe rendering problems? Although, then I would think it would affect more than one page and I've never seen an HTML comment to preserve spacing before. You may respond here or on the article's talk page if you like. I started a thread there a few weeks ago, but received no feedback. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ed, the spacing looks wrong in every other browser. Why should a page be modified so that it displays in a particular version of IE better? Please provide more detail on the issue that you're seeing. davewho2 (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I've checked the page under both Firefox and Safari, and, while the extra line is certainly not necessary in either of these browsers, the result is also not awful, which is why I proceeded with the add. In Internet Explorer (v.7 under Vista, as well as another installation I checked it under, which I believe was v.6 under Windows XP), without the spacer text is rendered uncomfortably close to the top border of the element below it. At the top of the page, that means that the end of the lede section butts up against the Table of Contents, at the bottom of the page, the end of the article (usually, the Extrenal links) sits right on top of the navboxes below, which is visually crowded and looks terrible.

I can provide screenshots to illustrate this later tonight, if anyone is interested in seeing them. Ed Fitzgerald 17:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I should mention that I'm concerned about this not because it's what I see on the page, but because it's what normal everyday people, the kind of folks who use their computer as it came out of the box, with the browser configured with default settings, will see, Internet Explorer still being the default browser of the predominant platform (PC w/ Windows). These people are the kind who we need to attract and hold onto to ensure WP's success, so making sure the page looks good to them becomes an important part of "Good information, well-presented," which should be our goal. Ed Fitzgerald 17:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
More on this later - I'm at work at the moment. Ed Fitzgerald 17:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Without the extra lines, the white space between the lead and the ToC looks the same as every article to me. With the extra lines, it looks too big. If this is not a strange rendering issue which is somehow specific to the Metropolis article then it sounds like your personal layout preferences (or those which you think suit "normal everyday people") conflict with the accepted style guide. You'd be much better off starting a discussion at the Village Pump to see if consensus can be formed for a policy change than trying to enforce non-standard layout on individual articles with HTML comments. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I have made no changes to my .css file, deliberately so, in order that I see what non-registered people with plain-vanilla set-ups see. Ed Fitzgerald 22:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
How does MediaWiki render pages differently for registered and non-registered users? I'm still not exactly sure what the problem is here. You mentioned screen shots a few comments back, perhaps that would help? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Registered users can change their settings and alter their CSS file to an extent, making the page render differently. Unregistered users see the default settings, which is why my concern is for how the page renders under default conditions using the most prevalent browser.

Since this question has come up a couple of times, I'm hoping to prepare something which illustrates the problem as I see it, but, unfortunately, I'm being delayed in getting that done as soon as I had planned. I'll post a link here when I've got something for folks to see. Ed Fitzgerald 01:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my error regarding the use of the image on the talk page. I fell into an assumption, and you know what they say about assumptions. Thanks again for the correction. As far as use of itallics for film titles, does it hold true when it is simply used as a link to a Misplaced Pages page? Dbiel 21:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Italic issue was dealt with on the template talk page. Dbiel 21:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The endless IMDb debate...

No worries mate. The whole thing does rather seem to be a case of "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!", which isn't getting anybody anywhere. I'm sure I'm just as much to blame as you, so I in turn shall offer my apologies. No doubt we each have more productive ways to spend our Wiki-time, and who knows, maybe we'll see eye to eye next time. Thanks for your comment, it was appreciated. PC78 (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Andrew Clements photo.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Andrew Clements photo.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 our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. 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 our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? dave pape (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

amg_id

Please stop removing the amg_id without reason from the infobox articles when you edit them. Those are not constructive edits. Cheers Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, I appreciate it. My opinion is that AMG is not a particularly helpful source, which is the reason I remove it. The fact that there is an entry for it in the infobox, doesn't mean that it's required to be filled, nor does it mean that it cannot be removed. Ed Fitzgerald 04:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Al Jolson image

Hi Ed. I hope your new job is going well. I ran across this image on the Jolson article and wondered if there was anything that you could do with it to balance out the discoloration? Thanks for any help you can provide! Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the image now and see what you think. I stripped out the color, and then made some adjustments. Unfortunately, even with the color gone, there's a distinct difference between her image and his, so if one looks good, the other suffers, and vice versa. I went with a mid-way setting that brings out the detail in her face, but maybe it ends up looking a little too "solarized" around his hairline? Let me know what you think, and I can try to make more adjustments if you'd like. Ed Fitzgerald 22:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much!! It is a huge improvement. He had young wives, didn't he? Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Claudette

Thanks Ed. I'm so angry I feel like my head is going to explode. I've had so much dispute with a vandal/tendentious editor on this article for more than a year, and I thought it was over. I'm fairly sure it's the same person because that last edit summary made no sense. Thanks for reverting. I left a message on that person's talk page. I'm all for citing sources, but when we need to have a source cited at the end of every damn sentence, it just makes me want to give up. Palm Beach Story was a huge success. As if it needs a link to some website saying "oh yes, it was a hit". And Cleopatra ...... need to cool down. So, how are things with you? Is the new job going well? Rossrs (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a couple of messages on that editor's talk page; so far he's deleted them with dismissive edit aummaries, but hasn't actually engaged in conversation. Oh well, if he continues that tack, he or she will blocked for non-communication.

I've been looking at the statistics for the Claudette Colbert article, and it's very interesting. There seems to be a number of editors who have similar interests: Colbert and It Happened One Night (that's understandable) but also edits to Parrish (film), which is pretty obscure, to Ritchie Blackmore (!!), and to a number of articles about multi-national people (i.e. "Anglo-Indians", "French-Armenians", etc.), as well as to articles on Vivien Leigh and Madonna, and a concentration of French performers (Charles Boyer, Maurice Chevalier, etc.). Some of these editors have been banned,, at least one is suspected of being a sockpuppet of the other, and our current problem editor fits right in with this group. If we continue to have problems with this editor, I'll have to take the data I have, do some more in-depth research and file a sock-puppet report. I'd rather not, of course, I prefer to hope that they'll behave themselves, but we'll see what course they take. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you got a dismissive edit summary. You must be special. I got no edit summary at all. If it's the same editor, and all evidence suggest so, we should not expect discussion. It's very tiresome. The link you gave above is very interesting. We'll have to keep a watch on things. Just as an unrelated aside, some time ago I stumbled upon a similar tool where you could put in a user name and it would show how many edits a user had made for each article. I wanted to see which articles I've obsessed over the most, but I can't find it anymore. Have you ever seen it? It's almost identical to the one you've linked to, but shows edit stats for an editor rather than edit stats for an article. Rossrs (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The only ones I've seen are the ones at the bottom of the "contributions" page, but they only list the top 15 articles.

In doing some research, I saw that you filed a sockpuppet report on the IP's who have edited the Claudette Colbert article, the ones in the 218.217 and 219.104 range -- too bad no one acted on them at the time, I have no doubt that they're related to our mystery editor, along with Wptfe, Nrh15, Wrbz, Ygr1, Zztp, M06ff1, Ndgb and perhaps others. By editing within an usually tight range of articles, this person has provided plenty of evidence - I have little doubt that a new sockpuppet report will not be ignored. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think we should do what's right even if it doesn't work. You must read the talk history if you haven't already. It's bizarre. I'll ask Wildhartlivie about that other report thing, maybe she's seen it. Rossrs (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm about to call it a night, so I'll take a look at the talk page tomorrow-ish. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, minor point, but I would exclude Orbicle from the list. I had a fair amount of interraction with him, and in this particular issue we were on the same side. He'd also been around for quite a long time previously as a legitimate editor. He no longer edits. The others - yes I tend to agree. Rossrs (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, before I went to bed, I glanced at the talk archives, and on that basis I removed Orbicle from the list. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 16:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding image sizes

If you read Misplaced Pages:Accessibility#Images and Template:Infobox_Actor, you will see that it says you should only override the default image size if it is necessary, as it will cause problems for people with small screens. This is hardly a case where it is necessary or needed to do this. Britneysaints (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Please see the talk page of the article, and make your arguments there. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gene Kelly

Regarding this edit: I'm aware that it is a guideline, but I don't see how ignoring it will improve the article. What makes it an occasional exception the Manual of Style, and why wouldn't it apply to all the other articles in general? —LOL /C 01:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Slim-pickens riding-the-bomb enh-lores.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Slim-pickens riding-the-bomb enh-lores.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Added FURs for all articles. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Invisible Stripes layout

I don't know, the shot of Raft from the trailer actually obscures part of the Infobox (the words "Starring" and "Music" are covered up), something I've never seen in any Misplaced Pages article. Something should be done about this; if you didn't like the idea of putting the Raft shot above the Infobox, and I didn't think it was ideal myself, I think you should try something else. We should keep the photo in any case, however, since it's a good one from the movie's trailer. Thanks, Ed. --Wastetimer (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Before My Ken Add topic