Jump to content

Talk:Ann Beach

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Filmography

[edit]

it's not "hack and slash" to remove sources that fail WP:RS and to remove a long list of trivial appearances -- no article on any actor includes minor guest spots like that

Wanna bet? – 74  18:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:74.137.108.115 (cute fake signature), just because you can find filmographies on Wikipedia doesn't mean that we include long lists of extremely minor roles... and if you do find some with trivially minor roles, that's just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and not a reason to keep it. On top of that, anything you think you can find about filmographies CERTAINLY doesn't mean that we include sources that fail to meet WP:RS rules. You can't just blind revert every edit I make here and try to justify it with an explanation that would only cover part of it even if it made any sense, which it doesn't. DreamGuy (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear UserID:134756, I have never blind-reverted anything. The filmography could definitely be trimmed (read: intelligently reduced, not removed entirely) if you have the inclination. I'll even save you the trouble of opening Google:
As to whether IMDb is a WP:RS, I believe that question is still up in the air. – 74  21:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only notabl roles are listed. Person doesn't have any per our standards, as well documented in the AFD discussion, so no reason to list mere trivia intended to mislead people into thinking a mass list of trivial roles somehow becomes notable. DreamGuy (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting interpretation since I pointed you to three sources noting particular roles. Again, you throw away everything with reckless editing. Please either take the time to do it right, or let somebody else handle it. – 74  20:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Directed from WP:3O) It seems to me we need to separate out two issues here. One is whether the article should be deleted or not. There was an active deletion discussion and the decision was no consensus. Under established procedure (for which there is a clear consensus) that means it stays and there is a presumption that it is worth keeping. It is far too early to consider relisting it for deletion so for now that issue is settled, and we need consider it no further. I can't help but feel that the attempt to remove the filmography is simply dissatisfaction with the result of the AfD process.
So now we come to the issue that is nominally at hand. The filmography. Is the article better or worse for having it? Well without them we don't have any context as to why this actress is notable. Some of the entries are not reliably sourced, but those should be challenged, not deleted straight away. I was under the impression that IMDB is accepted as a source but I'll admit I haven't checked that. There are certainly hundreds of other articles that quote IMDB. That is no defence under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but why would you single out this particular article? In any case, I note some are sourced from the Guardian and the New York Times. Is it alleged that these are not reliable? In not, why were they removed?
Regarding the division between major and minor roles, it appears to me that this is difficult to do on an impartial basis. What should be the criteria? How much she was paid? How long she was on screen? It is easy to imagine there may be even "minor" roles of which she was proud, or she somehow played a pivotal role in the development of the plot despite only a brief on-screen appearance. On the other hand I don't see that we need appearances as an extra or similar. A simple and impartial filter would be if she played a named character in the film. Assuming the filmography is accurate many films would satisfy that requirement but there are entries that would need weeding out. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pursuant to Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability". The only reason content should be removed from an article is if it cannot be verified. User:DreamGuy repeated removal of the subject's acting credits must stop. By continuing to edit war against this article that he took the position to delete, he is ignoring the consensus of the AfD discussion, and is deliberately trying to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The AfD consensus was not to delete. The acting credits are verifiable and they should not be removed from the article. User:DreamGuy's repeated removal of such acting credits constitutes vandalism pursuant to Wikipedia:Vandalism, and he has been warned to stop. Esasus (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just cruising by as someone who doesn't (yet) have an opinion on whether every role should be included here. Esasus, I think you are interpreting WP:V to your own purposes here. Yes, verifiability is a threshold. But it does not say "The only reason content should be removed from an article is if it cannot be verified." What it says is that if it's not verifiable, then in shouldn't be included. There has been long consensus on Wikipedia that not every single piece of conceivable information on a subject should be included in an article. That's why Wikipedians are referred to as "editors" -- we need to selectively edit and include only the most important points. Readers can then use the references to get to more detailed information if they so choose.
The edit war on this article needs to stop. Consensus is another one of Wikipedia's core policies; Esasus and DreamGuy (and the IP, if that's a different person) need to sit down and talk. Figure out what information really contributes to the reader's understanding of this actress, and what is trivia. Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers can help you figure out what the consensus is in this area.
If you both continue to blindly revert, one or both of you may get blocked, or the page may get edit protected, so I strongly suggest you work it out before it comes to that.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am most assuredly a different person: I'm the one who started this discussion, I'm the one who provided additional sources above, I'm the one who added sources to the Filmography section in an attempt to improve the article (and forestall further argument), and I'm the one who requested the third opinion above in lieu of yet another revert. Automatically assuming an IP user is a sock puppet would seem awfully close to WP:ABF. – 74  23:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to cause offense when none was intended. I did not intend to imply sockpuppeting was going on here. In fact, even if you were the same as one of the other two editors, sockpuppeting would not be happening: WP:SOCK says "A sock puppet is an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies." I don't see that going on here. It's perfectly within the rules for an editor with an account to edit while not logged in, and many editors do it regularly, either because they forget to log in, they're editing from a public computer, or it's just inconvenient to log in at the moment -- I was trying not to make an assumption one way or the other.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I suppose I misinterpreted your initial statement. Anyway, thank your for intervening to stop the revert war. – 74  09:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ann Beach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ann_Beach&oldid=1199699418"