Talk:New queer cinema

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Film

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm

Wiki Loves Pride

This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2020.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride

Untitled

I think it would be interesting to start a new queer cinema wikiproject. Anyone down for that? Voyager640 20:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "Queer Cinema" into NQC

The articles cover pretty much the identical material and per both articles "new queer cinema" is the commonly accepted term. Otto4711 03:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution section

This is completely unsourced and in the absence of those sources constitutes original research. Unless sources are added shortly the section will have to be deleted. Otto4711 02:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The Living End (poster).jpg

Image:The Living End (poster).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up this article

4 of the sources here are dead links, 1 is a link to another wikipedia page. This page is in a dreadful state and it's unacceptable.I'll leave it for now, but if someone else doesn't fix this article up over the next few days I'll come back and yet again delete everything with reference to these sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maring HS (talk • contribs) 02:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and these are of course my two edits http://i.imgur.com/UC7pEoI.png

Thanks for undoing them, boss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maring HS (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Maring HS: if someone else doesn't fix this article up over the next few days I'll come back and yet again delete everything And you will again be reverted. Dead links are not a good reason to remove content. Just tag it as a deadlink (see Template:Dead link) and/or try to find an archived version at archive.org. Ideally we would not have dead links, of course, but Wikipedia policy states it's not a valid reason for removing content on its own. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Did you take a look at my edits? I didn't delete anything apart from the dead links themselves. It's not my responsibility to try and hunt down archived versions of these articles. I'm going to put up another deletion request on the grounds of the article being extremely poorly sourced. If you want to take down the deletion request, at the very least you should do this job yourself. I see no value in this article existing in its current state and it's not on me to clean it up, it's on you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maring HS (talk • contribs) 04:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maring HS, please sign your posts. Rhododendrites is right; content isn't removed because of dead links, neither are the citations. Links are archived and/or replaced. Sources do not need to be online in order to be cited. Only if the content itself is controversial, disputed or likely to disputed and no other sources are available to cite, should it be removed. Lapadite (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Maring HS: It's not my responsibility to try and hunt down archived versions of these articles - It is, actually. Well, not necessarily, but it's the problem of anyone who wants to fix the problem. Removing the links altogether is considered a negative, not a fix. See WP:LINKROT, which says "do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer". Are you challenging the material those citations support? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI It took about 5 minutes to find and add two archive links, updated one url, and tagged the other as dead. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Queer Cinema. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The list of "Key figures" seems pretty random?

I'm sorry, but at this point, the list of "Key figures" of NQC seems just random to me. What's the source for most of those names? Yes, names like Derek Jarman, Cheryl Dunye & Gregg Araki are directly out of B. Ruby Riches' book/articles, but - Arthur Bressan's Buddies is an important film for Queer Cinema in general, but it isn't an example of NQC?! Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain? That's not NQC. At this point it seems like this list throws together some names of notable Queer Cinema work, which is really misleading to people, trying to learn something about NQC as defined by B. Ruby Rich. 11:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.104.11.26 (talk)