Talk:U.N. Me

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: Documentary / American

	Film portal 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 articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on U.N. Me. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts of redundancy deletions[edit]

The lede already contains the international film festival mention, and the festival section mentioned New Hampshire twice. It's a good deal tidier just eliminating the sparse section and moving the N.H. cite up. The film is six years old, so it's not likely that it will be at any more festivals. Activist (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we at least keep a mention of it in the lead, as per WP:LEAD ? DaltonCastle (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, not what I meant. I mean, shouldn't the lead have a shorter summary and then the body have a larger explanation? DaltonCastle (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: @DaltonCastle: The lede says

U.N. Me is a documentary film about the United Nations by first-time filmmakers Ami Horowitz and Matthew Groff, which premiered at the International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam in November 2009.[1]

Then the sections I eliminated were

Film festivals

Awards

   Best Documentary - New Hampshire Film Festival (2010)[19]

Appearances

   International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (2009)[1]
   New Hampshire Film Festival (2010)[19]

So, the "Awards" Section contains the award itself. That text should be retained. "Appearances," the title of the next section, a line later, doesn't expand what's in the lede, regarding the International festival; in fact it contains less. The "New Hampshire Film Festival" doesn't either. It couldn't win the N.H. award without being present. I removed the sparse but repetitive Awards and Appearance Sections and simply moved the the award text up into the previous section. I didn't delete anything substantive. I'm the last person in the world who could be characterized as a "neat freak," but the deletion does make the article considerably more neat. The only thing that was restored to the article by "Beyond_My_Ken" was the redundant clutter.

P.S. The "stoning" quote has to be one of the best ever. It's a little late, but I'd like to nominate it for the "Complete cluelessness exhibited by an Important Official in a Third World country" Award. Activist (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "discussion" seems to be entirely between you and I. It is beyond my ken why you can't understand something this simple. Activist (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Activist: While I see your points here, I don't see that removing the "Awards" section substantially improves the page, since it is different from "Reception". Related, perhaps, but not the same. Overall, its a rather innocuous section so I don't see the difficulty in keeping it distinct. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm satisfied with that. Thanks to you both for weighing in. Activist (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! And thank YOU for the civility on a disagreement. To be honest, its a breath of fresh air on Wikipedia. Keep it up! DaltonCastle (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]