Talk:Yorkton Film Festival

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Yorkton Film Festival. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources[edit]

The article uses their own website at least 47 times!Where are the multiple in-depth independent sources? Theroadislong (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bearcat I have been working on the issue as noted above by Theroadislong. I wanted to ask you if I've correctly referenced a new source that I located on EBSCO. The magazine is Cinema Canada it is hosted on the Athabasca University's website / It is a somewhat complicated path to get to it but the articles have pdf links. It is #12 in the YFF article: [1] Thank you!! LorriBrown (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


As for this specific link, it's mostly fine — the one minor quibble is that we don't use website= to link to the publication's web url — the url= field has already provided the weblink to the specific piece of content you're citing, so we don't use website= to repeat a secondary link to the same publication's front splash page. It's only for providing the name of the website, not a weblink to the website — and it's just redundant if you've already filled out publisher= with the same name, so you should either yank "website=www.cinemacanada.athabascau.ca" instead of replacing it with "website=Cinema Canada", or replace it with "website=Cinema Canada" but yank the "publisher=Cinema Canada" field. But other than that, everything else about it is fine. And bravo on remembering to add the original publication date of the content itself in the date= field — far too many people think that's somehow not important, and I can't even tell you how many times I've come across citation templates where accessdate= had been filled out but date= hadn't. So extra cookies to you for remembering that.
Going forward, I should also let you know it isn't actually mandatory to link to an online copy of the source at all — as long as the citation is to a reliable source (which Cinema Canada certainly is, I use it myself on a regular basis), we are allowed to cite it without linking the citation anywhere. For example, I often also search ProQuest for older newspaper coverage in the major Canadian dailies — but any link to content I found in ProQuest would just throw the reader at a login screen for a resource they may not have an account with, and even if they do have a ProQuest account their provider may still not offer access to the Canadian Newsstand collection, so I don't link that footnote and instead just make sure to provide the complete citation details. So if you're struggling to find solid sources, remember that your sources don't all have to be online — you are allowed to dig into books and microfilms and newspaper archiving databases like ProQuest or EBSCO and print copies of newspapers or magazines, and you are allowed to just cite the print forms in text without hotlinking them anywhere. We obviously should link to a publicly readable web copy if one is available, so it's perfectly fine to have done that here, and the newspapers.com clippings are great too — but the existence of a publicly readable web copy is not actually a core requirement that has to to be met before you can use a source at all. So if you have access to old newspapers and books and magazines that aren't web-published (which obviously you do if you first found this on EBSCO!), then bring those on too instead of thinking that you're restricted to only using sourcing that Googles. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat Thank you for your reply! I've gotten into the habit of linking because I believed it could help the content/references not to be challenged or removed.
I thought the website would be where the source information is located, i.e. Athabasca University website: www.athabascau.ca (I accidentally put www.cinemacanada.athabasca.ca) and that the publisher should be the publisher of the original publication i.e. the magazine Cinema Canada (now defunct I think). I navigated to the source through EBSCO that is why I put via as EBSCO. Does that change any of the above?
If I follow what you've noted the website and the publisher refer to the same thing and it is only necessary to note one or the other. Thanks! LorriBrown (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, what we really want if possible is for website= to reflect the name of the website, while publisher= reflects, if known and useful, the name of the company that publishes it. For a similar example, in a citenews to The Globe and Mail, you'd be within reason to put newspaper = The Globe and Mail + publisher = The Woodbridge Company if you wanted to, or you could put newspaper = The Globe and Mail without filling in the publisher field at all — but you wouldn't put newspaper = The Globe and Mail + publisher = The Globe and Mail, and you wouldn't use either field to put a link to the front splash page of the G&M's website.
To be honest, I'm also not entirely clear why we even have separate citation templates for "cite web", "cite newspaper" and "cite magazine" at all, since they all basically do exactly the same things and are literally interchangeable — if you're linking your citation to the website of a magazine, for example, then it's a completely arbitrary choice whether to use "cite web" or "cite magazine", but technically what you're citing here is actually a magazine rather than a website per se. Which template you use doesn't really matter, of course, so don't take that as criticism of you — just take it as an acknowledgement that I recognize that the whole thing is more confusing and complicated than it actually needs to be.
So if you have an opportunity to cite Playback for something here, then you could do website=Playback or magazine=Playback alongside publisher=Brunico Communications — but in the case of Cinema Canada, which was a standalone publication whose corporate "parent" was just called Cinema Canada Magazine Foundation, there's just no real value in needing to use both fields to offer essentially redundant information. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Humphries, Don (September 1977). "14th Yorkton international Film Festival" (pdf). www.cinemacanada.athabascau.ca. Cinema Canada. p. 54. Retrieved 7 September 2019 – via EBSCO.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Merging everything in Category:Yorkton Film Festival awards[edit]

All these articles, while well-written, seem quite unnecessary. The goal of the encyclopedia is not to list every single award that has been handed out at this event. WP:N, WP:LISTCRUFT. 162 etc. (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge – the article is completely unnecessary WP:NOTDIRECTORY Zenomonoz (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think you probably are well within your rights to merge at this point. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 162 etc. (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The goal of Wikipedia is to have articles about notable things, and therefore Wikipedia's goals are in no way incompatible with having articles about notable awards — so if you believe (wrongly) that the awards aren't notable at all, then they should have been taken to WP:AFD, but disappearing them under the radar in a completely unadvertised talk page discussion with only one participant besides yourself is absolutely unacceptable. Film festivals very routinely have articles that list their award winners — TIFF has that, Cannes has that, Berlin has that, and on and so forth — so listing film festival award winners is not fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. If you want to mount an (incorrect) case that this film festival's awards are uniquely less notable than other film festivals' awards, then that's a matter for AFD to reach a consensus about, and not a matter for you to arbitrarily impose by yourself without input. Bearcat (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:N, WP:MERGE, and WP:BOLD. 162 etc. (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain precisely how you're alleging that properly referenced articles about a notable film festival's awards were in any way a notability failure in the first place, and please explain precisely what in either MERGE or BOLD constitutes any sort of mic drop on what I said. If these fail NOTDIRECTORY, then so does every single other one of the thousands of other articles we have listing the winners of and nominees for significant film awards, many of which are much more poorly sourced than these were even though sourcing is the determiner of notability or lack thereof — precisely how were these NOTDIRECTORY violations if Academy Award for Best Picture and Toronto International Film Festival People's Choice Award and BAFTA Award for Best Film and César Award for Best Film and Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Drama and everything else in Category:Awards for best film aren't NOTDIRECTORY violations?
    What, precisely, are you claiming makes Yorkton different from other film awards when it comes to the right to have articles listing their nominees and/or winners? What makes Yorkton's awards "directories" if other film awards aren't "directories"? Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't done any research into these other articles, and, were I to do so, I may very well be in favour of merging unnotable or listcruft content. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 162 etc. (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You wouldn't find any unnotable or listcruft content, because they're notable awards whose winners and nominees are not cruft. That's not up for any debate or discussion, either, as it's established consensus that if an award has the reliable source coverage to be established as a notable award (which Yorkton certainly does), then a list of its winners and/or nominees is encyclopedic and relevant content that should be present in either its article or an appropriate spinoff article (such as a separate category-specific list for each category if it's an award that presents multiple categories and/or a separate year-specific article for each annual iteration of it). So, again, the question is what makes Yorkton's awards different from the Oscars or TIFF or Cannes or the Césars, and the words "directory" and "cruft" and "non-notable" have nothing to do with it. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clear that you believe that the Yorkton Film Festival awards meet Wikipedia notability criteria and deserve individual articles; I disagree, as did the other commenter above. (@Zenomonoz:) I've made good-faith edits based on my interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm not interested in making edits to the Oscars or TIFF or other festivals, so I don't know why you are trying to insert those into the conversation.
    I don't have anything further to add here; I'll leave it up to you and others to determine consensus. Thank you for helping make the encyclopedia a better place. 162 etc. (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I "believe" that because I'm correct. The definition of notability is that the subject has a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about it, which the award articles plainly demonstrated that they do have — so precisely what other criteria exists upon which they can possibly be deemed non-notable despite having a volume and depth and quality of sourcing that clearly pass GNG?
    And I'm "inserting" TIFF and the Oscars into the conversation because they're RELEVANT TO THE CONVERSATION. You claimed, falsely, that articles listing the winners and nominees of notable awards are somehow WP:NOTDIRECTORY-violating listcruft — so I provided several comparable and relevant examples of similar articles that do exist to prove that that that's not how directory and listcruft work, because notable film awards are expected to have articles that list their past winners and/or nominees — but you keep dodging the question and asserting that these awards aren't notable, without explaining why they aren't notable. They clearly don't fail notability on the basis of not meeting WP:GNG on the sourcing, because they had more than enough sourcing to pass any rational reading of GNG — and they clearly don't fail notability on the basis of listing winners not being a thing we do for film awards, because listing winners is a thing we do do for film awards all the damn time. So what is the basis on which you think Yorkton's awards are "non-notable"? Why do you keep changing the subject and not answering that? Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yorkton_Film_Festival&oldid=1220245397"