User talk:Bignole/Archive/2010/October

Chain Saw

Well, I think it's almost time to nominate it for FA. The 2 years of work has to pay off some time.--The Taerkasten (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Country field

Since you supported the universal removal of the country field, I suggested a more limited approach at the talk page discussion. I've updated the documentation, but I'd like to know if you and others would favor this approach for now. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No Rest for the Wicked FAC

Hello. You participated in a recent FAC for No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural). The article has since been renominated here. Thanks. Ωphois 19:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Remember me? Veracious Rey 05:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Belated message

Hello Bignole. I am too many days late on this so I thought it would be better to make my post here. I wanted to say thanks for your note about not intending any offense in our discussion on the filminfobox template page. I too apologize for any upset that I caused to you. Discussions can get heated around here and I always have to remind myself that most editors have Wikipedia's best interests at heart and I know that you are one of those. Cheers in all future editing. MarnetteD | Talk 21:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

WP Horror Interview in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Horror for a Signpost article to be published next week. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film)

I found your article to be well written, and found no problems in promoting it to GA. Congratulations! Wildroot (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Original Research

As far as I knew, Source A + Source B = C is original research, as stated in the Original Research article.

For instance, in the Mega Drive article, I can't add up region sales and state a total. All hell would break lose in the way of edit wars.--SexyKick 01:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am now told that unless all the numbers are from the same source, that it is in fact Original Research. Are we sure about this? I'm excited at the chance to tally up numbers.--SexyKick 18:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that's the thing. We have a reliable source for sales data up to the end of 1994 - totals 29 million, and notes 14 million in North America. Then we have a March 1998 NYT's article saying 20 million US. March 1998 is when Majesco takes over sales, we have a source saying that, as well as a source saying they sold 2 million Genesis 3's, and that same source says Tec Toy has never stopped selling the Mega Drive, and that it has now sold 2 million Mega Drives in Brazil. We also have the GamePro source saying Sega sold 1 million Sega Nomad's (which game out in mid 1995.)

So to me, it seems like routine math to update the 20 million for North America (35 million total now) add in Majesco, and Nomad (38 million) and TecToy is still selling Mega Drives in 2010, but the 2 million number is from 2005...so it's again an incomplete 40 million, but none of the data really overlaps thanks to the early 1995 source of sales data through 1994.--SexyKick 07:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it totally makes sense. The other thing is that the the source sales data up till the end of 1994 only talks about Sega sales, and TecToy sold the Mega Drive independently in Brazil, which is why other people have always been counting it separately. Either way I've greatly appreciate your experience here.--SexyKick 02:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Chain Saw

Somebody in the FA raised similar concerns to yours about the quotes.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

DCGeist has raised concerns about sourcing. You may want to comment.--The Taerkasten (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Hey. I have nominated the film Taare Zameen Par for FAC here. Would you mind reviewing it? It's a Bollywood film, so if you aren't familiar with those types of films or are too busy, I would understand. Thanks. Ωphois 02:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

TCM FAC

Hi. I stopped at the Development section. What I'd found to that point was major claims in the lede that were both uncited and and unsupported by any discussion in the main text, and thus completely unsourced; multiple sourcing errors of different sorts in Themes and Analysis—inaccurate assessments of statements (including completely baseless assertions, such as the association of Night of the Living Dead with a certain quote), unattributed quotes, improperly named cites; and the awkward claim with which Development began, which turned out to be a cited to a source that simply had no relevant information at all. The sourcing problems are compounded by the prose problems. I saw this looming at the beginning of the next subsection, Casting:

There were few or no previous acting credits among many of the cast members,[36] who were Texans with previous roles in commercials, television, and stage shows, as well as actors whom Hooper knew personally.[37]

That appears to be a basic contradiction. If they had "previous roles in commercials, television, and stage shows," they obviously had acting credits. Does the passage mean to say that they had few or previous film acting credits? Or that almost all of them had "few" (but not no) acting credits in general? (That would be very surprising—it's not hard to rack up acting credits. I acted in college and for a few years after, semi-seriously at best—and I've got over two dozen "legitimate" acting credits.) Obviously the sources need to be checked. It's clear that not nearly enough time was spent doing that basic work before this nomination. I spent a good deal of my own limited time checking sources for the early part of the article, but at some point, enough was enough.

[...]

For kicks, I just tracked down the supposed source for the claim that "there were few or no previous acting credits among many of the cast members." Take a look. Believe me, I appreciate the fact that you don't have the time to go through each source one by one—but it's evident that someone needs to. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)