User talk:Classicfilmbuff/Archive 4

Welcome

Greetings! Feedback and discussion are welcome.

--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)== Welcome back ==

Hope you enjoyed your vacation. I've been waiting for your return to see your reaction to some of the changes that occurred. I almost reverted the Lundberg liaison myself, since it was pretty clear the cite had just been piggy-backed, but I don't have access to the book itself so I wasn't 100% sure. You might also want to take a look at the new Greta Garbo filmography article that was split off; at first glance I just cringed and said "more work than I feel like doing right now", but I could have jumped to an unjustified conclusion. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey FH; be sure to go to yosesite if you've never been. Yeah, undid a few things. Thanks for link to GG filmography. Currently very weak p., I think, because information is arbitrary and totally incomplete. Perhaps a work in progress. At least 3 errors currently which I'll correct. Not sure what the point of the p. is anyway. She made 28 films and a complete filmography, along with major turning points in her prof'l career, are clearly spelled out in the GG p. Filmography p. for someone like, e.g., Bette Davis, definitely valuable since she made well over 100 pictures, television appearances, and theatrical productions. Anyway, not going to work with these editors on the p. Too much time. But will watch for errors. But currently no cits. So if I add them, will deviate from current format. Can't change course and cite everything other editors post. What to do? --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Editor moved GG p. filmography over to new article. So will keep an eye on text and might fiddle with by and by but have to do my own work so have ruled no more than 30 minutes on GG a day. Lots of fun improving prose on other pp. I visit, unless it's terrible throughout in which case I brush aside.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I see you've been busy on the filmography article. Looks like you may understand what I meant about my first-glance impression. I had questions about the need for a separate article too, but again sort of view you as the lead on this topic. Audrey Hepburn, e.g., with about the same number of films and a dozen stage and TV roles on top of that seems to be doing quite well with an in-line filmography section of the main article, as GG had been. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Note, also, that for Kate, Bette, and Ingrid – the other 60% of the "Top 5" – the separate filmography articles consist of – get this! – a filmography; a list of the productions in which they appeared with at most a brief lead/intro of additional text. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, only Bette has a separate filmography article. The more I ponder, I think the filmography should be in the GG p. and should not be a separate p. For one thing, the text in the GG filmography p. just repeats what's in the GG p. Moreover, shouldn't a major change like this be discussed in GG talk p. before it's made? What do you think? Still I'm glad I corrected all of BeautyMan97's mistakes before anyone else reads it.

I'm also deleting the refs section since the his/her refs go nowhere and say nothing. Even if I/we ultimately shut down new p., I want to source it correctly. But I can't 1) delete the current refs, and 2)add corrected refs (with "bibliography" instead of references since that's what it is. Nothing listed in current edit section and when I attempt to change to bibliography, and add the following sources, I get the big red tag error notice Can you help?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I correctly understood what you wanted to do, but I did something – hope it was right. (If not, you know how to delete.) This shouls allow the addition of {{sfn}} template references if you want to be bothered copying them over. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure what you did but just right with bib addition. 2nd problem is removing the current "references" section. It should be deleted, as I say, because 1) there are no ref marks (cits) in the text--i.e., there are no references. So only sources should be identified and sources are listed in a "bibliography. (This mistake is commonly made, I see, in other star's filmographies.); 2) the current refs don't refer to relevant information; at least one of them is empty. Again, I can't figure out how to delete this section. why? First, there's no ref text in the edit section to delete, and second, when i tried to remove the section, the p. saved with the infamous red error mark. Thanks for your help.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw what you tried to do shortly after my note above. You're problem stems from the fact there actually are cites in the text; otherwise, the three items that show up in the references section wouldn't be there. They're the few cites that were copied over from the main article (the only refs that the old Filmography table contained), used in the "Notes" column of three early listings (Nos. 1, 3 & 4 in the table). To successfully delete the reflist template without error messages, you would also need to delete all the ref tags at the same time, which doesn't seem necessary and would probably cause them to get lost if you end up re-merging the two pages. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I liked the editors reorganization into a new section. Good move. But the title, "views on stardom" doesn't seem to capture the content of section. What do you think? Any ideas?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It does seem better in a separate section. I think I'd like a title of "Persona", "Public persona", or "Public image" better than "Views on stardom" though. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I just spent 2 hours correcting a lot of new stuff added by 209.221.35. in the Golden Age section, GG p. I think it's the same person who started the filmography p. full of errors, uncited assertions, and prose style. I can't tolerate errors so I fix them and then tyry to improve the prose. I don't see the refs in the film. text. Oh well. I trust you.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Bainbridge, John (1955). Garbo (1st ed.). Garden City NY: Doubleday. 256 pages. OCLC 1215789. Retrieved 22 July 2010. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |nopp= ignored (|no-pp= suggested) (help)
• Paris, Barry (1994). Garbo. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-8166-4182-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Swenson, Karen (1997). Greta Garbo: A life Apart. New York: Scribner. ISBN 978-0-684-80725-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Vieira, Mark A. (2005). Greta Garbo: A Cinematic Legacy. New York: Harry A. Abrams. ISBN 978-0-8109-5897-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greta Garbo filmography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Gilbert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Greta Garbo may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ===Success during the "Golden Age" 1930–1939)===

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Greta Garbo

Hi, I notice you work a lot on the Greta Garbo article and would like to alert you to a potential problem. On June 7, An IP editor User talk:209.221.35.36 made huge changes to the article. There is a problem in that this editor has been adding false information to articles, and worse, even attributing to sources that don't back it up. This editor has been blocked several times for doing this and I am working my way through their edits fixing the damage. My first inclination was just to restor the sections from before their edits, but there have been numerous changes since then. I was wondering if you could look over the edit and remove any unsourced additions/changes to sourced content. You can't assume any change is legit. It would be better if someone familiar with the article does this, otherwise I will have to put it back to an older state just to be on the safe side. Betty Logan (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems this editor is a sockpuppet so I've opened a case file at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harlow1937. Pretty much anything they added needs to go, because nothing they added can be trusted. Betty Logan (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Betty Logan, yes I know someone made made many false assertions at that time including uncited information and incorrect citations. I spent several days fixing and correcting and the page is now only slightly different than it was before his error-ridden changes. I've read it twice now and all is well, back to its previous version (held on to several changes) except for two citations I requested for statements s/he made. Noone yet has provided the citations so I plan to get rid of the material in a couple of weeks (how long are we expected to wait?)

What's weird is that I immediately made the corrections right after 6/7 but they're not showing up in the p. history. Only 2 or 3. VERY mysterious. Does this happen sometime?

I've been working on this p. as a Garbo expert for two years. It's in good shape though I don't think the filmography, because it's so short, should comprise a separate p. Oh well. Can't always have what you want. Thanks for your concern. No worries now.How did you know these incorrect edits were made, anyway?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

btw, what's a sock puppet?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

One other thing. Someone with IP address made a lot of changes over the last couple of days all having to do with re-writing and deleting statements about her salary and worth. They're all valid since, as s/he explained, the currency rates varid from the 30s, to the present, to 1990 when she died. These changes are good ones.

Finally, you will see that I made at least 7 corrections to false information this person made on the filmography p.

A sockpuppet is an editor who has more than one account on Wikipedia. Editors set them up to evade blocks, circumvent 3RR and vote more than once in surveys. Genreally they are bad news and prohibited, although occasionally someone can forget their old password and set up a new account. In this case though the editor is evading a block for adding false information to articles. Betty Logan (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Faulty links

Hello, there's no such thing as a faulty link. You are actually talking about red links, which should not be removed indiscriminately per the above-linked guideline. I have gone through all your edits back to November 2011 and undone your link removals. On the bright side, through this process I fixed some major vandalism that had gone unreverted for four months. Graham87 10:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Graham. An article name should only be redlinked if there is a likelihood that the subject will get and article or if you plan to write one on the topic yourself. The guideline says that page name should be redlinked "to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable". The guideline further says: "do not overlink in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider Write the article first, or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles. Articles should not have red links to topics that are not likely to have an article". Page names that are unlikely to get an article any time soon should not be redlinked, as it explains in WP:REDLINK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This topic is very controversial, and the polarized text at Wikipedia:Red link which I did link above) is a reflection of that. We could selectively quote that guideline until we're blue in the face, but it also says: "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." They act as an invitation to start new articles. There are two opposing Wikipedia philosophies at work here, eventualism (which I along with many other "senior" Wikipedians generally subscribe to) and immediatism

As for how I retrieved all your contributions back to 2011, I just used the find feature to search for the word "faulty" and used the "older 50" link lots of times. There is an automated tool] to help with this, but I wanted to get a full picture of your editing patterns. Graham87 04:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Film buff, I would suggest that you simply read WP:REDLINK carefully and draw your own conclusions. I believe that Graham does not have a balanced view of it, and that he redlinks too often. I imagine that he would conclude the opposite for me. I do not think it was legitimate for him to restore all the redlinks that you had removed. You can see all of your old edits by clicking on Contributions at the top of your page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Since they were removed indiscriminately, I put them back indiscriminately. This edit and, to a lesser extent, that one, made it worthwhile for me. Generally I think if a topic is independently mentioned in at least a few places on Wikipedia, it probably should (and will in the long-term) eventually have a Wikipedia article. Graham87 01:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)