Talk:Bale Out/Archive 1

Free-use image of Christian Bale

Regarding [1], the image is of Christian Bale from July 2008 - the same time period that the incident on the set of Terminator Salvation took place. It is free-use from Wikimedia Commons, and adds value to the article, illustrating the subject being discussed in that particular subsection. It should not be removed. Cirt (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability

How is this remotely notable? There are tons of techno remixes referencing Internet memes and none of them have articles (and they shouldn't). This article shouldn't exist, let alone be this long. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There was already a discussion about this, which decided otherwise. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bale Out, where the decision was a unanimous "Keep". Cirt (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible sources

But he's also doing damage control to soothe the movie's backers after his leading man Christian Bale's on-set verbal assault on the director of photography was leaked online. The media firestorm put major studios -- Warner is distributing domestically, Sony has the international rights -- as well as dozens of producers and scores of agents and publicists into lock-down mode. After knocking back a tequila-gimlet shot (he drinks rarely, but expertly), McG laughs off the meetings he has been forced to endure when he should have been finishing the edit of Salvation. "Of course, out of context I understand the appeal of Bale's outburst," he says. "And I have to admit, that dance remix [on YouTube] is pretty hot." (The next day, McG would deftly neutralize the issue at Comic Con by responding to a panelist's first question with a full spittle-shooting, finger-pointing Bale impersonation: "You and me are fucking done professionally!")

• Borden, Mark (May 2009), "Hollywood's Rogue Mogul: How Terminator Director McG Is Blowing Up the Movie Business", Fast Company, no. 135, Mansueto Ventures LLC, retrieved 2009-04-17

---

On remixes: "A friend sent me one. They did a bloody good job! I've gotta say, what a great impulse, you know? To take something ugly like that and make it into a dance? That's a wonderful thing."

• Wieselman, Jarett (May 18, 2009). "Christian Bale Talks Rants, Remixes and Robots". POPWRAP. New York Post. Retrieved 2009-05-21.

Cirt (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed from article

"Bale Out" received positive reception by writers for the Evening Standard, Detroit Free Press, New Musical Express, San Francisco Bay Guardian, and G4 TV.

---

Perhaps could be incorporated into the article in a significant way, rather than as a list. Will ruminate on this and get back to it at a later date. Cirt (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Youtube

I thought Wikipedia discouraged links to Youtube? BTW, it's on 4,060,898 views right now - will be interesteing to see how many more views it gets today (UTC's today, that is) as a result of this being on the front page - most of the comments say a variations of "Wikipedia sent me". 86.133.208.193 (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the problem is with links to Youtube videos that are copyright violations. E.g. you can't link to an unauthorized Youtube upload of a TV episode in an article about the series or the episode. But if the video is on Youtube with the permission of its creator, as is the case here, then there's no problem. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see this section which discusses this. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A New Band A Day

A New Band A Day cited it as an example of the trend for quickly-generated art that recycles current pop culture and captures widespread attention: "'Bale Out' is a great song that will be relevant today and gone tomorrow, but for the short time that it’ll have current meaning to you, it’ll be the best song you’ll have ever heard"

---

Removed this. Not really that noteworthy, or WP:RS for that matter... Cirt (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Unbelieveable

This is the first time I've ever seen a Feature Article on a subject so non-notable that it's an obvious candidate for deletion. Vidor (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Unlike Vidor up there, I do not think non-notable articles should go into deletion. As I see it, his Cardinals are more non-notable than Youtube. But I do have to subscribe how unbelievable it is that this article manage to become featured. Lets see if I can find the certainly entertaining discussion that proposed this article for Featured Article. Timeu (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Timeu, the article is not about youtube though, its about a video on youtube. The Cardinals are also one of the most famous teams in baseball, been around for over a hundred years and have won 10 world series and they are less notable than youtube? Bale Out is not notable and it comes as a shock to me that it is a featured article, let alone an article in the first place. Ridiculous. 81.153.132.252 (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I know it isn't about Youtube, I just like employing metonymy to give a sense of perception. Another sense of perception comes from me... not being american, not watching baseball, knowing next to nothing on baseball teams and having little to no interest on baseball, besides occasionally playing it. As far as I am concerned, the only thing that should on Wikipedia about baseball is the article Baseball. This is analogous to how some perceive the only article about youtube on Wikipedia should be Youtube.

Yet, there are articles about baseballs teams and youtube videos because there is enough interest around to justify them, to make them "notable". This way, notability is much like a thermometer and the mercury is the sum of everyone's interest on the subject. And apparently, this subject was hot enough to deserve its own article and also to become featured. A case of circumstances, no doubt, but the damage is already done. If it was up to me, I would have certainly put something up related with the month of February or with an important event to come or ceased. I can only hope now, that people use this article as reference when making articles related with youtube videos. Oh, and nonetheless, this really spices things up around here. Timeu (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe this is the featured article today. Unbelievable. 168.179.221.166 (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur 71.233.46.199 (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I — who do'nt like to generalize — I begin to think that Americans are definitely a superficial people. NandO ^ta_lk! 17:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I - who finds generalizing amusing on occasion - I begin to think that you are an idiot. Vidor (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I came to the discussion page explicitly to remark on this article's selection as well--I think it's great that this article is featured, and I'd like to congratulate everyone who worked on it. What an honor! I shouldn't even have to say this, but featured articles should be featured for being good examples of a good Wikipedia-- that is, well written, well structured, and well researched. Whether or not they are "interesting" to a bunch of blowhards is thankfully not relevant. While this article's subject matter is not itself very notable, I would argue that that ONLY MAKES IT A BETTER CHOICE for featuring, because it allows you to see a good article more purely as an example of the standards that Wikipedia is trying to establish for writing. I wish all the deletionists out there, who are probably people with no icons on their desktops, would focus less on who gets in and who gets out and instead focus on good writing, structure, and research, so that more articles would read like this. Peace Gcolive (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The most god-awful choice for a Featured Article I've ever seen. Would it be a waste of time to propose this article for deletion? Vidor (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The article already went through WP:AFD. The result was unanimous. The result was Keep. Cirt (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Were all the voters drunk? Were they all junior high school students? Vidor (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• • And to ask a serious question--we know that most of the people who weigh in on whether an article should be deleted are those who have interest in it. I imagine that was a pretty small pool when this was nominated for deletion. Now that this has been publicized as a Featured Article, and users such as myself are gobsmacked not only that this is an FA, but that it exists at all, is it reasonable to nominate it again and have a larger pool of users weigh in? Vidor (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that its ridiculous that this article even exists, let alone as the main page featured article of the day. You say it passed a vote, but I sure didn't vote to keep it... 199.111.190.124 (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

To all the people trashing this article: "What don't you f**kin' understand??"* Wikipedia isn't (explicitly) endorsing the video in any way, it's just a reflection of how much the video has been discussed in other media. So blame them for hyping it so much - and maybe certain editors for paying attention - but it's not really Wikipedia's fault.

• (It's a joke, I'm not trying to be uncivil.) Brutannica (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

AP article

Resolved

 – User:Cirt provided a link to the article actually cited. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 02:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google search found other copies of the article that is apparently cited in the first reference from the AP. However, the article contains no mention at all of the remix, simply discussing Bale's outburst. Perhaps some of the editors who checked the refs could recall whether the ABC News link was substantially different? --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 23:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It was. Cirt (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

One example [2]. Cirt (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Verification

Spammy tagging is a bit inappropriate. All cites were checked during the FAC. Cirt (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please check before removing. Apparently the links were not well checked during the FAC. Often the link checker is wrong. So if this tool was used and the links not checked individually, that explains the large number of faulty links.

Even the link checker shows that reference number 1[3] with 7 footnotes to it alone, is dead. Please look at reference number 1.[4] It says "page unavailable".

Please look at reference number 4 with 2 footnotes.[5]

Please look at reference number 5 with 7 footnoes.[6]

If these were recently checked by FAC, then there is something wrong with the process. Please use due diligence before reverting and assume good faith. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

dead links and misdirected links - please do not remove tags without checking & fixing

I checked each link in this article individually and marked the ones that are either {{deadlink}} or go to a general interest page of a newspaper that does not have the information purported {{failed verification}}. I tried to get an Internet Archive for the 404s. Please do not remove the templates without fixing the links. Please check each link to evaluation. Thanks, —mattisse (Talk) 23:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Dead links" are not the same thing as "failed verification". Without links to a website on the Internet, the citations still have enough information to satisfy WP:V. Cirt (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I know that! You must think I am an idiot. Please assume some good faith. I only put "dead link" when no page at all came up. I put "failed verification" when a page loaded, but it was a generic page without the purported information - sometimes a 404 or "sorry the page you were looking for is not here", or the recent front page of a newspaper but a "search" did not locate the article. I left all links in place. I did not remove any, so they are still there for anyone to track down the correct one. —mattisse (Talk) 17:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That is an improper use of "failed verification". Cirt (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: This appears to be a haphazard check by Mattisse (talk · contribs), lacking due diligence. For example, Mattisse notes this link, [7], above, as having "failed verification", for some reason - and yet it works just fine... Cirt (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked that link several times yesterday and it went to a current Time page. I am glad you caught that. (It turns out that the Time article link was bad after all.[8] You corrected it and then said I had made a mistake.) The check was not "haphazard" as you allege. I checked each link individually and each one more than once. Please stop implying otherwise when I have repeated told you I was careful. Mistakes happen and links sometime come back. I admit I was surprised that the Time link did not work, which is why I verified it repeatedly. If you want to be as careful as I was, try out each link yourself. I will consider it a personal attack if you continue to imply that I am not careful and that I am "haphazard" and "spamming" as you said in you edit summary when you summarily reverted my careful work.[9] I am asking you to treat me with respect. —mattisse (Talk) 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, do the same for me. Cirt (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see that you changed the faulty links. So don't imply that they were not faulty originally. I did not say you were "spamming" or acting "haphazardly". You have no reason to attack me because there were mistakes in the referencing of the article that should have be caught previously. You are implying that because it went through FAC, mistakes should be left in the article. No wonder FAC has problems as described in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-02-08/Dispatches. Treating editors the way you are is not a way to encourage participation in FAC. —mattisse (Talk) 18:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Query: Mattisse (talk · contribs), perhaps instead of mass tagging, we could discuss the cites individually here on the talk page? Cirt (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? Perhaps you should be able to accept tagging. I see that all the links I identified were bad, even the Time article link was incorrect. Above I said I was mistaken, but I was not mistaken. You had meanwhile changed the link. I am glad you fixed them, albeit grudgingly with implications that I was wrong. Perhaps you are a little over invested in the article if no one else is allowed to criticize, but rather justified tags are called "spamming". After all, the bad links affected 16 different footnotes in an article that is not well sourced to begin with. I had a higher opinion of you than this, and did not think you were capable of such uncivil behavior. —mattisse (Talk) 00:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The TIME link was not bad. You could have brought the matter to my talk page, or to this article's talk page, or tagged one of the footnotes affected per instance it appears in the article - instead of every single time the citation appears in the article. Any one of these things would have led to a much more positive, polite, kind, and productive outcome. Cirt (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info from Awards table

Please explain the removal of sourced info from the Awards table on this WP:FA article. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ckatz (talk · contribs) has twice removed this sourced material from this Featured Article now, without bothering to explain on this talk page. That is most inappropriate behavior. -- Cirt (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"Most inappropriate behaviour"?!? Talk about an over-reaction - the edit summary clearly described the link as "spammy" and the second one indicated that we're talking about a search portal. Just because a site mentions something does not make it either notable or suitable for inclusion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Also note that I had already left a note for you on your talk page prior to your second post here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please provide evidence to back up your claims, and please discuss the issue here, before removing sourced material from a stable Featured Article. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep "Background" and "Composition" as separate sects

Please keep "Background" and "Composition" as separate sects.

This is per established stability and consensus from multiple types of peer review, including FAC.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, a good point was made that there should be a separate "Release" sect, so I've gone ahead and moved info into that sect. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Old pic not relevant

Old picture of Barbra Streisand not relevant here.

Please, let's keep it to the quality version from WP:FA status, thank you.

— Cirt (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Checklinks analysis

• Checklinks

Will go through links in article and perform some minor fixes with Checklinks report in mind, above. — Cirt (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done, now all checks out okay and archived wherever possible. — Cirt (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)