Jump to content

User talk:MarnetteD: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Red Harvest (talk | contribs)
2,666 edits
→‎Infobox atheism: new section
Line 175: Line 175:


{{reflist talk}}
{{reflist talk}}

== Infobox atheism ==

The current censorship with respect to atheism defies basic logic. In reading comments and the non-consensus, "consensus" discussion I came away with the impression that views of atheists on atheism are mixed. Some would list it as religion, some not. With regards to the infobox, I can respect actual consensus, '''but that clearly hasn't happened.''' I discussed in the article talk. If you care to make a cogent comment, rather than a simple revert, fire away. The solution offered is simple. Actually, looking at what Ian McKellen said he classifies it as religion...so in respecting that the "None" and parenthesis should be left out. However, certain Wikipedia editors are employing a ''Catch 22'' strategy on this to exclude it altogether. I don't profess to understand their motivation in doing so.

What's funny is that I don't really care about the subject of others' religion or lack thereof. I do however believe in consistent treatment of such matters--which is why I'm commenting. Why can relevant, self-identified, sourced information related to religion be in one individual's infobox, but not in another's ''all else being equal'' other than their view of religion? There is no doubt that identifying as atheist is relevant to religion, the difficulty is in defining how to classify it.

It comes down to either censorship or intentionally hiding information due to discomfort in developing a classification scheme. I propose developing a way to handle it, rather than try to bury it.[[User:Red Harvest|Red Harvest]] ([[User talk:Red Harvest|talk]]) 02:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:01, 3 December 2014

Sandbox

I am using this space to create my sandbox. MarnetteD | Talk 20:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminders

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Obviously, I missed that line. Thanks for cleaning up after me. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for fixing the redirect on that page. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marnette, I created this dab page, and I'm wondering if you could check I did things right this time. I believe there should also be a redirect from Neo Chorio (disambiguation). 83.168.23.138 (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good to my eye @83.168.23.138:. I made a couple edits to clean things up. As to your question about a redirect I have not worked with them enough to give you an answer. You might try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect - I think editors there will be able to give you the answers you are looking for. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. [Yup, pings don't work for IPs.] 83.168.23.138 (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian silent cinema

The average Russian silent film is a lot better made than American ones in general at the time I have to say. The actors and filming seem a lot more natural. You don't get any of that flailing around and exaggerated impression stuff in early Russian movies which grate on you after a while in quite a few of the Hollywood ones of that period. Yet they seem to tell a tale better. Have you seen Mother (1926 film)? Quite brilliant. Over the next few weeks I'm going to beef up on Russia silents I think, they're impressive to watch. I may even revisit Battleship Potemkin! I gather Mondo cane isn't to your interest? BTW if you're wondering how I'm covering so much I have a 28 inch screen monitor which allows me to do other things while watching films on a split screen! If a film is particularly good I'll watch it again at some point with close scrutiny. I'd guess when you watch a film you have to scrutinize and give it 100% first time?

BTW I can't help but notice your name regularly lighting up on Audrey Hepburn on my watchlist. I had intended getting her to GA if not FA sometime. First I have book on Kubrick and Meryl Streep I need to work on though. Problem with articles like that though is high maintenance because of the traffic they get.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info @Dr. Blofeld:. Apologies for not responding on your lists talk page. For some reason I didn't get pinged on your post about MC yesterday and I've only just read it. I saw it a couple times back in the 1970s, though not since then. Definitely unique. I wonder if it would be considered as shocking if it were released today.
In answer to your question (well sort of) I do try to give my undivided attention the first time. But I also know I will miss things and will need repeat viewing to absorb all that is there. Kubrick and Paul Thomas Anderson are great examples of that. In the years before VHS and DVD I made numerous pilgrimages to various theaters for repeat (including midnight) screenings of my favorites. Then there are the changes in understanding that getting older brings. As a teenager I can remember watching Jules and Jim and Ikiru and thinking "Okay that was good". But it wasn't until I had lived through life's travails that I came to know how great they were.
As to your Russian silents viewing I have to say that for some reason I have more memories of watching Alexander Nevsky than any other Russian silent film. Odd in that I know I saw BP and Ivan the Terrible: Part One more often. Maybe it is because Bakshi's Wizards, which incorporates scenes from AN, is one of my guilty pleasures. You are 100% (or maybe 1000%) right about the high maintenance that some article require :-) Cheers and have a great week. MarnetteD|Talk 20:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw Jules and Jim quite recently, excellent! Have to get around to watching A. Nevsky. My goal right now is just to see as much as I can and to mark those which really seem great films and come back to viewing them again sometime and in a way in which I fully absorb and study them all the way through. I think I'll probably start doing the list update at the end of every week. I have a number of books through a wiki grant (including at least four books on Kubrick) I got back in April. To date I've only done Althorp. I had begun working on User:Dr. Blofeld/Stanley Kubrick but got sidetracked and partly put off by light show's constant sniping. I suspect long term the article will go to the dogs like Paris has done so I think I'll just compile material from the books in my sandbox and then decide how to distribute it. I have a book on Meryl Streep, an article which is high priority of course too. I'm not sure long term whether it's really worth working on such articles unless they're protected once promoted to protect from excessive editing and clueless editors. I have a book on A Clock work Orange itself which would be good to get up to GA. If long term you think you could help protect Audrey's article from degradation, I think it would be worth working on. It seems a fair amount of the content is already there, the article just needs a structural overhaul and reinforcement I think. Emma Thompson I believe is already near enough FA quality and might be a viable candidate at some point. Her book work could use some reinforcement though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recently picked up this edition of ACO @Dr. Blofeld:. Although I've known about the final chapter - and it has been available here in the US for a few decades - I've never read it. BTW as a bibliophile I can't recommend The Folio Society's books highly enough. Yes they are pricey but they are crafted with such skill and creativity that I can't resist them. When the budget allows at any rate. Cheers again. MarnetteD|Talk 21:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I am happy to keep an eye on Audrey's article. As you say it garners more than its fair share of unneeded static. MarnetteD|Talk 21:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the book, just not in that jazzed up version! BTW I'll add Nevsky and Wizards to my to see list!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't guarantee that Wizards will grab ya @Dr. Blofeld: but there is some fun stuff in it. I will say that it was made at a time when animation was basically dead in Hollywood. Only Don Bluth and Bakshi were keeping it alive as an art form. To show how times change Bakshi's films were heavily criticized for his use of rotoscoping to save on costs. Today a filmmaker like Richard Linklater is praised for his use of the technique. Add to that the extensive use of motion capture and one could say that RB was ahead of his time :-) MarnetteD|Talk 22:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My mother's clearing out her house, and found a paperback copy of ACO which she passed on to me. She's never actually read it... mainly because she knows what it's about and fears that she won't like it at all. Why did she get it? She won't say: but at the time that this scandal occurred, she was a teacher at the same school. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing coincidence R. Thanks for sharing it. In the intro to TFS edition Irvine Welsh mentions AB's ambivalence to the fact that ACO had become the only (or main thing anyway) that he would be remembered for. He also had conflicted feelings about Stanley's film. He wasn't the only one was he? I wonder if the Doctor could be called on to bring Thackeray to our time to watch Barry Lyndon with us. ;-) MarnetteD|Talk 23:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My edit in Gandhi

I edit Wikipedia as an user and when I saw The Peacemaker, I recognize the actor who played Gandhi killer and tried to find his name. I had enormous difficult to find it (even in IMDB), and trying to help other users - as this information does not appear in any part of the article - I inserted the appropriated info. But you must be an expert in wiki rules and did your job - unfortunately the info is not necessary for the users. And also sorry for the "minor edit", I thought it was Caiaffa (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not worry about it @Caiaffa:. The info is in the article, though not quite in the way that you wanted. In the plot section it states "As Godse shoots Gandhi..." and then the cast section mentions who played him. As to what is and isn't a minor edit you can check here WP:MINOR. It isn't a major problem but it can effect things on some readers whatchlists. Cheers and happy editing.

Shakespeare, Shakespeare, wherefore are Thou

Hello MarnetteD: Your edits on Shakespeare suggested you might be able to form a position on the Romeo and Juliet page. Harold Bloom has initiated a discussion that the play was adapted by Shakespeare from a pre-existing source and SilkTork and I have had discussion on the best section where it should go in the article there. If you could offer the tie breaker and place it where you feel is best, then you would likely be supported by both editors. Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @FelixRosch:. Thanks for your note. The only discussion about this that I can find is from last July and it is brief. There is not enough info there - either Wikipedia policy based or about Blooms' theory - for me to form an opinion. I suspect that you are trying to avoid WP:CANVASS but I am not sure that you succeeded. The best advice I can give is that you try asking for a WP:3O on the R&J talk page. MarnetteD|Talk 16:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MarnetteD: The small RfC written by another editor was closed as poorly formed with the following comment:
NAC: This RFC was not well-formed in that it did not request !votes and it is difficult to identify specific opinions. However, to the extent that there is consensus, it is that Brooke did not criticize the play before it was written, but that he was an influence on it before it was written because his previous work was one of Shakespeare's sources. A better-formed RFC with a Survey section would be useful if this consensus is disputed.
My brief exchange with SilkTork follows the closed RfC on the Talk page there. No canvass here intended of any type. Since the issue is one of properly attributing the source which Shakespeare used for his version of it, then it seemed you might have a viewpoint based on your Shakespeare comments elsewhere. If its uninteresting to you then that fine too. Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they should happen to pop up again...

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1wikideb1. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Ponyo. I suspected something of the sort but it was late last night (for me anyway) and I didn't pursue it. This will certainly help in any future encounters. Thanks again!! MarnetteD|Talk 20:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Last of Us

You reverted your edit but your rationale still intrigues me - do you think it's crystal balling to report the possibility of a sequel? They're direct quotes from the developers stating that they are considering it; I would have thought that isn't speculation, as it comes from the horse's mouth. But you've given me pause for thought. What do you think? Popcornduff (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post Popcornduff. I know you saw that it is the word "possible" in the section header that I found problematic. IMO it is speculative. Also I think WP:CRYSTAL comes into play because, according to the one source, "He stressed that the team had no definite sequel plans". I had WP:NFF in mind as well. But that applies to films I don't know if video games has its own MOS with guidelines about this sort of thing. As you saw I didn't remove the info from that section I only altered the header. All of this is just one editors opinion and that is one of the reasons for the self revert. Thanks for your time and for your efforts here at WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 15:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. For what it's worth, I took "no definite plans" to mean "we're considering it but haven't decided on anything yet". It didn't discount that the sequel was possible. Popcornduff (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles C. Coleman (director)

Stumbled across him while filling in Rita Hayworth's filmography. Check out his assistant director credits!! It's like a what's what of Golden Hollywood gems.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Thanks for making me aware of him. Stalag 17 is one of my all time faves. It is one of those - if I am channel surfing and I come across it the surfing is done until the film is over - kind of films. I suspect you know the story about why Holden gave the shortest speech on record when accepting his Oscar for this film. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Farrah Fawcett's performance in The Cannonball Run is close to the worst performance by an actress I've ever seen!! Terrible acting! The film was so bad I enjoyed it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember thinking that film was just an excuse for a bunch of friends to get together and party. They seemed to have a good time whether cameras were rolling or not Dr. Blofeld. The sequel was even worse :-) I always enjoyed The Gumball Rally when it comes to the "race across the US" films. It has a very early Raul Julia performance. Enjoy the week ahead. MarnetteD|Talk 18:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Funny but I was going to ask about and ask if anybody could recommend a good film catalogue which has more than just cast. I knew about the AFI catalogue but it was just American films and extremely expensive. In sourcing just now I discovered The Blockbuster Entertainment Guide to Movies and Videos which even reviews each one. Even better I discovered a 1600 page 1999 copy with 22,000 odd films in it here which I just bought for £2.81 including postage, free because I have a voucher from the competition on here I won recently! I thought it worth checking out. If it's no good I can always pass it on to somebody. I just thought it might have some reviews on older B movies!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have used this one in the past Dr. Blofeld. I used to buy it for my local watering hole as it was a great resource to settle bar bets. It is comprehensive and done with a sense of humor as they use a bone (naturally - woofwoof) rating system. I don't have any idea if it is available in the UK though. MarnetteD|Talk 22:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that they publish a new version every year - it is thicker than a New York City phone book now - wait what the heck is a phone book?! So, if it is available, you might be able to find an older one for a good price. MarnetteD|Talk 22:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I may get that updated one at some point, a whopping 2100 pages! On wikipedia of course we could easily beat it and list every film worldwide in an A-Z. It's difficult to maintain the A-Z full list we have though. I was thinking about requesting a bot operator to update the lists by ransacking each category by year. I don't update that list, and I don't think any of the others I know creating film entries do either!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW do you remember the Just for the Record (Randall and Hopkirk Deceased) episode with Ronald Radd playing a deluded character stealing documents to claim heir to throne? Remember Randall chased him along the Thames and he and his two thugs were in a boat? One of my favourite R&H characters and episodes. I started him in 2007 when there was only a tiny photo from the Avengers site of him, now google him! I spotted him in The Offence the other day and recognized him instantly. Great actor, a pity we didn't see more of him. He was highly underrated and should have been a much bigger star.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the original R&HD never aired anywhere that I lived Dr. Blofeld :-( The remake version with Tom Baker (Happy 51st Anniversary Dr Who!) did but by the time I found it there were only a couple episodes left in its run. I would love to see it one day and I know it has been released on DVD so maybe one day. The blurb here mentions a couple other things that I forgot. It also has a "actor" index as well as several other "cross index" ones. I think its only drawback (a minor one I suspect) for your research purposes is that it only lists films that have been released on VHS, DVD, Laserdisc(?) or bluray.

Seen Ernst Thälmann (film)? Worth getting on DVD, a masterpiece. Some of the closest resemblances in the film to Nazi officials I've ever seen too, particularly Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cluing me in on this Dr. Blofeld. I will look for it. Of all the actors to play Hitler IMO Anthony Hopkins in The Bunker (1981 film) is one of the best. He even catches the changes in H's voice over the years. Bruno Ganz in Downfall (2004 film) is also very good. Speaking of Ganz I know you saw Herzog's Nosferatu weeks ago. I wonder if someone from the production team has that crazy skull/black death skeleton clock in their home. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So many films to see.. The Blockbuster book arrived a few days ago and it's a real small compact one thankfully, I was expecting a massive book! It has a section at the back with filmographies by actor and director and I realized how little I've really seen (comparatively speaking)!! There's like 23,000 odd films in the book. Everyone's in the same boat though!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Realized I've already seen A Man Called Peter. Have you seen it? Richard Todd should have won an Oscar for it IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sure sounds familiar Dr. Blofeld. If I did see it it would have been 40 years ago so I need to add it to the list. 23,000 films eh? I suspect you will have cut that down quite a bit by New Years Eve :-) MarnetteD|Talk 18:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well I'm getting there :-). I am cheating though as I have a split screen on a big monitor! Films which are particularly great I'll watch again sometime and "scrutinize" them. I have a particular thing for 1955, for me the peak of Golden Hollywood. While the early 60s were hotter for French and Italian cinema I really do think 1955 is the best year in American cinema. I just love the look of films and actors from that period. 1955 in colour for me gets me excitable!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suppose 1999 might be a good candidate for best year in American film, so many ground breaking films released that year, but I think 1955, 1962, 1959, 1960, 1939, 1968 and 1973 are particularly strong years.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shock horror, not yet seen a film today!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yowza Dr. Blofeld. You may be suffering a case of the shakes but they will pass. Maybe watching a couple trailers will help :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost tempted to watch Porgy and Bess (film) but I'll pass and get on with Kubrick instead!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cinerama

Please explain the errors in my edits so that I may make a new one that is more accurate. Best, Markhh (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the red lettering (that appears when checking on an edit) it looked like you spelled "film" as "flm". however you did not make that mistake my eyes did, so my apologies. OTOH Windjammer was filmed in the three strip process and it was originally shown in three strip, but after that it was shown without - in the later Cinerama format - so it was an error to add the wording in the notes section for that film. Again my apologies for my errors. MarnetteD|Talk 02:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well it turns out my eyes weren't playing tricks in this one case. Oh well, maybe my reading glasses needed cleaning. MarnetteD|Talk 00:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with you?

Have you seen Independence Day? SmokeyTheCat 16:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC) I spend 45 minutes adding a constructive, factual and informative edit to the 2001: A Space Odyssey article and you delete in it a minute with no discussion. Why couldn't you have improved on it if you didn't like the style. Haven't you got anything better to do with your time? SmokeyTheCat 16:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the snark in your message you might try reading WP:BURDEN as WP:RS is required with any edit. Sine you are going off your watching of the film you will also want to read WP:OR Your post edit to the article was written as though you were posting on your blog or facebook page. MarnetteD|Talk 17:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes in titles

I have restored the quotes in the title, as the MOS actually has nothing to say about quotes in title. Each title is accompanied by a link explaining the addition of quotes (and I will reignite the discussion). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edokter Actually the MOS does have something to say about quotes in titles. WP:TITLEFORMAT explicitly states Do not enclose titles in quotes. While that alone should be enough for you to revert your reversion of my edits I will add that these "forced quote marks" have only been used in season eight. If there was a discussion about this I did not see it but it certainly should not override the policy that I have linked to. MarnetteD|Talk 00:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the beauty is: they are not "enclosed" in quotes. The quotes are added by CSS, and therefor not part of the title. But I refer you to the discussion at WT:TITLE for the technical details. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 00:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no difference as well you know. They are still there and enclosed when a reader views that article. MarnetteD|Talk 00:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bette Midler

I notice you have removed Bette Midler as being a comedienne a couple of times and wondering on your reasoning for this. In addition to winning a number of American comedy awards [1] appearing in many comedies and releasing a live stand-up comedy album [2] thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedgarau (talk • contribs) 14:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She is wonderful with her jokes but she does not make a living as a comedian. I still have a vinyl record of Mud..., however, one record (on which she also sang a song or two) still does not qualify for the term. OTOH I think that, using your references, you should feel free to restore the item in the lede. I would leave it out of the infobox tho. MarnetteD|Talk 17:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.bootlegbetty.com/awardsandnominations.htm
  2. ^ http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mud_Will_Be_Flung_Tonight

Infobox atheism

The current censorship with respect to atheism defies basic logic. In reading comments and the non-consensus, "consensus" discussion I came away with the impression that views of atheists on atheism are mixed. Some would list it as religion, some not. With regards to the infobox, I can respect actual consensus, but that clearly hasn't happened. I discussed in the article talk. If you care to make a cogent comment, rather than a simple revert, fire away. The solution offered is simple. Actually, looking at what Ian McKellen said he classifies it as religion...so in respecting that the "None" and parenthesis should be left out. However, certain Wikipedia editors are employing a Catch 22 strategy on this to exclude it altogether. I don't profess to understand their motivation in doing so.

What's funny is that I don't really care about the subject of others' religion or lack thereof. I do however believe in consistent treatment of such matters--which is why I'm commenting. Why can relevant, self-identified, sourced information related to religion be in one individual's infobox, but not in another's all else being equal other than their view of religion? There is no doubt that identifying as atheist is relevant to religion, the difficulty is in defining how to classify it.

It comes down to either censorship or intentionally hiding information due to discomfort in developing a classification scheme. I propose developing a way to handle it, rather than try to bury it.Red Harvest (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarnetteD&oldid=636402672"