User talk:Betty Logan

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.155.98.249 (talk) at 19:12, 21 May 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This editor is a
Senior Editor
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.

A brownie for you!

Armbrust has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread more WikiLove, install the WikiLove user script.

Notice

Rule of the shorter term

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at Talk:Rule of the shorter term.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For your eyes only...

Hello, Betty Logan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

FYEO!

Hello, Betty Logan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Merry Christmas

Tenebrae (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

For Your Eyes Only!

Hello, Betty Logan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The $750,000 question

Hello, Betty Logan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

YGM

Hello, Betty Logan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Definition of veganism.

By all accounts there has never ever been a definition of veganism that includes honey or bees products. Every definition of veganism that has ever existed, including on Wikipedia, means to avoid the use and consumption of animals products. Honey is an animal product is it not? Or do you count bees as a plant?

Audience response proposal

Hi. I saw your reversion of my addition of user ratings to Dracula Untold and followed your note to MOS:FILM, which I hadn't previously read. Now duly informed, I have questioned the section of the guideline that disapproves of these particular user stats, in the form of a guideline change proposal. Cheers. --Tsavage (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 7th revert of reference link

What are the standards by which a link can be used for reference when it contain the text of an article being referenced? I have looked at several sites to find one that would be able to replace the dead guardian link. I fear you would revert all of them back to the dead link. Dairyfarmer777 (talk)

I will be leaving input at the vegetarians page in a few moments so it will be best to not add anything until I have left my comments and both you and Martin Hogbin have a chance to respond to them. Betty Logan (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen

If it's still playing then show proof and add it as a source. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it I already found it. However the last weekend (Dec 12 -14) hasn't been added which might indicate the film has stopped playing. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also one most important thing. It isn't "still playing" in UK. It's a re-release therefore can be listed as currently playing. Look at the source yourself. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know what the source says, I added it. And yes, it is still playing and will be throughout the entire xmas period. Betty Logan (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken. According to the source the film stopped playing in July 2014. However started playing again in last week of November. It's not "still playing" but it's a "re-release". KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also it's actually a special sing-along version release and not a normal release [1]. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not mistaken. It is still playing. It is besides the point whether it is a reissue or not. The only reason last week's box office results haven't been added yet is because it takes Box Office Mojo a few days to update foreign box office. This week's box office may not be added until after xmas but that doesn't alter the fact it is still playing. There is just a bit of lag in the updates, that is the only reason last week is not listed on Box Office Mojo. Betty Logan (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Titanic was re-released in 2012 so you can't call it "still playing". Sing-alongs of Frozen have been released in other countries too. A re-issue is not "still playing". The film had already stopped playing in UK in July 2014 acc. to BOM. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Titanic's reissue had already been added to the box office and someone had updated the source to reflect that, then it would be entirely correct to state it is "still playing" relative to the currently documented stage of its release. A quick check of the source would have confirmed to you that the film was playing as of the start of December. Now I understand you made an honest mistake, but you've got your answer, so let's not waste any more time on this unproductive discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable" awards

Hi Betty, I'm brushing up List of accolades received by The Imitation Game, having split it off from the film's own article. Am I right in remembering that we only tend to include in the list those awards from organisations that have their own article? (and thus I can happily delete Aspen, Chicago and the EuroCinema Hawaii Awards, along with a few others?) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is correct. It was certainly my position in a discussion on the subject but I can't recall if there was ever any resolution. Anyway, have a nice Christmas yourself! Betty Logan (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re edits to Yardley of London and Perfume Encyclopaedia

Out of curiosity, what makes the Encyclopaedia of Perfume unreliable? Has their unreliability been confirmed? As far as I've been able to tell they are no more or less reliable than print sources, and at least seem pretty straightforward, plus it's not an individual person, but a team of people working together... Mabalu (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to me to disprove reliability, it is up to the person who wants to use a source to prove its reliability. As it stands the dates provided by the source contradict the information given by another valid news source, so one of the sources is clearly wrong. The other source is a legitimate newspaper, so what makes the Encyclopaedia of Perfume reliable? Who publishes it and what is their background? Is there any professional oversight? If these two questions cannot be answered satisfactorily then a source cannot be proven to be reliable. Betty Logan (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing with perfume dates, is that they're all over the place. Newspapers repeat what they're told by the company PR, and for a while, English Blazer (the focus of the edits) had an EXTREMELY fake history behind it that was being pushed by publicity, etc - claiming that it had been around since the 1950s even though it was demonstrably BS. I've found the Encyclopaedia REALLY useful for basic date info and other info, such as types of fragrance, etc - they usually make it clear that a date is an estimate. You can find "reliable sources" giving dates that go ALL over the place for this particular subject.... Mabalu (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make the encyclopedia a reliable source though, it just makes it useful resource for checking stuff. If there are other reliable sources giving other dates then they should be incorporated into the article. Betty Logan (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liver dumplings

Liver dumplings are not vegetarian... — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoLi1234 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please conduct article discussion at the article talk page, not on my talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


May 2014 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!

All the best

Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 BIGNOLE  (Contact me) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas Betty Logan, blessings and best wishes for 2015!
MarnetteD|Talk 19:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really should get myself one of these greeting templates so I don't look ignorant. Hope you all had a pleasant day and all the best for the New Year. Betty Logan (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twelfth Night

Hi - did you read the talk page? It's pretty clear that there is no definitive date for 12th night, and the article needs to reflect this. I have meant to fix this for a long time, but your edits spurred me on. Does the Shorter OD really say 5th with no caveat? That's odd if it does, as the 2nd edition of the Oxford Dictionary of English, the big single volume, gives the 5th first (see my edit summary). If you think the article is wrong, please use the talk page to discuss it rather than simply revert me, as there are multiple sources that show the different dates. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dougweller, I didn't realize I had reverted anyone on Twelfth Night (so I apologize if I undermined any work you had done). The Twelve Days of Christmas has undergone a few re-writes and there was some Twelfth Night material that was better suited to that article, so I re-wrote the lede around the sources that were available. I didn't realize there was an issue at the article. The Oxford Dictionary of English definition was present in the article prior to my edits so I just stuck by what it said, so in all honesty I do not know if it really says that. The quote from it seemed fairly exact though. Betty Logan (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Ah, I must have misread something. You didn't undermine anything I'd done. I don't have the Shorter Oxford, but the very large single volume version says "Twelfth Night" noun 6 January, the fest of the Epiphany. That first line is what is called the "core sense". The next line, which in OED speak is a "subsense" and is written in a smaller font says "Strictly, the evening of 5 January, the eve of the Epiphany and formerly the twelfth and last day of Christmas festivities". Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked over your re-write and have no major issues with it. It seems to fairly represent the sources (to the extent I can judge them) and incorporates what I added in too. I wouldn't be surprised if other editors alter it in the coming days though so let me know if you need any input on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

You've annoyed me a great deal, don't corrupt my talk page again. Corabal (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gone as far as to involve someone else to back you up on here now, you are pathetic. Corabal (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Man up and address my points at the article talk page rather than sulking on my talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

Hello Betty, I've been working on Frozen-related articles and would like to ask you something. The film's music was recently nominated for a number of Grammys, and I'm wondering if they should be included in the film's accolades page, or just mentioning it in the soundtrack article would be enough. With regards, —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 16:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know, but Skyfall#Accolades includes a couple of grammy awards. Personally I would add them and then if anyone removes them it can be discussed further on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What'cha think

about this... the longest article I've written to date and a fine way to wind up 2014: The Centrifuge Brain Project. Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's good, you've been quite busy this Christmas! Keep up the good work and Happy New Year. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear Betty Logan,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Happy New Year!

Dear Betty Logan,
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! Thank you for your consistently excellent work through the years. Last year was a hard one, both physically, thanks to medical ailments, and on Wikipedia, thanks to a plethora of Wikitrolls. Colleagues like you make staying here worthwhile. Here's to a better year to all!
--Tenebrae (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYEO!

Hello, Betty Logan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)

Hi Betty, thanks for the correction. Should we maybe consider an embedded note? I only made the change since the value has been compromised a few times. Frankly it was unclear to me why the budget was $378M if 1) there are two sources, 2) one source doesn't indicate this value, 3) the other source is confusing. ? Regards, and a healthy, productive, happy new year to you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Box Office Mojo source is out of date as far as the budget goes. The $378.5 million figure is derived from the Forbes article, by subtracting the tax rebate from the total expenditure to get the net production cost. It is pretty confusing but I have provided a complete explanation at Talk:Pirates_of_the_Caribbean:_On_Stranger_Tides#Confusion_over_the_budget. Betty Logan (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walkabout deletion

Hi Betty, I am wondering why you have removed the beginning and end scenes of the Walkabout film (featuring the brick wall and the Roulette expressions)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.225.130 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a plot summary, and the roulette framing device is incidental to the plot. See WP:FILMPLOT, which states "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail." If someone wants to know the basic storyline the details you added will not increase their understanding of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then let me test your statement "If someone wants to know the basic storyline the details you added will not increase their understanding of the film." - What is your (Betty's) basic understanding of the film? If you are unable to come up with the correct answer without recourse to the frame or to third-party interviews with the producer, then I suggest reinstating the frame. Looking forward to your answer... (Apart from this basic point, the detail of the ending is at the moment inaccurate, but we will discuss that next.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.141 (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have given you an explanation for my edit and my talk page is not for discussing the article. If you wish to discuss the article further then I suggest you start a discussion at the talk page where other editors can contribute. Betty Logan (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not acceptable to delete Wiki entries and then refer me to a general talk page - you have to take responsibility for your actions. Let me give you the first clue towards understanding the film: after the initial frame with the roulette phrase, you hear a mysterious, potentially erotic, panting noise. The camera then focuses on a class of harmless young girls, including the protagonist Aguttar, practising the pronunciation of the letter "H", hence the collective panting. Evidently an elocution class. Her RP pronunciation is emphasised at every opportinuty in the film (despite this being Australia). She and her classmates appear in neat school uniform. She then is shown with her family in a convential suburban setting at her home in a modest high-rise apartment. Betty, let me know if you want me to go on (I have better things to do on a Sunday, should you wish to be dismissive). Hoping for your cooperation, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.141 (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) IP, you've been told to take it to the article's talk page, not here. I suggest you do so, where it can get the attention it deserves, rather than the backwater of a personal talk page. FWIW, I agree that the brick wall and roulette expressions are not present in the film should not be present in the summary: they do not explain the plot, which is asummary of events, not an examination of themes. These should be explored further in a "Themes" section of the article, not in the Plot section. Either way, that is for the talk page of the article, not here. - SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I just clarify a basic point when you say "the brick wall and roulette expressions are not present in the film". Do you mean (a) there is a film version of Walkabout where the opening scene has been cut out, and therefore you have not seen the opening scenes? Or do you mean (b) that you are familiar with the opening scene with the brick wall, roulette expression, the elocution classes, the city traffic, the family apartment, and picnic preparations, but you assume they are unimportant for the film plot/understanding the film? A short answer, (a) or (b), would be appreciated. (And if I do not receive encouragement from Betty, you will not hear from me again, neither here nor on a Talk page.). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.141 (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly phrased: I have now clarified my meaning, but my two points remain: 1. This conversation needs to be on the article talk page; 2. A plot section is a rather mechanical summary of the steps the film goes through: it is not aplace to outline or discuss the "inner meaning" of the film: that is dealt with separately in the article, and should be in a Themes section. - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you had me worried for a moment. As for your concerns about an "inner meaning", you should address those, perhaps with Betty, in a Themes section. I am concerned with having the plot logically and consistently presented (trivial example: in the opening scene, Aguttar swimming formally with her brother in a swimming pool surrounded by high-rise buildings within view of the Ocean(!), while in the closing scene, Aguttar dreams of swimming naked with her brother and the aboriginal in a natural swimming pool in the outback - it is misleading to mention the latter but not the former. Although I grant the latter has more attraction for the average male viewer...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.141 (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not referring you to a "general" talk page, I am referring you specifically to the page where edits to the article are discussed which is where all editing discussions should take place. It not only opens up the discussion to other editors it also provides an archive record for future editors. By the way, while it's largely academic IMO SchroCat is partially right: while I can corroborate the "place your bets" line is spoken at the start of the film it is not spoken at the end, at least on the Criterion release. I checked my copy of the film and it is not there. You can view the end at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9w41F_f9cs and the voiceover is from The Shropshire Lad. Betty Logan (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understood what you meant - the technical term is "passing the buck". On the other hand, I see your point: if you do not have a full version of the film ("Rien ne va plus" missing at the end) then perhaps you are indeed not the right editor for the Walkabout article. And since I have not had confirmation from you that you are interested in an explanation of the plot, I end here. Have a nice remaining Sunday.

Skyfall revert

Hi, Betty, I just wanted to ask about your revert of my edit to Skyfall. It's not clear to me which "note" you referred to in your edit summary—could you please clarify? Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 17:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, the note is in the infobox next to the gross figure (I knew there was one somewhere), rather than the section you altered. Either way, there was a discussion last year resulting in the decision to avoid the use of "billion" in the article due to the ambiguity of the term in Brit English. Betty Logan (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Green

Erm, don't you think it is high time the article is protected to prevent this mass of non-constructive edits? I'd say a PC protection fits the bill. Fleet Command (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "PC" protection is, but the disruption is ongoing and something probably needs to be done. Betty Logan (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. PC stands for "pending changes". It protects the article against changes of the unregistered and recently registered users. They can edit the article but their edit won't go live. It is like semi-protection (SP); except SP stops them dead in their tracks. The thing is: I was hoping we could get PC permanently; admins don't usually enforce permanent SP on articles. Fleet Command (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well we have three months of semi-protection now. If the problem starts up again after the protection runs down we can look into this pending changes thing. Betty Logan (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Film infobox deletions

The image size for film infoboxes is 220px, and captions are useful. Please note an anon editor has been making great progress in adding to some obscure sci-fi films. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

If the default image size is 220 pixels then obviously you do not need to set the image size to 220 pixels! WP:IMAGESIZE clearly advises against setting the image size stating "do not use px without very good reason". For most people setting the image size to 220 pixels is exactly the same as not setting it, but in the case of users that have custom settings then setting the parameter overrides a user's custom defaults. This may cause accessibility problems on devices with small screens, or people with poor eyesight who set the text to a higher point size. Unless an image needs to be a different size to the default the parameter should not be set. Betty Logan (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The choice of small images for infoboxes that invariably were the only ones available for film projects led to editors trying to "stretch" the image to make it easier to see rather than exploding it in a second view. This discussion took place a looooooong time ago. See: setting the default size. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You'll see that Betty was one of the participants of that conversation, which confirm that the DEFAULT SIZE is 220px, meaning that the imagesize parameter does not need to be set to 220px: it over-rides people's preferences, and causes all sorts of problems in terms of WP:ACCESS. - SchroCat (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see what relevance that discussion has on this matter. If you need to make an image larger then that the option remains available. What doesn't make sense is setting an image that has a default size of 220 pixels to a "hard" size of 220 pixels. The only people who that will affect is people who purposefully have their images set smaller. Why would you want to set the size to 220 pixels for people who effectively said they don't want 220 pixel images? Let's take a basic example: is there any discernible difference on your monitor between the two images below? As you can see, setting the image size to 220 pixels makes absolutely no difference to the typical user. Betty Logan (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Testcases side by side

Do I see a difference? yes. The issue was actually raised by another editor, and I followed his advice as to sizes. However, it's not worth the pixels as there are more important things to do such as adding to other articles. Thanks for the conversation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you see a difference then your preferences must be overriding the default settings. Try logging out and viewing the images then. Betty Logan (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I joined the Wikywackywunderland a gazillion years ago, the default must have been much lower for thumbsizes. When I changed it to 220px, then the images come out the same. As I said before, not intending this to be a deal breaker, I was merely trying to help an anon who seemed to be on a tear in regards to improving obscure horror and sci-fi flicks. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am pleased we have managed to get to the bottom of this misunderstanding. No hard feelings. Betty Logan (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more reasoning and evidence that the common name for Star Wars (film) is actually the extended title.

Take a look at it yourself, sometime? Haha. Anyways, how can we use a historic film-conservative reference for saying it is a reliable source for common usage? That's biased because you'd expect AFI to list Star Wars Episode IV A New Hope as Star Wars. Is it not? And I seem to be the only one using many sources for common usage but I keep getting oppositions based on "No, the common usage is just Star Wars." Am I not getting evidence consideration? Cheers. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gone with the Wind text at Margaret Mitchell article

Hey, Betty. Given your work on the Gone with the Wind (film) article, and knowledge of that series, you might want to examine this matter where I reverted Blueyedmesiah (talk · contribs). Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it certainly steps well beyond paraphrasing what is already there, so you are right to revert it. There is no doubt Gone with the Wind is revisionist, so unless the editor returns there isn't much to discuss really. Betty Logan (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barbarella music

Hi, Betty. Apparently the IP's change at Barbarella (film) was good faith, compare the source. I've written a note to them. Bishonen | talk 16:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Will you please explain to me why...

...my edits were reverted? Thank you! 108.47.207.75 (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCENSORED will explain why I reverted your word alterations, and WP:Verifiability will explain why I reverted your addition of Coraline (film). Betty Logan (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is a “series subject”?

Hello. Please answer my questions at WT:NCF#Confusion of terms? regarding the meaning of “series subject” and the difference from a name, and whether it reflects actual usage in Wikipedia titles. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained it clearly already and am not going to keep repeating myself at the discussion. The RFC hasn't gone your way so you obviously don't have a consensus to implement the changes you want to make. You should move on now and work on something else. Betty Logan (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think you have—or if you have, you did so without ever using the word “subject.” The examples you have given of “series subject (film series)” included Batman (1989 film series), where “Batman” is used as the name of the series; Harry Potter (film series), where “Harry Potter” is used as the name of the series; and Bourne (film series), where “Bourne” is either the name or a partial title match for the series, or both. In short, your examples of unnamed series all have names. That’s why I have repeatedly asked for clarification on the meaning of “series subject.”
So let me simply ask: Is Series subject, to you at least, simply an alternative term for Series name? If not, what’s the difference? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re going to insist on citing Batman as an unnamed series, please respond to my claims that it’s named Batman. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don’t get it. You’re not even denying that they have names; you’re just acting like I never even refuted the claim. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP, time to drop the stick and walk away. There is an open RfC to which your comments should be confined. Your actions on this talk page have crossed the line into harassment, which is not acceptable. - SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t intending to harass, just trying to make sense of the situation. My apologies. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral notice

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Request_for_Comment whose outcome could affect WikiProject Film. You may wish to comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum break

Hi Betty! Since we don't have much free licensed pictures of maximum breaks, I see much advantage in adding one of those to the Wikipedia article. It's much more related to the article content than Ronnie O'Sullivan's head on top for example. Could you please restore this image? If you know a better position for it, I'm glad to follow to your instructions. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be restoring your photo because i) it is poor quality; ii) it does not "show" a maximum break; iii) it is awkwardly positioned in the article and pushes down the tables, ruining the aesthetic of the list; iv) we provide Youtube links to most televisied maximums anyway, so anyone who wants to "see" a maximum is not short of choices. Betty Logan (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, wherever you see poor quality (it's sharp, big enough, and shows the last pot) but it's definitely the best free-licensed image of a maximum break and hence should be used in our article of that very same topic. Of course, it doesn't show the complete break but nobody would anyway expect that from an image. Besides, the YouTube video is not freely licensed (cannot be reused by our visitors) and doesn't show the full frame either but is instead of poor quality itself. Regarding the position which is indeed unfavourable, I asked for your help but as you refrain from doing so I'll put it under O'Sullivan's image as proposed. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Does Dallas

Before reverting a third time post on the Third opinion board and get someone to agree that there should be a full porn film on an article about a porn film. And find a specific policy relating to posting full media not just a censorship argument. I have no problem with the film being there if it can be supported by policy. So far it isn't. --Darrenhusted (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you go and read WP:NOTCENSORED. There is no policy prohibiting the addition of material that may be considered ponorgraphic in nature to a Wikipedia article. Your actions contravene established policy. What is more, since you have reverted three times in a 24-hour period, a fourth revert in the same period will result in your contravening 3RR. Betty Logan (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On mixing list markup

I don’t know whether you’re aware, or how much of what I’m going to say you may already know, but colons and asterisks in wikimarkup both define lists; if you reply to a comment beginning with something like **: with a comment beginning with ::::, that terminates the previous list (and all sub-lists) and begins a completely separate list. This can be confirmed by looking at the HTML source in your browser, having a screen reader read it, etc. I can give more information if desired. Cheers. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I’ve noticed that the infoboxes under #Film infobox deletions affected the title of this Talk page, if that matters to you. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s try and resolve this

If you were serious about your threat to report me to ANI, could you please first try and help me to actually build a consensus? Because that’s what I’ve been trying to do. That’s been the whole point of my RFCs. This here guidance is inconsistent with policy and actual practice and here’s why, so hey guys, let’s try and improve it.

At this point, if you either can’t or are unwilling to actually discuss the problems directly with me in good faith, then I ask that we take this to the WP:dispute resolution noticeboard. If that’s also unacceptable, then please just stay out of it entirely and leave me and my edits alone, like an WP:IBAN; don’t bother me, I won’t bother you, everybody wins (or at least nobody loses).

I hope we can actually work together, as I’m sure we’re both here with the same goal of improving Wikipedia… but if not, take care. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus, and that consensus is for not altering the MOS. You should respect the decision of the RFC and move on to other things. Betty Logan (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Betty Logan, please work with others. That above editor, 174.141.182.82, feels threatened by you. I am also concerned about your Sound of Music bent. It was eyeopening to me (didn't know before) that there was such a hard time to find a director. So I've painstakingly added it to Wikipedia along with references. Do not feel that it harms the image of the film. Just present it like it is. Thank you. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello BL. Just wanted to let you know that you have not been mentioned by name but this post Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269#forum shopping advice is about the situation that you have been involved in. I don't think a response is required but I did think that you should know about it. Cheers and have a good weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 00:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It never stops does it! I suppose the good news is that with SOM locked up for a week it gives him enough time to get blocked on another article before protection is lifted. The bad news is that he could move on to other film articles. I suppose I will have to keep an eye on him, but I don't really want to engage with him unless it's absolutely necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! MarnetteD|Talk 03:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HK film vandal returns

Since you've had past experience with this particular sockmaster, can you back me up on this SPI? Thanks. -- Areaseven (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at it. Betty Logan (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Highest Grossing Films

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Further discussion should take place at article talk page.

Re: this edit. Presently, the lead indicates that Titanic, Avatar and Frozen are stand-alone movies. Whether or not their sequels actually "exist" (been released) or not is besides the point. The fact remains that the Avatar sequels are in production and Frozen 2 has been announced. The lead should somehow reflect that, if it's going go so far as to address the franchise status of those films. The lead is somewhat misleading as is. If you don't like my edit, then fine... feel free to add your own. - theWOLFchild 08:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that as things currently stand they are not part of a series as yet. We do not document the future per WP:CRYSTAL. Until the sequels are released and start earning money then for all intents and purposes they are standalone movies as far as the box office goes. Betty Logan (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should re-read WP:CRYSTAL, as it does not apply here. I am not "predicting" anything, but instead pointing out -with refs- that sequels to those movies are either already in production or have been officially announced. I'll say it again, it's misleading to tout these films as "stand-alone" movies in the lead. Especially Avatar, which besides the sequels being in production, was originally intended to be a trilogy. It was created as a franchise. These comments should reflect these facts somehow. - theWOLFchild 04:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is irrelevant as far as a box office article goes. Regardless of what plans James Cameron had for Avatar (and if it had flopped there certainly wouldn't have been any sequels) it was an original property at the time of release. The article is not particularly concerned with what James Cameron is or is not going to do, it is concerned with how much his films have grossed and the context for those grosses at the time they were released. As such, even if sequels are released that does not alter the fact that Avatar was an original property at the time so I have replaced the terminology to reflect that. Betty Logan (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Avatar is concerned, it's the first film of a planned trilogy, a trilogy that was planned from the outset. Therefore, it is not a "standalone film" There are refs to support this. I understand your very protective of this article, but it is not your article. You are now arguing your opinion against verifiable info. While Frozen is still debatable, Avatar is a franchise. - theWOLFchild 04:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When Avatar was released there was NO OTHER AVATAR FILM. The article is not about whether a film is part of a franchise or not, it is about the various factors that contribute to a film's success. What happens several years after a film is produced has no bearing on the box office of its predecessor. I have made changes to avoid any further confusion so the situation has been adequately addressed as far as I am conerned. You are right it is not my article, but policy is on my side to revert changes you make to it per WP:BRD and WP:NOCONSENSUS. The reason those policies exist is because more often that not alterations are invariably not "improvements". However, if you are not satisfied with my response here or my revision to accommodate your concerns then you have the option of starting a discussion at the talk page of the article and getting input from other editors. Betty Logan (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I have made changes to avoid any further confusion..." - Which was all I asked for (and what I was doing with my edit as well.) With that done, there is no need to get upset, and start with all CAPITAL LETTERS, and citing policy after policy. While my edit was technically correct, we'll say yours is more correct, and leave it at that. I think we're done for now. Have a nice day. - theWOLFchild 12:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cinemascore?

Hi Betty, I'm not 100% sure this is an improvement, but that's because I've not come across Cinemascore before. Is it better than the BFCA in this context? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemascore is an audience poll and is generally acceptable as a reliable audience metric (since a reliable source controls the sampling strategy as opposed to user-submitted scores on IMDB etc). While there is an argument for incorporating it into the table (based on whether you regard an audience poll as a form of "critical reception" or not) I don't quite understand why the editor replaced the BFCA score instead of just adding another column. Betty Logan (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either - and they seem to be doing it to other articles too (as well as incorporating some rather odd formatting to the tables he's working on). Ta for the explanation. - SchroCat (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to restore the BFCA score but it appears the links have died and Wayback doesn't seem to have them archived. For what's it's worth it's probably best to leave it as it is unless we can source fresh cites. Betty Logan (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Betty, I was shocked to see your name in blue at WT:FILM. Of course it was because of vandalism! You can use a speedy deletion template to delete it and restore the red. I think {{Db-u1}} would suffice. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm now Betty Blue :( It's happened a few times though and will happen again, so I'm not sure there is much point getting it deleted yet again. Besides there is a stigma attached to red links (i.e. socks, SPAs etc) so maybe I am better off being blue. Betty Logan (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You said before that you like it red because you see your name pop out, right? You could update your signature to use a color template to use one of the red colors, not empty-red, but a different shade. You are back anyhow! :) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hurrah for the return of Red Betty! - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Gray

Before you rush to accuse people, perhaps you should WP:AGF. "Video is random because it does not identify David Gray as the subject and is NOT the official stream of PATTAYA PEOPLE MEDIA GROUP. Some fraud." is not accusing any editor of fraud, it is quite clearly talking about the Youtube account. I believed it was a "fraud" (perhaps "fake" would have been a better word), because it is not the official account of Pattaya People, and had no owner information on it. This one is the official account. However, you have corrected me and demonstrated that their website uses this other account also.

This does not resolve the problem with this being on the David Gray (snooker player) article, because the Pattaya People video does not mention David Gray, snooker player, but instead David Gray (not an uncommon name), tourist. Associating the snooker player with the tourist is original synthesis at best. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is your prerogative to challenge a source, but it certainly was not clear that you were applying the phrase to the source. Regardless, the video is accompanied by other sources which also include a statement by Gray's manager, so it satisfies me that the subject of the video is the snooker player. If you have further reservations I suggest you discuss them on the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, combining sources. That's what original synthesis is. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis is when you draw a new conclusion not inherent in either of the sources and the section does not "combine" sources to arrive at any new conclusions. It is quite acceptable to use multiple sources to cover a single event. But like I said earlier, my talk page is not the place for discussing article content; I was not the only editor to revert you so it would be better if you started a discussion on the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

Hello, Betty Logan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at the article; sorry about the delay but I only just checked into Wikipedia ten minutes ago. Betty Logan (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

list of highest grossing low budget films

why did you remove it is an interesting facts about films and it is part of highest grossing films what wrong with that section of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnachaitan (talk • contribs) 15:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the edit summary it was mostly WP:Original research that conflated worldwide and domestic grosses. You may have provided sources for the grosses, but there is no clear criteria for what is a "small" budget. Gone with the Wind, a low budget film? News to me, considering it was the most expensive film ever made at the time. You even had films with $10 million budgets down, and I imagine most films in the world cost less than $10 million. Ultimately the article is about the highest-grossing films irrespective of how much they cost to make, and the chart you added is not consistent with that scope.

Furious 7 and List of most expensive films

I just want to ask why you removed the Furious 7 row from the tables in the List of most expensive films. Just want to understand why. The Emperah (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't, I just corrected the budget to $190 million. The source you used was more than a year old. All the recent sources since the film's release put the budget at $190 million. See http://www.google.com/search?q=furious+7+$190+million. Betty Logan (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. Didn't notice that, even when I was comparing revisions. Stupid me. The Emperah (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's cool. There are no stupid questions! Betty Logan (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TROTK

The highest grossing film of the Tolkien's Middle-earth section on the list should say The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, because there are two entries in that section: The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, so, writing just The Return of the King as the highest gross, can mean that it comes from The Hobbit entrie. I know it's a minor detail but it is a fair technical point. DCF94 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can restore the full title but the text size should be the same otherwise it just looks weird. Betty Logan (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't a way we can make the whole table bigger so the text can fit in a single row? DCF94 (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The chart fits dynamically to the size of your computer screen. So on my pc monitor (1600x900) it all fits on a single line with space to spare. I think it also fits on a single line on a 1366 monitor too (which is what I designed the templates on), but on my ipad (1024x768) the title is on one line and the gross is on the second. Since there is no spare space in the other columns I don't think there is a way to get around that on smaller computer screens unless you make the table go off the side of the screen like at Snooker_world_ranking_points_2014/2015. However, I might be able to do that by going into the templates and hardcoding the column widths rather than letting the monitor itself set the column widths. If you would like me to try that I can take a look at it but ultimately the space has to come from somewhere. Betty Logan (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FILM RFC reverts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
IP has agreed to get a third opinion

From your edit summary here, it seems like you may have missed, at the very bottom of the survey as of this writing, my !vote for that very alternative. And any new participants may not read beyond the subheading and be unaware of any proposed alternatives. Also, there is no ambiguity between “Support” votes for the primary proposal, and votes that specifically call out support for an alternative. I assume you wouldn’t intentionally bury an alternative to your proposal, so please reconsider this revert (assuming that @Tsavage isn’t opposed to the addition). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the impression that the RFC is community property canvassing further wording proposals. It is not: it is a question I am putting to the community. If you have a preference for some other wording then simply oppose the proposed revision as Tsavage has done. Betty Logan (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, an RFC is an opportunity for the community to discuss an issue, including alternative wording not included in the initial request. That’s what I’ve been told when I’ve claimed ownership of RFCs I started, at least, and I can’t find any such restrictions in WP:RFC. Maybe we should get a third opinion here, but from my experience, other editors are well within their rights to visibly propose alternatives in “your” RFC (but not to edit your existing text). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen an RFC altered or extended except for neutrality reasons, and that clearly isn't an issue here, so feel free to get a third opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, depending on how “neutrality” is defined… the request represents only your desired outcome, and you did remove an opposing proposal… but I think that’d be a much broader definition than is typically used in such contexts. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC represents both possible outcomes equally i.e. to implement the wording change I proposed or to not implement it. If I had included my reasons for implementing the change then it would not be neutral, which is why I purposefully allocated my reasons to the survey section. Also, I did not remove any proposal: Tsavage made an alternative proposal and you tried sneaking it into my proposal and I reverted that, which is not the same as removing an alternative proposal, so I would appreciate it if you did not misrepresent my actions. If the alternative proposal means that much to you then there is nothing to prevent you formulating an RFC where it can be fully considered on its own merits. An RFC is very basic concept with a very basic structure and protocols, so I would appreciate it if you stop wasting my time and observe the standard practice. If you are not happy with the wording of the RFC then take it to some board and get a neutral admin to revise the question because I am getting tired of this. Betty Logan (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My last edit conflicted with your close, so I just copied my reply, refreshed, and pasted it at the bottom without realizing you’d closed it while I was typing. I’m not sure if that was clear before you removed it, but please take it into consideration. Anyway, awaiting third opinion… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About your Third Opinion request: Whether or not the addition of such alternatives is or is not a good idea is a moot point because this edit removing that alternative is a clear violation of the talk page guidelines which strictly prohibit the removal of other user's posts on talk pages (except an editor's own talk page), other than for a laundry list of exceptions which do not include this situation (the "Off-topic posts" section comes close, but doesn't quite make it because, first, an alternative is not really off-topic and, second, that section is really pointed at the topic of the talk page not a particular discussion on the talk page). The proper responses would have been, first, to seek permission for its removal (perhaps in the form of starting a subsection elsewhere in the RFC, second, to try collapsing it with {{collapse top}} and bottom, and then, third, to make a case for everyone to ignore it but leave it in place. As a person who's primary activity here is doing dispute resolution, I certainly appreciate the need to keep decision-making discussions focused and on track (and, indeed, for DRN and MEDCOM we have policy to help us do that), but if there's support in policy for removing other editor's posts to keep a RFC focused and on track I'm unaware of it and this smacks of page ownership, though please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps the TPG or the RFC page need to be amended to permit such control, though that probably ought to involve a good deal of community debate following the procedure set out in the Policy policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting...I thought it was generally considered bad form, if not a policy violation, to modify an RFC in such a manner, but I can't find anything about that at WP:RFC. That said, I would hope editors can agree that modifying an RFC once it's been posted can confuse the issue and is probably best avoided unless it's made clear that the scope of the RFC has been altered.

I'm assuming everyone here meant well; my recommendation would be that the additional proposal be posted as a clearly new subsection below the existing material. Interested editors will then have the option to strike their earlier opinions accordingly if they feel it's necessary. Or it will at least be more clear which editors were responding to the original proposal versus what the amendments reflect. DonIago (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not so sure how I'd feel about having a policy-based right to do so, Don, now I've thought about it for awhile. At DRN and Medcom the person controlling the discussion is a neutral party trying to keep the discussion on track and who has an obligation to insure that no one's position is slighted. Having such rights in a RFC where there's no neutral party simply invites someone to manipulate the discussion in favor of their preferred point of view. (I'm not suggesting that happened here; I have no doubt that Betty was just trying to keep the discussion on track.) Some limited control allowing refactoring might be okay, but even that could be easily abused, I'm afraid. I think that it's important to remember that, at the end of the day, RFC is really nothing more than another garden-variety talk page discussion with two exceptions: first, the ability of the requesting editor to frame (hopefully narrowly) the initial point to be discussed and, second, a mechanism to invite the broader community to weigh in. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TransporterMan I have made some adjustments to the structure of the RFC in response to your comments here to accommodate the alternative proposal, but I maintain it is essential to make it clear which proposal the surveyed comments relate to which has required some refactoring. Most of the surveyed opinion has only considered one proposal, so this really needs to be clear so editors can make sense of who is discussing what. As a neutral in this perhaps you would be kind enough to review my changes to ensure they are consistent with policy or at least consistent with the spirit of fair discussion. I really don't see what advantage can be gained for either party adding a secondary proposal at such an advanced stage but if you could review it I would be grateful. I would also be grateful if the IP from now on observes the spirit of the RFC process. Betty Logan (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Doniago: Do you mean a subsection between the initial post and the survey? Or a subsection at the bottom of the survey? I assume the latter, but that brings me back to my concerns about visibility—participants don’t always review anything beyond the “Survey” heading before responding, so it could be easily missed. And inserting a subsection between the two would surely confuse matters the way Betty described, even with clear timestamping. So neither seems ideal, to me at least. Edit: And Betty’s solution of multiple subsections (and surveys) seems to allay these concerns. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did mean the latter, but I think we have to hope that anyone invested in the RFC will be on the lookout for significant changes whether or not they're at the very bottom; I certainly watchlist the pages of any discussions I'm interested in and check back regularly. If Betty's solution satisfies you, that's good too. In the end my main concern is simply maintaining a clear record of what was said before any changes versus what was said once the changes had been made, to avoid any unintentional skewing of previously-expressed opinions.
Of course, if all else fails, while this may not be the most welcomed option, you could let the RFC run its course and then make your proposal.
Best wishes for everyone involved with this! DonIago (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Don and since the IP editor has not objected further, I think all is fine. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond talk page

Hi, Betty Logan. I have several citations for James Bond as an anti-hero. Please see Talk:James Bond (literary character). Thanks, Kinfoll1993 (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know you're busy, but SchroCat and I cannot come to an agreement on the Bond page. I am not trying to categorize him as anti hero necessarily per the page anymore, but I think we can mention it somewhere in the article since we have reliable sources (books, newspapers, magazines and otherwise; even a quote from Bond author Raymond Benson himself) supporting it. We also disagree on film Bond, but I think it could be mentioned at least within the article, as you said for the literary Bond-as "an interesting angle", without necessarily placing him under "Category:fictional antiheroes". We have a quote by Goldeneye director Martin Campbell saying that Bond is an antihero, but SchroCat is against it b/c he considers it minor (this is all on the talk page; it's a lot). I just want a third opinion here to help ultimately settle this if you are willing to chime in again. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm preparing dinner so I'll try and get around to it in a little while. Betty Logan (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Italics for series titles

Given your recent contribution to the discussion regarding James Bond, I'm letting you know about a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles § Italics for series titles seeking clarification of the MOS to avoid further confusion. Please feel free to comment there. —sroc 💬 19:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cod

"Codswallop"?! I love it! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gladly second Cyphoidbomb's sentiment! MarnetteD|Talk 17:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again BL. Speaking of codswallop how can this be a FAQ when the same person asked and answered. As I'm sure you noticed the only edits other than A's are cosmetic and formatting. IMO until outside comments have taken place it should not be used in merge or CFD discussions. Ah well, I hope that you have an enjoyable week. MarnetteD|Talk 23:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

For your steadfast attention to detail and correctness. But please don't troll my students. Instead of reverting their edits en masse, think about how you can teach them something by identifying specific problems. Show them some wikilove.

Matthewvetter (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then please stop encouraging your students to troll Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia not a classroom. Also, please try setting an example to your pupils by observing WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD and WP:AGF. Betty Logan (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Universal Production Deals

Could you want to edit this section on the Universal Studios#Production deals page?

Active producer deals

Former producer deals

Distributor deals

References

  1. ^ Fernandez, Jay A.; Borys Kit; Pamela McClintock (October 27, 2011). "The State of the Studio Deals: Who's Doing What Where". Hollywood Reporter. p. 2. Retrieved 16 July 2012.
  2. ^ "Batman Producer Legendary Moving to Universal From Warner". Bloomberg. Bloomberg L.P. July 10, 2013. Retrieved 2015-05-11.
  • It seems that Spshu reverted you because you didn't provide a source for your edits. If you do that I am sure that Spshu will stop reverting you. All claims in an article need to be sourced per WP:V. If I went and added that content back without a source my edit would—quite rightly—befall the same fate. Betty Logan (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

What is the Ireland ratings on The Others and The Watcher in the Woods. Look it up at the Parents Guide section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.83.192.127 (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could try http://www.ifco.ie/website/ifco/ifcoweb.nsf/web/home?OpenDocument. Betty Logan (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TV-PG?

What are G-rated films that are rated TV-PG in the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8500:472:D575:4156:167D:32C5 (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sound of Music

While the timing of the removal from the World War II films category struck me as a bit pointy, after reflection I didn't revert it myself. The film ends in 1938, shortly after the Anschluss; World War II is considered to have started 1 September 1939. Is the convention that any film featuring Nazis is a World War II film? Or what is the demarcation? Does Cabaret qualify? 2600:1006:B12C:E4B8:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are right. I have not seen it for a long time, and my memories of it mostly consist of songs and German soldiers chasing the Von Trapps. If the film ends in 1938 then I agree it technically should not belong the category. Betty Logan (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User: 82.155.98.249

Hello Betty, I hope you don't mind, but I have added another IP address to your note regarding the "editor" who seems to want to remove rape references from film articles. I have left notes/warnings on all the Talk pages used, but strongly suggest that this activity might very well carry on from anon IP addresses in Northern Ireland, UK. The only action we can take at the moment seems to be to watch the films that are being vandalised. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(tps) This person has been around for several months now David J Johnson. Their ideas about what is and is not rape are convoluted to say the least. This edit summary makes me wonder if they even watch films or TV shows. Since the IPs keep changing the only thing other than continued reversion of their edits is WP:RFPP. Even that may not catch all of their edits as they seem to go to new shows/films after a couple months. Betty, you may have other ideas so any input you can add will be of value. MarnetteD|Talk 19:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind at all, David; if you find any more feel free to add them to the list. There is not that much we can do about an IP hopper. If we ship him off to AIV he'll be back on within days, if not hours. We could perhaps get semi-protection for the articles he repeatedly strikes, but it's a lot of hassle. All we can do is revert him when he shows up I suppose. That's not what concerns me the most though: weird edits I can handle, but this editor has some dangerous views about sex and rape and it wouldn't surprise me if they are a sex offender in real life. The police need to check him out and put his DNA on file IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Betty, I have sent you a private email. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Betty Logan. This is a message to tell you why I'm removing content which is objectionable from the films and TV programme - Lawrence of Arabia (film), Robin of Sherwood, The Magnificent Seven Ride and Licence to Kill.

Rape is non-consensual sex and sex is generally associated with love and emotions, not with violence. Sexual violence is impossible. For films and television programs, it's not likely to be acceptable, it's questionable, it's morally violent. Besides, there are no rape scenes - except one in the director's cut of Lawrence of Arabia. Why does Lawrence get raped? In The Magnificent Seven Ride, when Chris finds his wife dead, what does he mean 'Did they use her?' and why does he say 'Raped, killed and left for the buzzards.' He would've said 'Did they torture her?' and 'Beaten, killed and left for the buzzards.' Sexual violence/rape is not associated with the Robin Hood legend and not with the James Bond franchise. 81.155.98.249 (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Betty_Logan&oldid=663442799"