Jump to content

Talk:List of films based on arts books

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

Reliable sources

[edit]

I have removed a reference to a user-added IMDb review. These are not reliable sources. Please don't re-add it. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" and "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". --BelovedFreak 14:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a perfectly reliable source. It is a film review I wrote in 1999, before WP even existed.
It also happens to be the source I employed in setting up this page. Pretending that it is "unreliable", which it is not, does not change the facts of the matter.
Varlaam (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This review is 11 years old, and has a 100% approval rating from others who have seen the film:

7 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
An improved version of the Dr. Seuss story, 1 February 1999
Author: Varlaam from Toronto, Canada

If there is any problem or error in the review, readers have had 11 years to take exception.
No one has found fault; everyone has given their approval.
There is nothing in Wikipedia:IRS which rules out the use of this review.
Varlaam (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Belovedfreak comments below, IMDB reviews are not considered reliable sources for Wikpedia's purposes. Remember that something can be a reliable source in the ordinary-English meaning of the term without being a Reliable Source in the sense of Wikipedia, which is the sense that we have to abide by. Barnabypage (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can make 26,000 edits in WP. That's ok.
But a review I wrote 11 years ago, and vouch for again here today, is dangerously suspect?
That makes no sense whatsoever.
I am not a liar now, nor then.
I am not using it here out of any sense of vanity. It happens to be the only source that alludes to the circus scene which is the entire reason for its inclusion here on the Arts Books page.
Because it turns into a circus film in the final sequence. Other reviewers do not discuss the ending.
Varlaam (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not called you a liar. Reviews on IMDb are not considered reliable. There have been many discussions about this. A recent one is here. What makes you an expert in this field? That is not meant to be disparaging because you clearly do know a lot about films, and have put a lot of work into these lists. However, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, you are an editor, like everyone else. Even if this wasn't a review written by you, you're referencing a review by someone with a pseudonym, on a website that lets anyone add reviews. You haven't even linked to the review, so how can anyone verify it? But that's the least of the problems here. I have never seen the film in question, but how about I go and write a review on IMDb that contradicts yours, and then add that as a reference here. What would make yours more reliable?
I suggest you have another read of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research again. As I mentioned above, the burden of evidence is on you to prove the reliability of material that you re-add. I see from the edit history of this page that you also reverted another editor who added references to reliable sources with the edit summary "An encyclopedia is a place for fact, not personal politics". This doesn't show me that you understand reliable sources very well.
You seem to be taking it personally. I can understand how frustrating it must be to put a lot of work into things and then other people come and change them, but that's the nature of Wikipedia. I'm sure most of your 26, 000 edits have been constructive, but there are problems with these lists. People are just trying to clean them up so that they meet Wikipedia's standards, and help you understand the policies and guidelines a bit better. There's no such thing as a perfect editor. No matter how long you've been here or how many edits you've made, everyone has the chance of getting things wrong sometimes - all of us. --BelovedFreak 10:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Belovedfreak: per Wikipedia guidelines, IMDB is not considered a reliable source for the purposes of referencing or linking on Wikipedia. In fact, the only thing on IMDB which may be linked is the main page for a film, and that may only be placed in the External links section. In general, IMDB may not be used as a source for anything in the article as anyone may add information to IMDB, and it is not generally verified there. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the movie only deals with a circus in its final sequence anyway, that suggests to me that it isn't mostly about a circus and thus doesn't need to be in the circus section of this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a lot of cleanup

[edit]

I notice that the left-hand column is supposed to be a number, yet often the number given is the letter "n". Also, certain works are listed as being frequently filmed, yet only one film version is cited. The criteria for inclusion need to be explained at the top of the page anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Metropolitan90.
If you check the log, you will see that I wrote this page singlehandedly.
Given that, do you honestly need an explanation as to why certain rows are labelled 'n', and why a "Frequently" lists only one title? Come on, seriously.
That shouldn't require explanation. I am a manager with no underlings.
Varlaam (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'n' is a mathematical symbol for 'unknown'. It also stands for 'new', as in 'new row'.
If I were at the office, I would assign junior staff to move the 'n' rows to their correct chronological positions, then renumber the entire table.
I would also have them flesh out the Frequently tables with the trivial 2nd and 3rd rows now that the 1st row template has been provided.
Unfortunately I am not at the office around here at WP.
The purpose of the Frequently tables is to give readers with an interest but no special knowledge opportunities to contribute by giving them a template they can follow. Clone the 1st row. Half of the row, the book half, is already finished. You only need to provide the first half which you get from the IMDb.
Some of my tables even have Rows 2 and 3 but Row 1 (hint, hint, it's the famous film) is missing.
Honestly, is that unclear? Should I provide a little message box to make it clearer?
For anybody who is spending any time around the tables because they are really interested in the data, it should be pretty obvious what is going on with those little anomalies. If it really isn't clear, sure, we can make it clearer.
Varlaam (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Varlaam you're not a manager, you're a contributor, just like the rest of us. You don't need "underlings". I don't understand why the entries need to be numbered at all, what does that add? I also agree with Metropolitan90 in that I don't understand the "frequently filmed" sections. If someone needs a template to copy, they can just copy it from the other tables - what's the difference? Another question - what is the point of all the entries that don't even have a film? Are you going to add films for those?--BelovedFreak 15:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If one wants the tables to be arranged by the films' year of release, I don't recommend trying to number the rows to do that. Rather, I recommend making the tables sortable as described in Help:Sorting. This will avoid having to renumber the rows every time someone finds another older film to include. I have started to remove the row numbering and "n" where it was used as a substitute for a row number. Also, I have started to remove the interwiki links to titles particularly when there is an English Wikipedia link available for the exact same title. This is the English Wikipedia and we should assume that most of our readers are going to be particularly interested in wikilinks in English. If they want to seek out the interwiki links in other languages, they can go to the English-language article and look in the left-hand column for the interwiki links there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Denumbering.
Interesting idea.
It doesn't work in practice.
You noticed Speer and Hitler: The Devil's Architect, right?
That is now more confusing without the common number linking the 2 rows.
I use this same format on a dozen pages.
The format is fine.
The problem is I have no collaborators.
I have vandals. I do not have volunteers.
I am writing a dozen pages by myself in my spare time.
I have lost count of the number of pages of notes I have on films I do not have time to enter.
Varlaam (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There have been several people trying to help and collaborate on these lists Varlaam. Who exactly is vandalising?--BelovedFreak 15:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hedd Wyn

[edit]

I have reinstated Hedd Wyn, and noted that it is a Welsh film. I have cited this fact with a reference from the British Film Institute that notes Wales as the production country. I assume that my previous reference was not considered a reliable source (although the Times should be quite sufficient for an uncontentious article like this). Whether any of us consider Wales to be a country is completely irrelevent to Wikipedia. What is relevant is Verifiability and Wales is, verifiably, a country. Furthermore, I have submitted this disagreement to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard (see here) who have provided futher references that Wales is a country and confirm - in case there is any doubt - that the reference I provided previously, from the office of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, is considered reliable. I do not expect this verifiable and reliably sourced information to be removed again. Daicaregos (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is uttely disingenuous as you are well aware.
I need a link to some statement of BFI policy. Please provide.
Is Trainspotting a Scottish film?
Is Lawrence of Arabia an English film?
Is Get Carter now a Tyne and Wear film because Geordies need to have their distinctiveness reaffirmed?
Is Welsh identity teetering on the brink on collapse? Not to my knowledge, it's not.
Subnational units do not get recognized in this way. Quebec films are still Canadian films, just as Catalonian ones are Spanish, Bavarian ones are German, and so on.
Wales and England are countries in some contexts; this is not one of those contexts.
The IMDb, a British institution, labels films as UK when they are British, as this film proudly is.
I am finding this entire episode rather annoying since I am one of the people who put Hedd Wyn into the IMDb back in 1999 when I was one of their top researchers.
Varlaam (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Verifiability and Ownership are not the only policies not understood here. Please read Wikipedia's policy on Civility and adhere to it. We do not need a link to any statement of BFI policy. The BFI citation is considered a Reliable Source by the Reliable sources/Noticeboard and that is enough. Daicaregos (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another smoke screen. Thank you.
You are unwilling to follow up on the one thing you have offered as an approximation to an argument for your case.
The table column is for sovereign states.
Wales is not a sovereign state. It is a component part, a very significant component part in fact, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The next head of state (presumptive) of my country is currently the Prince of Wales; my Welsh relations live there.
If Wales becomes a sovereign state, then any future Welsh films will appear in the table as Wales.
But, for Hedd Wyn, you cannot rewrite the past. It will still appear in the table as a UK film, the UK being the nationality of the passports of the people who made that fine film.
As I have indicated over and over, I like your movie. I liked it enough to put it in the IMDb over a decade ago. I liked it enough to remember it when I was writing a page about poets. I am giving this film as much attention as it is in my power to do. I hope people will buy or rent the film and learn a little something about Welsh language and culture in doing so, and have a rewarding experience in the process.
But the facts are still the facts.
Why do you insist on promoting what is transparently a private, personal, political agenda? You are free to quote me any and all Wikipedia rules which exclude the promotion of private agendas in a neutral encyclopedia.
Varlaam (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about this issue to say whether or not I agree with Daicaregos, but the BFI is as far as I know a reliable source. IMDb is, as we have discussed, not. The policies mentioned by Daicaregos are not "smoke screens", and I don't think it's fair to accuse someone of pushing an agenda just because you disagree with them over a content issue. Maybe you should look for a third opinion on this one. Maybe also WT:FILM would be able to help out. --BelovedFreak 15:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is well established that Wales, Scotland England and Northern Ireland are countries, but not sovereign states (see multiple wikipedia and other reviews). Cultural issues are distinct and Hedd Wyn is clearly a Welsh film. Further it is very normal in many film contexts to talk about actors by their nationality in terms of one of the constituent countries. For example Richard Burton is a Welsh Actor (to take one of many cases). In addition this is a Welsh language film and part of a growing body of material that is distinctly welsh. Peter Ho Davies works are referenced as Welsh Novels. I could go on, the point is that the facts are with Dai on this one. I also suggest Varlaam that you address the issues rather than making silly accusations against other editors. --Snowded TALK 14:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions / scope

[edit]

What exactly is the scope of this list? It's called "List of films based on arts books" but "films" seems to mean "films or television series" and "books" seems to include plays and radio plays. Also, how exactly are you defining "based on"? Does there need to be evidence that the film is explicitly based on the source work, can it just be "inspired by"? Who's word can we take that a film is "inspired by" a book? Some of these seem a bit tenuous. Shakespeare in Love for example takes inspiration, lines and plot devices from several of Shakespeare's plays, but I don't think you can really say it's "based on" Romeo and Juliet. And even if you could, how is Romeo and Juliet a book about the arts? You could say Shakespeare in Love is a film about the arts, but this is not what this list claims to be about.--BelovedFreak 16:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we also need to reconcile the contradiction between the title and the intro. Is it a List of films based on arts books per the title of the page, or a List of films about the arts that are based on books per the intro? The page can easily be developed in either direction, I'm sure, but they are not the same thing unless the definitions of films about the arts and arts books are so broad as to be almost meaningless. Barnabypage (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this quibble central?
Other people who are experts on impresarios (Please step forward!) are free to put more films on the table. Henslowe is an historical figure and he's a character in the film.
Can we please not have this discussion right now? Seriously.
Varlaam (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you read the note at the top of War Books -- Post-1945?
Varlaam (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is tax month. Why are analysing my pages to death this month?
War Books is my central project. It is the mammoth one.
It is where I figured that we could do all of human history.
This is a trivial satellite page where I have reapplied the War Books model to a different film set.
As an IMDb researcher, I have a head full of film data.
Over in War Books, there are people who like the model enough to have provided fresh content.
And in Sports Books too.
Varlaam (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also have new tenants moving into my house. Back in the real world.
Can we give it a rest for a while, guys, eh?
Varlaam (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Varlaam, but I find your replies somewhat confusing and evasive. We don't seem to have got any further towards defining a scope for this list. At the moment, I feel that it's bordering on an indiscriminate collection of information.--BelovedFreak 15:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a question: is reading an art? I would say no, but won't remove the section yet in case anyone wants to comment. Edit: Also, being a bibliophile? Forgery? Are they arts?--BelovedFreak 11:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's stretching the already sometimes tenuous criteria for inclusion to breaking point. In any case, two of the films in that category - The Hours and Misery - are already (and justifiably) present in the Authors (fiction) category. Barnabypage (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to work on this article. I made some edits which were promptly reverted by User:Varlaam, who then blanked the page. He or she deos not appear to like any one else editing these articles and is reluctant to discuss them either.--BelovedFreak 16:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions:
  1. What the heck is an "arts book"? This is a strange term to use. It seems what you're really referring to is "books about subjects in the arts".
  2. Are people really looking for films based on books about the circus? Wouldn't it be more useful to have a List of films about the circus instead? And List of films about architecture, List of films about dancing, etc.?
Kaldari (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of films based on arts books. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_films_based_on_arts_books&oldid=1202001916"