Jump to content

Talk:Michael E. Rodgers

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael E. Rodgers. 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) 22:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion re: redirect, inclusion, sourcing, etc (June 2021)

[edit]

I have full-protected this article and Thomas and the Magic Railroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for three days. It was that, or start chucking out blocks for 3RR and disruptive editing, which no-one wants.

Edit warring via edit summaries is not a great course of action, so instead, I've started this discussion. On the agenda:

  • Sourcing for this article
  • Potential redirect of article if sourcing can't be found

Lets remember to form consensus before redirecting the article, once the protection comes off in 3 days time. Any further edit warring will be viewed quite dimly.

Cheers
Daniel (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Daniel. I was hoping that my edit would be enough to convince the IP to discuss, but I didn't edit the article again once I saw that it hadn't. There was also edit warring over at WT:AFD over a talk page post the IP made and then removed; that's what led me to the article. FWIW, I know nothing about the subject matter and have no idea as to whether it should be redirected or even possibly deleted; if the IP or someone else wants to take this to AFD or even better try and improve it, then that's fine by fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the sake of discussion, I googled "Michael E. Rodgers" and did find anything that resembled significant coverage in reliable sources in the first ten pages of search results. That could just be because I didn't use the right keywords. So, at least right now, I'm not convinced this person meets WP:BIO. At the same time, if the article is to be believed, he has appeared in quite a number of films and TV shows; I don't really know how WP:NACTOR applies to them since they all appear to be minor/supporting roles and I don't know how to assess Items 2 and 3 of NACTOR. Redirects are cheap and if this did end up at AFD, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that outcome as an alternative to deletion depending upon the arguments that were made. The article was created back in 2006, and it's been tagged for sourcing issues since 2013. Most of the edits over the past few years seem to have be primarily cleanup type edits, and not any major expansions or removals. So, it might actually be a good idea for this to be brought to AFD once the PP runs out to try figure out what to do with it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I will apologize for my part in the edit warring- yes, yes... probably should've ended it off on my side after requesting page protection.
Secondly, I had begun writing stuff for a new discussion on this talk page, but this ended up here before I finished (probably because I had a lot to say, lol). It's already 2am my time, so I'm not going to try and update stuff, but just warning in advance that some of it may sound as if I'm starting up the discussion. If so, that's why. I'm also not trying to paint anyone out as the 'enemy' in my response, apologies if it does though (it has a bit of a recap in the first parts of it). Here it is:
As noted in my latest revert, amid all of this drama, there has been no discussion whatsoever regarding the status of this article- it seems the IP starting all of this off in the first place deemed that the deletion tag was a 'mistake' and converted this into a redirect without any discussion a little under an hour after the 'mistaken' deletion tag. A few things to note:
  • Whether it was a mistake or not, the first revert showed that making this a redirect was obviously contentious in the first place
  • According to one of the latest edit summaries of the IP, "Again, it’s because the article does not contain any sources. According to the Policy, all articles need to have sources in order for them to be kept" - Yes, of course we actually need to source things, but it's not quite clear if any attempt to find them was made in the first place, and should be done so first.
  • Let's just say that yes- the result ends up being to redirect the article since no sources are able to be found (or whatever the end result is). The IP seems to have made the decision have the redirect target Thomas and the Magic Railroad, but why? Let's just say even without sources in its current state, the information is correct. Wouldn't it make more sense to redirect this to Auto Focus which this article says to be what he is best known for?
    • I am not specifically saying that the redirect should end up being one of those two articles, but it should certainly be discussed if redirecting is the end result rather than just randomly picking one of the things he was in and using that automatically.
Now to quickly touch upon the area of getting sources + what can/cannot (should/should not) be used. From the 'External links' section:
  • The IMDb profile is obviously fine to be kept as a link, but cannot be used as a source (is WP:NOTRS- more info at WP:RS/IMDb and WP:Citing IMDb).
  • The other three links? Get rid of them. The webarchive Myspace link brings up an invalid user, the livejournal.com thing seems to be a fan blog, and the Google site is a fansite, as the link clearly indicates (page itself also says, "this was created by Google plus Members,but NOT michael")
Now here is some sourcing I think could potentially be used (others with more knowledge may need to give some more info, as some of them might not be allowed to be used):
  • Some services/stores that list his credits, including Amazon, AppleTV, and Vudu
  • Not sure if it can be used as a source, but I believe this is the website for his acting class- if it can be used, definitely has some good information included there.
  • Some listings of episode of shows he was in listed on The Futon Critic (I'm mostly knowledgeable on Wikipedia in regards to TV shows and the sources that can be used for those- these can surely be used here).
I'll try my best to do some more research, but hopefully what I've said above will be useful in this. Will also say that I'm fine with whatever the result is- whether it be delete, redirect, keep + add sources, etc. I'm not really 'for' either 'side' in this, but hoping I can find some useful stuff (as shown above...) to try and get the best outcome possible. However, it should definitely be more better to actually have this discussion rather than a, "No sources. Goodbye." Hoping what I've found so far ends up being useful though. Magitroopa (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the more I dig, the less I find. It's clear Rodgers is an actor and has appeared in some Wikipedia notable films and TV programs with some Wikipedia notable actors. What's not clear if whether his part in those films or TV shows would be considered significant roles. I saw Auto Focus and even vaguely remember a scene involving Hogan Heroes, but those seem to have been bit parts played by professional but still nonetheless supporting actors. If Rodgers performance isn't really significant enough to be discussed by those critically reviewing the film, then maybe wasn't so significant of a part. I didn't find any mention here, here or here, but did find him mentioned here. Most of the sources listed above by Magitroopa are what I found on the first few pages of search results; after that results for people with the same name start to creep in. Some of the hits are for Italian websites and there might be Italian sources about him because of his studio in Italy, but not sure. There are actors who are sometimes more popular in countries other than where they grew up and they tend to therefore base themselves in those countries because that's where the work is. Anyway, as I posted above, a redirect might be OK here, but I think that is something that should be discussed and not forced through by edit warring. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that Rodgers has a recurring role in the show Penny on M.A.R.S., but once again I'm not finding anything but user-generated or trivial mentions. That's a 2018 TV show out of Italy that seems to be still on the air. That would seem to be the most likely thing to find any type of sigcov since Rodgers has been recurring for three seasons. The show is in English, but maybe most of the coverage is in Italian. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly Does have a point, I know edit warring is wrong and it’s not the right way to resolve this. If you two are reading this message, I just wanna let you two know I sincerely apologize for edit warring. Plus I take back what I said in my edit summaries, I didn’t physically mean it. It’s just that I was a little annoyed that nobody wouldn’t listen to me on what I had to say about this article. But now that you two started a discussion about this, I will follow it for now on. Again, I am sorry about my previous actions over my edits. 2600:1000:B006:91CC:293B:607A:C27B:6E3F (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._Rodgers&oldid=1200661825"