Template:Did you know nominations/Bears and Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of Bears and Man's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the WikiProject Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC).

Bears and Man[edit]

Created by The Interior (talk). Self nom at 03:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Looks good: new enough, long enough, well referenced, hook is interesting and cited. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I think there's an inconsistency between the lead and the infobox. Based on the NFB collections page, I thnk the infobox has it right: it's a "Wilderness Cinegraphic" film, distributed by the NFB. Yet the lead states only that it was "produced by the National Film Board of Canada (NFB) [I added the full name here] and Parks Canada," with no mention at all of Wilderness Cinegraphic (or what that was) anywhere in the body text. I'm no expert with these DYK nominations, but I would think this would need to be rectified, so that the production company credit is consistent. (Also, fwiw, I've never heard of "Wilderness Cinegraphic" and I wonder if that was the company name for Bill Schmalz, or was it the name adopted by some NFB/Parks Canada co-venture?). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Wilderness Cinegraphic would be the name Bill Schmalz's cheque was made out to, probably a paper company for tax purposes. Many filmmakers do it that way. NFB put up the funds - they're the actual producers. There's nothing in the sources about W.C., besides a mention at the NFB file, so I didn't put anything about it into the text. The Interior (Talk) 18:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, but I'm fairly certain there needs to be either a) a mention of Wilderness Cinegraphic somewhere in the text if it's in the infobox as the "studio," or b) removed from the infobox, if it's not truly the Film studio as you suggest. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • As you'll see, I've simply removed Wilderness Cinegraphic as the studio. Whatever it was, it wasn't a Film studio. Feel free to add the NFB to that field, if you wish. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This is a bit difficult, due to the somewhat amorphous nature of the term "studio" as it relates to film production (and its overlap with "production company"), and the fact that I really don't know the specific nature of Wilderness Cinegraphic and its relation to the film. I'll post to the talk page about this later, when I'm not surreptitiously editing Wikipedia during a lecture. The Interior (Talk) 00:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree. In fact, if you compare what Film studio and Production company describe, I'm convinced the film infobox template places an undue focus on films made by "studios." Or perhaps we need an alternate version for independent films. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • On an unrelated note, I would recommend grizzly bear be fully named and linked to, in the hook. I've done so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)