User talk:Charan2987

Welcome

Hello, Charan2987, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We only use reliably published content

Please only use reliably published material, not just something you saw on the web or your own personal opinion or interpretation. Thanks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are those that have a reputation for editorial oversight, fact checking and accuracy. Reviews from places like Times of India or The Hindu are almost always acceptable. Reviews from places that do not have a Wikipedia article are almost always NOT going to be acceptable. The community has come the consensus that Sify and Rediff qualify as reliable sources for movie reviews. Most other sites are just review sites without proper oversight and authorial credibility to be used. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few other questions. Have you checked the credibility of all the references that are generally seen on a movie page? How do you arrive at the authorial credibility? A review is a viewpoint, it does not need to undergo a credibility check. All it needs to have the relevance (meaning a movie review citation should not point to something totally different). Who are these community folks who arrive at consensus? What's their background & knowledge with respect to the topics under discussion?

There are thousands of pages on movies and no i have not reviewed every one to determine whether or not all of the sources used are appropriate, but I can tell you right of the bat: No not every source used in every article is actually a reliable source. However, that does not mean that we ignore the fact that there are pieces of content in the articles that we are looking at that are not reliable just because other articles currently have crappy sourcing. And while reviews "are just opinions", and anyone can have an opinion, that does not mean that encyclopedias just print anybody's opinion. One of the foundational content policies is that our article content represents the mainstream authority's views; and that means that we only use professional reviews as expressed Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Critical_response. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on your point on removing 'crap' articles but what is crap has to be consensual. Encyclopedias and movie reviews are different ball games and its really funny to know that you brought that up. Even the film guidelines that you quote refers I quote "For films, sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited. "For films, sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited." Those from the print media world fall under the same, how does one fall into / out of experts connected to the topics?

Wikipedia, if you have missed it somehow, is an encyclopedia and not a movie review site. If you dont want to follow the policies designed create an online encyclopedia, that is fine, but you will need to write your movie reviews elsewhere.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias (aka Wikipedia) are reference documents that provide information and your points would be critical with respect to people, places or sensitive topics but not for entertainment content and the reliability of citations (with respect to movies) should exist or be removed based ONLY on content, not based on a unclear scale of judgement in the so called name of reliability.

I agree with the Red Pen of Doom here. We want movie review sources from professional critics working for respected publications with editorial oversight. Or, if it is a historical drama, a professional historian with expertise. Or if a documentary, a recognized topic expert. And so on. Blogs, self published material, 'zines and fan sites aren't acceptable. We weed out the bad content from Wikipedia. We don't point to existing bad content as a justification for adding more bad content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

people come to reference documents aka Wikipedia to find out the //best// information. otherwise if we just put in whatever we find on the web, why would anyone come to wikipedia rather than just got on a google search? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, Red Pen of Doom,

When it comes to Tamil movies (for which I added review citations) there aren't many citations that fall under your aforementioned expectations of "movie review sources from professional critics working for respected publications with editorial oversight" For instance the same Paradesi Moive^[1] for which I had added a blog reference, take for instance citations 34,35,36. How do you accept these or credible or reliable sources? Or does those fall under "existing bad content" which hasn't been removed?

I think you've answered your own question, and please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please also be aware that the sources need not be in English, as their reliability and professionalism is more important than their language. What is certain is that you are not permitted to promote your own blog here. We call that spamming and we don't like it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did not get my question Cullen and I don't want to beat around the bush either. So it's just that you guys are the peacekeeping voluntary force of Wikipedia who are not ably qualified to explain and answer to the point. Thanks for your time, I shall call it quit. I will not put any of blog references anymore.

Please don't reply to this.

Peace! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.168.36 (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradesi_(2013_film)

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradesi_(2013_film)

[1]