Entertainment desk
< January 21	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 22

Regarding the TV show mind your language

Dear Wikipedia,

I was going through your wiki pages of the show 'Mind your language' and noticed that many of the actors of the show do not have a Wikipedia page of their own. Hence, I kindly request you to please update the actors page so that readers may know more about these actors. I would like to personally know as to what has happened to these actors since it is an old show.

Please do update this.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.85.218 (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If you are talking about Mind Your Language, then I do see most of the actors linked to a page. Mr. Spencer Kinkelaar (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is written by volunteers who write about topics of their interest. Perhaps you can research the Mind Your Language actors and write articles about them. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magic School Bus DVDs

Under the listing of all Magic School Bus Episodes on DVD there are 10 DVDs listed as "Social Studies" and numbered 1 through 10 without any actual titles. Does anyone know the actual titles of those DVDs? I am trying to obtain the complete collection and have purchased the 52 episode collection, but can not find any other reference on any other site that lists the actual titles to the 10 Social Studies DVDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:240A:DD69:3DF2:943D:1F58:E810 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was Marcel Durham nominated for an Academy Award?

oscar.org says no. ImdB and many other film websites say yes. A newspaper from 1978 says yes. I'm confused. Who knows the answer? --46.142.53.131 (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a reliable source, but FWIW our article Academy Award for Best Film Editing mentions him. He's a red link, but he's there with Walter Murch. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oscars.org has got to be the definitive source for this. Neither the page for the 1978 winners (as linked by the OP) nor their searchable database mention Durham, so I'd say only Murch got the nom. Rojomoke (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One has to wonder where the 1978 newspaper article got its info from, if not from the Academy's press release. My gut says there's more to this story. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I've tagged Durham with a "citation needed" there and in the Julia article. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says: Only the principal, "above the line" editor(s) as listed in the film's credits are named on the award; additional editors, supervising editors, etc. are not generally eligible, which links to Academy Rule 13. That may explain why Durham wasn't nominated, but it doesn't explain why he was reported as having been nominated. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty weird. Durham was also reported as having been nominated in the Washington Post on 2/22/1978, and there are ads for Julia in the L.A. Times on 3/4/1978 and 3/10/1978, listing its Academy Award nominations, which include Walter Murch and Marcel Durham for Best Film Editing. However, ads from 3/18/1978 and later dates drop Durham and just mention Murch. Our article on Academy Award for Best Film Editing says it is based on the official Oscars database, but that representation was not added until 1/14/2009, by an anonymous editor, while the 1977 nominations were added back on 9/5/2002, by User:Eclecticology (who is still active but probably doesn't remember his source for an edit from 12 years ago, when Wikipedia was more lackadaisical about sources). John M Baker (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be time for someone to do a little OR and contact the Academy for clarification on this matter. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that sourcing has become more anal since 2002. At the time a detailed list of all the awards and nominees had not yet been added at all. I used a single thick book source with an extensive appendix that covered all awards until some time in the mid 80s. I still have the book, but I'm not sure where I have put it. Until I find it I can't be more helpful. Eclecticology (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the short term, someone probably should edit the article to say that some sources include Durham in the nomination (with a cite), but he is not in the official Oscars database. John M Baker (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we recognise the concept of context-dependent relativity of reliability of sources? I mean, whatever the NY Times says is usually considered reliable, but in a case like this, whatever oscar.org says surely trumps it and everything else. No? If we have such a note as you suggest, John, I'd prefer it mention the Oscars database first, as the primary and sole official information about the existence (or not) of a nomination for Durham, and downplay that other and inherently relatively less reliable sources say something different. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We most certainly do recognize the concept of context-dependent relativity of reliability of sources. If the NY Times science reporter says X, but Nature and Science say Y, we're going to go with Y. The question is whether we should still say anything about X. In other words, the question is whether we should just give the information from the Oscars database, or should also say something about Durham. I would be inclined to err on the side of providing more information, but I can see the argument the other way. John M Baker (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. When I said "downplay", I didn't mean to excise all mention of it. I was just advocating the primacy of the official record and that dissenting testimony be footnoted or some other form of less prominent appearance. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]