Talk:William A. Wellman/Archives/2012/March
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Redlinks
Having just created a number of new film articles or stubs, and then had to go and track down unlinked references to them in various articles in order to link them up, I am of the opinion that in lists of films (especially), all titles should be linked, on the assumption that someday someone's going to create an article about currently unlinked films, and when they do, they'll be automatically linked. And, in fact, the redlinks serve as a goad to editors to create articles about films that are missing them, in a way that plain text doesn't do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not a problem, I've seen and read the arguments both ways as some editors prefer a "clean" page while others naturally have the same opinion as you, that "redlinks" are not necessarily a bad thing, and can "spur" others to add a sub-article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC).
- I actually fall somewhere in between. Normally, I'll remove redlinks in the body of articles as a distraction, but when there seems like there's a probablility of an article being created I'll leave them in. Films are easy (for me) -- I think it's a reasonable presumption that any Hollywood film will pass notability and might someday get an article -- what's hard to decide is personnell; will some film editor who worked 60 years ago ever get an article? Probably not, but then film buffs have been known to focus on stuff like that. As a result, I go back and forth on it. At the moment, I'm wikilining pretty much all the names in film articles I create or expand, but I could be convinced about specific people that they're never going to be recognized with an article which will pass notability requirements. Film titles, though, I think that's a pretty good bet. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
FA Review
Ed, when you and I are both done, how about nominating this article for a Featured Article? I am amazed at how fast this article was developed to this stage. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC).
- I'm inherently suspicious of the FA and GA review process, but I guess it would be interesting to see what happens. It's your call - I think I'm pretty much finished with the article, except for possible layout tweaks, while you seem to be going strong with new info. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would think that one thing we would need to do is convert many of the refs to "cite" templates. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ugh!! the templates are so buggy that I completely rewrite them in "scratch" cataloguing. Perfectly good Harvard Citations and Modern Language Association Bibliographical records are more than sufficient, and do a much better job than the American Psychiatric Association convention that is used as the basis of the Wiki templates. Don't get me started here!!!! Bzuk (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC).
- I would think that one thing we would need to do is convert many of the refs to "cite" templates. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I dislike them as well, which is why I never use them -- they make it extremely hard to follow the primary text when editing. I was thinking primarily of the URL refs - I use a quick and dirty format for them which is probably non-standard, and I imagine would get picked on in any review.
I suppose the thing to do is what you do for the book cites, rewrite them without using the cite templates. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I dislike them as well, which is why I never use them -- they make it extremely hard to follow the primary text when editing. I was thinking primarily of the URL refs - I use a quick and dirty format for them which is probably non-standard, and I imagine would get picked on in any review.
- Speaking of book cites - do you give a full citation for the Silke book anywhere? Or did it accidentally get deleted in one of our co-editing moments? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) "This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale." I guess that puts us in our place. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Lafayette Escadrille
The text says Wellman was "the first American to join N.87 escadrille in the Lafayette Flying Corps (not the sub-unit Lafayette Escadrille as usually stated)" with a ref to http://pagesperso-orange.fr/rdisa/html/Frames/lafayette.html . However Lafayette Flying Corps is a redirect to Lafayette Escadrille. Randall Bart Talk 20:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- See: Lafayette Flying Corps for a distinction between the two groups. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC).
Image copyright problem with Image:William Wellman.jpg
The image Image:William Wellman.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've added a FUR to the image page to cover this article. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 14:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)