Jump to content

Talk:Jack Lowden

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

Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting wth My Family

[edit]

The film begins production today so there's no problem in adding the film to his filmography. @Softlavender:, you're being immensely uncooperative when I asked you why you removed it after explaining this to you in my first edit summary. And then proceeded to not answer my direct question to you and delete it as opposed to just answering it. WP:CRYSTAL applies when a filming date is undetermined or not in the immediate future. Production begins today. As per Dwayne Johnson's post from yesterday. Rusted AutoParts 06:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The film is not yet in production. When it is in production, and this is confirmed by its IMDB page, then can add it. See WP:CRYSTAL. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is not a reliable source. The producer of the film is. Rusted AutoParts 06:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is reliable for the production status of a film. The film is not yet in production. When it is in production, and this is confirmed by an independent reliable source, then can add it. Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The producer of the film confirmed the date already: today. This whole thing is ridiculous, social media posts have been utilized in various articles site wide, why block it here? Rusted AutoParts 06:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A forecast or promise posted on Instagram is not a WP:RS. When the film is in production, and this is confirmed by an independent reliable source, then can add it. See WP:CRYSTAL. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it a "forecast" or "promise" is fairly undermining. The film's producer is stating that it is entering production today is not a forecast from a third party source. It's Dwayne Johnson explicitly stating "this is when we start". Rusted AutoParts 06:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:RS. When the film is in production, and this is confirmed by a WP:RS, then can add it. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Thanks for wasting an hour of my time. Rusted AutoParts 07:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which had come in the form of Johnson himself stating it began today. All of these sources, including IMDB, use that info for their articles. So your argument it's only "parroting" is a really bad one as that's basically the definition of a source. Rusted AutoParts 01:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, please read his Instagram comment; it only said that "production starts tomorrow": [2]. We need substantive proof that filming has indeed started. And no, IMDB does not use Instagram posts or popular media for its data; its production-status data are updated by production insiders such as the head of the production team (in fact they are the only ones who can create those production-status updates). Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And then today he posted Production starts today. He is an actor and producer on the film, he is confirming it has begun. We don't need IMDB (nor use it as it's unreliable) when we have direct confirmation. And this has since been backed up by secondary independent sources. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Rusted AutoParts 01:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is definitely reliable for (and is the industry standard for) production status. The second Instagram still does not confirm that filming has indeed started, nor has anything else (much less anything independent) confirmed that filming has indeed started. Softlavender (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is the producer of the film stating production has begun not proof production has begun? Rusted AutoParts 01:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He did not state production has begun. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What? "Production begins today". Those are his words, are you serious? Rusted AutoParts 02:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requires image

[edit]

Article is growing, an image is required from 2012-present, is urgent matter.

The King of Prosecutors (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jack Lowden. 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) 13:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed changes ?

[edit]

Softlavender please explain this revert. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You made BOLD changes, and they were reverted. Per WP:BRD, you need to get WP:CONSENSUS before reverting. Softlavender (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm maintaining good faith and asking you why you would make such a mass revert? If good faith edits, in which you improve an article, don't work then why do we bother contributing to this website? Anyway, pinging some uninvolved editors, Aoba47 and Woodroar. Do you think my edits deserved such a revert? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make another point, Softlavender. I've written 11 featured articles for this website. If an editor had made blind reverts to my edits on those pages, do you think I'd have been able to improve those articles? Do you think it's worth spending time having such discussions on the talk pages instead of actually improving pages? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Krimuk2.0, you need to make a case for your reverted BOLD edits and get consensus. Blatant WP:CANVASSING of your wiki-friends and mentioning your various wiki accomplishments are not that. Softlavender (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. It explicitly states that "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen." Also, in WP:DONTREVERT it states that "Do not revert an edit because that edit is unnecessary, i.e. the edit does not improve the article." and "Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text." So you are blatantly going against policy. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your reverts were not an improvement, they were inaccurate, and they were not an adequate summary of the article per WP:LEAD. They were unexplained, they made the article clearly worse, and there was no element that was an improvement. Softlavender (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on you to explain how they were "inaccurate " and made the "article clearly worse". You are yet to provide a single explanation to that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Krimuk2.0, but the WP:STATUSQUO prevails in a situation like this ("During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo"). It's still up to you to build a consensus for your version. I will say that the original edit summary ("Undiscussed changes") wasn't particularly helpful because it (a) doesn't explain what's wrong with the edit, and (b) implies that we need to discuss before editing, which runs counter to WP:BOLD/BRD itself. That being said, when reverted, it's best to let it stand and discuss rather than edit warring.
Of the two versions of the lead, I do think the first is better. It begins with his most famous role, moves on to other roles where he won awards, and finally to some remaining notable roles. This seems to be the standard for articles about actors and other creative people, at least from what I've seen. It has issues, like mentioning War & Peace twice, and it doesn't proportionally summarize the contents of the article itself, which may point at an issue of WP:UNDUE. (I have no idea what the available sources look like, so I can't comment on that further.) I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Lowden&oldid=1208315664"