Jump to content

Talk:Sydney Newman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Sydney Newman/Comments)
Featured articleSydney Newman is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 14, 2010, and will appear again on November 23, 2024.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 30, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
February 12, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 3, 2010Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Television producers category

[edit]

Is the Category:British television producers for television producers who are British, or producers of British television? Or both?

As Newman was Canadian and he produced British and Canadian television, would it be better to move him to the parent Category:Television producers? And maybe add him to Category:Canadian film producers too? --Whouk (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good question. I'd probably say the producers category should be for producers who are from that particular country, rather than just worked there, so that should be changed I think. I agree about the Canadian film producer cat too. Angmering 23:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes numbering

[edit]

I've tried to match up the notes to their uses in the text. However, the "uplink" only works for the first use as that's where the anchor is. Should the anchor names be varied for each to get around this? —Whouk (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a work-around for this, so that the same anchors can be used for multiple notes. I'll look into it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the relevant templates ("ref_label" and "note_label"), but I'm not sure what the best format to use them is. I've changed the note references through "Early career in Canada", but the letters and "ibid" look a bit ugly to me. The example at Help:Footnotes has multiple links to the same note on one line in the note — do we want to do that? That messes up the numbering, unless we label every note manually with a number. Opinions? Paul? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was sure I'd read in a previous FAC — for Denis Law, I think — that multiple linking to the same note rather than creating Ibid notes was preferable, but then again that does create the number issue. I think it looks okay as it is, but I've decreased the size of the note text so it hopefully looks a little neater. Angmering 18:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers seem out again now - the last footnote marked in the text in 18, but there are still 23 notes. —Whouk (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers should be fixed now. If we want to avoid "ibid", we could remove the # numbers on the side, and just have links to the relevant notes (so that the Guardian obit would have <superscript>2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13</superscript> beside it, for example). Should I try that to see how it looks? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been bold and made that change — if folks don't like it, they can change back to the full list with "ibid"s. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it works well that way — cheers for all your efforts on this one Josiah! Angmering 20:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - that solves all the issues. —Whouk (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The references to the Financial Times and The Independent pieces seem to have disappeared. They may not have had anything directly tied into them but they were still important background references. Can they be brought back in that context without the formatting being upset? Angmering 20:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're still there, at the bottom of the Notes section, but commented out (within the <-- and --> tags). If they aren't references themselves, maybe put them in a further reading section? --—Whouk (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see them. As what was the References section is now Notes, I've put them in a new "References" section. Angmering 21:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This recent edit changed the numbered notes to "cite.php format", which I wasn't previously familiar with. Is this really preferred, or an improvement? It seems to me that a reader following a link should have some indication of which upward link will return him to his or her prior position in the text, which the current format doesn't give. For example, if a reader wanted to find out the source for Newman saying that he knew "nothing about drama", in the current format he or she would have to count all the [2]s prior to that citation in order to know that the "d" is the link that would return them to their previous location. Would anyone mind if I reverted the latest change? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree — it does seem a bit of an odd revision, given that the previous notation system didn't seem to have any obvious faults with it once we'd sorted it all out here on the talk page as shown in the discussion above. I'd certainly support a revert. Angmering 20:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If the previous editor wants to explain or justify the alteration, he can do so here; meanwhile, I'll revert. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reference

[edit]

On referring to this article, I thought that some of the phraseology, particularly early on, seemed very close to the article I wrote on Newman for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. On closer inspection, I see that they are not the same. This article manages to cover some of the detail that I couldn't include in the ODNB article, and I don't object to the occasional bias towards Doctor Who details here, because that's what people will want to look up. --Matthew Kilburn 01:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Just to add that Angmering has calmed me down! There are a lot of details here which I hadn't found out and if I add them to the ODNB article at some stage the Wikipedia entry will be cited. --Matthew Kilburn 01:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing info

[edit]

I'm frankly surprised this article could have ever achieved FA status: it's little better than a hagiography, imo. Newman played a controversial and historically notable role in censoring politically sensitive works by French Canadian NFB filmmakers and was reviled in Quebec accordingly. It would take years for the NFB to restore its reputation. Film historian Gary Evans has a good description beginning on page 179 of "on+est+au+coton"+lamy&source=bl&ots=c5j7fNWboE&sig=dg5kI-vu-Kr6AYY6MueKUAN-khY&hl=en&ei=t1BaS4mxG82glAfSi4T0BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q="on est au coton" lamy&f=false this work and there are no shortage of other references. I'll be creating a short section on this accordingly, and I believe it's significant enough to mention briefly in the lede, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didsbury

[edit]

The picture of the Didsbury studios and its caption gives an erroneous impression. Armchair Theatre and The Avengers were made at ABC's Teddington Lock studios in London where Newman was also bade - not in Manchester. The Didbsury studios on School Lane were principally used for variety shows, most famously Opportunity Knocks.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sydney Newman/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

As I mentioned on the article Talk page, I do not believe the article merited FA status, owing to the article's failure to address in any way Newman's historically notable and controversial role as head of the NFB. Perhaps the FA threshold was lower in 2006. Anyway, I'll be working to help address this. I've already added a mention in the lede but much more is needed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 16:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 07:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sydney Newman. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sydney Newman. 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) 22:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sydney Newman. 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) 15:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sydney Newman. 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) 14:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney_Newman&oldid=1251365745"