Talk:The Skeptic (film)

This article was nominated for deletion on May 7, 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

A fact from The Skeptic (film) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 May 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Tennyson Bardwell's second film The Skeptic was actually written in the 1980s, but did not start filming until 2005?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/May.

Wikipedia

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discussion moved from user talk page

The following discussion took place on my talk page. I'm moving it here, where it properly belongs. Any additional discussion should take place here. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edits there and your edit summaries. You added links stating "restored standard film article links" however per Film project consensus and WP:EL, just because those are "standard" links does not mean they should be included automatically if they do not actually add any content beyond what the article already has. Those links were specifically excluded because of the lack of content beyond plot summary and cast/crew, which is already in the article. Please explain how you feel they add significant value to the article?

Re your naming of the References section to Notes stating "enumerated in-line citations are universally called "notes", a specific form of reference" - um, no they are not. Notes are used when a note section is purely actual notes, for a mix of notes and references, or if you are using the shortened form of notes with full references in a separate section. This article is using full, in-line citations. No where in any guideline or policy have I seen requires a full, in-line citation section to be called "Notes" nor has it ever come up in any FA or FL discussion I've ever seen where sections are always called References. In the end, it is still pretty much personal preference, and per WP:CITE, "the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected". So please do not change this again, as per the existing guideline. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the real world, not in the wacky Wikiworld, enumerated in-line references are called "Notes". If they are listed at the foot of the page, they are "Footnotes". If they are listed at the end of the book or article, they are "Endnotes", or, in either case, they can be called just plain "Notes". They are never called "References", which is a generic term encompassing various forms of information germane to the sourcing of a book or article. A note is a specific kind of reference, as is a citation, an entry in a bibliography, etc.

Wikipedia shouldn't exist in a world of its own, separate from the real world. It can make up its own definitions if it wants, like Humpty-Dumpty, but it only serves to make it look silly to people who already have a tendency to look down on it. There's no reason in the world to give them further ammunition. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ELs add content to the article by dint of being links to standard and widely used websites for film information. We serve our readers by providing these link for their convenience. Not only that, but the information there is not static, it changes over time, so while at the moment there may not appear to be strong reasons to include them, as active repositories of data, it's more than likely that value will be added to them. Not only that, but even now, while the information there at the moment may be of the same type as is included in our articles, it also has the potential to differ in scope or specific content. Giving our readers a place to double check what we say is only reasonable and, again, convenient for them, as well as beneficial to us (since we can be more easily alerted to problems in our information).

The bottom line is that these standard film article links have every reason to be included, and our guidelines (not rules to be followed slavishly and dogmatically) allow them. Please do not remove them again. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are basically arguing for possible future usefulness which may or may not even materialize. At this point, they fail WP:EL and they are completely useless to readers. They do not provide additional information NOW, which is what matters. I have requested additional views from the Film project to get further opinions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am arguing that we are here to serve our readers, and having those links does exactly that. (And no way do they fail EL, that's the bunk.) Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are both right (bettcha thought you'd never see that statement from me), although I don't see a problem in adding the sources especially since both sites are dynamic and subject to change. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]