Jump to content

User talk:A20anna/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
A20anna's talk

Other means of contact: Email #wikipedia

Archives:

2009: Mar Apr

The Signpost
6 November 2024

Welcome!

Welcome...

Hello, A20anna, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! DarkAudit (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Resources on Articles and Talk Pages

Help:Archiving a talk page
Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages
talk page guidelines


Helpful Resources on Film Articles

Hello all visitors to Anna's Talk page! Here are some other pages you might find useful if you are into film articles: Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films]]

WikiProjects

What are WikiProjects?

Wikinews film portal

Upcoming events

*Other things you can do:

Film on Wikiquote
Quotes 		Film on Commons
Images 		Film on Wikisource
Texts 		Film on Wikibooks
Books 		Film on Wikinews
News


Women in Film

I'm new to Wiki as far as editing goes. My interest in the Feminism Project is to start a topic on women in film to help support the very few women that are in the film industry, a very difficult place for women since it is so male dominated. Here is an article that does a pretty decent job talking about women in film: http://www.truthout.org/article/theyre-women-directors-and-few "But every time new statistics are released, reflecting minimal, if any progress, the conversation starts up again. The Alliance of Women Film Journalists (of which this reporter is a member) was so disheartened by the lack of women filmmakers on the American Film Institute's recent 10th annual 100 Greatest Films List - of 400 films nominated, only 4.5 were directed by women - that the group decided to create its own list of great films. Released late at the end of June, AWFJ's list includes Heckerling (twice) as well as films made by Mira Nair, Jane Campion, Gillian Armstrong and Coppola."[1]A20anna (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is already a topic on this started, I'd be happy to join the discussion. A20anna (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is another page on Women In Film. The stats are alarming and so few people know about it because very few people are talking about the discrimination that goes on in the Hollywood film industry: "Bravo, Sofia! Now what? Tough Broads: Women Directors and the Oscars: Best Director nominee Coppola leads a pack of female-directed Oscar contenders. Will it matter? When the nominees for Best Director are read aloud at this month's Academy Awards, a quartet of male names will be interrupted by a lone female name: Sofia Coppola, for "Lost in Translation. It's a remarkable feat, considering it's only the third time a woman has been nominated for Best Director and the first time an American woman has received the honor in the entire 76-year history of the Academy Awards."[2] A20anna (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WLaccount for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 01:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What does that mean? I am just trying to start a discussion on women in film because that subject matters to me. What am I suppose to do about what you said?A20anna (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! Have a read on notes for the suspect. I think that at least you all are somewhat related to each other, being a case of meat-puppetry. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 01:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

what the hec does that mean? Can't people who are in a group each independently make remarks? Are there rules that say groups cannot make independent accounts and talk about stuff? If so we did not know that. Plus I seem to be the only one really interested in continuing the discussion now anyway. Help me understand what you mean because I want to contribute about women in film and don't understand what I did.A20anna (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

See votestacking for the rules. You can of course all contribute to discussions but as you might have seen you should follow some rules. I'd appreciate work on the topic of women of film, but I think there's more prominent and notable examples than this. This even biased the poor Henry Mortensen. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 02:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, forgot something: If the articles are deleted, nothing is lost. They can be moved to your userspace, and you and your friends can work on it until they meet certain standards. You then can move it back to main space. Hope that helps a bit. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 02:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply - hey that is a really good idea!! That is what I'm trying to say on the other discussion page by staying open minded but people are sort of mean over there. I just wanted to contribute on the level of women in film so that people can get used to the idea of a woman in the director's chair and a women being credited with a blockbuster film, which is like hardly ever something that is seen. One of the only major ones I can think of is Lord of the Rings, but even there it is mostly men who did that blockbuster on the writing side, and the Coppola project. So it seemed a good idea to try and get a women in film page going. Are you an expert at contributing? Maybe you can help me get the idea going, because that was really good? Also I am not sure what you mean by biased the poor? What do you mean there?A20anna (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
REQUEST - also If I did not do anything wrong can we remove this big old sockpuppet message thing from my talk page? It is sort of intimidating A20anna (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You contacted the right people, the feminist taskforce. They will help you in all you need. Of course you can ask me for help anytime you want, too. I'm just not too familiar with movies and feminism at all. Regarding the sockpuppet/meatpuppet case: An admin will close the case and consider what to do with the deletion discussion, where all of you have contributed to as well as to leave or not leave the tags on your pages. It is not in my hands anymore. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 02:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The idea suggested by HexaChord is not new either, it's something that is regularly done. Trust me, you're not making sweeping suggestions here. Everyone here is open, but that doesn't mean every idea has merit. Your enthusiasm is welcomed, but as someone new you seem to not be aware of some of the policies and common occurances on Wikipedia.
Most of all the idea of "promoting" women in film. We're not a feminist encyclopedia, we're neutral. Women and men get included when they're notable, not because they're a minority in their industry. People know about female directors; we currently have 220 listed in Category:Female film directors. So attempting to promote any and all female film directors simply because they are female is not the correct way to approach Wikipedia editing. Discussion of the struggles of women in film is fine, but attempting to further the cause of women in film is not. The359 (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Question - does this person qualify for at least inclusion on that Director's page? Afterall, she is a film director and writer, but maybe there are rules there too I do not yet know. And thanks for the discussion - it is nice people talk here.A20anna (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


Category:Female film directors would include Kriss Perras Running Waters, assuming the article is not deleted. It's simply a category for all articles on female film directors. The359 (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey Thanks! I put the director on this page Category:Female film directors but it only let me put it on the actual list and not that main page. The main page was not editable, so did I do it right? Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A20anna has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


helpme

OK so I post what I said here? And can you please tell DarkAudit to stop saying mean things to me? He has accused me wrongly already and is just plain speaking to be mean. Don't you think it is weird that a person wrote a really weird talk page comment and is of the other political party than the person they said is a vanity page though? I thought that was strange plus the writing was weird anyway. I am just trying to learn and am getting upset that darkaudit seems to just wants to be mean.

Comment - keep in mind I'm still learning, but I think this is something everybody should know about how this page came into deletion discussion - This director is very obviously a progressive democrat, at least by the articles she's written in journalism. The vanity page issue arose from a person who did not register but with this IP 66.80.59.226 as ssen in the history of this page, and that person contributed only to pro-life and very hard right issues. Politics is not suppose to be a part of what brings an article under review for deletion, yet the person who started the whole thing claimed a bad faith page and is of the absolute opposite in political view of the subject of this article who has been outspoken for the other side. That is not to say everybdoy here is doing that. I just think it is worth mentioning how this article came under review from the vanity page claim and that they're opposing someone who has in journalism written articles of the exact opposite view, and they did not create an account when they made the claim. This came about in my research to try and so fix it since I'm posting so many comments! Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Research and Comment ON Kriss Perras Running Waters Deletion - please stop being so negative - Like you calling me something mean like a sockpuppet, and I came here on good terms yet I have this big thing on my talk page because you said something inaccurate about me. So please stop and just research. Now that said - I did do some research and found out that unless the folks above actually took the time to call the Writer's Guild East and West and asked about guild membership then they would not have known, there is no public database online or in print for the Writer's Guild to verify guild membership. I am trying to research on this person and am posting what I find here for all to see. That is it. I also joined the rescue team and am trying to keep positive and despite darkaudit continually picking on me. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


From The Rescue Squadron page - "In general, the Article Rescue Squadron is not about writing on talk pages as much as editing article pages. If everyone who cares about preserving important topics glances at one deletion discussion per day (or even one per week) the impact will benefit all our readers. Reading through the article slated for deletion and rewriting it - if it is deserving - will help other editors rethink the differences between unencyclopedic writing and unencyclopedic topics – and maybe they will contemplate improvement before they contemplate deletion." So this will be my focus then rather than the discussion - that has been my mistake and I am changing course. I did not know how to help rescue the article. So more research I will do. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I will read through the information above, and respond to your help request very soon. --  Chzz  ►  17:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm getting discouraged from all the people who say no this goes here or that goes there - yet when I look at a page it has similar types of comments as mine - so it is getting no fun to be here. It should be fun to be a part of Wiki and to read and contribute - not come back to find people who say mean stuff rather than showing you what you could do. So I thank you very much for the help. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wiki is like real life. It's a lot of nice people and a lot of assholes. And there is a lot of misunderstandings. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 17:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can see that here and thanks! - I am not sure why we sometimes think Web life is different than other things. Also, I don't believe that page was written by its subject. I looked very thoroughly at the history of the page and there is nothing there to support such a claim. There are a few people who've been banned from returning for vandalism, but nothing to support the vanity page claim. I noticed DarkAudit does that a lot though as far as claims of authorship of a page. Even when the author posts they wrote it that doesn't seem to help him, I noticed on his talk page. That is sort of discouraging too. so maybe how does one not get discouraged here while trying to learn is my real question. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm sorry if you've had a bad experience on wikipedia. I will try to help if I can. Could you tell me what you'd like done? Thanks. --  Chzz  ►  18:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow how very nice - thank you so very much! I was getting confused I guess is all that was wrong. I was trying to follow the rules and loads of postings were sort of overly critical back at me. But I think I resolved the dispute. I made friends with the user, and I think all is OK now as far as that part goes. I wonder a couple of things though. I have noticed we as editors are not being really consistent with our rules, like in film with using IMDb as a reference/source or not. There are a lot of pages in Wiki that use IMDb as the only source and have not been put up for deletion. But this one page I was trying really hard to rescue is being deleted mostly on that rule. So how do we get more consistent with using the rules, especially things like IMDb. How do you like my user page? :0) I edited it with a template! Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"And can you please tell DarkAudit to stop saying mean things to me? He has accused me wrongly already" -> "Don't you think it is weird that a person wrote a really weird talk page comment and is of the other political party than the person they said is a vanity page though?"
I hope you realize that you are yourself accusing someone wrongly without any evidence, only a hunch at a conspiracy. And this is hardly the first accusation of bias or malice you have made in attempting to keep a unnotable article. I suggest, instead of looking for conspiracy theories for why someone nominated an article which needed deleting, you provide some shred of evidence that this person is notable. And no, calling the WGA on the phone is not a reliable source. The359 (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply - Hi The359, I appreciate your mentorship in the comments here - on the WGA: what I was trying to say about the WGA is that there is no public source to verify union membership. I called the WGA, and that is how I found out they do not publish their membership anywhere in anyway. The IMDb WGA credit reference is put there by the person posting the film into IMDb and not by the WGA, at least according to the credits person I spoke to at the WGA. As a result, I was trying to say that the people who were claiming that the article should be deleted due to lack of union membership would not have had any idea whether or not the subject of the article would've had union membership because there was no public database to verify one way or the other, only I did not say it very well at that time. On the political thing: yes, I know. I was trying to understand what was happening in the history section of the page. I'm not the only one who felt a weird sense of villifying, as Mike (Rescue Squad) put it, and I think sort of just weirdness in general compared to the discussions on other deletion pages. So that was all. Just weird feelings being passed around on that discussion page. I also did notice some other things and am compiling some stuff to ask some questions. I do realize I had not yet made a full case of it but am investigating some stuff before I post my question on how to handle it. I again thank you for the comment to help me get better at Wiki. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to ARS!

Hi, A20anna, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!
Here to help articles tagged for rescue!

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome! -- Banjeboi 21:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


wow it is official !!! Thanks!!! I like the template - it is perfect for what we do! hey you know I have a question. There is a page on the Hollywood Reporter. It is questioning the page for citations. Yet I see citations on the page from other sources, which is actually a surprise. My first thought for the page was wow Wiki actually expects a major media source to write about another major media source? So that is sort of why I don't get the message box at the top that brings to question THR. Everybody knows it exists. Is this a case of that one rule that if there are no rules then post it anyway - I forgot what that rule was called but I read it. I don't want to post on that page yet until I research how to go about it so it can stay and not end up in the deleted pile. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! On Hollywood Reporter, firstly it's a notable publication so AfD would quickly fail. The {{Primary sources}} tag is a tad pointy but in many cases needed to help ensure that sources independent of the subject are added. I've amended to {{Refimprove}} to encourage more sourcing as there does seem to be non-primary ones already there. I've also posted {{find}} to the article talkpage which will point to sources. IMHO, start with this Google book search. It shows more than a few books that would certainly be fine sources. -- Banjeboi 21:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
SO nice - thanks! I really like the Rescue Squad people. I wondered about that tag - what you said here makes much more sense. Do you have an answer on my post here on IMDb Rules. I really did read through those rules on film and verifiable and not in one place does it say we cannot use IMDb as a main source. Plus, it is like I wrote below about it is very possible the subject of the article did not input the information into IMDb. There are multiple people who could do that for a film, even down to the lowest person on the film set, a PA. So why do we have this IMDb rule having so much weight in the deletion discussion? Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk)
I posted below but Wikipedia:Citing IMDb covers it well. -- Banjeboi 22:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk page design

To be honest, I yoinked it from another editor (after asking permission, of course). Feel free to borrow what you need. If there are pointers to other directories, you'll need to create them. As far as I can tell, though, the extra directories for the talk page design are for archives. The archive bot takes care of those. DarkAudit (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you for the white flag - I feel better :0) I am going to try the new design. Does it automatically migrate all my talk page content over or do I have to do that? Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as you have the configuration set up properly, it will do it automagically. User:MiszaBot/config has configuration examples, or just copy mine and replace my name with yours as appropriate. DarkAudit (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I will copy yours since I have permission. I like the thing at the top that shows people how to get some help and gives some directions. That was a good thing to put up there. I know what it feels like to be lost on Wiki and that was helpful. This is a huge site. Thank you!!! Big handshakes. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that. That's a welcome template someone else left long ago. Just a sec... :) DarkAudit (talk) 18:44, 11

March 2009 (UTC)

OK - I did edit my user page - how do you like it? I did put in that welcome page stuff. I don't think I did the Babel thing right though - can you see what did wrong? Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. And it's fixed. The template is in the /Babel subpage. I put the proper code in. The same goes for the status section. There are a few subpages that need to be created and edited to make it all work properly. DarkAudit (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
To make the status work, a couple of subpages need to be created. With your permission, I can do it in about 30 seconds, cutting and pasting from my own. DarkAudit (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
yes please do - I do not know what I did wrong but that would be very nice of you - thanks! Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. The /Status page is where you would change the, um, status. :) The /StatusDiv page contains the main code, and lists the available options. Not much editing is necessary there from here on out. DarkAudit (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!!! That was very nice. Is my user name now able to use the template on the talk page too or is there more of that config thing that should be done so I can get my talk page to look pretty too? If so can you help me do that too? Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
That should do it, except for adding the archiving code at the top of the talk page to activate the bot. DarkAudit (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow - you did it! Thanks it looks really good Thank you DarkAudit! Big handshakes!! Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

IMDb Rule

Hey DarkAudit, you're awesome! Thanks for that - I'm afraid to change the template but am going to try - I am not altogether so up on Web templates etc., but I want my page pretty. Can you explain the IMDb rule thing a little better? I was looking over the verifiable rules and the film rules and I don't see where it specifically states that IMDb cannot be used as the main source or as a source for that matter. The rule does have a section on self-publishing, but to say that the subject of the article published the info in IMDb is an assumption. We were talking in our little feminist group, and we were saying that if a film person, or anynody else for that matter, has a PR person, then the information could be entered into IMDb by their PR firm. I have put stuff into IMDb before and there is a step that asks you who you are when you enter it, but it does not post that information with the film. But you also have to be somehow connected to the work but not necessarily be the subject of the work (e.g. the PR firm or an intern or even the producer). So I don't understand why there is a stand in the deletion discussion from the page we were on for Kriss Perras Running Waters that says no IMDb and everybody is agreeing. Is there a page in the rules I have not yet seen or is this just something Wiki does? I just did not see no IMDb in the rules.Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I know about IMDb. Because outside users can contribute information, just like Wikipedia, that information is not considered reliable or verifiable enough for use here on it's own. It can be used to check up on another, different source, but not as a primary source by itself. That's where there's a problem. The article is using IMDb as the sole source of information in most cases. And if the PR person is inserting the relevant information about a subject into their IMDb entry, then that information is not independent, either. Short version, IMDb by itself, not reliable or independent. IMDb used to confirm another source that *is* reliable, verifiable, and independent, that's ok. Is that any help? DarkAudit (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes thank you - I just wondered because the rules did not cite this idea you just wrote. I wish they did because then it would have been much easier! :0) I am going to userfy the Kriss Perras Running Waters page - do you know how to help me create the sub-page. I'm not at all versed on the templates like you are doing, and I appreciate your help. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
That's a little over my head, because a page like that would need to have it's edit history saved as well. It may be as easy as a page move, but don't quote my on that. One of the admins would be able to help you more on that. I'll make a note in the AfD if no one else has yet. DarkAudit (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It was as easy as a page move. And it's done. New home is User:A20anna/Kriss Perras Running Waters. DarkAudit (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

WOW you are fast and really good at that! Thank you! So now that page is there for me to work on it so it can grow, is that right? IN other words I can invite people to add to it so I am not the only one searching and we can all place stuff there to edit it as we go along? Or are there rules I should know about before doing anything further? Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll just need to let them know where to find it. If you talk to the folks at the various WikiProjects, they should be able to give you pointers to keep it all on the level. DarkAudit (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I may have moved a little too fast. Folks in #wikipedia IRC channel are telling me to put it back until the AfD is over. Stay tuned. DarkAudit (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL not a problem - I suppose that would have been good for me to have waited until they all decided too!!! Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


IMDB is simply not the best reliable source. It's a bit in the gray area because content is eventually checked but plenty of non-notable films and actors, etc. are listed there. It's a great source to check so-and-so made x number of movies but I wouldn't rely on it for much more than that. I think they are getting better to try to address wikipedia's sourcing concerns but anything noteworthy will likely be found elsewhere. See Wikipedia:Citing IMDb for more specifics. -- Banjeboi 22:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply - thank you - The IMDb thing seems hard because most film people would not allow something incorrect to be posted about them, at least not the ones that I know anyway. But I completely get the ideas on the rule page. I was really glad to actually get to see the page. my whole objective was to rescue the page. I'm also trying to rescue another page but not yet posted anything. This time I am doing research before I say a word about the page. See below in a few minutes when I ask Mike a few questions on rescue procedures. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply - Hey DarkAudit, please be nice to Mike like you're being very nice to me (and thank you). I did go to the rescue page stating I was not doing a very good job rescuing this page, and requested he please help me because I'm new. I thank him for doing this. Also, I'm glad there was a parenthetical explanation of "rationale," because members of my feminist group are still upset from the outside looking in, as I'm the only one left in the discussion, plus they left because they were worried about getting me sockpuppeted. But anyway they still don't understand why the statistics are not of note for the subject, and I am not sure I understand either. Maybe there is an IMDb rule kind of thing on the statistics too? If so I'd be glad to read it so I don't post info that is out of Wiki rules. This is what our group was thinking (then I have to go to work!!) - what if the following were added to the page, would it be in line with Wiki rules? "Kriss Perras Running Waters is an American film writer and director, one of 17 percent of women who comprise all executive producers, producers, directors, writers, cinematographers, and editors in the film industry. . . etc etc etc " would that comply with wiki rules (of course with the studies citation as part of the content)? Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Your request for help =

I am willing to give you the benefit of my knowledge in the strengthening of your articles, and will translate "wiki-ese" into English for you. More on my talk page. - Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply - Thanks Mike for jumping in on this discussion. I too felt like there was some vilification happening in that discussion. I'm off to your talk page to learn more. I have a new page I want to help rescue and have questions. It is of course about another woman! Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Kriss Perras Running Waters, Running Waters Productions, First Canyon Rain

Articles for deletion discussions are not open forums. They are for discussion of the merits of the article. Anything that does not have to do with the article or why it might be kept or deleted does not belong. It is not for discussing new ideas or attempting to tell new users what policy is for or whether or not an editor's feelings might be hurt.

Keep discussions to only whether or not the article should be kept or deleted, on merits alone, or with a supply of reliable resources. Anything else does not belong and clutters the discussion. The359 (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have closed the AfD a little early and moved the articles to your userspace per your request that you want to rescue the articles. The articles are now currently at:

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to mention is that when you finish the three articles, please make sure that you move the respective article talk pages along with the articles themselves when you move them back to mainspace. I added AfD closure templates to the talk pages that should be preserved when you move them back to mainspace. You will see what I mean when you move the page by leaving the "Move associated talk page" checkbox checked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply - Excellent! Thanks! Now we have more time to thoroughly research the subject and do it properly. I appreciate your communication! Also would you take a moment to answer this question for me and for the other ladies in our feminist group? We still don't understand why the statistics are not of note for the subject of the article, as in making the subject notable in film. We thought it made the subject notable because when there are only a few of some type of person doing something, that makes them remarkable, like one green object amidst a million yellow ones. Maybe there is an IMDb rule kind of thing on this type statistics idea too? If so, I'd be glad to read it so I don't post info for this article that is out of Wiki rules. If the stats don't make the subject notable, what about this effort on citation? Proposed rewrite: for opening sentence: "Kriss Perras Running Waters is an American film writer and director, one of 17 percent of women who comprise all executive producers, producers, directors, writers, cinematographers, and editors in the film industry. . . etc. etc. etc. " (P.S. I'm posting at work so I'll respond later tonight - gotta go) Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The statistics should not be included because they are not specific to her. While she is part of the group that you are including in the numbers, her being a female director does not make her notable in and of itself. What makes her notable would be if she created something significant. See WP:CREATIVE for details. For example, if you suddenly declared yourself a film director today, that would not make you immediately notable just because you declared yourself a director and happened to be female. You would actually need to create something. The short answer to what you need to do to fix the article is that either one of two things need to happen to make her notable: 1) she actually films, finishes, and releases her movies and the movies meet the movie notability guideliness (being in pre-production does not count per WP:NFF), 2) she get significant third-party coverage of her work from reliable sources. Until that time comes, you shouldn't move the articles back to mainspace. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply - Hey Gogo Dodo - thanks for the answers and resources for more research. First, I won't move the page back into the main space even if those things happen until it is looked over by a few of you who are talking to me here to make sure it meets standards so it does not go through another deletion discussion. I get what you mean by WP:NFF WP:CREATIVE reliable sources and movie notability guideliness. I've been doing a lot of reading on the rules for film - it just seems like there are some unsaid things that people understand about some of these rules. Do the stats make it seem like a leaning article, as in an article that has spin so therefore it is not neutral? Is that something you're trying to say really nicely here? Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
  1. ^ http://www.truthout.org/article/theyre-women-directors-and-few
  2. ^ http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/24/news/oscars_women/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A20anna/Archive_1&oldid=1081377541"