Misplaced Pages

User talk:Betty Logan

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aoidh (talk | contribs) at 17:07, 6 April 2012 (Removal of warning template: Re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:07, 6 April 2012 by Aoidh (talk | contribs) (Removal of warning template: Re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Betty_Logan.

Archiving icon
Archives


This page has archives. Sections older than 240 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

A brownie for you!

Armbrust has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread more WikiLove, install the WikiLove user script.

RFD result

I want to inform you that I have closed your rfd entry as retarget to Deathly Hallows (disambiguation). Hope that helps. @pple complain 10:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine, thanks for sorting it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Man with the Golden Gun.....?

Hi there - I've made a start on The Man with the Golden Gun (film) as it was in a terrible mess. It's now approaching some level of normality now and I wondered if you had time to have a look over it at some point? I appreciate you're probably snowed under with a million and one other things, but even if it is just to drop in or tags it really would be much appreciated! If you are too busy, it's really not a problem! Cheers - SchroCat (^@) 20:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try and get around to it but it will most likely be after the weekend, since I promised to look over the POTC:Stranger Tides article. I don't have much interest in POTC (glorified toy adverts if you ask me!) but I should look over it since I said I would. Betty Logan (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
You are an absolute star - thanks so much for this! - SchroCat (^@) 21:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thank you for the assist on Starship Troopers. I hope you were able to clarify things more successfully than I apparently was able to. Doniago (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox film

Hi, Betty! You may want to see my comments here regarding the recent modification you made. Swarm 20:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I've left my thoughts at the main topic. Betty Logan (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Betty - for the third time, thanks again for all your help, this time with On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which is now a GA-listed article again. Without your hard work and invaluable input we wouldn't have made it. Thanks again! Gavin SchroCat (^@) 21:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
That's great. I'll be able to move on to TMWTGG in the next day or so too since Pirates of the Caribbean got to GA without any assistance from me. Betty Logan (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever considered becoming a reviewer of WP:Good Articles Betty? I think you'd make a great reviewer.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I did try it once and I made a bit of a hash. I sometimes review articles for B-class status, but I still feel I have some way to go before I become a GA reviewer. I'm still overlooking things I should pick up on, but hopefully I'll get to the point where I am completely thorough. Betty Logan (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

titular & eponymous

You did ask - and I did promise! Below are the nearly incomprehensible entries in the OED, minus the quotations. As you can see neither of them make it entirely clear whether Scaramanga should be called the titular or eponymous MWTGG...! - SchroCat (^@) 08:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

titular, adj. and n.

A. adj. 1.

a. That exists or is such only in title or name, as distinct from real or actual; holding or bearing a title without exercising the functions implied by it; nominal, so-styled.
b. With limiting words, as but, merely, only, expressing entire absence of the reality.

2. Of, pertaining to, consisting of, or denoted by a title of dignity; also, having a title of rank, titled; bearing, or conferring, the appropriate title. 3. Of or pertaining to a title or name; of the nature of or constituting a title (in various senses). titular character, title-role. 4. From whom or which a title or name is taken; spec. noting the parish churches of Rome from which the titles of the cardinals are derived (see title n. 9); hence transf. of a cardinal.

B. n. 1. Sc. Law. In full titular of the teinds (tithes) : a layman who became possessed of the title to the tithes of an ecclesiastical benefice at or after the Reformation; a lord of erection. 2. a. One who holds a title to an office, benefice, or possession, irrespective of the functions, duties, or rights attaching to it; spec. a cleric who bears a title (title n. 8) whether he performs the duties or not; esp. short for titular bishop at sense A. b. transf. One who has a title or appellation of some kind. 3. One who bears a title of rank; a titled person. 4. R.C. Church (See quot. 1885.) 1885 Cath. Dict., Patron and Titular of church, place, &c.‥ The titular is a wider term comprehending the persons of the Trinity, mysteries (e.g. Corpus Christi), and saints; the patron of a church can only be a saint or an angel.‥ The feast of the principal titular or patron is a double of the first class with an octave.

Second edition, 1989; online version June 2011. <http://www.oed.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/view/Entry/202662>; accessed 19 August 2011. Earlier version first published in New English Dictionary, 1912.

eponymous, adj.

1. That gives (his) name to anything; said esp. of the mythical personages from whose names the names of places or peoples are reputed to be derived.1846 G. Grote Hist. Greece I. i. iv. 111 The eponymous personage from whom the community derive their name.1874 A. H. Sayce Princ. Compar. Philol. ix. 379 Eponymous heroes.1889 A. C. Swinburne Study of Jonson 27 The eponymous hero or protagonist of the play. 2. Giving his name to the year, as did the chief archon at Athens.1857 S. Birch Hist. Anc. Pott. (1858) I. 195 Inscribed with the name of the eponymous magistrate. Second edition, 1989; online version June 2011. <http://www.oed.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/view/Entry/63656>; accessed 19 August 2011. Earlier version first published in New English Dictionary, 1891.

Thanks, harldy makes it clear does it? I'll be taking a look over For Your Eyes only this weekend BTW. Betty Logan (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Once again, User:Betty Logan, thanks for all your work on The Man with the Golden Gun: this article would not have got to GA Status without all your efforts. SchroCat (^@) 13:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

ps. I'm making a start on Licence to Kill if you feel like jumping right in... ;) - SchroCat (^@) 13:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look over the weekend. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
You're an absolute star - thanks very much! I thought we'd get the Eon series done first and then go back to NSNA partly because it's 'non-official' and partly because it's a huge mess...! Thanks again for agreeing to look at LTK - SchroCat (^@) 06:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File:MrPerfection.ogg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MrPerfection.ogg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sir Armbrust Contribs 20:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Inflation adjustment

A worldwide gross calculated in U.S.$ can be adjusted for inflation in U.S.$ even though it might imprecisely adjust all the underlying currencies, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to give me a bit more than "I believe". I have never heard of anyone publishing an adjusted worldwide chart on the basis of the different inflation levels, and no other film article review has asked for this to my knowledge. Betty Logan (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Hope you like it. Sir Armbrust Contribs 16:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Once again a thousand thanks for all your input on the FYEO article - a great three person team we have going here! Only LTK (now a GAN) and NSNA to go for the full house! Thanks again.... SchroCat (^@) 08:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we wore down Tony on For Your Eyes Only! Betty Logan (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I think so - seemed to want to get out quickly at the end! Still, the article is at GA standard - and a high one at that. He certainly gave it a thorough going over so I don't think anyone can complain about it now! LTK now nominated: fingers crossed for that one and I'm starting to look at the hideous mess that is Never Say Never Again... - SchroCat (^@) 08:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think he was a regular film reviewer, so confused editorial discretion and MOS on a couple of things. That's not a bad thing though, because I think unorthodox editing decision should be justified at some point to help protect the article from future delistings or changes. As for the casting issue, if you want to leave it as it is that's fine by me; I just suggested the alterations as a means of resolving the impasse, so it's kind of irrelevant now. Betty Logan (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree - if the MOS gives three options then it is an indication as to a large degree of flexibility allowed in the process. I had re-written both the cast and casting sections in case he stood firm and I'm tempted to put them in now as I don't think anyone will complain too much. What do you think? - SchroCat (^@) 08:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
It's entirely up to you. I always believe when something is not necessitated by policy or clear guidelines then it is really up to the primary article editors to decide on the structure of the article. I'm not one of those editors who believe that articles should all look the same, and it's basically just a structural issue in the case of For Your Eyes Only—everything that should be there, is there. Personally I think there is a more a problem with something like Die Another Day which doesn't provide any third-party coverage of the casting, so if you are looking for somewhere to divert your energies they would probably be better spent on clear MOS violators. Betty Logan (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll crack on with Never Say Never Again first, which will get all the films onto GA, then work through the weaker articles to get them up to a the same standard as we've set on the others we've worked on. - SchroCat (^@) 09:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop...

...moving MoS pages into article space. Whatever title you want it to have, it must begin "Misplaced Pages:".Kotniski (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Also notice of the discussion to move manual of style pages can be found at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/snooker. There was wide support for moving pages to be sub-pages of the main Manual of Style page. If you disagree with that decision, you might want to review the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 123#RFC: Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS? and then raise any objections at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style. olderwiser 11:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Never Say Never Again

Hi Betty, I've made a start on Never Say Never Again and I'm a little concerned with having three non-free images images on there, which appear to more window dressing than anything else. If you've got time, I'd appreciate your opinion on which (if any) could legitimately be kept... Many thanks! - SchroCat (^@) 09:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at this article over the weekend, but this article has had problems with its images for a while, I removed a couple last month. I would say that (apart from the poster) the only image that is justifiable under FUR is the image showing the replacement for the gun barrel scene. I mean, in that motorbike one is that even Sean Connery or is it a stuntman? Betty Logan (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thought that was going to be the case – the replacement to the gun barrel seems to be the only noteworthy one there – I’ll ditch the other two and have a hunt round a little later to see if there are any relevant free ones to drop in. - SchroCat (^@) 09:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

SFN Help!

Hi there, I wonder if you could help me on a coding / citing issue I have? I’ve got the following (below) which is all OK as far as it goes, but I wanted to see if there was a way to do this with the {{sfn}} template? Do you have any ideas, or do I have to go against the formatting for the rest of the article on this one? Is there a way to do something like “Chapter...., in {{sfn}}, for example? Just starting to have a look at Casino Royale (novel) which isn't too bad, but needs a bit of a spruce up! Cheers! - SchroCat (^@) 12:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Bennett, Tony & Woollacott, Janet, The Moments of Bond, in Lindner, Christoph (ed) (2003). The James Bond Phenomenon: a Critical Reader. Manchester University Press. ISBN 9780719065415. P 13

Example

Using the above as an example, the simplest way is to combine the reference like this (click on "edit" to see the wiki mark-up). However, if you have several references to Lindner (not authored by Bennett and Woollacott), then to avoid multiple book references in the bibliography you can do it like this.

References

References

  1. Bennett & Woollacott 2003, chpt. 13. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFBennettWoollacott2003 (help)
  2. Bennett, Tony; Woollacott, Janet (2003), "The Moments of Bond", {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help). In: Lindner 2003, chpt. 13.
  • Note that in this example Bennett & Woollacott 2003 doesn't link to the book, but to the other reference. This is because they share the same reference code due to the same name and year, but obviously since you won't have both references in the article together then this will correct itself.

Bibliography

You're an absolute star - thanks very much indeed! I'll drop in one of the versions and then see how many other chapters from Lindner there are to see if I need to go down the other route. Cheers - SchroCat (^@) 14:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI

If you continue to remove discussion from WP:TFD I will have to report this incident to WP:ANI. Frietjes (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think you should, because you are interfering with the creation of a template that has been agreed by consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Stop removing it from TFD. If there is so much consensus for this template, then let it get snowball kept. Please stop disrupting Misplaced Pages. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Highest-grossing films franchise. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You can see from the edit history I am developing a template. This other editor has no valid reason to interfere with its development since it is not in use in any article as yet. And yet, I am the one who gets warned for edit-warring? How come I am edit-warring and he isn't? Why am I subject to sanctions but he isn't? And where does this leave me? Do I have to stop developing the template and leave it half finsished, simply because someone opposes its development? Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
(Moving my comment to WP:AN, since you have taken the discussion there.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Casino Royale - the novel

Hi there, I know you're hugely busy with the film franchises stuff you're doing (not to mention the templates!) but if you've got a spare 10 minutes, could you cast your eye over Casino Royale for me and let me know if you find any problems? It's really not a problem if you haven't got time! Cheers - SchroCat (^@) 12:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I will look at it, but I'm pretty focused on building a template at the moment, which has turned into a war of attrition and I'm determined to complete it! Hopefully I can look over the article some time next week. Betty Logan (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Betty - That's great - thanks very much for that - much appreciated! - SchroCat (^@) 06:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Franchises Table

I know it's a big task, but how's it going so far? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You can have a look at here: User:Betty_Logan/Sandbox. I've been experimenting with making franchises sub-tables of franchises anticipating The Hobbit films. As you can see it mostly works, but while the film totals add up in a series box, the series totals don't add up for the franchise box. This is basically because the series boxes are tables in their own right, so from how Misplaced Pages sees it there aren't any totals to add up, just tables. I've been looking around to see if there is a way to get around this, but if there isn't we'll have to just input the franchise totals manually. We do that with the current table, and it isn't a big deal because we just change one number in the formula when we update, but I was hoping to avoid it with the template version. Betty Logan (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
That's a little bit of a hassle, but I guess it's no big deal. Question: Will the Avengers be part of the Iron Man franchise? If so, provided Avengers makes at least $241,981,116 (which it will...) the Iron Man franchise would be in the top 20. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there are strong reasons for including it if Iron Man is in it, although I'm inclined to follow the lead on the Misplaced Pages Iron Man article. Personally I don't think there is an Avengers "franchise", it's just a film that belongs to several other franchises, but the sources take precendence over what I think. Betty Logan (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean the Iron Man article? Because that lead mentions Avengers as though it's as much of a part of the series as Iron Man 3, although it does mention Incredible Hulk as well, even though he only made a cameo appearance in that. And I think Iron Man in other media pretty much does the same thing. I'm not entirely sure I want Avengers included in the Iron Man franchise, but on the other hand, I think it makes sense to put it there... Yeah, Avengers is a tough franchise to deal with, because it really does behave more like a narrative continuity type thing that connects different franchises, rather than the usual, different continuities connected by a franchise. But I think, whatever we do with the Avengers, we should also keep a potential Justice League film in our minds (it could happen... not any time soon though), as we would have to treat it very similarly to the Avengers, and that would further complicate Batman's entry. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
If you are wondering what is happening with these templates then it should be ready some time this weekend. I've tried various methods to automate the summation of the franchises but you can't do it without substition, which is pretty complicated. It will be easier for editors to type in the totals themselves. There is some middle ground though. I can put summation formulas in the templates, and editors can use the preview function to perform the calculation and just copy in the number. They have to copy in a number for the film anyway, so it will just be an extra number to copy into the template. It's not perfect, but it cuts out the work of having to do the calculations yourself. I'll write up the documentation this weekend which will give an example of how to fill in totals. Betty Logan (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Dr. No & Subsections...

Hi Betty, I've had to revert someone a couple of times for saying articles "should not have single subsections" and moving 3.2.1 (The casting of) James Bond to become 3.3 - even though 3.2 is the casting section. (BTW, this all makes sense if you look at the history!) Am I right in thinking he's talking absolute nonsense? I've had a look over the MOS and can see nothing that even vaguely suggests he might be right! I'm also away for a few days (back on Tuesday) and not able to ensure he doesn't do the same thing again - could you keep an eye on it? Cheers - SchroCat (^@) 18:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I just took a look. Bignole is a good editor so is always worth hearing out, but I don't know of any MOS guideline that backs up what he's saying. Since it passed GA under the "offending" sectioning he probably should have taken it to the talk page after you reverted him. However, I see he has since created two sub-sections splitting up the casting section, so is that an effective compromise, or would you prefer to restore the original partition? Personally I think splitting the casting into two sub-sections works, because I think the casting of Bond is the most important part of that section, so should probably be foremost under Casting. However, if you want to back to how it was let me know and I'll post a request at the MOS and get it clarified. BTW, I haven't forgotten I said I would look over Casino Royale, but I got tied up cretaing templates this week. I've more or less cracked the problem so will hopefully get on CS during the week. Betty Logan (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry too much - he's discussing it on the talk page of MOS and I think it's largely been closed off for the moment (it's just a very, very bad idea!) - SchroCat (^@) 10:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

HP

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 Hello! Just about the following sentence:"....Principal photography began on 19 February 2009 (2009-02-19) and was completed on 12 June 2010..". What kind of pictures are involved here? Thanks a lot in advance! 2.193.57.132 (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific please? Betty Logan (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 Hello! Just about the following sentence:"....Principal photography began on 19 February 2009 (2009-02-19) and was completed on 12 June 2010..". I can't understand the meaning of photography in this context. Is creating more pictures involved? or is a shooting activity involved? Thanks a lot in advance! 2.193.254.11 (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Principal photography is the main filming of the movie, usually done by the director with the main cast. Before principle photography, sets are built and parts are cast, and after principle photography the special effects are done, the movie is edited and scored. You can find out more at Principal photography. Hope this helps. Betty Logan (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 Thanks a lot! 109.53.198.115 (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks again for all your hard work on Never Say Never Again to get it over the line for GA status! As always it's been great working with you again. I'm going to see what I can do for Casino Royale (Climax!), but I'm not sure there is enough information out there to get it to GA status, but I think I have to at least try! SchroCat (^@) 15:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Film Series articles

Hiya, Just a quickie as I've had a look round, but I'm struggling to find any info about how to deal (on a macro level) with film series articles. I want to have a stab at getting James Bond (film series) into some sort of shape (or at least ensuring that most of it isn't tagged for being unsourced). The problem is that this is a big fat bloated article at the moment (591 on the list of the largest articles on wiki) and ripe for division onto 2 or 3 articles. I've tried looking for some guidelines on what would be considered 'standard' in a series article, or what would be considered a 'standard' set of articles around a series, but without any success. Do you know where I could find any guidelines? I'm out of contact for about a week or so, so please carry on sorting out your franchise tables (which look pretty good, from what I've seen!) Cheers - SchroCat (^@) 14:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there are any guidelines for film series articles. I don't tend to do much on them because I find many of them redundant, and just regurgitate what can be found in the main articles. That said I have a slight preference for the "in film" articles as opposed to the film series articles. Two worth checking are Superman in film and Batman in film. I think the main strengths of those articles is that they focus on the background production history. I think there is some scope for covering the legal wrangles over the Bond rights in the James Bond article. On another note I've started to install that blasted template into the film grosses article so that should be off my back soon, and Casino Royale is top of my list. Betty Logan (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Cheers for that - I've incorporated your ideas into a wider plan and suggested it on the talk page, but I like what they have there and it would sit better alongside the three pages that the article has now been broken down into. Don't worry about Casino Royale - it went GA a couple of days ago, which I'me very happy about! Cheers! - SchroCat (^@) 09:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding the Transfomers animated movie to the Live series would be wrong

I saw that you added the animated Transformers (1986) movie's Box Office to the 'Transfomers' film series in the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" section. You see, adding the animated film as in the "Transfomers series" would not be correct. The series mentioned on that page focuses on the movies. Therefore, the animated film is not a part of it. This is what believe, if you think different, please put a talk about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namanbapna (talkcontribs) 16:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The Transformers franchise includes the live action series and the animated film; you can verify this by checking the source for the chart. We use verifiability on Misplaced Pages, not editor's opinions. Betty Logan (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

expr vs +++

You believe that {{+++}} is easier for the layman editor to use than {{#expr:}}. I can understand how {{#expr:}} might seem technical but templates are not perfectly straight forward either. A newcomer to the article might wonder what the special code is (be it {{+++}} or {{#expr:}}) and have to look it up. Which of these is the newcomer more likely to have seen before? Well, consider that {{+++}} is used only in List of highest-grossing films. In addition {{addition}}, to which {{+++}} redirects, is used in only a handful of articles. Here they are.

I see an interesting pattern in these: films, English towns, parts of London and FIRST teams. This layman editor you mention, there seems to be two or three of them, and not such laymen. I'm not trying to say you're wrong but I just wonder why, if this is the easier way, it's hardly ever used after about three years of existance. Moreover, is ease of use the be all and end all? Newcomers will have to figure things out somehow, why not let them figure {{#expr}} out? It's useful. JIMp talk·cont 07:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly about it, then feel free to put it back. It's just that the template has been in the article for quite some time, so I didn't see the point of changing something that editors were used to. Betty Logan (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I see your point but considering that this article is about the only place they could get used to it would they be more used to this or #expr. It seems to me that having umpteen different ways of doing the same thing makes this place more difficult to fathom. I don't believe we should keep templates which perform simple maths functions which can easily be done with #expr. I think I might go put it back. Thank you for your understanding. JIMp talk·cont 00:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

On This Day

Nice to see that we made the On this day... section yesterday! :) - SchroCat (^@) 07:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully it will become a regular occurrence now they're all up to GA status. I guess the important thing is to make sure they're kept in that state, because the Bond articles tend to be an popular destination for editors. Betty Logan (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, hope you're doing well! I wanted to ask you if you were interested in nominating yourself as a candidate to become a coordinator for WikiProject Film, but I was surprised to see that you did not list yourself as one of its participants. You've been a welcome presence at WT:FILM with your excellent discourse. I've also liked that you've worked on solutions, such coming up with a viable table for the highest-grossing film series. Would you consider nominating yourself? I think you would have a lot of good ideas on how WikiProject Film can serve its editors and also readers of articles about film. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Film has always been a secondary interest on Misplaced Pages for me with the snooker project being my priority. The Snooker Project doesn't have many participants so I've always taken care not to prioritise another project ahead of it. When I work on film articles I prefer to take a stub or start class article about a more obscure film and develop it—something like Don't Look Now for instance probably would never have got a proper article even though it's on the core list, and I would much rather work on something like that than gettin/font>]] •
That's fine! Thanks for your reply. Hope you can help out with some of the stub-class core articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thunderball

Hi there, I wonder if I could ask your advice on something sort of film related... I'm going through the Bond books at the moment, getting them all into a much better shape; I'll shortly be coming up to Thunderball, which contains a massive amount of information on the associated controversy. A certain amount of this belongs on the page, whilst much of it is only remotely connected to the book itself, but is a subsequent ramification of the events covered.

Can I ask, in your opinion, how much of this should be included on this page? I was thinking of maybe starting a separate page, just on the controversy, to cover all aspects of the book, the two films and the proposed Warhead film. Would that stack up to something notable and sufficient for an article? Any help, as always, would be much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (^@) 09:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is enough material to create a sufficiently strong article in its own right, although if that's how you choose to go I will support that, but it may be better and easier to just to trim what isn't strictly necessary from this article, because there is quite a bit of duplication across the Bond articles. I think everything up to the first court settlement is relevant to the authorship and the copyright of the novel so belongs here regardless of whether a separate article is created or not, and I would probably rename the section as "Copyright" or something along those lines rather than "Controversy". In the adaptations section I would briefly cover Thunderball (film), Never Say Never Again (which is surprisingly missing) and the planned 1990s version Warhead 2000, and while it may be worth mentioning McClory's participation I wouldn't delve too much into the production history of those films because it isn't actually relevant to the novel, and is covered on the film articles. The last segment (the 1998 challenge) doesn't really pertain to the copyright of Thunderball, it is a much broader claim regarding the rights of the character, so maybe it would be better to move that over to the article about the film series. I think that would pretty much address what should be included on the Thunderball article, but there is the counter-argument that it would not sufficiently address the legal dispute itself. I think these are two different issues though, so I would pare down the Thunderball article which would at least reduce the coverage of the dispute to what is actually relevant to the novel itself, and then if you feel that the copyright dispute is notable enough to be covered as a single entity then a separate article can be created. Betty Logan (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I suspect you're right about there not being enough for a full article, but I feel that there needs to be the full story somewhere, so I'll re-draft it into a more manageable format for the James Bond in film article, as that seems to be a more appropriate place for it anyway. Most of it certainly doesn't need to be in the novel's article; once I've got For Your Eyes Only sorted out I'll get onto it. Thanks again - invaluable advice as always! - SchroCat (^@) 14:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hiya, one more question for you (and sorry for bugging you!) Is there a way to search for pages that link in to a section? If I change the name from "Controversy" to "Copyright" then those pages that link in will need to be edited to reflect the change: any idea on the best way to do that? Cheers (again!) - SchroCat (^@) 15:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
That's ok, I don't mind helping out on these articles. You need an {{Anchor}}, for the section; I've taken the liberty to add one in (Thunderball_(novel)#Controversy) and changed the section title, but if it's not how you want it feel free to make any adjustments. Betty Logan (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
That's great - thanks very much for that. Do you know if it will work for a lower level heading too? I'll probably leave it as a separate section in its own right, but it could end going as a sub-section of a Background section (which may also be logical, depending on how it all pans out...) - SchroCat (^@) 19:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, I've tested it and you can! Thanks again - SchroCat (^@) 03:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've had a large scale edit of the section now - splitting it into two subsections along the way, which sort of seemed like the best thing to do at the time! Could I beg one further favour from you? Would you mind having a quick look over to see that what I've done looks and feels right for the article? If you don't have time, then it's really not a problem. Cheers - SchroCat (^@) 19:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a gander at it this evening. Betty Logan (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
That's great - many thanks indeed! You're a star! - SchroCat (^@) 07:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I've cleaned it up slightly. There is one claim that is uncited and a possible problem source, that could be an issue in a GA review (although if you can't get the info elsewhere there probably is a case that the source is reliable in this particular instance, on the basis that it reproduces a magazine article and there is little scope for misinterpretation). I think the level of coverage and the focus of coverage is about right for this article, overall it looks like a good job. I just looked over the Background section, but if you want me to do the entire article (either tomorrow or when you finished doing what you want to do with it) just let me know. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, Thanks so much for doing that - it's much appreciated. I've altered the citation and added another one, so all should be okay now. Don't worry about the rest - I know you've got your hands full with other stuff. Thanks again. - SchroCat (^@) 19:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

royal wedding page

Did you watch the YouTube video? It contains the BBC, ABC, and dozens of other major independent 3rd party news sources. What about the mention of the effects of the royal wedding on sapphire engagement rings is not verifiable? If you don't want the world's largest sapphire distributor referenced, that's fine, however it seemed more than a little relevant, as they WERE mentioned in every story about what the royal wedding did for the popularity of sapphire engagement rings and the sapphire industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.90.68.215 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to add this stuff to the article, I suggest starting a discussion on the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

the-numbers.com

Hi Betty, We're trying to get List of James Bond films through the FL process at the moment (see here) and one reviewer has questioned the validity of the-numbers.com as a reliable source. Do you have any thoughts or any evidence to show that it is a reliable source? Many thanks - SchroCat (^@) 17:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Film Project considers it reliable for box office data: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Film/Resources#List_of_potential_resources. If the reviewer is simply trying to assess its suitability then the resource page should be sufficient; if he is actually questioning its reliability then the issue has wider implications for lots of film articles and should be raised on the Film Project discussion page. Betty Logan (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I pointed that out to him! His reaction was, and I quote: "Just because something is listed on a WikiProject's resources page doesn't necessarily make it reliable. The projects are usually more inclined to declare a shaky source reliable than the other way around. Are there any stories in the media that declare this source reliable?" - SchroCat (^@) 17:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Nash Information Services which publishes "The Numbers" has been referenced by some high profile publishers: Variety, Wall Street Journal, New York Times etc. Usually citation by reliable sources are key to establishing a source as reliable. Betty Logan (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
That's great - thanks very much indeed. That should persuade him as to their reliability! Cheers - SchroCat (^@) 18:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ra. One

Hello. I can't see how the neutrality of the reception section is disputed if everyone except one user seems to agree that it is "mixed to positive". The tag is unnecessary. Shahid14:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's disputed because there is an open discussion about it on the neutrality noticeboard. It stops being disputed once the discussion is closed. If it is open and shut then the discussion will be closed over the next day or so. Betty Logan (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Transformers

But its already out on DVD..... Box office Mojo tend to take time in updating the movie statuses.....B.Davis2003 (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly out on DVD in the US and some other countries, but the fact is the box office is still being updated so it's obviously still out somewhere. Betty Logan (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

On the scrounge for some help & advice again!

Hi there, I've been going over the James Bond article recently to try and get it into something of a better shape. Would you have time to have a quick look over it to see it makes sense? No problems if not - entirely understandable if you don't! I've gone for GA status with it in the Literature category, but I'm not entirely sure that's the best place for it: would you know of a better place for such a broad topic? - Cheers if you can help! - SchroCat (^@) 15:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try and look over it tomorrow evening. Betty Logan (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Passion of the Christ

This edit is excellent. It's exactly the wording we need. Well done! StAnselm (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Since all we can really deduce from his comments is that he is less religious than he used to be, it at least puts his review on a solid footing. Betty Logan (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Bond image...

Nice work! - SchroCat (^@) 19:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thanks AGAIN for all your help on repairing all my mistakes on James Bond - your ongoing advice and guidance is a huge help to me in my error-strewn approach! - SchroCat (^@) 13:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

James Bond (character)

Hiya, I'm going to have a stab at the James Bond (character) page and try and get it up to a decent standard, if possible. i've put down a suggested outline at Talk:James Bond (character) of what I think would be the best way to start. Could you let me know if you think this is a half decent outline, or if you think it should be along totally different lines? Many thanks, if you've got the time! - SchroCat (^@) 19:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Feeling quite drained after finishing what may only be the first draft of the page. I've left out one or two parts because of lack of good reliable information (such as Bond in the Christopher Wood novelizations). I'm not sure how much of a hole that looks like as I've spent too long being too close to it and I can't see the Wood for the trees now (horrible pun, I know). - SchroCat (^@) 15:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks pretty good but I haven't had a chance to review it properly yet. I'm currently trying to get another article up to date before the weekend so I will have a proper look at it then. Betty Logan (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much (as always!) There's no rush - I'll be glad of a few days away from it, to be honest! Cheers. - SchroCat (^@) 11:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Diet in Hinduism

Hi Fellow editor, please join the discussion here. Thanks SH 18:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for {{reflist-talk|close=1}}! I couldn't figure out what was wrong and I didn't know about that code. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

List of James Bond films

This user helped promote List of James Bond films to featured list status.




Fantastic news! - SchroCat (^@) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! It seemed to take ages didn't it? Betty Logan (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
It seemed to take an age! Thanks very much for your copyedit on James Bond (character) - much appreciated and it's in much better shape after your work than when the GA went through! - SchroCat (^@) 08:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Man with the Golden Gun (novel)

Hi there, I've got a newbie reviewer for The Man with the Golden Gun (novel) who wants me to have a peer review for copyediting. Could I impose once again and plead for you to have a look over it for me? Many thanks, as always, if you are able to! - SchroCat (^@) 16:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look it over this evening. Betty Logan (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
You're a star - thanks so much (AGAIN!) for helping me out! - SchroCat (^@) 09:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I'm so annoyed at most of those mistakes! Really stupid, schoolboy errors, all of them! Thanks so much again - SchroCat (^@) 19:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
That's fine, when you look at the same thing for so long it's the obvious things you overlook. BTW, in regards to my comments about the Themes section, I think my comments imply there is more wrong than there actually is. The real problem is with the last paragraph which identifies the themes but doesn't expand any further on them. The rest of the section is ok. Do the books expand on these at all, or do they just touch on them and leave it at that? Betty Logan (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
A fair comment on the themes and as a result I've worked the section about as much as I can, adding a few bits here and there. Adding anything more would take it outside the sources, but I'm hoping that the new additions, even though small in themselves, should make a difference in impact. Thanks again! - SchroCat (^@) 22:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Film project discussion topic

It'd be great if you could comment at this topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added my comments with a possible compromise. Betty Logan (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much. Now you get to "argue" with me. No good deed goes unpunished. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Hiya, I wonder if I could impose once again? It's just two small points, but as I'm doing a GA review I thought I'd get it right! I've asked the editor of Shiloh to do a few things, two of which they've pushed back on and I'm not sure if I'm right to press them on it, or if they have a fair point. Could you have a look at the GA review and let me know if the point I make about the use of "Bildungsroman" under Style is correct? (I think it should be in a piped link as the source doesn't cite it, but does use the phrase "coming-of-age" instead) The second point refers to the number of links in the References section. I actually prefer to have all references to newspapers etc linked in the section (as they have done here) but I've been told to edit them down by successive reviewers. Which is the best format here? Is there a wiki-guideline that suggests the right level of linking? Any thoughts you have would be most appreciated! - SchroCat (^@) 09:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added my comments. In all, I think it's good enough to pass; the bildungsroman thing is only really an issue if someone is actually challenging the genre, and the links issue comes down to how you look at it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for that - much appreciated! I've passed as it is after your thoughts. thanks again - SchroCat (^@) 10:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet more advice...

Hiya, Sorry to disturb once again! I'm looking over the James Bond novels article with a view to updating that one next. I think it would be a good place to drop in a little more detail on the plots of the books, which are not centralised anywhere, but only in the individual articles: we do this with film plots, so why not books, is the thought behind it. I've drafted up a few examples of how this could look in my litter tray, using the {{Book list}} template. Like the other articles, I plan to have supporting text into which these are placed in historical and literary context. Do you think this is a good way to go, or is the {{Book list}} template a bit of overkill? Cheers! - SchroCat (^@) 09:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks ok, but I can't really offer an informed opinion. I don't see any reason why you can't include a plot summary. From an aesthetic point of view the white box underneath genre and length looks a little weird, I wonder if there would be any gain in scrapping the genre and length fields? After all, the genre is going to be pretty much the same for all of them isn't it, and the length can vary over the different editions. The Bernard Cornwell does something similar and has a good layout. On a different note, we have a slight problem at File:Dr No trailer.jpg; it's been put up for deletion by a nominator who hasn't understood the copyright license terms; I used the rationale as exactly provided at File:Ursula Andress as Honey Ryder.jpg so I don't really see what the problem is, or why the nominator didn't tag that files as well. Betty Logan (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll drop the genre field and play around with the others to see if I can lose something else to get the box across: if not I'll ditch the length too. I've commented on the image - it managed to get through an FL review, where these things tend to be picked up, so I think the nominator has missed the point on this one! Cheers once again - SchroCat (^@) 20:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

This is a neutral request for comment at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film#The Hobbit.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2

I notice that you have recently edited Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 and would like to make you aware that I'm seeking consensus on the article on the talk page . --Mrmatiko (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Avatar article

Unsourced original research? Have you read the Deathworld book? Do you want me to actually reference the novel, or is the reader of Misplaced Pages supposed to read the book to see the parallels? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT states each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Basically what that means is that it is irrelevant if Avatar has parallels to the Deathworld, or indeed if you or any other reader thinks it has parallels; at the end of the day that is just your opinion. What WEIGHT states is that we only document them in the article if those parallels have been documented in published sources. Therefore you need sources that have observed those same parallels for them to considered relevant and notable enough for them to be added to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 11:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Is it my fault that no film critic remembers Harry Harrison (still alive)? Fine, I will get the "original research" published elsewhere onlineKoakhtzvigad (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You Are the Apple of My Eye C-class review

Thanks for reviewing this article and your comments. I have a query as to your second point which says that "you should really include a negative review by someone who didn't like the film to offer a counterpoint to the praise the film has received.". I agree with your point that the critical reception has all favorable reviews, and I really want to balance it. However, I cannot find any unfavorable reviews about it (I even searched in foreign languages). Therefore, how can I improve this section, since all of the reviews are practically raving about this film?--Lionratz (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you can only include what is available, but it's a fairly recent film still awaiting international release; it's reasonable to assume that a reviewer will publish a negative review at some point, because not even films like Casablanca and Citizen Kane have 100% good reviews. I think it's just a case of waiting and then the section can be made more balanced when more reviews are available. It's not a major problem, it's a pretty good article overall. Betty Logan (talk) 07:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bhaag Milkha Bhaag.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A user has commented on your post. X.One 13:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

X-Men: First Class (film)

Hi. I've restored the plot to WP:FILM guidelines length, which Robert Gustavson had plot-bloated. Just wanted to give a head's up since we're both discussing with him on the article's talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Plot bloat is the single greatest problem on the film articles; I fully support any efforts to bring them within the guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Fluffymoose_disruptive_editing. Thank you. Calabe1992 20:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRIME

If you think that, you haven't read all the way to the end. Yworo (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator (or including material suggesting that any named person has committed a crime in any article), when no conviction is yet secured."

I did read it and I think you have misinterpreted it; the policy relates to article creation, it does not govern the content of the article. The main Misplaced Pages:Notability page explicitly states These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list. If Misplaced Pages really is against documenting arrests that result in charges being documented, then this issue should be directly addressed under the appropriate policy i.e WP:DUE. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
BLP treats notability differently. In any case, that language is at the end of the section on alleged perpetrators and clearly suggest not including material about unconvicted crimes in any article. It's no longer talking about a stand-alone article. That addendum is a content inclusion guideline and no longer a notability guidelines, otherwise there would have been no reason to append the comment. Yworo (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't accept the addendum; it was introduced only a week ago and there is no discussion about it on the talk page. I have raised this issue at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Suspicious_alteration_to_WP:CRIME. Betty Logan (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

RBinPerson

Hiya, Sorry to pester you once again but I wonder if you could advise me on a problem I am having with an editor, RBinPerson (RBinPerson talk), on List of James Bond novels and stories. They have removed a good piece of well-sourced information and replaced it with information that even they admit is more positive about Benson. I have reverted it twice and can't do so again for a while but their badly sourced information is still there. I asked them to take it to the Talk page before the last revert and they didn't, claiming they didn't know how to. They subsequently posted on my talk page claiming to be Raymond Benson themselves. Any thoughts as to what steps I can take that will keep the well-sourced info there and get rid of their badly written and sourced info? Many thanks in advance! - SchroCat (^@) 17:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't respond to this more quickly, but it's unusual so I have been thinking about it. First off, the information RBinPerson added in its place isn't properly sourced so should probably come out; secondly, I notice these claims are sourced to The Guardian, and while it's a reliable source it is not an authority on Bond, and it wouldn't be the first time a newspaper has got something wrong, or just plain made something up. Whether this editor is really Benson or not is irrelevant, but he is asserting that this fact is wrong using the books as a primary source; for instance, if The Guardian declared that James Bond had group sex in Eon's Goldfinger, we could legitimately argue this is not the case by going and watching Goldfinger, because the film itself is a reliable source for its own plot. Similarly, someone who has read the books can contest a plot point from the same standpoint. In accordance with WP:AGF we must entertain the possibility the editor is being truthful, has read the books and Bond did not have group sex or visit a prostitute. On that basis we should probably remove the information until someone who has read the books can confirm whether this is the case, or another independent source (preferably higher quality than a newspaper) corroborates the claim. It may be worth posting the query on the James Bond Wikiproject, and seeing if anyone has read the books. Betty Logan (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me on this. I've left in the new additions, although added the much needed sources to them all. Whether or not the Guardian is right or not, the new material still provides a good balance in there anyway. I've taken one of the novels out of the library to read too as I want to make sure of the facts myself (the various fan fora all seem to suggest the Guardian has a point, but I'll speed read the book myself to see who is right.) It is actually Benson behind the edits—I contacted him through his website and we've had some very good email correspondence on the matter, so I'm happy to leave it as it is until I've finished reading the book! Thanks (again) for all your help on this: you are a font of huge amounts of knowledge for me! Cheers - SchroCat (^@) 10:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Merger

Hi Betty, do you want to do the merger as disscused here? SH 08:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that much about the topic, but I can "dump" the material in and sort out the licensing. Once it is in the article someone else will have to copyedit it and make it more "integrated". Betty Logan (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I've done the merge, but the article is going to need some work and that's down to you now. Betty Logan (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Your red link

Hi Betty, I noticed your thread at WT:LINK. You can turn your signature blue by writing even one character on your userpage overleaf. Thanks. Tony (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Contributions to List of highest-grossing films

The WikiProject Film Award
I, Haseo9999 (talk), hereby award Betty Logan the WikiProject Film Award for his/her valued contributions to WikiProject Film. Thanks for your numerous contributions to the article List of highest-grossing films. Keep up the good work!
Awarded 01:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your tireless contributions in the article List of highest-grossing films. Jhenderson 21:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Thanks a lot for your help, in the correction of the Box Office amount data of Avatar. Really Appreciate it! - Namanbapna

But there is just one problem. I wondering if someone might undo these edits, and say that they are non-constructive. What happens then?

I am going to add an explanation to the talk page, because it isn't immediately clear what we have done. Betty Logan (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Betty, I guess you are right. Lets wait for sometime and then see what to do. Thanks - Namanbapna

Thank you!

Thanks for helping out during the GAN; Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a GA! --Sp33dyphil ©ontributions 23:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That's great! You worked hard on it so well done. Betty Logan (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You think it can reach FA? --Sp33dyphil ©ontributions 23:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why it can't, but for FA your sources have to be watertight and they expect "full coverage". In this case, since books have been written about Terminator 2 then a reviewer would expect to see one of them used as a source for the article to demonstrate that the article is as broad as possible in its coverage. Betty Logan (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Quantum of Solace

Hi there, I wonder if you could just settle something in my mind for me? (Yet again!) I've had to revert someone a couple of times for de-linking the references from Quantum of Solace, despite me pointing out that it's against WP:REPEATLINK. I've followed this up in the talk page, but I just want to check that I am right to revert in this case? Thanks (yet again!) - SchroCat (^@) 08:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

References are just one form of footnote. The editor disputing this should maybe read the Misplaced Pages article on footnotes. But I can do much better than that, since I actually started a discussion on this issue following one of your article reviews: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Repeat_linking_in_reference_sections. The discussion specifically focused on references, and as a result "footnotes" were added to the list of exemptions. Now you can see from the discussion there isn't an outright consensus for linking the reference section, but neither was there a consensus for strictly enforcing WP:OVERLINK, so it was added to the exemptions that is left to editorial discretion. Betty Logan (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
That's great - I thought I'd read that bit right! Another user has also added to the talk to reiterate the situation, so I guess that the editorial consensus on QoS is to keep them! Thanks again - SchroCat (^@) 12:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

List of snooker players by number of ranking titles

Had changed the "List of winners" section from this to this. What do you think? Armbrust, B.Ed. about my edits? 17:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks great, it's certainly much clearer! Betty Logan (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
One suggestion I do have, is that in the data entry it might be better to have tournament codes i.e. For Stephen Hendry, wc=7, uk=5 like we have on the ranking article; otherwise we will end up with IP editors putting numbers in the wrong places, because it isn't immediately clear which number is for which tournament. I think overall though it is much clearer and will be much easier to update. Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, since the collapsible format makes all players bold, the differentiation between active and retired players is lost. Maybe add some background shading to players on the tour, or perhaps grey out the ones that are retired. Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Good ideas. I think I will code it on Monday. The template also needs a documentation (on Monday too). Currently I'm concentrating on the Welsh Open. Armbrust, B.Ed. about my edits? 20:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done Armbrust, B.Ed. about my edits? 21:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not following your edit summarry

You wrote "As per WP:ENGVAR" but did not expalin how the use of tyre instead of tire works on this article. It's an equally American project as it is British and Australian. So how dos that explanation work? Is there other uses I am not aware of for consistancy? Since I am the major contributer I have been consistantly using the American english on purpose becuase I am American and that is the language use I know. To make this outside my ability as the one who wrote the majority of the article is not appropriate in my opinion. Thoughts?--Amadscientist (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As I understand you go with the phrasing that has the strongest national ties to the topic, and The Rocky Horror Show was originally a British stage musical, which suggests we should probably go with the British variant over the American one. When you can make a case for either variant then the MOS says we should go with the variant that is chosen by either the editor who started the article or the editor who first had to make the decision about which variant to use. Being the "major" contributor doesn't really come into it, MOS:RETAIN is quite clear on how to handle this. Betty Logan (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I've checked the earliest edit history and the American spelling was used first, so in view of that I've reverted my edit. I still have resevations given that it was a British stage musical, but that is for the editors of the article to decide. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought that might be the case. So let me try to at least convince you of a few things. (but thank you for the revert) The Rocky Horror Show is considered more Australian than British (see recent research at that article. Because it's author is from New Zealand and it's artistic staff is mainly Australian, including it's director and production artist. However as a film it was produced by an American (Lou Adler) and released by an American film company. It's location was the UK and filmed at a British studio (when not on location). But I did think about this and the reason I mainly defend American English is because set in America, the two main characters are American and I think someone mentioned somewhwere that the credits seem to be using American English...but Ai am not sure about that (for the original choice...as this has been brought up before). Anyway thanks for the input.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The whole subject as to whether Rocky Horror is British, American or Australian has lead to some great discoveries though so it's always good to get outside input.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The AFI considers it a UK/US film so we can probably rule out Australia. Personally it's not a big issue for me I'm familiar with both varieties to the extent I can't even remember which is which anymore; however I do believe in the rigid enforcement of the ENGVAR/MOSRETAIN policy otherwise you end up with the most tedious edit wars on Misplaced Pages. I really should have checked the earliest version first before changing it back, but no damage done. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes! Absolutely! No damage done! As a film absolutely, it was an American/UK project with no affiliation to Australian film companies, But then again....the same people who did the play, made the film. But we go by the companies involved and it was strictly US/UK. I must keep you in mind when the issue of American verses UK english comes up. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry - saw this as I was passing and thought I'd comment. RHPS was produced by Michael White Productions, a British company. The BFI show it to be a British film, not a joint production. (Even the AFI site lists only Michael Whiter Productions as the only production company. This article really should be in BE, not AE. - SchroCat (^@) 10:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd always understood it was a British film, but in truth I don't really know much of the background; since there is some discord between the BFI and AFI on this matter, it's probably better to leave it as it is until someone knocks it into shape. Betty Logan (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere I Have Never Traveled

I have a bit of a problem with you tagging the Plot Summary as original research.  The plot summary is by definition original research unless I transcribe the screenplay or quote a 500-700 word review verbatim, in either case it would be a copyright violation.  Please see:  WP:FILMPLOT

:- ) DCS 06:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There is always a fine line with plot summaries, but the trick is to describe the film rather than evaluate it. I've tried to explain in more detail at Talk:Somewhere_I_Have_Never_Traveled#Plot_summary. Betty Logan (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
My apologies.  I just this morning saw the talk page.  I understand some of your reasoning and will see what I can do to improve the article.  When I first saw the page late last night, I assumed some runaway tagger had hit me.  I'm also concerned about verification of information of the film's production.  This information is not normally available from any source except the people involved. :- ) DCS 17:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I tagged the article because it was submitted for review at the Film Project. Normally there isn't any point tagging articles that are in development, but since a grading was requested then it needed to be clear what the issues are. Betty Logan (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I requested a review, because I wanted the opinion of a experienced person on films.  I made some edits shortly before your visit, but they probably made it worst.  I have made another 50 or so edits since your visit intending to address the issues.  I hope that you can take a look at it sometime in the future.  Thanks a lot for your time.  :- ) DCS 00:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate your thoughts... (yet again!)

Hi there, I'm struggling through updating the List of James Bond films cast members article with half an eye on it becoming a Featured List, but not feeling terribly good about what the result is. I've done a second version without the notes on each actor, which still needs a bit of work updating each film's intro, but looks a lot better. As an impartial witness, which of the two seems a better list to you? Thanks as always! - SchroCat (^@) 09:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to be honest, is there much point to this list in its current form? All the ground it covers seems to be pretty much covered by the film articles themselves, so it just looks like it is duplicating content. I think the main problem is that it is ordered by film rather than by cast member i.e. it is a "List of James Bond film cast lists" rather than a "List of James Bond cast members". If it were limited to a list of recurring cast members, and each section tracked an actor's role through the series I think that would be much better. For example, a section on Lois Maxwell would address all of her participation in just one section, rather than having to trawl through each film section to see what her involvement was; you look up Ursula Andress and you can find out she was involved in Dr No and Casino Royale i.e I think a list like this should focus on the involvement of the actor rather than the cast of each film. I think that is why you are having problems deciding which list style is better, because the current overall structure of it is a bit weak. Betty Logan (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from - and that's probably the reason I don't like the look of either of them! The recurring characters thing has been tried, but it's a bit of a mess because of the number of films involved! Have a look at List of cast and characters in the James Bond film series; it's way too wide for most monitors as there are 24 columns involved - and there are 18 rows becuase of the number of characters. I suspect the editors went for something like the List of Harry Potter cast members page, although they only have eight films to sort out. I've knocked up a third version, but I don't think that's much better than the previous versions. - SchroCat (^@) 16:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
PS. I noticed the Rocky Horror chat and left a message there too - it's a British film! - SchroCat (^@) 16:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the third version is the best of the three, because at least you can organise it by actor or character. Betty Logan (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem with that version is that it would bring in a huge table. The sortability is the key part of it, however. I've done a couple of other versions to try and get the format right before doing the whole thing. See Version 2 here which is unsortable, but breaks the characters into categories. Although unsortable, it is able to navigate round to the pertinant sections. The other possibility is this one: a series of tables breaking the list into character categories. The problem I have with this one is those characters whose motives are unclear or who fall into more than one category. - SchroCat (^@) 12:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the one in sandbox2 is the superior version. It supports sortable navigation which I think is pretty important considering it is a list of cast members rather than characters. Betty Logan (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll start sorting them out into the correct tables shortly: could be quite a long page in the end! Thanks again - SchroCat (^@) 08:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI report

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

RockyIV

Hello. You reverted an edit of mine on this article without any summary. That being said, in the process you also took out a line that has been there for quite awhile, and had nothing to do with my most recent addition. I appreciate the work you've done on the page, but if you are going to revert edits so quickly, please have the courtesy to provide an edit summary. Moreover, I really don't see how adding "subsequently" was controversial or not appropriate. Thanks.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, a lot of the stuff you have been adding is either original research or unreferenced. This doesn't really improve the article. If you have a source that says it is a "fan favorite" then by all means add it so that readers can corroborate the claim, otherwise it has no credibility. Betty Logan (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

2001 A space odyssey

Hello Betty, You revert the addition that I have put on 2001 A space odyssey page about "Influenced by artwork" telling that it is a Mix of WP:Original research and WP:SPS sources, but the sources that I referred to are publications by independant third parties, so I don't understand your action :

  • The site http://greatfilmdirectors.com is not published by myself or by Georges Yatrides
  • The booklet International Who's who in art is a publication done by the "organization and counsel sociecty for Plastic Art" In Geneva, Switzerland
  • This publication itself refers to a book writen by Arthur Conte , A former french minister of culture ISBN code 978-2950704900


There is also numerous other references (books,websites,publications) that are speaking about the same topic that I can add, if these one are not enough.

Thanks for your feedback

There is a discussion about the material at Talk:2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)#Yatrides_material. If it can be sourced to published research by experts then there should be no problem including it. "Self published" in this case doesn't refer to the editor that adds the material to the page, but any site or source that is not published by a professional organization. http://greatfilmdirectors.com looks like a fansite which means it is not an eligible source. Betty Logan (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

1973 in film

Hello, Betty. Please note that the "top grossing" section of each film year ranks films by total gross, not net sales or theatrical rentals. If the box office figure is unknown or is not verified by a credible source, then it is simply not included on the "top grossing films" list. Ldavid1985 (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that a film's total box office gross is unknown does not disqualify it from the list when we can actually source where it ranks on the annual chart. It's misrepresentative and inaccurate. There has never been any criteria initiated on the chart stipulating films must only be ranked by their total gross. In fact, that chart was ranked by theatrical rentals up until a couple of months ago when you changed the figures: Betty Logan (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
On second thoughts, the problem is easily solved by limiting the chart to the top 10. Betty Logan (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Betty. It's not necessarily misrepresentative or inaccurate to rank the films by gross (especially when the section of the article is concerned with "top grosses"). The film articles 1980 onward all rank the films by domestic gross (not theatrical rentals) which is why I revised the pre-1980 articles. This article I've read helped me clarify the difference between the terms "box office gross" and "theatrical rentals" when I first began editing these "____ in film" articles. And, due to the "rule of thumb" discussed in that article, I've reverted the page back to your original revision. Thank you for the clarification. Ldavid1985 (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are trying to do, but I have serious misgivings if by converting rentals to gross it means we drop films where the gross is simply unknown. If the Devil in Miss Jones earned $15 million in rentals, that will be roughly around $30 million in gross, give or take a couple of million, so it is simply misleading to say Serpico is the 11th highest grossing film, when in fact we know this is probably not the case. Could you just imagine the absurdity if only the rental gross of Star Wars were known? We wouldn't drop it from the chart and promote the number 2 film to number 1 because it would make the chart inaccurate. Even when the gross is unknown, we should still try to make the chart placings as valid as possible. Betty Logan (talk) 05:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rule of the shorter term

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at Talk:Rule of the shorter term.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiThanks

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.15 (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ra.One nominated for Featured Article

This notice is to inform you that I have nominated the article Ra.One for a featured article promotion. The nomination can be viewed here. Any comments are welcome at the article's or my talk page. Thank you. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of warning template

While you are free to remove a warning template from your own talk page, remember that edit warring is not allowed, even if you are right. You do not need to be in violation of the three-revert rule to be engaged in an edit war. Believe it or not, I actually do agree with your position on the issue of List of highest-grossing films; however, I believe that when an edit war is taking place, all involved parties need to be warned, regardless of who started it or whose side if any I may be on. —KuyaBriBri 16:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Your warning was in appropriate. Since I reverted the editor twice that does not even come close to a 3RR violation, let alone edit-warring. There is 3RR rule, not a 2RR rule or even a 1RR rule. If you felt the situation was becoming volatile you should have approached me in a more amenable manner, since templating me is poor etiquette when it is obvious I had the best interest of the article in mind, and a new editor was undertaking potentially damaging edits to a recently promoted FL article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
That's not how edit warring works. WP:3RR is a subrule of WP:EW, it isn't the entirety of edit warring. To edit war is to "repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." This is exactly what you did, by hitting "undo" instead of hitting "Talk". I've seen editors blocked for edit warring by making a single revert, coming nowhere close to WP:3RR. Most editors have "the best interest of the article in mind", I'm sure the editor you were edit warring with also had that in mind, that doesn't mean it suddenly isn't edit warring. - SudoGhost 16:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Betty Logan, that is not exactly accurate. You were edit-warring, for whatever reason, whether "valid" or not. You don't have to be at WP:3RR to be edit warring. Because of that, someone then placed a template on your talk page, as well as on the talk page of the other editor involved. That template was not a misuse, if anything you placing that template on Kuyabribri's talk page was ironically a "misuse" of a template. Nobody likes to see templates on their talk page like that, I understand, but responding by calling it "invalid" then admonishing said editor is not answer. - SudoGhost 16:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars when you get the chance. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
An essay (which has has a counterpart: WP:TR) doesn't make edit warring valid, nor notification of edit warring a "misuse" of a template. While some editors are of the opinion that templating regular editors is not the most effective route, that is not a policy, nor a guideline, but an opinion expressed in an essay. There is no policy that says that placing a template on an editor with X number of edits somehow becomes misuse. - SudoGhost 16:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Betty your response indicates that you did not read my comment beyond its first sentence. And I agree with Sudo's comment regarding DTTR. —KuyaBriBri 16:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I reverted him once, and then I reverted him again with explicit guidance on splitting an article. There was not a third revert. If I made any mistake at all it was not offering the guidance in my first revert. However, I will repeat again: two reverts does not constitute edit-warring. Editors are perfectly entitled to revert twice on article, that is what 3RR exists to govern. Sometimes 3RR is not effective because disputes can outlast the 24 hour period laid down by the 3RR rule, so when multiple reverts go on over several days without actually violating 3RR then it ceases to be effective. That is where the edit-warring rule takes over from 3RR. Since I made two reverts confined to a 24 hour period on one article, I neither violated 3RR nor edit-warred, so the warning and the template was inappropriate. Secondly, I would never, ever template a regular on a "first contact" basis, since it is rude and not in keeping with the spirit of a collaborative project. Betty Logan (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:EW, "The three revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so" (original emphasis). A templated warning may not have been the most tactful approach, but that does not negate the issue at hand. Per WP:DTTR, which you seem to cling very tightly to, "those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template. The editor using the template may not be aware how familiar the user is with policy, or may not themselves consider the template use rude. They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template" (emphasis added). —KuyaBriBri 16:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Please read WP:EW, because what you're saying is basically the opposite of what policy says. You are not "perfectly entitled" to two reverts, WP:3RR is not an entitlement, nor does it take precedence over WP:EW as a whole. Secondly, what you consider rude is unfortunate, but does not constitute "misuse" under any circumstances. Templates are used to notify, and apparently you're unaware of exactly what is and isn't considered edit warring, so even if placing a template wasn't, in your opinion, the best way of notifying you of this, it is completely inappropriate to admonish the editor and template the user for "misusing" a template. I do think it's odd that you think it rude to template a regular, yet you respond by templating someone much more "regular" than yourself. - SudoGhost 17:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
User talk:Betty Logan Add topic