This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Esther (1986 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Citing twenty citations for a single sentence paragraph/section is excessive and gives the article a
WP:BOMBARD feel. If a citation can be used for content in other sections of the article, but is not needed for this particular sentence, then it can be moved and used to support the other content. A few citations at most are needed for this short paragraph, so any redundant citations should be removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I solved the problem, as you can see. Now, can we please archive this? These trivialities being here uglify my work. Thanks. Is the issue you raised not solved by me now? If so, why does that trivial uglifying notice need to be here anymore? And, re your most recent comment (cannot comment there myself), again, I addressed the issue and it is fixed now, I did not, contrary to what you wrote, just deleted your notice, so, why must it stay here rather than be archived?--87.70.97.132 (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t agree that you solved anything. You basically just spread the excessive citations out a bit, but that dosen’t make them any less excessive. Let’s wait and see what others have to say about this because to discuss ways to improve an article is the purpose of an article talk page. Finally, if your main concern is
wanting to improve the overall quality of the article in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, then Wikipedia might not be right for you. — Marchjuly (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
So, what you are saying is that Wikipedia does not aim to include as many reliable sources as possible? Why do we need references for anyway if this is the case? What is wrong with the citations I found, are they not reliable? No doubt if you will remove them, some other editor will come and say the article should be deleted for not having enough citations... Anyway, count me out (as in, I will simply not work on this article anymore and will also not comment here) if you will not decide on archiving this entry soon.--87.70.97.132 (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK--there IS citation overkill, so the tag is valid. Moving them from the text to the lead just makes it worse: the lead doesn't need it. Also, if you HAVE this many citations, put them to use: make them verify article content. If all those sources say the exact same thing and nothing more, then they're useless. You don't have to prove notability with this plethora of sources.
Looking at this again, and looking at these sources, esp. the twenty that verified the synopsis (or the term "art film", in the IP's version?)--sorry, but this is ridiculous. If you're citing a 21-page article published in a journal on biblical scholarship from Brill to verify that the thing was co-financed by the KRO or whatever, you're just being silly. As for uglifying, well, write it better and it won't be ugly no more. Seriously, the way forward is NOT to plow through against consensus; rather, it is to use all these wonderful sources you found and put them to good use. It's like you bought $10,000 worth of mountaineering equipment and you're bringing it to a beach vacation, setting it all down on the corner of your tent flap to prevent the wind from getting in. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The journal article (plus all other sources cited therein) was there for the entire section i.e. to verify the synopsis/content, the cast/crew, the funding/distributing parties, etc., not just the info at the end of the section (I moved some cites to the lede to verify the film being an experimental art film and the fact that it is a directorial debut, etc., again, specifically at the request of the original editor to attach sources to specific info rather than to the entire article, and, again, all cites were placed originally at the end precisely because all of them are relevant to the entire article info, though, I can live without them being there specifically). Now, if you care so much about this issue that you took the time to complain about it, why did you not simply attach any source to the most relevant info in the article yourself? P.S.: I cannot reply at your talk page, however, I have no desire to continue working on this if you just find trivial issues to complain about rather than rectifying issues yourself.--87.70.97.132 (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you basically keep trying to treat this article talk page discussion as a
in Hebrew which makes verification kind of hard. This is something that can be worked through if more information is provided about which article content each source is specifically intended to support. Working through it source by source may make it easier to reach a consensus on whether any of the citations need to be removed. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Like I said several times, if you care so much about this issue, do all these edit suggestions yourself, rather than uglifying the space. Do not just complain and expect me to do so for you. I thought this is why editors are here, not just to complain, uglify, and expect other to deal with things that might be important for the editors yet that they (the other editors) do not care about. Again, what are you waiting for? E.g. check the sources themselves yourself (at least the English-language ones, the ones linking to publishers can be easily found with Google Books and such) and link every one to the appropriate content.--87.70.97.132 (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are so completely missing the point that I'm wondering what you came here for. Marchjuly and I can point at convention, precedent, and guideline to just remove 90% of the citations since there's barely any content to verify. The better solution--better for Wikipedia, which doesn't care about you or me--is to write more content. This "oh if you don't like it why don't you write it" is a bunch of lazy bullshit. "link every one to the appropriate content" is likewise BS, since that content is not there. And these issues are not trivial, nor does "ugly" have anything to do with it. You have a stub with a synopsis and 23 citations--in other words, you have a bibliography with a few sentences introducing it. That's bad article writing. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, rather than calling me lazy or a bad writer, if this issue means so much to you (to me, it simply does not), take a look at the sources and add whatever content you feel is missing, then attach each source. The many sources are there for it would be nominated for deletion without them. Why, again, do you expect me to do all the work for you? If you still insist on just complaining yet asking me to do all this work (which, again, I simply do not care about) for you (and my suggestion, which is just
WP:BOLD policy, for you to work on issues you, again, you, not me, supposedly care about, rather than just complaining and demanding others do it for you, BS), please do not call me lazy.--87.70.97.132 (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
If you don't care at all, what are you still doing here? No, it would not be deleted without these sources. As a wise man said, earlier in this thread, "You don't have to prove notability with this plethora of sources." And "Why, again, do you expect me to do all the work for you?"--stop whining. Either shit or get off the pot: improve the article or stop complaining about how we're making it ugly. You don't care? Walk away. (But you won't because you do care--we just caught you in an aggressive mood. And by all means, use "preview" so you don't clog up the history and cause edit conflicts.) Drmies (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I cared about creating the article, I absolutely do not care about the positions of the references/cast/crew or whether you think info is missing, etc. You two do, otherwise, you would not have arrived here. Again, I absolutely do not care about the positions of the references/cast/crew or whether you think info is missing, etc. You obviously do, I tell you I do not, yet you call me a whiner for me telling you to take care about issues you supposedly care about yourself rather than just complaining and demanding I deal with it instead, where, again, you talked about it in the first place (yet you seem uninterested in actually making the changes, you instead demand I do them)! Yes, I find it strange you demand I take care of issues I constantly explain mean nothing to me yet you supposedly care about. Editors are supposed to make edits they are interested in themselves, not bark at others to do them for them and then complain that they do not, while doing nothing while complaining again and again that they do not. Perhaps you actually do not care about those issues and only care about barking commands at others re silly trivialities and uglifying talk pages.--87.70.97.132 (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the excessive citation issue as well, so I bundled some cites for that paragraph, moved some to the reference section as "sources used" and moved some books to further reading. There's plenty of sources to support the content in the article and if someone gets ambitious and puts all those wonderful references to good use, as Drmies suggested, and wants to expand the content in the article, then the sources are still here and can be incorporated back into the body of the article. I did leave the tag at the top of the article until there is consensus to remove it though.Isaidnoway(talk) 09:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to do that Isaidnoway. I think removing the tag is appropriate unless Drmies still feels it's needed. Moving things to "Further reading" and bundling was a good idea. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly - I'm fine either way on removal, technically it is an insane amount of cites for a synopsis/plot for a movie, most of the time you're lucky to find one cite, or any at all for a synopsis/plot. But with 20 cites at the end of a paragraph, come on, that just looks ridiculous. With that many references, I'd expect the content in the article to reflect the need or desire for that many.Isaidnoway(talk) 13:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly, User:Isaidnoway, y'all can decide whatever you like, it's fine with me: you are putting in the work while I'm just on the sideline. Yes, 20 cites is ridiculous--but at the same time, the research work is done! Drmies (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
non-free content and added to the main infobox; this is something I will try to get to fairly soon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Layout
Assuming that the “Synopsis” section is intended to primarily be a plot summary, it might be best to move the content about the cast and production to a separate section or to separate sections.
FA articles about films. A bit of reorganization might also make future expansion and navigating through the article a bit easier. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, this merely begs the question: You obviously care a lot about this issue. Why did you not do all of this (plus the things suggested above) yourself? Why did you just uglify the article with all those talk page entries and hatnotes instead and expected me to do all this work you talk about? Now doing that would be actual teamwork:)! Well, what are you waiting for? If this is what it takes for archiving this, go for it!--87.70.97.132 (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is expecting you to do all the work. This is the way talk pages are intended to be used per
tend to be archived because they become too big to navigate properly. This typically is an issue on the talk pages of very popular articles which attract lots of talk page posts. At the same time, some talk pages are never archived and there are posts which were added many years ago still there to be seen. An article talk page is not only a record of what’s being currently discussed, but it also serves as a guide for future editors looking to see if something was previously discussed. This page is certainly not too big to navigate and there’s no need to keep it empty just so that it looks nice. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Thought Wikipedia was all about
WP:BOLD, and changing the positions of several references and/or moving the info about the cast/crew does not seem so big an issue it needs to be discussed here beforehand. This is not potentially-libelous BLP, just some minor tinkering. I still fail to see why we need all this uglifying. Again, you obviously care about this, this is hardly earth-shattering and/or potentally-controversial, so, who is stopping you? The link I cited notes: Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. P.S.: Unfortunately, while you might wish to contribute, Drmies above pretty much explicitly said I must do all the changes you two (not me!) demand alone on my own, while they insist on not contributing but rather doing nothing but complaining, barking orders, and then calling me a lazy whiner for pointing all this out and suggesting they will contribute themselves (on issues they, not me, spoke about in the first place and only they, not me, demand changing!) rather than just expecting me to do their bidding all by myself.--87.70.97.132 (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
P.S.: Herzliya Studios is (in the context of this film) a film development laboratory, not a production/financing company (those are already listed under synopsis). And re The strangest thing about this whole kerfufle is that the IP seems especially concerned about the article talk page becoming uglified by people posting on it, but that’s kinda the point of talk pages. People are supposed to post on them, not if they can simply go ahead and make those trivial changes themselves instead of just talking about them, now that would be needless uglifying, this is, after all, not something controversial we need to discuss beforehand (and, once again, I sincerely declare no COI/connection)...--87.70.97.132 (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can comment on user talk pages if you want to respond to a comment; if you can post here, you should be able to post there, unless the page is protected.Article talk pages can be used for any discussion related to improving the article, even ones you might personally find trivial.As for the infobox parameters, if you know any of the relevant information, you can add it. Templates can, however, be tricky sometimes; so, you should try and follow the guidance in
WP:FFU can probably do it before I get the chance to myself. Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow. — Marchjuly (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Good night and a pleasant tomorrow to you too, thanks! Unfortunately, that personal talk page was indeed blocked for IP users.--87.70.97.132 (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
