User talk:LJA123

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to

Aiglon College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to David Anderson, Dean Young, Nigel Harris, Roger Field, Eric Boswell and Geoffrey James

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Aiglon College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Michael Fay, Paul Stewart, Blondie and Andrew Leslie

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Murray (lexicographer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Admiralty.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HMS.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_of_Dying_(band)&curid=1962263&diff=1034941874&oldid=1024039800 has user reviews, blogs and other unreliable sources. The issues have not been addressed. Are you able to remove the poor sources and restore the maintenance templates or should I do it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it if you like, but if the templates were removed it's because someone added sources and/or those are all of the sources available. Also, the templates were very old; as in 10-15 years old. But people had updated the pages after the templates were put in and the templates just sat there. So the templates are pretty pointless.LJA123 (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone? I just showed you where you added the poor quality sources. If they are all that is available our choices are to either restore the tag or remove the content. We do not source content poorly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them--I meant to go back and fix them later. We were talking about different things earlier. But I guess I should ask: Do you not want reviews used as citations?LJA123 (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Artist Life, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 102.1 The Edge.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references on this page because not a single statement is verifiable, and many statements are untrue. Coley is not listed as playing with any of the bands it mentions, nor is it listed in the bios of its own musicians. It did not appear in Canadian Music Week; Coley did not appear on any compilation albums. There are no independent mentions of its two albums, or of radio play.LJA123 (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With that said, some of the references should never have been used and you were right to remove them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Walter. Thanks for that. When I find a dead link, I do try to fix it, or find something else. But I didn't know that they're not meant to be deleted (although I don't see the point in keeping a link that has morphed into something like a porn site...) But I have never removed the information attached to the link--unless I did it by accident...that's entirely possible. Best, Louise.LJA123 (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way...any idea as to why my request for review, and for deletion, of the band Coley has been ignored? I fact-checked the whole entry. Only one statement in the entry is verifiable. Most of the statements in the entry are flatly untrue. I put a note on it to that effect. Then I requested deletion. The request was deleted.LJA123 (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blinker the Star, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greg Edwards.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bodh'aktan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaelic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Festival Winds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen's University.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Enter the Haggis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A&E.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gold Leaf Awards of 1970, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CKLG.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent edit to

Oops--sorry. I didn't see it there.--LJA123 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LJA123! Your additions to

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double
  inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners
  , for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images.
  non-free content criteria
  in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there I think there's some confusion here... I didn't add any images. I didn't add any quotes. I didn't copy and paste any text. What I did add was: Duly acknowledged references--printed articles, and links to YouTube videos. All in the public domain, all with publishers cited. --LJA123 (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject of this band, you'll note that I added 'citation needed' to the band's claim that it was nominated for Independent Group or Duo of the Year at the 2006 Canadian Country Music Awards. This is not true. I checked all records for that year. Should I remove it?--LJA123 (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying. I had not realized you left me a message. I removed/paraphrased a bit of content copied from https://www.cfrc.ca/ambush_unplugged_at_the_lone_star or elsewhere online. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found. Se below for another violation of the copyrright policy I discovered today. — Diannaa (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alexisonfire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dallas Green.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prakash John, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Palmer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Miriodor has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't copy any copyrighted material. The original source was the band's bio on the page of its record label; that material was placed online by the record label for promotional purposes and is, as a result, widely available in the public domain. I re-wrote all of that material, and added material from other sources. Everything is referenced/credited.--LJA123 (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source webpage is not in the public domain. Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. The Wikipedia copyright policy and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policy. There's a simplified version of our copyright rules at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright.— Diannaa (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Thanks for the link to the simplified version. I've read the guidelines and understand them. But, on Wikipedia, article after article is full of text copied and pasted from news releases, articles and websites. Some articles are nothing but that. So all of that will have to be re-written. --LJA123 (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to report any such at

WP:CP. — Diannaa (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Just for the record, the rule for List of bands from Canada does not preclude including bands who are mentioned in BLPs of individual members rather than having their own standalone articles about the bands themselves.

For instance, just because we have one merged article that covers both Joel Plaskett as a solo artist and The Joel Plaskett Emergency as a band, instead of two separate standalone articles about Joel Plaskett as a person and the Emergency as a band, is not a reason why The Joel Plaskett Emergency should be removed from a list of Canadian bands — if we have information in a Wikipedia article about a Canadian band called The Joel Plaskett Emergency, which we do, then the question of whether that article is titled "The Joel Plaskett Emergency" or just "Joel Plaskett" does not matter: there is information in a Wikipedia article about a Canadian band called The Joel Plaskett Emergency, and therefore The Joel Plaskett Emergency does belong in the list of Canadian bands, the end. The rules do preclude listing "Joel Plaskett" as an individual alphabetized under the letter P; they do not preclude listing "The Joel Plaskett Emergency" as a band just because our information about that band happens to be a subsection of a BLP of Plaskett instead of a standalone article about the band as a separate topic from Plaskett.

The reason for this is really quite simple: we have information in Wikipedia about a band called The Joel Plaskett Emergency, but a reader who peruses the list of Canadian bands without already knowing that we have that information will not learn that we have that information. So again: the rule is that if we have non-trivial information about a Canadian band in Wikipedia, then said band should be listed in the list of Canadian bands regardless of whether that information is contained in a standalone article about the band or just a portion of an individual band member's biography. What has to be a band is the display text that's visible to the end user, not necessarily the title of the specific page that's being linked to behind pipetext or through a redirect. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Some of the ones I removed do belong under 'Canadian Musicians' though, and not in 'Bands' (e.g. rappers), correct? What about DJs and 'producers'? They're not bands and they're not musicians.--LJA123 (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that everything you removed from the list was necessarily an invalid removal: just one specific type of entries that you removed. But when it comes to rappers, I don't recall seeing any cases where you removed solo rappers: the only rap entries I recall seeing were things exactly like Joel Plaskett, where you removed an actual hip hop band (Loud Lary Ajust, Naturally Born Strangers) from the list on the grounds that it happens to have been covered as a section in the BLP of its most individually notable member rather than a standalone article about the whole band as a separate topic. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm MetalDiablo666. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Annihilator (band) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a total mess; most of it is provably factually incorrect. It appears to have been written by a fan with no experience in research. Editing is in progress--the information here is wrong to the point where it's going to take a few days to complete. Please restore changes.--LJA123 (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did at least two things that either weren't necessary or didn't seem like an improvement, including removing the extra "=" in the sections under the history section and adding all their releases besides their studio albums in the discography section when there's actually an Annihilator discography covering that. Maybe you should discuss over at Talk:Annihilator (band) rather than engage in an argument, edit war or whatever. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to provide complete information in the main article so the reader finds everything in one place. The separate discography is incomplete, and incorrect. Formatting changes were made to make the piece look better.--LJA123 (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well then why don't you do some "improvements" over at Annihilator discography? Just because a band's "separate discography is incomplete and incorrect" doesn't mean their singles, EPs, etc. should be added in the discography section of a band's main article. Note Iron Maiden's article for example, the discography section lists just their studio albums while their singles and other releases are in their own discography page. And you think all of Annihilator's releases besides their studio albums should be listed in the discography section when they have their own discography article is necessary or an "improvement" of sorts just because it's "incomplete and incorrect"? That sounds very unreasonable. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Any article that is incorrect or incomplete should be fixed. A discography is a complete listing of releases--singles, EPs, live albums, studio albums, compilations. In this case, I don't know why someone created a separate page for it, as it's unnecessary. Also, in this article band members' names are incomplete and/or misspelled, there are names attached to the wrong instruments, mis-statements about label signings, and musicians credited to the wrong albums, or not credited at all. I had begun to correct those; you just removed the corrections.--LJA123 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more notes for you:

1. We do not have a rule that our citations always have to be to Googleable web pages; we are allowed to cite print-only content such as newspaper or magazine articles, and do not have a rule that such a citation is inherently "invalid" just because it doesn't include a convenience link to a web-accessible copy of the article. So you're not supposed to remove valid media citations just because they don't have weblinks in them, or leave them there but undermine them with a "citation needed" tag — a footnote that doesn't have a weblink in it is simply not a problem, because we don't have a rule that a footnote has to contain a weblink to be legitimate. We are allowed to retrieve old pre-Googlable coverage from news archiving databases or microfilms without specifically providing a convenience link to a web-published copy of that coverage: the title, publisher, date (and author, if one has been credited) are the mandatory parts of a citation and the weblink is an optional convenience to the reader, not vice versa.
2. We don't cite content to
   primary source
   directory entries or streaming platforms. We don't cite information about films to databases like IMDb or Turner Classic Movies; we cite information about films to journalist-written third-party coverage about the films in media. We don't cite information about songs to streaming platforms like YouTube, Tidal, iTunes or Spotify, or soundtrack directories like Sweet Soundtracks; we cite information about songs to journalist-written third-party coverage about the band and their songs in media. IMDb is never appropriate for use as a footnote, TCM is never appropriate for use as a footnote, YouTube is never appropriate for use as a footnote, and on and so forth: the sources always have to be media coverage written or spoken in sentences and paragraphs.
3. And it's especially not appropriate to remove a perfectly acceptable media source from the article in order to replace it with a directory entry or an "information not sourced" tag just because the directory entry is web-accessible and the media citation isn't, again because "the sources always have to be hotlinkable websites" is simply not a rule.

But I've seen you do all of those things more than once lately, so just letting you know. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I didn't know that we couldn't use IMDB or YouTube. YouTube especially--in a lot of cases, YouTube is the only avenue for proving what is stated in the article, particularly where the subject is obscure or historical. Well that's a problem... The other issue is that, very often, the only journalistic pieces available are on a deprecated sources. As to removing old links, I do that if they're stale, corrupted or not properly linked. I find the originals and re-enter them. Aren't we supposed to try to fix link rot? And a lot of articles have "maintenance issues" warnings on them. So where I see them, I try to fix the original links, or find the original citation.--LJA123 (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say cleaning up linkrot was bad — I clean up linkrot all the time myself, too — but that's not all I've seen you do: I've seen several instances where you didn't just remove the link from a deadlinked citation, but instead removed the entire citation. Just as an example, let's say you come across a citation that goes

John Smith, [http://this.is.a.dead.link "Look, I'm proving stuff here"]. ''[[Toronto Star]]'', March 5, 2017.

I would either try to replace "this.is.a.dead.link" with a new link if I could find one, or simply strip "this.is.a.dead.link" from the footnote while leaving the rest of "John Smith, "Look, I'm proving stuff here". Toronto Star, March 5, 2017." intact, because a print-only citation to a reliable source like the Toronto Star is still a perfectly valid citation, whereas I've seen numerous instances of you stripping the entire citation and replacing it with a "citation needed" tag outright, or leaving it there and still placing a "citation needed" tag alongside the existing citation, or adding a "citation needed" tag on top of a source that was already there and perfectly acceptable but just not hotlinked to a web copy.

So again, I didn't say that cleaning up link rot is bad in and of itself: dead links that are already in articles obviously should be cleaned up. But you're acting as if web-accessible sourcing is the only kind of acceptable sourcing there is, and as if print-only citations are problems that need to be fixed by finding a web-accessible copy of the source or a web-accessible replacement for it. Print-only citations are acceptable too, and that's the alternative you're missing — just because a weblink is dead, or not present at all, does not in and of itself invalidate the entire citation, because print-only citations are still acceptable. If you can't find a replacement URL, then you can just remove the link itself while leaving the rest of the citation details intact, and sources that just provide the citation details but don't hotlink to a convenience copy of the content are not a problem that needs to be tagged for. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to confirm, are you saying that if an article makes a statement and, after a comprehensive search for articles proving that statement, the only proof is a YouTube video, we are not allowed to use that video?--LJA123 (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up the Wikipedia rules.

In one, (a Wikipedia editing instruction video, on YouTube), it says that reliable sources include material published "in ALL forms of media."

In another article, it says: "Links to video content on YouTube or Google Video (or other, similar content aggregators) are allowed, provided the material linked to is not obviously infringing copyright, is relevant to the article, and is a primary source or a reliable and irreplaceable secondary source."

Plus, online videos are, under the law, automatically in the Public Domain. So, with the exception of things like video surreptitiously recorded on cell phones, there is no copyright infringement.

Also, a video automatically offers proof that a statement made in a Wikipedia article is accurate and true. Or it may prove that an existing statement in an article is not true. When it comes to articles about people in the entertainment world, without the ability to prove or disprove statements, Wikipedia would be less of an encyclopedia and more of a PR tool.--LJA123 (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't imagine what kind of information could possibly be referenceable solely to a YouTube video, with absolutely no extant

reliable sourcing

locatable anywhere — in over a decade of being a Wikipedia editor, I have never come across even one instance where any fact that was noteworthy enough to be in our article at all was referenceable only to a YouTube video with absolutely no trace of better sourcing to be found anywhere else. If you really come across a situation where that's really the case, then either (a) you didn't really look hard enough for a better source (as witness the fact that I'm having to explain that you're allowed to cite non-googleable print sources from news archives), or (b) the information actually isn't noteworthy enough to warrant being in the Wikipedia article at all, and should just be removed as not properly verifiable.

On top of that, what I've often seen you do is add a footnote to the YouTube copy of a song's music video, as a supplementary footnote jengastacked on top of a more reliable footnote that already supported the information. See also

WP:CITEKILL: we never need multiple citations to be directly stacked on top of each other to support the same fact: just one footnote per fact is very nearly always enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

There are lots of cases where video is the only method of proving or disproving something--loads. Where journalists have written articles on a subject and their statements conflict, where marketers, PR people and fans further muddy the waters, and where the people who've written the articles are over-stating, or lying, about events and accomplishments.--LJA123 (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And there are exactly no cases where anything that can be verified only by a YouTube video is notable enough to even be mentioned in the article at all. For instance, a musician isn't notable enough to be included in Wikipedia just because his videos are available on YouTube as verification of their own existence — a musician becomes notable enough to be included in Wikipedia only when media have taken enough notice of his videos to write and publish third party journalistic content about them. A person isn't necessarily notable for winning an award whose source is a YouTube video clip of the presentation or the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself; awards have to be sourced to third party journalistic coverage in media to become notability claims for their winners or nominees, because an award has to have third party journalistic coverage in order to even become a notable award in the first place. And on and so forth: we're not looking for primary source verification of a fact, such as video of it happening: we're looking for third party evidence that the fact is noteworthy, by virtue of having been independently reported by journalists in media, and a fact isn't notable at all if its significance cannot be independently corroborated by reportage in books or media outlets doing journalism. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked at Teahouse. We can use YouTube videos as long as the source is clearly reliable, and the video comes from the source's channel. From the conversation:

"OK, so the link you just sent me says, in part: "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." In the example I mentioned above, I used a clip from a television show that is produced by the BBC. So that's a reliable source, correct? In other words, we can use YouTube videos as long as the source is clearly reliable? But, to use another example, I'm working on articles about two musicians who are legendary in India, but not well-known in the west. For those articles, I was able to find their recordings only on YouTube--those videos are the only method of proving the statements in the article. Those are recordings from the original albums (released by HMV), but uploaded by who-knows-who. So I am not allowed to use those?--LJA123 (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If their videos on YouTube are really the only sources available to prove statements in the article, then literally by definition the band aren't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, because there's no such thing as notability without media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's roughly correct... As long as you get it from the official BBC YouTube channel (that is, uploaded by the BBC directly themselves). We can't use stuff uploaded by other accounts that purport to be the BBC, but are of questionable provenance."

As to stacking references, that would be because one reference proves one statement made in the paragraph, the other proves another statement. Or the two references taken together prove one statement. Often, multiple references are added because another editor posted a request for more references.--LJA123 (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then you would put the reference that verifies one fact on the fact that it verifies, and the reference that verifies the other fact on the fact that it verifies. That is, you it like¹ this², not like this¹². You also don't need to add second or third references to verify facts that are already verified by the existing reference, such as sourcing a Juno Award nomination to the Juno Awards' own self-published website about itself supplementing a news article that already fully verifies the exact same Juno nomination. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK I clarified a few things at Teahouse. I can use Apple and Spotify as references (I thought they'd be less accepted). I can use YouTube videos as long as they're official and uploaded by the band or by obviously reliable sources. I can use album tracks uploaded to YouTube. IMDB is out--that's too bad because it's often the only place that has full credits listed...Re: The Toronto Star references. The vast majority of Toronto Star articles are dead links. So I try to find replacements for them. But print articles are always my first choice for references.--LJA123 (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've answered the parallel question to he above on the Teahouse, but I wanted to come here and reinforce an important point: online videos are, under the law, automatically in the Public Domain is not true. Online videos have copyright exactly the same way any other creative work does. "Public domain" is not synonymous with "accessible by the public". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK--LJA123 (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LJA123! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Use of YouTube videos as citations, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi LJA123! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Using IMDB & Turner Classic Movies database et al as sources, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi LJA123! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Citing Articles from EBSCO and other Wikipedia Libraries, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply ]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 13th Gemini Awards, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CBC and YTV.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just for future reference, Wikipedia does not have a rule forbidding all red links in all articles; redlinks cannot be present in directory lists like List of Canadian musicians or List of bands from Canada, but redlinks are allowed to be present in actual articles about specific and defined topics, such as Juno Awards of 1996.

Keep in mind, for example, that a Juno Award win or nomination is in and of itself an automatic pass over

1. It enables the actual tracking of how many articles the person's name needs to be linked in. For example, if I plan to start an article about composer Glenn Buhr, then I need to know exactly how many Juno Award ceremony articles his name is present in, so that I know exactly how many Juno Award nominations I need to find sourcing for — if his name is delinked, then I have to manually scan each individual Juno Award article one by one to determine whether the name "Glenn Buhr" is present in it or not, which is not a reasonable burden of work to expect me to undertake. I have to be able to click on a Glenn Buhr redlink, check "what links here", and count up how many "Juno Awards of YYYY" articles are waiting for a Glenn Buhr biography in one fell swoop.
2. If somebody else creates the Glenn Buhr article, but does not immediately go back and relink Glenn Buhr's name in all of the relevant pages themselves, then I have no way of knowing that the Glenn Buhr article exists in order to add the links myself when I come across them. If I didn't create it myself, I don't know that it's there — but if the person who did create it didn't do the rest of their job properly (which happens a lot), then the links that need to be there aren't there — and because I don't know that the article's already there, I have no way to know that I need to fix that problem, and thus a thing that needs to be fixed doesn't get fixed. The only solution to this issue is to leave the redlinks alone so that they're already waiting for the article to be created.
3. The redlink also helps to serve as a flag to other editors that "hey, here's a missing article that should probably be created if you wanna take it on".

Basically, if an article is an open-ended and potentially infinite list, then there is a "the Wikipedia article must already exist" restriction on inclusion — List of Canadian musicians is a page to which absolutely anybody who ever picked up a guitar at all could potentially try to add themselves even if they have don't actually have any notability claim whatsoever, so it's limited to blue links so that it doesn't turn into a spam factory. But in a closed-ended and strictly-defined topic, like a Juno ceremony or category, leaving the names redlinked is a desirable tool to help facilitate the creation of the articles — since the five nominees in a Juno category are the only five people who can ever legitimately be in a list of the nominees in that category, and since the nomination is an article-clinching notability claim in and of itself, there's absolutely no prospect of the list ever accumulating any non-notable spam that shouldn't be there, and so in that context red links are a useful tool, not a problem.

So please don't unlink redlinks in any article that doesn't specifically have the words "List of" directly in the page title. Thanks. You can also see Wikipedia:Red link for further information: specifically, the stated rule is "a red link should remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name. Only remove red links if Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject." Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. The thing with the Juno awards is that most of the red-linked names have articles, but they're in French--I was going to go back and do the French links at some point. Whoever entered all of these names just linked every name mentioned; I have to check each one.

While I have you here...where there are long lists of things, e.g. nominees and winners, it would look better if the text is slightly reduced. The Wikipedia help page says there's a function to put text in 'medium' size. I spent a half hour last night trying to insert 'medium', the way we do with 'small' but it didn't work. Do you know how to do that?--LJA123 (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there actually is a "medium" tag in HTML code at all; "small" reduces the size, but "medium" is just the default, as far as I know, and I'm not really sure if there's another way around that. (Of course, it's worth keeping in mind as well that the text size that anybody actually sees will be based in part on their own monitor display settings anyway, such as a person with a visual impairment who sets their font size to 150% will see larger text than a person who leaves their font size at 100%.) Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. OK, never mind. --LJA123 (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Thx.[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 11th Gemini Awards, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mark Farrell and Paul Workman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews there's a very clear consensus here that Scaruffi is not to be used as a source in music/album articles in any capacity. So please, do not add his opinions anymore. It is a

Editors have no way of knowing this because Scaruffi is not on Wikipedia's list of deprecated sources.

I'll add him to my own list, but if you want to keep people from using him as a reference, you have to put his name on the Wikipedia list. That will trigger an alert any time someone uses him as a reference.

Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Currently deprecated sources15:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC) LJA123 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 20th Gemini Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NBC Studios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 21st Gemini Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Derek Miller.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 24th Gemini Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diana Frances.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 10th Gemini Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rupert.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Don Haig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dancing in the Dark.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Australian films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sean Keenan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Colin Low (filmmaker), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santarém.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Feeney (filmmaker), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mountains of the Moon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from

Thanks, but I find the process so frustrating, I've give up trying. I haven't uploaded a single file on any article I've written or edited--it's just too much of a hassle. In the case of this photo, it's a government of Canada photo from the early 60s, so it should be in the public domain. But I can't figure out how to get it into the actual article. So my editing will also be sans images, I'm afraid. ('No idea why they make it so difficult...) LJA123 (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note for you, because I've seen you do it at least a couple of times now...statements that films won awards still have to be supported by sources, regardless of whether they're written as prose or listed as bullet points. So if you want to go around converting sentences stating that films won awards into bulletpointed lists, you still have to retain the citation that was used to support the statement, and use it to footnote the appropriate bullet point, rather than just stripping it from the article entirely. Bearcat (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as I mentioned to you last year in regards to Juno articles, please don't unlink redlinks in Canadian Film Award→Genie Award→Canadian Screen Award articles either. By virtue of winning or being nominated for a notability-clinching award, those people and films are inherently notable enough to have articles — but if you go around preemptively delinking any redlinks that are waiting for those articles to exist, then when I do create an article about one of those topics I have no other way to track how many other articles have that name in them in order to relink it everywhere it needs to be relinked. So it works the same way with the film awards as it does with the music awards: leave the redlink alone if the topic does have a legitimate notability claim but just doesn't have a Wikipedia article yet, and unlink the redlink only if the topic doesn't actually have any discernible notability claim at all. Again, the only time redlinks are forbidden is in open-ended and potentially infinite lists, such as List of Canadian musicians or List of Canadian actors, where any non-notable rando could potentially come try to add themselves as a form of self-promotional spamming — but in a finite and tightly-defined topic which isn't vulnerable to being misused like that, the redlink is necessary as a tracking tool to figure out how many articles are waiting for a missing article about that topic to get created. So, again, unlink a redlink only if it (a) is in a page with the words "list of" in the title, or (b) represents a topic that genuinely shouldn't have a Wikipedia article at all (e.g. if an article about a film director redlinks the names of his wife and kids) — but do not unlink a redlink if it represents a topic that should have a Wikipedia article and just doesn't already have it yet, such as the names of winners or nominees in an awards ceremony article. Bearcat (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the redlinks, as I mentioned to you a few months ago, those people already do have articles. But, this being Canada, the articles are in French because those people are Quebecois (or Acadian, or Metis). It would be better if you contacted whoever it was that put the links there in the first place and told them to go back and put in the links properly. At some point, I will go back and fix them.

In the case of the awards: The reference that I removed is to a book about the history of the Genie awards and applies only to the Genie Awards (the Canadian Film Awards). I removed the reference to the book and added the actual link to the correct Canadian Film Awards page--the awards are in the page.

In all cases, the awards mentions I replaced are incomplete. When I completed them, underneath 'Filmography', I added the link to the person's National Film Board page. That page has each of his films listed. Within the listing is each award the film won.LJA123 (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The people have articles on the French Wikipedia" has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Wikilinks in the body text of an article in the English Wikipedia have to be either a link to an article in the English Wikipedia or a redlink waiting for an article to be created in the English Wikipedia, and the body text of an article is not allowed to crosslink to another language Wikipedia instead of the English Wikipedia — and the fact that the person may happen to be québécois has nothing to do with it either, because the rule isn't that we restrict the English Wikipedia to anglophones and cover francophones only on the French Wikipedia, the rule is that a notable person should ideally have both an English and a French article regardless of their own personal ethnic and linguistic background. So if a person has an "inherent" notability claim but does not have an article on the English Wikipedia yet, then their name has to be an internal-to-the-English-Wikipedia redlink communicating that an article does not exist in English yet, and not using an outbound link to the French Wikipedia instead of an internal redlink was not an error on anybody's part.

Wikilinks also do not replace references, and neither do

primary source external links. Even if there's a wikilink to the award a film won and/or the ceremony it won it at, the claim that it won the award still has to be supported by a footnote, such as a news article about the award presentation or a book about the history of the awards — and even if there's a link in the external links to the NFB streaming copy of the film, the claim that the film won an award still has to be supported by a footnote, such as a news article about the award presentation or a book about the history of the awards. Such things complement referencing, but do not replace referencing, because content still has to be referenced to reliable sources that are both external to Wikipedia (so just wikilinking to another article isn't enough) and fully independent of the topic (so the NFB itself isn't enough). For example, films can claim to have won a lot of awards that aren't notability-makers at all, such as minor awards at small-fry film festivals that get no media coverage independently of their own websites, so providing a third-party reliable source citation for the award is central to establishing that the award is even notable enough to warrant mention in our article in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

/* Film awards */ The NFB links I'm providing to each film are not to the nfb.ca site, which is where people can watch films. The links I'm providing are to the government site where there is a detailed record of each film (no video). The NFB is a government organization, funded by, and accountable to, tax-payers. It is the body that tracks the awards. The majority of film awards organizations do not bother to keep proper records of their past winners, and all of my edits related to the '40s, '50s, and '60s; most media coverage has been lost. I will leave the book reference in, but the book is inaccurate and incomplete. The NFB government site is the reliable and accurate source.LJA123 (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, on what basis do you claim that the book is "inaccurate and incomplete"? What do you purport to claim is inaccurate in, or missing from, the book?

Secondly, notability for Wikipedia purposes is always a question of media coverage. For the purposes of establishing notability in Wikipedia, reliability is a question of how much the source does or doesn't represent independent attention being paid to the topic by third-party sources that don't have a vested interest in the claims — so you don't make a film notable enough for inclusion by sourcing content about it to material self-published by its own studio, or to material self-published by the presenter of any given film award, you make a film notable enough for inclusion by sourcing content about it to third-party reportage in newspapers, magazines or books.

A film cannot, for instance, be notable for winning an award that cannot itself be established as a notable award in the first place, because it doesn't get any media coverage to establish its notability with. So the notability of a film award cannot be sourced to the film award's own self-published press releases announcing its own winners, or to the self-published website of the film's studio tooting its own horn — it has to be sourced to third-party coverage, such as journalism that treats the presentation of that award as newsworthy or a book that treats it as historically significant, because that's how you establish that the award is even a notable award in the first place. An award isn't notable at all if GNG-worthy third-party coverage about that award does not exist to make it notable with, and if an award isn't notable then a film can't become notable for winning it. So the NFB isn't "more reliable and accurate" than a book just because the NFB is a government agency while the book is a book — the book is the preferred source, because it represents third-party verification of the fact in a source that's independent of the topic. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know the book is inaccurate and incomplete because I'm a journalist and I check everything. I cross-referenced its entries against articles about the winners and nominees (in reputable publications such as The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, the New York Times and Playback). At the moment, the Canadian Film Awards and Genie Awards pages need to be corrected; I'll get to that eventually.

As to whether or not an award is notable, and award is an award. We may think that a win at a European or South American film festival we've never heard of is no big deal but Wikipedia is an international site and, in those countries, and to documentary filmmakers, those festivals are a big deal. An award is an award and full records of award wins are important to journalists, academics, biographers, film students and film historians.LJA123 (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not sufficient to say you know it's inaccurate because you checked, because I also have solid enough access to historical databases of media coverage to have also cross-checked the Topalovich book against at-the-time media coverage of the CFAs and Genies (and Wyndham Wise's Take One's Essential Guide and Gerald Pratley's Torn Sprockets), and I've never yet found a single case where Topalovich was wrong about a winner — I've found cases where two or more newspapers were in conflict or error about non-winning nominees (e.g. Talk:29th Canadian Film Awards), but I have yet to see a single case where Topalovich actually named an incorrect winner. So this isn't a situation where I have to shut up and take your word for it because you're somehow a bigger expert than I am — this is a situation where I've done more than enough research of my own to demand specific examples of what you believe she got wrong because I've never seen evidence of it in my own research. If you can actually name me specific examples where Topalovich says one thing and the real media coverage says another, then bring it on and I'll happily fix the affected article to correct the error — but I've done more than enough research of my own on the old CFAs that you don't get "I'm a bigger expert than you are, so STFU and take my word for it" privileges here.

And an award may be an award, but not all awards are equal notability-makers under Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. An award can only make a film notable for winning it if that award is itself a notable award, and the question of whether the award is a notable award is determined by the presence or absence of

properly sourced

as notable awards, and not documenting awards that cannot.

I never, ever said that foreign film festivals are inherently invalid; some foreign film festivals can be well-sourced as notable festivals that present notable awards and some foreign film festivals can't, just the same as some Canadian film festivals can be well-sourced as more notable than other Canadian film festivals and some American film festivals can be well-sourced as more notable than other American film festivals. But just like any other kind of event or organization, we do not establish the notability of a film festival or its awards by citing the content to the festival's own self-published content about itself as verification that the festival and its awards exists or existed, we establish the notability of a film festival and its awards by citing the content to

reliable source coverage about the festival in media or books as proof that the festival and its awards have been the recipients of third-party analytical attention in media and books. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I assume that it's you who is undoing my corrections to articles? Undoing corrections renders them both inaccurate and incomplete. And why, because you're offended about the Canadian Film Awards? Your entries of Canadian film awards don't bother to state which year's awards. In the case of Nobody Waved Good-bye, you've stated two budgets and, if you watch the interview with Don Owen (I provided it--you removed it), he clearly says that they shot the film "all summer and went back in the fall". You removed those corrections. You removed the correction to The Ernie Game--the statement I removed that says that it was the last film that Don Owen made for the NFB. It wasn't--he made four more films for the NFB. If you're as concerned about the integrity of Wikipedia as you seem to be, why would you want to leave inaccuracies in any article? Indeed, why would you go to so much effort to have them stay inaccurate and/or incomplete?LJA123 (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The hell are you talking about? I haven't edited either Nobody Waved Good-bye or The Ernie Game at all since last September, and the edit history plainly shows that the dispute you ran into there recently was with somebody else and not with me. Why are you raising disagreements with somebody else but addressing them to me in a conversation that had nothing to do with any of it? Bearcat (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are not responding to my messages. I also see that, without notification, cause, or logic, you have deleted my article on John Howe. I have replaced it. By deleting it, you removed, without valid reason, a proper article about a notable and well-known filmmaker. And, in the many articles in which he is mentioned, you have put his name back into redlink--after saying that you are working to have articles written on every person in redlink. Not only does this not make sense, it is Edit Warring. There is no reason for it. My suggestion is that we both try to make sure that, wherever our interests overlap, the result is complete, accurate and helpful articles. If you do not agree with this, please advise and I'll ask the administrators to settle the matter.LJA123 (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, firstly, if you want to ensure that you get a response, then you need to ping the user you're replying to so that they know there's a reply to read and respond to. But secondly, again, I didn't delete any article on John Howe, and you once again seem to be bringing an issue with somebody else into this — except this time it's even more unclear what you're talking about in the first place, because I can find absolutely no evidence that

WP:GNG-building coverage about him in books, newspapers or magazines (which is a bit strange for a person who tried to play the "I'm a bigger expert than you are at finding old archived media coverage" card earlier in this very conversation, but I digress) — but the article hasn't ever been deleted at all, and I had never even seen it at all until you tried to accuse me of something that never happened. Not only did I not "repeatedly" delete it, there's not a single deletion by anybody recorded in its entire edit history. So, again, what the honk are you even talking about? Bearcat (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I was just going to get back to you and apologize for that--the article just disappeared the other day. Then I looked at the history and couldn't find how that happened. Weird. Also weird: if you google it, it doesn't come up at all. It's not searchable. So I think I did something wrong. Probably, as you mentioned, with the tags. Thanks for putting those in.

As to the sources, there are so many NFB links because another editor told me I had to provide a separate link for every award. The information of the article is from outside sources only.LJA123 (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Figured out what happened. I completely forgot to put in my list of tags. Sorry for all the fuss. LJA123 (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, "another editor" didn't tell you that awards have to be sourced, I told you that awards have to be sourced. And again, awards have to be sourced to media reportage and/or books treating the presentation of the award as newsworthy or historically significant, not to content self-published by the article subject's own employer, because an award that isn't notable enough to have generated coverage in newspapers, magazines or books isn't notable at all and a person cannot become notable for winning non-notable awards — so any award you want to mention in a filmmaker's article has to be sourced to media reportage and/or books in order to establish that the award is even a notable one in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it was you who told me that...I thought someone else had as well.

I can assure you that the NFB's listings of awards are absolutely the horse's mouth. In the mid-80s, when I was writing for Playback and Strategy, I wrote an article on this very subject. It included mention (corroborated) of the vast sums that the NFB, in its early days, spent on awards entries. And of the fact that the progress of each entry was tracked and maintained--not by the filmmakers, but by the accounting department. Aside from problems with English, given that the accounting department was staffed by Francophones, those records are precise and accurate.

I can promise you that the appearance of an award win or nomination in a magazine or newspaper is in no way a verification of it. The body that issues the awards sends the awards and nominations listings to publications; they simply print them. No one checks, ever. People who write books about them might try; academics and historians will definitely try. But, given that most festivals and awards granters have never bothered to keep proper records, attempts at full independent and objective verification usually fail.

In other words, wherever you find older mentions of award wins and nominations in publications, unless the source was a government body like the NFB or the larger bodies like the Academy Awards, you can know that they have not been properly verified, by anybody, and that such references are pretty much meaningless. LJA123 (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you have exactly a bass-ackward understanding of how Wikipedia works. We don't care how "straight from the horse's mouth" a source is or isn't — we care how independent third party the source is or isn't. Topics don't get Wikipedia articles on the basis of what they do or don't claim about themselves on primary source websites self-published by themselves or their own employers, and instead a topic's eligibility to be included in a Wikipedia article is conditional on the extent to which it can or can't be referenced to media coverage that treated the things the article says as newsworthy topics of journalism and/or analysis.

For example, I could easily put up a website about myself, or a staff profile on the website of a company I owned or worked for, in which I claimed to have won a Nobel Prize. I'd be lying, but that wouldn't stop me from being able to do it. But that doesn't mean I would now qualify for a Wikipedia article on the basis of having self-published my own "verification" of a Nobel Prize, because my claim to having won a Nobel Prize would not be independently verified by any media coverage that reported "Bearcat wins Nobel Prize" as news. And if I were to call you up and invite you to a coffee shop, where I presented you with a certificate naming you as the winner of some random award that I just invented yesterday, then that wouldn't mean you would now qualify for a Wikipedia article on the basis of having won an award — it would not be possible to find any evidence of media doing any journalism about that award to establish that it was a notable award in the first place, so you would not be able to claim notability on the basis of having won a non-notable award.

So we don't care about awards that you have to source to the awarding organization's own self-published announcements of its own winners, or awards that you have to source to the film studio's own self-published directory of its own catalogue — we only care about awards that third parties, completely independent of either the award's or the studio's own self-promotion of their own efforts, consider significant enough to have written about and analyzed in journalistic reportage and/or books. An award that cannot be shown to have received third-party attention from media sources is, by definition, not a notable award — but people and films cannot become notable for winning non-notable awards, so we're not interested in documenting people's or films' wins of awards that cannot be sourced to third-party attention from the media.

Sure, media make mistakes sometimes, but media also fix their mistakes by publishing corrections a day or two later. And people and organizations have also been known to lie about themselves on their own self-published websites as well. So no, "from the horse's mouth" claims are not preferred over media coverage: we don't care about what the horse says, we care about the extent to which journalists and critics and historians have or haven't published independent third-party journalism or historical analysis about the things the horse said. For example, a film whose claims of award-winningness were referenced to primary sources would not get kept in an AFD discussion just because the word "award" was present in the text — it would get deleted if we couldn't find any third-party media coverage to properly establish that any of the awards it claimed to have were even notable awards in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that's the case, we would have to remove Academy Awards, Broadway awards, and West End awards from their earliest days because the only original source for them is records from the awarding bodies, rather from third-party media coverage of the day. For example, if you look at the references for the 2nd Academy Awards, it appears that no one was able to find mentions of the winners in any journalistic body at all.

We would have to remove Canadian awards--Playback printed most of them, but straight from the awarding body's news release and only from the early 80s; Toronto Star and Globe and Mail archives were not properly maintained. And I see that the Topolovich book is the only source you were able to find for the Genies.

We would have to remove all film festival awards where no journalist wrote about them. This is especially true in the case of the NFB where many of the films are obscure so they didn't make it into any articles. It's also the case where the film festivals themselves are niche-market (scientific, tourism, education, children's, early animation etc.) and no third party even mentioned them.

If Wikipedia is the only available method of maintaining a formal record, I imagine that the idea is to have reliable sources. In the case of the NFB, I think most would agree that the records of a government body who used taxpayer funds to pay the cost of awards entry could be considered to be a reliable source.

Nevertheless, I will continue to look for other sources. LJA123 (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing, no: you still have to differentiate between "no other sources exist at all" and "other sources do exist, but Wikipedians just haven't always actually located or used them". The Oscars and the Canadian Film Awards and the Genies are in the latter category, not the former, and the Topalovich book certainly isn't the only source I've been able to find for the Genies, considering that it's not the only source that's being used for the Genies — and it's an actual book, which means it meets the definition of a reliable source and thus isn't a problem.

And when it comes to film festivals, well, that's precisely the point. It's not our role, or our mandate, or our goal, to provide an indiscriminately comprehensive listing of every film award that ever existed, even if we have to depend on primary sources to do it: our role is to document awards that are properly established as notable awards, and to not document awards that cannot be properly established as notable awards. TIFF's awards get coverage to demonstrate their notability, so we care about TIFF's awards because it's clearly a notable award. The Cannes festival's awards get coverage, so we care about Cannes awards because they're clearly notable. The Oscars and the CFA/Genie/CSAs and the BAFTAs get coverage, so we care about those awards because they're clearly notable. And on and so forth.
But we don't care about niche-market film festivals that don't get media coverage to establish their notability with, because we're not trying to be a complete directory of every film festival or film award that ever existed — we're trying to be a reference for notable film festivals and awards, meaning film festivals and awards that have had

WP:GNG

-worthy media coverage and historical analysis to establish their notability with, and not for the festivals or awards that didn't. So if an award cannot be established as a notable award in the first place, then (a) it cannot make its winners notable for winning it, and (b) is not notable enough to warrant mention in articles about its winners even if they do have other, stronger notability claims — so if a "niche-market (scientific, tourism, education, children's, early animation etc.)" festival or award didn't get third-party coverage to establish the notability of the festival or award, then it just isn't Wikipedia's responsibility to care about documenting that niche-market festival or award at all.

And as for "Toronto Star and Globe and Mail archives were not properly maintained", well, where's your evidence for that assertion? I can log into ProQuest and get Globe and Mail coverage all the way back to 1844, and Toronto Star coverage all the way back to 1894 — i.e. before film even existed — so what content are you so convinced that they're missing, exactly? And there are a lot of other Anglo-Canadian newspapers available from Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive.com all the way back to their founding, and several Quebec newspapers that can be accessed from BANQ all the way back to their founding, so we're not even limited to just "Globe, Star or doom" either — tracking down old media coverage from before the Google era just isn't that difficult to do, and you haven't shown any evidence for your assertion that there are major gaps in those collections. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're going around in circles...

The word which Wikipedia uses regarding acceptable sources is 'reliable'. An awarding body is a reliable source. A government body is a reliable source. Given that journalists merely re-print information directly from the awarding body, they too are reliable sources. But they make mistakes and, because their space is limited, they omit records.

Wikipedia is packed with seemingly-useless minutiae and its notability standards can be extremely loose. But its goal it to provide as complete as record as possible for each subject (otherwise, it wouldn't ask people to expand on stubs).

Awards are part of a film's record, and of a filmmaker's record. They are a detail used in theses, biographies and critical analysis by people all over the world, every day. Their importance may be subjective, but it is not up to you, or me, or anyone else to say that one award is notable while another is not, or to pick and choose which ones to note in an article.LJA123 (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An awarding body may be trustworthy on the matter of who won its own awards — but what an awarding body's own self-published content about its own awards does not accomplish is self-designating itself as a notable award just by virtue of having self-published content about itself. Notability is not established by just any web page that technically verifies a fact — notability is established by the extent to which the fact did or didn't lead other people, completely unaffiliated with the claims, to do after-the-fact coverage or analysis about the fact. TIFF's awards are not notable because TIFF has a self-published website, for example; TIFF's awards are notable because the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail and Variety and The Hollywood Reporter and Playback and The New York Times deem TIFF's awards to be important enough to report TIFF's film awards as a news story. The CFA/Genie/CSA's are not notable because they have existed, they're notable because media have treated them as important enough to report their presentations as news. Cannes's awards are not notable because Cannes exists; they're notable because media consider them important enough to report Cannes award winners as news. It's not a question of who did or didn't originate the award; it's a question of who did or didn't consider the award newsworthy enough to do followup reportage or analysis about the award.

As I noted previously, there are a lot of film "awards" in the world that don't really exist as real film awards at all, but simply as "award mills" where an emerging filmmaker can buy himself or herself an "award" so that he or she can stick the phrase "award-winning" into the film's PR bumf. So notability does not attach to just any random film award that exists, just because primary source material self-published by the film's own producers or the awarding organization itself technically "verifies" the win — notability only attaches to awards that media independently validate as significant awards by virtue of considering them important enough to report as subjects of news coverage or historical analysis. Again, the question isn't "who did or didn't originate the claim of an award" — it's "who else besides the awarding organization and the studio's own PR department did or didn't consider the award to be significant enough to devote its own separate resources to covering as news, or analyzing as history, after the award had already been put out there by the people with a vested interest in tooting their own horns".

By the same token, a film isn't automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it has an IMDb page, or a directory entry on the self-published website of the studio that made it — films get Wikipedia articles when they have external validation of their significance in third party sources: reviews by professional film critics in real media, independent verification of noteworthy film awards (which is, again, not the same thing as all awards), third-party coverage of the production itself, and on and so forth. And film awards are the same way: they become notable if media consider them significant enough to treat as newsworthy, and do not become notable if you have to depend on content self-published by the awarding organization or the film's own producers because media don't consider the award significant enough to treat as newsworthy. Notability does not vest in the technical ability to verify a fact, it vest in the ability to demonstrate that third party analysts (newspapers, magazines, books, etc.) considered the fact important enough to report as newsorthy or historically significant after the fact was already established. Bearcat (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I noticed that you added "It was designated a Masterwork by the Audio-Visual Preservation Trust of Canada" to Nobody Waved Good-bye, but when I looked at the source there was no mention of it. Please remember to always add your sources and do not add unsourced information within sourced materials. Jon698 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that the source didn't provide a date for that AV Trust designation; I assume that he couldn't find it. I'm looking for it.LJA123 (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Don Owen (filmmaker), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halifax.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You created the articles

Oh. How did that happen...they're identical versions of the article I wrote.... I didn't create the director one because he wasn't just a director. Shouldn't I just delete that one? I'll try the redirect option.

While I have you here...I also wrote the article Robert Anderson but it doesn't appear in searches. It turns up if you find his name and click on it, but if you just google him, it doesn't come up. Any idea of why that is? I'm thinking I left something out when I created the page. LJA123 (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the page John Howe (director) LJA123 (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Anderson (filmmaker) does appear when I eneter it in the search box. Try this: [1], does it show the article there? The article is not yet added in the disambig page Robert Anderson so I'll add it there. --Proofreader (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if I google "Robert Anderson wikipedia" it doesn't show your article. It might take some time for Google to update their searches; the article was created just three days ago. --Proofreader (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[2] says: "Sometimes it can take a week or more for a search engine to update search results." So it just takes a little patience. --Proofreader (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Sometimes I think it's my search engine, but I tried another one. Oh the disambiguation page--that's probably where I went wrong.

So what about the John Howe thing? I can't find the 'director' page.LJA123 (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That one was created 11 days ago. It has been quite while but here, too, it may still fall within that "a week or more" timeframe so expect to see it in the google searches soon. --Proofreader (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks.LJA123 (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your addition of the junk source here again. Absolutely no part of our conversation supported the addition of this as a reliable source. I've also noted that this is effectively linking to copyright violations as the site hosts scrapes of other works without attribution, see the policy at

I go by the deprecated list. This source is not on that list.

It may be scraped content, but the information is correct. Since you persist, we'll just have to leave it as unsourced for now. Wondering, though, if you read the references below, that were in the original article.LJA123 (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fernand Dansereau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Québécois.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK, thanks. I thought it had to redirect. I wrote most of the text in the first article, so I'm not copying someone else's work. And I've since written the subject's biography--I was just about to try and drop it in. I haven't done this before so no need to worry about that. I'll try the 'Move' function. Let's see if it works...LJA123 (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It worked! Thanks.LJA123 (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no...it worked insofar as it moved the original article. It did not move the massive expansion I made to it this morning. I wonder why that is...LJA123 (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It worked. All fine. Thanks for your help.LJA123 (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give me a hand with Hugh O'Connor? I guess I've done something wrong...when you google the name, you only get Hugh O'Connor the actor. I've put 'disambiguation' at the bottom of both articles, I've made sure that the name spelling is the same throughout, made sure the descriptions are matching and correct...But, to find him, you have to type in the word 'filmmaker'. And, when using his name in an article, and typing it in correctly, it comes up in redlink. I've clearly failed to do something but I don't know what that is.LJA123 (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there's a problem here? Google searches from outside Wikipedia will often get somewhat random results, based on how many links (both internal and external) there are to the various articles, which in turn depends on the subject's general popularity/notability, and also the age of the article. There's not really anything you can do about that; but, at least for me, searching for "Hugh O'Connor director" or "Hugh O'Connor producer" correctly finds the Canadian filmmaker as the top hit. Anyway, people who incorrectly end up at the actor's page will immediately see a "hatnote" they can click through to get to the oher one. Note that you should not put {{Disambiguation}} at the bottom of either article; that's only for pages that contain only disambiguation links. I don't know what you mean by "comes up in redlink"; I can link to either article just fine. Hqb (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there's clearly something wrong with my search engine...I'll remove the disambiguation links. Thanks.LJA123 (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I list the people who the sources say were the nominees; thereis not a single solitary CFA article in which I have ever listed even one other nominee besides who the sources explicitly say the nominees were. (Keep in mind, for example, that sometimes the director is also credited as a producer of the film.) Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that must be the case. Cheers.

LJA123 (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly is the case. I have never added any names to any CFA article that were not explicitly named in the sources, and that's not up for any debate or discussion or disagreement or disbelief. If you can provide evidence that one source was wrong, by virtue of another source reporting differently, then that's an entirely different matter — but I'll note that the only edit you actually made to a CFA article before running to my talk page to fling shit at my face was a duplicate entry for a film and category that were already listed in the article, where I double-checked the existing entry and it matches the source. Bearcat (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fling shit at your face? I did no such thing. I simply pointed out who awards go to because, in most cases, the awards are listed as going to the directors. As you noted, maybe those directors do have producer credits--I haven't double-checked anything yet. 'No need to get combative about it.LJA123 (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tom Daly (filmmaker), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City of Gold.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your additions to the Candid Eye article. However, I noticed that when you separated the paragraphs you only put the source for one of the divided sentences. It is of the upmost importance that you maintain cited statements and not break them up. Jon698 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can see that, since that edit, someone has removed a lot of the new text I put in. That's probably why.

Can you tell me specifically which sentence you mean? I'll restore the deleted text and fix any errors.LJA123 (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LJA123: It was this specifically. [3] Jon698 (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not seeing the problem. I didn't break up any statements that were quoted from citations.LJA123 (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LJA123: Apologies. I linked to the wrong edit. Here it is [4] I had to add the source back in. Jon698 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. That's the source used throughout. I might have removed it because it's repeated so often. Thanks for putting it back.

While I have you here, do you know how long it takes an article to appear after it's been written? I wrote an article about J.V. Durden and another about Los Canadienses (film); they haven't been reviewed yet. I keep thinking I didn't format it correctly or something.LJA123 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LJA123: Sadly that remains a mystery to me. I would suggest trying to link to those articles in as many pages as possible, but that is all I can suggest. Jon698 (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanksLJA123 (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Don Mulholland (filmmaker) is a very good page. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (I didn't know there was such a thing as a Barnstar...lol)LJA123 (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using dbpedia as a source, as you did at 29th Canadian Film Awards and 1st Genie Awards. Note the clear disclaimer at the bottom of the page: "This content was extracted from Wikipedia." Thanks. Sam Kuru (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I didn't see that. OK thanks, I'll find another source.LJA123 (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be on the deprecated list so everyone knows not to use it?LJA123 (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That one does not come up often; the depreciated list is not all-inclusive and is usually for ones that have required discussion. If it helps, I keep personal lists of junk sources: mirrors, seo fakes and scrapers. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanksLJA123 (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this is the English Wikipedia, which means we list films English Title First (French Title Second), not French Title First (English Title Second), because we're writing for an English-speaking audience.

Secondly, as you will note if you check any

Also, song titles take quotation marks, not italics, per

MOS:TITLE. Bearcat (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The proper way to cite any film, or any creative work, is with the title in the language in which it was released by its makers. (Have you ever heard anyone refer to Belle de Jour or La Dolce Vita in English translation?) It is absolutely improper to translate it, particularly as the history of the Canadian Film Awards and the Genies has been rife with disputes involving Francophone filmmakers--presenting the films in English translation is just offensive. The films were submitted for consideration with their French titles, the nominations and awards were issued to the films in their French titles, and the Topalovich book printed all awards with their French titles--not one was translated into English. The English, translated title, comes second.

As to the bolding issue, it is correct to emphasize the name of the person who won the award. Films win in the 'films' categories; when films win, the producers are the winners and the producers accept the awards. When people win awards for the work they do in a film, their personal names are emphasized. The final tally goes to the credit of the film but in the case of, say, Best Actress, the award goes to the person, not the film. Who gets up to accept the award? The actress, not the producer. To put it another way, if it was the film that won all of the awards, the producers would accept all of them.

The other issue with bolding in these articles is legibility. All of the bolding and redlinking make them messy and difficult to read. It's cleaner, and much easier on the eye of the reader, to have as little bolding as possible. As to the redlinks, even if there were articles on these people and films, a good many of them would not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.LJA123 (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This illustrates what I mean on the latter issue. Wikipedia uses bolding to emphasize winners; The Oscars use Caps. As you can see, the name of the person who wins the award is emphasized, in caps, while the name of the film is secondary. https://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2018LJA123 (talk) 07:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not follow your assessments of what's "proper" vs. what's "offensive", or the Academy's assessments of what title it did or didn't "choose" to bestow the nomination under — Wikipedia follows Wikipedia's rules for how our articles are written and formatted.

I didn't say that the original French titles can't be present in the articles — they provide both the English and French titles, and I didn't say they shouldn't — but Wikipedia follows the rule that because we're writing for an English reading audience, we place the English title first and the French title second. For one thing, the title that's actually being linked is the one that has to be first. If you have to give more than one title for a work, one of the two titles represents where the article actually is, and thus has to be placed first because it's the one that is actually holding the wikilink to the film's article — the link always has to be given as This (That), never as This (That), because the element that actually carries the link, the name that actually has to be clicked on to get to its article, is the one that has to be placed first. So if our article is actually located at the film's English title, then the English title has to be placed first because it's the title that actually has the wikibrackets around it.

If you'd like to shoot for a consensus that Wikipedia's longstanding consensus that film articles are to be located at their English titles whenever possible, and are titled with their original foreign-language titles only if no alternative English title can be located at all, should be overturned, you're free to try tilting at windmills — even I was opposed to it when it was first implemented, and argued that Quebec films should always be left at their original titles. But I lost that fight, and the thing about being a Wikipedia contributor is that you have to accept that consensus is what it is — even if you disagree with a rule, you still have to follow it anyway unless you can mount a convincing case, in a full policy discussion at the appropriate WikiProject or policy page, for why the existing rule should be changed. But so long as the rule is what it is, you and I both have to follow it as it is whether we agree with it or not.

So as long as Wikipedia's established naming rule remains that the film's article has to be located at the English title rather than the French one (which, again, I didn't even agree with when it was first implemented), Genie and other articles have to refer to the films English Title First (French Title Second), not vice versa, because the English title is the one that actually represents the wikilink to the film's article. You're so concerned about how bolding and redlinks impact the article's readability, and yet you somehow don't see how referring to a film Unlinked Title First (Linked Title Second) instead of Linked Title First (Unlinked Title Second), thus unsyncing the visual alignment of the links, is also impacting the article's readability?

And as for the stylizations of what does or doesn't get bolded in a film awards article, your model is Wikipedia's articles about other film awards — when I said to look at the 95th Academy Awards, I didn't mean the Academy's website about them, I meant Wikipedia's article about them. If you look at that article, you will see what Wikipedia practice is: we bold both the people and the film title that represent the winner, not just one or the other. We don't bold Brendan Fraser and Michelle Yeoh and then unbold the titles of the films they won their awards for working on just because the award itself wasn't literally presented to the entire cast and crew of the film — we bold both Brendan Fraser and The Whale under best actor, and we bold both Michelle Yeoh and EEAAO under best actress, because those are the films they won awards for working on. The emphasis on their names as the actual winners is already fully covered off by the fact that their names are placed before the names of the films — but when it comes to the bolding, we bold the whole winner's line (people and film title), not just the entity that represented the direct personal recipient of the award. Again, the model here is not what the ACCT or AMPAS do on their websites, it's what we do on our other articles about film awards.

And when it comes to redlinking, the thing you need to understand is that none of the people would fail Wikipedia's notability criteria — because "won or was nominated for a major national film award" is a Wikipedia notability criterion in and of itself, every person, film or TV program named as a winner or nominee in a Wikipedia article about a CFA, Genie, Gemini or CSA award ceremony is inherently notable because of the nomination or win itself. I'll grant that especially in the CFA era, there have been people and films whom I struggled to actually find any viable sourcing about (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Fitz), but that's specific to those individual people or films, and does not automatically apply to everybody named in the article.

But you see, the thing is that if and when the article does exist, they then have to have their names relinked in all of the relevant articles — but once the article does exist, it becomes much more difficult to find all of the pages in which their name has to be relinked, because any attempt to search for all the pages with their name in it will now just take me directly to their article itself rather than giving me a list of all the other articles with the name in it. So the only real solution is that the wikilinks have to already be there waiting for the article about that film or person to exist before it exists, because after the article exists it becomes significantly harder to find all the places where their name needs to be relinked. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia page: Juno Award for Francophone Album of the Year. All listed in their French names, not translated by Wikipedia editors. Link to articles, under their French names, in English. Correct.

Wikipedia page: List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best International Feature Film. The first column is "Film Title Used in Nomination". English name second. The filmmakers Anglicized the titles, not Wikipedia editors. Correct.

Wikipedia page: List of German submissions for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film. The first column is "Film Title Used in Nomination". English name second. The filmmakers Anglicized the titles, not Wikipedia editors. Correct.

Wikipedia page: 43rd_Academy_Awards: Best Documentary Feature: Erinnerungen an die Zukunft. Made in German, submitted for consideration in German. Nominated in German. On Wikipedia, English name comes second, link is to an article in English. Correct.

Wikipedia page: List of Italian Grammy Award winners and nominees. All titles in their language of nomination. Correct.

Wikipedia page: Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature Film. Foreign films are all listed with their non-English titles first, their translated titles second. Correct.

Wikipedia page: BAFTA Award for Best Film Not in the English Language. In this case, the films were entered for consideration under their foreign names, but it was BAFTA (the source of the Wikipedia article) who released and announced the nominations in English, not Wikipedia editors. Correct.

Wikipedia page: List of Polish films of the 1930s: All titles in their original language. Not translated. Link to articles with English titles and text. Correct.

Wikipedia page: List of Spanish films of 1970. All titles in their original language. One translation, English title second. Link to articles with English titles and text. Correct.

The above are also all correct because the Wikipedia editors have not changed the material provided by their sources.

In the case of the Canadian Film Awards and Genie Awards, Topalovich copied from her source/s verbatim. French names first, English names second. Correct.

Of course, the link should be to the film that people will search for, e.g. Belle de Jour and La Dolce Vita.

As to redlinking, it makes articles messy and hard to read. It's better to go back and add the link once the article is written.

LJA123 (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.

I decided to create a couple of articles on Canadian films. I posted Family Circles (4 awards). Got an immediate citation for notability. Granted there is not a lot of information about its reception, although I haven't yet done a proper search for articles. But apparently winning awards isn't enough. It's confusing because there are Wikipedia articles on obscure films that didn't win anything. 'Must be up to the opinion of editors.LJA123 (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jacques Giraldeau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roger Blais.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Street (1976 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Espinho.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

You can delete it if you like. I created it because another editor said that every Canadian film that won multiple awards should have an article. (And now, looking at that editor's articles, they're not notable either.) But, awards aside, if this film received much media attention, it hasn't been preserved--and I've looked everywhere. I'll work the award wins into the director's biography. While you're at it, I created Family Circles at the same time and for the same reason. It could also be deleted.LJA123 (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

We'd agreed that it would be deleted. That was several months ago. Please delete now.LJA123 (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LJA123. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz Thanks. (We agreed that this would be deleted ages ago--I'm surprised it was up this long.) Best, LALJA123 (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]