Talk:Carbon Nation

Good (magazine) resource
The Climate Change Movie That Doesn't Care if You Believe in Climate Change February 12, 2011; excerpt ...

Also see Roscoe Wind Farm.

99.190.86.147 (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Resource: some of the Cast ...
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1482991/fullcredits#cast ...
 * Lester R. Brown President, Earth Policy Institute
 * Sean Casten President & CEO, Recycled Energy Development
 * Ralph Cavanagh Lead Attorney, NRDC
 * Bob Fox, Partner Cook+Fox Architects
 * Thomas Friedman, Author & NY Times Columnist
 * Eban Goodstein Economic Professor, Lewis and Clark College
 * Gary Hirshberg Chairman, President, and CEO of Stonyfield Farm
 * Sadhu Aufochs Johnston Chief Environmental Officer, City of Chicago
 * Amory B. Lovins Chairman & Chief Scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute
 * Joel Makower Executive Director, GreenBiz.com
 * Edward Mazria Executive Director, Solar Richmond
 * Arthur H. Rosenfeld Commisioner, California Energy Commission
 * John Rowe (CEO) Exelon Chairman & CEO, Exelon Corporation

Also see Austin Energy, Fort Irwin Military Reservation, Grauer School, Bullitt Foundation, The Rodale Institute, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, Shell Oil, Chief green officer, Green For All, Southern California Edison, Architecture 2030, List of algal fuel producers (Valcent Products), RWE, Johnson Controls, Duke Energy, VantagePoint Venture Partners

99.190.86.147 (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You have still provided no reason for inclusion. Cast lists in "true" documentaries are tangential to the purpose, at best.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Facets Cinémathèque

 * http://www.facets.org/pages/cinematheque/films/april2011/carbonnation.php

99.190.86.147 (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Appearances in the film?
"Starring" is wrong. "Cast" is wrong. "Appearing" may not be wrong, but doesn't seem appropriate. If you were to list only those people who were involved in and supported the film, it might be a reasonable list, although I still don't have a good name for it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And what is the reasoning against 'Appearing"? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are in a crowd filmed in a documentary, you are appearing in it. Named appearances?
 * I still don't see why it should be listed; it's not analogous to the cast of a non-documentary film, where, in theory, the complete list of people paid to be in the film might be relevant, and reasonable selections from that list would still be relevant. That list, (properly called "paid appearances"), might be the analogous list to a cast list, but it's not available. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't Manual of Style/Film be of use? 99.181.136.158 (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose it would. It recommends against a raw cast list, suggesting it be used only as a temporary measure while no plot summary naming the characters is present.
 * "Failing that [referring to two preferred 'cast' section formats], a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate, though some editors frown on lists inside articles. It should be longer than the list in the infobox, and, depending on the number of minor characters in the film, can be furnished with a dozen or more credits. Credits should be written in the 'ACTOR as CHARACTER' format, using list syntax, but for credits where the character has not been mentioned in the plot section, a short summary of the importance and role of the character in the film would be necessary ..."
 * That is, even there were a way to apply it to unstaged documentary films. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This (Manual of Style/Film) seems relevant ...
 * 99.181.141.143 (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we in agreement or just a majority in adding who is in the documentary film, IP Users and User:Arthur Rubin? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That would apply in prose, not in a list. No agreement to your addition.  And, even if you IPs weren't all the same, Wikipedia is not a democracy. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there better Wikipedia guidelines than the one Special:Contributions/99.181.141.143 listed above?  97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The one I listed above suggested that cast lists are inappropriate. The guideline you (now) quote suggests that, if the people are named, they should be linked.  It does not suggests that a "cast list" is appropriate.  If you were to include, in prose, why the people are in the film, then it should be linked, according to the guidelines.  I suspect it's impossible for you to do that, but that's the suggestion from the guidelines.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Where are the Wikipedia rules for that?   99.190.85.111 (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For what? For asserting that you don't understand the guidelines?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(od) Art, you requested a Why. Where are the wikipedia rules for a Why? 99.181.136.19 (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the guidelines you've misquoted provide a reason for the inclusion. Why include the list?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By "why?" above, I meant why the person appears in the film, not what role the person has in real life. The former is analogous to a plot outline; the latter is analogous to a raw character list.  Your list is counterproductive to understanding.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your Why question is too profound and not required for wikipedia. Retaining the content of the film (interviews) is encyclopedic, unnecessary philosophy navel-gazing is not.  99.19.45.81 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You have still not given a reason why, contrary to WP:FILM guidelines, a raw cast list should be used, particularly those which were taken from archive footage. The guidelines don't apply well to documentaries, but suggest that the people named should be linked if given, but should not be given unless helpful to explain the film.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk)
 * I see I already said that, above, in this section. If you don't understand the guidelines, stop editing matters relevant to the guidelines unless you can understand them.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(od) See Talk:Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story 99.109.125.85 (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Article protected
The article is protected. Now editors can focus on making a better case. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lock set to expire 2012-Feb-08, currently. 99.181.131.215 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Protection extended two years due to the problems from this dynamic ip. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Expires 04:24, 14 January 2014 UTC. 99.181.138.52 (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We can always extend it further. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(od) INTIM 99.35.12.102 (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:TALK, WP:CON, WP:DR and WP:BATTLE will be the reasons given to extend it. --Ronz (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And were they? 99.181.154.233 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Why does this article have an infinite lock?
Unlock. 99.181.159.214 (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the article and talk page history, I'd be surprised if anyone could come up with a convincing reason to unlock it. When someone gives no reason at all, it just adds to the problems. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is reason, add more cast members. 99.181.133.62 (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Carbon Nation 99.181.132.75 (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)