Talk:Craig Bernard

Request
Hello,

I am a paid editor who was asked to submit this request on behalf of someone else for work. I do not have any specific edits (not really sure what needed to be changed in the first place and I think I made it worse by trying), but would like to request that this bio be edited in whatever ways necessary to conform it to the Wikipedia requirements and have the flag removed. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6164:F100:DDF5:CF79:B185:E12A (talk • contribs) 21:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, could you outline here what the issues are? Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Source request
I'm moving this from the article, because I can't find it in the book:


 * In 2011 the book Music Video and the Politics of Representation featured an analysis of Bernard's music video for Stone Sour's Hesitate as an example of a masterful modern music video.

I can't find a reference to Bernard or the video in that book on Google Books, but it could be that Google is not showing the relevant page (I searched for "Bernard", "Stone Sour", "Hesitate" and "masterful"). If someone can find it and add the page number, we can restore it. SarahSV (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Awards table
I made an alternate awards table which combines the 5 different awards tables that were in the article. This way the list of videos (if there even needs to be a list of all the videos) can be just a regular bulleted list and the awards table can go under it. (table moved below)  spintendo   19:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Update as of 20:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC): Seeing the table that was just put up, I prefer that one the best. It's a bit long, but it combines everything into one table, and is an improvement over the multiple tables from before. spintendo   20:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Spintendo, I've made the awards table invisible for now because it was repetitive. I intend to move its references into the longer table, and into the article if appropriate. Or if someone else wants to do that, please go ahead. Perhaps add the "in use" tag to avoid edit conflicts.


 * One problem is that Bernard's name is not always mentioned in relation to these videos. So I can find sources about the video, and about it winning a certain award, but no sources citing Bernard's involvement. Also, I wonder why unreleased videos are listed. They wouldn't have sources if unreleased, unless Bernard has discussed them in interviews, perhaps. The solution is to find more secondary sources. That's what the article lacks. SarahSV (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Spintendo, I do like the table you created, with the different colours for nominees and winners. I wonder if we could adopt your format, and add a section for videos that weren't winners/nominees. I don't mind either way, so long as we're not repeating tables. That was the problem with the article as we found it: too much repetition and too many primary or unclear sources, or unclearly cited sources. SarahSV (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the table you came up with is the best one of all these others (when I was working on my table, yours hadn't been posted yet). The different tables were all wanting to impart two different categories: (a) a list of all the videos worked on by the subject (sort of a meta-list) and (b) a sub-listing of those videos which were nominated and/or won awards. My table only accomplishes (b) while your table combines both of these elements into one, and thus it feels like it's the most efficient table we've seen so far.  spintendo   21:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll keep working on the larger one (or you can). I do like the different colours, though, and may try to work them in. SarahSV (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I've begun to combine to the two lists but am afraid it might grow to be too long. Perhaps if we could limit redundancy by having the two sections I mentioned earlier - a list of all videos then a list of awarded/nominated videos - except make the first list be videos that weren't nominated/awarded, and combine that with the list of awarded/nominated videos, that way we can feature all of the videos without having to repeat any of them. Maybe that might work?  spintendo   03:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, that could work. Feel free to play around with it. Your sugggestions look better than the one in the article. The problem is sourcing; I can't find sources for a lot of the entries. SarahSV (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much SarahSV and Spintendo for all your work in improving this article. Apologies for my lack of help! Edwardx (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks and no worries. Almost everything is sourced now, although in a few cases the sources are of unclear quality. I was thinking of leaving the unsourced content tagged for a while, then removing it in a week or so if no sources turn up. SarahSV (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you again, SarahSV. Tidying up articles like this one is a lot of work. Edwardx (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The table is complete and all the videos are listed. (I've moved the table to just below this post) The two main sections are videos which received accolades (listed 1st) followed by those which did not receive them (listed 2nd). These were listed this way so as to avoid the redundancy which would naturally result from a list of all videos plus awarded/nom'd videos. The order of these 2 sections can of course be swapped if so desired, so that those videos which did not receive awards/noms are listed first before those that were.  spintendo   05:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Spintendo, the table looks excellent. Thanks for putting it together.


 * A few issues: (a) I think it's better to have a field saying whether he was director, producer or executive producer, rather than a symbol. (b) We need sources showing that he was involved and showing the award/nom. For example, with "Hey brother", the source shows only that it was nominated, not that he was involved. (3) At least one of the entries isn't supported by the source you added (Stone Sour). (4) We should leave out anything that's unsourced. I'll be removing them soon from the current table.


 * I would like to see the table show director/producer (source), award/nomination (source), as the current table does, so that there's no confusion. SarahSV (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I swapped the dagger footnotes for columns in the second section and I'll do the same in the first section when I get a chance. For now I've placed them in the same cell in the first section just as a reminder to myself of which role goes with which video. Let me know if the second section looks alright. Thankyou!  spintendo   07:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added two note columns for the awards section to accomplish the referencing you'd like it to, which was to reference separately the subject's involvement and their nomination. You may choose either column you like, but let's say ostensibly that Ref 1 column would verify the subject's involvement whilst Ref 2 column would verify the nom/award. The references which are placed now were placed by me according to where the reference title originated - thus something mentioning the awards probably meant that the source should go in the second column. But this was just a preliminary selection on my part and I'll leave it to you to make the final choice of of where existing references should fall under. The Stone Sour claim I removed.  spintendo   10:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Spintendo, I can't see what you mean. I don't want to work on another table, because sourcing the current one was time-consuming. The one you've created doesn't offer clear sourcing. What is needed is (a) director/producer/executive producer (along with any co-directors, etc), followed by its source; and (b) win/nomination, followed by its source. Sometimes those two sources are the same one, and sometimes not. But clarity is needed, because the sourcing was the main problem with this article. The current table is clear in that respect. If you want to create a more attractive one, that's fine, but it has to retain the clarity of the sourcing. As things stand, I prefer the current table. SarahSV (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All I meant was that I added the second ref column to the top half because I thought you wanted a clear path to see references for both the nomination and the role (your table shows that path better). The sourcing from my table comes from using the sources that you used in the first iteration of your table and may not have included refs you added after that point, not because I didn't want to use them, but because I though you were going to add those later: "I intend to move its references into the longer table". But by "longer table" you meant your longer table and not mine, so that was my error in not adding them to mine as well. But in the end it's all good, and I prefer your table too, as I did at the beginning. Ill go ahead and close the request.   spintendo   02:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)