Talk:Kent Tate/Archive 1

quotations vs. apostrophes
Use two apostrophes to produce italics for names of films, publications, etc. Use quotes around direct quotes. You shouldn't need to use both very often. valereee (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * valereee Thank you for the explanation! LorriBrown (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , you're welcome! I see you've been getting help from multiple editors, that's great. Thank you for disclosing your COI. valereee (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Duplicated References
Hi David notMD Thank you again for the help editing on the draft:Kent Tate! I did want to clarify that the two references that you edited are actually two separate references, let me explain: the web link to GalleriesWest magazine for KT "Movies for a Pulsing Earth" refers to the on-line post of the curatorial essay by AGSC curator, Kim Hougtaling; the other citation refers to an exhibition publication which includes an essay written by Jeff Nye "The Hypnosis of Time" (2012); the (same) curatorial essay by Kim Houghtaling, an exhibition photo and several video stills by KT, an artist Bio for KT (including a reference to the 2015 YFF award that was deleted in separate edit). I wanted to ask you, with this clarification would it be acceptable to list these citations separately? And to replace the AGSC citation for YFF? Additionally, would it make sense to separately list the essay by Jeff Nye in the Further Reading section? LorriBrown (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * First, if in fact two different references, feel free to reverse my edit. Or replace. However, at this point, I suggest doing no more editing, and waiting for the next reviewer. My feeling is that you are too close to the topic, and therefore cannot stop tweeking it. The reason I cut so much last week is to bring it in line with an encyclopedia entry in tone, and not so much a CV dump. The more added to External Links and Further Reading, the more likely the next reviewer will decline the submission. Too many references per factual statement is not a plus. David notMD (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * David notMD Okay, I get that. I'll leave it alone. Actually your editing made for a much better article. There are some things that have bothered me that I don't understand which is how to properly reference page numbers.  I did change several citations to (correct or maybe not) to indicate the page number(s) of the referenced article and then the total No. of pages in the publication. I suppose I should have asked how & if it is necessary.  Another thing that was bugging me was inside the citations I had originally added quotes & italics (which I worried was incorrect) so I tried to clean that up too but probably should have left it alone.


 * I have been scanning living person biographies in hope of educating myself on the good and the bad. At this juncture I find it very confusing. The articles are all are all over the map and I am still trying to grasp the why.  Some have very few references and others long lists but no references.  Some really do read like a resume pages.  Your suggestions and the editing and pairing down of the KT page makes perfect sense.  I am interested in editing but am concerned that my attention could  trigger an article deletion.  For example, Brian Fawcett. This article has only one link and it doesn't work properly.  I would like to fix it. Sorry to digress.LorriBrown (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Request edit on 2 July 2019
Subject: Kent Tate is a Canadian artist and filmmaker living in British Columbia. He creates single-channel video and multi-channel video installations. Velocity Winner 'Experimental', 2019 Walthamstow International Film Festival, London, UK. Please add this award to Kent Tate's article: Velocity Winner Experimental, 2019 Walthamstow International Film Festival, London, UK. This film festival was in June 2019 in Walthamstow a North East district of London, England. It is organized by E17 Films and was founded in 2010. KT was awarded the Winner of the category 'Experimental' in this short film festival in June 2019. Here are two references - The Walthamstow International Film Festival 2019 Winners Announcement this reference from the festival's website; and Canadian Filmmakers Distribution Centre: AWARDS Congrats to all the filmmakers! this is an announcement in the Canadian Filmmakers Distribution Centre's Summer newsletter. The CFMDC was formed in 1967 and is a leading film distributor in Canada. Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Information to be added or removed:
 * Explain in clear words what needs to be changed about the article. Add a suggestion for the changes that can be copy-pasted by the editor if you can:
 * Provide links to sources which support any claims made:

Reply 03-JUL-2019
Regards, Spintendo  18:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Please provide the WikiLink for the requested award. Awards which have a WikiLink will have their own articles on Wikipedia. By showing that the award has its own article, the award demonstrates notability.
 * 2) When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the  template's answer parameter to read from yes to no. Thank you!

Request edit on 24 July 2019
Could you please replace the current info box (top) with the updated info box (bottom):

Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply 25-JUL-2019
Spintendo 21:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Would you be able to include the notable work Isolated Gestures which is the short film that won the award as well as the award this film won which is the 2015 Yorkton Film Festival Golden Sheaf 'Ruth Shaw' Award in the KT info box?LorriBrown (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Not done The Ruth Shaw Award is not independently notable in Wikipedia. The reasoning behind having the notability of awards being demonstrated is in my earlier reply. Regards, Spintendo  08:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * On the Wikipedia page for Yorkton Film Festival there is section no. 7 Golden Sheaf Awards that describes there are 19 film categories and three subcategory award sections, including Ruth Shaw (Best of Saskatchewan) Award. If not too much trouble can you show me examples of what you are describing in your reply?  Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The article Yorkton Film Festival has zero verifiable content as all the sources are dead links, so is in itself probably not notable, a sub category is even less likely to be notable. Theroadislong (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see... that article really is in poor shape. But if the article actually was supported properly with verifiable sources etc. can you help me understand why the sub categories (specifically) would not likely be notable awards - and why would there be the need for each award to have an independent article for each category. This would be very helpful to have an understanding of how this should be applied to other articles as well. Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Request edit on 27 July 2019
Could you please replace the file: Kent-Tate-filming-lava.jpg with either the Thumbnail file : Kent Tate at lava flows |thumb|Kent Tate at lava flows or Image file: Kent Tate at lava flows |Kent Tate at lava flows whichever would be most appropriate for placement in the artist information box at the top of the article. The new file is a larger file 780 x 480 whereas the current file is 300 x 147 and cannot be expanded. Thank you and I appreciate your consideration in completing this request! LorriBrown (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)




 * ✅ Usedtobecool  ✉️ ✨ 19:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! Ping me if I didn't do it right, ok?Or if there's something else. Or if you have another request.  Usedtobecool  ✉️ ✨ 19:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for doing that it is much better with this image! :-) LorriBrown (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Request edit on 3 November 2019
Please Modify ref [2] “Marchand” in Kent Tate article as detailed on the User talk:LorriBrown/Draft page — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorriBrown (talk • contribs) 16:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , are you trying to reference a physical print magazine, the relevant text of which coincidentally, also happened to be available online, and that is the URL that's currently there?  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 18:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're correct, as the print magazine Galleries West, which was distributed through art galleries three times a year, moved to a digital model in 2016. If that is so, the print version need not be preferred over the reproduced online text, which is more easily accessible. I'm assuming that since page 24 was reproduced, such will be the case for page 26. Regards, Spintendo  19:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I apologize that I forgot to sign my previous edit request...  The url is a link to the on-line version of this Galleries West magazine article.  Is this not an appropriate use for the url link? In that case could the url link be removed and then added to the 'Further reading' section? Would it be helpful to see the magazine version?  If so can I e-mail it?  Thank you!  P.S. I hope this is the proper format to respond to the clarification request. LorriBrown (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually all the page #'s referenced should be to page # 26 if they can be referenced. All the content is on page #26.LorriBrown (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I moved my reply to from the reply section below to this section.  Yes that is correct.  The article was printed at that time in the magazine but also was posted online.  I referenced the magazine because I worry that the online version could possible be removed.  In this event there would still be reference to the physical magazine version.  Is this not correct way to indicate the two versions?LorriBrown (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am going to bed right now; we'll discuss it further and find the best way to have the refs safe, if the issue isn't resolved by (my) tomorrow. Regards!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 20:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've archived the content from that URL in case the link becomes unstable. Regards, Spintendo  18:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply 03-NOV-2019
Regards, Spintendo  18:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The reference URL for ref tag number 2 is a webpage containing five paragraphs of text. Thus, the directions to place page number 24 and 26 under ref tag number 2 using the ' template is unclear, as there is no page 24, 26, or any other page numbers in a single webpage of text. Please clarify, and when ready to proceed with the requested clarification kindly change the ' template's answer parameter to read from yes to no.
 * The COI editor is additionally reminded of the need to sign all talk page posts using four tildes.

Request edit on 5 November 2019
Please Modify ref [1] "Artists in Canada" in Kent Tate article as detailed on the User talk:LorriBrown/Draft page.

and please also Modify by adding 'Early life' section and proposed changes to Kent Tate article as detailed on the User talk:LorriBrown/Draft page.

Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Edit requests need to be placed in locations which offer a centralized record of what is being asked for. When suggestions are placed on a page that you control — such as your draft page — the record of what is being asked for remains under your control. If this is modified by you at any time in the foreseeable future, questions posed to the reviewer such as "Why was this added?" and "What was requested?" may not be easily answered. It's for this reason that edit request proposals ought to be placed on the talk page. Regards, Spintendo  10:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay and thank you for your reply. It was suggested to me to create a separate page to work on the changes that I wanted to proposed; however, what I may not have understood was how to present the proposed changes in an edit request...


 * For me the changes are somewhat complicated and I find that even the simplest change is difficult to explain. Can you help me with how best to present the request in this format? Should each change be requested separately - or - can they be grouped in sections. For me the changes make more sense when viewed in their entirety. On the page I've created I've attempted to detail the difference between the original article and the proposed changes to the article on the User talk:LorriBrown/Draft page. Is way that I've outlined the changes OK?  Can I just put the outlined information into the Talk:Kent Tate page?  It makes sense that the changes need to be well documented. Should I present each change in a separate request or can I present the changes in sections?  Should I  present the proposed changed content or should I present the changed content and a detailed explanation?  Is the explanation enough or too much detail in your opinion on the User talk:LorriBrown/Draft page?  Thank you! Best, LorriBrown (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Request edit on 5 November 2019
Could you please consider making the following changes outlined on the User talk:LorriBrown/Draft page to 'Modify ref [1] "Artists in Canada" in the Kent Tate article'

Here are my proposed revisions:

Ref[1] "Artists in Canada" code current Kent Tate: 1. Tate, Kent. "Government of Canada: Artists in Canada Reference Library". National Gallery of Canada. Retrieved 17 February 2019.

Ref[1] "Artists" code proposed User:LorriBrown/Draft page: 1. Tate, Kent. "Government of Canada: Artists in Canada Reference Library". National Gallery of Canada. Retrieved 4 November 2019.

Itemized list of changes to reference [2} ""Artists in Canada"': * change to ref [1] name to: name="Artists" * change url to: https://app.pch.gc.ca/application/aac-aic/artiste_detailler_bas-artist_detail_bas.app?rID=33823&fID=2&lang=en * change: |accessdate=4 November 2019

I would greatly appreciate any help with these revisions. Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is an example for how edit requests should be made. Please note, the template below is not intended for you to copy and replace the information to fit your request. It is shown merely to give you an example of how the different elements are to be included in one request. Please fashion your own when the time comes to submit the request.

 1. Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section:
 * "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length."

2. Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section:
 * "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length."

3. Using as the reference:

4. Reason for change being made:
 * "The previously given diameter was incorrect."


 * Also note that if it is only the reference you are changing, please provide the sentence it is to be placed within. Reasons need not be provided for reference changes only, if the reason for that change is obvious (such as a new working link, etc) The same sentence need not be provided twice if the only element being changed is the reference — but please do provide the sentence itself with the direction that it should have its reference changed (as well as a rough approximation of where the sentence is located, i.e., the second sentence of the third paragraph, etc.). Using the ref tag numbers to identify which reference should be changed is not advised, as these numbers are not fixed — they change depending on where the reference is located within the text, so it's not a good identifier of which reference to change. To give you an idea of how I request changes to references in an edit request that I've made, see Talk:Nintendo. You can see there I've mentioned the ref tag number, but I've also given other identifiers to help the person making the change.
 * Regards, Spintendo  03:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Request edit on 6 November 2019
Here are the proposed revisions for this edit request:

1.Please remove the url and ref name in reference No.[1] in the middle of the first sentence of the lead section: ref name=" Artists in Canada" ref= Artists in Canada url=https://app.pch.gc.ca/application/aac-aic/artiste_detailler_av-artist_detail_adv.app?rID=33823&fID=2&lang=en&qlang=en&pID=1&an=tate%2C+kent&sf1=BP&kw1=&con1=AND&sf2=DP&kw2=&con2=AND&mcon=AND&msf=ARRF&misc=&dsf=BDATE&date=&dcp=EQUALS&flcon=AND&flcp1=GREATER_OR_EQUAL&flcp2=LESS_OR_EQUAL&dcon=AND&scon=AND&sex=&acon=AND&auth=&ccon=AND&ctb=&tech=&tcon=AND&fl=&fcon=AND&num=&ncp=EQUALS&sort=AM_ASC&ps=50 |website=www.publications.gc.ca | publisher=National Gallery of Canada |accessdate=17 February 2019 |ref=Artists in Canada}}

2.Please use the following to replace the follow url and ref name in reference No.[1] in the middle of the first sentence of the lead section: ref name="Artist-Tate" ref=Artist-Tate url=https://app.pch.gc.ca/application/aac-aic/artiste_detailler_bas-artist_detail_bas.app?rID=33823&fID=2&lang=en

3.Please use the following to copy-paste in the middle of the first sentence in the lead section after: Kent Tate is a Canadian artist

Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have instituted this change. But please be aware, this article is very close if not already in WP:OVERKILL territory. There is an inordinate number of references being crammed into the article. Two sentences in the article contain no less than 6 separate references. There's a reference for where the subject was born, where the subject lives, where the subject grew up. The article in total contains 15 references — that's 6 more in number than there are sentences in the whole article. This is far too many. If only a handful of references can't be used for all of these items then perhaps they shouldn't be included in the article. I would suggest that your efforts be placed into consolidating these references, rather than expanding or updating them. Regards, Spintendo  07:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The article was AfC approved and has already has had much of its content removed from my original draft due to my COI, poor writing skills, and my lack of awareness or understanding of the rules. I now posses a much better understanding and hopefully can demonstrate this in the improvements requested for this article.


 * Please do not remove references that are unrelated to my requests. When all of the changes have been implement - I think then would be a more constructive time to engage in a conversation about consolidating and/or deleting references. If it is done now it further complicates the improvements I've written, as some added content may refer to these references, etc. I've tried to make a concerted effort to build the article into a more coherent article that hopefully reads better and provides the reader some pertinent information about subject; without being too promotional or advertisement like.  We'll see if I have been successful with that endeavor.  Your edit to apply WP:OVERKILL rule removes pertinent references that are needed in certain locations and relocates the one remaining reference to unrelated content.  This reference is related to performance art.  I have access to all of the documents in the references and can provide anything needed. I many cases I've tried to include any links that I've found; although I understand links are not required.  I appreciate your effort to implement the edit requests, but from a COI editors POV it is extremely tedious and very frustrating to make multiple requests for the same seemingly simple edit requests and still not succeed in having the changes implemented as intended.  I'll accept responsibility but it is still very discouraging. I've observed some COI editors re-write articles and submit the re-written material and the whole article is replaced. Very simple and very quick.  Perhaps those COI editors have more experience than I and there are reasons I don't understand as to why their changes can be implemented in this manner.  Please try to be patient with me as I make these edit requests as methodically and clearly spelled out as I am able to.  When done with this process I will try to better consolidate or replace references in order to appropriately apply the WP:OVERKILL rule.


 * Please make the following corrections/modifications to the edit changes made in this 'edit request'.


 * Can you please use the CFMDC reference information to create an external link:


 * Kent Tate on Canadian Filmmaker Distribution Centre


 * Can you please replace the revised sentence:


 * During the 1980s and the 1990s, Tate began working in performance, film and video in Toronto and Vancouver before shifting to installation.


 * Replace that sentence with this sentence:


 * During the 1980s and the 1990s, Tate began working in performance, film  and video in Toronto and Vancouver before shifting to installation.
 * Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply 06-NOV-2019
A list of the sources removed and why: The reference that you've asked page numbers be applied to in the above edit request was implemented via the pages parameter of the citation template. In regards to the request to duplicate a reference's URL in the External links section, this is declined per guidance given through the third paragraph under the References/Notes section at WP:ILC. Regards, Spintendo  03:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) This is a link to a museum-sold book being used as the source for a direct quote. The quote is not properly attributed, so it and the reference have been removed.
 * 2) This is a complete duplication of the Alain source, which at its core, is a statement authored by the museum curator informed via information supplied by the artist himself. The museum curator is not an independently reliable WP:SECONDARY source.
 * 3) This duplicated the Oraf source, so was deleted.
 * 4) These two references duplicate the information supplied by the Cataldo source.
 * 1) This duplicated the Oraf source, so was deleted.
 * 2) These two references duplicate the information supplied by the Cataldo source.
 * 1) These two references duplicate the information supplied by the Cataldo source.
 * 1) These two references duplicate the information supplied by the Cataldo source.
 * 1) These two references duplicate the information supplied by the Cataldo source.

Could you please insert the image into this template please and post to the KT article
Hello, Thank you for posting the picture to the KT article. Would you mind posting this Infobox with the image inserted into it. I would do it myself;however, best not as I have a COI. Thanks!! :- ) LorriBrown (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Fixed assuming that COI-requests are the same idea as Semi-protected requests, i.e., just do it if it is no nonsense, broadly construed (= not limited to policy violations or vandalism.) While at it I added a, this BLP needs a body. For a bio-stub one statement in the lede mirroring main points of the body would do. For a non-stub the lede consists of two to four paragraphs depending on the size of the page, for details see WP:LEDE. –84.46.52.84 (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Request edit on 10 December 2019
Please consider the following,

Proposed Change: Amend, and expand with sources, the third paragraph of the article (currently begins with "During the 1980s..." and ends with "... Ending All Occupation.")

In source mode, Replace the whole paragraph with:

which renders:

Explanation: This edit request modifies the third paragraph. This is requested in order to expand, with sources, the article for clarity, more context and additional detail about the progression of the subject's career in the 80's and early 90's.
 * 1) the first sentence is updated to refer only to performance art and the Alain reference remains as previously updated;
 * 2) the secound sentence is left as is with the Parallelograme reference;
 * 3) the third sentence is added as a short description of the The Stalker and a new reference Oille-1983 has been constructed, the sources is a review written by Jennifer Oille in the Vanguard magazine, to support it;
 * 4) the fourth sentence expands on painting and sculpture that Tate engaged in during this time frame; and
 * 5) the fifth sentence refers to Tate's installations projects. The reference to Merike Talve's The Stalker, which was previously removed, has been reformatted and used appropriately, to now be verifiable as intended.  Both the fourth and the fifth sentence are supported by the Talve reference.

Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply 13-DEC-2019

 * 1) The text which is to be removed from the article has not been included with the request.
 * 2) Additionally, please activate the quote parameter from each reference by inserting the verbatim text from the source which verifies the proposed claims. This quoted material is to aid in its review, and will be omitted if the claim is implemented in the article.
 * 3) When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the  template's answer parameter to read from yes to no. Thank you!

Regards, Spintendo  22:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

UPDATED: Request edit
, Thank you for your reply! I've added a section to identify what is to be removed, I've added quotations, and I slightly modified some of the text.

Please consider making following proposed changes.

Proposed Change, (updated 15 December 2019):

 Amend, and expand with sources, the third paragraph of the article (currently begins with "During the 1980s..." and ends with "... Ending All Occupation.")

In source mode, Remove the following paragraph:

In source mode, Replace the whole paragraph with:

which renders:

Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply 15-DEC-2019
Please note that as the proposed text is four sentences long, each number below corresponds to the sentence number as it appears in the proposal. Regards, Spintendo  22:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The quote parameter for ref tag #1 is missing.
 * 2) he received his first significant recognition The source that this was "significant" is Tate himself. Please provide a reference from a reliable, independent publication for this claim to be made, or else the claim needs to be made without using Wikipedia's voice (e.g., "According to the subject, their first significant recognition came from...", etc).
 * 3) This claim could not be added without the presence of the prior two sentences.
 * 4) This claim generically states that the subject produced items without describing each item. Also, the references for these produced items should originate from reliable, independent sources which are unconnected to the subject (such as from the gallery website, about the exhibition). The subject giving an interview to one publication would be deemed as not independent. Those types of sources should only be used for things that the subject says about themselves. When a claim is that several different exhibitions were done in different locations, the sources should be those exhibition spaces, not the subject recounting them years later in an interview for an exhibition unreleated to the previous exhibitions. With all due respect to Merike Talve, the subject describing their previous exibitions is verified only by the subject's word. The subject's word is fine as a reference when the subject is speaking about themselves. In this case, the subject is speaking about third parties (the spaces and galleries where those earlier exhibits were featured) thus requiring independent sources.

Clarification please for Reply 15-Dec-2019
, I would like to provide the following and also request clarification on your Reply 15-Dec-2019. I apologize but it is unclear to me if you are looking for independent proof that these exhibition exist - or - if you are looking for these exhibitions to be incorporated into article. Thank you for your consideration!LorriBrown (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Item #1: I do not have any more access to this book than is available on the link provided within the Alain reference. The Performance in Canada, 1970-1990 book lists Kent Tate's name amoung the artists as the title of the book indicates.  As I mentioned to you after you deleted the other references from the original sentence that the Alain reference only pertained to performance art.  This is the reason I separated out film, video and installation and added the Merike Talve reference in the sentence #4.
 * Item #3: would the Oille quote= “… Tate's most recent effort, the Museum of Post-Habitation, an incarnation at and of his studio / living space, portended the substantive in the artist's spirit and was of actual substance, not at all puerile, but sad and sardonic, a visual commentary that scored a few points.” be enough to satisfy the 'significant recognition' statement? This was a statement by the reviewer, Jennifer Oille, not the subject, Kent Tate.
 * Item #4: This may be a generic statement but I didn't realize this is not permitted.  The article written by Merike Talve clearly (to me anyway) argues that at least several of Tate's exhibitions in her opinion would be considered installations.  She goes in some detail describing the exhibitions and explaining the definition of installations; making an argument that Tate may not refer to his own work as installations but her argument explained why she believes that they are installations, including The Stalker.  I could provide the entire quote of this if it would be helpful to you for your approval.
 * 1) The Chemical Chamber, 1986; Western Front Lodge, Vancouver BC
 * 2) Feast From Famine, 1985; Death and Transfiguration, Open Space Gallery, Victoria BC
 * 3) No Rest For The Restless, 1985; Pitt International Gallery, Vancouver BC
 * 4) Uninvited Houseguest, 1984; Survival of the Will, The 1984 Show, Open Space Gallery, Victoria BC
 * 5) Vanishing Heat, 1983; Unit Pitt, Vancouver BC

Additional clarification please for Reply 19-Dec-2019
Thank you for you previous clarifications. Obviously, I am having considerable difficulty presenting this text properly. Thank you for your patience and I apologize for taking up so much time. I do appreciate your advice and find it quite helpful. If the version is acceptable - I will present it in a edit request format.


 * 1) Tate is a Canadian artist and filmmaker who has exhibited in Canada since the early 1980s.
 * 2) According to Tate, during the 80s he engaged in film and video production, performance and exhibitions in Toronto, Vancouver and Victoria.
 * 3) Jennifer Oille reviewed Tate's 1982 A.R.C. satellite installation in Toronto, the Museum of Post-Habitation, in the Vanguard (magazine).
 * 4) For it, Oille wrote that Tate converted a soon to be abandoned dwelling into a museum.
 * 5) She described that Tate staged a performance on the last night auctioning off various goods from the museum.
 * 6) The exhibition, Museum of Post-Habitation, ended with Tate's performance, Ending All Occupation.

Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply 23-DEC-2019
Spintendo 23:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for implementing the edit request; however, the following text was inadvertenly removed from the article. I would appreciate if you could kindly put it back into the article. Thank you!


 * 1) 1988 Tate pointed out environmental concerns through symbolism and humor in The Stalker installation at the Contemporary Art Gallery in Vancouver.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LorriBrown (talk • contribs) 00:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Tate exhibited Movies for a Pulsing Earth, a ten-year retrospective video/sculptural installation at the Art Gallery of Swift Current, in 2012.


 * ✅ The COI editor is reminded for the second time to sign all talk page posts. Spintendo  00:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, will try not to do that again. Got kind of excited because you had just implemented the changes but had inadvertently removed that text. :)LorriBrown (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you add this award to KT's article?
Can someone please add this award to KT's article: Velocity Kent Tate Shortlisted and Category Winner Experimental in the Walthamstow International Film Festival, London, UK. Here are a couple references to support this achievement: The Walthamstow International Film Festival 2019 Winners Announcement Canadian Filmmakers Distribution Centre: AWARDS Congrats to all the filmmakers! Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you help me please as to how to update the KT article to include this award. I would like to improve the article but am not sure exactly how to go about doing that.  Can you help direct/instruct me?  Thanks!LorriBrown (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like a notable award? Theroadislong (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * JFTR, at the moment the Walthamstow International Film Festival has an article with sections incl. winners in different categories, e.g., a wikilink to Kent Tate with a primary source in #2019 WIFF. –84.46.52.84 (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Request edit on 9 January 2020
Please consider the following addition,

Proposed Change: Add a new section for Filmography with sources, after the Awards section of the article (currently begins with "Tate's experimental movie..." and ends with "... “Walthamstow International Film Festival in 2019”) }} In source mode, add the following Filmography section: {{Ivmbox|

Experimental films and videos (2010 - 2019)

 * Long Horizons (2010) ISBN: 978-0-9865421-2-1
 * SIGHTINGS (2013)
 * The Sun Comes Out At Night (2014)
 * Isolated Gestures (2014) Yorkton Film Festival / 2015 Golden Sheaf Award - Ruth Shaw winner and Best Experimental nominee
 * Landing Sites (2014)
 * Inventory (2016)
 * No Rest for the Restless  (2017)
 * Utopia (2017)
 * Velocity (2017) Walthamstow International Film Festival 2019 Best Experimental winner
 * ''RUPTURE (2018)
 * Catalyst (2018)
 * Cornucopia (2019)
 * SENSORES (2019)
 * FURNACE (2019)

Exhibitions (2010 - 2019)

 * Movies for a Pulsing Earth (multi-channel video/sculptural installation) Solo Exhibition (2016) Moose Jaw Museum and Art Gallery, Moose Jaw, Canada.
 * KOSMA / FALL International Invitational Exhibition: Media Companion (single-channel video), (2019) Woosuk Gallery at Seoul National University (2019), Nowon-gu, Seoul, South Korea.
 * KOSMA / Poetic Light Invitational Exhibition (single-channel video), (2019) Asia Cultural Center: Media Wall, Gwangju, South Korea.
 * PENEPLAIN (multi-channel video installation) Solo Exhibition (2019) Art Gallery of Swift Current, Swift Current, Canada.

}}

which renders:

{{Ivmbox|

Experimental films and videos (2010 - 2019)

 * Long Horizons (2010) ISBN: 978-0-9865421-2-1
 * SIGHTINGS (2013)
 * The Sun Comes Out At Night (2014)
 * Isolated Gestures (2014) Yorkton Film Festival / 2015 Golden Sheaf Award - Ruth Shaw winner and Best Experimental nominee
 * Landing Sites (2014)
 * Inventory (2016)
 * No Rest for the Restless  (2017)
 * Utopia (2017)
 * Velocity (2017) Walthamstow International Film Festival 2019 Best Experimental winner
 * ''RUPTURE (2018)
 * Catalyst (2018)
 * Cornucopia (2019)
 * SENSORES (2019)
 * FURNACE (2019)

Exhibitions (2010 - 2019)

 * Movies for a Pulsing Earth (multi-channel video/sculptural installation) Solo Exhibition (2016) Moose Jaw Museum and Art Gallery, Moose Jaw, Canada.
 * KOSMA / FALL International Invitational Exhibition: Media Companion (single-channel video), (2019) Woosuk Gallery at Seoul National University (2019), Nowon-gu, Seoul, South Korea.
 * KOSMA / Poetic Light Invitational Exhibition (single-channel video), (2019) Asia Cultural Center: Media Wall, Gwangju, South Korea.
 * PENEPLAIN (multi-channel video installation) Solo Exhibition (2019) Art Gallery of Swift Current, Swift Current, Canada.

}}

Explanation: This edit request adds a fourth section on to the article for Filmography after the end of the Career section plus subsections for Experimental films and videos (2010 - 2019) and Exhibitions (2010 - 2019). This is requested in order to expand, with sources, the article for clarity, more context and additional detail about the progression of the subject's career.

Thank you!, LorriBrown (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the sources you've provided are to reliable, independent secondary sources. They are all primary sources — either museum publications or art industry publications. Please provide secondary sources from references which are not related to the art industry. Regards, Spintendo  08:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I included these sources as proof that these films were created by the subject and that they were either officially selected for screening at these film festivals or that the won an award i.e. Isolated Gestures and Velocity; which are also already supported in the awards section. I guess I really don't understand the requirement for reliable, independent secondary sources beyond what I've provided. I am not making big claims or any controversial statements about the films other than that they exist and this filmmaker created them and that they were shown in a festival or exhibited in an installation solo or group, which was supported by the sources I provided.  Additionally, many of the filmmakers' filmographies that I see posted on Wikipedia have no sourcing at all. I could provide many examples of this fact.  So I suppose I take some issue with being held to a different standard. I think it is the responsibility of Wikipedia to be consistent with the implementation of the rules and makes me not understand why this articles appears to be the exception because I have disclosed a COI.  I wonder how many people been honest about that relationship to the subject.  I see plenty of denials.  I tried to make a concise list of films for this artist not an exhaustive list.


 * For certain films in the edit request such as SIGHTINGS, The Sun Comes out at Night, Isolated Gestures and Landing Sites (are also included the PENEPLAIN exhibition) there are articles, such as Kent Tate: Peneplain in GalleriesWest magazine; another short article PENEPLAIN in Canadian Art magazine; and an article written by Matthew Liebenberg  Exhibition features filmmaker’s view of the prairie’s beauty and contrast in the Prairie Post.  The list of the films in brochure PENEPLAIN for the exhibition which includes ten films and the essay by Marcus Miller.


 * There are also articles already in the KT article about Movies for a Pulsing Earth.


 * These are experimental, short films - not full feature high production value films that get lots of press. It is an accomplishment however to be shown in festivals or to be exhibited either solo or in a group in galleries. Since the artist is suppose to be notable - I think the short list should be allowed!  LorriBrown (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You've not provided reliable indpendent WP:SECONDARY sources for these claims. These are all brochures and Wikipedia does not republish brocure materials. As far as other articles are concerned please see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Regards, Spintendo  02:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the current AFD and this specific article, a filmography for a notable filmmaker should be a no-brainer. Maybe you could start with the films already mentioned (and of course sourced) in the article, and then discuss the merits of further additions and their sources individually. –84.46.53.207 (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you know how to locate filmmakers with A Class or Good Articles WP:OTHERCONTENT to support my claim that most filmmakers have lists that are not supported by any WP:SECONDARY sources. I've found multiple articles that are Class B and Class C for well known filmmakers in Canada that have lists of films that are not supported by WP:SECONDARY or do not have articles in Wikipedia for each or all of their films, i.e.Joyce Wieland, Michael Snow, Guy Maddin... and there are more.  Almost every article that I viewed today which is either a stub or a start class for Canadian filmmakers also have lists of films not supported by WP:SECONDARY.  The subject did request that the article be deleted but I believe their preference would be for a better article not a deleted article.  Unfortunately, my skill level and abiltiy to navitage the legalize in Wikipedia leaves me unequipped to defend or improve this article.  Much of the over 60% of the content was removed prior to AfC approval due to my poor writing skills and not completely understanding the launguaging require to convey neautrality i.e. the appearance of self-promotion and worst.  Since the article has been created and I've attempted to improve the article  has found additional fault in the content and has removed content as well as references, which I have yet to understand the logic for doing this with no attempt to improve it themselves.  Some of the explanations for the removal were base on inaccurate assumptions.  Very, very frustrating I might add!  I am restricted from directly editing but when making a request the responding editor can just remove content and references at will.  Not fair I say.  No discussion.  No debate.  No other editor has shown an interest to improve the article.  I have attempted to solicit help...  I do very much appreciate your perspective.LorriBrown (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My ability to implement claims for an article is only as good as the references I am provided with. Thus far, the only references that have been provided for this content are museum and media-arts distributor publications. I would ask, is a museum publication a neutral source on one of its own exhibits? Is a media-distributor a neutral source on an artist they wish to promote? I invite the COI editor to answer those questions, especially given that Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I certainly wouldn't see a problem if a handful of the references in an article were to non-independent sources. But the present article relies too heavily on sources related to the artist - it's as if those promoting the artist just want to list his work here without demonstrating how other reliable, independent sources have described the artist's work. Not having independent sources only works to create a promotionally WP:SUBJECTIVE article, even if that wasn't the COI editor's intent. Regards, Spintendo  01:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Above all don't waste time here until it's clear that you are not wasting your time (AFD keep). I'd consider some? (many?) museums as reliable sources for their objects, these are researchers who are supposed to know what they are doing. Two BLPs I'm aware of where notable galleries are used as references for their works are Zak Smith + Sasha Grey (re-nominated for GA, GA1 was also me). If all the AFD actually does is to enforce a wiki-break on this page it could also help (frankly, I'm not really interested in this artist, for starters it's no WIR case.) –84.46.53.207 (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Would the Balu Mahendra be an acceptable Good Article example to support my WP:OTHERCONTENT argument for the edit request to include the filmography in the KT article? This article also was a featured on the main article page.  I was uncertain of how to check on the date the policy was implemented... Most of the movies have their own articles pages but there are several that do not and also do not have reliable independent WP:SECONDARY sources  and/or links that work. I will search for more examples. Thank you! Regards, LorriBrown (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are a few additional Good Articles with entries in their filmographies that are not supported by reliable independent WP:SECONDARY sources: Richard Smith (silent film director), Parineeti Chopra, Bridget Moynahan, Ellen Pompeo, Bryce Dallas Howard, Darren Aronofsky. Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Request edit on 8 January 2020
Please consider the following addition,

Proposed Change: Expand with sources, after the third paragraph in the Career section of the article (currently begins with "Tate is a Canadian artist..." and ends with "... “video/sculptural installation at the Art Gallery of Swift Current, in 2012”)

In source mode, add the following paragraph:

which renders:

Explanation: This edit request adds a fourth paragraph to the end of the Career section. This is requested in order to expand, with sources, the article for clarity, more context and additional detail about the progression of the subject's career.

Thank you!  LorriBrown (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Reply 8-JAN-2020
Kasseler Dokfest and CFMDC are the only sources you are providing with this claim. If Kasseler itself is to be used, please indicate the Wikilink which establishes Kasseler's notability (the Dokfest itself, not the city it's held in). As the CFMDC source does not prominently discuss the subject from an independent POV, please provide an independent reliable source where Catalyst is discussed or reviewed. When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the  template's answer parameter to read from yes to no. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo  19:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is the Wikilink for the Kasseler Dokfest: Kasseler Dokumentarfilm- und Videofest.


 * Vtape At the 36th Kassel Dokfest

Vtape At the 36th Kassel Dokfest Vtape is excited to participate in this year’s Kassel Dokfest’s Distributions in Profile: Vtape & CFMDC on Saturday, November    16th at 3:30 pm, showcasing Vtape titles: Cirkut/Canadettes (Director: Sara Angelucci, Canada, 2019) Mother’s Cupboard (Director: Paul Wong, Canada, 2019) On The Border (Director: Yoshiki Nishimura, Japan, 2018) The Violence of a Civilization without Secrets (Directors: Zack Khalil, Adam Shingwak Khalil, USA, 2017) Miss Chief’s Praying Hands (Director: Kent Monkman, Canada, 2019) For more information: https://www.kasselerdokfest.de/en/online-programm/2019-11-16/p-4aab1c37-105a-41aa-9857-24079effdb31
 * CFMDC News: Kasseler Dokfest

CFMDC is presenting a distributor showcase with Vtape on November 16, featuring CFMDC films: Sira by Rolla Tahir Bubba by Daniel Hackborn Water once ruled by Christina Battle Catalyst by Kent Tate Traje de Luce | Suit of Light by Franci Duran In Distributions in Profile Sat, Nov 16th 2019 | 03:30 pm kleines BALi Full programme schedule (PDF): www.kasselerdokfest.de/programmschedule_36.pdf


 * I've already included information in the quotes noted in each reference intended to support the information that is in the edit request.
 * Catalyst has a page on the Kasseler Dokfest website.
 * Kurzfilm (Short film) ...scroll down page to see Catalyst listed.
 * Please help me understand the additional information about Catalyst that you are seeking. Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Reply 8-JAN-2020
Regards, Spintendo  00:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC) IOW, sorry, I missed that you already discussed CFMDC as RS, I just counted over 30 uses of CFMDC as source in the article namespace, and took that as "good enough" on Christmas. The source is not strictly necessary here and can be removed, but in that case please also put it on RS/N for a more permanent record of the promotional purpose of this source. –84.46.53.207 (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The references provided with the request are insufficient in satisfying the content requirement of presenting a neutral point of view.
 * CFMDC is a non-commercial media-arts distributor who acts in the interest of fostering higher visibilty and recognition of the artists under its tutelage. As their mandate is specific to the promotion of independent artists, they are not a neutral source for information on artists. The CFMDC source is essentially a shortened program schedule for artists being featured in one of their "distributor showcases" (See also WP:NOTBROCHURE).
 * The Dokfest itself, which does not appear to be independently notable in the English Wikipedia, is likewise not the best source to use, as any information they can provide will have been released in the effort to promote their festival.
 * To that end, please provide sources from reliable, independent, WP:SECONDARY sources to buttress these claims.
 * The unusual style on this talk page as a side-effect of the COI ping-pong is even harder to read than the usual colon-indent style, hopefully we'll get Flow or whatever the WMF tries next soon.
 * CFMDC source removed as redundant by ThatMontrealIP. –84.46.52.251 (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

OTHERCONTENT argument?
Please! I would like to have help to understand how to compose an argument for WP:OTHERCONTENT. I have proposed as a (COI) editor to add a filmography to an article for Kent Tate, which has been denied because reliable independent WP:SECONDARY sources for these claims were not provided. I have contended that many of the filmographies listed on filmmakers pages are not supported by sources, especially for short film directors. The editor responded with this information WP:OTHERCONTENT. My interpretation is that if there are article that exist already and that they are at least Good Articles my argument would be a stronger one than OtherStuffExists... and could be considered as legitimate reasoning. I have looked through multiple filmmaker director's filmographies and have noted several on the Talk:Kent Tate page. I am not sure about the date this policy was implement and I am not sure that a list is sufficient to convince the editor to include the select filmography that I have constructed. Can someone who is more experienced please advise me on this issue? Additionally, I have been and continue to attempt to improve and expand this article. There is additional content that can be improved and expanded upon and pictures that can be added to support the information presented in this subject's article. Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that material is in an article merely means that someone has put it there and nobody has removed it. It does not in itself indicate that there is consensus that it is appropriate.
 * Wikipedia policy is that content which has been challenged for lack of reliable sourcing must not be included unless a reliable source for it is provided.
 * If we started applying the principle "if there is unsourced content in some good articles then we must accept similar unsourced content in other articles too", then anyone could post totally invalid content, because without the requirement that content should be verifiable by reliable sources, we would have no way whatever of distinguishing valid from invalid content. (And this is not a hypothetical issue: we get totally spurious content added to hundreds of articles every day.)
 * Why do you even wish to include material for which you cannot provide a reliable source? If you know of a reliable published source then you can surely provide a link to it, and if not then it does not belong in the article. We do not accept material purely on the basis that someone who has chosen to create a Wikipedia account says so. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 16:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but what I was referring to was specifically is, "While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case, if the review does not pre-date policy changes that affect the material." My point was that it is such a common practice why is it an issue with this article and I did include sources but the editor did not consider them to be reliable independent WP:SECONDARY sources. Did you review the edit request?LorriBrown (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * One consideration is that the articles you are comparing with this one, have filmographies which contain notable films ie. they have articles about them. Theroadislong (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to turn off the batsignal on the basis that this question has already been answered and because the entire discussion may become moot depending on the outcome of the AFD. The editors working with LorriBrown have repeatedly explained that the sourcing for the filmography relies too heavily on non-independent sources and, for a filmmaker described in the AFD discussion as being borderline notable, the filmography is going to be held to a stricter content standard. This can all change depending on Tate's future career, but there is no urgency to include a list of works that simply reproduces what can be found at an external link to Tate's website.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, the idea that an article that has been features, or classified as a good article, or something of the kind, is more likely to conform to consensus than another is a sound one. However, no matter how many absolutely exceleent, first class, articles may have content that is not sourced, that is not a reason for unsourced content to be accepted elsewhere. It is likely that the unsourced content in a good article has been looked at by reviewers, who at the least have good reasons to believe it is sound, even if they have not cited sources for it; that is not in any way evidence that other unsourced material in other articles, that have not undergone such detailed scrutiny, must be valid. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 11:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No more please, a normal talk page discussion is fine to discuss the merits of a filmography on this BLP after the filmmaker and JBW apparently agreed on something in the AFD (assuming that he's not threatening you to fix this BLP immediately.) –84.46.53.221 (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

What a massive time sink this article is
I stumbled up on the above requests, mostly by user:LorriBrown and am stunned at what a time sink these requests are. I thought I was on WP:ANI. These requests are a major time waster. Thee artist is barely notable. When I look at LorriBrown's contributions, all I see is Kent Tate. Seems like a clear case of WP:NOTHERE: a niche interest, but a "General pattern of disruptive behavior". Probably not intentional, but what a time sink for such a marginal artist! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not true.LorriBrown (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ThatMontrealIP should apologize for this condescending comment. LB has created more than ten articles. This one has been contentious because of the COI, but that does not reflect on all of LB's contributions. David notMD (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, there are non-Tate articles if you skip the last 490 edits, which are all about Kent Tate. It is common sense, and also policy at WP:COIEDIT ("you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise."), that COIeditors should not consume large amounts of time of neutral editors. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)