User talk:Cburnett/Oscars

=May 5, 2005 archive start=

Please add content
Wouldn't it be better to add a few well-written movie articles than many article a half-sentence long with a link to IMDB? Rmhermen 15:23, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. PLEASE stop creating these micro-stubs, and make more meaningful articles. RickK 00:08, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

This posted on Rmhermen's talk page
 * If you read about my current project (User:Cburnett) you'll see I'm adding categories to movies. So my purpose in creating very stubby movie articles is a place holder for the categories. After adding thousands (and many thousands to go) of category entries I don't want a couple dozen movies to be missing them just because someone else created them after I passed the movie in one of the lists. I'd consider putting more effort into stub articles but the process of adding categories has proven so time consuming that spending even 15 minutes or more on each would amount to a lot of time...and I'd like to finish this project some day... Cburnett 16:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Short Film Oscar
Your plan is fine, though I would suggest that the title format be more consistent (Animated Short Film, Short Film (Color) or Color Short Film, Live Action Film (2 Reels), etc.) &mdash;tregoweth 21:03, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Oscar categories
The "Categories" are getting way overloaded. It makes sense to me at least that they be limited to matters directly applicable to the article. In the text of the article, awards given to the people involved should/can be listed. The Director Oscar etc. goes on that person's own page. If you click on a category, it should be clear and easy to see, read, and understand, not a million lists of clutter as has now happened with the gizillion baseball players per team. Maybe if you disagree, you could put this on the Village Pump or wherever appropriate for discussion. The categories are in bad need of clean up. Ted Wilkes 17:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's been on CFD once and is there again (to a much less extreme because I "won" the first round). Cburnett 19:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't see it on that CFD page. Can you point it out? Thanks. Ted Wilkes 19:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Academy Award categories
Hi - I just wanted to let you know that I am not in any way suggesting that your Academy Awards project is not worthwhile. The only thing I have an issue with is using categories to convey the information. I completely agree that this information is significant, and should be in wikipedia in an accessible form. You think it should be conveyed via categories; I think it should be conveyed via lists. If the community says categories, so be it. I hope you'll be OK with either outcome as well. I'd be willing to have a discussion about our respective views of categories and lists if you'd like (not to inflame, but to reach a better mutual understanding). -- Rick Block 20:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I just added a list article for Best Supporting Actor, see List of Best Supporting Actor nominees. I haven't sorted the list by movie yet, but doesn't this list cover (in an easier to consume fashion) what is in both category:Best Supporting Actor Oscar and category:Best Supporting Actor Oscar Nominee?  And if each actor article has a (wiki)link to the main award article (which I think you've agreed it should), and the award article links to this list article, isn't the same information content available (albeit with two clicks rather than just one)? -- Rick Block 22:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

=May 5, 2005 archive end= =May 13, 2006 archive start=

re: Oscar citings
As per a discussion I had with another user a few months ago, a quote from a TV show is harder to verify without a citation from the show's transcript or some other reliable source. If you notice Tom O'Neill's quote on the paragraph above it, the specific CNN transcript is cited so if any user challenges it, we list a specific source to back it up. In the case of Jarrett's quote, we currently do not provide any credible third party proof that he actually said that. (Call it as another after effect of the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy) Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

=May 13, 2006 archive end=