User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions/archive/2012/01

(Resolved) - Article improvement tagging
Hi George. I'm sorry, but if any more article improvement tagging causes a reaction like: Talk:As_the_World_Turns, I will need to invoke your unblock conditions and ask you to stop tagging articles for improvement pending discussion. I don't want to do that, as it would be very inconvenient for you, so please be more careful, and if not sure, ask for help/advice. Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk 00:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Deep breath George. Remember, having uncited information in articles about popular culture is a problem, but doesn't ruin the encyclopaedia, and with a topic that lots of people are familiar with, there is a check on mistakes anyway.


 * Original research. Just looking at something and describing it "...comes in a purple wrapper..." is not original research, you can source it to the primary source, in this case the bar of Cadburys Dairy Milk. Original research is when you go and dig things out for yourself and draw conclusions from them "...the version of the film I have doesn't have a copyright logo. If it wasn't released with the copyright logo to start with, it would be out of copyright within 25 years, so would be PD now, but the Uruguay Round Agreement would mean that it would come back into copyright because it was first released in England. I can't find any renewals, and this looks like the producers filed for restoration of copyrights..."


 * So the section in As the World Turns describing all the title cards is OK where all he does is describe them all. It does have some content that cannot just come from watching the titles, for example "...the credits might show them cleaning a room or playing a piano — things too "boring" to be in the episode itself)..." which could be original research (this is why the editor thought they weren't in the episode) or he could have read it somewhere and just not cited it.


 * Remember what I said about picking the biggest problem first. The biggest problem is that the section is way too long.  If someone cut it down, or even put the descriptions into a table by years, they might cut out the bits with no citations. Once it was cut down, if anything was still there that needed a source and couldn't come from just watching the titles, you could use an inline  template, to show it is that bit that is the problem.


 * Have I explained this well enough. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My abstract: candy wrapper is the primary source to overrule the "original research". Title sequences are "primary". My expertise is OR. Did I get it right? --George Ho (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You did indeed. Do I write too much? Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if I haven't understood sooner, that would be a lot to learn. I assumed that using "primary sources" to confirm statements are OR, but they're not. In fact, adding opinions, expertise, and analyses require sources. What about files, like File:Evening Primrose Anthony Perkins Charmian Carr 1961.jpg? --George Ho (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a lot to learn, and it isn't fair to expect you to learn it all at once. You can add all the extra information you have found out about an image to a file description page. You are allowed to use your own research there. However, you don't need to go into all that detail on copyright marks, just refer back to Copyright notice and save yourself some time. If you're uploading at Commons, use copyright notice .Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Elen. George, I commented on the article talk. Do you feel you could do a reducing copyedit on the title sequence section, working with me, then we can format it? If you think you are familiar enough with it to do that, we can do the work in a sandbox, to minimise disrupting the article, get consensus at talk, then update the article when happy. Begoon &thinsp; talk  01:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When you advise me to remove those tags, I may do so. Right now, I'll leave them intact until someone else removes it, whether improved or not. I'll do my best to turn everything into a table; it'll be a draft, though. --George Ho (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks - if you need any help, please shout. George, please don't feel this discussion is any sort of "police action" by me - it's not intended that way at all. I just feel that this is an area where it's easy to upset other editors, and hence worth some effort here on this page. Tagging can be useful, but it can also (as we see here) provoke strong reactions from editors, so care needs to be taken that does not happen unnecessarily. Begoon &thinsp; talk  01:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If I'm incapable of depicting symptoms, like a doctor, then I must talk first! By the way, I copied the whole section into User:George Ho/sandbox without non-free files. This is too long and too complicated; at least I added sample table. --George Ho (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just talk first is enough. Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If, as a rule, we say that when placing a tag (unless for something no sane person would ever dispute, like copyedit on a jumble of cut/pasted text.), you must leave a talk page note explaining what you are tagging, and what specific improvements would negate your tag, can you live with that for now? Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And, back to the subject at hand - see the article talk page, for a comment from Pinkadelica, and me. Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved) - Determining correct US release of and US copyrights of Storm in a Teacup (film)
I have added citation of the print book, Vivien Leigh: A Biography. It determined the film release in US in November 1937. According to AFI Catalog, the film was released in Thursday, February 25, 1937; AFI declared that the US copyright date was October 8, 1937. That was eight months difference.

According to Section 13 of the 1909 Act, this film requires mandatory deposit to the Office within after first publication either three months from any non-"outlying territorial" part of the United States (Hawaii did not become a part of the US until 1959?) or six months from U.S. outlying territorial possession or foreign country. If February 1937, either way, the copyright would have been voided and nullified, and URAA would not affect the film's copyright status. Is this "original research"? Either way, I must contact AFI at opening hours. --George Ho (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have found the film's copyright status: http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/1998/63fr19287.html. Should it be used in the article? --George Ho (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if I'm misreading this archived discussion, but a quick glance through that seems to suggest we decided that the copyright status of the film wasn't important enough to include in an article about the film? I see the film is listed in the document you linked, and well done for finding it, but I don't really see why this info is needed in the article. Do most film articles have content relating to their copyright status? If not, then there would need to be a reason why the copyright status of this particular film was worthy of mention or of special note (IMO) to include it. Is there a reason like that? Sorry if I missed something, I got a bit cross-eyed reading some of the copyright stuff you linked. Begoon &thinsp; talk  09:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If copyright status is not important, then what's the point of preventing or reducing piracy and copyright infringements? Why and how will a decline to include the copyright status solve anything? I guess: the only way to prevent piracy are our own analyses without inserting them into articles, showing sourced release dates, and/or non-primary sources that determine the copyright status. --George Ho (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * George - you need to separate the 2 things. Of course copyright is important for us to consider, when we decide what material to put into an article, but that doesn't mean that we need to load excessive detail about copyright details themselves into the articles. I don't expect a reader would often come here to find out copyright details on a movie, they would do the fine research you did if they cared enough to know the correct answer. The article should be about the movie, and if the copyright status of the movie is of interest for a reason, then, sure, it should be mentioned. Not including this information in that movie article is not going to lessen our opposition to piracy or our enforcement of copyright in any way. Begoon &thinsp; talk  09:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So how many sentences may I indicate copyright status if approved by you, and where can I include them? --George Ho (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Stroke the incorrect date; that was August 10, 1937, the date of US publication, according to Copyright catalog. --George Ho (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's in the article as a "reference" for "Release Date", so it's not too obtrusive. I still don't see the need for it at all, absent a reason it is of interest. That's my opinion. If, for whatever reason, it was going to be kept, I'd certainly remove "Moreover, the deposit of description was October 19, 1937; the deposit of film was October 26, 1937." because that is verging on an anal amount of detail, in a reference that isn't really describing "Release Date" at all.

One problem, as I see it, is this: you are skipping past the basic test of relevance and getting bogged down in details that interest you.
 * First you would find a reason that the copyright status and details of this particular film are interesting or notable.
 * Only then would you worry about how much detail or what detail to include.
 * You are putting the cart before the horse.

The encyclopedia is for the readers, not the editors, so any test of relevance and interest is relative to them, not us. Begoon &thinsp; talk 12:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the (italic) detail that may seem intricate, wasn't it? To put this straight, if this topic is researched, are the readers interested in opinions for and impact of this film? Are the readers interested in the plot? To me, I don't know; however, plot should have been irrelevant if GA and FA would have decided that a plot summary may be unnecessary. Plot spoils things, yet WP:SPOILER forbades a disclaimer of spoiling. Am I straying off-topic here? --George Ho (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - very off-topic. But that's ok. On the occasions when I don't know whether something is generally considered important I just look at similar articles. If the majority of them include the kind of info I'm thinking about, then so will I. With films and film stubs like this, you have the advantage that you have many examples to look at. That's why I asked the questions you skipped over, above: "Do most film articles have content relating to their copyright status? If not, then there would need to be a reason why the copyright status of this particular film was worthy of mention or of special note (IMO) to include it. Is there a reason like that?". Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Originally researched copyright status has become a no-no, as I have realized. Plot is less encyclopedic than anything else, including copyright status if non-primary sources cover one topic in any significant way. To answer the first question, I don't know how much content one film article needs; nevertheless, articles of older pre-1990 films (before Berne Convention Implementation Act) and foreign pre-1996 films should have copyright statuses determined, even if 'most articles do not, unfortunately (unless I counted wrong). The reason, if not: to prevent further copyright infringements and to have copyrighted materials removed from Archive.org and other sites that determine "public domain" status of films. People should learn to avoid being spoiled by plots; I have been spoiled by plots, so I tried to find other non-fictional content, including analyses of fiction, that relates to film. Fortunately, I must discuss first about plots. I hope this helps. --George Ho (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you point to 3 or 4 film articles that do include copyright status details (added by other editors)? If it's a fairly common thing to do, then maybe we're making a mountain out of a molehill. That's why I asked those questions early on. (no rush - I'm going offline till tomorrow now) Begoon &thinsp; talk  13:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Copyright status can easily become an issue because of the US requirements for copyright notices and renewals, and result in court cases or other commentary - Night of the living dead accidentally became PD due to a failure to complete paperwork, and at least one secondary source considers this to have been instrumental in the film's rise to cult status, because any fleapit cinema, arthouse or student union could show it without payment of fee. On the other hand, Kubrick managed to prevent A Clockwork Orange from being shown in his lifetime because his paperwork was all good.  I would repeat though, that unless a secondary source mentions the film's copyright status, it should not be included in the article.  Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realise that (from the earlier discussion). I should have been more clear. I guess I was looking for examples of copyright status being included "just for the sake of it", rather than when there is a secondary source discussing it, because it is of particular relevance to the film in question. But that could open up into a mess, full of circular discussion, so let's not go down that road. George, please don't waste any time with that request of mine (I struck it) - I suspect it might just confuse things even more, and this has already become a very long discussion.
 * We should try to stick to the general question, which has been answered by several people several times now and in the earlier thread. If it has particular significance supported by a secondary source, you can consider including it. If not, don't. Begoon &thinsp; talk  14:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand - for George - most people will read a film article for some idea of the plot. Maybe to remind themselves what happened, or 'was this the film about the three legged dog?' or 'which department store was he Santa in'. Or because they have heard of the film, but have no opportunity to see it at the moment. "What's it about" and "Who is in it" are the two questions everyone asks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Recently, Green Cardamom has added the "Copyright Status" with a different entry. Is that an OR or not? Is the word "controversy" appropiate? --George Ho (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I read the document again, and I'm still a little concerned. The document contains this: "The recent inquiries regarding the Alien Property Custodian exception concern the validity of Notices of Intent to Enforce (NIE) filed with the Copyright Office for works potentially subject to this provision. Under the URAA, the owner of a right in a restored work may file an NIE to notify reliance parties 3 of its intention to enforce its right. The Copyright Office is required by law to publish in the Federal Register ``lists identifying restored works and the ownership thereof if a notice of intent to enforce a restored copyright has been filed.'' 17 U.S.C. 104A(e)(1)(B)(i). The Office does not research the facts stated in Notices of Intent to Enforce to determine whether a work is or is not eligible for restoration. Nor does the Office adjudicate between competing parties who have filed NIEs for identical works. (Under section 104A, however, a material false statement knowingly made with respect to any restored copyright identified in an NIE makes void all claims and assertions made with respect to such restored copyright. 17 U.S.C. 104A(e)(3)). '''Accordingly, the filing of an NIE indicates only that a party has claimed to own rights in a restored work; the filing does not represent a determination by the Copyright Office that this claim is valid. In all cases, the validity of such a claim is governed by the terms of the relevant law, including the URAA, as applied to the relevant facts."

Now, I may well be reading that wrong, but to me this says that this list is not to be used as a list of valid copyright status claims, but a "list of intent", and that it does not speak to the status itself, instead clearly saying that determination of validity needs to be separately ascertained according to law.

However, I would really appreciate someone else reading that document to see if they agree with my impression, because it's possible I'm interpreting it wrong.

Now, as to the section in the article. Personally, I still feel it's unwarranted. It alleges a controversy, but provides no evidence of controversy, just 2 places that might say different things.

It's possible I'm being too picky, but it still seems like "shoe-horning" the content in because we want the content, and not to reflect notable third party commentary in a reliable source.

But please, other opinions, because this is just my opinion. Begoon &thinsp; talk 22:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think United Kingdom or Great Britain qualify as Alien Property Custodian; United Kingdom was an ally during WWII. On the other hand, good point on assertions and disclaimers. I must have missed that. --George Ho (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, my main point is this. You are still trying to see this as a controversy, and implying it must be one because you can investigate and find contradictory statements. That's the wrong way around. If reliable third party sources say it's a controversy, then we can report that. If they don't, we can't. Anything else is "our" interpretation, and that is OR. Begoon &thinsp; talk  23:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So if you want the section to be kept, may I just remove the "controversy" and then rephrase the statements of two sources to prevent OR? Otherwise, may I immediately remove the section? --George Ho (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Already removed "controversy" statement. --George Ho (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Think it through. It is OR. All of it. Rephrasing it will not make it stop being OR. The word controversy was an attempted end-run around OR. Begoon &thinsp; talk  23:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the whole section that Green made, although I did bring the source in talk page. See more at Talk:Storm in a Teacup (film). --George Ho (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved) - Redirects and merges
Deletion_review/Log/2012_January_3.
 * When an article is deleted, its history is deleted too.
 * When an article is merged with another article, the history of the two articles can be merged (it's fiddly, but admins can do it, see WP:HISTMERGE)
 * When an article is redirected, the previous history of the article needs to be kept to conform with Wikipedia's own licensing policy.

User:TParis closed the deletion discussion as delete. It should have been redirect/merge. You then created new redirects, but User:BD2412 was able to undelete the history and attach it to your new articles using history merge.

So you didn't need to ask for a deletion review or a history undelete, because that had already been done.

However I think your problem was that someone reverted one or more of the redirects one or more times, to the last version of the article in the history. And you didn't know what to do?

The answer is In either case, it is clear that it is the other editor who is wrong, because an AfD already decided that the article shouldn't exist, and they are re-creating an article that was deleted in an AfD. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * if one editor is persistently (several times over the course of a day or two) doing that, you can revert them and report it at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
 * if it is being done persistently (several times over the course of a week) by different editors, you can report it at Requests for page protection

(Resolved) - Proposal
George was unblocked on 24 December.

To ensure the mentorship process does not stagnate, I propose that, monthly, a review of the "mentorship to date" be performed. The first such "review" would be due in a week.

In all honesty, this is something I should have addressed, and built in from the start.

I don't see this as a huge task, just a regular reminder to consider where we are "up to".

What I have in mind is something like the following:


 * 1) George makes some comments about how he feels the mentorship is progressing from his point of view.
 * 2) Mentors (or anyone else who is interested) can make their own comments.
 * 3) A brief general discussion mainly concerned with deciding whether any adjustments are needed to the process going forward, whether any restrictions need to be altered/relaxed, when to move on from mentorship to a long term plan, etc...

We can just do it right here on this page, in a new section.

It's not going to take much effort to do, I believe, and I think it's important we manage this as a "live", evolving process, to get the most out of it for everyone.

Comments/ideas/criticisms? All welcome - it's a proposal only. Begoon &thinsp; talk 01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be good to get some comments from George - is it working for him. From my perspective, we seem to have steered round several rocks quite successfully. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I'm very keen to see comments too, so I'll open a section for a review tomorrow (24th). Begoon &thinsp; talk  23:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I read all your posts in this section. The mentorship is fine; I'm happier and gaier, thanks to you all. Flyer22 and some other soap opera participants have issues about my nominating soap-related articles for deletion, but he did not tell me to stop... yet. I will continue nominating for deletion until I'm told to stop. Also, I have issues about Night of the Living Dead as FA mainly due to IMDB. --George Ho (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Once you've informed another editor about your 'Stop!' clause it's up to them whether they choose to enforce it - you have, very properly, informed them on their talk page. Of course, that doesn't mean that you don't need to listen to their concerns in the meantime - you always need to consider the concerns of other editors, and it would obviously be best if nobody ever felt the need to Stop! you. From what I can see, though, you have been engaging constructively there.
 * If more project members also have concerns then perhaps it might be useful to mention Soap articles you want to nominate, briefly, at the project page in case members have a strong reason they will object. Or, if you think you can judge which ones will be "controversial", maybe just ask about those - but initially asking about all might be safer. I think you can probably judge for yourself how to approach that. Maybe just a general, quick, open discussion to get everyone's feelings about it is a best start. It certainly couldn't hurt to find out what all the other members felt, and they might be pleased to be asked.
 * One of the things to remember, George, is that the guys in the project are trying to build up information, generally, in the same way that you want to, and you do - so, in that sense you all share the same aims. However, because one of the other things you do is discover some things that probably should not be here, sometimes it might not seem positive to them to want to delete stuff. I think it's important to have, and to display to others, the mindset that you are always reluctant to nominate deletions, but as a responsible editor you also need to observe the rules. You want to improve Soap articles as much as they do, but you also want Wikipedia to stay within its own "rules". Those are good things - but others may not always see the positive side of what you do if deletions are involved. There is no "magic bullet" to fix that. Deletions will nearly always have some opposers - that's natural.
 * It's good, though, that we are starting to think in terms of "what problems remain". It's especially good, also, that you seem happy with how things are going, yourself. That shows we have made lots of progress, and I'll open the "review" section tomorrow, so that we can, hopefully, continue these steps forward. Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk  01:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved) - Article tagging
Joefromrandb| told me this from : "Stop slapping tags on every article you find" and "Stop tag-bombing." I don't know which articles, but do I have to do this request from him? --George Ho (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a very broad comment - I don't think you tag every article you find - but I think it is worth discussion. A while back, I said "If, as a rule, we say that when placing a tag (unless for something no sane person would ever dispute, like copyedit on a jumble of cut/pasted text.), you must leave a talk page note explaining what you are tagging, and what specific improvements would negate your tag, can you live with that for now?"- here, and I don't think you replied to that yet. Have you been leaving explanations for your tagging? Begoon &thinsp; talk  08:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk:Maxie Jones and Talk:List of General Hospital characters can prove, can't they? --George Ho (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are discussions there, including one offer to improve the article from MusicFreak7676 - I wonder if you might think that's worth pursuing - if the 2 of you can fix the issues? Now that the discussions are in progress, though, replacing the tag before they conclude would be premature in my opinion, and is likely to upset people. In simple BRD terms: you tagged, it was reverted, now you discuss.
 * I'm on the "only tag as a last resort" side of the fence with this sort of thing, though, personally, as you know. I dislike tags unless the purpose is made very clear and there are no current efforts underway to fix a problem. Others feel less strongly. However, the fact that you know people may react like this means, unfortunately, that you need to take more care to demonstrate you are not tag-bombing or adding unnecessary tags. It's a difficult line to tread, now, but my advice would be to err on the safe side and only tag when all avenues for fixing a problem are exhausted, and always explain precisely what the tag is for, and what needs to be fixed, in your opinion. Then, if your tag is removed, discuss and find some sort of consensus to replace it, or don't replace it. Begoon &thinsp; talk  08:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will admit I should have tempered my language. "Tagging every article you find" and "horridly disruptive editing" were unnecessary on my part. Mea culpa. However, my views on what you're doing are unchanged. Bombing articles with as many as 6 tags without a single word of talk page discussion or any attempt to improve the article is unacceptable. Requesting lengthy, referenced articles be merged into a few lines is unacceptable. PRODing an article as non-notable, then quietly editing out the single most notable thing about that person is unacceptable. I'm glad you're receiving mentorship, but your approach still needs work. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do agree that "Bombing articles with as many as 6 tags without a single word of talk page discussion or any attempt to improve the article is unacceptable. " Do you have diffs for that, and the 'PROD', because it sounds like something that we'd need to talk about here. However, I don't agree that the length of an article is a factor in judging its notability. I recently had to AFD a very long, non notable article, which had a lot of work invested in it, but the subject was not appropriate for an article. That's never enjoyable, and I'm certainly not saying it is the case here, I haven't made any attempt to look at the notability of this article, because you Soap guys should know that better than me. Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's Olivia Hack history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olivia_Hack&action=history. --George Ho (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps now that everyone seems to be discussing these issues properly, it would be a good time for us to leave this "inquest" and move forwards? We've seen that the tagging caused problems here, and I hope we can learn from that. I'm happy if we just want to clear up something that's still not clear, but other than that, let's just see if this is enough of an "inquest" for now and move on. Begoon &thinsp; talk  04:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)