User talk:TheOldJacobite/Archive 33

hipster article
The hipster article actually had a picture of a potential hipster, but you removed it. The man has retro glasses and a hat, and a plaid shirt. It is funny that any other style, (punk, heavy metal) you could put a picture, but no one can determine what a hipster looks like. It's just pretty funny that the bar is being set so high for the hipster article.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The bar is no higher for this article than for any other: the standard is always verification, and there is no verification present --- perhaps none is possible --- for said image. Anyone can post an image, claiming it illustrates the subject of an article, but such claims are merely self-serving in the absence of a source supporting that claim. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  22:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Dazed and Confused
Since you participated in a relevant prior move discussion for Dazed and Confused, I hereby invite you to comment in the new discussion that I just opened. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Black Swan
As I previously noted to User:Nymf, Black Swan has long been filed in both and  (which were not added by me, either). If the film is "LGBT" enough to belong in those two categories, then it's "LGBT" enough to belong in the ones that I added last night as well. There is no acceptable reason why the categories I added are "overcategorization" but the ones that were already there are not — so if it's that important to you that the film not be filed in the categories I added last night, then the two LGBT-related categories that were already on it have to go as well. Either all four go or all four stay; it cannot by definition be "LGBT" enough to belong in the two categories that were already there but not "LGBT" enough to belong in the newer two. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And the same goes for Naked Lunch as well, because it was already in, and . If it's "LGBT" enough to belong in those three categories, then it's "LGBT" enough to belong in the new ones too — either they all go or they all stay, period. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I remember who you are. What is the criteria to appear in one of your LGBT related categories? They all seem to be void of any sort of criteria of inclusion, and "LGBT related" is very vague. Nymf  talk to me 16:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether you like it or not, "LGBT-related" is the longstanding consensus — which I actually opposed for the same reason that you seem to, but that's neither here nor there because consensus trumps personal misgivings — established by the community for how LGBT film categories are to be named. And I didn't apply any subjective selection criteria to the process — all I did was to add the genre and decade categories to films that were already in one or more LGBT-related film categories but hadn't been added to the genre and decade categories yet. So you're certainly free to have doubts about the inclusion criteria if you wish — but that's not an issue with me, because the films were already being categorized as LGBT. So if you have an issue with describing them that way, then track the article history and take it up with whoever originally added the existing LGBT-related categories, not with me. And exactly what is your "now I remember who you are" supposed to mean? Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

My one and only comment on this --- at least in this forum --- is that no article needs to be in a specific sub-cat and in a more general main-cat. That is overcategorization. The other issues involved here should be discussed at the Film Wikiproject, not here. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  19:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't being added to any categories that constitute duplicate categorization conflicts with other existing categories; every single category in question is a specific subcat and none of them are "main-cats" that parent another category that's already being used. Bearcat (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Category talk:Art films
Just leave the posting alone. It is related to the topic, regardless of the tone. It's too antagonistic to remove it when we can just move on to other edits. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Tom Waits
Hello, The reason why I relocated the filmography section from the discography to the main article is that I could not find a single guideline that asserts this convention. My main motivation for this action was the style guide of WikiProject Discographies, which actually opposes to the inclusion of non-musical releases or works. Thank you. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A guideline is just that: a guideline, nothing more. There is no hard and fast rule that says every article has to be that way.  Frankly, it is just unnecessary repetition.  One way or the other, this should be discussed on the article talk page. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  04:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:African-American television drama series
I see the source of your confusion now. The category was originally called "Category:Black television drama series". After some lengthy talk page discussion, the category was recently retitled -- replacing the word "Black" with "African-American". However, the description for the category remains the same (with the word "Black" again being replaced by "African-American"). And my knowledge of this is quite certain, as the category was originally created years ago by me. I hope this clears up any confusion on the subject. ABCxyz (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Tom Reiss copyvio issue -- can it be quickly resolved for the time being?
Hi OJ, I happened to light upon the Tom Reiss article yesterday (I've been editing the article on his latest book, The Black Count, for the last three months), and was shocked to see that a giant copyvio tag was there and has been there for over 2 months without workable attempts at resolution. Can you take a look at my comments and proposed solution (WP:Copyright problems/2013 June 12)? Reiss is quite a notable Pulitzer Prize–winning author, and it's a shame in my opinion to let this languish. Thanks for any help you can proffer. Sincerely, -- Softlavender (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Sweet summer fruit from your nutritious planting

 * Thank you for your message. I am glad that I could be of help to you. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  13:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Scorsese films and possible socks
Hi TheOldJacobite, and thanks for the message. We both know where WP:AIV and WP:SPI are, but I'll do my best. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your time and attention to this matter! --- The Old Jacobite The '45  12:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)