W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: GreyElfGT

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{NoACEMM}}

Star Trek episodes



Thank you for your improvements. I should also warn you about something that might be annoying later. I noticed you added some reviewshttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Crossing_(Star_Trek:_Enterprise)&diff=prev&oldid=1224852769 ↗https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Crossing_(Star_Trek:_Enterprise)&diff=prev&oldid=1224850686 ↗ and these are good quality reviewers that have been featured in many other episode articles. I think this a good thing but I should warn you that in the past some editors were quite <strike>aggressive</strike>strict about sources, and deleted such good faith work. I would note in particular that TrekToday was part of TrekNation ↗ and good enough quality that people didn't tend to argue about it. There were occasional arguments against Jammer's Reviews ↗ but he was syndicated by UGO ↗ at the time and was generally considered good quality, and his reviews have been accepted by the people who reviewed Featured articles on multiple occasions. So my warning is that some editors might try to challenge and delete these reviews so it is always good to know the strong arguments to revert and keep them. Keith DeCandido from Tor.com (recently changed to Reactormag.com) is also a good source of reviews. (The AV Club ↗ regularly reviewed Star Trek Voyager episodes too.) Other reviewers not from mainstream publications have less strong arguments for inclusion. (I don't add lower quality sources but if they have already been included in an episode article I am in no hurry to delete unless I have other better sources with which to replace them.)

One reviewer I very much appreciated was them0vieblog.com but irrespective of the quality of his reviews and attention to detail editors rejected using him as a reference. His reviews are worth looking at if for example you plan to improve Voyager episode articles, and although you cannot reference him directly you read his detailed reviews and then try to find and reference the same sources he mentions in his articles.

For a while certain people kept nominating low quality Star Trek articles for deletion (sometimes succeeding, Rogue_Planet_(Star_Trek:_Enterprise) ↗ was deleted because people claimed no sources were available and I had to write a whole article with many sources before they would restore it). The Star Trek Enterprise episode articles were in even worse condition than most of the Voyager episode articles, and I spent quite a lot of time trying to bring the worst of them up in quality, so that they were no longer easier targets for deletion. It was a quantity not quality effort on my part, as you've probably already noticed. I still poke the articles occasionally.

Umm, yeah, anyway. If you plan on trying to improve the production sections of articles you might want to look through copies of any Star Trek magazines you can find in the Internet Archive ↗ https://archive.org/details/magazine_rack and the books in their digital library section might also be helpful, you only need to create a free account and register and then you can access all kinds of books that might be useful like The Star trek encyclopedia ↗

Thanks for reading. Best of luck with your edits. -- 109.79.160.15 ↗ (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Feel free...



If you want to go through the normal WP:AFC ↗ process that's fine, or if you just want to ping me when you are ready for the new Festival pages to move to mainspace. I *wish* the articles that I generally see on WP:AFC were the quality of what you create. And as the bot generated message above says, you can create directly in mainspace now, however with articles that complex, I recommend creating them in Draftspace (or Userspace) and then doing a move (*not* a copy and paste, but rather an article move). Let me know if you have any questions! Again, welcome! Naraht (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

:@Naraht ThankQ for your feedback...and the "I *wish*" compliment. I know I can post to mainspace without AfC, but for a TV Series that's 65 years old, I purposefully *did* want a second or third eye looking it over. When other editors join in to make changes, I learn a thing or two each time I edit. Through the "diff" watchlist links, or "compare revisions" in History for instance, I noticed you moved the Talk header template below the Banner shell & WikiProjects... I was under the impression that Talk goes at the top, but now I see that it might be better at the bottom. Thoughts on that? if you please? I also wondered at the space removal between the "|Aux4 = <ref name=...." Is there a particular reason why it's better not to have a space between an "=" and the reference? Another point, I didn't just want to go through the AfC process, but was also hoping for an Assessment Rating (Start, C, B, etc.). This tells me if I'm improving as an editor. Hope that helps, and thanks again for the approval of the article. ~<}:^> GreyElfGT (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
::I only used the AFCH Approval tool, so I'm not sure why it does a lot of things. On the subject of tools, I'll run it through AutoWikiBrowser and see if that rearranges things. And for the spacing on the Aux4, I just don't know. And I'll look at rating it.Naraht (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I ran it through AWB and the only changes it wanted to make to the article is to replace <nowiki>{{clr}}</nowiki> with <nowiki>{{clear}}</nowiki> which is sort of expected, it will take templates that are redirects and replace them with where the actual template. Note this is *not* an indication that <nowiki>{{clear}}</nowiki> should be used when writing an article. I tend to use <nowiki>{{-}}</nowiki> which is another redirect to the same template. I also wouldn't go through and edit any other article to do this, this is a perfect example of what Bots should do and humans shouldn't. If you want for info on AutoWikiBrowser, let me know. (WP:AWB ↗). I hate doing ratings, but frankly, Seasons 1, 3, 4, & 5 are at the same level as season 2, so I'm moving them all to C class. Someone on Wikiproject tv might be better and/or give suggestions.
::::@Naraht OK, well that answers that. I'm focused more on fixing pages that bug me, than reviewing others' AfCs, so I'm not familiar with *any* of the tools used. When I ran across them, Seasons 1-4 were all in their relative infancy, as you can see here ↗, with non-standard Episode Tables indicated by {{t|Convert to Episode table}} which is why I started improving them in the first place. So a "C" for what they are now, is a good, and I think appropriate, improvement from the "Stub" I would've given them, if *I* had assessed them. Lastly, there was no extant "List of... ↗" page, so I created that as well. Obviously, it only needs a "List" assessment, so I didn't bother with AfC for it. ThanQ, ~<}:^> GreyElfGT (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Frankly, adding the other seasons counts as fixing to me. :) Everyone contributes in their own way, and doing ratings is fortunately how some other people contribute. I *think* there is a way to request rating checks, but I'm not sure. I've been editing since 2006, so I've picked up some of the tools by osmosis. I don't do *that* much in AFCs and am much happier doing approvals than rejections. Let me know when you want another set of eyes on S6. I've added the draft to my watchlist.Naraht (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::@Naraht There _is_ a way to request Reassessment, other than simply Blanking the "|class=" Banner shell param, and I knew this, but haven't actually tried it yet, so perhaps I should... I created 4 Season articles for the original 1980s ''Equalizer ↗'' show as well, and even gained a "B" for Season 2, YAY! But the others remain Unassessed, so maybe I'll try the request route. The language @ WP:Content assessment ↗ states: "To have an independent editor review an article, post a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment#Assessment requests ↗."
::::::Season 6 of ''Festival'' is ready for approval now, and thanks for volunteering. I do actually feel confident about assessing others' pages, as List, Stub, Start, or C, but _not_ B or higher (I need to better understand the criteria for upgrading), and I don't think I'd _ever_ rate my own pages...just doesn't feel right to grade you're own work, you know? I'd rather have an Objective 3rd party review. Hope that helps. ~<}:^> GreyElfGT (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::@Naraht Seasons 7-9 are also now ready for approval, Yay! Glad to be done, so I can get back to watching ''Counterstrike ↗'' and complete its plot/episode list. GreyElfGT (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lela Ivey



Hello, GreyElfGT,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username SnowyRiver28 and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Lela Ivey ↗, for deletion, because a consensus decision ↗ previously decided that it wasn't suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you wish to restore a page deleted via a deletion discussion, please use the deletion review process ↗ instead, rather than reposting the content of the page.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can <span class="plainlinks">'''Ivey}}&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion ↗'''</span> but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Lela+Ivey&subtype=delete|deleting administrator}}.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with <code><nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>SnowyRiver28<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code>. And, don't forget to sign your reply with <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> . Thanks!

<small>Message delivered via the Page Curation ↗ tool, on behalf of the reviewer.</small><!-- Template:Uw-repost-NPF -->

<span style="font-family: calisto;border: 2px solid white; background-color:navy; color:white; padding:2px">SnowyRiver28</span> (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Anything Goes (1936 film) ↗



Curious about your edit to this article. You omitted the production credits claiming in the edit summary that it was to "rem dup list". However, the production credits are not duplicated elsewhere in the article. For example, the film's art directors were the legendary Hans Dreier ↗ and Ernst Fegté ↗. This information is not reflected elsewhere in the article, and your edit eliminated their important contributions from our article on this film. Your edit similarly eradicated any reference to Travis Banton ↗'s role as costume designer and LeRoy Prinz ↗ as choreographer. Can you explain? Cbl62 (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

:@Cbl62 Yes, certainly, to explain.... The bulleted list, mostly, duplicated links already present in the InfoBox. More to the point, there was no Prose (which is preferred over simple lists in Wiki Articles) to elaborate on their specific contributions (other than thier obvious Job Titles). Furthermore, personnel and their roles/contributions, if included with Prose, should include WP:RS ↗ citation references. The principle is reflected in WP:NOTDATABASE ↗ which essentially means, if you want to lookup who the art director or the foley ↗ operator was, you can go to a Database site like AFI ↗ or TCM ↗ or IMDb, as Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate ↗ information. Now... if the foley personnel or art directors made Noteworth contributions, that might be of interest to Wiki Readers, then by all means, add a Production section and list their significant contributions along with RS cite ref(s), particularly and especially if their persons or departments were nominated for, or won, notable awards from the industry. Hope that Helps. ~<}:^> GreyElfGT (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
:: Actually, no. There is no Wikipedia guideline or policy prohibiting a list of the major contributors to a film, and WP:NOTDATABASE ↗ has no application here as it concerns "indiscriminate information." Lists of the actors or production personnel who made significant contributions to a film are the antithesis of "indiscriminate information." I do, of course, agree with you that such a list should be cited to a WP:RS ↗. I have remedied that omission with a citation to the AFI site. In the future, when you come across an unsourced list, and unless WP:BLP ↗ issues are present (not so here for a 90-year-old film), it would be better to tag the section or entry as needing a citation ... or better yet, add the citation! Deleting the entire section, without such preceding steps, is premature and severe. Cbl62 (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Here's a specific example of how Prose is preferred over simple Lists, as it not only names Art Dept. personnel, but what challenges they faced, and how they solved it, during Production (which is why Film / TV articles typically have a dedicated "Production" section heading with Prose, as opposed to "Production Credits" with Lists). See Festival (Canadian TV series) season 1#Production ↗ where I added Anneke Franck's & Robert O'Bradovich's contributions, with an RS cite ref to CBC Canada's official documentation in ''CBC Times''. GreyElfGT (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
:::: Prose is always good, and can always be added, but there is simply nothing wrong with a sourced list of notable contributions. (No more so than in the case of a cast list, which can be supplemented by prose about individual performances, where appropriate.) It's not a question of one or the other. Cbl62 (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::True GreyElfGT (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
:::So a couple qualifications I should add to reply to your specific concerns...
:::: Major contributors such as Directors, Producers, Cinematographers, are fine in the InfoBox because there are dedicated Fields for those jobs. To have them in the Top / Lead as Prose, + InfoBox as a quick "at a glance" Guide, + Production Credits as Lists... well, it is simply Redundant...it's why I called them Dup. (Duplicate info).
:::::: ''See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE ↗: "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Barring the specific exceptions listed below, an article should remain complete with its infobox ignored." Accordingly, the main body of an article should never be trimmed on grounds that it duplicates information that is already in the infobox. Cbl62 (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Good 2 Know. GreyElfGT (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
:::: I don't really have a problem if you List (or better, Prose) other significant personnel for which the InfoBox does not already have dedicated fields for their job titles. Just so you know, before I removed them I did in fact check the Template to see if there were fields for Art Director & such. But I still thought that prose would have been preferred over a list.
:::# WP:NoDatabase & "Indiscriminate" as I understand it, means you don't just list all/every credit, unless there's something Noteworthy (beyond just doing their jobs) that they accomplished.
:::::: ''You may have a point if people started listing grips, production assistants, and low-level credits, but art directors, costume designers, and choreographers are major creative contributors to a film. Indeed, the people filling those roles on ''Anything Goes'' were legends in their fields. For example, Hans Dreier ↗ and Ernst Fegté ↗ won multiple Academy Awards and were both inducted into the Art Directors Guild Hall of Fame ↗. And Travis Banton ↗'s Wikipedia article identifies him as "one of the most important Hollywood costume designers of the golden age." Same for LeRoy Prinz ↗ who was thrice nominated for the choreography Oscar. Such important contributors should not be omitted.'' Cbl62 (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Ok, that's wonderful they were recognized... but in context, was it for ''Anything Goes'' or another work? Stating, on the ''Anything Goes'' article, that he's award-wining on some other film seems a bit Peacocky to me. I'm not trying to diminish their involvement in the film, just as I wouldn't for a minor character in the Cast section. It would simply be better if one knew what his significant/notable contribution was, other than just doing his job. If one already has a Bio article on Wiki, I go with the assumption s/he is already "Notable" and don't mind the link on Work articles (films, tv, etc), even if it's in a List. And if it were up to me, I'd add certain Fields to the IB such as Art Director, Choreographer, et al, because they are important roles in Film-making. But I don't know if there's consensus for that. In any case, I definately don't see the need to repeat the Director, et al, if they're already in the Top / Lead, + IB, or other sections. I too have added personnel such as Choreographers, in particular with the Episode tables/lists for ''Festival'', because there's already a Field for "Writer" (whether they're writing Script, Music, or Routines for Dance). I've been editing since 2009 and just today hit 10,000 edits...Yay! So, still learning. GreyElfGT (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
:::# Finally, you don't necessarily have to have an RS cite ref to list a Director, or Art Director, or whoever, because the Media and its Screen Credits provide a Primary Source, obviating a Secondary RS cite ref. The 2nd-ary cite refs are to validate what significant/notable contributions they had to the Production, usually in the form of Prose (not lists), which ''would'' require the cite ref.
:::Again, Hope that Helps, but if I misconstrue Wiki Policy, I'm happy to be corrected...it's a process, learning. ThanQ for your feedback. ~<}:^> GreyElfGT (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
:::: Understood and appreicated. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2007, and I continue to learn.
::as for Archiving, I'd agree if there were enough Traffic/Posts to justify it... for example, on the ''Star Trek'' franchise, it auto-archives Talk posts. But not for extremely low traffic talks...and it still _is_ archived, in a sense, in the Change log.

Tagging uncredited actors as unreferenced



I see you've done this for ''Mr. Deeds Goes to Town ↗''. In my experience, the great majority of films list uncredited actors, so it seems rather unfair to tag just this one, or are you planning to spend the rest of your life doing the same to the zillions of others? I've started a related request for comment at WT:MOSFILM#IMDb as a source ↗. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

:@Clarityfiend No, that'd be a silly way to spend the rest of my life, but it's a valid edit straight from the Film & TV MOS which advises not to simply take for granted that IMDb is correct in it's list of "uncredited" actors....
:In fact, I've learned first hand in editing many Film & TV series where IMDb is completely wrong, and I've even tried to change IMDb to match the Primary Sources' Screen credits and had those changes rejected because ''they'' are being rather silly (i.e., obstructive) about corrections...a Prime example is ''The Equalizer ↗'' in S1E19 "Breakpoint ↗" and IMDb listing Ned Eisenberg as Frank Stevens ↗ (when he's clearly on-screen as one of the Terrorists ↗), and Sam Schacht as "Norrell" who's a completely different character & actor ↗ & from a season 2 episode ↗] (instead of as Frank Stevens, a City Councilman, who's clearly identified in dialog), and Tony Spiridakis as Wrong Waiter, whatever that means (when he too is one of the unnamed Terrorists). Any way...
:Back to uncredited. Both the Film & TV MOS are clear on this - MOS:FILMCAST ↗: "<u>For uncredited roles, a citation ↗ should be provided in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Do not use IMDb as a reference, as it is considered unreliable.</u>" & MOS:TVCAST ↗: "<u>All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source.</u>"
:Now, in your defense, and in my experience, Older Films tend not to list a LOT of minor characters (thus they're uncredited) because in those days, the Opening/Closing credits are extremely short, for brevity, whereas they become longer & longer as the years went by due to guilds & unions & demands for on-screen credits for everyone and their brothers down to the drivers, and whoever served lunch, etc. But, I imagine there should be even more Reliable Sources for Older films (than contemporary films) which can verify Uncredited actors from the old days, especially for prominent films, by virtue that so many years have passed for reviewers, film buff, authors, et al, to write articles & books & autobiographies, etc. about those days... so it shouldn't be such an onerous/burdensome chore for someone to go find those references and add the citations, now should it?
:In my defense, I just spot-check Wiki's Cast & Plot for films I re/watch to see if it's accurate/adequate. If not, I do my due diligence to correct it & note where citations are needed, then move on. It'd also be a silly way to spend my life by hunting down sources for every uncredited actor (although, many times I ''have'' found sources for updating Wiki articles). In any case, it's a community effort, so I don't mind spreading the work-load. Instead of commenting how "unfair" it is to single out ''Mr. Deeds Goes to Town'' consider I haven't singled it out...Check my Contributions list and you'll see how many other Films/TV series where I've added {{t|Citation needed}} for "Uncredited" actors. Hope that helps. ~<}:^> GreyElfGT (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Broken image formatting



Your change to The Public Enemy ↗ breaks formatting.
Here is a screenshot: https://ibb.co/3m6ygd43 ↗ drt1245 (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

:OIC, @Drt1245, ThanQ for the screenshot...it helps me become a better Editor, and I hadn't realized it broke formatting, as I don't have TOC enabled for my personal settings. Would {CLR} have fixed it? If not, then I would've simply asked that the image be moved somewhere other than Plot, as it clutters the end of the Plot section, after having added the {Quote box} for the concluding Screen Caption. You see, normally when I add a Quote box for an Opening Screen Caption, but not an Ending caption, if there's already an image at the end of Plot, I leave it there, as it doesn't clutter anything. I also move images out of the Cast section so a wide-screen monitor can display three columns for {Cast listing} instead of only two, in which case I would move a cast member(s) image out of Cast to some other section such as Production, et al. So I moved the thumb lower under Casting. Hope that helps. ~<}:^> GreyElfGT (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Quote boxes in plot summaries



I don't think it's best to have quote boxes in plot summaries of film articles. It can take up space on plot summary sections and cause some clutter about it. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

:@BattleshipMan, well that certainly is an opinion. Whether it has merit is arguable. But in terms of Guidelines & Policies and the various Manuals of Style, I see nothing restricting them.
:And, if what you say is true, than Prologue ↗s and Epilogue ↗s "''can take up space on plot summary sections and cause some clutter''" as well, so why not exclude them too? Also, {{t|Itcol|}} to highlight the initial Setting (Time, Place, etc) is yet another thing that "takes space" and "cause[s] clutter," and yet it still ''summarizes'' something that would normally take many more words to describe in one's own Prose than it does in the Primary Source (the film itself). Quotes & Prologues/Epilogues serve to ''summarize'' Plot Elements, as well as the Story as a Whole, so why would you ''<u>not</u>'' ''Include'' them? In a Visual medium (Film or TV show), the entire story is introduced/finalized by Scrolls, Captions, Narrations & Quotes, which ''summarizes'' the Filmmakers' intentions. Quote boxes serve the same purpose in the medium of the Written Page. So your argument that you ''think it's best'' to exclude them doesn't convince me; ''I'' "think" your reversion was counterproductive.
:Now, if you have some reason, or proof, that it breaks Page Formatting (i.e., "''clutter''"), then show me proof (a screen shot would be best), and I'll see if I can find a work-around as a compromise to fix it. Otherwise I'm inclined to revert your reversion. I myself worried a bit about my presentation of the Quote for ''K-19'' because of how that film presents its captions...with line breaks <code><nowiki><br></nowiki></code> which make the Quotebox too tall...and I had considered just removing them so It's all just one paragraph, so that it would not "clutter" so much. Another solution are Elipses "..." to truncate (summarize) the quote down into its essential statements, but in any case...
:Understand that I don't want to edit-war with ''any''one...My only intention is to Improve articles. ''I'' "think" Quoteboxes help readers, who have ''not'' seen the films, to contextualize the story as a whole, without going into too much Detail, which is what an Encyclopedic Article is all about. Encyclopedic Articles aren't necessarily focused on readers who have already seen it (i.e., fans who know the detail), but to for those who haven't, who actually need ''some'' detail to understand the whole of it without having to watch it themselves. Plot summaries describe the Characters and What they are doing, whereas Quoteboxes (specifically for opening/closing Scrolls, Captions & Narrations) summarizes the Setting (Time, Place) and Circumstances under which the Characters & Plot develops. Quoteboxes are an idea solution for presenting in text what the film presents visually.
:Hope that helps explain my reasoning. Please reply with your thoughts on the matter. ~<&#x7D;:^> GreyElf (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
::The way I see it from diff here ↗ in K-19, it's shortens the length of the plot summary section between the first one and the film's infobox. That can cluster some space on the plot summary section and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Understood. When I add Quoteboxes, I use Control + Wheel Mouse to zoom both in & out to ensure it will display OK in both widescreens & narrow screens like tablets & phones. For Opening Quoteboxes I normally set width = 25% (or at most 30%) so that the Plot section is still readable between the Quotebox & Infobox. Even zoomed way inwards, I can still the Plot. The closing box is more problematic, because an Epilogue scene occurs ''after'' the on-screen captions. Normally, Closing scrolls/captions come after the last Scenes, so I can place the Quotebox all the way to the Right of the text, which also places the Quotebox ''under'' the Infobox, which is less cluttered. However, since the Captions came before the last Scenes in K-19, it should logically go ''before'' the Epilogue paragraph, ''not'' to the Right, which looks like they come ''afterwards''. Placing the Quote box to the left of the Epilogue will wrap the Epilogue to the right of the Box, and also extend the box across sections into the Cast area. So I had to center it. A Width no more than 70% on a Centered box ensures that Zooming Out still places the Box to the Left of the InfoBox, as the IB takes somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-30% of the screen, and Zooming In places the Box ''under'' the IB.
:::I could probably make it look better if I made the Background color White and/or remove the Border. Thus it would blend in and thus, be less cluttered. I'll experiment to see if we can find a compromise.
:::I should also mention, I don't count the Quotebox in the Total Word-Count when writing Plot summaries, since Scrolls/Captions aren't usually very long. Even if it goes over 700 words, MOS:FILM still allows for exceptions for Complex & Non-Linear plots, so 700 is a ''recommended'' limit, not a hard-fast rule. In the case of K-19, Plot summary is ~575 words without Quotes, and only 730 with them, which is still reasonable.
:::Any other concerns? ThanQ for your comments ~<&#x7D;:^> GreyElf (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
:::@BattleshipMan, I changed K-19: The Widowmaker ↗ from Quotebox to Blockquote. See if that helps. ~<&#x7D;:^> GreyElf (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Hmm...Looks alright for now. Make your case about it in this section of the talk page of WikiProject Film ↗. Feel free to discuss what you want about it. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Article assessment



First - this is ''not'' intended to discourage you from editing or assessment - your work and your enthusiasm is welcomed. However, there are some issues with recent assessment edits suggest guidance is needed. It looks like you're using the Rater ↗ tool to do assessments. Keep in mind that an automated tool should ''not'' take the place of actual article assessment, '''especially''' with regards to B-class criteria ↗. While the Rater tool (and other automation) properly handled is a great help, it does make mistakes. For example, it doesn't take into account that an article may have issues such as maintenance tags, which are an instant fail of B-class criteria. Used blindly and completely on its own, it's useless. It does not take the place of (1) ''knowing'' the assessment criteria and (2) ''reviewing'' the article with those criteria in mind.

A couple of your recent re-assessments were in articles I have watchlisted. When those turned up questionable, I looked at other edits. In some cases, assessments were done as quickly as 2 per minute, which suggests you're relying on the tool and taking its assessment at face-value (you're not actually reading the article and applying any manual assessment to arrive at a C or B class rating in 30 seconds are you?). I didn't look at every assessment you've done - just spot-checked some B-class assessments and several turned out to be articles that very clearly fail the criteria. I would advise you to first slow it down - don't rush assessment; second, make sure you are '''completely''' familiar with the assessment criteria ↗ and understand them; and third, use the Rater tool only as a starting point - you still need to review the article itself to see if the tool's suggestion aligns with reality.

I hope you take this constructively, which is the spirit in which it is intended. If you have any questions, please ask. <span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span> (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

:ThanQ @Butlerblog, points taken. I'm new to Rater, so have patience with me. Normally I only do one at a time, after I've re/watched a Film/Show and made my own improvements. However, my most recent quick assessments which you observed were done on articles I had ''previously improved'', having done considerable work on them, and Rater seemed, to me, to arrive at reasonable new Classes (most were Stub or Start to C). So that accounts for the rapidity you observed...it's not that I didn't review the articles...I had ''already reviewed them before''. Specifically, those at User:GreyElfGT/Articles_improved#Film and several of those, did not Rate a new Class (you'll see my notes next to each film, if Class changed, and from What to What new Class). Prior to that, I had simply blanked the Class parameter hoping someone else would reassess them for me. So, this "quick" exercise was simply me being "bold" and doing it myself with the newly installed Rater JS.
:Like you, I too have noticed on other articles where I've only made minor changes, that Rater can be wrong. In fact, one that it rated as Start, I manually reverted to Stub - the article had several new Sections, but were Tagged as needing Expansion.
:On those going to B, I will take more care in the future, however I did peruse them afterwards, and the upgrades seem appropriate. But if you want to call out specifics (which articles, and why you think it should revert to C or lower), please do so, so that I can learn what to look for. As for Maintenance Tags on B articles, I've actually created articles which were rated by others as B, and afterwards, one or more Tags were placed indicating more work needed to ''retain'' the B rating. So I worked to correct those articles, to the point where the Tags could be removed. I think if a B article has tags, we should focus on fixing whatever the Tags indicate needs fixing, as the rest of the article probably deserves the B, don't you think? On those articles going to B, I've checked the Content, which is usually substantial, in that it has the required Sections (e.g., for Films: a good Lede, InfoBox, Plot, Cast, Production, Development, Casting, Filming, Reception, Releases, Awards, References, et al). But if there are still tags (e.g., one or more "Uncredited" actors needing an RS Cite Ref), it doesn't necessarily demand "''an instant fail of B-class criteria''." Does it really? I've seen plenty of B articles where one or more statements still have a {{t|Citation needed}} for example. Certainly I would _not_ consider it going to A or GA with Tags...my understanding of "B" is, it still needs work before becoming a Good Article. Anyway... my 2¢ and ThanQ again for your advice. ~<&#x7D;:^> GreyElf (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
::OK, this is a lot, and it is my hope that it turns out to be more helpful than drinking from a firehose...
::In your last paragraph, there are two different things going on. I'll break them apart for (hopefully) clarity:
::# If an article has been previously assessed as B-class and later was tagged with some maintenance tags, the first thing that should happen is looking at what changed since it was assessed to B. That will tell you if it should have ever been B in the first place. If it was B class at that point and changes happened over time that require fixing to maintain the B assessment, then those should be addressed -OR- the article should be downgraded. That's a judgement call, but if there's time to fix it, then fixing is appropriate; if there's not, then downgrading is appropriate.
::# That's quite different from assessing an article as B-class that has unaddressed maintenance tags or other criteria that are not met. Those maintenance tags indicate a shortcoming of the article and yes, that does mean it is not B-class, by definition. If you can't see why, '''carefully''' re-read WP:BCLASS ↗.
::Let me key in here with an example:
::You noted: {{tq|But if there are still tags (e.g., one or more "Uncredited" actors needing an RS Cite Ref), it doesn't necessarily demand "an instant fail of B-class criteria." Does it really?}}
::B-class criteria #1: {{tq|any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited}}. "Uncredited" actors in film or TV are not verifiable by the primary source (as credited actors are). Therefore, they are unverifiable without a source. That would be {{tq|likely to be challenged}} per the assessment criteria. So the answer to {{tq|Does it really?}} is "yes, it does".
::Re: {{tq|plenty of B articles where one or more statements still have a {{tl|Citation needed}} for example}} - then see point #1 above. The article should either be fixed or downgraded until it can be fixed. (Side note: sometimes items tagged with {{tl|cn}} are improperly tagged, so it requires some looking into - it's a judgement call.) I'm not suggesting everyone go around downgrading article assessments for minor items, but a glaring maintenance tag referencing an entirely unsourced section is not a "minor" infraction of the assessment criteria.
::Here are some specifics per {{tq|if you want to call out specifics... please do so, so that I can learn what to look for}}:
::# Film crew ↗ is almost entirely uncited material. It appears to be essentially a list article, which of course still has a verifiability requirement ↗. The only references listed in the article are cites of specific items, which indicates that these are not sources for the other content. Some articles may have some sources listed without inline citations in the article; but that doesn't appear to be the case here. I didn't consider any other assessment criteria because it fails B criteria #1 so I just stopped there with no point in continuing to the other 5 criteria.
::# History of film ↗: similar to the above - large sections of this article are entirely uncited, which leads to the question of whether this is WP:OR ↗ (not specifically tagged as such, but I'd be inclined to tag it as such).
::# Red River (1948 film) ↗ needs sources for uncredited actors (or the uncredited actors need to be removed until they can be sourced) and there are at least two places where the question of verifiability of the source is identified. That appears to come from an audio source, so what it needs is a timestamp of where the information verifies, much like a book requires a page number. IMDb, which is not a reliable source ↗, is used as a source. That's just a very cursory overview - this article could be lacking in a few other assessment areas as well, although like the above, I did not look further because item #1 was a fail.
::{{tq|my understanding of "B" is, it still needs work before becoming a Good Article.}} You could revise that to "it still needs '''some''' work before..." If an article has gone through what is necessary to bring it to B-class, getting it to GA shouldn't be too much of a stretch. But an improperly assessed B-class article is going to need ''a lot'' more work to make that jump.
::That brings up something that may also be helpful - try to avoid (at least initially) assessing articles that you have contributed to as B-class, especially if you've done the bulk of the work to get it to B. Seek out third party assessment instead (see Wikipedia:Content assessment/Requests ↗). This will vastly improve the quality of articles you produce along with giving you a much more solid understanding of assessment and the assessment criteria. It will go a long way to helping you get to that GA article as well. You can't self-assess a GA article, so not self-assessing a B article is good practice and training, and it will help you catch things you might not have noticed, ultimately giving you a leg up on getting the article from B to GA. <span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span> (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Yeah, admittedly, I Rated #'s 1 & 2 above too quickly..the only thing I did was add the {Filmmaking sidebar}. I've noticed a lot of Articles which have not been recently reassessed after having substantial changes since they were first created. I.e., there seems to be a great need to reassess many pages...for instance, Film crew is currently at Start...shouldn't it at least be a "C" ? I can see why it's not a B, though.
:::For ''Red River'' I was actually the one who had put the "Uncredited" actors into its own subsection and tagged with {Unreferenced section} ...since then, it appears, other Editors have been adding Cite Refs for about half the actors in the list. I'm currently following up with the remainder, and hope to find the last one shortly. So will remove the {More citations needed section} shortly, then re-run Rater. The rest of the article seems fine to me. Would it Rate a B once the Uncredited actors are Referenced? Standing by... ~<&#x7D;:^> GreyElf (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
:::@Butlerblog I didn't see the IMDb cite ref, and yeah, that's a definite No No! I had considered adding some other Scripts to my Common.js to quickly find those, but, like I said, I'm new to using scripts, and actually I'm surprised that Rater didn't catch that, and downgrade from B to C. Anyway... thankfully, another extant ref to AFI confirms the Academy Awards statement. I've updated the article, and now, I get an 82.5% prediction for "B" for ''Red River''. For the Audio source, a link isn't provided to listen to it, that is, if you're referring to the "1972 audio interview to Howard Hawks by Peter Bogdanovich. The Criterion Collection (2014 release)" <-- I'm guessing by "Criterion Collection" it's probably a DVD extra? What about whoever added the statement & ref'd it to begin with...are you saying it wasn't a Good Faith ref, and needs another Editor to {{t|Verify source}} ?? I mean, I regularly see Refs to Books & Newspapers, where a URL isn't provided, i.e., only a Title, Author, Date, Page # & ISBN. We take it on Good Faith that the Editor citing the ref had indeed verified it themselves. So how is that any different than citing an Audio source? Does it really need another's verification? ~<&#x7D;:^> GreyElf (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
::::{{tq|Does it really need another's verification?}} It's not actually the verification that's the problem. It's that the citation is incomplete and thus, unable to meet the verifiability requirement in its current state. This would be the same as citing an entire book as the source of a specific statement (with no page number, there is no way to verify). Verifiability isn't that the claim ''must'' be verified by someone else - it's that it ''can'' be verified by someone else. Without a timestamp (or a page number), there is no indication of ''where'' to verify the claim, which means the citation is incomplete (and thus, unverifiable).
::::{{tq|For Red River I was actually the one who had put the "Uncredited" actors into its own subsection and tagged with {Unreferenced section}} - This is a perfect example of why it's a good idea to seek out third party assessment. It's great that you did this and that others are filling in the gaps, but the bigger point isn't who did what - it's that an unreferenced section makes it not B. To answer the further question of whether it's B when that's fixed, I'll look it over more carefully for all six criteria when I get a chance later today and give you my thoughts. <span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span> (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::BTW, kudos on your desire to work on improving the encyclopedia and your attitude of being willing to learn more. Those are necessary traits! There's a good opinion piece in the most recent ''Signpost'' that (kind of) addresses the greater need for this: Wikipedia isn't a battleground. So why does it feel like one? ↗ (If you don't subscribe to, or read, the ''Signpost'', it's worth signing up ↗ to keep abreast of the goings on around wikipediaville... Of course, you can always read the most recent ↗ without subscribing, too.) <span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span> (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::@Butlerblog Yeah to "''why it's a good idea to seek out third party assessment''" <-- That's what I ''had'' been doing up until a several days ago...leaving it to others to do. But I felt like I was Blanking way too many Class param's to request reassessments by others, thereby placing too much a burden on others to reassess what I thought were already "stale" articles (i.e., stale in regards to not being reassessed after ''others''' major contributions). So I'm wading into that territory. Also, I should qualify, as I've commented to at least one other editor (above in "Feel free..."), I don't assess (albeit manually or via Rater) ''any'' articles that I ''create'' myself (for example, The Equalizer (1985 TV series) season 1 ↗ & seasons 2-4)...I'll happily leave that to objective third parties. Even on those where I only contribute, I feel that using Rater is only helping to upgrade already stale articles (not counting my own contributions, that is). I've also posted at least once at Wikipedia:Content assessment/Requests ↗, so I'm already aware of that resource. In any case, it was good talking to ya...I've seen your contributions on occasion in the View History, and in Talk pages, and value your experience/insight. ~<&#x7D;:^> GreyElf (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::I had a chance to better review the Red River (1948 film) ↗ article. I posted my notes on assessment here: Talk:Red River (1948 film)#Assessment notes ↗. They're probably overly thorough, and there are some things that taken by themselves wouldn't hold it back from a "B" assessment (for me anyway), but taken with the whole, they do need to be addressed. <span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span> (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::@Butlerblog ThanQ for taking the time to review it. I saw, from your user page, your interest in WikiProject Westerns, so I'll keep you in mind for future films/shows about Westerns. I grew up on Gunsmoke, Bonanza, The Big Valley, The Rifleman, Maverick, Kung-Fu, and others, just to name a few, so, "more power to ya!" ~<&#x7D;:^> GreyElf (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
{{od}} Hey @Butlerblog, another question about assessment for you. After reviewing & improving Cite Refs & Copy Editing for Richard Jewell (film) ↗, Rater predicts a "B" @ 61.8% but I'm concerned about one ref ↗, which is now a {{t|Dead link}} and unfortunately, the statement it's meant to support is part of the Controversy section. My question is...
Is ''only one'' Dead link a "deal breaker" for "B" status? ThanQ IA ~<&#x7D;:^> GreyElf (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

:{{tq|Is only one Dead link a "deal breaker" for "B" status?}} IMO, as a dead link, yes. It either would need to be fixed, replaced, or removed. But the page is archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20191214130426/https://uproxx.com/movies/kathy-scruggs-richard-jewell/ ↗. The citation should be updated with the archive url and given the {{para|status|dead}} parameter, which will make the archive.org link the primary link. The citation should also be cleaned up since it doesn't have the article title or author info in the template. There's at least one other source in the article that has the same problem (https://intercontinentalnews.com/clint-eastwood-didnt-let-southern-california-wildfires-keep-him-warner-bros-lot-despite-evacuation/ ↗). <span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span> (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
::ThanQ @Butlerblog, I ''did'' spend some time looking for another link, and specifically with "site:archive.org" in the string. Also tried reFill & Citation Bot, but I didn't find it. So thanks...I'll update the article, and yeah, I added author, date/time, etc to many other cites to help clean it up as per your recommendations above that, "''the citation is incomplete and thus, unable to meet the verifiability''." It's tedious for that particular Film as there were ''so many'' bare & nearly bare URLs, but I think it's worth the effort if it can be upgraded to "B". Cheers! ~<&#x7D;:^> GreyElf (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2026 (UTC)