Talk:But I'm a Cheerleader/Archive 1

Archive 1

Quit reverting

Rebecca, I haven't even seen this movie, so I can hardly have an opinion on it. Summarizing critics' responses is certainly NPOV-and in fact, the two reviews seemed to disagree (the Rotten Tomatoes one mostly saying the movie isn't very good, the Movie Magazine one stating that it's flawed but overall worthwhile.) If you can point me to some additional reviews, I'll happily include those as well, but that's all I can find so far. You also might do well to remember the three-revert rule. Seraphimblade 03:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologise - I'd gotten you confused with User:Supernumerary. Summarising critics responses in a NPOV way is useful, but very difficult to do, and hasn't been done here. The article at the moment just cites two random reviews which more-or-less agree with each other; just as if I'd instead added two very positive reviews, it is arbitrary and biased, whether intentionally or not. I've seen this sort of thing done well where a whole bunch of varying views have been cited (if you cite enough, some sort of consensus does become evident), but there is just no way that one can cite two reviewers and neutrally call it a "critical consensus". Rebecca 03:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Will take a shot at finding some more-though many I found were of similar tone, they were generally blog-type stuff and other sources that aren't too reliable. I'll see what I can come up with, please point me to any you know of as well. Seraphimblade 05:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Addition-filed for a third opinion, hopefully that can resolve things. Seraphimblade 13:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion: Stop removing the section please. There are lots of reviews here some of which are of a positive nature, so some of that can easily be added instead. Also beware that the tomato-meter doesn't always reflect completely all the aspects that the reviewers addressed in their reviews. I would prefer it if, in addition to the tomato-meter-score, the section quoted a representative of the average, one positive, and one more negative. That takes some slight work, but a lot less than revert-warring. --GunnarRene 14:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that Rotten Tomatoes section out! As you suggest, will remove the Rotten Tomatoes summary and put a synopsis of some of those in instead. Seraphimblade 14:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: This article is hardly thorough and does not discuss the movie itself and its significance enough. First, it should be a good article. Then the topic of critics' response should be discussed. - Emiellaiendiay 21:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

5 steps

I've never seen the film - but it seems odd that there's steps 1 and 2 and 3... and then?? Would like to see something to explain them & if they're used /resolved /abandoned /whatever in the film. SkierRMH 06:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

GA

I have reviewed the article and believe it meets GA criteria on all points and is the same level as other film related GA articles. I think the references are a strong point of the article. A few suggestiosn for improvement however would be to try and make the plot section more concise, it does seem longer than it might need be (though this is just a suggestion). Furthermore does the cast section need to be as long as it is? Ive only seen the film once but are all these characters needed for the article? Other than that, I had trouble finding anything out of GA level. I would suggest that you nominate for a peer review as the article might be almost ready for FA level. It just needs some more input from other wikipedians to see if its up to FA. Well done to everyone who contributed. LordHarris 20:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Spacing between plot and intro, br, TOC, and template move

I added the br, moved the TOC, and the rating template to fix the overlapping thumb in the plot section, and the misplaced [edit] link. -Sox207 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK but now there's a huge gap under the TOC, so it looks like there isn't anymore text. I mean it should be obvious that there is from the TOC, but for the inexperienced wiki reader, it might seem like there's no more text. I know it doesn't look great squashed in by the infobox, but I think it looks much worse now.--BelovedFreak 20:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No it looks much better now, no one wiki reader or not should be inexperienced enough not to know what a table of contents is. Also I reverted a couple of your edits such as a ref with not ending that was causing a problem, a {{cite web that was incomplete and didn't look good, you unlinked a valid link, the red links you terminated could be possible pages, their potential value should be discussed before the cancellation of the links. I am still looking over your edits, any more of the good ones I will add it, I know you rewrote the intro paragraph to the plot at the same time taking out the ratings template, that template belongs there, I will go over your intro and put it in. -Sox207 01:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you are taking an interest in this article and it is great to have another pair of eyes if you are planning to work on this with me. I would appreciate it if you bear in mind that I have put a lot of work into this article, and will continue to do so as I try to prepare it to be a Featured Article candidate. I have had a lot of feedback on the article, as well as putting in a lot of time trying to work out where I could improve it myself. I would appreciate it if you don't unilaterally revert such a large amount of my edits just because you don;t like some of them, without discussing it here. I don't know how much experience you have working on film articles, but don't seem to be understanding the reasons behind my edits. I shall explain:

1. I unlinked the name Jamie Babbit in the infobox because it is the second mention of the name in the infobox, and therefore would be overlinking. It's ok to link things again later on, for example, the first mention in the main article, but not every time the name occurs. --BelovedFreak

   Huh didn't notice that, well good edit. -Sox207

   no problem. --BelovedFreak 19:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

2. I removed the flagicons in the article per much discussion within the film project and per the manual of style. I quite like the flags myself, but the consensus is that they are confusing and unnecessary. --BelovedFreak

   Not that I doubt your word but I have come across the flagicons in the past and have to dive into them again, so where on the WikiProject page does it mention the flagicons? -Sox207

   Yeah, many many articles still have them in. See project talkpage here, here, possibly there were previous discussions, but I can;t see them right now. Also, manual of style here (under "release dates"). --BelovedFreak 19:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

   I can confirm this was discussed on the project talk page recently Here RWardy 19:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

3. I removed the Movie Certificate Infobox following much discussion at the template talkpage, it's AFD and because that was the one thing that recently prevented me getting another article to Good Article status. I'm not sure that there is consensus on this yet but I agree that it is superfluous to the film article. --BelovedFreak

   First of all it would be TfD, second I checked the template and it is not up for deletion, third how would that keep it from reaching good article status? Ratings are a necessary aspect of a movie to write about in an article, I mean how would I know that this wasn't PG-13 but rather R without reading "they made love" or whatever the wording is at the end? -Sox207

   I made this a new section for the sake of discussion. -Sox207

   Yeah, I meant TfD. Sorry, didn't mean to imply it was up for deletion now, I meant it's previous discussion, where the consensus was to keep. You can look at that from the talkpage. There seem to be many different opinions on it still. One article I nominated for Good ArticleWhen I nominated Bound (film) for Good Article, an editor basically refused to nomiate it unless I removed the template. Now of course, that was just one editor and I could have waited for another, but after discussing it, I actually agreed with him. It doesn't add much to the article except visual clutter. You can find out that it's rated "R" by reading the "ratings & distribution" section. However, it might be worth starting a discussion at the filmproject, lets see if anyone comments on the template talkpage. --BelovedFreak 19:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

   Maybe we could move it to the ratings section as has been done on other articles. Check the what links here page for the inobox to see how others have used it. From what i can see people have been putting it into reception or ratings sections, or moving the tag to a place in the section that makes it display correctly. RWardy 20:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

4. I changed "sexuality" to "sexual orientation" because it is much more specific; sexuality means much more than just orientation and in the film, people are concerned with Megan's orientation specifically. I can't see any reason why you would revert that. --BelovedFreak

   Oh no I was going to change that back I just didn't have the time. -Sox207

5. I removed the red links because when I have followed many discussions for Featured Article Candidates, I know that one thing that holds articles back is too many red links. I am well aware of the value of red links and for the most part advocate keeping them. I have already changed many red links from this article blue by creating articles for them. I have tried to create articles for the remaining few but after searching google, google books, google scholar and different music websites, I cannot find anything to suggest notability for these people. They are unlikely to achieve enough notability for a Wikipedia article any time soon. Believe me, I have tried. If you can find anything to write an article about, then feel free. --BelovedFreak

   List the people here in a new section so that if they become notable in the future someone can more easily make an article for them. -Sox207

   I just did that. -Sox207

6. As far as the citation templates and references go, I'm not sure what you mean, I could easily have made a mistake but I can';t see what you're talking about. I am trying to cut down the number of citations per sentence acting on advice given at peer review, also moving citations to the end of sentences etc. iI have also cut out a few unnecessary ones. --BelovedFreak

   From what the history said you made ref tags without ending them and {{templates without closing them, the history could be wrong or glitching, I am going to double check. -Sox207

   Ok yeah it stopped glitching, now when I compare histories it gives the }}</ref>, nothing wrong I can see there. -Sox207

Again, I appreciate your work, but I don't see why you would revert all of my edits just because you don;t agree with some of them. As far as the spacing, I am going to get a second opinion because I really can't see any precedent for what you have done. It is possible to "hide" the table of contents which removes the problem, but with the page as you have left it, that still leaves a huge gap. I wasn't suggesting that people won't know what a table of contents is, but people often don't read everything in front of them, and look at web pages just a few seconds before deciding whether or not to stay on them. It's about accessibility. I'm going to be doing a lot more work on this article to get it up to Featured standard, so if you are going to stay around and help, that's great, but please don't just revert everything I do as if I have no idea what I'm doing. --BelovedFreak 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted back to my previous edit - please go through the list and address each point individually next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belovedfreak (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert everything that you did, I added a few of your edits in, the problem was that I couldn't address all of you edits just because of how sporadic and numerous they were. You should never make eight or so edits like that in a row, if you have to make major edits like that in the future then use {{Inuse}}. Because it would be easier to address your bullet points I will do so that way. -Sox207 19:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the <br> should be removed. There is no need for there to be a large gap between TOC and the start of the plot section. Other FA artcles have thumbs that overlap the infobox and now the certificates box has been removed it looks fine without the big gap. RWardy 19:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It is actually not that large of a gap, other articles have similar gaps and they look just fine. The problem is when you take out the br the [edit] button becomes distorted and some of the text becomes unreadable as the thumbnail then overlaps it. Overall it just looks better. -Sox207 20:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

By thumbmnail do you mean the image in that paragraph? That can be moved further down the page, but I don't see any overlap of the text. --BelovedFreak 20:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you post a diff where this is hapning Sox. I can't see where it happening. Might just be me being silly. RWardy 20:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And as reply to my talk page, yes it is fun when editors work together without controversy, the get is not to get hotheaded, ever, and never to have a POV, for instance I am not a supporter of the LGBT community, I could say it is being a Catholic, but all my moral values I decide for myself using logical Moral Philosophy, so I haven't spewed any homophobic messages on here. -Sox207 20:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Also when doing numerals and subnumerals, in this case you put a : before # but in every added comment you should always always start them with :#, I just fixed that, I think, I am saving to check if I missed one. -Sox207 20:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply as from the talk page, when you only edit a few lines, like when you changed the type of template used from web cite to citation, or when you took out the flag icons (I think those were two separate edits) they are for the most part minor edits, and making a number of unmarked minor edits is redundant, and should just be made one major edit, also you don't have to make edit summaries as complex as I think you are pointing to them being, like for those I mentiond:

Change templates, delete template, no flagicons, no redlinks, no overlinking

And the template is not only to stop edit conflicts but to allow a series of minor edits to be done like this. -Sox207 20:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

After looking at your series of edits, yeah a lot of them were even the same explanation:

added ref, exp ref,  ref cleanup X3

You could have made all those one edit, also if you don't want to use the template for edits, then use Mozilla Firefox, if you have an edit conflict then you just click back and all your work is still saved in the cache, that is why I love Mozilla, I have lost interest and basically dislike internet explorer now, it takes too much time to load, way too much time and all I have are the links displayed and McAfee SiteAdvisor. But yeah if you need to just use Newspeak for your edit summaries, lol, I want to. -Sox207 20:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, ok I see your points, but I am constantly re reading the article, making small changes. I try to use the preview button as much as possible to avoid too many edits - believe me if I didn't you wouldn't like the result! But you know, no one's perfect. What can I say? Will try harder...--BelovedFreak 20:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah like every month I make a goal of having no red edits (edits without edit summaries), but you know I probably will overlook one. -Sox207 18:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

From the above disussion I think we have cleared up 4 out of the 6 points, leaving the Certificates box and the Red links. Maybe for readability it would be better to move the discussion of these to the below sections. RWardy 20:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, already are doing so, Beloved if you had any information on these red links you can repost them, and if we can improve the infobox post suggestions. -Sox207 18:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Red Links - Possible Articles

Post anything you can find about these possible articles here.

Courtney Holt

• see Sissy Bar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belovedfreak (talk • contribs) 18:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Joy Ray

• see Sissy Bar

Miisa

This one could well be notable but there is a lack of English language sources.

• (in Finnish) entry in the Finnish wikipedia
• (in Finnish) Possibly official site

Kent Westbury

Here are the red links, they may need to be brought out on the header, I will save and see. -Sox207 19:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox movie certificates

Post any ideas, reasons, etc. on why this should not be used. -Sox207 19:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox movie certificates
 |Australia = M
 |Germany = 12
 |United_Kingdom = 15
 |United_States = R
}}

• Because it's horrible? Why can't this stuff be incorporated into the main info-box anyway? There it would only take up a line or two. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot length

I've shortened the plot length to about 400 words after re-reading the style guidelines and the talkpage of the guidelines. Summaries are currently recommended to be between 400 and 700 words. I don't really think the plot for But I'm a Cheerleader needs to be any longer than about 400 words, the story isn't very complicated. --BelovedFreak 21:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Other gay pubs help

Saw you had a snag for FAC in other gay press critique. This might help.

• "Director Jamie Babbit has taken on television with Popular and Gilmore Girls and has redefined lesbian film with the incredible comedy But I'm a Cheerleader and shorts collections Stuck (about elderly lesbian couples) and Sleeping Beauties (which, like Cheerleader, stars Clea DuVall). Plus, you can't say she's not industrious: Cheerleader was created using leftover film stock discarded from the Michael Douglas movie The Game--on which she worked as a script supervisor." Women to watch in film. Curve, November 2003, Vol. 13, No. 7; Pg. 22
• I thought I was going to come back to you with a buttload of sources. Damn. It's hard to get reviews in gay mags back to 1999. I'll keep looking...--Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Moni3 - you rock! I've added that bit. Was there an author with that? (I'm presuming not...) Incidentally I think the bit about the film stock is wrong because I have another source (an interview) where she said she used the film stock for Sleeping Beauties. Anyway, not important, it's the review bit I wanted! --BelovedFreak 21:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, no author, sorry. Anything more I find, I'll add here. --Moni3 (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. --BelovedFreak 18:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Replication

The passage at the top talking about the NC17 rating and critics reaction is repeated in a subsequent section. I don't think these details should be so prominent in the article, so I deleted them from the top of the article.

Gomez2002 (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That replication is actually there for good reason. The passage at the top is the lead section. It is supposed to basically summarise the rest of the article and be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. In fact, there should be nothing in that lead section that is not expanded on later. It doesn't seem like you have deleted it in any case. --BelovedFreak 10:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

RuPaul Image

I'm not sure why the image of RuPaul is captioned as: RuPaul's character wears a t-shirt that proclaims "Straight is great!"

While the image is of RuPaul, it is definitely not from the movie (He's in drag, not wearing the t-shirt). The caption seems to be a comment on the movie, not the image. Personally, I'd like to see the image and the caption removed. I don't see that either add much to the article. If you disagree, drop a note here. Otherwise next time through I'll probably remove it. --Objix (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think that the image is misleading since RuPaul is not in drag in the film. It could be confusing to someone who has watched the film but is unfamiliar with RuPaul's other work.--BelovedFreak 09:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The image was added because we needed a free image for the feminism portal. Feel free to change the image, caption, or whatever. However, do realize that to easily include this article in a portal, etc., it must have a free image. Fair use images cannot be used in portals, on the main page, and whatnot. Awadewit (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, and I certainly don't want to "break" the article for any particular use. But I think the best thing is to remove the image.

Because I'm new at this, I'm going to layout my thought process. Please don't take this as a logic "beatdown"; I'm an engineer and mathematician, so this is how I think. I just want to lay out my points, so if I'm wrong hopefully someone will point it out to me.

1. I think having this image as part of the article "harms" the article for the reason listed in the original post.
2. I think the caption for the image is wrong, because it doesn't describe the image. It describes the character played by RuPaul. The caption could be rolled back into the article where it was before.
3. Re: Featured articles - The FA criteria neither requires an article to have any images nor prohibits non-free images (so long as there is a valid fair use rational and the image is labeled appropriately).
4. Re: Film, LGBT, and Comedy Portals - These portals list this article as a selected article without using any images from it.
5. Re: Feminism Portal - This article is listed as a selected article using the RuPaul image. As stated above, this is a poor representational image for the film and article. If the Feminism portal requires a free image with every selected article (unlike the portals above), then this article should probably be deselected, rather than appearing with this image.

Therefore, I think the best thing is to remove the image. --Objix (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's totally fine with me. I understand all of these arguments. However, might I mention that blurbs without images are less attention-grabbing? Sometimes we have to pander to the public. (Note: I am here making an argument based on the image's rhetorical appeal.) I completely understand that you want to resist the illogic and pandering nature of its inclusion. If you find a more appropriate free image, please add it to the article. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted some changes

I just partially reverted an edit and will explain here as the edit summary is not long enough! Some of the links added were overlinking. There is no need to link common terms. I changed "André" back to "Andre" as this is how he is listed at the IMDb. I don't have the film on hand to check the credits, so if I'm wrong there, feel free to change that back. I removed Category:Interracial romance films (slightly bizarre category in my opinion, but that's besides the point!); the central romance in this film is between Graham and Megan who are, I believe, of the same race. We don't tend to categorise based on minor plot details (I presume the category was added on the strength of relationships between minor characters). As for thh copyediting - great work, that's certainly appreciated!--BelovedFreak 10:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)