User talk:Szagory

Welcome!

Hello, Szagory!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~), be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, wizzito | say hello! 04:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

August 2023

Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources and IMDb, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. On Inside Man (2023 film). — Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, when I was copying that "Storyline" from IMDb, I did make some changes in it - got rid of words which wouldn't be immediately understandable (such as "grunt"), simplified syntax a little, dropped couple of sentences which were non-informative or could be construed as judgemental or subjective, linked to other Wikipedia articles (such as Gambino crime family)... Isn't that enough? Especially since I clearly stated in my cited reference where that text originated from (so I wasn't trying to pass it as my own material) - and especially since that "Storyline" was supposed to serve as temporary placeholder for plot summary to provide general idea of what the film is about until proper "Plot" would be added to the article.

Serge Z. (Szagory (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC))

IMDb is not used as a reliable source. See WP:IMDB Mike Allen 22:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The plot summary you added is present at multiple places online. Have a look at the CopyPatrol report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. Please don't add copyright content to Wikipedia, not even temporarily. To do so is a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mike,

Hi Dianna,

Thanks for your clarifications - and for your patience with me. To be honest, to me it always seemed preferable to use the exact original words when quoting or citing something on Wikipedia, because having to re-express something in one's own words would almost result in subjectivity and emotional bias, i.e. non-factualness. However, with your concerns about possible copiright infringement clearly expressed, I guess there's nothing else to be done about it.

Just give me a few minutes in order to re-phrase plot summaries for the films I watched recently and subsequently copied "Storyline" from IMDb for (Dalíland, Devil's Peak)...

Cheers,

Serge Z. (Szagory (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC))

I suggest you watch the show; then write your own plot description. Here are a couple I did a while back. — Diannaa (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

IMDb

I notice your edit on Amy Seimetz that said, in part, "... so that all roles are as listed on IMDb". Please remember that IMDb is not a reliable source for contents of Wikipedia articles. WP:IMDB Eddie Blick (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Eddie,

Yes, I'm aware of that (was picked up on that a couple of times in the past). I only mentioned IMDb in comment to my edit because I had to look up the full cast list for that short film Ghost of Old Highways anyway in order to make sure that "Hairlot" was not intentional misspelling - and then I had to decide whether to keep "The" in names of characters or not, so I thought that I might just as well use the spelling as on IMDb (that's where everybody looks for detailed information about the films, isn't it?)... But thanks for reminding me, mate. :-) Szagory (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply. Unfortunately, some editors use IMDb as a source. Your use of it sounds like a good approach. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You also used the reviews on IMDb as the basis for your information about the critical response to the film Devil's Peak, which is another mistake. IMDb reviews should not be included in the discussion of how a film was received by "critics" overall. Many of the people who write those reviews worked on the films themselves. Nicholas0 (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nicholas,

After watching Devil's Peak myself, I thought that toning down negativity about its critical reception just a little bit would be a nice thing. I liked the film - but, hell, I'm no movie critic; so I checked the reviews of the film on Metacritic and IMDb, just for the sake of objectivity and balance. And the best thing one can do with reviews online is to hope for reviewers' objectivity and fairness, but take them with a pinch of salt nevertheless, right?.. The difference between "negative reviews" and "mostly negative reviews" - I wasn't trying to distort the truth about the film's merits, was I? IMO it was well worth watching.

But fine - it's OK to leave it as "negative reviews", if that's what you really think. :-) Szagory (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Promised Land (2023 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manor. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up on that, disambiguated link added instead. :-)

Szagory (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC) 08:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Far Haven, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monte Walsh.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for picking that up, changed the article's text to disambiguated link now (Monte Walsh (1970 film)). 😎

Szagory (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Hexahydrocannabinol

Hello Szagory - just to let you know I removed the map from Hexahydrocannabinol as it is badly out of step with the text. I left a note to that effect on the article talk page. If there is someone with the skill and inclination to update it, it would be a good addition altho the colours are a bit grim. Regards. Orenburg1 (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, mate. 😎

I've also added a clarification about Bundesregierung ("Federal Government") in the text. Would be great if you could find a citation to back up the fact that hexahydrocannabinol is now Class B in the UK from your previous edit yesterday - I couldn't find anything (only that HHC still remains in grey area), so I had to put there...

I'll ask my brother (he works as a graphics artist and specialises in graphics processing of image files) if he could bring that image up to date and brighten up the colours a bit.

Legality of HHC in EU as of November 2023.

Legality of HHC in EU as of November 2023.

Legality of HHC in EU as of November 2023.

Cheers,

Szagory (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The Cuckoo's Curse

You have been warned at least twice that WP:IMDB is not a reliable source and yet you continue to use it to make edits. [1] [2]. This is disruptive. Please take some time to learn what is and isn't a reliable source. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi ThaddeusSholto,

Taking that "violation" and "disruption" at face value - could you just tell me what exactly is wrong with somebody checking information for a film on IMDb and then adding that information to Wikipedia? It's not like I've been trying to pass false information as true, or undo somebody's changes solely on the basis of IMDB alone, right?

In this particular case, original text of the article said: "Distributed by Filmax, the film was released in cinemas on 15 September 2023." First of all, that was distributor only for Spain, elsewhere (e.g. Germany) distribution is handled by different companies. Secondly, that date was specifically for theatrical release in Spain - for Germany there was no theatrical release (only on home media and just a few weeks ago).

And now just tell me: so I went to IMDb and checked there release dates for other countries and release formats for those countries - what could be wrong with adding those extra tidbits, if they make only for fullness and correctness of information on Wikipedia and they don't contain obvious falsehoods? In effect, I corrected incongruities and falsehoods in the article, didn't I? 🤔

P.S. And if in future I come across incompleteness of information (or even worse, if that information were misleading) - where is one supposed to find reliable information, if IMDb shouldn't be used?

P.P.S. And just to confirm everything for me and make it simple: am I to understand that there shouldn't even any reference citations from IMDb?

Szagory (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It has been explained to you here in August 2023 and here again in October 2023 that you cannot use IMDB as a source. Whether you make it an inline citation or merely mention it in your edit summary it cannot be used as it is not a reliable source. WP:IMDB has already been linked for you but here it is again. Please read it. Also WP:CITINGIMDB which lists distributor information and release dates as "Disputed uses." If information cannot be reliably sourced then it should either be removed or a {{cn}} tag added in the hope that another editor can provide one. IMDB should never be used to source and unsourced claim. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Got you, mate - no sourcing of material from IMDb in the future (and as consequence no need for me to add citations referencing IMDb, either).

Although, to me it sounds a bit "over the top", if I'm honest. I mean, any web citation could be inherently unreliable, right? So presenting IMDb as absolute evil (almost to extent of banning any reference to IMDb anywhere on Wikipedia) is excessive, IMO. It's not all that much different for information from RT or Metacritic being potentially false. And reviews from 100%-reliable sources like "Hollywood Reporter" - I just find it hard to believe that their people NEVER ever resort to checking information on IMDb..

And just consider this: IMDb is the leading authority on anything related to any film, and information on that site becomes available WAY ahead of any other source (even on basis of the film in question, The Cuckoo's Curse - no reviews for it on Metacritic, on RT, even initial page for the film in missing, whereas ill initial the file is missing. Whereas on IMDb most of useful info is already there...

Which brings me to something you mentioned a short time ago:

=> If information cannot be reliably sourced then it should either be removed or a tag added in the hope that another editor can provide one.

=> If information cannot be reliably sourced then it should either be removed or a tag added in the hope that another editor can provide one. IMDB should never be used to source and unsourced claim.

So if in future some information on any film is for some reason not available on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic - what should be done? In other words, could you for example add to my changes in the article earlier today?

Szagory (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:IMDB is user-generated and that is why it is unreliable. Just like wikis, forums, etc. Rotten Tomatoes isn't user-generated nor is metacritic. You asked what happens if you come across unsourced content and the answer is reliably source it if you can, CN tag if it seems likely reliable sources exist but you don't have access to them, or just remove it. If you add new content, the onus is on your to source it. You can't just add a bunch of unsourced stuff and slap a CN on it. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, Thaddeus - no worries, will comply. 😎

To be honest, it has left me in something of a quandary: one goes to IMDb page for the film in order to confirm its release date (also find out when it will be released in Germany) before adding an appropriate sentence to WP:Lead - only to discover there that not only is the date listed in Wikipedia article is Spain-specific, but also that the article lists film's distributor for Spain without mentioning distributors for other territories (which is plain false, right?) and that the film was already released in Germany, but only only on DVD. Citing IMDb as source raises lots of dander (although it's for the first time that I'm told NOT to source anything from IMDb at all! 🤔) - and now just try finding alternative citations confirming film's release dates or that distributor for Germany is indeed Neue Pierrot Le Fou... 🥵

But you're right, if that's how information sourced from IMDb will be treated now and in the future, such refs should be avoided (although preferred solution for me would be to treat such citations as potentially unreliable, maybe even tagging them with automatically, but still allowing them nevertheless). Wilco. 😎

Take care, mate - and have a nice Sunday.

Szagory (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've just taken a look at the film's info listed on RT (=> https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_cuckoos_curse), and one sees immediately that information there is not only woefully deficient in comparison to IMDb (=> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12748562/?ref_=ttrel_ov), but also even less reliable:

- Only Spanish is listed as film's language (IMDb lists correctly also German, and I can confirm after watching the film that significant part of dialogue is indeed in German).

- Only two production companies are listed (same as on IMDb), El Pájaro Cuco AIE is missing (which I added to Wikipedia article after watching film's credits).

Go figure why RT should be treated as more reliable source than IMDb... 😒

Szagory (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:FILMRELEASE, release dates should be restricted to the film's earliest release. We don't list every country's release date anyway. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Thaddeus,

Having noticed in White Bird a citation on Box Office Mojo for that film's release (and then having made further changes in that article on the basis of that citation), just want to confirm with you quickly: BOM is a reliable source, isn't it? It's titled as belonging to IMDbPro, so in effect it is a part of IMDb... 🙄

Szagory (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You can check what the consensus is on various sources either at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources or doing a search at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

IMDb

Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to The Cuckoo's Curse have been removed because you cited the information you added to IMDb. As discussed at WP:RS/IMDb, IMDb is considered a questionable source, and generally should not be used as a sole reference. You are welcome to re-add the information using a different reliable source, or with an additional source confirming the information from IMDb. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Asqueladd (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Asqueladd,

I've just added a new section to Talk page of The Cuckoo's Curse by way of replying to you - let's take it from there, would be better and more convenient for everybody, I think. Alright? 😉

Szagory (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Szagory (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Information about the film's release could be taken from Box Office Mojo, I think:

=> https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt12748562

It doesn't show though distribution companies involved - and of course Germany isn't displayed there at all (what with release here being restricted to home media).

And just to mention something added to the article's WP:Lead yesterday (I read the archived information on your talk page and noticed occasional incorrect usage of English there) - "a couple of Germans" doesn't mean the same thing as "a German couple".

It is not customary though to include a brief plot description in WP:Lead (and when it's done, it's usually included in the first paragraph, not in a separate paragraph).

Also, knowing that Spanish is your first language: putting lit. 'The Cuckoo' back would make sense - it might appear unnecessary to you, but to people who don't know a single word in Spanish, it would be very helpful to know what El cuco actually means.

Szagory (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Next time, pingme if you want answers on here. For any datum, it's preferable proper sources rather than databases. I am not opposed to mentioning German distributors in the infobox nor non-domestic distributors in the body (release section), as long as you do it with proper sources establishing notability for the information, not databases. I suggest you to be open to the idea that if there are no non-database sources highlighting those facts, it may not be a very relevant data anyways. It is not customary though to include a brief plot description in WP:Lead Not really, it is quite common. As for its inclusion for me it's a matter of lede section-body balance (which is a moving balance). Now the plot section is longer → a summarised synopsis could be a better fit in the lede section than before. You are fixating on non-issues. Translation adds nothing really important as Spanish title is an article plus the clear cognate of a name already contained in the English-language title. I understand that German couple is not exactly the same as couple of Germans but German couple is still contained within the meaning of couple of Germans.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, let's leave it at that - and as is. The article doesn't look so bad now, after all - with all the changes there...

Szagory (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Until next time. By the way, AIE (agrupaciones de interés económico) companies are almost always one-time ad-hoc tax vehicles to take advantage of rebates. I generally include them in the infobox studio parametre along the rest of prod-cos, but try to understand why some reliable sources may sometimes omit them. It is not a big deal.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

BTW, Asqueladd, as you appear to have watched the film and are clearly a native Spanish speaker: in the final scene, does Olga continue to speak Spanish with German accent (like in the rest of the film) when she speaks to the baby and when she says: "I never liked my nose"? Anna has offered to return her body to her just before that, after all... 🙄

P.S. You could probably remove "GmbH" from "Barry Films" in "Production" - I put names of all the companies in there as they were shown in the credits, but now that I think about it (and in the light of what you've just written about "AIE"), it might look a bit unusual for company type (GmbH = Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung, lit. 'Company with limited responsibility') to be included just for that production company.

Szagory (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

No, no, no. I did not watch the film. I cannot shed light about the plot. About the company, I usually follow the secondary sources in the body and the wording of the theatrical poster in the infobox. Other than the AIE, I recall having used some Inc. for some American production company (following sources in the body) but perhaps it's best not to do it if the poster does not display it. I am okay with removing GmbH. It's not a big deal.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)