User talk:GreyElfGT

Thank you for your improvements. I should also warn you about something that might be annoying later. I noticed you added some reviews[1][2] 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 aggressivestrict 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I ran it through AWB and the only changes it wanted to make to the article is to replace {{clr}} with {{clear}} 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 {{clear}} should be used when writing an article. I tend to use {{-}} 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 {{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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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 contest this deletion 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 deleting administrator.

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

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

SnowyRiver28 (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• I have now restored the production credits with a WP:RS citation to the American Film Institute's page on the film. If you continue to believe that the "production credits" should be removed, please discuss. Cbl62 (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

True GreyElfGT (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good 2 Know. GreyElfGT (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.

1. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

1. 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)[reply]

Understood and appreicated. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2007, and I continue to learn.

• Also, I see that you are blanking article talk pages with the justication that you are "de-cluttering". However, it is inappropriate to remove other editors' talk page comments unless there is something objectively inappropriate about the comment. In this case, none of the talk pages you blanked appear to have been very large or to have included inappropriate commentary. E.g., [3], [4], If you believe a talk page has become too lengthy, the correct action is archiving, not blanking. See WP:TALKSIZE ("Apart from the exception described in § User talk pages, discussions should be archived, not blanked."). Cbl62 (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That first example was an oudated post for which the Article was already updated...to me, that seems like "clutter" that confuses the next reader, who might feel the need to check the Article yet again to see if it had been updated...a waste. I don't "de-clutter" indiscriminately.

  That second example... if you go and look at the image, Seawolf.jpg, it's of the actual Animal, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Film. Obviously, some other editor fixed it to what's currently in the IB, which completely obviates the Talk post, so blanking it saves the next reader/editor from having to check it to verify if any action needs to be taken.

  It's a judgement call on some of these... Be Bold and De-Clutter? or Do nothing and Confuse Future readers/editors? GreyElfGT (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.