Talk:Miso Film

Sourcing instead of removing

Removing unsourced entries from this page isn't helpful, it is quite clear that the entries were correct. Much better to source them, to tag the ones you can't find with CN (after doing some good searching), and to add entries still missing from the list. But please stop removing entries just for the sake of it, it isn't helpful. Fram (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you perhaps explain why you are on the one hand so hellbent on removing unsourced entries, but on the other hand have now repeatedly removed the single ref from Dicte, 1864, ...? Because it gets harder and harder to know what you want or expect here. Fram (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Fram, please try to be courteous when communicating with me (or anyone else, for that matter). It's much nicer, more collegial, and will get you better results in the end. It's not difficult to know what I want, but it's definitely easier when you have the willingness to see things from my perspective. I have deleted unreferenced entries, and I have removed reference tags that I felt were redundant, since they were appended to linked pages, where it is easy enough to see that Miso Film is a production company attached to the project. Those entries do not require additional referencing, IMO, whereas seemingly random, unlinked entries do. Hope that helps. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, yes, we started off on the wrong foot, I know, I should have been more patient. I see your reasoning, but I don't agree with it. A Wikipedia page is not a reliable source, and some of the linked articles don't even mention Miso (e.g. Max Manus), so are no use at the moment as even an unreliable reference. Having one reference per entry here is not excessive and there is no good reason not to keep those. In general, I would ask you to be more considerate of other (certainly newish) editors and their edits; while recent change patrolling is necessary and lots of what you revert is indeed only revert-worthy, you also run the risk of WP:BITEing editors and of removing good (but unsourced) content. Please consider sourcing it yourself or tagging it with CN tags instead of removing things, and certainly when you see (like here) someone starting to source things and it becomes clear that the added content isn't a problem. It is very hard to explain to editors that when they e.g. add unsourced entries to a list of other unsourced entries, their additions get removed but the original text can remain. All it achieves is driving off potential new editors and removing useful content, neither of which actually improves enwiki. Fram (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging. I don't actually have a strong position on the topic of reference tags attached to linked pages, but it doesn't seem standard practice, from what I've seen in other filmographies. As for Max Manus, I looked back through your edit history, and it doesn't appear that you ever added a tag, or that I removed one from that entry, so this is not a good example to use.

I take your point about not WP:BITEing new editors, and I will do better. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fram, please let me know if you intend to find references for the remaining unlinked titles in this article, as I'd like to removed them otherwise. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Why would you like to remove them? Can't you find references for them? What is the benefit for enwiki, for our readers, for future editors, if you remove them yet again? Have you made any effort at all in finding any sources, or does everything need to be done by others? It should be clear by now that the list is pretty accurate, that the entries can be sourced and aren't controversial. Would it be better if they were sourced than unsourced? Yes. But in cases like this, it is still better to have unsourced but reliable info, than to remove it. Do you have any actual, concrete reason why these would need to be removed? Fram (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

WTF? You just created Rover (musician), with an unsourced discography and filmography. Should I now remove these, and continue to remove them until you have referenced every single entry in it? Fram (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

For half a minute, I thought you had become someone I could have a reasonable conversation with. Clearly, that's not the case, as your condescending and aggressive tone demonstrates. Not sure if you read what some of the users wrote on the administrators' noticeboard, but I am not obligated to find references for content that somebody randomly adds to an article. Btw, the Rover discography can easily be verified on iTunes and other music platforms, and besides, I did provide references to each album within the article, so stop being annoying. Please note that following this uncivilized display on your part, I will no longer be engaging with you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's see. "Soundtracks" is an unsourced section and an unsourced list, so for that part your defense is invalid. For the discography, e.g. "Anywhere from Now" is not even mentioned in the article. The "selected filmography" is completely unsourced (not mentioned in the text and not sourced in the list). I had hoped after the above discussion and the ANI section that you would stop removing sections without a good reason, but apparently you only read the comments which said that you are technically allowed to do so, and ignored those that indicated what a poor practice it was. And now it becomes clear that you not only intend to continue with this, but that your own editing is completely hypocritical in that regard. And you have started a new ANI section without any diffs, about an editor you hadn't even warned previously or tried to discuss the issue with, so it seems as if the issues have little to do with me but are a more general issue. Anyway, I would advise you not to remove anything from this article, as it is disruptive and doesn't improve enwiki one bit. Fram (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)