Talk:Sworn Virgin (film)

External links

• Sworn Virgin at The Match Factory
• Sworn Virgin at Strand Releasing
• Sworn Virgin at Luce Cinecittà – Filmitalia
• Vergine giurata / Sworn Virgin at Internationale Filmfestspiele Berlin
• Vergine Giurata at BFI
• Vergine giurata at LUMIERE
• Vergine giurata at The Numbers

For future use. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you taking credit for this content? You don't explain where you got them from, so it seems to me that you are. For those interested: I contributed these links to the // External links // section on 09:51, 27 August 2018. I also provided an additional link for the Strand Releasing press kit on 11:46, 27 August 2018 , when I reverted your first deletion of external links.
By retaining Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, you appear to think that they have more value than the links for the official producers and distributors, and more important than LUMIERE, which is a European database of ticket sales in Europe (Sworn Virgin is a European film).
Until I contributed content to this article, the last time you edited it was on 14:59, 6 July 2016, when you added the film poster file. Your history of edits before removing the external links on 27 August 2018 comprise a total of 8 dates between 2015–2016, one of them being your creation of the page for the then-upcoming film, but otherwise you have not made an effort to expand the article; however, you certainly have been quick to delete content from it.
May I suggest that you use the external links you deleted to contribute information regarding development, production, distribution, release, ticket sales, etc. Don't wait for the "future". Pyxis Solitary yak 01:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You do seem very angry about this for some reason. There is no deadline. You cited WP:MOSFILM several times, so I will draw your attention to WP:MOSFILM - external links, which goes into detail about Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. It also states "Wikipedia is not a mere collection of external links, so whenever possible, external links should be converted into references for the article body". I can only assume you missed that bit when you were citing WP:MOSFILM earlier. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"You cited WP:MOSFILM several times". I cited it once, in a summary. You seem to have a difficulty with how you interpret what you read. As for your pointing out WP:MOSFILM - external links, it states: "Some external links may benefit readers in a way that the Wikipedia article cannot accommodate." The "For example" this and that means exactly nothing when you're dealing with a film that has not been widely covered in entertainment media and sources about it are limited. 'Nuff said. Pyxis Solitary yak 12:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

" You seem to have a difficulty with how you interpret what you read" - It appears you do, too. MOSFILM is clear with - ""Wikipedia is not a mere collection of external links, so whenever possible, external links should be converted into references for the article body." If you're not happy with the answer you're given here, I suggest starting a thread at WT:FILM. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you do more with this article than just have it on your watchlist. There's more to creating a Wikipedia article than just starting the page for it and adding an image file. Instead of lectures about how the article should be edited, do something constructive for the article like adding the content that's missing. Stop waiting for other editors to do all the heavy lifting. Pyxis Solitary yak 07:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm a volunteer here, so I don't have to do anything. I suggest you calm down, and look at your attitude. Or expand some articles. Either is good. Happy editing! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

To add on, WP:ELNO #1 says, "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links for future improvement of the page can be placed on the article's talk page." Furthermore, WP:LINKFARM says, "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." An ideal EL section should be pretty selective. ELs like comprehensive lists of reviews or accumulated box office data would be unique resources, and most "overview" type web pages would not be appropriate ELs. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I know what WP:ELNO and WP:LINKFARM says (you can read my reply about them and this article in my talk page response here). Since there is no specificity, "excessive" is in the eye of the beholder. I repeat what I stated in a comment above: the film has not been widely covered in entertainment media and sources about it are limited. I found and added the Berlinale, Variety and Hollywood Reporter sources for the festival premiere. Prior to them the only citation that existed in the article was a Berlinale press release with an expired URL, for which I added the archive. LUMIERE is a European database; unlike Box Office Mojo and The Numbers that keep track of domestic and foreign revenue, it tracks ticket sales in Europe (only). There is no official website, but The Match Factory is a co-producer and the European distributor, and Strand Releasing is the North American distributor and provider of the press kit. Are these three not "content-relevant links" and "unique" external links? Pyxis Solitary yak 10:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I hate to point out this, but with all the time and effort you've spent writing all your replies, you could have used that to add a few inline cites to the article to improve it.... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm a volunteer here just like you; however, you waste a lot of time lecturing other editors on what an article needs and what should be done in it. Take your own advice and add the inline cites yourself. I did more for this article in one day, than you have in the 3-½ years since you created it. That is indisputable because it's verifiable in its edit history. The article is ripe for improvement ... so, improve it. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You've done next to nothing to improve it! You're a very angry editor with a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Everyone else is wrong, but you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I add. But as your latest "contribution" to the article proves, you delete. Not only are you the one that's pushing the WP:BATTLEGROUND envelope, but you've also been exercising WP:OWNERSHIP of the article. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

No, you add without any thought or care to policy and guidelines. You should read the ones relating to the film project, including the infobox, as you don't seem to understand them. Do carry on. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Persistent deletion from infobox of actor names billed in the film poster

Per Template:Infobox film#Parameters  >  starring: "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release."
On 27 August 2018 I added various content to the infobox parameters, including seven additional actor names credited in the film's poster.
On 28 August 2018, User:Lugnuts deleted six of the actor names from the infobox.
On 2 September 2018, I reverted the deletion and explained in the edit summary that "the list of actors in the infobox are exactly the credits that appear in the poster".
Two minutes after this, User:Lugnuts again deleted the actor names and wrote in his summary "if you have a different poster, feel free to upload it".
On 6 September 2018 I re-added the actor names to the infobox and included the URL for the poster in my edit summary.

Note: I uploaded the new larger version of the poster file on 5 September 2018 followed by a revised summary for the new file upload. Included in the source description are [1] URL for the file and [2] the film's U.S. distributor website from which the file was procured.

Half an hour later, User:Lugnuts again deleted the actor names from the infobox and wrote in his edit summary "you'll need to upload said poster to WP:V that...".
On 7 September 2018 I reverted the deletion and followed my revert with a dummy summary that states: "Per WP:DISRUPT: the constant reverting of actor names in infobox is disruptive. The larger poster was uploaded on 5 September and the URL for both source & original image are included in the Non-free use rationale summary."
Soon after this restoration of the names, User:Lugnuts deleted them from the infobox and wrote in his summary "only two names are on that poster".
The link for the poster file is: https://strandreleasing.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/SwornVirgin_KeyArt_300dpi.jpg — the image is 300dpi (300 Dots per inch), and its dimensions are 1,080 x 1,600. Eight billed actor names appear on the fifth line that begins with "A film by Laura Bispuri, ...."
Pyxis Solitary yak 11:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

¶ UPDATE: User:Lugnuts created a discussion in WikiProject Film about the billing in the film's poster. After two editors confirmed the names in the billing block, he self-reverted his latest deletion of the names. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)