User talk:Erik: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_76#Dani_Cavallaro

I brought this topic up some months ago and another editor also questioned the quality of her work. I feel she writes a lot of books as fast as possible and merely has books that appear as legitimate scholarly books on the surface but are just fluff based on online blogs hiding behind verbose jargon. In other words, not a reliable source. It was easy to remove her from the Oshii articles, but she's cited heavily in other articles and some of them are rated Good Article, so it was more work than I was willing to do so I put it on the back burner. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough consensus and evidence brought forth that she isn't a reliable source and should be removed from pages. Issues like this should have been dealt with years ago because now her books are used heavily in several GA rated Studio Ghibli and Evangelion articles and will require extensive re-writes. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I had brought it up on RSN for fuller vetting. Now there's a RSN discussion to point to, if needed. Honestly, I only got involved with Angel's Egg because the Ruh-challenging editor had also blanked the plot summary earlier. I wanted to make sure that Ruh, and then Cavallaro, were properly assessed in terms of reliability. And now I have the film on my to-see list. I would post explanations on the talk pages as part of the removal process. Do what you think is best. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of sketchy fluffy books written about anime, manga, video games, etc so unless published by a university press, I'd treat them with some level of skepticism. A lot of anime/manga pages are poorly cited, and there's consistent issues with low standards so Cavarallo is a nice place to start. Roh's book is fine, as he mostly is citing print magazine sources (such as Animerica), and his overviews line up with other sources. The IP editor appears to have translated sections form the JP Wikipedia page, which heavily cited Japanese print magazines and supplements (such as Animage). Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Erik. You have new messages at Talk:Pinocchio (1940 film).
Message added 03:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of films featuring space stations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring space stations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Rorshacma (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Spider-Man (2002 film) § Plot section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]