Talk:Tombstone (film)

No proof that Kurt Russel ghost directed this film

There is no proof that Kurt Russel ghost directed this film. No one has backed up his claim, not one person. The real director is dead, and in my opinion this is tantamount to defaming the dead, and has no place on Wikipedia. If this claim is true, then it should be easy to prove it. But not one agrees with Russel that he directed the film "from the sidelines." Perhaps his claim is true, but until a reference can be provided, this claim, while interesting, does not belong it the articles introduction. Considered one of the greatest westerns ever made, it's distasteful to imply that someone else directed your film; the director is dead and can't defend himself. Find a reference backing up this claim, other than Russel himself. --Nikoz78 (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read the Russell interview and my feeling is that Kurt confused the duties of a director and a producer; what he claimed to do is, essentially, a producer's job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.200.48 (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Filming

Source not found. "http://www.truewestmagazine.com/jcontent/entertainment/entertainment/western-movies/2787-the-western-godfather" link goes to "We are sorry. But the page you are looking for cannot be found." 70.171.111.130 (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Editing dispute August 2017

A dispute has arisen over the addition of an internal link to the non-existent article Peter Sherayko. Put simply, the redlink should exist per WP:REDLINK to "serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it." - two other articles already redlink to Peter Sherayko who is demonstrably an actor who has appeared in several prominent productions and may warrant a biographical article in the future. Per the policy: "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject."

Thus far, I have been repeatedly reverted with no attempt to engage in discussion and no rationale other than dubious reasoning, you are the one who needs to give a reason and Per BRD, it is your obligation to explain your edits on the talk page, not mine.

As part of this dispute, I've been threatened with being blocked for vandalism by TheOldJacobite, an individual who has been blocked several times for edit-warring, and threatened with being blocked for edit-warring by Doniago, an individual who "is not an admin but would like to be some day". I have also now read WP:BRD and know it is an essay not a policy and does not give an editor carte blanche to impose his favoured page revision with no reference to policies or guidelines.

I would also recommend that TheOldJacobite and Doniago exercise some common-sense and refrain from tossing out warning and threats to individuals who obviously do not have a fixed IP address - if I actually was the vandal which they have treated me like then I would be merrily trolling away while they were still trying to block an IP which had been abandoned days before. 79.72.143.90 (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

That other articles have the same redlink is irrelevant. The onus is on you to prove that he is notable enough to deserve an article – WP:REDLINK does not encourage simply creating redlinks randomly, because that would not be helpful. The idea is to encourage articles on notable topics. You have not even attempted to indicate, much less prove, that Sherayko is deserving of an article or than an article is likely to be written. Indeed, if you are so cocksure, why don't you write an article about him and see if it passes muster. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

No. WP:REDLINK is very clear and I have quoted the relevent passages on this talkpage and linked to the guideline in my edit summaries. "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject.". I have already stated why an article may be written in the future and you have offered no explanation why you are certain this will never occur. I am not required to write an article to "prove" anything. You have offered no policy-based argument to back-up your stance, other than your attempt to claim that WP:BRD somehow makes your edits the final word. 79.72.143.90 (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

As I noted on my Talk page when Jacobite approached me to review this, I feel both you and Jacobite were editing in poor form on this article, and the only reason I didn't give J a warning for edit-warring as well was that I explicitly told J that if they edited this part of the article again I would do so; in other words, I am not playing favorites here. BRD may be an essay, but I also believe it's "best practice", and certainly the ping-pong match you two got into was completely unproductive. One of you should have taken the high road and initiated this discussion before I forced the matter.

The easiest way to resolve this would be to build an article for Sherayko, obviating the need for a redlink. If no editor is willing/able to do so, then that suggests to me that a redlink may not be appropriate. At this point even evidence (links, etc) establishing that Sherayko likely deserves an article would constitute progress. DonIago (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You engaged TheOldJacobite in discussion and made no effort to do the same with me. And your only involvement has been to try and enforce his favoured edit. And I would argue that the one "taking the high road" should be the one who trumpets his awards on his user page and has been editing for a decade.
Anyway, the entire point of WP:REDLINK is that an article doesn't need to be created to warrant an internal link. I've already stated that a couple of articles already redlink to Peter Sherayko. A cursory IMDB search reveals 63 acting credits, so I would suppose a lot more redlinks could be created if one was inclined. 79.72.143.90 (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Jacobite approached me for a second opinion, I didn't approach them. You similarly could have requested assistance here or at WT:FILM, for instance, and opted not to do so. I think I've made it abundantly clear at this point that I am looking to establish a consensus and am not favoring Jacobite's feelings on the matter; I'm sorry if you feel otherwise. "A couple of articles" redlinking an actor doesn't establish their notability, nor does an IMDb entry (for instance, perhaps all 63 of those roles were extremely minor). Can you provide even one source to establish that the actor has received significant coverage? DonIago (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I've now requested protection for this article, as another IP re-inserted the redlink. This should not be done without consensus. I'd very much like to believe that that IP is not the same one listed above, editing in bad faith. DonIago (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

An established Wikipedia guideline like WP:REDLINK should not be ignored without consensus, as you did with this edit. I am not the one editing in bad faith here. I am editing according to an established guideline despite being treated as little more than a vandal. "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." (WP:REDLINK) 79.72.143.90 (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

As it's now been established that at least one admin felt you were in fact edit-warring, as evidenced by your address being blocked for 24 hours, I hope you will return in a more collaborative and less accusatory mood.

My removal of the redlink was simply a matter of returning the article to its stable state prior to your edit. If the name had been redlinked long-term and Jacobite had removed it only to have you reinstate it, I would have restored the redlinking. The only side I am currently favoring is the side of "last stable state".

I would be happy to favor the redlinking if you can provide some evidence that an article for the actor will in fact be created at some point, or even demonstrate that the actor is notable enough that an article should be created, rather than simply arguing over interpretation of a guideline. DonIago (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)