Talk:Kathryn Bigelow

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kathryn Bigelow article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is about a person who is alive, and so it must follow our rules for biographies of living persons. Controversial content about living persons that does not have any sources or is poorly sourced must be removed straight away from the article and its talk page, especially if it harms their reputation. If such content is repeatedly added to the page or if there are other concerns related to this rule, report it on the Administrators' noticeboard.

This article contains a translation of Kathryn Bigelow from en.wikipedia.

Stop deletion[change source]

Instead of deleting, why not revert to this version before all the complex info was added. Also to be fair attribution was given. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TDKR Chicago 101 Because the entire article hit 98% on copy vio; now it is back down, so I will remove the tags. Whether or not attribution is given, an entire article or section cannot be directly copied as you well know as it needs to be simplified. It comes up on my feed as a copyvio so I look and tag it. I will warn the user. Da Lamb^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 19:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PotsdamLamb This is kind of an issue I have with Simple Wiki as of late. Instead of deleting/nearly deleting an entire article which was been "complexified" when it wasn't like that before, why not just revert the complex edits. Would reverting all the complex edits back to the 2020 version of this article be the move? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TDKR Chicago 101 and PotsdamLamb: Yes, reverting to an earlier, simpler version is always an option if one isn't going to simplify at the time. Admins looking at QD:A3 requests are supposed to check for earlier, simpler versions of the article before deleting. Non-admins can do that, too, before tagging for QD. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6@TDKR Chicago 101 I should have probably done that so I apologize for the early qd. Apologies for that but with the amount of vandalism we get on simple and dealing with LTAs just causes more work for us and we end more often than not sending for QD, since we should not be sending to RfD first. But when someone drops an entire part of the article copied directly from enWP (or any other source) it has to be simplified, of which I know you do, but most others do not. This is why I wish we had the tools to stop this from happening and I proposed it on simpletalk but no one has commented on it. Da Lamb^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 19:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PotsdamLamb: One small correction to what you said: Entire articles and sections can be copied directly without change as long as the language is already simple enough (and attribution is given). Language on enwiki usually isn't simple enough, but sometimes it is. I'm not saying it was simple enough in this case, just that it has to be evaluated. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 Yes I am aware of that, however, like I said above, not many do that here and it causes a lot of work for us because people do fly by drops and then move onto another article. That is why a lot of our pages have so many issues and we do not have the time to catch all of them. Da Lamb^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 19:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent yes, but WP:AGF. We're all here to build an encyclopedia, and the disagreements we seem to have here are menial at best. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]