# Talk:Amelia Bence

You're in a much better position than me, you at least understand film. I translated it and confirmed that there were sources. I know nothing about film (I don't even own a TV), or acting. I have very little access to books, as most things I can open you cannot and vice verse. Very little ever comes up when I google search under books for actors or film titles and rarely for anything I can open. But, here's what I can source on the awards:
Argentine Academy of Cinematography Arts and Sciences:

1943 Todo un hombre
1947 A sangre fría
1949 Danza del fuego
Association of Film Critics: SILVER CONDOR

from her book pp 97-99  Lauracha 1948?
from her book pp 338 Lifetime achievement award 1989
Writers Association award for Best Actress: 

from her book p 103 1947 A sangre fría (and the inaugural prize for the Hispanoamericano de Cinematografía in Madrid)
from her book pp 111-113 1949 Danza del fuego
Argentina Film Academy:

1957 Alfonsina (and nominated at Berlin Film Fest)
US ACE: Association of Latin Entertainment Critics (ACE) award for Best Foreign Actress:

from her book p 249 1972 La valija (The Suitcase) STAGE PERFORMANCE SusunW (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@SusunW: So far (to late 30s) it really is an excellent account and does actually have some info on the nature of her roles and reviews. I've removed my above comments as in reading it I do see it does have what I thought was missing, but I'll still try to reinforce it with book sourcing for some films. I think we can do this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld I love that new picture in the lede. Just tell me what you need me to try to find and I'll give it a shot. SusunW (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@SusunW: Can you convert the remaining references to sfn? All you have to do is add {{sfn|author surname|year|page number}} and move the book to sources cited in alpha order with a |ref=harv at the end of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld I can try. Never done that before, but it seems simple enough. SusunW (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
You can see what I've done so far here. It looks cleaner I think, if you could get into the habit of using it. For Bence use  {{Sfn|Bence|Etchelet|2011|p=?}}
♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld Ridiculous! Completely and totally. More proof that Wiki has a preference for programmers over writers. Who expects a writer to do all this back and forth nonsense. I can't even remember what freaking page number the reference was supposed to be by the time I go to the bottom and back to the top. If this is the format they want, then they need to program that into a drop down form so that I can write and not jump all over the page. Truly, it is mind-boggling. I am doing it, but with each citation I become more and more frustrated with Wikipedia. Why is a programmer not working on this? It is total insanity to expect writers to do this. SusunW (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld I am supposing that if there is a number it goes ahead of the alphabetized list. If this is not the case, then I need to know where to move it, but it should be programmed. I am ticked. Not just sort of. These are hours and hours of my life I will not get back doing mindless repetitiveness. My answer is no. I will not do this on a regular basis. If this is the preferred style, then it needs to become the focus of programmers to fix the citation drop downs. If they don't want to do that then it is not the preferred style. Something here stinks. You can pin a rose on it, but it won't smell better. SusunW (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
SusunW I hope you can view what I'm saying here as a neutral party because I'm not trying to convince you to change this.  If both of you are in agreement, I will change it to harv refs later tonight.  I didn't use this style of some time; after I learned how to do it, for me, it makes it much easier to write and cite what I'd written than scrambling to see if the text has the right ref with it.
As you know, Bentworth was recently changed to harv ref-it was the only way to try to straighten out the references for the article.  After someone added an excess of non essential items to Red Skelton, it was the only way to straighten out what was done there.  I had intended to change the refs there to harv, but it became necessary to undo what had been done there.  I feel the hardest part of using harv ref is to convert everything to it in an article; when you become accustomed to using this style, I think you might be glad for the convenience when writing.  Not trying to talk you into anything but am just giving you my personal opinion of using the harv refs. :) We hope (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the automatic ref bunching it's cleaner to store the books alphabetically underneath and when you click the note it leads to the book and highlights it. If you've got a lot of sources rather than sifting back trying to find the original book source and what matches with what I think it actually makes editing easier. If it didn't I wouldn't do it!I also think it takes less time to draw up an sfn note than it does to create ref name tags and go through the article manually bunching them. I don't want to force you to do anything but long time I'm just trying to make things easier/cleaner for everybody!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not difficult to format as sfn|Bence|Etchelet|2011|pp=268-9 instead of ref "Bence & Etchelet (2011)", pp 268–269 ref now is it? How does that require extra hours of work? OK I'll sort it out here but in future if you could get into the habit of formatting like that it would make things a lot easier and cleaner when we come to promote and have the books neatly filed that's all! I know it seems really technical but it's really not, in fact it's easier than your system because you don't even need to add ref name tags to refs it'll bunch them automatically if it's the same page number. Believe me if it was more difficult I would not do it! I have coding on here in my preferences to maximise efficiency in editing. Don't worry about this now I'll do it, you'll feel happy writing!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
We hope Thank you. I will do it because I said I will. But I will not use this in the future. I do not collect a pile of books and review them before I write. I read sources as I go. I can either waste my time on inputting sources or I can produce content. And Dr. B, just because you prefer it, does not make it easier for me. I have memory issues (this is a very sensitive personal thing for me and I will not discuss it further) and this jumping up and down the page is completely distracting and frustrating for me. You want to do that, fine. I cannot and produce any reasonable content. If you want it to be the preferred style, get a programmer to make changes. If not, then don't expect its wide use. SusunW (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
If you have memory issues it's actually less to remember because you don't have to remember to ref name tag sources :-) It's not just me who prefers it, Rosiestep, Nvvchar and Ipigott all use it too, though Ipigott's initial reaction was similar to yours.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It is not stubbornness on my part. It is a limitation of what I am capable of. There is a difference. Your insistence does not make it so. SusunW (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Sfn isn't compulsory, some editors I respect don't like it. But the books at least look better neatly filed underneath rather than all among the notes either way.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld it isn't a matter of liking it or not. It isn't a matter of "style". It is a matter of human limitations. Yes, it would be much easier to just be able to input the page numbers. In a perfect world, one would be able to input the book and then pull down a another template to insert a page number. That is not what we have. It requires multiple formatting styles, use of multiple templates, knowing where to obtain those templates, and if I am not mistaken, installing a separate program to tell you if you have any references pointing to books that aren't in the list (or at least someone wrote that on my talkpage). That is a lot to remember, and is rife with potential for errors. The technology is certainly capable of being programmed to do it. I am positive, that I am not the only person this effects. SusunW (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Well can you at least agree to place the books neatly underneath in future articles then, even if not using Sfn notes? It makes it look clearer and easier to follow but I suspect you'll disagree. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth... I LOVE sfn. It's the most orderly referencing style, it's the easiest to use because of  this tool), and I somehow managed to download/install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors which does make Harv Errors blaringly red (easy to see). I don't like dealing with any other style for book refs, as everything else is clumsy in comparison. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just talking out loud. Also, unless an article is a total reference mess, I LOVE doing reference cleanup. So if you're seeking an extra set of hands for this article or another to do a once over for refs, you can call on me. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


### Overall article
I think the article is in very good shape now. I do think it is a little over reliant on her autobiography but given that's Argentina and we can't access many reviews online and there is a severe lack of biographical info in independent sources available for her I think it's fair enough. We've used a fair few other sources too. Over time I will try to see some more of her films which might put me in a better position to elaborate in places on some of her performances, but technically this looks decent IMO now for GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

From Cine-Mundial:

June 1944 pages 298-299
September 1944 page 453
October 1944 pages 508-509
December 1944 page 622
June 1943 page 256
We hope (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
From Motion Picture Herald:

28 November 1942 page 46
13 February 1943 page 59
13 May 1943 page 46
16 January 1943 page 28
We hope (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
From Variety:

6 August 1947 page 12
28 May 1941 page 18
30 June 1948 page 16
7 April 1948 page 62
11 February 1948 page 26
17 December 1947 page 17
October 1946 page 18
September 1946 page 18
24 October 1945 page 21
22 December 1943 page 55
We hope (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Cheers We hope♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I did look at a few of the sources but they seems generally to only be a passing mention. What we really need is Argentine newspapers and magazines of the 1940s and 1950s!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amelia Bence/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 12:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll have this to you soon. She's beautiful! JAGUAR  12:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


### Initial comments
No caption for the lead image?
Yes, I didn't know when it was taken or where it was taken and thought it looked nicer without a thumb.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I can find no problems with the lead!
"That was how she met Paulina Singerman, a neighbor" - sounds a bit unencyclopaedic, like it was extracted from a journal?
"and Bence won an award as best actress of the year from the City of Buenos Aires" - why is city capitalised?
"Bence stated in her autobiography, that from that moment she was "black listed" by the regime" - I don't the Argentine military junta has been mentioned previously, so it might be worth mentioning somewhere here
"which in turn led to cancellations by the Theater of the Chilean Society of Authors for "Pesadilla", "La dama del trébol", "Eran tres"... and "la noche"" - why are there ellipses here?
"In the film, Bence played a prostitute and La Nación reported that she and Luis Sandrini's performances shone" - 'shone' sounds a bit informal here, how about excelled or something similar?
The image in the Legacy section might be better off facing the right


#### References
South American Cinema "sources cited" is dead


### Close - promoted
I'm going to stop it right here, as this article has next-to-nothing wrong with it! I was hoping to make this review a bit more comprehensive but I realised that all of the concerns I could find were minor and have little to do with the GA criteria. It is well written, comprehensive and all of the references are looking fine. Well done, this really is among the best articles I've reviewed!  JAGUAR  13:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Cheers Jaguar, I'm sure SusunW will be delighted!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
YYay! That was the longest translation I ever did. ;) Thank you both! I never would have imagined, 2 Latinas in as many months to GA, with mostly Spanish sourcing. SusunW (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Amelia Bence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120720205542/http://escritores.cinemexicano.unam.mx:80/biografias/F/FERNANDEZ_unsain_jose_maria/biografia.html to http://escritores.cinemexicano.unam.mx/biografias/F/FERNANDEZ_unsain_jose_maria/biografia.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Amelia Bence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923201720/http://www.cedom.gov.ar/es/legislacion/normas/leyes/ley3833.html to http://www.cedom.gov.ar/es/legislacion/normas/leyes/ley3833.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Bence-Gelber.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)