Talk:New queer cinema

message: I think it would be interesting to start a new queer cinema wikiproject.  Anyone down for that? Voyager640 20:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The articles cover pretty much the identical material and per both articles "new queer cinema" is the commonly accepted term. Otto4711 03:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge "Queer Cinema" into NQC 

message: This is completely unsourced and in the absence of those sources constitutes original research. Unless sources are added shortly the section will have to be deleted. Otto4711 02:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution section 

message: :Image:The Living End (poster).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The Living End (poster).jpg

message: 4 of the sources here are dead links, 1 is a link to another wikipedia page. This page is in a dreadful state and it's unacceptable.I'll leave it for now, but if someone else doesn't fix this article up over the next few days I'll come back and yet again delete everything with reference to these sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maring HS (talk • contribs) 02:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And you will again be reverted. Dead links are not a good reason to remove content. Just tag it as a deadlink (see Template:Dead link) and/or try to find an archived version at archive.org. Ideally we would not have dead links, of course, but Wikipedia policy states it's not a valid reason for removing content on its own. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Did you take a look at my edits? I didn't delete anything apart from the dead links themselves. It's not my responsibility to try and hunt down archived versions of these articles. I'm going to put up another deletion request on the grounds of the article being extremely poorly sourced. If you want to take down the deletion request, at the very least you should do this job yourself. I see no value in this article existing in its current state and it's not on me to clean it up, it's on you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maring HS (talk • contribs) 04:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , please sign your posts. Rhododendrites is right; content isn't removed because of dead links, neither are the citations. Links are archived and/or replaced. Sources do not need to be online in order to be cited. Only if the content itself is controversial, disputed or likely to disputed and no other sources are available to cite, should it be removed. Lapadite (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   - It is, actually. Well, not necessarily, but it's the problem of anyone who wants to fix the problem. Removing the links altogether is considered a negative, not a fix. See WP:LINKROT, which says "do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer". Are you challenging the material those citations support? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI It took about 5 minutes to find and add two archive links, updated one url, and tagged the other as dead. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on New Queer Cinema. 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://archive.is/20130628063535/http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/B_Ruby_Rich_on_this_years_queer_film_festival_circuit-13653.aspx to http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/B_Ruby_Rich_on_this_years_queer_film_festival_circuit-13653.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120603121621/http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/feature/80 to http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/feature/80/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm sorry, but at this point, the list of "Key figures" of NQC seems just random to me. What's the source for most of those names? Yes, names like Derek Jarman, Cheryl Dunye & Gregg Araki are directly out of B. Ruby Riches' book/articles, but - Arthur Bressan's Buddies is an important film for Queer Cinema in general, but it isn't an example of NQC?! Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain? That's not NQC. At this point it seems like this list throws together some names of notable Queer Cinema work, which is really misleading to people, trying to learn something about NQC as defined by B. Ruby Rich. 
11:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: The list of "Key figures" seems pretty random?