Talk:List of Romanian actors

message: This has no references demonstrating that these people meet the scope of the article. It is also a mere list, a category can serve the purpose of this article. There is no encyclopedic content here. Unless this is addressed(how I cannot imagine) I am going to nominate this for AfD, suggesting it be turned into a category. Until(1 == 2) 01:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just curious, how long are you going to go like this?  If until 1 == 2, it could be till Hell Freezes Over.  :)  Turgidson 06:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see a section that allows you to gut a list article for no reason. Please point it out to me. —Xezbeth 14:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It is a list. It doesn't NEED a reference, you check the individual articles for them. You've had this explained to you already by Mikkalai it seems, so this smacks of WP:POINT to me. As I said before, nominate it for AfD if you're so convinced it needs deleting. Giving me only 30 seconds to respond to you before bleating about me ignoring you is hardly helpful either. —Xezbeth 14:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding me "bleating" you, it was not so much the amount of time, but that you kept reverting me without response. Until(1 == 2) 14:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If you can explain how a list of Romanian actors is harmful to wikipedia, then I'll delete the article myself. You wont be able to, so just nominate the thing on AfD and be done with it. —Xezbeth 14:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You know what, I'm tempted to AfD the thing myself as it is better served by the category. But fine, I'll revert myself. I have no vested interest in this article by the way, I just object to wholesale removal of content. —Xezbeth 14:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you, I find WP:30 almost as helpful as the crowd at WT:V when it comes to the WP:V policy. Until(1 == 2) 15:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References, and whole point of the article 

message: Well, I'm relieved to see that progress has been made, although Until(1 == 2) is quite correct to be strict about WP:V.
In order to assess this article, I made a quick examination of the 34 articles for which links are present, looking for: articles that match the claim and provide a citation; articles that match the claim, but fail to provide a citation; and articles that do not match the claim. If my tallies are correct, there are eight articles for which the claim of nationality/origin is not sourced and 26 articles for which some degree of verification has been presented. Of these, the overwhelming majority rely on the IMDB biographies in an "External links" section and fail to provide specific citations. As an editable resource, the IMDB cannot be considered to be among the most reliable of sources, but I will overlook that. Just bear in mind that better sources are likely to be available in most cases.
This is how I would improve the article:
*Work to satisfactorily source all the articles to which this list refers and carry over these sources to this list, preferably in the proper style.
*Consider including at least one other relevant piece of information, such as place of birth where known.
*Remove from this list the eight unsourced names until/unless a reliable source can be found for them.
Hope that helps. Adrian M. H. 15:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I find WP:30 almost as helpful as the crowd at WT:V when it comes to the WP:V policy. Until(1 == 2) 15:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: I am going to go through these items and find which ones really have citations. Wikilinks are not citations, and uncited content should not be here. I will not be returning the ones that I cannot find citations for.
Click "Show" to see log
Any help would be appreciated. Until(1 == 2) 15:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If IMDB is not a reliable source, what would it take? A romanian encyclopaedia would do?!? -- Jokes Free4Me 09:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: IMDB may not be a reliable source for specific biographical material. But it may be sufficient to assert the fact that persons in this list are Romanian actors. I am sure that you can find more sources in Romanian sites dedicated to cinema, as Romania has a long tradition of movie making and acting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody can buy their way into imdb simply by paying to be put into some public records which imdb scrapes. IMDB in no way established notability, and is often the data submitted by the subject. IMDB is better than no source at all, but it is not enough to mean no more sources are needed to verify it. Until(1 == 2) 17:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work log 

message: Please Turgidson, read this page, respect the consensus. If you want to help. find sources. Until(1 == 2) 15:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, man, I read every single word on the talk page before reverting (it's not rocket science, ya know? but it's rather tedious, after a while), and this whole thing still didn't make sense to me. And, by the way, I spent quite a bit of time editing several of the articles in cause, so it's not like I'm coming to this page out of the blue.  But OK, I'll hold off till I get a better sense of what you're trying to do. Turgidson 16:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That was a very limited discussion -- did any editor who actually contributed to those articles (or to this list) participate?  Was the discussion broad enough, and enough time given to develop consensus?  I don't think so. Turgidson 16:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That may be so, but I just don't like you present that policy.  No need to (figuratively) scream, or put it in bolds.  And, by the way, before you give too mnay lessons in WP editing, how about taking another look at the edits you've been making, e.g., Ştefan Bănică, Sr. and Ştefan Bănică, Jr.?  Looks non-sensical to me.  Maybe if you explain them in bold letters I'll get it.  Turgidson 16:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of cleanup 

message: I have finished sorting the cited from the uncited on this list. I have left a log so that those who wish to recover names can seek out sources. If you do find a source for this page, please place that source on the actors article as well, as they need it.
I hope my work log makes it clear why wikilinks are not references. They give the illusion that the information is cited when it is about 2/3rds of the time not cited. Please cite any new additions to this list or they are likely to be challenged and/or removed. Until(1 == 2) 17:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I appreciate your adding of sources, the removal of tens of names from this list because there is no specific source, is not welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You are misinterpreting WP:V. All these list items are verifiable. Leave it open so that editors can add more sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the talk page. This has been discussed to death. If I am misinterpreting WP:V explain how. It says that if challenged a fact can be removed, and that it cannot be returned until cited. Everything is potentially verifiable, but until there is a reliable source it does not belong here. Until(1 == 2) 03:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: All of the removed items are listed on this talk page above at #Work_log. People can use that to find citations. They do not belong in the article until they are cited. Please stop placing your opinion above the verifiability policy. The articles themselves need to be cited, so if you find any for here, you can place them on the article. Otherwise we don't know if the person is really a Romanian actor. Until(1 == 2) 03:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not my opinion. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to delete content because you did not take the time to add sources. It took me less than 5 minutes to add three refs. I invite you to do that, and to stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I spent all morning adding sources. I am not violating POINT, you are violating WP:V. You may not re-add material until you source it. I put all the unsourced ones on the talk page where they belong. Until they are sourced you are violating policy by placing them back after being challenged. I am working to improve Wikipedia, potentially false information is not helpful. Accusing me a bad faith is not helpful either. Until(1 == 2) 03:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you are mistaken. You are interpreting policy in a manner that is not consistent with consensus. Found material that is unsourced? Tag it as such, and let editors interested in the subject add sources. Better still, do some resarch and add sources yourself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I see a consensus right here WT:V#Verifiability_in_lists that lists need to be verified like anything else. The WP:V policy also enjoys rather strong consensus. I don't need a consensus to remove uncited data, it is a core policy that holds a strong consensus on its own. I also got a third opinion that agreed with me on this very page. I compromised and agreed with the others on the talk page. Then you come along and revert it. Until(1 == 2) 04:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will repeat this again. Deleting material is a good thing when the material in unverifiable. If the material is unverifiable, delete it by all means. How do you know if is unverifiable? You know that after doing some research and not finding any reliable sources to support the text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Look, I appreciate your edits and your want to have articles that are well referenced. I am with you on that one. But your approach, delete everything that is not sourced, is not the way to address this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:V does not say anything about "verifiable" information being exempt. Not sure where you are getting this from. I am not deleting anything, I am moving it to the talk page to be brought up to inclusion standards. Until(1 == 2) 04:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moving it to talk, simply removes any possibility from the occasional editor to come and add a source. Rather that spend more time discussing this, I invite you to spend the next 30 minutes adding sources to all these entries. That is what Wikipedia is about. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I am seeking a greater consensus on this matter at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Verifiable_information because what you are saying, and what the policy says cannot both be true. Once again, please stop asking me to add sources, that is the responsibility of the person seeking to include the info, and I did just that all morning. Until(1 == 2) 04:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, ≈ jossi ≈, for bringing back a dose of reality to the process, and restoring those deleted links.  In the meantime, I've added more sources and text to Amza Pellea and Florian Pittiş (the latter was tagged by Until(1 == 2) for speedy delete! why??), but this takes time and energy, which can get easily sapped by rash edits.   Turgidson 04:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I tagged it for speedy deletion because it made no claim of notability. Until(1 == 2) 04:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to re-assess the way you are participating, Until. Tagging for speedy should be done when you are certain that the subject is not notable. And you can only be certain after you do some basic research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What you say and what the policy says are not the same. An article that makes no claim of notability is speedyable. It is not my job to research someone else's claim. I didn't write the policies. You keep saying what I need to do, but you are not basing any of this in policy as I am in my responses to you. Until(1 == 2) 04:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand your viewpoint, but you need to apply good judgment. If there is no claim of notability because of lack of sources, ask for sources, or check the subject yourself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: A claim of notability does not require a source. If it only said "was well known" or "did something special" that would have been enough. Until(1 == 2) 14:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: When you add information, you need to ask yourself "Why do I believe this is true?". Do you think it is true because someone else posted it on the article? Or perhaps you saw a movie with the person? Maybe you read a book that mentioned it, but don't have access to it now? I guess my point is that re-adding something just because it was there before is unwise, it should only be considered if you actually have a good reason to believe it. That is not policy, policy says get a citation before returning it. I am talking about academic responsibility, and just good editorial practice. When you add something, you are supporting the fact, even if you did not write it originally. Until(1 == 2) 15:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure... only that we are here to build an encyclopedia as volunteers. Volunteers and specially anons, add material to articles without sources. We, as editors, look for sources when these are missing so that we can augment the encyclopedia and make its articles compliant with policy. Your attitude of delete and then ask questions goes against the established practice. Yes, all material that is challenged needs a citation, so challenge it with  wait a couple of months and then re-check. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup finished 

message: Okay, I read the policy before starting and apparently I am "misinterpreting it". So please tell me, how long should challenged uncited material remain in the article proper? I don't know if these people really qualify(I would normally use citations to check), many of them do not have articles. I think it is really wonderful that most of it is cited(Thank you Jossi we are working to the same goal), and that is in line with my personal goals. But I cannot fathom why the remaining uncited information should be in the article instead of the talk page.
But I am not an admin, and those who disagree with me are, and I guess that trumps written policy. I am not going to revert those uncited additions(lest I be called a troll or a POINT violator again), but they are challenged, and under WP:V(as it is written now) they should not be there. Frankly I cannot understand why you would expose the readership to potentially false information when there is a wealth of verified information available. Until(1 == 2) 13:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is simple, really. If the material is dubious or harmful, you can delete it and move to talk. If the material is harmless, tag is with , or do some research yourself to find a citation to support it. If you mark it ast  come back in say two weeks or a month and delete it if no sources are forthcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs) 16:25, 8 July 2007
Gee, I used  instead of , but otherwise that is what I did. Until(1 == 2) 16:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unwritten rules 

message: When googling this name I get, in order, Wikipedia, IMDB, a production company directory of film that does not say he is Romanian, answers.com(uses WP content), a directory site, and a forum. No reliable sources. The WP article has not sources other than imdb. Now, if I remove that name for being uncited, and I being a troll? Making a WP:POINT? Being lazy? Or is this an acceptable thing to remove? I sincerely don't know anymore. Until(1 == 2) 16:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: See also a number of interviews with Masson, here: , in particular the "The director Nicolas Masson refreshes the Romanian Cinematography" interview ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "Evenimentul Zilei", 10 July 1997, Vol. 2, Iss. 1531, pg. 12. Unless you have good reason to assume that the source is bogus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: See ] a website of one of his films. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: See the Romanian site http://www.cinemagia.ro/actor.php?actor_id=11458. Born in Bucharest. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicolas Masson 

message: This article is now in full compliance with WP:V, lets try to keep it that way. We still have a long ways to go before we meet the notability guidelines though.
Here is an exert from Wikipedia:Notability (people) describing what is expected to be demonstrated by a reliable source in regards to notability with entertainers:
* Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
** With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.  
** Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 
** Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. 
...
"Several articles contain lists of people - for instance, an article on a college usually includes a list of alumni. Such lists are never intended to contain everyone (e.g. not all people who ever graduated from the school). Instead, the list should be limited to notable people: those that already have a Wikipedia article or could plausibly have one, per this guideline."(emphasis added)
I intend to go through these articles and see which ones meet the inclusion standards for entertainers. While I feel this is best handled in individual articles, the results of such a vetting will surely effect this article. Until(1 == 2) 19:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, this is still a wonderful example of a well sourced article, despite the resistance faced making it so. Notice how easier it is to keep referenced once it is references. Chillum (was Until(1 == 2)) 22:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:V]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of Romanian actors. 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/20070311151931/http://www.guthrietheater.org/INSIDETHEGUTHRIE/TheaterHistory/tabid/83/Default.aspx to http://www.guthrietheater.org/INSIDETHEGUTHRIE/TheaterHistory/tabid/83/Default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060324021737/http://www.bulandra.ro/ro/biografii/victor_rebengiuc.htm to http://www.bulandra.ro/ro/biografii/victor_rebengiuc.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411014620/http://www.cncinema.abt.ro/Files/Documents/fls-258.doc to http://www.cncinema.abt.ro/Files/Documents/fls-258.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060323155648/http://www.germanhollywood.com/tarzan_myfather1.html to http://www.germanhollywood.com/tarzan_myfather1.html
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) 07:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on List of Romanian actors. 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/20071011110139/http://www.evz.ro/article.php?artid=251167 to http://www.evz.ro/article.php?artid=251167
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927001920/http://www.bulandra.ro/ro/biografii/luminita_gheorghiu.htm to http://www.bulandra.ro/ro/biografii/luminita_gheorghiu.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619064900/http://www.cineastentreff.de/content/view/629/111/ to http://www.cineastentreff.de/content/view/629/111/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929193938/http://www.teatruldenord.ro/web/content/view/27/ to http://www.teatruldenord.ro/web/content/view/27/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928025509/http://www.mariromani.ro/personaj.php?id=35 to http://www.mariromani.ro/personaj.php?id=35
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030520024424/http://agenda.liternet.ro/ionpopescugopo.php to http://agenda.liternet.ro/ionpopescugopo.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050211221734/http://www.karpatenwilli.com/gaeste09.htm to http://www.karpatenwilli.com/gaeste09.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929000325/http://www.askmen.ro/Birlic_un_actor_perfect-news671-i7969-l1.html to http://www.askmen.ro/Birlic_un_actor_perfect-news671-i7969-l1.html
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) 04:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified