Talk:Shane Salerno

message: what kind of article is this? it is barely written in encycolpedic format, and is filled with opinions. additionally, the article is completely about the works of the person, not his past, or anything actually about him.
The IMDB synposis for Salerno's drug documentary says exactly the same thing as this page, which probably means this was written by Salerno himself or someone close to him for marketing purposes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.43.245 (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer your OLD question, it's not a very good article, and I agree with you about the striking similarity between the IMDB entry and this page. My bet is that Salerno himself is doing the editing of this page, judging by the self-aggrandizing and excessive use of headers. According to WP policy, opinions aren't welcomed in BOL articles, yet they abound here.
Jim Steele (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a bit promotioonal, why not stub it back to a cited introduction and allow it to be written with citations? Off2riorob (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me (and a long-time coming). Can you do that? I am still learning the hows of things...
Jim Steele (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What kind of article is this

message: :Image:Shanesalerno.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 03:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Shanesalerno.jpg

message: *Variety: Salerno signs 2 seven figure deals.  
*Variety: Scripter Salerno hot 
*Variety: Michael Mann may follow "Ali" with Salerno script 
*Variety: Salerno producing JFK assassination pic 
*Nicolas Cage confirms Columbia prepping Shane Salerno's Ghost Rider 
These are not correct externals WP:ELNO but I have put them here as they may be helpful to add and content or to add as citations to support any uncited content that is already in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Shane Salerno. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080914032908/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ia6592177cf3e47ef07a09c08146d1b56 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ia6592177cf3e47ef07a09c08146d1b56
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I agree with the reasons for the maintenance template and with many of the comments made here years ago. I'm a beginner to Wikipedia, but the problems with this entry and how to fix them aren't all that complicated.
There's a lot of cheerleading, of a kind I might read in advertising, a press release, a news or magazine article, or a résumé, all quite different from the flat and formal tone and subject matter of an encyclopedia. There's a lot of inflated rhetoric: "in the history of" "for the first time" "the only" "millions of dollars" "worldwide blockbuster." Even if the facts are true, and most or all of them seem to be, that doesn't mean every detail belongs in an encyclopedia, which should presents facts quickly, briefly, without fanfare. 
Fixing this article requires deleting large amounts of text, in some cases permanently, in other cases for the purpose of paraphrase. For example, there's no need to know the day, month, and year of every event. Specificity over relative trivialities contributes to the stentorian, magisterial, congratulatory tone. The same facts can be presented in a more neutral way.
It's odd to see opinions in an encyclopedia, any opinion, particularly opinions about subjective matters: movie, TV, and music reviews, and conclusions about a subject's worth and impact. Editors tend to get around this by using quotations from sources they consider authoritative, or by making statements so obvious and ubiquitous that they are unlikely to be challenged. Whatever my opinion about the inclusion of subjectivity, I find that most or all of the quotations here can be deleted, in some cases because their point can be conveyed by simple statement of fact. The older I get, the more convinced I am that quotations rarely contribute something positive. Repetition, moreover, becomes monotonous and counterproductive, no matter what the point is.
I've struggled with what place story has in an encyclopedia entry. On one hand, we naturally want to give information chronologically. It's what we're used to and how our minds work. On the other hand, even an entry which is considered biographical can look incongruous in an encyclopedia, particularly if it is one-sided and excessively detailed. Although every life is important, that doesn't mean every life, and every detail of every life, needs to be recounted in an encyclopedia. Quantity of facts, moreover, might suggest a different organization than chronological. For example, in this entry, there could be sections on movies, TV, and critics' comments, rather than a section for each TV show, each movie, with a detailed story for each, from the announcement, to money, to the actors, to reviews, to influence on the next project, and so on ad detailum (I made that up).
I have in mind documentation entries on notability. While I'm at it, I might as well include others already mentioned or that could apply: neutrality, formal tone, biographies of living persons, encyclopedia style, section titles, organization of material, selection of material, article size, overlinking, choice of links, use of sources, use of quotation, brevity, quality of prose, concentration on facts, and the Manual of Style on various matters.
That should be enough. I'm going to do some deleting and rewriting unless someone objects. I'm going to check sources. As always, reasoned objections can be given here on the Talk page. Please note: it is not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings, to wreck anyone's work, or to denigrate the subject. My motive is to improve the article to make it more in line with Wikipedia documentation and suggestions. I am not going to change facts.–Vmavanti (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: A ton of work just got deleted. What happened? I'm not sure how to get back the changes, particularly the large amount of material under the section Honors and recognition which I was working on when someone else edited it. I checked the version history but didn't see any username but mine.–Vmavanti (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I disambiguated a link to :Director and removed a couple duplicate words. In the three edits before that, you removed a large amount of text. I don't see anything else from the history. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 19:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I was publishing a large amount of text at the time. I think I have some of it cut and pasted onto a word processing document that I was using. I'll dig into it later. I guess I have to be more careful. I didn't realize an edit conflict could clobber that much text.–Vmavanti (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Would you put disambiguation links on Salinger (book) and Salinger (film)? Thanks.–Vmavanti (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit conflict

message: A few things here.
* IMDB isn't a reliable source on this site.
* Saying that the documentary Salinger was one of the highest-grossing documentaries of the year isn't saying very much. According to the indiewire source, it was 10 on a list of 15. It had a short run in a few big cities. The "highest grossing" statement is correct but misleading and probably not Notable. I saw the PBS version and really enjoyed it. But let's not pretend it was a blockbuster.
* "He has moved between mediums and genres, from films and television series, to books and documentaries"
Again, this sounds like cheerleading. To say "mediums and genres" lumps everything together, which is what the next words do. It's exaggeration almost to the point of dishonesty. It takes a few items and uses generalizations to make the items seem like they are part of a larger list when they aren't. Books? He co-wrote one book. Documentaries? Two. TV series? He co-created a TV show that lasted one season and he wrote three episodes of Hawaii-Five O. Mediums and genres? More or less true, but the lead is awkward and hyperbolic. Genres: Biography, crime, fantasy. Mediums: TV/movie, print. 
* I'm not trying to diminish his accomplishments. I'm saying the lead is overblown to make the accomplishments seem more numerous and significant than they really are. It's worth looking at which of these projects he alone is responsible for. So if the sentence says "best known for his work on Armageddon," what does that mean? Lead actor? Director? Writer? He shares screenwriting credits with three other people. So which part of Armageddon is he responsible for? I don't know. That's why I stick to the facts. Moreover, I'm not sure he is best known for his work on Armageddon. How would one make a judgment like that?
* I'm not convinced the citations are done properly here, as in the second paragraph where each director's name has a citation by it. There's no need for that. As it is now, the lead is covered in blue links, the page is messy and hard to read. Why have multiple citations for multiple directors when you can find one source that mentions some or all of them?
* As it is now, the lead looks more like advertising than an encyclopedia.–Vmavanti (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: A few notes

message: I came to this after working on a few related pages and was trying to contribute and build on the work you and others had done. No offense intended - the page is under construction and changes are being made. Everything I added is properly sourced so I don't understand the problem. This is a pretty dry statement of facts and consistent with other screenwriters and documentary filmmakers pages I've viewed. "Best known" is a widely used term and collaborations are often listed. I listed different citations because the filmmakers in question are associated with different projects and in some cases Salerno worked with the filmmaker multiple times. The information about The Story Factory is new, relevant and sourced and I listed their projects. The Avatar films are in pre-production and it's appropriate that they be listed. 
I checked, and the Salinger documentary ran in over 150 theaters nationwide (not a few big cities) and I stated and sourced how it performed. I will remove mediums and genres but he has worked in film, TV and publishing in two different capacities, etc so it seemed appropriate. 
Let's work together constructively to make the article accurate, balanced, and properly sourced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docunado (talk • contribs) 04:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you for your notes