Talk:Gold Diggers of Broadway

message: :Image:Gdob6.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Gdob6.jpg

message: An editor has been attempting to add Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation to the "studio" parameter field.  I have been reverting this with an edit summary which points out that Technicolor was not a film studio or a production company, but the editor returns a few days later to re-insert it.  I asked him on his talk page to stop, but he or she did not respond, as, indeed, they have not responded to anything on their talk page.So, the question here is: should Technicolor be listed or not?  Opinions? BMK (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor responded on my talk page to say that unless I was a "founder" of Wikipedia, I should "back off". I've asked them to make their argument here that Technicolor should be included in the studio parameter. BMK (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: More specifically, IMDB doesn't list Technicolor at all, TCM lists them under "Color" as does AFI.   In the early days of color, a Technicolor technician would be involved with the shooting, and since this is a very early color film, I have no doubt that was the case here.  But that doesn't make Technicolor a "Production Company" or "Studio", it makes them a consultant. BMK (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not a studio or a production company and shouldn't be treated as either. We wouldn't list Dolby as being either for a film using their sound technology, nor IMAX for a film shot with one of their cameras. I'd say remove it, keep it out, and if the editor in question continues to add it despite its clear factual invalidity, then treat them as any other instance of someone repeatedly adding blatantly false material to an article. GRAPPLE X 23:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

text: ^^^What Grapple said. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I too am not among the founders of Wikipedia, but can confirm that Technicolor wasn't a studio, and thus can't have been the studio for this film. -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I'm a little vague about the historical relationship between Warner Bros., First National and Vitaphone.  Of course it all ended up being Warner Bros., but I don't know how it got there.  I'll do a bit of research. BMK (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it's clearer now.  Warner Bros. and First National were separate studios, and Warners eventually bought out First National, keeping the brand for some period of time.  Vitaphone was a sound process, invented by Western Electric, and owned by Warners.  It should not be in the "studio" parameter either. BMK (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technicolor, redux 

message: @Beyond My Ken: You have now removed  and  tags three times without providing specific information on the source of the content. There is a single reference for both paragraphs in the Technicolor section [], and that reference does not support the content. It was added by AVarchaeologist as the “best web cit” for a pre-existing unreferenced section that had previously been tagged as unsourced.
I did not tag every sentence per your request when you removed the  and  tags since that is not standard Wikipedia practice 
See: Wikipedia:Citation needed:
Unless you have very good reason to suppose otherwise - it is fair to assume that a reference at the end of a paragraph refers to the whole paragraph, and a reference at the end of a sentence refers to the whole sentence. If your work has been tagged … If you can provide a reliable source for the claim, please be bold and replace the "Citation needed" template with enough information to locate the source. You may leave the copyediting to someone else, or learn more about citing sources on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners provides a brief introduction on how to reference Wikipedia articles.
Here are the specifics you requested for regarding the first paragraph of the Technicolor section:
#Sentence 1 – "The Gold Diggers of Broadway" not mentioned anywhere in the Technicolor History section of the cited URL. 
#Sentence 2 – can be extrapolated, but not all content is verified on the cited page.
#Sentence 3 – set selection and costume color palettes are not mentioned in the reference section cited
#Sentence 4 – film sensitivity (which you refer to as speed) and camera speed (I assume by which you mean the maximum aperture and per frame exposure duration), is not mentioned
#Sentence 5 – “white on the matrix film and dye transfer problems” is not mentioned
You have a portion of one out of 5 sentences that is marginally supported by the one reference you cite. The entire paragraph is unsupported by the single reference. You need to specifically provide the source of the information or else it should be deleted. If you cannot provide something more specific as to the source of the content, then it constitutes original research and should be removed. N0TABENE (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. You've got 754 edits and you're certain you know what the Wikipedia "standard practice" is. I've got 145K+ edits and I'm not always certain what it is -- sometimes it's just whatever works best.  In any case, you've provided a breakdown of your objections in a different way than I suggested, and that's really fine with me.  Since I was the editor who re-wrote the section, using only the citation in question as a source, your analysis doesn't seem right to me, but I don't have the time at the moment to go through the paragraph with your comments in mind. Probably I'll have time to do so on Monday, my day off, so please hold off on taking any extreme action. There's nothing in the paragraph that's particularly inaccurate (as opposed to unsourced) so I see no reason to change anything for the moment - a few days isn't going to make any difference. BMK (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the quantity but the quality of edits. Anyone can use a bot and fix 100,000's of extra spaces. And yes, I have only 754 edits ... under this account. I see you've had multiple other accounts - maybe other editors have had as well? I digress.... you've asked me to "please hold off on taking any extreme action", yet you deleted the  tag without providing the requested source reference, and after being cautioned not to make changes unless adding missing references.  You should have left the tag pending correction of the unsourced content. That alone warranted an escalation to a Level 3 or 4 Warning. Further, any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.  I'm not sure why I should accede when you've been less than professional in this matter. Regards, N0TABENE (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the shit out of the paragraph, and every sentence (and sometimes parts of a sentence) is now sourced. I sincerely hope that you enjoyed your part in making the article less interesting and informative for our readers. Please have a pleasant future editing career. BMK (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply asked for appropriate citations of the content that you claim you PERSONALLY wrote, not a random URL. YOU wrote the material and decided on the content, if it's less interesting and less informative, then the fault lies with the writer. If you would have given the citations in the first place this could have been avoided. Suggest you read WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Oh, and thanks, I have and I do, IRL N0TABENE (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of citation need and failed verification tags for Technicolor section

message: There's a dispute about which poster should be in the infobox.  Since both are non-free, they cannot be posted together here for side-by-side comparison, so please take a look at 
*1: :File:GoldDiggersBroadway2.jpg, which has been in the article, versus
*2: :File:Gold Diggers of Broadway poster.jpg, which was recently inserted.
BMK (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *A neutral pointer to this discussion has been posted on the talk page of WikiProject Film. BMK (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

text: I haven't noticed any difference between them. 79.18.120.178 (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? One has a black background, and the other has a royal blue background. On one, "Warner Bros." is clipped at the top, on the other it isn't. BMK (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor needs to scroll down to see the 2/20/2014 version. The 12/5/2015 version matches the one recently uploaded. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

text: I agree with BMK's choice per his statement that it is "better resolution, better color". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

text: *Opinions are still welcome, but I think the technical snafu has been ironed out. BMK (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Which poster for infobox?

message: Refimprove tags were added to sections that had no sourcing at all. Several of these were removed without explanation, or edit summary and without providing additional sources. Several failed verification tags were altered by the same user who deleted the section hatnotes, so that they were unreadable. This user has had a problem in the past with providing WP:verifiable sources. Either provide citations which have the information claimed in the text or the material should be deleted. Simply deleting properly placed tags is inappropriate. NotaBene 鹰百利  Talk 06:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statements are incorrect.  Plot sections in film articles are never sourced. The "Songs" section is sourced except for those that are marked as needing citations.  Failed verification was approproaite only when there was a statementsaying that "all songts" were written by Burke & Dubin - it no longer says that.  Now the songs by Burke & Dubin are distinctly marked, and the source of that is reffed.  The songs which are not marked are marked as needing a citation.  This is perfectly legitimate. BMK (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced sections