Jump to content

User talk:Rgwilliams

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rgwilliams (talk | contribs) at 23:04, 13 April 2008 (→G.I. Joe). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

G.I. Joe

Hey there. Latino Review broke the story about Fraser and Johnson cameoing in the picture: however, sites of their ilk are only considered reliable for interviews, script reviews, set visits eg. straight from the horses' mouth. No offense intended, I believe they are in the film, just it doesn't meet WP:RS. Happy editing. Alientraveller (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been confirmed by FIRSTSHOWING.NET — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgwilliams (talk • contribs)
And where do you think FirstShowing.net got the info from? Alientraveller (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And again, those sources are merely passing along what Latino Review said. And a blog is not a reliable source. Alientraveller (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is also carrying them as castRgwilliams (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb is also not a reliable source: it can be edited by anyone. It is a wiki that doesn't cite sources. A reliable source is the New York Times, the BBC, Sky News, Los Angeles Times, USA Today or Paramount. Alientraveller (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is often cited as a credible source. One's personal distaste for the information or source does not deter its credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgwilliams (talk • contribs)
No it is not. See Wikipedia: Featured article review/Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. We cannot cite a source written by common people. Again, this is not my personal dissatisfaction but rules are rules. Alientraveller (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where you are getting your rules from. However, Wikipedia has no rules governing the use of IMDB, either specifically or generally. Additionally, the link you posted is unrelated to the discussion of a source reliability. IMDB is not written by common people but is a legitimate business whose goal is to provide reliable information to drive internet traffic for the purpose of selling internet advertisement. Also, you fail to mention the additional websites that corroborate the information in your argument. Where are these rules you speak of?Rgwilliams (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I appreciate your contribution to G.I. Joe, but the sources mentioning the two new cast members are not reliable. IMDb is not a reliable source for future films because it is based on user-submitted information. It would be like citing Wikipedia (in a more limited way). My suggestion is to keep an eye out for new headlines that come from reliable sources, then we can work it into the article. Wikipedia doesn't need to be updated by the minute, especially for a film that has not yet been advertised to audiences. Would it be alright if we wait and see for a source we can all agree on? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are joing us late, there are at least three sites corroborating the information.
http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/04/03/gi-joe-updates-brendan-fraser-and-dwayne-johnson-cameos/
http://gmanmovieblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/dwayne-johnson-and-brendan-fraser-go.html
http://www.comicsbulletin.com/news/120725266337645.htm.
Thank you for your concern and I appreciate your diligence. I will re-add the entry until there is confirmed evidence disputing these confirmed sources.Rgwilliams (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rgwilliams&oldid=205433597"