Talk:Chief Zabu

Comment

I recently created an article for CHIEF ZABU. Shortly thereafter it was reviewed and I received this notice: "(This article or section may have been copied and pasted from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094859/ (DupDet · CopyVios), possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please remedy this by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the supposed source of the copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror. (June 2016)" However, I myself wrote both the IMDb blurb as well as the Wikipedia article, so there is therefore no copyright infringement, as I am the owner of both. How can I get the notice taken off the Chief Zabu article page? Thank you! Matzohboy (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've removed the copyright infringement, so that's no longer an issue. However the other issue is that of notability. I've found some coverage of the film, but I'm unable to determine how in-depth it is so it's still in question whether or not this passes WP:NFILM or WP:NFF. That it's mentioned in a book by Scarecrow Press is fairly promising, but it'd be nice if we can have more. Matzohboy, the name on the synopsis on IMDb gives off the impression that you're one of the directors. If that's the case then you're in a good position to help determine if there was more coverage elsewhere, like news articles about the movie. If there is, can you help by giving us the names and dates of where these articles were published? In specific we need the source name, publication date, author, title of the piece, and hopefully a scan of the article in question so we can determine if it'd be in-depth and independent or not. (Press releases and routine listings don't count towards notability on here.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• @MichaelQSchmidt: Can you see if you can find anything? I don't really want to delete or redirect (my preference, given that it'll release later this year) this until we determine there are no other sources, given the Scarecrow source since they're a solid academic publisher and a mention in there is indicative of possible other sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• @Matzohboy: I'm going to post this on both the article and on the WP:FILM page, but I did want to warn you - please do not re-add any content about the actors' other work. Not only is this seen as irrelevant to the article for Chief Zabu, but it can also be seen as promotional in tone since this is a common tactic with film advertising. (IE, mentioning their other work will make people more likely to watch the movie and by extension, make it seem more legitimate since it has notable actors in it.) It doesn't make the film more notable and on Wikipedia, since it can be seen as inherently promotional, it tends to backfire more often than not. The only time an actor's prior film career should be covered in an article is when it's directly pertinent to the film, meaning that the actor's prior film role has to be mentioned extensively and in depth in relation to Chief Zabu. Offhand mentions in news articles about prior work doesn't count since those happen quite frequently - it has to be in-depth. In other words, it has to be something like an actor discussing how a prior film role helped prepare them for their role in this film and/or an interview or article about a key person in the film (director, producer) who said that they chose a particular actor because of a specific film. Even then an actor's other work should be mentioned sparingly since the article is about the film, not the actor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• @Tokyogirl79: Got it! Thanks so much. Matzohboy (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

"I myself wrote both the IMDb blurb as well as the Wikipedia article, so there is therefore no copyright infringement, as I am the owner of both". Technically you only own your original text. The published synopsis on the IMDB now belongs to them; the Wikipedia article belongs to the Creative Commons. You granted the IMDB "a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display" your synopsis,[1] so in theory you can republish your text here and donate it to the Creative Commons. It would have been better form to rewrite it, however, which shouldn't have been too difficult given that it's only a paragraph long. In practice it'll probably be replaced with better content when/if the film comes out. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV edit problems / COI problems?

I've reverted the removal of the negative review here in the reception section by @Matzohboy:, in what appears to have been a very long-term repeat of a previous removal of negative reviews by the same editor, discussed on their talk page. The re-removal had no edit summary, and there was no response the explanation on the talk page. Without necessarily having on opinion on the section, I do think that the removal, after having been reverted and brought up as an NPOV problem, should have a discussion before being repeated.

I'm additionally a bit confused by both the tone of this article and Zack Norman, in light of the discussion above and Matzohboy's edit history, which appears to involve only topics around Zack Norman. Matzohboy, given the discussion above regarding your authorship of the blurb on IMDb, which appears to be attributed there to one of the film's directors, I wanted to make sure you were aware of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guideline. If you have a connection that could be seen as presenting a conflict of interest for these topics, and especially if you have any paid connection to them, this doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't allowed to edit them, but you should disclose your connections per the guidelines --Philosophus ^T 04:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)