Talk:Nick Chinlund

nickchinlund.net

I'm removing http://www.nickchinlund.net/ because I get a server not found error. Cburnett 01:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Orison 7x07.jpg

Image:Orison 7x07.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) 19:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

File:Nick Chinlund.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nick Chinlund.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Nick Chinlund.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing show

FYI, he's in Criminal Minds S2E17. It's not in the list of things he's done, and I'm too lazy to add it. Just putting this here so somebody else can do it. 208.66.212.173 (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

With what I could find for sourcing, I've added it to the article. Thanks for the heads-up! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Please add his credit for Con Air 167.60.234.215 (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I was able to add Con Air and Mr. Magoo with the same source: . — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I've had to remove the Criminal Minds credit. It was sourced to Rotten Tomatoes, the consensus for citing which was updated last year (and I'd not yet noticed). I haven't been able to find any reliable sources to keep it in, but if you do, please re-add it or just note the source here and I'll do so. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Missing Movie Credit

This actor has a major, credited part in the movie Close Range (2015) 2A00:23C6:4CB3:C01:51E9:F710:B311:EB11 (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! I found a reliable source and added that in this edit. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Nick Chinlund.

Moved from User talk:Fourthords#Nick Chinlund.

Chinlund was in those movies I tried to add. I knew someone was gonna mess with my edit just because there aren't any citations. I'm not the best at adding citations. Both of the pages for those respective movies have him listed under their casts, so I really don't know what more proof is needed? SummeRStorM79 (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Both of the pages for those respective movies have him listed under their casts, so I really don't know what more proof is needed? Oh, we absolutely cannot user Wikipedia articles as sources for Wikipedia articles; WP:CIRCULAR says, "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources, since Wikipedia is a user-generated source." As for what's needed, the Verifiability policy says, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

verifiability & requirement for citing sources

As they have failed or forgotten to do so, I've begun this discussion on behalf of BilboBeggins (talk · contribs) IAW Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which says, "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change." Here are the edits under discussion:

• On 31 July 2025 at 18:10 UTC, 151.67.124.138 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) added a raft of material to the article saying, added filmography based on Imdb credits. None of the material added was cited to a reliable source, some of it was cited to extant sources in the article which did not support the new claims, and lastly, WP:RSP#IMDb explicitly says the Internet Movie Database is not a reliable source. Thirty-seven minutes after that edit, I reverted it saying, Undid revision 1303558057 by 151.67.124.138 (talk) IAW Wikipedia:Verifiability & WP:RSP#IMDb.
• On 11 August 2025 at 19:35 UTC, BilboBeggins added claims without supporting them with citations to reliable sources, saying nothing; one minute later, they also undid my 31 July reversion of the IP editor, only saying, Undid revision 1303562668 by Fourthords (talk) restoring filmography. 79.05 hours later, I removed their additions as well as the still-uncited performance credits, saying, - uncited claims; + replacement of sortable-table templates; - claims unsupported by cited sources.
• On 16 August 2025 at 11:07 UTC, BilboBeggins again replaced the IP's claims without supporting them with citations to reliable sources, saying, There are no requirements to cite each filmography article with reference, see filmographies of ither actors, they are sourced exactly like this; one minute later they followed up by adding yet more uncited claims, saying, one of the more famous roles.

The crux of this discussion is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which says,

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. […] Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

So… yes, there are requirements to cite [everything] with reference; it's one of our core tenets. That's why everything else in the article was already cited to a reliable source. It's why I recently began replacing accreditations cited to Rotten Tomatoes: because that source has been deprecated by consensus for the purposes of verifying performances.

I'm happy to continue the discussion here, I'm happy to continue working to find reliable sources to verify the claims 151.67.124.138 and/or BilboBeggins think are due, and I'm happy to rope in other editors to help explain things if my pedagogically-challenged attempts have failed; I'm not happy to edit war ("Don't use edits to fight with other editors. Disagreements should be resolved through discussion.") over the application of policy, though. I've again removed the uncited claims and pointed to this discussion in my edit summary. Cheers, all. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Multiple people put this information, only you are deleting it. The consensus is on information being in the article.

There are hundreds of thousands articles where filmographies are written based on IMDB. The passage on IMDB not being reliable source refers to other stuff, as bio, for instance. IMDB is used as de facto source of filmographies for writers, directors, actors.

The link to IMDB is already on page. There is no requirement that every statement in article should be supported. However, simple search for Chinlund in Legend of Zorro, for instance, gives sources .

The current state of the article is misleading - while actor has 119 credits, the article has around dozen. BilboBeggins (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

The consensus is on information being in the article. That's not how consensus arises. From the policy, "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit, the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. […] Except in cases affected by content policies or guidelines, most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position." The specific policy applied here is Wikipedia:Verifiability.

The passage on IMDB not being reliable source refers to other stuff… Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#IMDb says, "The content on IMDb is user-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors. WP:Citing IMDb describes two exceptions." Those two exceptions are, "The writing credits marked with "WGA" that are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America" and "The MPA ratings reasons", neither of which is applicable here.

The link to IMDB is already on page. Yes. WP:RSP#IMDb, again, says that "The use of IMDb as an external link is generally considered appropriate (see WP:IMDB-EL)."

There is no requirement that every statement in article should be supported. Wikipedia:Verifiability says, as I already quoted above, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. […] Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

As for the two sources you linked, the BBC is unimpeachibly appropriate, but if moviepilot.de has any connection to moviepilot.com, there's been a discussion on that: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 186#Moviepilot.com. I see you've added The Legend of Zorro, citing the BBC; I hope you won't take umbrage if I format it and the source in line with the rest. As for Tears of the Sun, though, Flickchart is a combination of user-generated content and our own article certainly doesn't suggest that its a reliable source.

I'm also replacing the third-level header of "Credits" because most dictionaries, including our own, describe a filmography as just a list of films/movies credited to an individual—not mentioning television, stage, adverts, music videos, etc. Filmography is limited to one medium, while Credits is not, and we're listing films, television, and video games. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)