User talk:Alientraveller/Archive 3

reverted Toy Story 3 logo/poster
Why would I lie? The logo with the white background is just as fake as the new one I put up. I'm not sure why you think it was official, but they were Both created by me, I assure you. if we can find a better way of contacting each other, I can prove it. it just really annoys me that someone would 1, use my logo without my permission or even acknowledging that I made it, and 2, to try and tell me that the new one is somehow less valid. I created this mock up logo for a pixar blog site just for kicks in a hurry, that's why it was so plain. my slightly revised version is nicer to look at. if your going to remove my new one, then you should also remove the old one. you cant (or at least shouldn't be able to) have it both ways. --Gmcube 00:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Superman
I'd quite obviously rather you didn't restore all that fictional biography to the article. I'm still trying to work my way around where all this info fits in and trying to get the article to the highest standard. Obviously we differ, but I really don't feel the discussions on the character's powers and fictional biography are of the utmost importance and can be discussed in a side issue. I hope you will reconsider your decision. Hiding Talk 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * and you can't have four main article links for a summary section. The article is now hugely bloated again. Hiding Talk 20:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And you're not even filling in edit summaries, that's a breach of the GFDL, you've got to note this stuff in the edit summaries when you move it, showing where it cam from to keep the history intact. Hiding Talk 20:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd much rather you replied here to keep the dialogue together. I'm making a strong appeal here, to please not put that stuff back in.  I don't edit war but I am very close to doing so here.  I feel very strongly about this.  I posted my intentions many times to the FARC and not once was the plan challenged.  I appreciate that you differ, but you haven't allowed any time for the article to stand, and you haven't sought to discuss the issue at all.  Hiding Talk 20:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get what you mean by recycling and I was quite clear when I said at the FARC that I would "hive off the character and cast sections to a separate article". I haven't even written the article yet and you're reverting me.  I just feel that's, well...I can't put it into words. Hiding Talk 20:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that was the publication history stuff. That was before that comment. Hiding Talk 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And that stuff needs merging together and cleaning up. Hiding Talk 20:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh? There is no popular culture section now? That said, the fictional biography doesn't comply with WP:WAF.  We've got to remember this article is about Superman as an icon, not Superman as a comic book character, and reflect that across this article.  The sub-articles should be the places for the comic book depictions, which again need to be rewritten in keeping with WP:WAF, WP:OR and WP:V.  A lot of this stuff is only primary sourced and needs to be written from an out of universe perspective. Hiding Talk 20:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we have to consider that Wikipedia is written for a general audience and that people are going to be coming here for different reasons. I'd also say the comics are quite heavily emphasised in the first half of the article. I'd say if anything was under represented it's the creators who have worked on the character, not the fictional biography. Hiding Talk 21:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  Um, unbroad? Don't follow what this means. We do have to be comprehensive though. I'd note also that the lack of cites was only your initial problem with the article, not the only problem full stop. No WikiProject claims precedent or ownership, I'm afraid, and all I'm interested in is presenting the information on the topic as comprehensively as possible. Superman means more than just comics. But I'm more interested in moving forwards. The article as it is now isn't too bad, some original research needs pulling in the powers and fictional bio sections, and we need to work out if the History of Superman article is discussing the character or the publication history. I feel it is doing the latter, and if that is the case then I suggest we merge that and the newer Superman cast and characters, and trim the character and cast section in the main article down to a summary of the cast and enemies. Once we get that done I would hope we'd be near enough there. There's some updating needs doing to the copyrights section, which I have but need to find time to do, and then the lead needs rewriting. Appreciate your thoughts. Hiding Talk 22:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You indicate you are going to support the FA status being removed. That doesn't solve the problem we have, which is an impasse on how to take the article forward.  That impasse remains regardless of the FA status, I would hope you agree.  I know what the comics guidelines say, I wrote them.  However, they need revision, since people seem to believe they are hard stricture.  They were never intended to be that, and seem to cause more problems than they solve. Hiding Talk 19:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, this is all sidelining the main issue. How do you see the article and it's sub articles being organised?  I think I'll just start banging it all together and then maybe you'll see what I'm trying to do and we can take it from there.  Personally I don't see a whole lot wrong with the article as it is now, and I can't see why you'd lose the FA status for the sake of your own opinion, but that's your call.  I'd rather just find some common ground. Hiding Talk 19:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Other articles
Since we have a road block there, what's your thinking on History of Superman. Is that a fictional biography or is it a publication history? Hiding Talk 21:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay
Okay, so we need to find a compromise on the personality and supporting cast, that's cool. I'm reworking one section to be the Comic book character, and I will happily reinstate a supporting cast section. What specific bits that aren't in the article would you like to see back? And where would you put Clark Kent? Is he a supporting character or part of Superman? I can make arguments for both, so appreciate your opinion. Hopefully we could get this sorted by next week. Hiding Talk 19:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See, what I'm thinking is that there needs to be a Superman in comic books article where a lot of this stuff can be explored in real detail. The personality section contains an awful lot of original research as it stands, to be honest. Hiding Talk 19:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've restored a fair bit on the supporting cast. I'll sort out the mess that is now Superman character and cast, and start sourcing the bio, powers and cast sections.  I'll try and squeeze some personality back in too. I think then all that is left to do is update the copyright section, I've got a few Comics Journal articles to use for that. What do you think? Hiding Talk 20:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:FA
Don't know if you'd be interested, but I created User:Erikster/WP:FA with a breakdown of the sections of Featured Articles about films, including the number of paragraphs. I organized this to give me an idea of how most of the FA-class articles are broken down. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding people trying to add trivia, cite WP:AVTRIV instead of WP:TRIVIA. Just a heads-up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Indiana Jones - Raiders Title
Hi - please discuss this on the the Indiana Jones talk page - it's a talkworthy issue, and needs to be discussed. My view is that the film's title is whatever Lucasfilm say it is - with the caveat that it's original title needs to be documented.Mikejstevenson 18:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln
Variety. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Spidey
Can you take a look at the Plot section at Spider-Man and see if there's anything that needs to be cleared up? Your insight would be appreciated. Thanks! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Indy 4
Mikejstevenson is reverting all the changes he's made to Indy-related pages, including the film article since he's fed up with people on Wikipedia. Can you review the version of the film article that he removed to see if there's anything that would be acceptable to preserve? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wiki-Newbie, quite seriously, you instantly removed 100s of words of researched, encyclopedic, biography just for the hell of it, without even bothering to discuss it, and now you're trying to play good cop by leaving it in there? Give me a break. It's your article, put it back to the way you wrote it, or I will. I'll stick to trying to contribute to pages that don't have owners. Mikejstevenson 16:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever you want. From your perspective, the good news is that I'm done with trying to improve these articles. Mikejstevenson 16:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Username
You know. You can't be a wiki-newbie forever, so why choose that username? Retiono Virginian 19:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll think you'll find you can't change your username yourself. Ask an Admin to do it. Retiono Virginian 19:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Jurassic Park
Sure, how long has the PR been going on, and how long is left on it? I'm at school right now, but I can take a look at it when I get home around 6:30 EST. Bignole 21:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you have the book, you might want to look at Citation templates for the book citation template. It's usually really good to have the ISBN and publisher and stuff. Bignole 19:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I found this article from Time magazine. I looked around Access World News, but the magazine archive doesn't cover very much entertainment like movie-only magazines, just general entertainment.  Hope that's of some use, anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say the cite news template, as frequent magazines like Time qualify as news. I think you can directly cite information from the article, as Time is a fine reliable source.  I don't think it's a concern to cite the information indirectly -- if you get the book later, just cite the book for whatever extra information you add.  Multiple citations isn't really a concern with JP right now, I think. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I located the August 1993 Cinefantastique issue that has a fairly lengthy article devoted to the film. I'll be able to add some more citations to, and maybe slightly expand, the "Production" section.  I'll try to get started on that tonight or tomorrow.-Hal Raglan 22:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it has, but I still fully intend to help out as much as I can. Sorry for the delay, but I think I might be able to get around to it this weekend.-Hal Raglan 18:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Incredible Hulk
Please do not remove edits simply because you do not like them Thund3rl1p5 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The Incredible Hulk Posting a rumour that is published by a reliable source is ok. Its called future speculation. You are attempting to start an Edit War. Its childish and annoying. Thund3rl1p5 19:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Further Reading of Rules shows you are correct. The Posting is gone as is the warning to your page. I assumed that future speculation was allowed. Thank you Thund3rl1p5 19:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg
Hi, I have just added some new subcategories, references and text to the Steven Spielberg article. I also wanted to know if you feel that its time again to have a peer review? It would be great if we could work together to get the article to GA status. At the moment I think the trivia, criticism and personal life section needs the most work, but with a few more references I think it would be GA?? LordHarris 14:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your reply. I hope we have to wait a long long time for him to die! Im looking forward to Indiana Jones 4 and the Lincoln Project! As for the article, ill try and add more references for now. I dropped by the JP peer review and gave a few thoughts, though they were only on little things. If you would like some references for JP, let me know for what and ill look them up in my books. LordHarris 15:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, im in London at the moment, away from my books but will be back in a week or two. Once im back, ill devote a few hours to references for JP and Spielberg and let you know, so you can clear them up. I usually get a bit confused with the technical side of the references. BTW again good work on the JP article, if it gets to GA status or FA status for that matter, ill give you another barnstar! ;) LordHarris 01:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Fountain
You mean that even though it's come out in the UK, it's not showing near you? It'd be nice to have your help, especially with the interwoven narratives that made the Plot section a pain to write. Anyway, you don't have to watch it for the article -- it's kind of an artsy film that went a different path than my expectations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Hobbit
Don't know if you were aware, as I haven't seen it in your contributions, but they have The Hobbit (2009 film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Funny thing is, I have the set of books at home, but I've never touched them. I've heard about the film, but since I didn't read the books, I didn't pay attention to the project.  Are they worth the read? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Transformers is definitely well-referenced, and I should bump it up in my link repository. (The repository isn't really up to date; I've done some things with it, but I haven't finished moving stuff around.)  One thing I'd suggest doing for the article is to go through all the references and apply brackets to the date= attributes in the Cite news template.  I see quite a few of them show up as 2006-08-27 instead of how it looks on SM3 or TDK.  Bracketing them will format them to whatever date preference an editor has set. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Superman
We have a couple of keeps at the FAR for Superman. What are your thoughts? Marskell 07:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Phantom Menace revert
Funniest message all day. Thanks for the laugh! --170.189.193.3 16:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey - Here's a thought! Why don't I log in and sign it properly (where's that 'dumbass' userbox???) -- Snicker undefined°€ 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're both delusional, I was logged in... Tommyt 18:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wonder Woman
I suggest placing a link on the talk page to the script review because we're not sure where the studio is going to go with the film yet. The citation indicated that the spec script was purchased for legal reasons, so the story may not even be used. Until there is indication that they will use the spec script for production, I think it would be irrelevant in the meantime. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good deal. It's kind of interesting to notice how production goes through these lags, as before I started working on Wikipedia, I never realized how much effort it took to get some adaptations off the ground (like Watchmen, for instance).  Also, I know more about how films are made and what it takes to make them, so I have greater appreciation for them. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose that would be fine on a provisional basis (I assume you're trying to describe the Transformers more accurately), since people can see for themselves when the film comes out in July. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed toy-based information from the article. I don't quite follow the reasons or anything, but it was a good-faith edit that I originally thought was blanking. Check out the removal and see what you can amend. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Autobotcars.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Autobotcars.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Peterbilt
We may need to check that better. It's in a forum, and even if it's on an official website, it's still a forum. The guy says "I talked to Bay this morning", but we don't know who the guy is and if he really did talk to Bay. It seems to stretch the reliability rule. Just my opinion though.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  18:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

At World's End
What do you think of reducing the list of characters in the Infobox Film template for POTC3? The length of the template is, at least on my screen, screwing up the way the image in the Cast and character section is displayed. The film isn't an ensemble film, and most characters (with exceptions, like Barbossa) are not central to the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, and we can make adjustments in the future if we need to. We could re-expand it when the Plot and Production sections get filled out. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring?
It seems to me that you have exceeded three reverts on Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (film). I assume you're familiar with the Three-revert rule, which warns against making more than three reverts to an article within twenty-four hours, but if not, see the link above. Heimstern Läufer 16:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to revert your fourth revert(s), then. If that other user reports you, you could get blocked per the policy. Reverting your own last revert will likely prevent this. Hope that helps. Heimstern Läufer 16:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR
You recently tried to remove a report from the WP:AN3. The editor that reported you replaced the report which you proceded to remove again. If you remove this report again before an adminstrator addresses the issue, you will be blocked for disruption. If you have any questions regarding this please contact me on my user talk page. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The other editor replaced the request after you removed it. This does not show that they are "trying to work it out".  I have also posted a notice about this at WP:ANI.  If it gets worked out, then a link to the discourse between you and this other editor would help clear this up.  Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop
Don't remove the 3rr report. If you are concerned you have violated the 3rr, the best course of action is to apologize for edit warring, revert to the version of the article you don't prefer, and walk away for 24 hours, at least. Do not remove the report again. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, because of your apology, I'm declining to block you although you did violate the 3-revert rule. Now that you know about it, don't do it again, but keep in mind that the real spirit of the 3RR is to not repeatedly revert at all, but rather, engage in discussion.  Mango juice talk 20:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Transformers (fiction)
Hi there, I just skimmed over the page and think it is generally good, especially enforcing WP:WAF and avoiding in-universe fan cruft. Also, it flows well and it solidly and eye-pleasingly sourced. However, it still has some room for improvement.
 * Main point: throughout the article, you have to juggle with multiple concurrent story arcs in different media. Especially in the 2nd half, it is a challenge for non-experts to understand what is main canon at what place, and what is alternative history. I understand that with several concurrent comic book and TV series, it is very difficult, but it reads a bit clunkily atm.
 * A section with a sort of fictional timeline of the main canon, hung behind the real-life event section, and making clear what continuity belongs where, would be nice.
 * The article deteriorates at the end. "Variants" is totally unsourced, and the last sections (2001, Heroes 2007) appear short and stubby. In general, paragraphs (and especially sections) with just 2-3 sentences are not that good; merge some to achieve 4-5 sentences. I personally favour the decades approach (1980s, 1990s, 2000s), and would write subsections within these decades, but it is a matter of taste.
 * IMHO a "film" section would not be a bad idea, too, bringing in the 1984 and 2007 films. Films are always something remarkable, regardlessly whether in written fiction (e.g. Harry Potter), comics (e.g. X-Men) or TV series (Transformers). There are always enough bigger and smaller differences in interpretation and contuinuity.
 * There are interviews in the footnotes, can you directly quote some? Expository text is good, but some spoken words of the creators would make the article more lively IMHO.
 * The mid-section (1984) could use a pic, as it is the largest section.

But in general, my many nitpickings aside, this article looks pretty good, it just needs some spit and polish. —Onomatopoeia 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * @No canon: my bad, but now you really know that it needs some words for non experts :D Well, a way would be to liberally use the words "multiverse", "different continuity" or "parallel universe" in the main lead and also in the section leads, With so many different series and continuities, I think this would improve the article. A more radical solution would to firmly enforce a historical timeline (1984-2007), which every series slotted in by real-life occurence rather by continuity. But I don't know enough of the series to make a definite statement. BTW, a brief introduction of some of the main protagonists and antagonists who appear in virtually every world (e.g. Optimus Prime, Galvatron / Megatron, Rodimus) stating their main powers, character traits, creators etc. would not be bad, to make it easier for non-experts. Hope I could help! —Onomatopoeia 09:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jurassic Park
Sure, I'll re-visit the first film's article later this afternoon and see if there's anything further I can suggest in the peer review. Also, it's likely that JPIV may need to be deleted; when I find the time, I'll clean up the article and review the citations to see how concrete production news is. If it isn't, we could probably move for deletion. I was wondering, though, what made you vote to keep Magneto when I made a motion for merging into Magneto (comics)? There hasn't really been any talk about the film (and Wolverine has -some- rumblings, not much). Don't you think that Magneto is weak in the production possibility area as well? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Watchmen
"Response" sounds better. "Defiance" was probably a bit borderline POV. Have you read the graphic novel? I just hope the film takes place, and is pulled of well -- I didn't work my butt off on the project history for nothing. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, ideally, editors should be familiar with each other to work together better. :) Watchmen is definitely a brilliant comic... but I have no idea how Snyder's going to pull it off.  When you finish reading it, look for some guides online that can refer you back to easter eggs in specific frames.  It really makes you appreciate the work.  I've heard it called the Citizen Kane of comics.  As for the film, I don't know if a 9/11 context would have applied as fittingly for it.  The Cold War background is what shapes the global conflict in the story, and today's conflicts are a bit too muddled to define a clear divide in international opponents.  That's my opinion, anyway. ;)  Enjoy the read! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Being deaf, I can still watch films that are equipped with English subtitles or closed captioning. However, DVD featurettes and commentaries are not generally captioned or subtitles. For example, Spider-Man has some featurettes like a HBO "Making Of" episode, but there is no captioning or subtitles on it. Kind of disappointing. I've found some exceptions, but they seem to be far and few in between. A couple that come to mind is Road to Perdition and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre prequel. I haven't checked so often, so there might have been some captioned featurettes/commentaries that I've missed. I just got Crank from Netflix, so I'll try to see if there's anything in that regard. I have an idea kicking around in my head regarding keeping track of these things (off Wikipedia, of course), so I'll have to get around to that. I'll also see Pan's Labyrinth tonight -- Spanish with English subtitles, so it should be a real treat. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never really gotten into the habit because I'm used to commentaries/featurettes not being captioned/subtitled, and I don't always have the extra time to watch a film with the commentary on. But Lord of the Rings, though -- great setup, had the whole works, loved learning about how all these films had been made. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL
Yeah, that might sum it up Wiki, but I think Erik would be looking for a bit more than that in his review.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  22:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wolf Man
I think I'll be shuffling around some information in this article. What do you think of the "Differences from the original" section? I'd rather work the plot details from the script review into the Plot outline (which should be "Premise" at this point). Any suggestions? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings
The line I added in has been on the page for months and was only recently deleted by an IP. I'll find some sources but I think it will be seen that it was the highest grossing trilogy given that Return of the King is on the list of all time best selling. Gdo01 20:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact the same claim is given in Adaptations_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings with this cite

Gdo01 20:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Tranformers Film
You removed my information on the film's promotion from here with only the word "redundant" (that I could see). Please elaborate - why did you remove it? (There were links to three press releases.) Robinson weijman 07:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're right... pants. Robinson weijman 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous editor who was trying to add the Criticism section with unreliable sources requested page protection and was granted the request despite four editors contesting him with valid arguments. I've placed a request for unprotection, and I've dissected why the GIPU's addition does not adhere to Wikipedia's policies. Feel free to add anything further. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was an odd situation. The admin Niskid64 said that he misread something and erred in protecting the page.  Glad I was able to get the protectio nrescinded.  I'll do my best to keep my eye on the film article come release time.  You could ask Bignole to do the same, too.  When does Transformers come out in the UK?  Also, I'm taking a look at Transformers (fiction), and I think there could be more images used (under fair use rationale, of course), provide basic depictions of what Transformers are.  I don't suggest images for each section, but probably the G1/G2 and Beast Era sections could use more upfront images for a "newbie" reading this.  I also see some uncited passages, but I'm sure you're aware of them and will address them in time. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if pictures of the Transformers toys will be helpful. The picture at the beginning would not be so bad, but it's awfully crowded and doesn't immediately define Transformers at first glance -- at least, not to me.  Additionally, the article seems like a crossroads for the different Transformers universes, so as long as the information is copied and expanded upon in the respective universe's article, I think the information is fine. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What would you like me to do? I have it on my watchlist, so I'll keep vandalism in check. I'll probably see it when it opens, on the 4th, so I'll be able to keep the plot in check (if that's what you mean).  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  21:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Which citations are you fearing my be lost? I'm not quite sure I understand what you are referring to exactly. Give me an example so that I can get an idea of what to look out for.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  17:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I'll keep an eye out.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  17:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Variety
Not sure why; the archives of that site are a little more challenging to track down the earlier it gets. I found this by the same journalist, but it's from an earlier date. Kind of odd that it doesn't have the later date. I'll check out Access World News. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, couldn't find anything for Variety. If you have any headlines you come across, though, let me know, and I'll see what I can dig out. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think it's fine. You can find other sources for other kinds of information pertaining to the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request
Hi

I have seen you peer reviewed some pages on films and cinema. It would be very kind of you if you could also review Abbas Kiarostami when you have time. I've just sent a request for review. Thanks a lot inadvance.Sangak 21:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Its and It's
I've noticed a grammatical error you've been making in some articles. Check this out to see what I mean. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, it's on my watchlist. If I ever come across anything that could be of use to you, I'll send it your way.  My eye's mostly on the horizon for future films, though, so we'll see.  I've used my "Future articles" subpage to fix up The Flash (someone seemed to jump the gun in creating it), Wanted, and The Dark is Rising.  Hopefully these articles will build up better with some guidance right from the beginning. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Spielberg
Hi, You reverted a relocation of material out of the lede of the Spielberg article. By analogy with the newspaper or magazine lede, I imagine that it should give the "who, what, where, when, why and how" of the subject. If the most reputable, serious film magazine gave him the title, it still arguably shouldn't be in the lede. However, Premiere magazine is a popular film magazine, not a serious film magazine. Its editor, Peter Herbst, also edits Car and Driver, Road & Track, Cycle World, Road & Track Road Gear, Road & Track Speed and Sound & Vision. This is not a 2007 version of Cahiers du cinema. //////Re: POV claim...there is no problem with Editors having POV. We all have a POV. The problem is if the article has POV in the text. I argue that putting such a laudatory, fluffy "title" in the lede is not balanced and neutral.Nazamo 17:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * PS, did you note that the material was still in the text in my edit...just not in the lede.Nazamo 17:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your response. I argue that sources can be placed on a scale according to how reputable they are. Premiere Magazine's own website states that the mission of the magazine is " THE STYLE, SPIRIT AND SOUL OF HOLLYWOOD....Movies are today's defining form of entertainment. Premiere provides unparalleled access to this influential medium and to Hollywood's A-list." http://www.hfmus.com/HachetteUSA/Page.asp?Site=Premiere&Page=Mission . As I mentioned, the editor also edits Car and Driver, Road and Track.  An example of a serious film magazine might be Cineaste, which is independently operated with no financial ties to any film studios. Editor Richard Porton has a Ph.D. in Cinema Sudies from New York University. Editor Cynthia Lucia is an assistant professor of English at Rider University, who has written books and essays (e.g., for Cambridge Scholars Press)Nazamo 18:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dr Who
I added the following, which you have tagged as "redundant". But I can't see where else this information, or information like it, is given:
 * "The life history of the Doctor is only partly documented. It is not clear where he was born, or the nature of his early years (although in The Girl in the Fireplace he is described as having been immensely lonely as a boy), and similar discontinuities and uncertainties surround his romantic and social life, his life prior to his present adventures, and other aspects of his life history."

Although I don'tmyself have research on these questions, the actual article on Dr Who lists his actions during adventures, his reincarnations, and such, but there is no actual description of things such as what is known of his childhood, upbringing, and his pre-adventure life. Can you point me to where these are covered? Thanks. FT2 (Talk 21:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

ESB
Generally, my prose has never been stellar. I can get by easy enough, but it's not featured quality. And so I ask a number of people to copyedit the article that I am working on for featured status. I need a general copyedit of the entire article. The Filmaker 22:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you're totally done with the copyedit. The way things are shaping out, it looks like you're the only person who's going to copyedit it. ;) The Filmaker 16:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I feel that the article is ready for FAC. However I've been wrong about prose before. Please feel free to copyedit as much as you see within the article, even while it is in it's FAC. The Filmaker 08:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jurassic Park stuff
Do you want to preserve the citations for JPIV, or should I, in case production does start up down the run? Also, I got your message about re-visiting the peer review for the original Jurassic Park -- just slipped my mind for a while. I'll try to check it out and provide further observations in the course of the day. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Quid pro quo. Care to address Articles for deletion/The Green Hornet (film)? Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Accumulated all the valid citations. We're good to go if production gets underway. Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't think the AfD is going to go through based on the lack of consensus. Shall we whip this sucker to meet our standards? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. On one hand, it would make for a more interesting read of the article, but it seems somewhat pointless to expand it beyond an external link if the script is going to be completely different for when the film finally gets made (if it ever does). It's your call. I'm sure you can do a better job than the slapped-on "Script Review" section that was in the article before my ground-up revision. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Very nice addition. Works a lot better for me than the previous "Script Review" section.  Nice work! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought dinosaur names were capitalized? The first Jurassic Park has capitalized names. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

James Bond
Hey Wiki-newbie. I noticed you put the unreferenced template back on the James Bond article. I agree that the article needs more references, but it is quite simply untrue that it is unreferenced. There are already too many articles tagged as unreferenced: tagging articles with 10+ references as unref'd because their subject is important and woul warrant more refs is only going to add confusion; it is not going to help. If you feel the article needs more sources, please add some, but don't add a tag that is clearly not fitting. I won't remove the tag, but I'm asking you to consider removing it. Thank you. Phil s 00:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely: I think it will not attract more attention to the article; the article will be hopelessly lost in the sea of unsourced articles. The tag quite simply does not belong on the article because it is not an unsourced article. If you want to help, locate specific dubious or unsourced statements, and add the appriopriate tag to the appropriate section, or mention it on the article's talk page. Too few references (according to you) is not the same as no references. Phil s 01:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiarostami GA assessment
Hi Wiki-newbie!

I have just noticed that some one (User:Wizardman) nominated Abbas Kiarostami for GA assessment several days ago. I don't know this user and he/she was not involved in writing the article. No one has assessed the article yet. Would that be possible for you to assess it or ask someone else to evaluate it? The article is now under peer review and I would like to make the article FA soon (hopefully!). Thanks. Sangak 18:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re; Fight Club
Appreciate the added citation! I plan to give this article a huge encyclopedic makeover. It ought to be good. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Titanic (1997 film) refs
Hello. An IP address is responsible for removing the references in the awards section. I've reinstated them again (I noticed your exasperated edit summary from the last time). The IP is wishing to rely solely upon the IMDb ref for the entire section. Some people don't hold references to the IMDb in high esteem. Your references to the BBC are much more reliable. The JPS talk to me  21:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club
Would you happen to be a fan of Fight Club at all? I have quite a few citations to work into my project, but I need a pair of ears for recording all the main points in the film's DVD audio commentary. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's cool; just thought I'd ask. I've asked Bignole as well, though I'm not sure about a real-life friend that would be willing to meet my wiki-needs, haha.  I definitely look forward to improving this film article from its previous fanboy roots. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you check the film article and tell me if the image of Tyler and the narrator in the second paragraph of the Synopsis section shows up without a problem? For some reason, my browser's not presenting it, and just the caption instead. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Batman Begins
I'm thinking about removing the in-universe paragraphs at the beginning of each Design subsection, as it's extraneous and not really production information. I don't see it holding up in a FA nomination. The in-universe information can be mentioned at the Batsuit and Batmobile articles. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a separate discussion (The Prestige)
lol! I think we're stepping on each other as we edit the talk page for The Prestige! I'm going to wait a few days to see what happens next (haha). I'm really uncertain as to what the format is right now or what you think it should be. When I started it I wanted "Suggestions regarding . . ." to be a subsection of, or at least a continuation of, the "Differences to novel . . ." section. They are all on the same issue and I don't want the discussion to become disjointed (I'd really like the whole thing to go away, actually).

&mdash;  Jim Dunning  talk  : 17:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: King of the World
It's forever since I've seen the film, but I'll try and read through it in a little bit and see what I think could be cut out of it. I think we can do some major trimming from it's 2200 words. Just give me a bit of time, I'm working on something at home right now.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  21:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I have an exam tomorrow so I was going to trim it down while I was at work today. I did remove an image, 4 images are a bit much for a plot summary, even 3 are...but we definitely don't need 2 images of the ship sinking. I chose the one that best illustrates what is happening to the ship. I also rearranged the images in the plot so they weren't so close together.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  17:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons Movie
Would You Stop Creating on your page, as you did to The Simpsons Movie-70.226.78.183 20:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)