User talk:Bovineboy2008/Archives/2010/April

WikiProject Films February 2010 Newsletter
The February 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation / Cursed (film)
Hi Bovineboy2008, I've just been disambiguating some links, and I came across Cursed (film), which was set as a redirect by you to Curse. Then, on Curse, there's a link to Curse (disambiguation), which has a link to Cursed (film), which points to Curse... etc. I was getting in a muddle, but looking at the history, I see that you recently moved Cursed (film) to Cursed (2005 film). There's no need to do this per WP:NCF, unless there are other articles also about films called Cursed. Otherwise it's unnecessary disambiguation, and with the redirect pointing to Curse, it meant that a lot of articles were pointing to Curse rather than to the film article. It can't be moved back now except by an admin. Would you object to me making a move request back to Cursed (film)? Normally I would just be bold and do it, but I wasn't sure if maybe you had some other reasoning and perhaps were planning on creating another article about a film under the same name or something. So, just thought I'd check with you about that. If not, I'll go ahead and put in the request. Regards, -- Beloved Freak  12:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No. The 2005 film needs to be located at Cursed (2005 film) in order to disambiguate it from the 2004 film located at Cursed (2004 film). And then because Cursed (film) is improperly disambiguated, it needs to be redirected to Cursed (which is a dab page). I am not sure why I decided to redirect it to Curse, but it has been changed. Sorry, that was hard to explain. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 12:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell me about it! thanks for the explanation, I understand now. It was more a problem with the disambiguation and all the various Curse pages! Looks good now though. Regards, -- Beloved  Freak  13:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nintendo task force membership update
Hello,

It's that time again to update membership status with the Nintendo task force, which we try to do every 3-4 months (though it's been actually 6 months since the last one) to keep our membership up-to-date.

All participants have been placed on an "Inactive participants" list. To confirm that you're still a member of the Nintendo task force, simply go to WikiProject Video games/Nintendo and move your name from the "Inactive participants" list to the bottom of the "Active participants" list. If you are no longer an active member in the task force, you may simply remove your name altogether. After 1 month, on 1 April 2010, all entries under the "Inactive participants" list will be removed. Hopefully you can stay with us and continue to work on Nintendo-related articles. Regards, –MuZemike 17:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the rollback on Conor Oberst
It must have been a misclick, since I don't even remember doing it. My touchpad on my netbook is really sensitive. Scott aka UnitAnode  15:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries! BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 15:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Informer
When you moved The Informer (film) to The Informer (1935 film), and then redirected the old title to the disambiguation page Informer, you may have overlooked the fact that several hundred other Wikipedia articles contain links to "The Informer (film)", as well as other titles that redirected to it (but have since been changed by the double-redirect bot to target the disambiguation page). When you change the target of an existing title, "it is strongly recommended that you modify all pages that link to the old title so they will link to the new title". Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What do we do about the Ice Age 3 Vandal?
The guy who keeps on vandalizing the Animated Film Oscar page (replacing references to The Princess and the Frog with Ice Age 3) is back again. The guy's current IP is 86.174.141.105. This guy just won't quit. What can we do to prevent an edit war from getting further out of hand?Crboyer (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We could get the page semi-protected. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 00:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

worldwide is unnecessary, see the template documentation
If you say so, but please don't break the consistency and remove the "worldwide" from the other articles as well. -- Lyverbe (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Page moves
I think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is self-explanatory and I believe the articles were in the correct place prior to the moves (esp. The Abyss - no one is going to search for The Abyss (1989 film), for example). And there's the small issue of the articles becoming orphaned after you move them (as per the discussion on your talkpage, above, for The Informer). It would be good that if you move a page, you also check what linked to the old one and fix the redirects as needed and then redirect the original title to the disambig page. Most redirects can be fixed in any templates at the foot of the article (if applicable) and then it's a manual trawl.  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it doesn't seem to be in line with WP:NCF. If your interpretation was true, wouldn't Titanic (1997 film) be located at Titanic (film) and Avatar (2009 film) be located at Avatar (film). BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 19:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is that there are other films named Titanic and Avatar, respectively, that have Wikipedia articles. WP:NCF says that "When disambiguating films of the same name, add the year of its first public release ...".  If there is no other notable film called The Abyss, then this guideline doesn't apply.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is another notable film with an article, though: The Abyss (1988 film). BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 17:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Animals (album)‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right back at you! BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 17:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Request
Forgive me for posting this the wrong way but I don't know how else to communicate this, however the Wall-E Design With a Purpose link is still incorrect. It should be: http://www.animationartconservation.com/?c=art&p=wall_e_design_with_a_purpose

Thanks. I'd be grateful if you could make the change. Thanks. Ron Barbagallo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo (talk • contribs) 05:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. For requests, you can put it on the talk page of the article, but you can edit WALL-E on your own. It isn't protected. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 05:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator election discussion
A new discussion has started about the next term coordinator election. Please join in with your thoughts so we can quickly get this moving along. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Star (film)


The article The Star (film) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The page now redirects to a disambig page. This page should not exist, any films called The Star would be The Star (1955 Film). I think we can deleted this page and then any redlinks that happen can be redirected to the proper movie entry.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yossiea (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of The Star (film)
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Yossiea (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've responded, thanks for the notification. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 15:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about Category:2011 films.
Hi Bovine, I have been cleaning up the Upcoming films and 2010 films category pages and have just taken a look at the 2011 films category page. Shouldn't all those films be removed until they are released in 2011? Thanks. — Mike   Allen   04:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, yes. I have never looked for a Crystalball Category policy, but I think there is one. I believe that films need to stay in Upcoming until they actually see release. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 04:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly paranoid....
...but with that user name of not being that far from Bambifan101, might be worth it to just keep an eye on them for awhile... -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 21:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * On my watchlist for a reason! Thanks though. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 21:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Independence Day (film) move
On the article's talk page - Talk:Independence Day (film). Before making a move, one is supposed to check the talk page to see if it has been discussed before. In this case, it was closed by an admin as "No consensus". In cases where moves have been discussed before, one needs to open a new move discussion. I've asked the closing admin to revert your move as undiscussed and nonconsensual. You are welconme to open a new move discussion, aand gain a consensus to support the move. - BilCat (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the response Bilcat. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 00:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted all of your link changes (all ~60 of them...), moved the article back, and move-protected it. Please open up a new WP:RM on the talk page if you would like to move it. Thanks, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will, thanks Ed. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 01:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving film articles
I notice you are moving many film articles to Name (year film) even when one of them is clearly the primary topic among films, such as The Diary of Anne Frank (film). I realize you think WP:NCF requires that, but there is no consensus to that effect, as seen at Talk:Independence Day (film), so I would ask you to stop and please use WP:RM for all such moves. It's especially bad when you leave a lot of boken links behind, as well as articles' talk pages. Station1 (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to avoid an edit war over The Diary of Anne Frank (film). Since you keep redirecting that title to a dab page instead of the only theatrical film with an article on WP and the primary topic for the article title, I ask that you please revert your recent move of The Diary of Anne Frank (film) to The Diary of Anne Frank (1959 film) and bring it to WP:RM so that we can establish consensus one way or the other. Thanks. Station1 (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not going to humor this, as it doesn't comply to policy. You can request the move and see the consensus. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 02:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

im looking for some advice on the question of making Everything Will Be OK go to (film) (it is currently awaiting consensus) im blundering along and may be inadvertently upsetting an editor which i really wish to avoid. so im looking around to understand how to improve or even compromise to resolve the possible confusion with another DVD from 2005 of the same name - i see there is a hatnote now but that may be adding to the confusion. sorry for blurting into this talk but it seemed relevant as im open to any suggestions. or feel free to ignore. thanks Quasihumano (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2010 Newsletter
The March 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (Q1 2010)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  16:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ugly Betty
Sorry about that. This will explain. One should always click on "preview" in such a situation, NEVER submit. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks yet again!
I really, really appreciate your having helped me out with that anon vandal. I "pwned" him, you might say. :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome! BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 03:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Film infobox
You do a great job with wikipedia editing but I have a question for you. Why do we still use the parentheses in the infoboxes on films? For example, using the writing screenplay: on a separate line from the writer looks aesthetically immeasurably better than the name of the writer and then the word screenplay in parentheses. I understand that wikipedia has traditionally used the parentheses but I really think the cleaner look should be used in the future. These rules should not be held as being sacred. They should be changed when needed.Donmike10 (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There really aren't rules either way. I personally prefer parentheses, but it is also acceptable to have header-type lines. However, they shouldn't be bolded. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 20:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 films cat discussion
Hi. Just letting you know since you also update the 2010 films/Upcoming films categories, that there is a discussion about removing them from upcoming films that are scheduled to be released in that year. See here if you're interested. — Mike   Allen   00:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Julia Phillips
I think your edit today, removing what you called a "peacock term," was mean-spirited. --El Ingles (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but the way it was phrased raised her status unnecessarily, which is why we don't use peacock terms. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 23:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So you think the fact that she was the first female Oscar-winner as a producer gives her "unnecessary status"? I'm going to seek consensus to restore the original. --El Ingles (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is already consensus. See WP:ACTOR. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 19:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Independence Day (film)#Requested move 2
Please don't remove the tags that close a discussion. I believe this is considered vandalism. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I consider it rude that you would call what I did vandalism. I have very little tolerance with those who have the audacity to call my edits vandalism unless they actually are purposefully vandalism. I reopened the discussion because a. the discussion was not ended and b. it was closed as no consensus when the only consenting opinions (only 2) were too stubborn to accept change. Please feel free to respond without threats. Thanks! BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 01:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)