User talk:Bovineboy2008/Archives/2010/October

WP:FILMS September 2010 Newsletter
The September 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) 04:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, you have probably seen the election results. It was a close one! :) I would like to explore the option of appointing you as a sixth coordinator. Would you be willing to be appointed? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! I don't think an extra coordinator is going to hurt anything ;) BOVINEBOY 2008 14:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Good going!
Having just seen the news, I wish to extend my best wishes. WikiProject Films is lucky to have you. Kudos!  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Much appreciated! BOVINEBOY 2008 18:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Messages of the Sea.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Messages of the Sea.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:InsideJobPoster.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:InsideJobPoster.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  04:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Film cleanup
Hi BovineBoy - I've added a section on the co-ordinators page here. Input welcome.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've responded with my list. BOVINEBOY 2008 08:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland (2010 film)
Would you mind looking at the current debate on the Talk Page regarding "Jabberwock vs. Jabberwocky", and its addition to writing and development? I somewhat recanted an argument and reinstated the comment, though I edited it to address a complaint of synthetic statement. While I haven't combed through the author's work, I can't say I'm wholly convinced that there's a correct name or not. Emtigereyes (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Set index articles
Regarding pages like The Crazies and Death at a Funeral, they only have a couple of links and cannot be a detailed set index article. Such articles are for both navigation and information, and we're not providing information like Dodge Charger and USS Enterprise do. It might be that an article like 2001: A Space Odyssey would more realistically be a set index article. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the note. BOVINEBOY 2008 18:28, 5 October 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, 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) 02:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "edit war"
People have a right to know if what they are about to read will ruin some portion of the gameplay experience for them. There is no current policy, that I know of, dictating whether or not a small simple spoiler warning I added to the page is allowed or not. I for one wish there would have been a warning on the page so I would have known to stop reading. I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way. What does it honestly hurt to add a few more words, preventing what happened to me, from happening to someone else? This is an informational site, and the fact you are about to read something that would negatively impact an experience is information alot of people would like to know. I never disagreed it should not be included, as it should. However, people reading should be able to have fair warning. The fact that it is labled "story" does not provide enough information to tell you that these are the secrets you will uncover by playing the game. I would like to make a formal dispute to your teams reversion on this page. I understand you may think you are doing your job, but you are denying the general public a very valuable piece of information by not listing spoilers, as if I remember correctly, were always included in wiki pages before. --Demonik187 (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You might have stopped when you read the section titled "Plot". We don't include disclaimers per WP:NDA. No other articles have them. If you want this changed, I suggest you go to WT:NDA and propose it to see what the current consensus is. And there is no excuse for edit warring unless there is blatant vandalism, which was not happening in this case. BOVINEBOY 2008 09:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The plot could be the background information leading up to the events of the actual gameplay. The article heading needs to be revised to show that it is more than that. I read on thinking it was nothing more than a detailing of past events and possible motivations of the protagonist. As I continued to read I realized it was what would be taking place in game as the player progresses, at which point I stopped. I apologize for the "edit war" I don't spend alot of time on this site, so I'm unfamiliar with your ways and didn't know I wasn't entitled to edit a user driven resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonik187 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

About the Fight or Flight reception deletion
It indeed was on AllMusic, any reason why you deleted it? GD1223 (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Because it was put into the infobox. Reviews do not go in the infobox there, period. And there was a note to that effect. BOVINEBOY 2008 04:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Then why is it on EVERY other infobox for albums on Wikipedia?? GD1223 (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a recent change in consensus. There is supposed to be a bot taking them down, but it isn't running for some reason. See Template talk:Infobox album. BOVINEBOY 2008 04:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok my bad, I haven't been on here for a while, been busy with work. GD1223 (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's legitimate. I just get frustrated sometimes when I leave notes and they are completely ignored. I realize now that I didn't link to the discussion in my editing, so I will attempt to do that in the future. BOVINEBOY 2008 04:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Efron and tlx template
On Zac Efron's talk page you've added the tlx templatea few times. Even after reading the template documentation, I'm not sure what it does or what you're using it for. I have a vague sense that it might be to document a justification for continuing semi-protection, but I'm not sure. Could you please explain? You can respond here. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you read Template:Edit semi-protected, it suggests using tld after a request is completed as it "will remove the message box from the talk page and also remove the talk page from the category, while still leaving a record of the request." I use tlx because it is essentially the same template. BOVINEBOY 2008 05:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Antichrist
When you were cleaning the templates for Antichrist, why did you remove the production countries? I've re-added them with a cite. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It looked far-fetched to me, but I stand corrected. BOVINEBOY 2008 13:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) Just checking! Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah...
Thanks for that. :)  Mike  Allen   19:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, it happens to all of us. BOVINEBOY 2008 19:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)
As you may have noticed, I have put Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone under a peer review. As I have noticed you are one of the top contributors, you can feel free to fix any objections the reviewer puts down. Thanks. Guy546 ( Talk ) 23:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chicago Overcoat.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Chicago Overcoat.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  03:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Bovineboy?
Marioluigi98 put up a fake SpongeBob 1st Season Boxset picture. You can tell by the extra space, and the different font. No 90 minutes of bonus features bubble either. Please revert the picture!--24.44.119.71 (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

2011 films
I know that you are excluding Category:2011 films and having only Category:Upcoming films instead. I'm wondering what the justification is for this approach? Is it based on the premise of the film's release needing to take place? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That is my justification, that a film should be released before being attached to a category, although I've been having second thoughts about this. I've been thinking that if a release is sourced, than it would be reasonable to include both the specific year cat and . Which would make more sense to you? BOVINEBOY 2008 20:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've preferred both, but I can understand the interest in "locking in" the release year. I like the idea of including the year category if the release year is sourced. The categories are for navigation, after all, and I think it's useful for readers to be able to browse what films are scheduled to come out in 2011. For example, The Darkest Hour (film) has a declared release date for 2011. In contrast, Red Dawn (2010 film) doesn't actually have one and would not use any year categories yet. (BTW, let me know your thoughts about that article's title in this discussion.) Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The only thing I'm still dissatisfied about the categorization is there is a middle ground missing. We have the films already released in 2010 in and all those upcoming films in . It would be nice if we could make a third that only had films confirmed for a 2010 release, but still unreleased. I believe there was a category like that used with Upcoming film before I converted it to Film date, but it must have gotten lost along the way. And I'll take a look at Red Dawn. BOVINEBOY 2008 20:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:On Deck
As creator of The Suite Life, you may be interested in commenting at Templates for discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

About Daybreakers
Hi there, I noticed that you changed its release year back to 2009. I don't know if you've read its talk page about this issue, but there is no consensus reached at this point. I think Xeworlebi gave a pretty good argument there, especially if you take the naming convention (films) into consideration. Cheers. Artoasis (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize there was a discussion going on. I'll join the conversation. BOVINEBOY 2008 06:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2010
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Doris Roberts
Roberts' Emmy Awards comprise a section of her article, and must be mentioned in the lead. If you want the fact that she is an Emmy Award winner expressed in some other way in the lead, I invite you to do so. Otherwise your mere repeated reverts are unhelpful edit warring. I remind you of WP:3RR.μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that the issue has been resolved. I have a big problem with edit warring, so I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. But I remind you 3RR can be a two-way street, and it seems the total is 2 reverts from me, 3 from you. But I won't go templating you. BOVINEBOY 2008 03:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Band Baaja Baaraat
Hello sir, I have to say I'm a bit puzzled by the edits you've made to the Band Baaja Baaraat article. Why remove empty fields from the infobox? It changes nothing to the article itself and these fields might be useful later on if it turns out that they can be filled. Also in the infobox hat's the point of changing the word "December" to "12" in Template:Film date, as once again, this changes nothing to the actual article, and why remove the reference to the release location? Why remove links to 2010 in film and Cinema of India from the article's introductory paragraph? Why remove external links to official web sources of the film, such as its Facebook and Twitter pages and its blog? Why remove Category:2010 films since this film comes out this year? Can't a film be in both Category:2010 films and Category:Upcoming films, with the latter being removed once the film comes out? And finally, why did you remove Template:Bollywood when, according to WP:INCINE, this template should be added to the bottom of every "Bollywood" film? I hope you'll be able to clear my confusion in these matters, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy Evil Dude (talk • contribs)


 * Hi there, Happy Evil Dude! I hope to clear this up, so if I leave anything out, just let me know. Empty fields can be removed from the infobox with no ill-effect, and can be re-added when they can be used. The parameters like "narrator" and "writer" won't be needed for this film, as it doesn't have a narrator, and the writers are already indicated with "screenplay" and "story". "image size" isn't needed as the image is larger than the minimum size of the image parameter in the infobox. The indication of "worldwide" implies that the film was released in every country the world (which it wasn't). The links 2010 in film and Cinema of India as they were formatted (2010 and Indian) go against WP:EGG, as what they display does not logically follow to what article they are attached. Facebook and twitter pages (and often blogs) are used primarily for promotional purposes, showing very little encyclopedic value to the article. The categorization question is still up in the air, but from my view and the view from someothers is that if a film is still unreleased, it can't be a 2010 film, as releases can be pushed back or canceled very simply. And you should check WP:INCINE again, the consensus reached at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_32 indicates that these templates are too generic for individual film articles; only those links relevant to the article should be included in the article, whether in prose or in a "See also" section. And don't forget to sign your posts ;) BOVINEBOY 2008 15:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah sorry about forgetting to sign, it just slipped I guess. Anyway thanks for clearing things up. i wasn't aware of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_32 when I created the article, and up till recently WP:INCINE stil asked to put a corresponding template at the bottom of each film article. I also can't count the number of articles I've seen that were formatted as "NAME OF FILM" is a "YEAR in film|YEAR" "Cinema of COUNTRY|COUNTRY ADJECTIVE" film, whihc is why I use this formulation. I do have to object to your explanation of why the removel of "worldwide" is necessary. First of all, it's what has been stated, secondly, when it comes to film a "worldwide release" never means that the film is getting released on the exact same day in every single country on Earth, but that it will be released on the same day in a significant number of countries, which is the case here, with the film getting released on December 10 in India, Australia, Canada, the Emirates, the Fiji Islands, Germany, Kenya, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Singapore, South Africa, Tanzania, the United Kingdom, the United States and possibly other Asian and African countries.Happy Evil Dude (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but not all of those are notable. Really, I would say only the release in India is the most notable, and that is what is indicated at WP:FILMRELEASE. The location parameter should be used when there is more than one release date in that infobox so it is clear which dates correspond to which country. It is just a minor detail, but not many other film articles use that, and I don't think any of the FAs do. The formatting of the lede sentence is still a polarizing issue, but it seems that links should be aiding the knowledge of the article, and on top of the links being a little (although not very) misleading, they don't really help in the knowledge of the film. Also, a string of links does not encourage readers to use those linked articles, or even click on them at all, for example, note the difference between these:
 * "Toy Story 3 is a 2010 American 3D computer-animated film, the third film in the Toy Story series."
 * "Toy Story 3 is a 2010 American 3D computer animated film, the third film in the Toy Story series."
 * The former has so many links that its mostly likely none of them will be read. The latter, however, has very specific links that the reader would ascertain that s/he should read them to better understand this article. There is nothing inherently wrong with either, other than maybe this deceptive linking issue, but in my opinion, the second is much more helpful. I hope that makes sense. BOVINEBOY 2008 16:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Phineas and Ferb
You issued an "only warning" for a first edit? Isn't that a little harsh? --Confession0791 talk 10:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I have little patience for this editor. This isn't the first time s/he has done this. Even within the last 50 edits, the editor has made the same disruptive edit nine times. BOVINEBOY 2008 10:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This user has only four edits. Do they have another account? --Confession0791 talk 10:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * They all come from the same range: 222.155. I can't really make a case for sockpuppeting, but it is clearly the same editor, just ip keeps jumping. BOVINEBOY 2008 10:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed the Level four to a Level 1, you can revert that if you want to. Btw, someone needs to put a big orange note on Wizards of Waverly Place telling users not to add Gregg Sulkin to the main cast. It's getting old. --Confession0791 talk 10:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I overreacted. Level 1 is more appropriate. And I'll add Wizards to my watchlist to see what's going on. BOVINEBOY 2008 10:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's time we got that protected too. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Which, Phineas and Ferb or Wizards? Or both? BOVINEBOY 2008 10:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Various editors keep adding the same two characters to the main characters for Season four on all three Wizards articles, without sources. --Confession0791 talk 10:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking Wizards. It's been an issue for some time. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)